Re: CVT interest
- From: Bill S <billsp655@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:21:56 GMT
jobst.brandt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I can't imagine how you can design a CVT for bicycling, because torque
is much higher than that of a small car, there being a trade-off
between rotational speed and torque. Humans operate at about 50 to
100 rpm, 20 times slower than a motor vehicle engine. Beyond that,
most vehicle transmissions are step-down gears that reduce rpm rather
than a step-up transmission as on a bicycle which runs as much as 1:5
ratio. Beside that, mechanical CVT's work on friction, making this
even more difficult.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/continuous.html
Jobst Brandt
I agree that a good bicycle CVT will probably not happen in our life time. However, I don't agree with your arguments:
1) A 250 lb. rider standing on a 7.5 in. crank arm generates 156 lb-ft of torque. The Audi A4 has a CVT with a V6 engine with 207 lb-ft of torque.
2) Stepping up speed should be no less efficient than stepping it down.
3) I agree that current CVT's are less efficient than conventional bike chain drives. However, because some CVTs "work on friction" doesn't mean that they are grossly inefficient. Your tires "work on friction" too but that type of friction does not soak up energy because there is no relative sliding motion between the friction surfaces.
The major drawbacks of a bicycle CVT using existing technology are cost, size, and weight.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: CVT interest
- From: jobst . brandt
- Re: CVT interest
- Prev by Date: Re: Brake Bridge on Fixed Gear
- Next by Date: Re: Rear Hub Flanges Equally Spaced From Centre Line
- Previous by thread: Re: CVT interest
- Next by thread: Re: CVT interest
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading