Aren't CVTs less efficient than geared transmissions, given that they are slipping the whole time? Or do I misunderstand the technology vis-a-vis the slipping belt and the cones of a CVT?
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Don Shankin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Ben Holko <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6zE__J0YIU >> >> >> >> This thing may revolutionize all transmissions. >> >> >> >> -- >> You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. >> To post a message, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] >> Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat > > > Nice concept. I'm glad they addressed my concern of having to power the > second shaft. I was on board until he said he estimated it to be an _order > of magnitude_ more efficient than the current CVT transmissions (not geared > transmissions, but CVTs even!). We'll see where this ends up when you > figure in powering that second shaft. I'm guessing (with no facts or > numbers whatsoever) that it will be on par with losses associated with a > torque converter (which may be OK because at the end of the day this thing > is still a high-torque CVT). > > -Don "I'm a computer engineer not a mechanical engineer" Shankin > > -- > You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. > To post a message, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] > Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat -- Clark in Georgia -- You are currently subscribed to the "R/C Tank Combat" group. To post a message, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] Visit the group at http://groups.google.com/group/rctankcombat
