CVTs are:>smaller>more efficient deliver power>get better mileage>cheaper to make>provide a smoother driveYet, all car enthusiasts hate them, and they are known for failing when they take a beating. once the chain starts slipping, they are basically done for.Yet, in the 90s, an F1 car used a CVT and mogged the other cars, causing the transmission to be bannedCan CVTs be made to be more reliable and powerful at high stress? Could they be the future, or will real gears always be superior?
kys
>>27769181People with snowmobiles and SxS's never leave the trailhead without a spare drive belt. Really makes you think. Sure that's a little different than a car tranny but still. If you need to go adding shit like motors, a real first gear and fake gear shifts to a CVT you might as well just use a conventional tranny. Toyota has one of the better CVT's but those are still riddled with issues.
Because the early ones in road cars sucked donkey dick, manual was far superior especially in the anemic economy cars they were thrown in. Although by the time Honda and Toyota started using them, at least their's, were much better than either slushboxes or stick shift in terms of performance. If I were to buy an econobox today I would honestly take a CVT over a manual (although mostly because I already have a motorcycle, otherwise I'd be tempted to get the manual for da feelz)
>>27769201Now compare fuel economy
>>27769240There will be no difference in fuel economy between a CVT and a 10 speed traditional tranny. 10 speeds already have more gears than they realistically need and will often skip gears. There are a whole plethora of CVT equipped vehicles that get terrible fuel economy. tldr: stop drinking the marketing wank koolaid.
>>27769181I just think they're neat
>>27769201>a real first gear and fake gear shifts to a CVT you might as well just use a conventional tranny.the launch gear like in Toyota's is a good idea and could eliminate the problem of where they slip more often>fake gear shiftsbut they don't have to add that at all. the only reason they did is because people like the feel of gear shifts because that's what they are used to
>>27769246So you're saying there's no downside to a 10-speed auto, while CVTs have wear issues and launch problemsI don't see how this is pro-CVT
>>27769181>InfiniteStopped reading.
>>27769359that wasn't, nor was it supposed to be. are you esl?
>>27769181>>smaller>>more efficient deliver power>>get better mileage>>cheaper to makeAll of these are untrue. Smoother drive should count except that CVT manufacturers these days set them up to emulate shift points because consumers are retarded and expect it to act like a geared transmission. The reason why the CVT was considered for F1 because it gives you the ability to lock in the engine at its peak horsepower RPM, so you always have peak power regardless of the disposition of the vehicle. Consumer CVTs have never been set up this way, they're just fragile and inefficient.
>>27770855>The reason why the CVT was considered for F1 because it gives you the ability to lock in the engine at its peak horsepower RPM, so you always have peak power regardless of the disposition of the vehicle.couldn't you do this for a consumer car though? or some sort of high performance cvt (inb4 oxymoron) where you it would be normal, but in sport mode or whatever deliver peak power?My main point/question was that if it could potentially work in an F1 car, could it not be made better for consumers?
>>27769181did they also tell you how those trannies only last for the race and its rebuilt or new one swapped in every race?see all the current cvt cars with tranny problems.
>>27770899Don't their engines only last like 2 races?
>>27769349>but they don't have to add that at all. the only reason they did is because people like the feel of gear shifts because that's what they are used toactually, the main problem is the droning engine noise you get from a cvt.nobody is complaining about EVs not having gear shifts. because EVs don't drone.they could entirely skip the fake gear shifts if they noise insulated the engine more.
>>27769181Because motorsport never put development into CVTs. The only ones we have a really boring ones for econoboxes. None of them are used in performance applications
>>27769181>Can CVTs be made to be more reliable and powerful at high stress?Not if they were designed by Nissan.
>>27769181Thanks for telling us you don't know fuck about CVTs, have never had the displeasure of using one and probably never turned a wrench.
>>27769181Williams never fielded the CVT in a raceyou're confusing it with the Hydropneumatic active suspension and the unholy amount of electronic driving aids it had
>>27772930not to mention it was very unreliable in testing. I can't find the clip but Coulthard mentions the CVT exploding all the time at Estoril. sequential gearboxes weren't even reliable at the time and the CVT was worse.
>>27772951the FW15C didn't even need the CVT, the car already was a fucking beast compared to the rest of the field
>>27769181>an F1 car used a CVT and mogged the other carsThat's 100% fuddlore. They never released any actual lap times to compare the base car to. Nor do we know if the CVT could even last a full race distance.
