[MOC] LIEBHERR Concept 3-axle Mobile Crane

[gate]

On 8/11/2018 at 9:12 PM, I_Igor said:

Now imagine how cool are black 5 X 7 frames for vehicles with black chassis (which is visible like tractors / trucks)

Yeah, they look awesome in black, thanks TLG/

[gate]

Soo, yes I was wrong. The superstructure even without full paneling and the actual weight looks like this:

It's pain I know. Although found some ways of making the turntable through 1 pin long x wide support bulldozer wheels, but when you have BWE and 42082 - not a big deal.

Not it looks smooth and strong:

Decided to use strings for now:

[suffocation]

Looks good. I wonder if you wouldn't be better off with a brick-built actuator, though - the boom is probably going to be very heavy and I don't think those two large actuators are going to be strong enough to lift it to a decent angle, unless you gear them down to a snail's pace.

[BrickbyBrickTechnic]

Don't even consider using regular LA's for this. My own rough terrain crane, whose boom is half a kg, requires a lot of torque to be lifted. I would suggest a brick-built actuator as @suffocation suggested. 

Oh, and good use of the 42082 turntable assembly!

Edited August 14, 2018 by BrickbyBrickTechnic

[Erik Leppen]

2 hours ago, suffocation said:

I don't think those two large actuators are going to be strong enough to lift it to a decent angle, unless you gear them down to a snail's pace.

And probably not even then.

I don't know how much force one has to apply to LAs to activate the internal clutch (to press them together manually, like you would a pneumatic cylinder), but a LA has 5 studs of range, which is 4 cm. If your boom is about 1 kg and you are going to lift it 40 cm up (vertical displacement of the center of gravity), then the force on the LA will be 40 / 4 * 1 kg, which equals 10 kg. My expectation is that a pressure of 10 kg will activate the LA's internal clutch, meaning it simply won't work, at any speed.

But I encourage @gate to try and fail, because every mistake is a learning opportunity :)

[emielroumen]

Don't forget to modify the gearing of the LAs anyway. See the 42082 review topic (and first post) by @Jim for instance. One LA will take most of the load if you keep the gears as is.

[gate]

14 hours ago, suffocation said:

Looks good. I wonder if you wouldn't be better off with a brick-built actuator, though - the boom is probably going to be very heavy and I don't think those two large actuators are going to be strong enough to lift it to a decent angle, unless you gear them down to a snail's pace.

This is a prototype for now, pretty sure that I'll have to use a custom one.

 

13 hours ago, BrickbyBrickTechnic said:

Don't even consider using regular LA's for this. My own rough terrain crane, whose boom is half a kg, requires a lot of torque to be lifted. I would suggest a brick-built actuator as @suffocation suggested. 

Oh, and good use of the 42082 turntable assembly!

 

12 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

And probably not even then.

I don't know how much force one has to apply to LAs to activate the internal clutch (to press them together manually, like you would a pneumatic cylinder), but a LA has 5 studs of range, which is 4 cm. If your boom is about 1 kg and you are going to lift it 40 cm up (vertical displacement of the center of gravity), then the force on the LA will be 40 / 4 * 1 kg, which equals 10 kg. My expectation is that a pressure of 10 kg will activate the LA's internal clutch, meaning it simply won't work, at any speed.

But I encourage @gate to try and fail, because every mistake is a learning opportunity :)

Nothing like a smell of a failure to come in the morning

Thanks for the math and advices! The problem here is that the boom is too long and heavy of course.

Oh, I will fail a lot here for sure.

12 hours ago, emielroumen said:

Don't forget to modify the gearing of the LAs anyway. See the 42082 review topic (and first post) by @Jim for instance. One LA will take most of the load if you keep the gears as is.

Gearing down might just not help. Did read it, but thanks anyway!

[gate]

So it is done. The final video:

Also updated the main post.

[suffocation]

I really like how it came out. Yes, it's rough around the edges but I think that just adds to its character. My first thought when I saw the updated post was "This looks so bad-a$$!"

It's a pity you had to do away with the suspension but with that kind of weight I guess there was no failproof way around it without using a dozen springs per axle.

I love how you used the quarter-gears and buckets to shape the superstructure - that's some really creative work there.

Looking forward to seeing more from you!

Edited August 23, 2018 by suffocation

[BrickbyBrickTechnic]

It's done! Thanks for the shoutout and how excellent this turned out of a giant build! The only thing I could say is that the boom looks really skinny for the scale and some more bodywork would benefit the superstructure, but no matter. This is an excellent build if I've ever seen one, and quite ambitious too!

Edited August 24, 2018 by BrickbyBrickTechnic

[M_longer]

It really would look better built in smaller scale, because now it looks like few pieces mixed together. You have big off road chassis, tiny outriggers suitable for cherry picker and thin boom, that does not match the scale of the model.
Actually, it looks like some russian crane trucks or specialized oilfield machinery:

[Aventador2004]

1 hour ago, M_longer said:

It really would look better built in smaller scale, because now it looks like few pieces mixed together.

It doesn't have to look good to work. I see nothing wrong with something like this. A freestyle build based on something else.

[M_longer]

18 minutes ago, Aventador2004 said:

A freestyle build based on something else.

As a freestyle model it looks great, powerfull. But as you can see it was named Liebherr LTM 1060?
Does it look like this?

[Aventador2004]

1 hour ago, M_longer said:

Does it look like this?

Quite similar actually, it has the body lines, capability, and all the functions. 

[Sariel]

56 minutes ago, Aventador2004 said:

Quite similar actually, it has the body lines, capability, and all the functions. 

Respectfully, you're starting to bend the fabric of reality here. This is a LEGO model that looks quite similar to a Liebherr crane:

THIS is not:

I understand that the form can be ignored to some degree, but if your crane looks NOTHING like the real thing, if literally every single proportion is off, then what's the point of calling it a Leibherr 1060 model? Just call it "my crane" and everyone will be happy.

[Aventador2004]

Keep in mind however, this is a Technic model. The OP clearly wanted something able to do those functions, focusing less on body, more on it working well. The name can be changed but it is still a model that the person could relate to. The model you showed is also a SYSTEM build, not a beam / panel body. There are less choices in how to shape, move or color in Technic. 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Aventador2004

[Yevhen]

15 minutes ago, Sariel said:

Respectfully, you're starting to bend the fabric of reality here. This is a LEGO model that looks quite similar to a Liebherr crane:

THIS is not:

I understand that the form can be ignored to some degree, but if your crane looks NOTHING like the real thing, if literally every single proportion is off, then what's the point of calling it a Leibherr 1060 model? Just call it "my crane" and everyone will be happy.

Give me a link to the Lego moc, please. I want to see more pictures.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Yevhen

[Sariel]

8 minutes ago, Aventador2004 said:

Mine was the consensus the the OP did not have the supply of parts to make it the LEIBHERR, so they improvised some things.

Mine is even simpler: if you don't have the resources for a model, don't call it a model. By your logic I could put two wheels together, connect them with a beam or two and call it e.g. a Ducati 900SS motorbike, because hey, it has some functions of the real bike and maybe I just didn't have the supply of parts to make the body or anything else.

Seriously, the OP did not improvise "some" things. More like all of them. Was the limited supply of parts stopping him from getting the proportions even remotely right?

Edited August 24, 2018 by Sariel

[Aventador2004]

22 hours ago, Sariel said:

Seriously, the OP did not improvise "some" things. More like all of them.

So be it. Literally did not want to argue about it. The below post was simple trying to say this was not that bad and that it works fine. It now seems like you think my post was insulting you. I want those others reading to keep in mind that even thought everyone respects you for your contributions, you can be a little harsh about this. A simple title change could have been an easy response.

*quotes taken because they are show several times.*

Edited August 25, 2018 by Aventador2004

[Sariel]

4 minutes ago, Aventador2004 said:

But the fact that a system model was brought up Irks me.

But that's a working Technic model, System pieces or not. I don't know what this model's author claimed, nor don't care, I'm not familiar with how he presented it but I think it's irrelevant here.

