Talk:Continuously variable transmission
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Continuously variable transmission article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Placeholder section edit
New topics will go below this one. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
On the section for epicyclic CVT's ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission#Epicyclic ) the description refers to friction discs and then indicates the Prius E-CVT as an example. The E-CVT is epicyclic but uses differential input from multiple motors to produce ratio variability. There is not a friction component. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.110.26 (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hydrostatic drives are not just for small "lawn mower" applications edit
Hydrostatic drives are used on quite large earthmoving equipment , notably large bulldozers. Here is an example of a 770HP drive https://www.mobilehydraulictips.com/fluid-power-drives-mega-dozer/ . The section should be reworded slightly to note that hydrostatic transmissions are very efficient at all power levels. Salbayeng (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why hydraulic systems are wrongly referred to as hydrostatic ? edit
In a hydrostatic system the fluid does not move, it is static = not move. All hydraulic power transmission systems rely on fluid movement and are therefore hydrodynamic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.0.161 (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yeah this is an annoying terminology thing that differentiates between transmissions using positive-displacement_pumps and rotodynamic pumps, the terminology is ingrained now but I'll add mention of the discrepancy to the section since it does seem a bit dumb otherwise. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion edit
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Buick Twin and Triple Turbine Dynaflow edit
Should there be a section on Buick Twin Turbine (53-63) and Triple Turbine (57-59) transmissions ? These transmissions are often referred to as 2 (twin turbine) or 3 (triple turbine) speed automatics, but they were not actually shifting when in Drive, instead having a continuously varied overall reduction ratio resulting from the relative speeds of 2 or 3 turbines in the torque converter, each driving different inputs of an epicyclic geartrain.
In particular, the Triple Turbine variant and its close cousin at Chevrolet, the Turboglide, didn't even have a Low gear setting, and could offer reduction from 4.5-4.7:1 up to 1:1 seamlessly without shifting. They were hydraulic CVTs, but not of the "hydrostatic" nature. Clarrieu (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)