Volkner Mobil (inspired) luxury RV WIP/build thread

[Dazzzy]

This is a work in progress thread for my most ambitious build project yet, a luxury RV scaled model that's inspired by the 'Volkner Mobil' luxury RV.  I say inspired as it's not scaled correctly to the real thing, and I'm not sure at the moment whether the end product will resemble it enough, to class it as a scale model of the 'Volkner'.   And it is quite ambitious for me, as i'm not really a very technically minded person at heart, and to be quite honest, i feel i may be out of my depth a little even just attempting it, but i'm going to give it a go anyway. 

Also i'm not 100% sure whether it fits into this section/theme of EB (Technic and scale model), as i think it may fall just outside of the acceptable parameters with regards to the scale (i think it's just below 1:20 scale), and like i said above, it may not qualify as a scale model of the real thing, as i'm not sure i can get it to look like it.  I guess it is kind of 'Model Team'y though, either that or 'Creator' style. 

 

Anyway, this is something i decided to attempt some time last year, though has been put on the back burner for quite a while now, with very little progress at all. My first initial idea after doing a rough sketch of the vehicles wheelbase (in Stud.io), was to create a lifting mechanism/platform that could raise the RV and allow access/deployment of the underneath garage tray. Although it looked fairly good (well, to my eyes anyway), the more i thought about it, the more i realised maybe my approach was flawed, as i thought maybe using worm gears to do the lifting would do the trick.  But as many here i imagine will attest to, not everything built digitally works in real brick form.  So in an effort to test the principal out, i changed my approach and simplified the mechanism to use linear actuators instead.

I managed to get a hold of 4 small LI's and built a crude mock-up out of the limited Technic parts i own, and was quite pleased with the results. I was able to lift set 10262 (James Bond Aston Martin Creator set), which is quite a reasonable weight, on the crude platform i'd built. Though i will have to experiment further, as i suspect the finished model will weigh quite a lot more than set 10262. 

Although i don't have any pics of the mock-up platform i built in real brick, i have modelled it digitally for the purpose of seeing how i could adapt it and clean up the design. this is what it looks like (albeit in digital form):

I know the following pics are quite a jump in progress, but i do tend to get a bit carried away when modelling in Stud.io, and forget to pause the process to render pics. As you can see there's now a car (there always was a car originally, a 10-wide slightly shorter green version of my made up barchetta), as well as a slide-out tray mechanism. There's also the addition of 2 PF motors, as i'd like to power the mechanism somehow, but i'd be interested to know the opinions of the members here, whether using PU would be the better application VS PF?

Pics/renders:

And here are a couple more pics/renders, of the mechanism sitting inside of the rough sketch lower bodywork:

 

That's all i have to show in the way of progress so far, and as you can see i've got quite a fair bit to do ahead of me.   But eventually i'm hoping to add more powered functions and maybe make it RC powered, with working steering and a powered slide-out living space. But it all depends on the packaging really, and if i have the space (and skill) to achieve that within the 14-wide system built bodywork. I'd also love to add some kind of suspension too, but i'm not sure whether that will be at all possible. 

 

Here's a couple more final pics/renders, just for reference to the original worm geared version i was referring to with the small green barchetta. As you can see it's smaller in length than the new white version, mainly due to increasing the small cars length. It's also lower too, as using the worm gears allowed for a lower height, but the more i analysed it, the way i built it just wouldn't work. Also it's near impossible to see the worm gear mechanism but i can assure you it is there:

 

[Oliver 79]

I like the way this is going. I think it belongs in this forum, but I'd imagine it would fit the creator forum too.

I'd say PF over PU but only because I think it integrates with Technic better. And I don't like all this smart phone enabled stuff.

Looking forward to seeing more progress for sure. 

 

[Sven J]

What an amazing project! It will be great to see it finished.
And, IMHO, it definitely belongs here.

As for the tray, I would leave it without PF or PU and instead use kind of a crank which could be attached through a hole in the side, or something like that. With electrical functions, you lose too much space for modeling the interior, I think.

Those little sportscars are very nice, too. Do you have detail pictures, especially of the door mechanism?

Edited September 11, 2021 by Tenderlok

[jorgeopesi]

Awesome project good luck with it.

