Jim

Technic General Discussion

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

Where the hell did set numbers 42012, 42013, 42014, 42015, 42016, 42017, 42018 and 42019 go?

TLG just decided to skip them for some reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

TLG just decided to skip them for some reasons.

I wanna know the reasons!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a complete sub-theme in dark green and tan depicting military vehicles. Shooting PF functions to boot. Actual flying helicopters and tanks with differential steering, tech-figs with brick-build M-16s

But focus groups have determined there no sale in such sets :kahuka:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 1974 said:

It's a complete sub-theme in dark green and tan depicting military vehicles. Shooting PF functions to boot. Actual flying helicopters and tanks with differential steering, tech-figs with brick-build M-16s

But focus groups have determined there no sale in such sets :kahuka:

Yeah, we always made military version of every model we designed. Preferably in tan though as dark green was not available in the storageroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the ugliest BWE you ever did see!

800x600.jpg

 

 

I've been trying to build all the flagship sets from 2005 to present from my collection (I've only got the mobile crane mkII and the Volvo hauler left!), but this one was a pain! I borrowed some specialized parts from a friend, but maybe I should have borrowed some simple ones too (or waited until my half built moc is done)! Fortunately, I only ran out of some "unimportant" pieces, like 15L, 11L, and 5L beams, and the practically useless 2L friction pin!

Time to see how the beast works!

Edited by 2GodBDGlory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was building a MOC the other day that desperately needed a heavy-duty U/CV joint, but the space available simply wasn't enough to fit any existing HD U-joint design I'd ever seen. I messed around for a while, and came up with a heavy-duty CV joint that fit perfectly, and that I have never seen before. Additionally, it worked flawlessly in testing in a very high-powered vehicle, with zero failures. Perhaps more interesting is that the front axle of the truck used a more conventional HD U-joint, since I had more space, but that one failed several times!

Anyways, here's the image:

800x600.jpg

As you can see, it is not one piece, so it has to be prevented from sliding out by a frame. This can be an advantage, though, since it allows for a degree of extension.

Perhaps some of you can use this unusual design!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

Perhaps some of you can use this unusual design!

Interesting unconventional idea !!

Good to know it works very well also ! Have saved it for future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks guys!

4 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

That's a really cool idea @2GodBDGlory It seems like it would be easy to further reinforce with more of those trans-blue frames!

What do you mean by that? Just to put more behind the first one so the axles can penetrate further?

Edited by 2GodBDGlory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

What do you mean by that? Just to put more behind the first one so the axles can penetrate further?

Yeah, to further stiffen them since they stick out quite far

Edited by Bartybum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice idea! Another way of doing this would be using the connector 5758557585.t1.png and a pulley wheel with three pins (I've seen it in one of Zerobrick's insane offroaders I believe, used various times since then and they work great). Though perhaps your method with the knob wheel will help to distribute the forces better (since it has 4 prongs), making it stronger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget, ball joints and barraki eyes fit niceley between the teeth of the knob wheels either bevelled or normally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I should probably mention that this design, while strong, may have some friction in operation; spinning it by hand seems to lack smoothness, and my high-powered MOC would likely shrug off an additional load without my noticing it.

5 hours ago, syclone said:

Very nice idea! Another way of doing this would be using the connector 5758557585.t1.png and a pulley wheel with three pins (I've seen it in one of Zerobrick's insane offroaders I believe, used various times since then and they work great). Though perhaps your method with the knob wheel will help to distribute the forces better (since it has 4 prongs), making it stronger?

Thanks!

I wasn't aware of that idea, but it certainly is a similar alternative. I agree that the four prong design should theoretically be stronger, but that isn't necessarily how it would play out in practice.

3 hours ago, SNIPE said:

Don't forget, ball joints and barraki eyes fit niceley between the teeth of the knob wheels either bevelled or normally.

Yep! I'm not sure those would help here though, because I need two-stud protrusions to achieve a great enough angle, while ball joints would only provide one. The Bohrok eyes also seem like they would need a larger bracing to work properly. Perhaps you've got a better imagination than I, though, and can see uses for them in this application!

Thanks for the input!

Edited by 2GodBDGlory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

I was building a MOC the other day that desperately needed a heavy-duty U/CV joint, but the space available simply wasn't enough to fit any existing HD U-joint design I'd ever seen. I messed around for a while, and came up with a heavy-duty CV joint that fit perfectly, and that I have never seen before. Additionally, it worked flawlessly in testing in a very high-powered vehicle, with zero failures. Perhaps more interesting is that the front axle of the truck used a more conventional HD U-joint, since I had more space, but that one failed several times!

Anyways, here's the image:

 

As you can see, it is not one piece, so it has to be prevented from sliding out by a frame. This can be an advantage, though, since it allows for a degree of extension.

Perhaps some of you can use this unusual design!

I used a simillar idea some 10 years ago:

imgp4507.jpg

I also used a simillar technique when motorizing the 42125 and for the big Trophy truck designed. For the trophy truck I used pulley wheels and a 57585 connector just like in the above photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I observe that:

- In 2016 and 2017, there are 5 sets that use the M motor. They are 42052, 42054, 42065 (this pne uses 2 M motors), 42066, 42070. After that the M motor no longer appeared in any set. So to me that looks like a way clear out as many M motors as possible.

- In 2016 and 2017, there are 2 sets that use the XL motor. They are 42055 and 42070.That may be a way to clear out XL motors.

- In 2018 and 2019, there are 3 sets that use the L motor. They are 42080, 42082, and 42095. That may be a way to clear out L motors.

Then how did TLG clear out Servo motors, I wonder. Did TLG just dump them all into a hydraulic press?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

I observe that:

*snip*

Then how did TLG clear out Servo motors, I wonder. Did TLG just dump them all into a hydraulic press?

 

Pretty sure the replacements for consumers because of servo's incredibly poor reliability due to a design defect had cleared them of any extras they had :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, syclone said:

servo's incredibly poor reliability due to a design defect

This is the first time I've heard of it. What is that design defect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ngoc Nguyen said:

This is the first time I've heard of it. What is that design defect?

If I recall correctly:

The encoder has two parts. The PCB with the pads indicating position and the rotating dial thingy that connects the pads, which tells the servo what position it is in. The pads are made from a softer metal (copper?) and the rotating thingy is made from harder material (steel?). Due ro that, during use the copper pads can get damaged and sometimes you can fix it by cleaning them, but other times the servo won't come back. Aaaand, they're known to break often (hence the ludicrous prices for genuine Lego ones).

Had they made both parts from same type of metal (with the same hardness) it perhaps would've failes less. But we don't and won't  know, since TLG never bothered to try and fix the issues, simply replaced the broken motors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

 

Donate, anyone?

Is there some context for this somewhere that I missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opinions please, 42083 Bugatti or 42115 Lamborghini? Both hovering around the £250 mark at the moment. Intention is to build once then use for MOCs. Is one much more interesting to build? Is one chock full of useful (or useless) parts? 

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.