[WIP] project C.O.R.E.

[agrof]

Hello All,

I am working on a new MOC, which for I am experimenting a lot with unusual pieces in Technic. To achieve their proper implementation into the Technic world, I am at crossroad now: wether to build illegal (tiny stress) or find a legal solution. I prefer the illegal version in look and strength point of view - I can deal with slight bend of the connected parts, but of course a legal solution would be nice - I have 2 for now, but they just look to messy, and 1 of them is weak too (only rubber connection). 

Lime 15L beams on the RIGHT is the illegal, the others on the LEFT are legal, only 2L axles missing from rubber connectors (marked with pink):

Hereby I would like to ask the community for brainstorming, parameters to follow:

• All red parts must be on place - no possibilities to move.
• Axles in the frame pieces to be rotate freely.
• All red parts must be fixed horizontally and vertically too, rigid connection needed.
• Must be buildable in reality too. 
• The solution must look clean, visible part of the MOC.

HERE You can find the LDD file - some parts will be dropped at open, as it was made in Developer Mode, please refer to the picture above.

I hope You will find interesting this problem solving, I am open for any ideas. Thanks for everybody in advance! 

Edited May 20, 2017 by agrof

[Erik Leppen]

I don't understand what you're trying to do. What kind of unit is it you're building (not the whole thing, just this section/module)? Should the black parts rotate? The lime beams won't make it so. Slide? Is it some kind of suspension? What are the lime beams for? What would the "illegal" connection (in your opinion) be? What are the rubber parts for? Should the red parts at the ends (with the #3 angle connectors) move, rotate, or be still?

[agrof]

It is a segment of the whole build. Red assemblies: no touch, no rotate, fix in space.

All other parts can be deleted, replaced, whatever. Goal is, to connect the red assemblies (2x sides and middle one) together in a rigid and clean way. The lime beams do that, but it is an illegal connection, as they pull the side red assemblies inwards in real life, which will cause stress in the whole structure. If You check the picture closely, You can observe the black pins are in conflict with the ends of the lime beam.

I hope this makes the task clear.

Edited May 18, 2017 by agrof

[Lipko]

Not the slightest offset of the red parts is allowed?

Do the red things of the sides have to endure pulling or pulling or both?

Edited May 18, 2017 by Lipko

[Didumos69]

Can you express the offset in terms of studs, e.g. 0.3 studs?

[agrof]

I could live with slight offset (this for is the solution the lime beams), but I would like to give a try to find a proper legal solution. So, no, the sides with the angle 3 connectors may not endure pulling. EDIT: I misunderstood it sorry, the sides must be strong, the model must be able to lift it by it, so yes, must endure pulling and pushing.

I tried replace the Nr3 connectors with these parts  already, of course it works, but I don't like the visual outcome at all, see below a comparison picture. Lime beams represent the illegal connection here too.

To make it more understandable, it will be a monocoque frame for a concept car. The gap to bridge is maybe 0,25-0,3 studs.

Edited May 18, 2017 by agrof

[Lipko]

Beams positioned at an angle (holes upwards, connected to the frames)?

Edited May 18, 2017 by Lipko

[Didumos69]

14 minutes ago, Lipko said:

Beams positioned at an angle (holes upwards, connected to the frames)?

The same with bent beams.

Or secure the outer red assemblies vertically! like you did in the version with rubber bands and replace the rubber bands, and black parts between them, with bent liftarms with holes oriented like the rubber bands to secure the outer assemblies horizontally.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Didumos69

[Didumos69]

Something like this:

[agrof]

Thanks Guys for the prompt support! I tried some versions, but there is always a minor offset.

@Didumos69 Might be something, I will look into that, thanks! 

HERE is an extended LDD file for more creative freedom. Shown parts to be connected:

Edited May 18, 2017 by agrof

[Erik Leppen]

I don't have LDD, so I don't know the exact offset, but the solution by @Didumos69 gave me an idea:

I tried to look for a solution that gave an unusual horizontal offset, with the vertical offset still in system. This solution looks simple and strong, so I hope you can do something with it. I didn't work out the connectivity further, the essence is that triangle.

If the offset is not correct, maybe you can lengthen the yellow beams from 3L to 4L to change the offset, or even to 2.5L by using cams on bars.

[agrof]

Great, thanks Erik! I will test it as well.

Meanwhile I made up THIS, could also work, pity I don't have all the parts yet to test. What do You  think Gentlemen? It relies more on part-blocking-part, and not on connectors, but at least it fits into the concept visually.

EDIT:

Framework welding is ready, I think I should give a try for this solution on live build. I guess I should turn this topic into WIP now... 