[syclone]

Such a wonderful unique RV, even if not-to-scale, it definitely belongs here with that mechanics underneath. 

I'm also not entirely sure whether electric mechanisation is necessary - nonetheless there seems to be plethora of space in the lower rear section for it.

As far as PF vs PU: I'm inclined to say PF. There doesn't seem to be a need for anything fancy with programming.

[howitzer]

Looking forward to see where this is going.

RC is cool and all, but I don't think there's much point to have RC in this kind of thing unless you're also going to make it drive and steer with motors. As Tenderlok said, the electronics will eat a lot of internal space that could and should be used for detailing - it's an RV after all, and most of the cool stuff happens inside.

If you really want to have electronics, either PF or PU will work here, PU will probably make the construction easier as you don't need an IR receiver and the power button of the PU hubs are easier to hide well. Changing batteries is also possible without removing the whole unit.

[Hrafn]

This is a neat project, thank you for sharing your progress.  I agree that motorization of the lift is not necessary.

[2GodBDGlory]

I for one would love to see motorization! As for PU vs. PF, it probably depends on whether you go full RC or not. If you are having four or five RC functions, I would recommend PF because you would only need one small battery (and 2-3 receivers) rather than at least one large Technic hub, or more if you have five functions. Two other pieces of advice: First, I have my doubts about whether the chain you have will work well under load. I find that they tend to fall apart when stressed, and it would likely be in a very annoying spot for fixing it all the time! I would probably use axles between each set of actuators using sets of three bevel gears at each corner. Second, I would suggest adding some sort of friction clutch to the mechanism for sliding the car out, unless you are willing to rely on quick reflexes to keep it from breaking stuff.

Good luck!

[Dazzzy]

First off, apologies for leaving it so long to reply, and many thanks for all the feedback and comments. It really is helpful.  

Also, forgive me for not replying to each individual comment, as i feel i'd be repeating myself a bit. So it's probably best i just share my current thoughts with regards to motorising the RV or not, and what progress has happened so far (unfortunately very little in that regard).  

Right now i'm leaning towards motorising as much as i can of the eventual functions/mechanisms, though part of me is still thinking maybe i should just keep it simple and ditch all electronics and instead focus on making the model more detailed. It really has given me pause for thought, even right now as i'm typing this i'm debating whether to keep it manually operated, as the only mechanism needed would be the lift platform really, as everything else can just be pulled or slid out.  Originally i had no plans of motorising the functions, but after watching vids on YT of the real thing in action, i thought how neat it would be to just press a button or 2 and watch it do its thing.  

I'm still undecided about whether i should go for PF or PU if i do motorise it, as there seems to be pros and cons to both methods. Currently i have the PF 8293 set, that i bought around 5-6 years ago for £30 brand new, and also earlier this week i treated myself to the 42124 set (Technic buggy) with the PU and 2 L motors, so i'll be experimenting with both. I'm pretty sure PF will package better (vs PU) and most probably operate easier too, but i can't get over how expensive the motors are now. So the cost may sway me towards PU in the end. 

 

@Tenderlok thanks! Unfortunately i haven't made any renders of the sports car door mechanism, but it's just parts 11458 and 18677 / 28809, hinged together with a friction pin. There are some new pics of the car though, so hopefully you'll be able to see it a bit more clearly. 

And thanks! @2GodBDGlory  I think you're absolutely right with regards to stresses on the chain links. When i built the test rig in real brick it worked fine when i added weight to it, but i can see the model turning out heavier than originally anticipated, so yes, bevel gears and axles looks to be the way to go. Thanks for the advice regarding that as it also reduces the size of the mechanism slightly (around 1 plate in height). 

Also thanks! @Oliver 79  @jorgeopesi @syclone @howitzer and @Hrafn for all your comments too.

 

So where i am at the moment in way of progress, isn't very much really. About the only thing i've worked on besides the bevel gear and axle lift mechanism, is the little barchetta sports car.  I decided i wanted to give it steering to add a bit more playability, though i had to use the 4262 part (x3) to get it to work within the small space available. Ideally i'd prefer to use more modern parts, but i just can't find a solution that works and fits. 

