Has this been done before ? Keeping the optimum motor rpm would certainly increase motor efficiency. I guess the heavy flywheel weights could be a problem, but maybe they could be replace by some other form of automatic spring ?
Has this been done before ? Keeping the optimum motor rpm would certainly increase motor efficiency. I guess the heavy flywheel weights could be a problem, but maybe they could be replace by some other form of automatic spring ?
I think forum member "gwhy" has experience with this.. but I haven't seen him on the forum in a while.. maybe search his posts or try to PM him.. also maybe try a google search of the forum for "cvt"..
I think forum member "gwhy" has experience with this.. but I haven't seen him on the forum in a while.. maybe search his posts or try to PM him.. also maybe try a google search of the forum for "cvt"..
Although you can let the electric motor run in it's most efficient rpm range, the CVT will destroy that efficiency (and then some...) by it's parasitic power consuming belt system.
Although you can let the electric motor run in it's most efficient rpm range, the CVT will destroy that efficiency (and then some...) by it's parasitic power consuming belt system.
By mounting the electric motor direct, without the centrifugal clutch, to the CVT you might gain a little efficiency. But using a DD hub motor with thin laminations or a mid motor with chain will prove to be much more efficient still.
showing one method of using an electric motor driving the input to a CVT (failbrook) with a pedaled input on it's own freewheel.
-the red chain is the transmission output
-the green chain is the motors' input
-the black chain is the pedal input