[TC9] Sun Speeder/Sun Stinger

[Appie]

Because sets that use a part designed to bend and a Unimog that uses the 1-2mm tolerance of lift arms is the same as twisting a part not designed to twist? Give me a set that twists an axle and I'll back off.

I like looking for the limits of building as well, but draw a line at something that is twisting a part not designed to twist. And my Lego does last forever, because Lego doesn't teach kids to dumb stuff like this with their axles.

And again the whole suspension is easy to do in another way. I thought of another idea yesterday as well involving rubber parts (1x2 with axle holes) to fit in the 3 studs height. Which is a part, unlike an axle, designed to bend. But keep using illegal techniques instead of thinking of ways to avoid them. Like you said, to each their own.

[Sylvian]

It's a great way for kids to break their axles you mean? A lot of stuff people call illegal I think they are overreacting too, but bending axles is not what Lego would do for the simple reason that kids would bent them too far, thus breaking the axles. This is exactly why you will never see this in an official set. That an AFOL knows the limits and can call it torsion suspension does not make it any less illegal, especially since a legal method fits perfectly in the model as I described in my previous post.

Because sets that use a part designed to bend and a Unimog that uses the 1-2mm tolerance of lift arms is the same as twisting a part not designed to twist? Give me a set that twists an axle and I'll back off.

I like looking for the limits of building as well, but draw a line at something that is twisting a part not designed to twist. And my Lego does last forever, because Lego doesn't teach kids to dumb stuff like this with their axles.

And again the whole suspension is easy to do in another way. I thought of another idea yesterday as well involving rubber parts (1x2 with axle holes) to fit in the 3 studs height. Which is a part, unlike an axle, designed to bend. But keep using illegal techniques instead of thinking of ways to avoid them. Like you said, to each their own.

Well,.. in essence there is nothing illegal about the way Busterhaus has put things together. Imo,. Anyways,.. i still like the concept and i dont see Busterhaus's construction permanently twisting axles,.. creating a 'legal' Non dif crawler with two xl motors is more likely to twist axles..

As for dumb stuff,.. I learned alot doing dumb stuff ;) (which is completely beside the point,. I know)

Anyhow, i really like the design of the car and the gullwing doors,.. and how it gives us a little peak at the engine when their closed,.. like a proper bit of cleavage would :P,.

But that steering,... cant you just make it a stick of joy? Wouldnt consider it a concession in any way.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Sylvian

[Appie]

Of course it won't permanently twist axles, he's an AFOL, but put this construction in any of the sets he linked with the F1 suspension arms and Lego will be looking forward to alot of angry emails.

And again, I can't stress this enough: another solution that is more Lego and kid friendly is very easy to do.

And the model looks cool, I agree, but I can't vote for a model with such an obvious illegal technique that is so easy to fix.

[BusterHaus]

Give me a set that twists an axle and I'll back off.

Appie, what do you think happens when you use an axle to transfer power? It has torsion stress applied to it, and the resistance to the torsion is what transfers the power. The only thing that changes is by how much an axle twists - hand operated models are more likely to have less torque being applied to an axle than axles hooked up to PF motors. Almost every official Technic set has a function that transfers torque through an axle.

There is nothing illegal about using axles to transfer torque, it is what axles are made for. What Lego avoids is applying too much torque to axles, which is perfectly normal. The axles are also designed to accept a certain amount of torsion without deforming or snapping. Lego expects them to twist a bit.

Edited January 6, 2016 by BusterHaus

[Appie]

What Lego avoids is applying too much torque to axles, which is perfectly normal.

Which I think this model does. Not in your hands, but in the hands of a kid? Yup, or do you seriously think they are only going to be pushing that "suspension" only while the model is on the ground so that it will touch the ground before it twists the axle too far? People come in this topic and claim it should be an official set, while it fails the first criteria for an official set.... (and thus failing one of the guidelines for this contest: "make it as official as possible")

But Appie, my whole story about normal use of axles in Technic sets! Yup, but they never have to endure the abuse that a kid can put on this suspension and if an axle in normal use in an official set does have too much torque applied to it the design team goes back to the drawing board.