Here's a pic of my first attempt:

I was happy with it, and i prefer the look of the car now, as it reminds me a bit of one those old Renault Sport Spiders.  Then i decided i wasn't too happy about the steering wheel (2x2 round plate), as it has to be offset slightly because of the door hinge, as well as all the untidy and exposed gears. Also, steering wheel  2819 and steering yoke 18352 / 40001, i couldn't get to fit properly, as both are a bit too big. So i decided to simplify the steering even further by ditching a working steering wheel, in favour of a side-to-side gear stick/tiller steering arm. It does look a little odd but it allows for a cleaner interior.  I was also playing with the colour, and i think i prefer it in white, though that does mean if i go with white instead of red, the RV itself will be back to Dark Grey to add a little contrast.  As it stands now though, i'm really happy with the car itself and i can't see myself adding anything more to it from here, so i guess that part of the build is kind of finished. 

Barchetta sports car pics:

And here's a couple of pics of the revised lift mechanism. The Green and Pink bevel gears, are just so i can keep track of their rotation direction. The RV's wheelbase has also been extended by 1 stud, as it allows more room should i decide to use PF or PU. 

 

And that's all have to share right now, it's very much a slow burner. 

[Oliver 79]

This is coming along nicely .

I have a suggestion regarding all those bevel gears in the lift mechanism. You can get rid of a few of them with this setup:

 

With this all the mini LA's will be rotating in the same direction and will have less friction due to less gears.

[Mr Jos]

3 hours ago, Oliver 79 said:

This is coming along nicely .

I have a suggestion regarding all those bevel gears in the lift mechanism. You can get rid of a few of them with this setup:

With this all the mini LA's will be rotating in the same direction and will have less friction due to less gears.

The right side of your photo has the bevels on the outside, there is no place for it in his design, as there are liftarms that will collide with the bevel gears. Only thing he could indeed do is add the double bevelled gear as you did instead of the single bevel with a half spacer underneath.

Cool project you're making.

[Jurss]

That sport car alone is good.

[Gray Gear]

Have you tested that slide-out mechanism for the car with real bricks? I feel like it could cause some problems being only powered in the rear and suspended quite flexible

Edited September 19, 2021 by Gray Gear

[Oliver 79]

4 hours ago, Mr Jos said:

The right side of your photo has the bevels on the outside

This is true. I didn't take that into consideration. However, the frame could be modified to fit. 

[2GodBDGlory]

15 hours ago, Dazzzy said:

I'm still undecided about whether i should go for PF or PU if i do motorise it, as there seems to be pros and cons to both methods. Currently i have the PF 8293 set, that i bought around 5-6 years ago for £30 brand new, and also earlier this week i treated myself to the 42124 set (Technic buggy) with the PU and 2 L motors, so i'll be experimenting with both. I'm pretty sure PF will package better (vs PU) and most probably operate easier too, but i can't get over how expensive the motors are now. So the cost may sway me towards PU in the end.

Are the PF motors (other than the Servo) really that bad? I'd heard people complaining before, but most of the motors seem to be similar to or cheaper than they were new. Of course, if you are planning on expanding your system later, it may make sense to get into the new stuff to ensure compatibility even if prices for PF do skyrocket. Have you considered the Chinese alternatives to PF? These range from dirt-cheap copies to stuff with prices similar to Lego from respected brands with unique molds (and the same form factor). I get that lots of people wouldn't consider those, though.

[syclone]

11 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

Are the PF motors (other than the Servo) really that bad? I'd heard people complaining before, but most of the motors seem to be similar to or cheaper than they were new. Of course, if you are planning on expanding your system later, it may make sense to get into the new stuff to ensure compatibility even if prices for PF do skyrocket. Have you considered the Chinese alternatives to PF? These range from dirt-cheap copies to stuff with prices similar to Lego from respected brands with unique molds (and the same form factor). I get that lots of people wouldn't consider those, though.

