>CVT shill absolutely disgusting

Is he fucking stupid

File: cringejäbä.jpg (48KB, 330x386px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 330x386px

>>15546689
He's certainly a total sperg, just look at how he communicates with other people.

Wouldn't be surprised if he was actually a high functioning retard.

>>15546675

I'm assuming that since the title is a question, the answer is no. Otherwise the title would be "Why CVTs are the best(fastest) transmissions)

>>15546675
Imagine if they were still in F1
> performance CVTs
> engines designed only to operate at one RPM

>>15546689
he's just not a car guy, he't some random shit tier stem tard and sperglord who's cashing in on youtube

>>15546700
Somebody called him out in the comments saying he would never buy a CVT STI and he immediately conceded
lel

>>15546857
CVTs do have advantages, like being able to maintain one RPM at any speed, the problem is they're never designed for performance.

I mean engineering wise they're impressive and all and that's the angle he's approaching this at, but scientifically that weird Soylent drink is the best meal you can have but there is no way I'd live off it. More advanced or convenient doesn't mean more fun or even practical.

>>15546857
If you watched the video he we aaines how CVT applications are bing misued as a way to improve fuel economy instead of performance and that CVT is potentially deter than dual clutch

>>15546675
CVTs are an engineer's wet dream for wheel propelled land vehicles. it allows you to use engines that operate best at a fixed speed, like planes or boats. that said, CVT lifespans in high power applications are short at best, and manufacturers placed artificial "shift points" in the software so people wouldn't be weirded out by the driving dynamics

All you faggots talking shit drive civics and live in your parents basement

He just uses click bait titles but at least posts good, informative content

File: hnb.gif (403KB, 271x279px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 271x279px

>>15546874
I like this analogy

>>15546675
any advantage in performance or economy means nothing because BELTS

>>15546857
Because cvts that are actually used aren't being used the way they we're meant to

>>15546930
P A R A S I T I C L O S S

>>15546697
>>15546839
>Hating on him for being objectively correct
Sorry he hurt your fee-fees but he's not wrong and you're not a real enthusiast if you can appreciate engineering

>>15546675
Dude, he prefaced his argument by saying it's not an engaging experience, and it's "weird" which is why most people don't like it.

People are stupid and stupidly opposed to change. From a theoretical engineering standpoint, CVT would be great. Practically speaking, it's sucked up to this point because 1) consumers are idiots, and 2) the technology hasn't been widely adopted yet.

If someone made a CVT drag transmission as a proof-of-concept, and it was successful, then CVTs would start becoming more popular. It would be different, but since it's in race cars, it would be "cool" instead of "weird". This shit is all about marketing and perception.

I don't know if a traditional CVT can be adapted for use in drag applications, but if it can, it should.

>>15546904
>CVT is potentially better than dual clutch
it would be except car manufacturers don't use CVTs as they should, at one engine speed

>>15546943
>knowing about engineering from a scientific/career perspective means you're enthusiastic about it
nah

>>15546951
are you retarded?

>>15546943
any engineer who focuses on the automotive segment will tell you that CVTs are far from ideal. they have massive power losses, and have a history of short lifespans. it is a perfect transmission, but only in theory.
>>15546950
>it's sucked up to this point because
3) the technology isn't mature enough to replace other transmission types. if someone threw money at it, it could be possible to develop a reliable, efficient CVT.
4)automotive engines aren't designed to operate at a fixed speed, unless you pull one from a plug-in hybrid. most companies just tack on a variable speed optimized engine to a CVT.

>>15546703
That's really the point, a performance CVT would be ridiculous

>>15546996
how fast can you change the ratios on CVTs? it would need to be about as fast as an F1 engine revving from idle to redline (in gear and under load) for that application.

>>15546675
CVT's are automotive communism.

Great in theory, untill you start applying it to the real world, in which case they fail massively. Still, someone will keep trying this stupid shit. Now, unlike communism, CVT's could actually become viable one day. Untill that day comes (and it's a long way ahead), they're mostly utter shit.

>>15546950
>If someone made a CVT drag transmission as a proof-of-concept
Technically speaking, woulodn't a two-speed Powerglide with a loose as fuck torque converter effectively function like a CVT?

>>15546996
That's funny pal because CVT was originally tested by Williams F1 team.

>>15546700
No it wouldn't, that's shitposting.

>>15546996
>That's really the point, a functioning performance CVT would be a ridiculous performance advantage
ftfy

>>15546874
If soylent was cheap I would. Perfect shit to throw down my gullet when I'm busy or lazy.

>>15547084
that's pretty sad desu

>>15546872
Not true. There are aftermarket sport and racing cvts for scooters.