Edited May 18, 2017 by agrof

[agrof]

So, let's make a follow-up for this build. 

A bit background story of this project. I have 42000 wheels laying around for years, and really wanted to use them somehow. I also wanted to give try to build a concept car, but in a very purist way, focusing on joy of driving. This is the reason of the topic name: C.D.E. = Concept of Driving Essence.

This will be a lightweight one person fun machine, not focusing on usual supercar features, rather testing conceptual designs together. What is planned:

• Monocoque frame - done
• 4 wheel drive / 2  wheel drive with gearbox - 50%
• 4 wheel steering / 2 wheel steering with gearbox - 50%
• Manual
• Modular build - done... yet
• No normal gearbox planned

Don't expect beautiful curves, spoilers, high speed, it will be a tool, or better phrased: a go-kart on steroids.  I built a lightweight V4 engine for it, planned to be placed behind the seat. Suspension is easy to adjust - also in strength and also in height. We will see how it works in real life (I expect reaching the finish line in summer or end of summer).

Here is the start, first I wanted to place the engine on the right side, and the driver on the left side, but the curved framework grew on me, so I decided to go on that way.

This is the actual status:

And the result of today's brainstorming, the new monocoque frame:

Let's cross the fingers, that everything will work. Every suggestions are welcome!

Edited May 20, 2017 by agrof

[Didumos69]

I like @Erik Leppen's approach better. It fits perfectly. I made a version that is form-locked. A bit overkill probably, but you could leave some parts out.

Cool project !

Edited May 19, 2017 by Didumos69

[Jeroen Ottens]

Ooh... that frame

Especially the outside just looks beautiful...

Is there a reason why you put the 5x11 frames in the centre 'sideways'? You now need the extra 16L axles with pinholes to keep it all together. If you would orient the frames in the length direction of the car you can use beams to cross the length of the frame.
The solution you found for the slight offset will fit, but since it the 2L beam has some freedom to rotate in practice it will not add a lot of stiffness. If you push vertically on the frame this little beam will rotate and the whole structure will flex I think.

[Hay Ewe]

to me its quite simple

if a pin or axle does not slide through with no resistance - it is under stress and there fore illegal.

If you or your mechanic were working on your car that you need to have to drive to work and you had to repeatedly hit a bolt to make it fit - is that right?

If the bolt doesnt fit easily and properly, something is wrong.

Lego is no different.

 

[agrof]

8 minutes ago, Jeroen Ottens said:

Is there a reason why you put the 5x11 frames in the centre 'sideways'? You now need the extra 16L axles with pinholes to keep it all together. If you would orient the frames in the length direction of the car you can use beams to cross the length of the frame.
The solution you found for the slight offset will fit, but since it the 2L beam has some freedom to rotate in practice it will not add a lot of stiffness. If you push vertically on the frame this little beam will rotate and the whole structure will flex I think.

Glad You like it!

I need the space for the drivetrain axles in 5L width. My plan is to use center differentials and the force distribution happens on each side (left and right), instead of usual mid-axle diffs. You might ask why? Because it is a concept. 

Yepp, the stiffness must be tested in real life, till I get the required parts, I will leave like that, as it fits visually perfect.

6 minutes ago, Hay Ewe said:

If the bolt doesnt fit easily and properly, something is wrong.

Lego is no different.

Thanks for the perspective, I think the same here. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by agrof

[offroadcreations]

Oh wow, this looks really cool. I can't wait to see this done and I plan on following it. I just want to suggest: add a little more detail on the front. Most cars like this have a more aggressive front, while the one on yours is flat. When I first saw the sides I thought of the Ariel Atom, so maybe you could get inspiration from it? But IMO if you are going for a concept-car look, the front as you have it looks perfect.

[agrof]

On 2017. 05. 18. at 11:34 PM, Didumos69 said:

I like @Erik Leppen's approach better. It fits perfectly. I made a version that is form-locked. A bit overkill probably, but you could leave some parts out.

Cool project !

I forgot to comment this. Thanks again @Erik Leppen and @Didumos69 for thinking with, I really appreciate! This solution offers the perfect rigidity, I will keep that as Plan B for sure!

@Offroadcreat1ons Correct, Ariel is definitely inspiration for this, and also this toy here:

Found another version for the connection problem, This is 100% legal, there will be some flex, but I think it is a nice compromise for look and rigidity. 2 rubber connectors between the middle frame and the lower "tubes". Downwards the upper "tubes" help to block the movement, upwards the rubber itself compresses to limit.

