54 replies to this topic

[bmwrocketscience]

hello you all.
i remember reading about the 93 williams fw15c with cvt. it was outlawed , i know.
but i am wondering are there any test results or close up pictures ,
videos or articles about the technology out there?
thx

[Hairpin]

hello you all.
i remember reading about the 93 williams fw15c with cvt. it was outlawed , i know.
but i am wondering are there any test results or close up pictures ,
videos or articles about the technology out there?
thx

[cheapracer]

Of what I have seen they don't give much away, maybe waiting for another day when it's legal.

Note that some major manufacturers use it in production now so it's future use is a possibility.

From a tech/legal point of view I have no idea, after it was banned, why they didn't use it as a manual merely manually selecting 7 points of reference for the spool width, you could infinitely select your gear set for each track, qualifying and conditions in minutes.

[Clatter]

Of what I have seen they don't give much away, maybe waiting for another day when it's legal.

Note that some major manufacturers use it in production now so it's future use is a possibility.

From a tech/legal point of view I have no idea, after it was banned, why they didn't use it as a manual merely manually selecting 7 points of reference for the spool width, you could infinitely select your gear set for each track, qualifying and conditions in minutes.

It's because CVT systems were explicity banned, so they couldn't reuse it in a different manner.

[cheapracer]

It's because CVT systems were explicity banned, so they couldn't reuse it in a different manner.

oh does that include in the manner when it isn't in a constantly varying state hence NOT a Constant Varying Transmission?

Not knowing the rule as written I have to presume it says something like X amount and type of fixed gears.

[Clatter]

oh does that include in the manner when it isn't in a constantly varying state hence NOT a Constant Varying Transmission?

Not knowing the rule as written I have to presume it says something like X amount and type of fixed gears.

It says CVT systems. It's the actual system that is banned no matter how it is actuated.

[Rainer Nyberg]

hello you all.
i remember reading about the 93 williams fw15c with cvt. it was outlawed , i know.
but i am wondering are there any test results or close up pictures ,
videos or articles about the technology out there?
thx

It was banned because of the uninspiring monotone sound created by the engine running at constant rpm.

[zepunishment]

uninspiring it may have been, but if it were kept legal, do you think it would have made a difference in uptake by roadcar manufacturers with honing of the technology by F1 teams? Could it have caused a leap in road car efficiency?

[alfa1]

It was banned because of the uninspiring monotone sound created by the engine running at constant rpm.

Would it also have implications for fuel usage?
If the engine had to be running at top revs so as to be correct for the end of the main straight, then does this mean it runs at top revs for the whole race?
Not so bad for the F1 era where refuelling is allowed, but not so good otherwise.

[Buttoneer]

uninspiring it may have been, but if it were kept legal, do you think it would have made a difference in uptake by roadcar manufacturers with honing of the technology by F1 teams? Could it have caused a leap in road car efficiency?

My non-techy brain says it most definitely would have done. In the one year KERS was in place, McLaren stripped the weight of the system down to below 25kg and they reckon they could have taken it even further. They improved software algorithms and extended battery life too. CVT would have gone the same way.

IMO, it's why F1 needs to embrace every possible green technology.

[Rainer Nyberg]

uninspiring it may have been, but if it were kept legal, do you think it would have made a difference in uptake by roadcar manufacturers with honing of the technology by F1 teams? Could it have caused a leap in road car efficiency?

Unfortunately F1 today increasingly moves away from cutting edge technology in favor of standard components.
All in the interest of cost reduction, but it kills new developments, and any roadcar applications will sadly be delayed.

We will soon have:

• Standard single-source transmissions.
• Standard single-source monocoques.
• Standard aero packs. Some wing elements are already single spec.
• Engines are already spec freezed.

[potmotr]

Apparently the engine noise it made was really flat.

One constant note.

Boring as hell.

[Risil]

Sounds absolutely horrible. F1 in 1993 was already demonstrably poorer than Indycar, forcing all the teams to switch to CVT would've made the situation even worse.

[wingwalker]

Apparently the engine noise it made was really flat.

One constant note.

Boring as hell.

I'd ban the damn thing on this ground alone. It sounded AWFUL.