>>15547091
I live on oatmeal tortillas tortellini ground beef cookies and chicken nuggets. It's an improvement.

>>15547107
do you live in a favela?

>>15547114
I'm actually just lazy and misappropriating my money towards shit like jeep parts, ammunition and vidya instead. 4 bedroom house in an upscale white suburb.

>>15546675
I'd be all for CVT's if they could reliably handle triple digit power output for the life expectancy of the engine/car.

>I understand very little about simple mechanics: The Thread pt. 2

>>15547025

instantly? i think the limiting factor is still the steel belt, i don't think it would hold up in an f1 environment for very long.

>>15546697
>high functioning
>retard

pick one

>>15548046
You.

I learned so much more from this one guy than I ever did on 4shit

>>15546675
he has very tiny fingers

>>15546839
>he's just not a car guy
automotive engineer
has ITR and WRX STI
makes shitloads of vids about automotive engineering for car guys

If hes not a car guy no one on /o/ is.

>>15548073
This.

Not OP, but i am a mechanic. Regardless of his opinions, his laid back almost takumi-like attitud and the fact that he is mainstream therefore /o/ hates it, Engineering Explained its a fucking smart kid and he is really good at explaining concepts.

>>15547063
and what was the result?

>>15548093
>"kid", probably not even in his thirties yet
>head of grey hair
Poor kid.

>>15548104
No idea. The FIA would not allow them to use it. What the driver said was that there was truly a difference now that he didn't had to micromanage shifting. And if a fucking 1980's F1 car power was handled with a CVT i think that it can handle modern's street cars.

>>15548135
That's nothing compared to some other people i knew. Some kids had gray hairs as soon as 17 years old. Most of them were temporary tho.

>>15548135
grey hair and not a single pube, must suck to be him

>>15548195
Pubes sucks. I am filled with them. It makes wearing clothes annoying, sitting and lying in bed naked near impossible, wiping your ass a nightmare, and you feel like shit when masturbating.

>>15548239
t. Sasquatch

>>15548260
They called me Chewbacca in highschool :(

>>15548135
Meh, he can always dye his hair. If you're balding then you're fucked, grey hair is nothing compared to it.

>>15548273
This. I'd rather be graying than bald. Gray at least kinda looks cool. Bald you either shave your head or look like shit.

>>15548046
spotted the high functioning retard

>>15548273
tfw losing my hair in my early 20s. Most guys are and don't notice yet but holy fuck I'd easily take graying over this.

>>15548292
Yea I know. Walk around when it's sunny and you can already see scalps and receding hairlines on most young men.

File: funny-whole-body-sweater.jpg (73KB, 540x528px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 540x528px

>tfw 21 and receding hair that looks like I've survived a nuclear accident
Thanks for reminding me /o/

Mom why did you had to marry that bald fucker

>>15546675
CVTs have crazy power loss though, it's higher than a slush box and WAY higher than a manual.

If you want a performance automatic, get a DCT.

Also CVT steel bands aren't very strong, compared to gears, so when you put large quantities of TORQUE through them they like to snap. That's why even Nissan is only comfortable with the largest CVT vehicles only having V6s (about 260 lb ft, and those are plagued with issues), and all those vehicles are family cars. The armada with it's VEE ATE gets a 5 speed auto, and the newer one is getting a 7 speed.

So while CVT has the POTENTIAL to keep the engine at torque peak so better or whatever, in real life until you have SUPER MATERIAL HYPER CARBON NANOTUBE chains or a different CVT design, they simply can't handle the forces a conventional planetary auto, automatized manual (DCT) or just GOOD OLD FASHION manual can take.

By the way, i own a Nissan Rogue, and i gotta say that CVT really helps keep the gas usage down. Idk why people are saying this is a wrong use of CVT, seriously, my current city and highway combined is 9.8l/100 km. 24mpg in Toronto out of a DD is pretty good.

>>15546689
I don't know where he got his engineering degree from but they should take it back based on the incorrect shit he spouts about most things.

>TFW no 21,000 RPM gas turbine engine with CVT

>>15548088
the idiot can't even wrench

>>15546675
>Are CVTs ideally the best transmission solution
>Yes
>Are CVTs up to par with others at the moment
>No
>Can they become better or is it physically impossible?
>They can get better
>When better CVTs are around will they be the best transmission solution?
>Probably

What everyone has said so far matches this, and I did not hear anything against this in the video. What is the discussion we are having, I'm a bit lost.