Edited May 20, 2017 by agrof
added idea

[letsbuild]

3 hours ago, agrof said:

Found another version for the connection problem, This is 100% legal, there will be some flex, but I think it is a nice compromise for look and rigidity. 2 rubber connectors between the middle frame and the lower "tubes". Downwards the upper "tubes" help to block the movement, upwards the rubber itself compresses to limit.

:snip:

Yes, but the parts can slide apart quite easily, a problem you will encounter once you build it physically.

[Saberwing40k]

5 hours ago, Hay Ewe said:

 

If the bolt doesnt fit easily and properly, something is wrong.

 

 

Oh please. Have you actually worked on a car, or for that matter, a bicycle? I cannot count the number of times I have needed a hammer to get things to fit correctly, but I digress. Or, watch a video of a mining excavator being assembled. The pins that hold the arm together are like 15cm thick, and require much hammering to go in.

But, I'm not going to derail this thread too much. Have you ever considered looking at this frame from the other end? As in, you currently have the frame in the middle being a weird number of studs wide, but what if you changed the mountings at the ends of the frames?

[agrof]

For discussing legal and illegal build, please go to "Purism" topic, thanks.

1 hour ago, Saberwing40k said:

But, I'm not going to derail this thread too much. Have you ever considered looking at this frame from the other end? As in, you currently have the frame in the middle being a weird number of studs wide, but what if you changed the mountings at the ends of the frames?

Yes, I checked that, due tu the angle, this issue is always there.

 

3 hours ago, letsbuild said:

Yes, but the parts can slide apart quite easily, a problem you will encounter once you build it physically.

On the other hand, You need to consider the sides as rigid pieces, fixed quite well on both ends. Also as the connections are in angle in the middle in each way, the forces which occure, are divided into X, Y and Z directions. Considering the torsion and friction of the pieces, probably You can separate with effort, but my guess is, that the frame will not fall apart that easily. We will see...

[Didumos69]

8 hours ago, agrof said:

Found another version for the connection problem, This is 100% legal, there will be some flex, but I think it is a nice compromise for look and rigidity. 2 rubber connectors between the middle frame and the lower "tubes". Downwards the upper "tubes" help to block the movement, upwards the rubber itself compresses to limit.

I still have some doubt. When the chassis or model is finished, you probably want to feel the suspension by pressing the sides of the chassis, at least that is what I do to test the overall rigidity. That would require the side structures to be firmly embedded in the rest of the chassis. But I guess you will only know when you start building this beauty in real life. Btw, my experience is that it's better to start building early. LDD is a perfect tool to think ahead, but not to build an entire model. I've made that mistake once.

Spoiler

I've updated my version slightly. The 7L beam that locks the connecting structure is 'in grid' with the chassis-floor and could be used to connect things to later on. It could even be extended to 15L.

Edited May 19, 2017 by Didumos69

[agrof]

Sure it must be tested, I also build in LDD and also in real life paralell. For now I trust in my experiences, and also collecting by digital design the pieces I need to order (saving post). I made some improvement, now the rubber connectors are connected to a kind of torsion bars along the sides of the bottom 5x11 frames assembly. These end on both sides with 2L friction pins - thus increase the resistance for rotation.

Let's make it open source, though I reserve the rights to control the design. 

HERE is the V1 file, equipped with Tumbler tires for scale. Some pins can not be placed for some reason, but I am sure they must fit. The build is very symmetrical, axles are almost identical. Drivetrain and differential is still a sketch, I will model the engine next. Modules are groupped for easier handling.

Edited May 20, 2017 by agrof

[Hay Ewe]

9 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

Oh please. Have you actually worked on a car, or for that matter, a bicycle? I cannot count the number of times I have needed a hammer to get things to fit correctly, but I digress. Or, watch a video of a mining excavator being assembled. The pins that hold the arm together are like 15cm thick, and require much hammering to go in.

But, I'm not going to derail this thread too much. Have you ever considered looking at this frame from the other end? As in, you currently have the frame in the middle being a weird number of studs wide, but what if you changed the mountings at the ends of the frames?

Yes. Often. I maintain my own vehicle (Land Rover) I build my mountain bikes and race them and work on aircraft, Fixed wing and Helicopters. I grew up on a farm where we did all our own maintenance.

There is a difference between needing a hammer to get things to fit correctly and using a hammer to install a pin to an arm as you suggest.

Lego is a modular system where the items are designed to fit together in a certain geometric mathematical way. If that pin doesnt slide in directly, its wrong.

I have posted and read the purist thread and do agree with that, however, this first posts in this thread asked about fitting and install pins with difficulty. I feel that this post is valid in this thread.

Whilst have only been registered on this forum for a short period I see that there are many different thoughts and feelings about connecting parts of Lego to other parts. It is an interesting place.