Why did Williams abandon CVT?

[ParkLife]

Anyone have the real reason why Williams abandoned their development of a CVT?

It would obviosuly have massive advantages for racing but there doesn't appear to be any development going on anywhere anymore.

[bigted]

It was banned at the end of 94 along with abs, active suspension etc

[Adam43]

It resulted in a bizaar sound as it went past and came out of corners.

[avsfan733]

I have yet to see a CVT that I would be confident in, if I was someone responsible for designing such things. They work on belts rollers and pulleys, not something to mess 900HP through as far as i can tell

[ParkLife]

But surely with the current use of automatic boxes and the electronics there is no real basis for the ban any more.

I also wouldn't say that they work on belts and pulleys! I think that's oversimplifying things considerably.

I think this is the sort of technology that F1 should be driving forward (I'd like to go back to 'pure' racing as much as the next guy but facing the reality that that simply isn't going to happen F1 should be used to rapidly develop technologies like these. I'm getting fed up with the stagnant technology in the automotive industry. Billions are being spent refining old concepts and there is obviously vastly diminishing returns. If the same cash would be put into revolutionary development we might actually make some decent progress into the realms of efficiancy and fuel consumption.

And don't get me started on rotary engines........

[Adam43]

Originally posted by ParkLife
But surely with the current use of automatic boxes and the electronics there is no real basis for the ban any more.

The main reason it was banned was so that all the teams didn't have to start developing it.

As someone famous once said with respect to new ideas in F1- If you can copy it then copy it, if you can't then get it banned.

(paraphrased and originally quoted by another member, sorry can't remember who)

[cannardd]

Originally posted by bigted
It was banned at the end of 94 along with abs, active suspension etc

End of '93 / Start of '94...

[AlexF]

Originally posted by ParkLife
But surely with the current use of automatic boxes and the electronics there is no real basis for the ban any more.

I also wouldn't say that they work on belts and pulleys! I think that's oversimplifying things considerably.

I think this is the sort of technology that F1 should be driving forward (I'd like to go back to 'pure' racing as much as the next guy but facing the reality that that simply isn't going to happen F1 should be used to rapidly develop technologies like these. I'm getting fed up with the stagnant technology in the automotive industry. Billions are being spent refining old concepts and there is obviously vastly diminishing returns. If the same cash would be put into revolutionary development we might actually make some decent progress into the realms of efficiancy and fuel consumption.

And don't get me started on rotary engines........

Right... you tell me the examples you are thinking of and I'll pass them onto Ford, where I work in R&D...


Alex

[MA2]

Actually, there is a CVT being developed by someone here in Indy that actually works. I can't divulge much about it, but can say that it works via hydraulics, NOT belts and pullies. Packaging-wise, it can be very small (600 HP could be handled by a package 8 inches in diameter by 3 inches thick), is incredibly simple, and, I have no doubts, could easily replace all transmissions currently made, including big diesel trucks. When I first saw it, I kicked myself for not thinking of it first, as the principles are based on something any maintenance man has dealt with all his life.

It also might be legal under the current F1 rule wording - one of the very top teams has just started looking at it.........

If you want to see an example of what may be our next generation of internal combustion engines, go to www.revetec.com - they have a new engine concept that is shear genius in its simplicity, besides being about twice as efficient as current piston engines.

[Mackmot]

It states that you must have a gearbox with at least 4 forward ratios

[CFD-9]

I'm sure I've seen a CVT system in development without a belt... It was in the New Scientist or anoth Tech driven Mag a while ago!? I would have thought a hydraulic system may sap a fair bit of power though?

[MA2]

Not this system. While it uses hydraulics as part of the control, it is not just a simple hydraulic pump and hydraulic motor system that relies on fluid volume and pressure flow. In actuality, it relies on the LACK of flow and backpressure to do its job - sorry, but I can't say any more.

[Dino IV]

The classic CVT design never got to grips with powerful engines with lots of torque. Quite some manufacturers offer some sort of CVT in their production series but mostly in the sub-200/250Nm torque range, so basically on small size cars. Audi did some belt-R&D themselves and are currently offering a reinforced CVT in IIRC the A6 which can handle up to 300Nm. I don't really know what kind of CVT they used in the Williams F1 car but that engine will not have exceeded 350Nm I guess.

[Revracing]

The new approach to CVT mentioned above is not a secret, as has already been said it was featured in many journals, The Engineer was where I first read about it. It is based on using the previously wasted axial thrust developed by helical cut gears, which is proportional to engine rpm and torque. The inventor has produced several working prototypes and I believe is currently in negotiations with several Automotive manufacturers.

As for using it in F1 How Boring!! constant engine rpm all around the circuit and a drastic reduction in required driver skill (more so than normal), they're already comparatively easy to drive when compared to the cars of yesteryear......

[cannardd]

Originally posted by Revracing
As for using it in F1 How Boring!! constant engine rpm all around the circuit and a drastic reduction in required driver skill (more so than normal), they're already comparatively easy to drive when compared to the cars of yesteryear......

It would also remove the challenge of producing a flexible, usable but very high power engine.
It would be comparatively easy to produce a very high power engine with a tiny power band, the engine staying at the RPM for the entire race.

[MA2]

Originally posted by Revracing
The new approach to CVT mentioned above is not a secret, It is based on using the previously wasted axial thrust developed by helical cut gears, which is proportional to engine rpm and torque.

If you are referring to the design I mentioned, that is not it. The one you refer to is completely different.

[shiny side up!]

Originally posted by MA2
you want to see an example of what may be our next generation of internal combustion engines, go to www.revetec.com - they have a new engine concept that is shear genius in its simplicity, besides being about twice as efficient as current piston engines.

Reminds me of a simplified 'Split-Cycle' engine...

[Mackmot]

I like that

[Dave Brand]

Originally posted by MA2
If you want to see an example of what may be our next generation of internal combustion engines, go to www.revetec.com - they have a new engine concept that is shear genius in its simplicity, besides being about twice as efficient as current piston engines.

Hmmm....new concept? Cam engines have been around since the 1920s. The Marchetti & Fairchild-Caminez radial areo-engines used an almost identical mechanism.

[MA2]

I'd like to see a link to that, if there is one. If what you say is true, how did they get a patent on this 'new' design?

[Dave Brand]

Originally posted by MA2
I'd like to see a link to that, if there is one. If what you say is true, how did they get a patent on this 'new' design?

http://www.prototype-design.com/Camengin.htm

[ASCII Man]

Originally posted by MA2
I'd like to see a link to that, if there is one. If what you say is true, how did they get a patent on this 'new' design?

Because patents are expirable, like after 40-50 years or so.

[AlexF]

Patents also are contry specific... if files in OZ it means nothing over hear, untill the patent is raised here and then its the date that sets the precident.

Alex

[MA2]

Originally posted by AlexF
Patents also are contry specific... if files in OZ it means nothing over hear, untill the patent is raised here and then its the date that sets the precident.
Alex

Yes, but every country that I have dealt with in patenting things all have a specific clauses stating that previously patented things cannot be re-patented unless significant changes are made - significant enough to meet the criteria that it is a 'new' item - nor will a patent be issued if the item was in prior use or for prior sale.

That may be the case here.

Either way, it's a brilliant piece. I really hope that it flies.

[Stevespurr]

One of the teams in this years formula student tryed one then found they could not set it up and reverted back to a standerd gear box setup.