However, I love the video because of the young DC.

Edited by wingwalker, 26 February 2010 - 12:54.

[Hairpin]

Of what I have seen they don't give much away, maybe waiting for another day when it's legal.

Note that some major manufacturers use it in production now so it's future use is a possibility.

From a tech/legal point of view I have no idea, after it was banned, why they didn't use it as a manual merely manually selecting 7 points of reference for the spool width, you could infinitely select your gear set for each track, qualifying and conditions in minutes.

I would guess that a cvt, specially at that time, in a static state will always be slightly less effective than a "traditional" gearbox. It would have made it easier for the team to set up the gear ratios, but that would not compensate the performance loss.

Personally I hate cvt, like Rainer say, one constant note from the engine and since it lies quite high in the revs it eats you up. You also always have the feeling that it does not it's job properly since it is a bit f a "slipping the clutch" feeling all the time. Disgusting

[Rainer Nyberg]

I would guess that a cvt, specially at that time, in a static state will always be slightly less effective than a "traditional" gearbox. It would have made it easier for the team to set up the gear ratios, but that would not compensate the performance loss.

Personally I hate cvt, like Rainer say, one constant note from the engine and since it lies quite high in the revs it eats you up. You also always have the feeling that it does not it's job properly since it is a bit f a "slipping the clutch" feeling all the time. Disgusting

But for snowmobiles CVT works terrific!

[Clatter]

I would guess that a cvt, specially at that time, in a static state will always be slightly less effective than a "traditional" gearbox. It would have made it easier for the team to set up the gear ratios, but that would not compensate the performance loss.

Personally I hate cvt, like Rainer say, one constant note from the engine and since it lies quite high in the revs it eats you up. You also always have the feeling that it does not it's job properly since it is a bit f a "slipping the clutch" feeling all the time. Disgusting

Williams would not have considered using the CVT if it did not provide a performance increase, and the FIA would not have been so quick to ban it.

[bmwrocketscience]

Williams would not have considered using the CVT if it did not provide a performance increase, and the FIA would not have been so quick to ban it.

cvt are more economical, the car uses less fuel... the engine runs always in the best RPM/ power range.
the engine note needs a bit to get used to, though.
it actually would be a great improvement, especially now with only one tank of fuel for the entire race. it would even use less brakes
as it actively brakes the car as soon as you take your foot of the pedal.

in my view... i don't necessarily like the engine note... but if it makes a difference between having the advantage of winning with less weight in fuel
then i'd go for it.

the regulation restricts gear boxes to 7 gears
and bannes cvt period.
one could have the cvt 'animate' shift points, just like they do in street cars.

Edited by bmwrocketscience, 26 February 2010 - 13:56.

[screamingV16]

Who's that young boy driving the Williams . I remember all the talk at the time of CVT and thinking that a single engine note was going to be so boring (droning like a Diesel Electric train) particularly as this was back in the days of 3.5 litre Renualt V10s and Ferrari V12s and not the girls engines of todays F1. I assume the Williams in the Youtube was accelerating down the track, but it sounded like it was making it's way to the grid!

[Hairpin]

Williams would not have considered using the CVT if it did not provide a performance increase, and the FIA would not have been so quick to ban it.

I was responding to Cheapracers quiestion if it would have been legal if the "cv" had been removed, making it step to positions much like a normal transmission.

[Tenmantaylor]

Would it also have implications for fuel usage?
If the engine had to be running at top revs so as to be correct for the end of the main straight, then does this mean it runs at top revs for the whole race?
Not so bad for the F1 era where refuelling is allowed, but not so good otherwise.

But it would change the whole approach to engine design and mapping also. If you brief the engine development team to make an engine with the best power and torque and fuel consumption at a single RPM maybe higher revs wouldnt be the best option. Maybe on corner exit it would be lower revs for torque and increase slithyl to max power on straight or a combination.

