Continuously Variable Transmission

[Lexicon101]

Am I the only one interested in the future of this technology from a performance perspective?
Didn't they get banned from F1 cars for giving rich teams an unfair advantage over poor teams?

I could be the only one, but remaining in the optimal rev-range throughout all speeds seems incredibly nifty to me.

I understand that they have their problems, and I don't think they're ready for a true performance rig, but I'm quite interested in the future of this sort of tranny.

[Matador]

Yes and yes.

[Lexicon101]

Quite ambiguous, thank you.

[Frost]

CVTs are the future for any engine that has a power curve.

I specifically said power curve because depending on the motor type (electric or internal combustion) if the power to motor speed graph is practically flat, there is no need for a transmission really. Put that power directly on the wheel! This harkens back to the four engines on four wheels concept they had. Transmissions are the single biggest loss of power before making any productive work so why not eliminate the tranny?

[NESW20]

i'll gladly take my ancient-style dry plate clutch and synchronized manual transmission. with a clutch pedal.

CVTs are cool for some stuff, but i don't want ANY part of one in a sports car.

-Mike

[Lexicon101]

Originally Posted by NESW20

i'll gladly take my ancient-style dry plate clutch and synchronized manual transmission. with a clutch pedal.

CVTs are cool for some stuff, but i don't want ANY part of one in a sports car.

-Mike

I was wondering who would be the first.
I take it you prefer carbureted engines too, eh?


If you're unclear as to my message, I'll just say "Thank you for providing no actual argument or real input and acting like a jackass who feels it necessary to cling to old technology just because you're used to it."

[Lexicon101]

Originally Posted by Frost

CVTs are the future for any engine that has a power curve.

I specifically said power curve because depending on the motor type (electric or internal combustion) if the power to motor speed graph is practically flat, there is no need for a transmission really. Put that power directly on the wheel! This harkens back to the four engines on four wheels concept they had. Transmissions are the single biggest loss of power before making any productive work so why not eliminate the tranny?

I can agree with the bit about each wheel having an engine thing, but how does that remove the power curve?
(I ask merely for information. Not just trying to contest your point.)

[Matador]

Originally Posted by Lexicon101

Quite ambiguous, thank you.

You are most welcome

When I get some time of from work I will elaborate more on this. I'll explain my answer and add more info as well.

[Midship Runabout]

Originally Posted by Lexicon101

I understand that they have their problems, and I don't think they're ready for a true performance rig, but I'm quite interested in the future of this sort of tranny.

I agree with you here.
Technology is a great thing. Can you imagine what it will be like when they have a cam-less motor running on solenoids. Infinitely variable lift and duration? Yes please.

[Lexicon101]

Originally Posted by Dixie Normous

I agree with you here.
Technology is a great thing. Can you imagine what it will be like when they have a cam-less motor running on solenoids. Infinitely variable lift and duration? Yes please.

Only problem I see with that is imperfect gadgetry. Small gadgets tend to fail, and the more gadgets you have within an engine and the more often they move, the higher chance of failure you have.
Part of the reason I like the idea of Wankel engines, in fact. Fewer moving parts.


Edit:Also, that kind of thing relies on sensors, rather than a cam, obviously... this brings benefits, but also reliability problems and problems diagnosing problems when problems arise.

[NESW20]

Originally Posted by Lexicon101

I was wondering who would be the first.
I take it you prefer carbureted engines too, eh?


If you're unclear as to my message, I'll just say "Thank you for providing no actual argument or real input and acting like a jackass who feels it necessary to cling to old technology just because you're used to it."

there is less driver skill required when driving a CVT or any other form of auto than with a proper manual transmission. less overall control.

i love plenty of technology, but i also still want some amount of skill required to be able to pilot a sports car quickly around a road course. CVTs take some of that away.

also, on a personal note, i quite dislike the feel of CVTs. believe me, i know they're really neat and have substantial benefits over normal automatics. i'm not a technology hater! i just happen to be a little bit of a snob/purist sometimes, haha.

-Mike

[Midship Runabout]

Originally Posted by Lexicon101

Only problem I see with that is imperfect gadgetry. Small gadgets tend to fail, and the more gadgets you have within an engine and the more often they move, the higher chance of failure you have.
Part of the reason I like the idea of Wankel engines, in fact. Fewer moving parts.


Edit:Also, that kind of thing relies on sensors, rather than a cam, obviously... this brings benefits, but also reliability problems and problems diagnosing problems when problems arise.

I cant really think of a sensor they would have to add. CKP and TPS would be the two major ones (already in use) just need a the software programed for the correct valve movement at any given throttle position and crank angle. It would be like all-time V-TEC but not gay. And yes im sure there is a LOT more needed for a cam-less motor to work.

I do agree with you though.

Ya failure is likely with the first few gens of a motor like this, but you can say the same thing about the CVT performance tranny. Everything breaks eventually. Like that wankel at 40,000 miles

[Lexicon101]

Originally Posted by NESW20

there is less driver skill required when driving a CVT or any other form of auto than with a proper manual transmission. less overall control.

i love plenty of technology, but i also still want some amount of skill required to be able to pilot a sports car quickly around a road course. CVTs take some of that away.

also, on a personal note, i quite dislike the feel of CVTs. believe me, i know they're really neat and have substantial benefits over normal automatics. i'm not a technology hater! i just happen to be a little bit of a snob/purist sometimes, haha.

-Mike

Meh. I'm interested in the overall performance of the machine. There will always be someone who's better at using it than everyone else.

Originally Posted by Dixie Normous

I cant really think of a sensor they would have to add. CKP and TPS would be the two major ones (already in use) just need a the software programed for the correct valve movement at any given throttle position and crank angle. It would be like all-time V-TEC but not gay. And yes im sure there is a LOT more needed for a cam-less motor to work.

I do agree with you though.

Ya failure is likely with the first few gens of a motor like this, but you can say the same thing about the CVT performance tranny. Everything breaks eventually. Like that wankel at 40,000 miles

Which is why I said "the idea of" a wankel. Theoretically, very reliable engines.. unfortunately, the application does not always live up to theory.

[MtnDrvr86]

wankels are quite reliable, until they are modified