Ondra

Lego technic challenge 2012

326 posts in this topic

That's nice but what is one going to do with a manually operated crawler?

I personally LOVE Lego Power Functions, but recognize that the use of motors may take away from some of the set's complexity and add A LOT to the price of the set. Let's assume that the Technic Challenge's winning entry must have a maximum Price Point of USD $199.99 (the same price as the current 9398 4x4 Crawler). The 9398's three motors are worth USD $27x2 + $36.39 = $90.39 (45% of the total cost of the set) -- recall that on this Eurobricks post, Crtlego wrote,

"And now that we have some ID numbers; I was able to call Lego from the U.S....

L-Motor (6000564) - $27 - Not Available

Servo-Motor (6000566) - $36.89 - Not Available"

I did not include the cost of the 8881 PF Battery Box (USD $6.99) or the 8884 PF v2 Receiver (USD $14.99), which add an additional $21.98 to the $90.39 cost for the 3 motors. The total cost of "motorizing" the 9398 4x4 Crawler is USD $21.98+$90.39 = USD $112.37 (56% of the total cost of the 9398 set)! *oh2*

Edited by DLuders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DLuders you are right it must be a reasonably priced technic car like in Top Gear :laugh: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DLuders you are right it must be a reasonably priced technic car like in Top Gear :laugh: .

In that case it can not be a vauxhall then..........:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true but what is the point of crawling when you have to crawl it by hand? The kids sure won't have fun with that. Anyways, a set that allows you to add motors would be the same cost as already having them inside; you'll have to buy the motors extra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just silly :laugh:

8110 wasn't RC, does that make it crap? RC is ok but I prefere the set budget to be spent on authenticity anyday. Otherwise you get an RC vehicle the shape of a car, then an RC vehicle the shape of a truck and it gets really boring and really expensive really fast. If I enter i'll be going for authenticity mainly and probably add RC, probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just silly :laugh:

8110 wasn't RC, does that make it crap? RC is ok but I prefere the set budget to be spent on authenticity anyday. Otherwise you get an RC vehicle the shape of a car, then an RC vehicle the shape of a truck and it gets really boring and really expensive really fast. If I enter i'll be going for authenticity mainly and probably add RC, probably not.

Your just silly.............:laugh:

Could we have a crawler backhoe or a crawer harvester?

Something that crawls is something that moves very slowly up slopes and uneven ground.

Edited by Alasdair Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your just silly.............:laugh:

Could we have a crawler backhoe or a crawer harvester?

Something that crawls is something that moves very slowly up slopes and uneven ground.

You really know what I like :laugh: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really know what I like :laugh: .

Do i, the backhoe tickled your fancy did it ? :laugh:

Edited by Alasdair Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just silly :laugh:

8110 wasn't RC, does that make it crap? RC is ok but I prefere the set budget to be spent on authenticity anyday. Otherwise you get an RC vehicle the shape of a car, then an RC vehicle the shape of a truck and it gets really boring and really expensive really fast. If I enter i'll be going for authenticity mainly and probably add RC, probably not.

I wouldn't call 8110 a crawler. More of its fun comes out of it arm while the fun the comes out of a crawler comes out of the crawling. And no one has fun crawling a crawler by hand. I really don't care about the price, as long as it 180 euros and under. Now 8297 is a set that is fun to drive around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that to keep the costs for PF parts down, the ideal crawler would use a combination of M-motors, XL-motors and the AA battery boxes, which means that you'd have to scale down the entire crawler so you're not lugging around too much weight. I may actually try this with some of the 8081 Extreme Cruiser wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great to design a Lego Technic 4x4 Crawler set that has the OPTION of adding Power Functions elements (like the 9396 Helicopter does -- it is labeled "Ready for Power Functions").

I'm thinking about something like that.

I like non-powered Lego cars, I just like to push them around or take them in my hand and steer them.

It's not easy to implement though. You have to make pretty much all the gear-box elements (like the main gearbox, hi/lo selector, portal axles, etc) easily reversible (extremely modular design) to be able to make a model with TLG like PF modding capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting twist to the Lego Technic Competitions of the past. I love the idea of having the winning MOC go into production but, as was previously discussed, there are a number of issues with making that happen. And I'm not sure what to think about this happening so soon after the release of the 9398.. no complaints but certainly strange by Lego standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For inspiration, there are many "4x4 Crawlers" shown in the "Trucks Database" on the BrickTruckTrial.com website. There are different combinations of PF motors and overall sizes/weights of the models.

brtrt3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

playing around with my first chassis prototype, i get a question in my mind. where we should set the priority? turning circle or climbing ability? my first prototype has a very good traction, but the turning circle is lousy because i use no diffs. in the afol point of view the climbing ability is more important, but what would say a kid? sure on the voting will make the optical design the difference, but i think the playability should fit

ok, i could use my G Setup, but this would be massive to expensive .

whats your opinion to this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

playing around with my first chassis prototype, i get a question in my mind. where we should set the priority? turning circle or climbing ability? my first prototype has a very good traction, but the turning circle is lousy because i use no diffs. in the afol point of view the climbing ability is more important, but what would say a kid? sure on the voting will make the optical design the difference, but i think the playability should fit

ok, i could use my G Setup, but this would be massive to expensive .

whats your opinion to this point?