File: Capture.png (9KB, 226x118px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 226x118px

>>15550519
>pic related

>>15548088
It's a gsr

>>15546675
>We need better mpg cars
>CVT
>People shit on it for being slow even though its purpose to fuel economy

In all seriousness, why do you guys hate the CVT? I mean, it isn't present in any high-performance cars, mainly on family sedans with less than 200 horsepowers. Its only objective is to be efficient with its gas. Why do you guys hate it?

>>15551205
Unreliable and boring.

>>15551233
Meanwhile, my comparative bat out of hell 650 CVT burgman is happy to tear ass around petrol stations.

Should bethe same for cars.

>>15551252
>What is power to weight ratio

>all these CVT shill's

>>15551205
>caring about mpg

I'd get it if you drove a semi for a living.
Other than that, it's no fun.

>>15551233
>>15551383
I guess you guys just don't like fuel economy and I understand that.

>Glorious v8

>>15546697
He'd a engineer its hardly surprising I bet he doesn't even wrench

>>15546874
>food analogy

Once again /o/ never fails to show how stupid it is.

>>15547482
geared transmissions don't even do that (or at least it's a crapshoot whether they do or not).

Transmissions are a wear component on a long enough time horizon, just like any other part of the vehicle that has friction-related heat loss.

>>15546675
He's not wrong, theoretically a CVT could keep the engine at peak, it just hasn't happened yet and if I am canyon carving for fun, I don't really care about how fast I can run it.

been driving a Nissan with a 1.6 engine and a CVT for a bit over a year now and holy shit is it annoying

you put your foot down and half the time the car just thinks for a few seconds and doesn't do anything

>>15553286
drove a 16 corolla and it felt like a rubber band

>>15553286
everyone knows the jatco nissan cvts are absolutely god-awful

just like ford dcts and honda planetary automatics from the early-mid 2000s

File: page_15_qbe60g_1_1_2_1.jpg (351KB, 2000x1730px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 2000x1730px

>>15546675
going the right speed is more important than being in the right gear
>>15546697
he is just book learned amateur hour
would not be surprised if he cant do anything irl

You all are retarded, the CVT on Audi car's isn't shit, an 06 A4 CVT is a perfect sporty daily in S mode while the 15 RS5 stays in the garage.

>>15553312
The Subaru one in the Forester XT/WRX isn't bad either. Doesn't stop people from bitching.

>CVTS ARE AWESOME
they are neato on paper/grease board but in practice (right now) they suck.

>fragile as fuck
>failures after 80k-100k are common no matter how you drive it or how regularly (or not) you service it.
>most fixes involve replacing the whole unit. (most shops and dealers would rather remove and replace rather than chance a repair on a finicky tranny that will more than likely shit the bed soon after the repair. If something fucks up in a cvt there are other components that were damaged/stressed that will fuck up the whole unit agian later.)
>they are ecks box huge heavy when compared to normal ATs
>sap more power than a normal ATs. 150hp motors put down 90-100whp assuming you can get the damn thing to plot a functional non loopy dyno.
>normally do not like having to put down WOT power and will delay throttle response.

In the future they may be the go to trans but right now people are being used for r&d.

>>15553333
>In the future they may be the go to trans but right now people are being used for r&d.
quads dont lie

>>15553320
>isn't bad
as long as you keep it stock to light mods and even then it'll increase the chances of something going south transmission wise. The cvt on the wrx has a low ceiling when it comes to power out put. The motor can handle it all day but the cvt is a major handicap. If you have any thought of modding beyond an intake and exhaust then you really need to consider the manual.

>>15553367
Mine hasn't hiccuped so far, though I'm only running about 310 whp through it.

Also, everyone pontificating about the downfalls of the CVT without even distinguishing between pulley/belt driven CVTs and toroidal CVTs just goes to show how ignorant the majority of this board is. They're as distinct as DCTs versus planetary automatics, and yet you just have retard memespouters talking about CVTs on mid-2000s Nissans as if they're representative of the whole, despite being in the minority.

Literal tens of billions of dollars were put down by Honda and Toyota to ship their best-selling models with CVTs, they're not going to go kaboom simply by virtue of being driven by a belt and pulley than by sprocket.

>>15553413
Doesn't Subaru use a belt CVT?

>>15546675
Did he confuse CVT for DCT

>>15553434
Yes, as does Toyota.

>>15548135
Im 23 and I already have a few grey hairs

>>15548262
>>15548239
>>15548260
Hairbros
Got a carpet on my torso and hair out the wazoo

>>15548135
Gray hair is amazing
I wish my hair went gray in high school

>>15548135
He's beta looking as fuck, but come on. The dude makes $100k+ a year for making YouTube videos about cars. I wouldn't feel very sorry for him