I dont know why, but that car was much nicer to drive and felt much less strangled back when it had 6 gears (back in the old old old demo), and i think it would be nice to have them back.
I know when I jump back into demo and run the turbo, I'm always grabbing for 6th gear on the back stretch. I never ran that car much before S2 licensing, so I just figure I'm use to the FZR that I normally drive. But I agree, it should just stay at a 5 speed for realism as I don't think it would have 6th in real life. (Do they still make the Starion, we had something similar in the States in the 80's, the Dodge Conquest, was it? Mitsubishi makes most of the motors in the small Dodge/Chrysler cars nowadays).
then you'd just have to got the RB4 a 6th gear, and the FXO its 6th gear back too.. its not like you need the torque imo? car has enough already.. just about all the cars in LFS have plenty of torque, another gear wont do much good, remember back this time last year when all the fast guys (.. team ocrana lol) just got rid of the 6th gear and raced with only 5 or 4 depending on the track? it makes no difference, a car can have 20 gears.. what good does that do though? absolutely none (unless its like a semi and it has to pull a few thousand tons) but other than that... gears are just used to increase torque, it wont help any with your speed
wrong, it was @ the time were science has had a GOOOOOOOD idea.
it was a gearbox with one gear that dynamicly adjusted to the needs of the drivers style.
means you can ride @ powerlimits or economic limits.
was testet in a yellow f1 car (sorry for fuzzy explaination) around 1965-70
and was NOT approved by the times- FIA.
Cause the car was able to travel much faster due to not loosing acceleration during shifts and keeping the engine @ the optimium power output.
instead of letting the best parts pass by the gears (revv up), like todays cars.
but there is a silver lining, don't want to lie but i guess it was Audi wich actually has a car (prototype) with just such a gearbox, but have major torque-transition problems (it's always breaking up)
don't really see how 6th would help it much myself. more gears are more useful in cars where the power output is quite peaky. road cars particularly have broad power curves and slow gear changes... gears are great for 'real life' driving, for economical cruising...
Hmm I'm no expert but if it is it doesn't behave like one, although there's a good few types I'm sure, and the only car I've ever driven with one was a Honda Jazz. It behaves as you'd expect from the name, with a continuously varying transmission erm ratio I guess I'd call it. Don't like it anyway
Back to topic though. For some reason gearshifts are fairly costly in terms of lost time, in the road cars. I doubt there's many tracks where an extra gear would save you any time. Good way to test is to set a long 1st to use as you would use 2nd atm and squashing 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th closer together. This will give the effect of a 6 gear box in which 1st is only used to start (as it is with the 5 speed gear ratios most use atm).
I've driven a Rover with one and basically no, you get no changes, they use some system of belts and cones that changes the ratio without changing gear, in reality it's just like driving an automatic and it's a system (also found in sit on lawn mowers) that could not take the strains racing would put on it.
As for the XRT I feel it should be left as a 5 speed. If it was set as a none adjustable 6 speed box that would be a good compromise, but a fully adjustable 5 speed, let alone 6 speed box in a road car is just stupid.
I've driver a Lancia Y10 CVT, and yeah it's pulleys and cones to give a continuously variable ratio. But it's horrid. The car revs up to about 3000rpm then goes without a change of engine revs...
Modern CVT's combine this with some tomfoolery to allow fixed ratios on the cone, so giving the effect of manual gearing for sporty occasions.
As far as a know, CVTs are what they say they are. Continuously variable.
They are virtually unlimited in ratios. I believe the 'fixed-ratio' CVTs are
simply a way to help 'regular' people accept a transmission that is nothing
like our present transmissions. The engine sound with an 'ideal' CVT would
never change (or very little) and people would find it extremely weird not
to hear the engine go up/down as it's always done. It's a dummy patch
imo. By programming fixed ratios, people get the best of both world, it
feels like a normal transmission, but it can change map to a short ratio
or tall ratio without ever needing to be opened or anything. A simple
program could make it any transmission you want, with as many gear
ratios as you want.
I don't want to rain on your parade, but according to this site,
Leonardo da Vinci conceptualized it more than 500 years ago ...
I don't think he was a Dutchman, was he ?!
Both the Mitsubishi Starion and Chrysler Conquest were sold in the U.S. in Turbo and Nonturbo versions. They're pretty hard to come to come by though, I've been wanting one for a long time, but I can't seem to find one for sale.
I think the RB4 should get a 6th gear to help counter the fact that it is by far the heaviest of the TBO cars... but I'm not sure if that is really realistic, looking at which road car it closely resembles (the mitsubishi eclipse IMO). It would definately make a differnece in that because of the low-ish torque-mass ratio.
whats so horrid about it ? (except the car itself of course) it the best way to give a car with little torque some acceleration (as the system is inherently limited to engines with low torque output)
It was just horrid to drive because of the differences between a normal 'box and the CVT. Not having the engine note change, nor having engine braking of any meaningful nature, as well as being 'geared' not for performance but for economy (the ratio change rate is not configured for maximum tractive effort when you want it), meant that the car was totally soulless. The standard Y10 was actually a hoot to drive in many ways. Passive rear steer, light weight, and tyres that weren't excessively wide like the majority of modern shopping trolleys meant you could actually get out smiling. The only other FWD cars that made me smile was a 205 and a Fiat Barchetta...
Saturn and Honda have a few cars with CVT's as well. Originally I thought not hearing a note-change, from going up/down gears would be horrible, but you get used to it. (my 4-wheeler is also a CVT) Being daily-drivers they tend to make CVT's with a few differnet ranges.. economic, medium and sport. Completely different than the norm, but an interesting concept/design just the same, and I've found some to be quite fun when in "sport" mode. That reminds me, haha.. My friends friend bought a new Saturn a few years ago and she thought there was somthing horribly wrong with how "it wasn't shifting". I dunno if the salesman educate her at all about it's tranny, or she just spaced it out or what, but I thought it funny anyways, haha. I think she actually got rid of that car because she thought somthing was wrong with it. Back on topic though, I say leave it with 5 years, it's got plenty of torque.
I guess XRT and FXO had their 6th gears removed in attempt to make the TBO class more balanced (and more realistic if you want). Now the RB4 is closer in theory, but I think it's the drivetrain loss that makes it so slow compared to it's 2WD rivals. Giving one more gear (or more power ) to RB4 could help a bit.
Back on topic though, I say leave it with 5 years, it's got plenty of torque.
) to RB4 could help a bit.