42223 1966 Ford GT40 MKII Race Car

[Auroralampinen]

22 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

Found some weird thing here: The black 6L linkage is connected to a moveable lever (the thing with the red bush) inside the car. 

It is not responsible for steering. But what can this be? Some slightly high-adjustable front axle? It's clearly visible that this linkage contraption is intented to be moved inside the cockpit. What is going on is unfortunately hidden under the 3x7 black panel.

AND as seen by the dbg 3L liftarms the model comes with door limiters which is pretty nice but uncommon for a model this scale.

From lego.com:). 

Open the hood with the lever inside and examine the V8 engine. 

DETAILS FROM THE REAL 1966 Ford GT40 MKII – Explore the iconic race car’s functions, control the car with the knob on the roof, open the doors and pop the hood with the lever inside

[gyenesvi]

23 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

But what can this be?

Maybe an opening lever for the hood? That 3x7 panel is already part of the hood, no?

[R0Sch]

20 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

Found some weird thing here: The black 6L linkage is connected to a moveable lever (the thing with the red bush) inside the car. 

It is not responsible for steering. But what can this be? Some slightly high-adjustable front axle? It's clearly visible that this linkage contraption is intented to be moved inside the cockpit. What is going on is unfortunately hidden under the 3x7 black panel.

 

Most likely just a lever to pop-up the hood a little so adults can lift it up easier.
Btw, I counted wrong. There are indeed 792 pieces in my list and with the sticker sheet it sums exactly up to 793.

 

[Timorzelorzworz]

4 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Maybe an opening lever for the hood? That 3x7 panel is already part of the hood, no?

Exactly. I should learn to read Lego page description :)

5 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

Btw, I counted wrong. There are indeed 792 pieces in my list and with the sticker sheet it sums exactly up to 793.

Excellent. I started sorting your list. I came to this linkage thing cause I was looking for the one and only 6L linkage included.

[R0Sch]

Let the reverse engineering begin! 

[Timorzelorzworz]

I noticed some cool unexpected building styles in this set that explains the many 0.5 connectors used in the inventory.

The front axle with steering is mounted 0.5 studs upwards, reducing the gap between the wheels and the regular mounted front fender.

The rear wheels are also mounted 0.5 studs upwards, but the rear fenders as well. All wheels are set higher to bring the car closer to the ground.

The complete rear section with rear axle and engine is mounted 0.5 studs upwards to the cars base chassis.

 

[Timorzelorzworz]

And talking about offsets and stability, they used an uncommon 3 to 4.5 to 5 studs triangle connection. That's not a new Technic pythagoras, but not that often seen in officuial sets.

 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

34 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

3 to 4.5 to 5 studs triangle connection

How do they add up to Pythagoras Im confused

[XTN]

37 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

And talking about offsets and stability, they used an uncommon 3 to 4.5 to 5 studs triangle connection. That's not a new Technic pythagoras, but not that often seen in officuial sets.

 

From pivot point to pivot point this triangle has the lengths A=2 B=3.5 and C=4.
So basically this is not a rectangular triangle, bc 2^2 + 3.5^2 is not 4^2.

Does that count as an illegal build then? Or is this acceptable within the tolerances?

 

[AVCampos]

The numbers @Timorzelorzworz posted in their image are the beams' number of holes, their lengths are the number of holes minus 1. Therefore for geometry calculation it's 2 x 3.5 x 4.

This still doesn't perfectly match up (16.25 != 16), but the articulation afforded by the black friction pin handles that.

[Timorzelorzworz]

20 minutes ago, XTN said:

From pivot point to pivot point this triangle has the lengths A=2 B=3.5 and C=4.

B should be 3.475, when the length is measured from hole center to center. 

I wouldn't consider this as illegal, there are alot of tolerances as mentioned. I used this triangle in many models and it works pretty well.