One things for sure it would have sounded awful. You cant tell whether the cars are accelerating or not. Maybe they couldve designed a CVE (constantly variable exhaust) to adjust the note of the exhaust to mimic gear changes

[stuartbrs]

My work car is an Aussie Mitsubishi Colt with a CVT... gutless as all ****.. but I did drag off an old Audi A4 turbo today at the lights... only because he had to change gears twice whilst the colt had constant power going to the wheels.. not particulalry thrilling.. but I imagine if you multiplied the power by 10 it would be incredible.. I also have an old 3 speed Porsche 928.. which can also outdrag a lot of modern cars simply because there is no need to waste any time shifting gear and losing power to the drive wheels... its the old argument of auto`s versus manuals. Take it up a level and a cvt is a very, very good device for seamless acceleration.

[cheapracer]

I was responding to Cheapracers quiestion if it would have been legal if the "cv" had been removed, making it step to positions much like a normal transmission.

Glad to see some 'get it'.

For those of you interested in what the noise complaint is about, F500 is a race class using snowmobile etc CVT engines - the sound is woeful (they are faster the Formula Fords too!).

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Formula_500

There's a Youtube link down the bottom.

[bmwrocketscience]

Glad to see some 'get it'.

For those of you interested in what the noise complaint is about, F500 is a race class using snowmobile etc CVT engines - the sound is woeful (they are faster the Formula Fords too!).

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Formula_500

There's a Youtube link down the bottom.

i agree, it does sound dreadful... but i could not care less if it would mean i'd have an advantage to other teams

[Hairpin]

Glad to see some 'get it'.

For those of you interested in what the noise complaint is about, F500 is a race class using snowmobile etc CVT engines - the sound is woeful (they are faster the Formula Fords too!).

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Formula_500

There's a Youtube link down the bottom.

Had to turn it off. Reminds of an baby with colic. I love kids, but after an hour "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" feels like million mosquitos around your naked body.

There is no music in a cvt, just noise.

[uffen]

Herein lies some of the problem with chasing a technical advantage.
The only reason Williams tried the CVT was to be faster. Same when Ferrari developed the auto/manual box.
So, you spend a ton of money and you're faster. For a while. Then everyone else spends the same ton of money and everyone's back to level (all else equal).
Same thing happened with auto/manual boxes, and everything else, etc. etc. etc.
Now costs are very high and no team is better off then any other - from a technology standpoint.
Now you have "technology," which some believe is the be all and end all of F1, and you have spent money and you're nowhere (in relative terms) again.

Thank goodness we don't have to experience the dreadful engine drone that's associated with CVTs. Imagine a whole grid full of cars with that transmission style!

technology for the sake of technology is not the answer.

[Talryyn]

uninspiring it may have been, but if it were kept legal, do you think it would have made a difference in uptake by roadcar manufacturers with honing of the technology by F1 teams? Could it have caused a leap in road car efficiency?

I think Audi still uses them? My Saturn has a CVT, and yes it does have a very bland sound. Depending on how much throttle you apply, the computer decides everything. If you floor it you get full revs that steadily drop as you accelerate. If you accelerate normally it will hold at a mid-rev until you reach your speed then drop off. It does get the same mileage as a manual transmission however. The Audi I drove with the CVT gave you the option to manually shift as well, just using pre-determined ratios. Nissan had one, not sure how many companies still use them though, I have not looked.

My transmission has been recalled twice, and I lost the first one at 20,000km. Now at 140,000km it is making some nasty noises. We were going to buy the Audi CVT, but took the manual just to be safe.

I thought BAR was testing a CVT as well? Golf-karts still use them as well I think.

[canon1753]

The noise is better than if USAC and the FIA hadn't strangled the turbines.... or electric racers... maybe even diesels (the Audis and Pugs not withstanding).


After that pedantic rant, I would get tired of that single RPM drone too.

[Clatter]

I think Audi still uses them? My Saturn has a CVT, and yes it does have a very bland sound. Depending on how much throttle you apply, the computer decides everything. If you floor it you get full revs that steadily drop as you accelerate. If you accelerate normally it will hold at a mid-rev until you reach your speed then drop off. It does get the same mileage as a manual transmission however. The Audi I drove with the CVT gave you the option to manually shift as well, just using pre-determined ratios. Nissan had one, not sure how many companies still use them though, I have not looked.

My transmission has been recalled twice, and I lost the first one at 20,000km. Now at 140,000km it is making some nasty noises. We were going to buy the Audi CVT, but took the manual just to be safe.