I'll have to second this. Prices seems more or less the same (looking at motors as separate parts on BL, not the single motor "sets") Though, since TLG no longer replaces PF motors, going the eastern  way is probably the same as buying a second-hand motor. German seller Bluebrixx also offers "their own" system - so if customer service is a worry, this option could also help. CADa have also a good record with this. But I'll leave the moral choice to you 

-------------

As far as the RV: I'm not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to studful building, but wouldn't that connection of mini-LAs to the "lift" using 1x1 Technic bricks be at risk of separating? Since (I assume) a motor is also mounted on that plate and adds extra weight that pulls down, plus the gears pushing against the gearrack, perhaps these placed under the 1x4 bricks with the slidey cutout could be used for a more bullet-proof construction? Albeit, as I said, I've no idea whether it's something necessary, just seemed a bit weird to connect using only top studs without something to prevent that connection from separating.

Love the small cars, really sleek design. Perhaps the red version could use the white stripe from the earlier green prototype? It could add some personality I think. Didn't really mind the exposed 8t gears with 2x2 plate, but the later hinged version with small steering wheel does look much better while retaining the steering functionality - which is really impressive considering the diminute scale. 

[Dazzzy]

On 9/19/2021 at 12:41 PM, Oliver 79 said:

This is coming along nicely .

I have a suggestion regarding all those bevel gears in the lift mechanism. You can get rid of a few of them with this setup: [image]

With this all the mini LA's will be rotating in the same direction and will have less friction due to less gears.

 

On 9/19/2021 at 4:18 PM, Mr Jos said:

The right side of your photo has the bevels on the outside, there is no place for it in his design, as there are liftarms that will collide with the bevel gears. Only thing he could indeed do is add the double bevelled gear as you did instead of the single bevel with a half spacer underneath.

Cool project you're making.

Thanks ever so much for your help guys!     Reducing the need for unnecessary parts and overcomplication, is always a good thing, so i really appreciate the advice/suggestions.  I managed to get a little side-tracked with another moc i've just started, but i will most definitely be making the changes you've both suggested. 

On 9/19/2021 at 4:22 PM, Jurss said:

That sport car alone is good.

Thanks ever so much Jurss!    It's loosely based on a moc i did around 7 years ago.  I guess it's a kind of evolution of it.

Image of what i'm referring to: 

On 9/19/2021 at 5:17 PM, Gray Gear said:

Have you tested that slide-out mechanism for the car with real bricks? I feel like it could cause some problems being only powered in the rear and suspended quite flexible

Thanks for sharing this concern, as it wasn't something i'd really thought about in detail. 

Anyway last night i decided to test it out in real brick, (well to the best of my ability with the limited parts i have at my disposal), and your suspicions are indeed correct, there is a major issue.  The small gear and gear rack pushes the tray out okay, but it's on the return that the tray jars against the frame. There were 2 factors that added to causing this though, the first being that the old and worn plates i used for the tray (they were also the wrong size), bowed when built up a layer causing the tray to not sit so well in the slotted brick rails. The second one is, that i didn't really brace the U-shape base outer frame from above, doing so would've helped keep the frame that little bit squarer, and kept the return that little less jarring. Having said that, i'm still not confident that fixing both of those factors will fix the overall issue, so i'm glad you pointed it out.  I did spend a great deal of yesterday evening trying to come up with a different solution/mechanism, to get the tray to operate smoothly. I tried using worm gears as an option, but no matter what i did, it just wouldn't package within the strict parameters i've set for the size of the build.  So unfortunately it looks like the tray won't be powered after all.     I've got to look on the positive though, as just having the tray as pull-out/push-in, i ditch the need for an extra motor and the additional weight and space that goes with it.    

Also, how the tray is suspended, isn't too bad really. The thin tile pieces and jumpers underneath them seem to hold up fairly well when located/suspended by the slotted bricks, as all 4 corners of the tray are held in place. I haven't tested the tray with weight of the barchetta on top of it yet, but i did try a half a tall glass of water and it held up, but if it does cause an issue, then there's nothing stopping me building up the outer edge wall of the tray, to sandwich it all in a bit better. Doing that will affect the overall finished look, but it's something i'm willing to do if necessary. 

On 9/20/2021 at 12:12 AM, 2GodBDGlory said:

Are the PF motors (other than the Servo) really that bad? I'd heard people complaining before, but most of the motors seem to be similar to or cheaper than they were new. Of course, if you are planning on expanding your system later, it may make sense to get into the new stuff to ensure compatibility even if prices for PF do skyrocket. Have you considered the Chinese alternatives to PF? These range from dirt-cheap copies to stuff with prices similar to Lego from respected brands with unique molds (and the same form factor). I get that lots of people wouldn't consider those, though.