So 2x2 + 3.475x3.475 equals 4x4 with tolerance. Or something like that. I guess that many triangle connections in Technic were discovered by chance at some point.

Edited November 21 by Timorzelorzworz

[XTN]

7 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

So 2^2 + 3.475^3.475 equals 4^4 with tolerance. Or something like that. I guess that many triangle connections in Technic were discovered by chance at some point.

Still I'm surprised to see that in an official said, as you mentioned earlier.

Btw I love the addition "with tolerance". I will adopt this into my everyday language. I think that fits in many situations. 

[Timorzelorzworz]

9 minutes ago, XTN said:

Btw I love the addition "with tolerance"

If I remember correctly there was some own thread or topic about the triangle connections in Technic.

Same thing is the 13 studs by 6 studs by 14 studs triangle, that was used lately in the 42146 Liebherr. There are also much more tolerances here. So everydays tolerance seems to be important, otherwise we can reprimand TLG for building illegal :D

The 4-5-6 triangle (in studs) might be the only 100% mathematically correct one.

[XTN]

12 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

The 4-5-6 triangle (in studs) might be the only 100% mathematically correct one.

No no no, there are more of these "Pythagorean Triples" out there, wikipedia knows them all.

I've used the 5-12-13 (6-13-14 in studs) before. 

Edited November 21 by XTN

[Timorzelorzworz]

Some day when we get liftarms with x.5 lengths, the triangle possibilities will be crazy. There are many of triangle solution never seen before with half stud lengths.

[mahjqa]

I really recommend this site for figuring out Pythagorean triangles: Technic Triangles 

A green connection means it's a valid triangle with discrete stud lengths, yellow means one or more of the lengths include half-studs. Black circle means "close enough". (Deviation less than 0.08mm)

 

[Timorzelorzworz]

Wild and useful tool. Thanks for sharing.

[TexasEngineer454]

As a big fan of the old school GT this is modeled after I was very interested in this set. I have the 42154 that I've added some PU motors and hub to and in the process of converting to a baja style rc car.

 

The issue with this set is the price vs lack of parts to justify it. This is a $80ish set without a differential? Looking through the lego site it hit me that the cars at this scale are trending higher priced. Pretty sure I paid about $35 for the 42123 Mclaren just a few years ago. Now almost all of these types of sets are over $50. 

[Stereo]

3 hours ago, XTN said:

No no no, there are more of these "Pythagorean Triples" out there, wikipedia knows them all.

I've used the 5-12-13 (6-13-14 in studs) before. 

5-12-13 also works well in plate dimensions - 5 plates is 2 studs, 12 plates is 4 bricks, so if you have a 1x4 brick with 4 1x2 bricks on top, you can connect diagonally at an exact distance using a stack of 5 bricks with a plate somewhere in the middle.

[R0Sch]

I don't want to ruin your math nerd conversation, so I'll just continue building...
Btw, that triangle's hypotenuse is a 6L beam not 5L. 

[Timorzelorzworz]

Aww all this mathematical efforts for nothing. In the Lego product image it looks like 5L cause there is no gap between the two half liftarms visible. Atleast the 3 by 4.5 by 5 triangle combo works IRL for other models.

[R0Sch]

I see, but don't forget that the whole roof is at an angle including the connection to that beam. So Pythagoras will not give an answer here.
I am also struggling to find the connection point on the chassis since I don't know the exact angle of the roof slanting. I think it's too steep now and the 6L beam will just connect with the blue pin on the 5th hole, right?

[Timorzelorzworz]

Hard to say. It is a wild design. I guess they used the 2L rubber piece to fix the angled roof at any point with some hack where a regular part would be illegal. You already spotted the right position for the rubber part?

[R0Sch]

Not yet. Looks like the roof angle is 6°, so I was not so much off with 7° in my build.

[R0Sch]

OK, it's feasible and no illegal techniques or rubber pieces needed with 6° roof angle:

The rubber piece is used her: