Jeroen Ottens

Eurobricks Knights
  • Content count

    899
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Jeroen Ottens

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    jeroenottens.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Extra

  • Special Tags 1
    http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/style_images/tags/technic_pro.png
  • Special Tags 2
    http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/style_images/tags/technic_gold.png
  • Special Tags 3
    http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/style_images/tags/technic_gold.png
  • Special Tags 4
    http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/public/style_images/tags/technic_bronze.png
  1. I am not so sure about your ideal setup. If you would have Ackermann on both sides you can make them meet in the middle of the car. But I guess it depends on the handle characteristics whether or not that is the ideal point. Maybe a two-third / one-third ratio between the two axles is better. Or maybe you even need to place the virtual point behind the rear axle, or in front of the frontaxle (the last two are probably only interesting from an entertainment point of view). The point is, you can arbitrarily put it somewhere by changing the geometry of the steeringracks. And none of this solves the question how to deal with the two steeringmodes... Now here you see the issue quite clear. In a car that has both modes the middle wheels of the middel picture are the same the rear wheels of the right picture (the other rear wheels are the virtual ones). And the gear rack is at a different location for both modes. So either you use two gearracks (which also automatically changes the direction of the steering angle). Or you use a straight setup (which effectively gives you a pivot point at an inifinite distance for both crab and counter steering. Right?
  2. Why do you think the gearrack should be in front of the wheels (open question, I don't know the answer myself)? If the steering is in countersteer I can see that they should, but they are in crabsteeringmode I guess they should be on the opposite side, right? So is it best to get no Ackermann on the rearwheels at all instead?
  3. Looking good indeed. I really like the use of the bionicle tooth to lock the angle of the spring, I might want to use that someday A couple of questions: Does the axle above it touch the spring? Or is it still hitting the yellow shaft of the shock? Shouldn't the upper rotation point of the front McPherson suspension not be slightly angled to point to the lower towball in the wheel bearing? Or does the lego has enough play to cope with this? Nice multilink setup in the rear as well Looking forward to next updates
  4. Interesting to see two mechanisms to solve the reverse gear on the same day As for the crab vs countersteering: I am working on something similar for my next commission. I use the mechanism of the Xerion, but instead of a manual switch I use the rotation of the gearselector to drive a gear rack which then drives the position of the linkage. So far it is proving to be quite a challenge though, as I am already at version 7 in LDD and I haven't even started on the bodywork (to compare, I only needed eight digital versions to complete the DB11) Maybe Madoca's Avtoros can also give you some ideas. IIRC that has a nifty solution for the different steering modes as well.
  5. 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.
  6. Massive (as usual)... It is actually a good scale for the pneumatic tubing How did you make the bucket?
  7. Very interesting and ambitious project. I'm certainly looking forward to see this evolve...
  8. No problem, like I wrote, these were just my opinions, so I will hold my tongue next time. It was not my intent to force my worldview upon you, so I'm sorry if I left that impression. LEGO is a medium to express yourself, so stick to what you like
  9. I am on the fence on this one. It is a very smooth looking car, not too crowded to fill gaps, but somehow it doesn't resonate with me. Things that bug me: - beams over flexaxles. In my opinion it doesn't add much in this model. The front wheel arches are too pronounced because of this. The curved line on the side seems to be separate from the roof, which I think is also due to the use of this technique. And the rear wheel arches are disconnected from the body visually. - the colour of the curved line. Since this is such a prominent design feature I would suggest to emphasize this much stronger. For instance by using flat silver flexaxles and connectors to make that curve, that way it will visually pop much more - the front is just off. The central grille is too high, the frontfenders don't mesh with the bonnet, the window is too narrow (I think) and the angles of the airintakes are horizontal instead of slightly slanted. The headlights are superb though, I love those - the gap between the side curve and the bodywork is missing (or at least not visible due to the colour choice). - The underbelly shot. Now here I could be completely wrong, but it looks like there are very few vertical orientated beams connected to the bottom structure. I am a big fan of the form-locked structures (like the one @Didumos69 used in his rugged supercar) and achieving maximum stiffness with the minimal amount of parts. This doesn't look like it is optimized for that. But of course this is just personal taste. This all might sound harsh, but it is just my opinion (and I am quite picky in my taste I'm afraid) and I hope I voiced it in a constructive way. If not, that is all on me. Despite all these points I still think it is one of the better looking models on this forum, so thumbs up for that But I would love to see a model from you that doesn't use beams over flexaxles and is more minimalistic in terms of design.
  10. Somehow I only see 5building1.jpg instead of a picture, did something go wrong, or is it just me?
  11. Very interesting model. I'm curious what your lift generating mechanism is
  12. Knowing what is inside is just mindboggling... Keep up the good work
  13. I made something like that in my BMW 328 Hommage The gear shifter can move side to side to switch between D-N-R. And when it is in D it can move forward and backwards to switch the gears up and down. When in R it is always in the same gear ratio and when in D it has a stop in it to prevent switching from 1 to 4 or vice versa.
  14. Definitely a topic that plucks the heart strings of many on this forum For starters I consider myself a purist. So I will confine myself not only to the parts that LEGO officialy released over the years, but I will also refrain from using parts that are replaced by alternatives (like the toothed angleconnectors). I have won a couple of Sbricks, but so far I haven't used them even though they do have their advantages and I could see how it would improve the performance of my RC models. But somehow I just doesn't feel right for me. But to add some perspective to my standpoint. When I worked at LEGO as Technic designer we were in the transition period to the studless system. I was against this move, since it felt we were leaving the true Technic style and were moving towards more flimsy models with less functionality. I remember that we had a big debate on the V-engine holder . The studless-camp wanted that piece to be studless, whereas the studded-camp wanted to have the studs on top and the anti-studs at the bottom. Needless to say I fought hard to get those (anti)studs on this piece at the element review board. I was working on the Power Puller at the time and having the studs made it much easier to build the engines... It has taken me quite some years before I really started to enjoy working with the studless system. The advent of the 5x7 and 5x11 frames made a huge difference in the rigidity that you could achieve with the studless models. For me that was the turning point and now my perspective has totally changed. I like the studless models much better than the studded models, I like the smoothness, I like the compactness of the gearing that you can cram in and I like the rigidity that you can achieve when everything is properly form-locked in all dimensions. (And I curse myself for fighting for those aggrevatingly annoying antistuds at the bottom on the engine-holder, what a pain in the @$$ these can be in the studless system ) So being a purist is something that is fluid for me. Maybe LEGO Technic will evolve once more, maybe we even are in a transition period where third party elements are becoming the norm (especially for the RC and the lighting). As 3D-printing continuous evolves to higher standards I can even imagine that TLG might want to use that to their advantage by expanding their portfolio with 3rd-party 3D-printed-parts like they do with LEGO Ideas for models. Still, for me the bar is set by TLG. Until the moment they sanction 3D-printing I will not use it. Once they do, I would only use the parts they authorize. Oh, and BTW: We painted, cut and glued a lot of pieces during development
  15. It is looking gorgeous indeed. But I do have the same reservations as @Meatman has on the inner structures. Then again, we all have our buildingstyles and there is no reason to prefer one over the other really. It may feel a bit rushed,but it is amazing what you can come up with in just a month of bodysculpting. So wel done