Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper37
No, 100% of the time is right.
It has no way to prepare for for an impact, and once impact is achieved, it has to torque itself back down which can take anywhere from 1-3 seconds.
ALOT can happen and 1-3 seconds, including alot of lost ground.
Go drive a CVT car and you will see what I mean.
|
Actually, Ed is correct. Making blanket statements about CVT/CVPT systems like "it would be terrible for a robot" and "100% of the time you would lose a pushing match against a geared robot" is a bit presumptuous. There are many, many cases where a transmission such as this may be the absolutely perfect design choice. You cannot presume to understand all possible application areas, design constraints, performance requirements, and efficiency characteristics where such a design may be applied.
In addition, you are presuming that the CVPT being discussed is the same as the CVT in your SUV, with the same capabilities, performance, and issues. It is not. Making a complete condemnation of the technology based on a single experience with just one point in the solution space is erroneous. An implied statement like "I don't like the CVT on our SUV, therefore all CVTs are bad" indicates imprecision and assumption in the analysis. Whereas "I have seen some issues with CVT on automobiles that MAY also occur with robot CVT transmissions - we should look into this some more" is a more appropriate response when the available information is incomplete and imprecise.
-dave