I thought BAR was testing a CVT as well? Golf-karts still use them as well I think.

Why would BAR test a CVT? They were banned long before BAR joined.

[CSquared]

Good thread to start. I'm curious about it as well. The guys in the Technical Forum might be feeling left out, though

Regardless of whether you like the sound or the feel, CVTs are the future and are technically the "best" transmission you can have. Gears and shifters are a compromise, a stop-gap, until we figured out how to make good CVTs. Complaining about losing them because we like them better aesthetically is like people who complain about all the electronics in cars because they just like distributors and points and carburetors better for whatever reason (I seem to hear fewer people making this complaint as time goes on). That's just tough.

Don't get me wrong. The driver in me loves a heel-toe double-clutch downshift like few other things, but the engineer in me finds gear ratios, manual clutches, and manual shifters a bit, well, gross. To change up, I need to use three completely separate controls with three separate limbs. Heel-toeing is four separate controls with the same three limbs. If we weren't used to it because it's been around for 100+ years we'd think it was a joke.

[Talryyn]

Why would BAR test a CVT? They were banned long before BAR joined.

What was that seemless shift thing they were playing with? I was not following it closely at the time, but I thought the announcers kept saying it was more a CVT than anything. They never ran with it though right, just tested it?

On a side note, trying to find info on the BAR I did find that the new Chevy Volt will be a CVT. Also the Williams KERS (well partially owned by Williams) will make it to commercial applications.

[Anssi]

In a real Championship for car manufacturers things like the CVT transmission would never have been banned.

[Clatter]

What was that seemless shift thing they were playing with? I was not following it closely at the time, but I thought the announcers kept saying it was more a CVT than anything. They never ran with it though right, just tested it?

On a side note, trying to find info on the BAR I did find that the new Chevy Volt will be a CVT. Also the Williams KERS (well partially owned by Williams) will make it to commercial applications.

Seemless shift isn't the same as CVT.

[Risil]

In a real Championship for car manufacturers things like the CVT transmission would never have been banned.

It's not, though. F1 is foremost a World Championship for Drivers; the Constructor's Championship was a somewhat ill-thought out extra.

[britishtrident]

Hardly new CVT has been around since the 1920s when Austin tried it on a couple of models, with the exception of hybrid systems no matter which of the various mechanical drive systems is employed it has never been particularly reliable in fact in The Real World Car Mechanics Dictionary the entry for CVT reads simply "see under chocolate tea pot."

[Talryyn]

Seemless shift isn't the same as CVT.

I remember what it was now, they were saying it was basically a CVT where they were setting the ratios, so when the driver shifted it was nearly instant, but did not have any gears. However, I never saw any proof, and if I recall they never raced with it. This was probably 4-5 years ago now. It was just the announcers speculation at the time.

[Hairpin]

Good thread to start. I'm curious about it as well. The guys in the Technical Forum might be feeling left out, though

Regardless of whether you like the sound or the feel, CVTs are the future and are technically the "best" transmission you can have. Gears and shifters are a compromise, a stop-gap, until we figured out how to make good CVTs. Complaining about losing them because we like them better aesthetically is like people who complain about all the electronics in cars because they just like distributors and points and carburetors better for whatever reason (I seem to hear fewer people making this complaint as time goes on). That's just tough.

Don't get me wrong. The driver in me loves a heel-toe double-clutch downshift like few other things, but the engineer in me finds gear ratios, manual clutches, and manual shifters a bit, well, gross. To change up, I need to use three completely separate controls with three separate limbs. Heel-toeing is four separate controls with the same three limbs. If we weren't used to it because it's been around for 100+ years we'd think it was a joke.

What you say is true, but there is more to life than just efficiency. A modern car is of course in absolute terms "better" in all areas than a car from, say 1957, but in reality you can not compare like that. The old cars gives a completely different feeling and although many modern family car can beat the crap of a Ferrari 250 GTO also on a track there is no doubt that the driver of the latter have a bigger smile on his face. That smile fades quickly if he want to go with the family on holiday in that car.