>>27770893>couldn't you do this for a consumer car though? or some sort of high performance cvt (inb4 oxymoron) where you it would be normal, but in sport mode or whatever deliver peak power?You could, but they don't. Ideally you'd have a setting to maintain peak power (because that's what makes you accelerate fastest) and one for peak torque (because that's typically where the engine is most efficient), and idle, and possibly a high idle if the engine is something like a small turbine or NA rotary where peak torque is relatively high. They don't, though. I don't know if you've ever driven in a CVT car, but they don't act anything like this, even the pre-shift-faggotry ones.>My main point/question was that if it could potentially work in an F1 car, could it not be made better for consumers?Possibly, but no one has ever made an attempt to make a fun CVT, and the shitbox CVTs don't actually make a whole lot of sense. They're fragile, they have greater parasitic losses than geared transmissions, they're never set up to make use of the theoretical efficiency gains from holding a specific RPM because that's bad for longevity, and they're an absolute maintenance nightmare that cost manufacturers tons of money to service or replace when they continually break under warranty.
>>27769181toyota figured it out a few years ago, bro.
>>27769181>Can CVTs be made to be more reliable and powerful at high stress?Yes but they won't do it because they want them to bomb once the warranty period is up. They're not putting CVTs in because they save gas, look at the specs before and after the same models when a CVT us put in. At most they get 1-2 more mpg which is likely a fluke because the testing methods are rigged. The primary goal of CVTs is planned breakage.
Williams ran it at Pembrey and a few other touring car circuits (Knockhill, Snetterton and Thruxton spring to mind). They then took it, in secrecy at first then with a full press team, to at least one F1 circuit. The laptimes were speculative, in that they never actually ran a continuous timed lap of an F1 circuit under full power. They timed a number of corners and straights, then had Coulthard ease off for the rest of the lap as the belts kept snapping. Then they ran the conventional car through the same corners and assumed the same difference for a full lapThe FIA ban was immaterial, Williams couldn't get it to work and it was shelved
Why not instead of a rubber or polymer band, they could just use a beefed up version of picrelated for a longer life span?
>>27773974pajeet post
>>27769181>Yet, in the 90s, an F1 car used a CVT and mogged the other cars, causing the transmission to be bannedBeing used in F1 is not a gauge of reliability. It just has to last 1 maybe 2 races and they swap a new one in. If maybe something is used in 24hrs of Leman or Nurburgring, then maybe there can be a discussion on reliability.
>>27769181Toyota's eCVTs are pretty neat, but it's a really dumb name for it from a marketing point of view
>>27769181F1 in the 90s does not care about cost or service interval, also cvt cant even climb a slight curb.
>>27773955>a few other touring car circuits (Knockhillthe FW15C was tested at Knockhill? It's a very short circuit which I guess is good for the gearbox but an F1 car can't even remotely stretch its legs. I know this because as a kid I saw an exhibition of an Ferrari F2002 going around Knockhill for 10 laps or something and I don't think it even got out of 4th gear on the straights. The sound of of a V10 Tipo engine super up close at a mid 2000s national circuit with the barriers close to track was butiful but so insanely loud to the point where I could feel the revs in my diaphragm as it screamed past.
Stick win every time.
>>27770893>>27773658Older cvts were purely centrifugal, meaning they had a "fixed" gear ratio for a given speed, so in a way they were the worse of both worlds; they lugged the engine at low speeds, and kept the engine needlessly revving high at high speeds. Modern controlled rubber cvts can do it better (they are mostly tuned for emissions, but if they had faster controllers they could be very responsive to the throttle), especially if they are coupled with a lockable torque converter for a low speed launch, but inherently are still less durable and less efficient than the equivalent fixed gear.Planetary gear ivts (like the one toyota uses on their hybrids) are as durable as a fixed gear, and just as efficient in their highest ratio if they can lock it, but need to be managed with big electric or hydraulic motors so they are probably bigger and heavier than the equivalent gearbox.
>>27773974They aren't rubber or polymer, and a stretchy band like that would be absolutely terrible.
>>27774020>a V10 Tipo enginetype what?
>>27769240>fuel economyIf it has a CVT it already uses no fuel because it's a shitty 3-4 banger.It doesn't matter at all.CVT is cheaper, they are putting them in because it makes more money.
>>27773974Audi tried it with the multitronic, it may cope with more torque but overall durability is the same so they gave up on it after 10 years or so.
>>27769618Mathematically infinite, yes. But you're right, who gives a shit? I want gears.
CVT's are great for forklifts and detail workoutside of these i don't care much for them
>>27777242"Infinite" doesn't really mean anything anyway, because although a CVT might have an "infinite" number of ratios to choose from, it has a limited range of ratios. It doesn't help you to be able to select 0.583828264839 on a scale of 0 to 1 if what you really need is 3.
>>27769181Why would I ever willingly make a fucking rubber band the weakest point of my DT? Think!
>>27778409Subaru Crosstrek cvt ratio range is4.066 to 0.57That's lower than first gear in their manuals and higher than the top gear. And of course its every ratio in between.
>>27778429The Crosstrek doesn't even have a manual as an option.