You're right about the general motors being similar in price, but it's that PF servo motor that's killing me. The cheapest ones available i can find (i only tend to buy from UK sellers, due to lower shipping costs), start at about the £42 mark and go up up to as much as £69.  I have considered Chinese brand alternatives , but the purist in me would prefer to keep it all LEGO. Thanks for suggesting them though. 

22 hours ago, syclone said:

I'll have to second this. Prices seems more or less the same (looking at motors as separate parts on BL, not the single motor "sets") Though, since TLG no longer replaces PF motors, going the eastern  way is probably the same as buying a second-hand motor. German seller Bluebrixx also offers "their own" system - so if customer service is a worry, this option could also help. CADa have also a good record with this. But I'll leave the moral choice to you 

-------------

As far as the RV: I'm not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to studful building, but wouldn't that connection of mini-LAs to the "lift" using 1x1 Technic bricks be at risk of separating? Since (I assume) a motor is also mounted on that plate and adds extra weight that pulls down, plus the gears pushing against the gearrack, perhaps these placed under the 1x4 bricks with the slidey cutout could be used for a more bullet-proof construction? Albeit, as I said, I've no idea whether it's something necessary, just seemed a bit weird to connect using only top studs without something to prevent that connection from separating.

Love the small cars, really sleek design. Perhaps the red version could use the white stripe from the earlier green prototype? It could add some personality I think. Didn't really mind the exposed 8t gears with 2x2 plate, but the later hinged version with small steering wheel does look much better while retaining the steering functionality - which is really impressive considering the diminute scale. 

Again the same as my reply above to @2GodBDGlory, thanks for the alternative motor suggestions.    Though currently i'm still leaning towards LEGO's PU option, as i already have 2 motors, compared to the 1 PF i have.  Slightly off topic/tangent, part of the reason i bought set 42124 (Technic RC buggy), is that i wanted to test the PU out on my RV moc, as well as potentially use it in the moc pictured below, (it's really early stages, and will hopefully get it's own thread eventually). I managed to get hold of set 42124 off Ebay (BNIB) for £85 shipped, which i thought for the PU and the new tyres, was quite good value when compared to the price of a used PF servo, that i would need if i go the PF route.  The non-LEGO brands alternatives you both have suggested, is mighty tempting though. 

With regards to the RV's mini-LA's attachment to the tray frame, in the images/renders i've shown it only shows 8 points of attachment, but i was intending on adding further plates (or bricks) on top of those Technic 1x1 bricks, to increase the overall clutch power to 18 studs. Hopefully that should hold the weight of the car and tray, (no need to worry about the tray motor now, as i ran into another issue with that, so it's no-longer being motorised). However, i do prefer your suggestion of using that part instead of the 1x1 Technic bricks, so i'm going to see whether i can fit them into the design instead. Thanks!    Also, the next time i jump back on Stud.io, i'll do a version of the new car with the central stripe like you've suggested, to see how it looks. 

 

Here's a quick pic/render of the other moc i'm currently working on. It's at a really early stage at the moment, but i'm hoping to motorise it using the PU that came in set 42124, or i may decide to not motorise it at all, and instead focus on giving it a fake engine instead (flat 4). I'm trying to make something that looks a little bit like Tamiya's Wild One RC buggy, or a kind of similar sandrail design:

[MinusAndy]

If you’re struggling to decide whether to go powered or full manual model with the rv, do both. Build it manual then take it to bits and build it powered. That’s the beauty of Lego.

[Nazgarot]

Or build it with both. There is enough room behind the rear axle for a "cargo of motors" that could be made removable. This way you could get both. Make a "cargo create" of tow motors with a easy connection for power and use knob gears or similar to make a solid drive connection that could easily be removed. At the same time you could have a filler cap or similar on the left side of the RV that can be removed to place a hand crank to use it manually.

Really good work on this!  I'm looking forward to follow this WIP thread to completion. 