A car in itself is a hopelessly un-modern way of transporting people and personally I would like to ban them both in cities and long journeys where they exist public alternatives. Reason why this is not being done is partly because the car industry play such a large role in world economy, but partly also because of the feeling it gives the people who use it. Making cars more perfect, more androgynous and soul-less can actually make people turn away from them.

If I go shopping and have the choice between a 1976 Piaggio and a new Suzuki cvt, I would not hesitate a second which one i'd pick.

Edited by Hairpin, 26 February 2010 - 21:22.

[CSquared]

What you say is true, but there is more to life than just efficiency. A modern car is of course in absolute terms "better" in all areas than a car from, say 1957, but in reality you can not compare like that. The old cars gives a completely different feeling and although many modern family car can beat the crap of a Ferrari 250 GTO also on a track there is no doubt that the driver of the latter have a bigger smile on his face. That smile fades quickly if he want to go with the family on holiday in that car.

A car in itself is a hopelessly un-modern way of transporting people and personally I would like to ban them both in cities and long journeys where they exist public alternatives. Reason why this is not being done is partly because the car industry play such a large role in world economy, but partly also because of the feeling it gives the people who use it. Making cars more perfect, more androgynous and soul-less can actually make people turn away from them.

If I go shopping and have the choice between a 1976 Piaggio and a new Suzuki cvt, I would not hesitate a second which one i'd pick.

I agree with you completely. We're all enthusiasts here (and I do own a 30-year-old car), and these are questions we all deal with often. But I think racing teams think about it differently. There's no room for feel or emotion, it's about the laptimes only. But then as fans of racing, there certainly is room for the "feel" and for sport, hence bans on things like traction control and active suspension. I didn't really mean to re-open the endless discussion of technological sport vs. driver sport, I was just a little surprised by all the "we shouldn't do CVTs because they don't sound right" I was seeing in this thread. I guess I shouldn't have been.

[anbeck]

"The horror, the horror...."

[Ruud de la Rosa]

Good thread to start. I'm curious about it as well. The guys in the Technical Forum might be feeling left out, though

Regardless of whether you like the sound or the feel, CVTs are the future and are technically the "best" transmission you can have. Gears and shifters are a compromise, a stop-gap, until we figured out how to make good CVTs. Complaining about losing them because we like them better aesthetically is like people who complain about all the electronics in cars because they just like distributors and points and carburetors better for whatever reason (I seem to hear fewer people making this complaint as time goes on). That's just tough.

Don't get me wrong. The driver in me loves a heel-toe double-clutch downshift like few other things, but the engineer in me finds gear ratios, manual clutches, and manual shifters a bit, well, gross. To change up, I need to use three completely separate controls with three separate limbs. Heel-toeing is four separate controls with the same three limbs. If we weren't used to it because it's been around for 100+ years we'd think it was a joke.

the CVT/variomatic for Williams was developed by a company called VDT ( van doorne transmission, a former part of DAF trucks). The company still has the cvt williams car in their office in Tilburg, the Netherlands.

The main benefit of the system were it ran on max power (which could be tuned to a higher point than normal) all the time and no need for gear changes, eliminating the torque loss during the time of shifting and increasing driveability. However the system wasn't very economical. Big losses in clamping the push belt and the friction it induced. The system seemed very promising in the day when competing with automatic drives. especially as automatics back then only had 4 gears. Now automatics have more and more gears and the benefit is slightly gone. Had they been able to run a season in f1 it would have done wonders for the image of the system which got a bit of an 'old peoples' vibe. I'm sure the system would be in use more widespread now if that had been the case.

we tried to run a cvt equipped formula student car, but decided to first develop skills in making a 'normal' car. Just about when the system was tested and set-up on the bench ready to be incorporated in a old car it was decided to go electric. I think electric is the future, not cvt.

[cheapracer]

Good thread to start. I'm curious about it as well. The guys in the Technical Forum might be feeling left out, though

http://forums.autosp...w...9224&hl=CVT

No, we have bashed it around quite a few times over the years actually

[PayasYouRace]

I think electric is the future, not cvt.

I agree, whether the power source is a battery, hydrogen fuel cell or something else entirely, the transmission will most likely be electric in future. I'd say savour the sound of racing cars for the moment. It won't be that long before the familiar sound is gone.

