The first one is just not a cvt... a nice compact gearbox, but not a cvt... The second one is pretty smart and I wonder how it would behave under load. I've already tried the third one wich is by far the nicest design (in my opinion) but unfortunately it doesn't accept mutch load...
@@TheDocLamkin the third one uses the same kind of mecanism that you can find in the "NuVinci" hub, a cvt hub for bikes... I'm not aware of any other use of this mecanism in the industry but there might be, if ever you find some other exemples let me know.
i have built a gearbox-less lego rc car that goes about 20 mph using purely legos no glue, no tape, no 3d printed/metal legos.. what i notice is the wear and tear of driving the car on cement at such speeds... The tires are blading, the servo motors die (even lego official servo motors), and parts constantly wear out and need to be replaced... i am working to upgrade to buwizz 3.0 take advantage of the new steering system my conclusion is some lego pieces especially the gears are not rigid enough to constantly handle 2000 RPMs for extended duration and even if you can come up with a design that can handle such a load the lego pieces usually melt under the friction caused by 4 buggy motors maintain 2000 RPMs my 2 cents..
Ill add more details from what i remeber. Also, very nice build! they used an overdrive and reduction system on either end of the transmission. The input gears utilized a clover shaped gear profile to even out the rotation speed, as you can see it does not rotate at EXACTLY the same RPM as it spins. I believe it worked, but in bike racing, efficiency is better than a infinite ratios and it added weight and drag relative to the unbeatable efficiency of a chain drive.
Honda developed a DH mountain bike in the early 2000s with the second transmission. The intricacies it required to work are fascinating to examine. Ultimately they swapped it for a derailleur in a can. I have a mtb Action magazine somewhere that has a super detailed article and technical drawings of it. I believe they invented it but I could be very wrong
Variante 2 ist im Prinzip das stufenlose Getriebe einer Sämaschine. Dort aber mit feinen Freiläufen ist es sehr genau einstellbar. Aber nicht zu dolle belasten darf man sie nicht! Hier aber zum Zeigen gut umgesetzt. 👍
First one is not a CVT. Second would introduce way too much vibration and gears would wear (lose teeth) very quickly under load. Third bases on friction - similar as 'real' chain driven CVTsm, but in this example there is a lot of energy loses due to not perpendicular vectors.
The point of contact on the ball to the rubber wheel changes. When that point of contact changes so does the distance for the ball to make one rotation.
As said above, it isn't that great when transmitting torque, which is also the reason why I use 2 balls instead of one. Depending on the usecase it might be smarter to use a different cvt
Nicenbut not under load. The real cvt is a double dif,combined with 2 kinds of gears,I prefer 48x24, With resistance,it keeps turning cause of the difs,you can't stop it by hand. These are experimental. Nice to the eye,but no practical use.
What you're describing sounds like an automatic transmission, not a cvt... #3 definitely has slip problems, but #1 and #2 can prolly even take more load than a Lego differential (which is pretty fragile)
