View Single Post
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 01-08-2005, 00:50
santosh's Avatar
santosh santosh is offline
Registered User
AKA: 2415
FRC #2415
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: The world
Posts: 796
santosh has a reputation beyond reputesantosh has a reputation beyond reputesantosh has a reputation beyond reputesantosh has a reputation beyond reputesantosh has a reputation beyond reputesantosh has a reputation beyond reputesantosh has a reputation beyond reputesantosh has a reputation beyond reputesantosh has a reputation beyond reputesantosh has a reputation beyond reputesantosh has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to santosh
Re: CVT, which teams are planning on using them for next year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoodleKnight
I get what you're saying, basically a fail-safe system that will stop the robot from dying. IMO, the point of a CVT is to eliminate the need for driver-interaction with the shifting mechanism and let the computer dynamically control the shifting-ability. But hey, don't let what I'm saying influence your designs, I'm just giving my viewpoint and searching for answers.
You are correct about CVT needing less driver interaction, but it does also have a bunch of pros on its own. It servs a better than automatic transmissions becasue otherwise why would they put thm ther if there was already no driver interaction.Somewhere someone told me that ther was 25% better acceleration and you can build up pushing power faster. I do believe that a a program guiding the positioning of the belts would be easier to drive, but a manually controlled CVT would let you reap most of the benefits out of it. It is just like the choice, manual cars vs. automatic cars.
__________________
2004 - 2007 = 1002
2007 - 2011 = Founding Mentor of 2415
6 regional wins, 3 EIs, 3 Chairmans
kiddies kiddies kiddies