 

[Dazzzy]

On 9/21/2021 at 11:56 AM, MinusAndy said:

If you’re struggling to decide whether to go powered or full manual model with the rv, do both. Build it manual then take it to bits and build it powered. That’s the beauty of Lego.

 

On 9/21/2021 at 5:34 PM, Nazgarot said:

Or build it with both. There is enough room behind the rear axle for a "cargo of motors" that could be made removable. This way you could get both. Make a "cargo create" of tow motors with a easy connection for power and use knob gears or similar to make a solid drive connection that could easily be removed. At the same time you could have a filler cap or similar on the left side of the RV that can be removed to place a hand crank to use it manually.

Really good work on this!  I'm looking forward to follow this WIP thread to completion. 

 

Thank you both for the suggestion of doing a manual model first, then going back to see whether it's possible to automate it after.    It has been something i've been giving a lot of thought about lately myself.  As it stands if i do take that approach, i predict there may be a difference in wheelbase between the two though. When i rough it out in Stud.io it becomes clear that the manual version is a lot closer in proportional scale to the real thing, what with not having to make allowances for the motors and new slide-out garage tray i'm working on, (i think i may have found a solution to that). Another welcome advantage of going manual is, it won't be nearly as expensive to build as the motorised version, which is good because i have a fairly tight budget when it comes to LEGO.  It will also allow me to create additional camping furniture/accessories that can be stored in the empty void, which would've been crammed with motors and hubs etc.  So at the moment going manual seems like the best option for me, but at the same time it's quite disappointing that it won't be as clever or mechanically pleasing, as it would've been if it were motorised. 

 

As far as progress goes, i have no new pics to share. I did manage to get hold of some bevel gears i needed though, for the lift mechanism. The bevel gear and shaft mechanism is a lot more stiffer to operate than the chain-link method i was using before though. However, i did quickly strap a medium PF motor to the new mechanism and it seemed to work fine, though i image with the additional weight that will be added, it may require a motor with a bit more torque, (if i do go motorised). 

[Sven J]

13 minutes ago, Dazzzy said:

t's quite disappointing that it won't be as clever or mechanically pleasing, as it would've been if it were motorised. 

I wouldn't say that. A well-conceived, clean manual solution is (IMHO at least) just as clever as an electrified one.
AND it's eco-friendly and will exercise your finger muscles...

[Dazzzy]

19 minutes ago, Tenderlok said:

AND it's eco-friendly and will exercise your finger muscles...

Very true!     I hadn't thought about that aspect. You're indeed right about that.  Thanks for helping look at things in a new light. 

[Dazzzy]

A slight change of topic (non Volkner Mobil RV related):

After seeing @Pingubricks excellent Lancia Stratos a bit earlier, it reminded me that i'd created a road-going rally car recently myself, (albeit digitally in Stud.io about a year ago).

Rather than clog up the 'Technic, Model Team and Scale Modelling' section of the site, with another thread of a digital model i've yet to build in real brick, i figured i'd just dump a few images in here for the time-being until i get around to acquiring the bricks to be able to build it.  It doesn't do much apart from having an opening bonnet, boot and doors, but it also has steering (though the achievable angles leave a lot to be desired due to clearance issues)

A few rendered images:

And one more image in a different colour:

 

Edit. Just noticed the last image doesn't have an interior.  So here's a pic showing the interior with part of the roof structure missing, to be able to see some more in detail:

And in another colour:

Edited September 28, 2021 by Dazzzy

[Sven J]

16 minutes ago, Dazzzy said:

i'd created a road-going rally car recently myself

Well, let's call it what it is - your Escort looks really cool! I think you should very well show it in a separate thread.

 

 

[Dazzzy]

6 minutes ago, Tenderlok said:

Well, let's call it what it is - your Escort looks really cool! I think you should very well show it in a separate thread.

 

 

 I can't believe i actually forgot to say what it is. I was quickly re-reading what i'd wrote to check for spelling errors (i'm useless at writing), and did'nt even notice it then. 

But thank you ever so much @Tenderlok!  For thinking it's cool, plus reminding me that i'd forgot to say what it is. 

It is indeed meant to be a Ford Escort RS

Edited September 28, 2021 by Dazzzy
Spelling error