Sorry for being harsh, but a person can only take so much of this "everything is awesome" attitude that is so prevalent here. It's cool to be nice, but what's the point of closing your eyes to obvious flaws? You're not helping the OP improve by pretending his creation is flawless and there's nothing to improve in it. But sometimes it seems like the only appropriate reaction here is praise or shutting up.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Sariel

[gate]

15 hours ago, suffocation said:

It's a pity you had to do away with the suspension but with that kind of weight I guess there was no failproof way around it without using a dozen springs per axle.

True, at that point I didn't fully realise that, but now I don't regret at all. The model just can't afford the front suspension. With shock absorbers it would try rolling a little bit, but now also a good support for outriggers.

15 hours ago, BrickbyBrickTechnic said:

The only thing I could say is that the boom looks really skinny for the scale and some more bodywork would benefit the superstructure, but no matter.

It is a matter I've been thinking about, but really when that the arrow lifted - the bend was real, so I decided not to add extra weight and focused on functionality.

2 hours ago, M_longer said:

Does it look like this?

 

19 minutes ago, Sariel said:

I understand that the form can be ignored to some degree, but if your crane looks NOTHING like the real thing, if literally every single proportion is off, then what's the point of calling it a Leibherr 1060 model? Just call it "my crane" and everyone will be happy.

This is the exact picture I've been basing the general looks at, but it was clearly said from the beginning "LIEBHERR LTM 1060-3.1 Mobile Crane or something close to it" as well as the phrase that I wouldn't copy all of the mechanisms. Interestingly enough I did just remove it yday when added more photos.

The picture you linked @Sariel - it is mostly system paneling which I dislike. I did add some here and there but adding much more is even more weight, so sorry to dissapoint you.

11 minutes ago, Sariel said:

Mine is even simpler: if you don't have the resources for a model, don't call it a model.

May be no one should be making any MOCs, except you as well? Does it really matter all that much how it is named, the guys here are absolutely right - I did have some custom stickers and I wanted to make a huge functional crane. What's so bad that if you think of a crane and LIEBHERR brand comes along? Identification is good. It is Lego Technic after all - the flight of mind and fantasy. I didn't try to copy all of the existing cranes on purpose, yes many of the things here are improvised, but they work, do they not? That's what is most important in Technic I believe.

[Sariel]

18 minutes ago, gate said:

May be no one should be making any MOCs, except you as well? 

Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you're trying to call an apple a banana and everyone with a pair of eyes can see it is nowhere near being a banana. I understand you had limitations while building your model, but again, why claim that it's a model of a very specific crane if it looks nothing like it? You mean that if it's Technic, it doesn't matter how it looks? Well, that's something new to the entire Technic team and 99% of the builders here. Maybe you just didn't try hard enough? As it happens, I have started by building cranes very similar to yours. More: I guess they looked worse than yours. And because of that I just called them "mobile crane this" or "mobile crane that", and I didn't claim that it's a model of a very specific real crane just because some of the functions were the same. 

18 minutes ago, gate said:

I did have some custom stickers and I wanted to make a huge functional crane. What's so bad that if you think of a crane and LIEBHERR brand comes along?

OK, so basically any LEGO model with 6 wheels can be named Liebherr 1060 because it's a popular brand, is that what you're saying? Here, let me give you another example of trying to call an apple a banana:

This little model is supposed to be Lamborghini Aventador, which looks like that in reality:

Do you see the problem here? 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Sariel

[suffocation]

For an instant I thought the little model was of a mite.

[Sariel]

Just now, suffocation said:

For an instant I thought the little model was of a mite.

No, no, that's criticism! We don't allow that here! ;)

[gate]

10 minutes ago, Sariel said:

No, no, that's criticism! We don't allow that here! ;)

Who said that criticism is not allowed? I am more than happy to read what you've said. This means I made you act, in a weird way of course and p.s. I am subscribed to you @Sariel and really respect your opinion, builds, videos and everything you do to promote Lego into masses (no joking). But to see how you aggro people on the forum makes me sad.

Edited August 24, 2018 by gate