[BusterHaus]

Which I think this model does. Not in your hands, but in the hands of a kid? Yup, or do you seriously think they are only going to be pushing that "suspension" only while the model is on the ground so that it will touch the ground before it twists the axle too far? People come in this topic and claim it should be an official set, while it fails the first criteria for an official set.... (and thus failing one of the guidelines for this contest: "make it as official as possible")

But Appie, my whole story about normal use of axles in Technic sets! Yup, but they never have to endure the abuse that a kid can put on this suspension and if an axle in normal use in an official set does have too much torque applied to it the design team goes back to the drawing board.

Seeing as neither of us have done a finite element analysis to find the breaking point of this model, your argument is completely moot. Even of we did have this information, you are speculating as to what TLG considers as acceptable limits.

Since you are basing your whole argument on information that is unavailable to either of us, this discussion should stop here. You made your points, I made mine, let's keep the contest fun.

[Appie]

Considering Lego has never used this type of suspension in 40 years I think we are well beyond the point of speculating. In fact it's more likely that one of the reason they made the F1 suspension arms and used them in all the models you linked was to provide an alternative to this type of suspension with less risk of breaking parts. The only thing stopping a kid from turning your suspension about 60 degrees is that flimsy cockpit made of connectors and soft axles. But whatever man. Just tried to help make your model more kid friendly and thus more Lego-like. You don't want the advice? Fine. Good luck in the contest.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Appie

[flyboy01]

Considering Lego has never used this type of suspension in 40 years I think we are well beyond the point of speculating. In fact it's more likely that one of the reason they made the F1 suspension arms and used them in all the models you linked was to provide an alternative to this type of suspension with less risk of breaking parts. The only thing stopping a kid from turning your suspension about 60 degrees is that flimsy cockpit made of connectors and soft axles. But whatever man. Just tried to help make your model more kid friendly and thus more Lego-like. You don't want the advice? Fine. Good luck in the contest.

ok, we get the point. any more and thats just being a pain. im sure he is rethinking/redesigning his front suspension.

[BusterHaus]

Tonight I decided to test the front suspension to its limits by applying as much force to it as possible (you can see my fingers shaking from strain in the video).

So far, I had only tested it on a table, with the travel being limited by the chassis.

I told myself that if the suspension busted apart, if parts broke, popped out or separated, if the axles got twisted and the suspension wasn't returning to its original position, it would need a redesign. If it held, it would stay, as it passed Appie's Kid Test.

Here are the results:

[Vectormatic]

Good test!

I might be seeing things, but i feel like after the first few depresses on the glass-stand, the suspension is sitting ever so slightly lower then it would by the weight of the car itself, maybe just one or two degrees, your thoughts?

Anyway, i need to check out this technique myself, even if a few axles end up getting twisted, its not like those are rare or expensive, so as long as it leads to a durable design, its all good.

[JamesJT]

I wasn't bothered about you using axels for the front suspension until I saw the video. I imagine those axels twisting and it makes me cringe, I couldn't watch the whole clip.

[Samer]

Cool and clean vehicle. As good as an official set.

[ludov]

I wasn't bothered about you using axels for the front suspension until I saw the video. I imagine those axels twisting and it makes me cringe, I couldn't watch the whole clip.

+1

I wouldn't have used the technique myself, but I liked the engineering that went into it under the assumption that the deformation of the axles was very limited. But this made me also cringe.

However, to each his own. If BusterHaus is comfortable with this, then he should go ahead by all means, and not let others influence his opinion. It might cost him some votes in the contest, or he might gain some by all the attention his model is getting

[BusterHaus]

Good test!

I might be seeing things, but i feel like after the first few depresses on the glass-stand, the suspension is sitting ever so slightly lower then it would by the weight of the car itself, maybe just one or two degrees, your thoughts?

If it is, I haven't noticed it. I know that it is naturally "compressed" by a degree or two because of the weight of the car. This is why I lifted and reset the front at the beginning of the video - it shows the natural state of the suspension.

I wasn't bothered about you using axels for the front suspension until I saw the video. I imagine those axels twisting and it makes me cringe, I couldn't watch the whole clip.

Running the test made me feel the same way. I don't like stressing bricks this much, but I was hoping to put to bed the "controversy" this suspension generated. The good news is that nothing got damaged or deformed.

[Appie]

Good test

Still wouldn't use it myself, but at least it can take a kid's abuse.

[Thirdwigg]

I used the torsion setup for my Octan F1. I works great, and I support your use of it in this car. It's the perfect application.