[PayasYouRace]

A car in itself is a hopelessly un-modern way of transporting people and personally I would like to ban them both in cities and long journeys where they exist public alternatives. Reason why this is not being done is partly because the car industry play such a large role in world economy, but partly also because of the feeling it gives the people who use it. Making cars more perfect, more androgynous and soul-less can actually make people turn away from them.

I don't agree with this, apart from maybe city congestion. People will always like a personal, private vehicle whatever the journey. You'd never be able to ban cars for long journeys. By your standard the concept of the car wasn't modern in the 1890s. It was just a carriage with it's own power source. Anyway, there will always be demand for exciting cars (or personal privare vehicles). The freedom the car brings is something you could never take away from people.

[bmwrocketscience]

i was looking up VDT and found out that bosch now makes these transmissions

http://www.bosch.nl/...2/html/5835.htm

[FigJam]

Williams would not have considered using the CVT if it did not provide a performance increase, and the FIA would not have been so quick to ban it.

true that it possibly was several seconds quicker than the already existing Williams Renault of that time??

That could have seriously been something to watch, given the Williams was already the class of the field.

[teejay]

true that it possibly was several seconds quicker than the already existing Williams Renault of that time??

That could have seriously been something to watch, given the Williams was already the class of the field.

Apparently it was 4 seconds quicker per lap at monza?

[FigJam]

Apparently it was 4 seconds quicker per lap at monza?

I'm not too sure but I distictly remember something about the car being several seconds quicker. Where and when....I'm not sure.

Some clarification on that would be good. That would have been huge had it raced....despite it sounding terrible.

Edited by FIGJAM, 28 February 2010 - 03:56.

[bmwrocketscience]

I'm not too sure but I distictly remember something about the car being several seconds quicker. Where and when....I'm not sure.

Some clarification on that would be good. That would have been huge had it raced....despite it sounding terrible.

most certainly so... it would have been quite a show.

[Hairpin]

I don't agree with this, apart from maybe city congestion. People will always like a personal, private vehicle whatever the journey. You'd never be able to ban cars for long journeys. By your standard the concept of the car wasn't modern in the 1890s. It was just a carriage with it's own power source. Anyway, there will always be demand for exciting cars (or personal privare vehicles). The freedom the car brings is something you could never take away from people.

In the beginning the car was a faster alternative to horse and carriage and trains was only an alternative on some routes. It has gone more than a hundred years and only thing that has changed is the quality of the cars and the addition of busses and airplanes. "Freedom" is a relative term and has to be put into the relation of alternatives. Since cars is such a huge economical factor, alternatives has not been sought.

Worldwide it was estimated in 2004 that 1.2 million people were killed (2.2% of all deaths) and 50 million more were injured in motor vehicle collisions.[1][43] This makes motor vehicle collisions the leading cause of death among children worldwide 10 – 19 years old (260,000 children die a year, 10 million are injured)[

Cars is not a sensible transport method. Necessary since alternatives have not been sought, but not sensible.

[PayasYouRace]

In the beginning the car was a faster alternative to horse and carriage and trains was only an alternative on some routes. It has gone more than a hundred years and only thing that has changed is the quality of the cars and the addition of busses and airplanes. "Freedom" is a relative term and has to be put into the relation of alternatives. Since cars is such a huge economical factor, alternatives has not been sought.

Cars is not a sensible transport method. Necessary since alternatives have not been sought, but not sensible.

Why is freedom relative in this context? Shared public transport does not give you freedom to go where you want, wheras a car (or a bike or other personal vehicle) does. That's pretty clear cut. The economic argument is just silly. Of course it's big business, but what alternative is there?

2.2% is not very significant considering the number of people who use roads.

If you don't like cars, don't use them. Don't claim they are a dangerous, old fashioned vehicle and want to ban them because of that.

Edit: Actually I take issue with the bold statement. There's your relative term. I think it is most sensible to have a personal vehicle, in which you can carry ~4 passengers and luggage, and not be constrained to a timetable or the destinations of other people you are not travelling with. That is the freedom of a car.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 28 February 2010 - 16:10.