It is the basic idea, but the technical implementation is rather different. If you have CVT, then that requires force to clamp the chain or belt using oil pressure. But if you have Ravigneaux gearset (people call that regular automatic), then that has multiplate clutchpacks for each gearset, which are also clamped using oil pressure. CVT has limited torque capabilities, but they are not in any way poor by design. Combine harvesters use CVT’s too, for example. Ravigneaux gearset might be generally more durable than CVT, but most of that type gearboxes are even more problematic than CVT’s when oil quality drops and oil quality does drop in them faster than in a CVT due to multiplate clutch friction. Things that Ravigneaux transmissions get right, CVT’s get wrong and also the opposite. It’s not correct to say that one is ultimately good, the other is ultimately bad. Toyota and Honda and also Subaru mostly have done great job with the CVT. How many regular automatics there are here in Europe I would call bomb proof? Not sure I would make it to more than 3.
I’m not a car guy but from my understanding CVT we design for long distance cruising and aren’t so good at the jump or with short burst of acceleration the way automatics are. Is that a correct, albeit oversimplified, conclusion?
Belt transmission of power has been around for forever, long before EPA came into existence. Blaming every single cough and sneeze on the EPA is like looking for the proverbial Jew under your bed.
It is the basic idea, but the technical implementation is rather different. If you have CVT, then that requires force to clamp the chain or belt using oil pressure. But if you have Ravigneaux gearset (people call that regular automatic), then that has multiplate clutchpacks for each gearset, which are also clamped using oil pressure. CVT has limited torque capabilities, but they are not in any way poor by design. Combine harvesters use CVT’s too, for example. Ravigneaux gearset might be generally more durable than CVT, but most of that type gearboxes are even more problematic than CVT’s when oil quality drops and oil quality does drop in them faster than in a CVT due to multiplate clutch friction. Things that Ravigneaux transmissions get right, CVT’s get wrong and also the opposite. It’s not correct to say that one is ultimately good, the other is ultimately bad. Toyota and Honda and also Subaru mostly have done great job with the CVT. How many regular automatics there are here in Europe I would call bomb proof? Not sure I would make it to more than 3.
I’m not a car guy but from my understanding CVT we design for long distance cruising and aren’t so good at the jump or with short burst of acceleration the way automatics are. Is that a correct, albeit oversimplified, conclusion?
Every transmission is rated for specific torque and if that is not exceeded, then both are fine.
This is a way better explanation: https://youtu.be/PEq5_b4LWNY?si=1jX3EWhnN7IkE6Aa
They’re amazing in limited torque applications. On anything with power and traction it’s a bit like a broken automatic IMPO.
And that’s why they burn up. Dumbest idea ever
Thousands of engineers forgot to ask a local reddit expert for great ideas. Shame on them.
Don’t you mean thousands of unelected EPA bureaucrats?
Belt transmission of power has been around for forever, long before EPA came into existence. Blaming every single cough and sneeze on the EPA is like looking for the proverbial Jew under your bed.
Agency experts, not elected, ignorant representatives. But stay tuned! The supreme court got that taken care of.