I would say it would need to be equal.And I would agree with some other people that servo motors and m motors are probably not the best thing to use.But rather XL motors and S motors to keep the price down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ efferman: I would say CLIMBING ABILITY is most important. Kids are going to drive the Challenge winning set onto a stack of books. They can "back up" and zig-zag onto the books if necessary. The winning Challenge entry does not need to follow "Trial Truck" rules, where points are deducted from backing up.

You have demonstrated (using the 9398 as a test-bed "mule") the beneficial effects of using Knob Wheels instead of Differentials, larger tires, lighter battery boxes, etc. Those improvements would help make a new Technic 4x4 Crawler set more capable at "crawling"! :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hm, ok then the tires are the limiting factor and i can take a look at the design. but hopefully we get no surprise during reading the rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say you guys... hold your horses, because your efforts may lead you nowhere. :wink:

I haven't started to build either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been 2 years since I donĀ“t stop building, no matter there is challenge or not :laugh: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the winning 2012 Lego Technic Challenge's set designer will be recognized the same way as Erik Brok (an AFOL from The Netherlands) was -- he designed the 10190 Lego Market Street set and the "Lego Factory" box was labelled "Designed by LEGO Fans":

10190-1.jpg

It's probable that the new Technic 4x4 Crawler set will be a "Limited Edition" set, like the 8081 Extreme Cruiser set:

8081-1.jpg

It would be nice if the winning Challenge entry will get special name treatment, like Adam Reed Tucker gets in the LEGO Architecture theme -- his name is printed right on the box: __Awesome_Emoticon____Eyefall__by_n3cr0fear.gif

21010-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don,t understand why LEGO wants the contest to be about building a Crawler when they just released their own. Maybe they want to see if the people can do better then they did, but still makes no sence. I think something else in the grand sceam of things would have been better, and still theres the dead line. The posabilities are endless, I think you guys hit on a lot of good ideas. This as I said earlier, is gonna be fun to watch as time goes bye.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that we should all strive to use as many blue and lime green parts as possible. It'd make the set very valuable on the second-hand market and possibly bump up sales for TLG, simply because it'd a bonanza of rare-colored parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of Lego Technic 4x4 would attract votes? Assuming that the rules for the 2012 Lego Technic Challenge will allow previously-submitted MOCs, let's look at this Lego CUUSOO entry.

Sheepo's Land Rover Defender 110 (currently at 4,973 votes on Lego Cuusoo) -- "It is made is 1:8.4 scale, the final size is 65x28x29 studs. The total weight is 3.1kg. The max speed is 4kph(2.5mph)....It is 100% radiocontrolled by PF, and it has advanced features, as:

- 5+R speeds secuential gearbox with auto clutch

- 2-speeds transfer case

- RWD and AWD modes

- All wheels disc brakes

It has both live axles with long-travel suspension....Complete interior with working steering wheel and speed indicator....Also you can remove the bodywork in one-piece removing only 4 pins....

You can see a complete video showing all features here:

Finally you can find more info about this creation here: http://www.sheepo.es/2012/05/land-rover-defender-110.html ."

thumb640x360.jpg

IF the Challenge rules will allow it, it is useful to have these links provided for separate page (Sheepo's website), a YouTube video to show its functions, etc. There is far more to see than the TINY photograph in past Lego Technic competitions.

Below is Sheepo's LegendaryStorm T4 (the 2011 AFOL Winner) -- it has only this single, small composite photo and this short description: "Based on a very famous real car,this MOC has around 3500 parts,AWD and,as outstanding features controlled by PF:working 7+R speeds dual clutch gearbox with friction clutches,disc brakes with rear lights,folding roof and spoiler,progressive rear lights,folding roof and spoiler,progressive " [text was cut off due to a lack of space in TLG's webpage] :sad: :

picB47F6C15135FC3AC5B63428257A114D5.jpg

SO, if TLG is watching this, recommend that the 2012 Lego Technic Challenge have the same webpage style as the Lego CUUSOO webpages -- DETAILS, MANY BIG PHOTOS, AND LINKS garner the votes and support! :thumbup:

Edited by DLuders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.