[winterhur1]

cool vehicle.very nice.

[Vectormatic]

I used the torsion setup for my Octan F1. I works great, and I support your use of it in this car. It's the perfect application.

That is a cool little car, the wheels look a tad big, but overall very very good, and im a sucker for octan liveries (my ongoing 42039 project also added in a lot of red for a proper Octan livery)

[Kumbbl]

Good test

Still wouldn't use it myself, but at least it can take a kid's abuse.

No, it's not a good test brcause it always only test it in suspension behavior, ie very short lasting. Abuse would be putting a weight onto the car during full stress travel and putting it for a long time eg 2 hours. And see if sonething get damaged. This would be a real stress tests. And this would ne a real kids test believe me ;-)

From an afol engineering point i say this is a real out of the box thinking solution, very well done!

And if there would not be this rule "make it as official..." then i would vote for it for sure. But so im 100% convinced that Lego would never do this in a set. Reason see above MY test scenario.

But: why not writing a short email to Markus kossman about this question?!

Just my 2ct

Ps. Cool model busterhouse! Good Engineering too!

[Lipko]

Awesome model apart from the steering wheel.

And the discussion turned into a interesting one. I agree and don't agree with Appie the same time. For example that rubber part is anything but good for suspension. It was designed for deformation, but it deforms permanently even under relative low stress and it has hysteresis, so I would never use in it a suspension that is played with. Busherhaus' suspension looks much more endurable than a rubber suspension would look.

But I'm very curious how far would TLG would go with durability, I almost started a thread about it. For example, do they have drop tests? My newest supercar fell from about 1.5 m on its rear and a thin liftarm broke (apart from that, nothing disintegrated...). Is it a problem, TLG would redesign it to be more part friendly (disintegrates easier but parts don't break)?

[BusterHaus]

I think the "make it as official as possible" rule is rather vague. It can imply any number of things: avoiding certain themes that TLG doesn't produce, such as military vehicles, minimizing piece count, doing quality control (and destructive testing), doing market studies and making sure the proposed set doesn't cannibalize market share from other products, or even including a blue seat, regardless of the set colour.

None of these things are specified in the contest rules. The volume limit, part restrictions (no PF, Mindstorms) and having an A and B model are the main objectives to attain.

Inventing additional rules that could be covered by "make it as official as possible" isn't a good way to approach this contest. You can diaqualify every entry with a plausible requirement that TLG probably has. The problem is that we don't know the limits of these requirements. More importantly, these requirements are not in the contest rules.

You are free to take any approach you want to judging the entries, but I'll be focusing on aesthetics and the use of parts between the A and B models. I look at this contest as a designer's initial build - before marketing, quality control and finances come into the picture and alter the model.

[Appie]

Awesome model apart from the steering wheel.

And the discussion turned into a interesting one. I agree and don't agree with Appie the same time. For example that rubber part is anything but good for suspension. It was designed for deformation, but it deforms permanently even under relative low stress and it has hysteresis, so I would never use in it a suspension that is played with. Busherhaus' suspension looks much more endurable than a rubber suspension would look.

But I'm very curious how far would TLG would go with durability, I almost started a thread about it. For example, do they have drop tests? My newest supercar fell from about 1.5 m on its rear and a thin liftarm broke (apart from that, nothing disintegrated...). Is it a problem, TLG would redesign it to be more part friendly (disintegrates easier but parts don't break)?

I actually didn't bother to test the rubber part suspension, just a concept. In fact I have tried to use that part a few times and was always replaced with better parts. I have seen my other suggestion with the spring on top of the wishbones functioning as suspension/anti-sway in a model of Erik Leppen (that's where I got the idea from), worked perfectly.

As for testing, who knows what they do. I am happy when stuff doesn't break when using its function. If Lego goes further and tests what weight suspension can 'squad' or if a model survives a 2 meter drop. I doubt it.

Anywho, what's planned for the b-model?

[BusterHaus]

The B model is a trophy truck called Sun Stinger. Key features:

- Independent front suspension

- Dragged axle rear suspension

- Fake engine with differential

- Ackerman steering

Here are some pictures:

I'll make a video later this week.

[Jim]

Me likey!

I have changed the title of your topic.

[grum64]

Two really nice models. I look forward to seeing the videos.

Great pictures.

Edited January 25, 2016 by grum64