[TC21] Technic Transforming Vehicle Contest - Information Topic (Extended to 31st)

[Alex Ilea]

Really excited for this contest! Just to be clear, we can add gearboxes to switch between functions in the model?

[Jim]

1 minute ago, IA creations said:

Really excited for this contest! Just to be clear, we can add gearboxes to switch between functions in the model?

Yeah, I guess so. But only motorized!

[kolbjha]

59 minutes ago, Jim said:

The final push to go ahead with this contest is the rumored transforming vehicle by TLG, so we like to see vehicles as well.

Not a big limitation IMO, if the definition of "vehicle" for this competion is the same as Wikipedia's. As I understand it, a vehicle is basically anything that can move and transport something, so anything from submarines to spacecrafts... (sounds like 8480 )

[PassengerJet]

Does a space station count as a vehicle?

[weavil]

3 hours ago, kolbjha said:

Not a big limitation IMO, if the definition of "vehicle" for this competion is the same as Wikipedia's. As I understand it, a vehicle is basically anything that can move and transport something, so anything from submarines to spacecrafts... (sounds like 8480 )

I like this loophole!

24 minutes ago, PassengerJet said:

Does a space station count as a vehicle?

I would hope so, it does move and transports stuff.

A space ship/station that transforms into Benny!

[2GodBDGlory]

1 hour ago, weavil said:

I like this loophole!

Hmm... Arguably, since the earth is moving relative to the universe, then everything on earth is moving (relative to the universe), and everything macroscopic on earth can transport at least an electron, so therefore essentially anything we want to build is a vehicle!

Loopholes are fun.

[msk6003]

Ok now I need to think.

[Jim]

9 hours ago, PassengerJet said:

Does a space station count as a vehicle?

Nope. Let's stick to regular vehicles.

And for those of you who are seeking loopholes; there will probably be jury voting followed by public voting (the opposite as last contest). So going for the loophole is fine, but don't expect that your entry will go on to the second stage of voting.

[Seasider]

Great competition @Jim but I’m going to sit this one out. We became puppy-parents 2 weeks ago and she’s taking all our time so Lego building has gone the same way as watching tv (out of the window). Also this year we plan to be away seeing family lots this Christmas after it wasn’t allowed last year for us. 
 

looking forward to seeing what you all come up with. For me it’ll be interesting to see how different you can make the before and after look.

[2GodBDGlory]

3 hours ago, Seasider said:

For me it’ll be interesting to see how different you can make the before and after look.

Here's an idea for a dramatic transformation:

Before: Nice, generic MOC

After: Blackened blob of plastic

Mechanism of transformation: Sketchy wiring using PF extension wires and 9V wires allowing one to short out one of the Lithium battery boxes (Should Lego have protection against this, use a rechargeable Lithium 9V battery in the old train box), causing an intensely hot fire to transform the model.

Can I get a purist's opinion on this? 

 

[howitzer]

31 minutes ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

Here's an idea for a dramatic transformation:

Before: Nice, generic MOC

After: Blackened blob of plastic

Mechanism of transformation: Sketchy wiring using PF extension wires and 9V wires allowing one to short out one of the Lithium battery boxes (Should Lego have protection against this, use a rechargeable Lithium 9V battery in the old train box), causing an intensely hot fire to transform the model.

Can I get a purist's opinion on this? 

 

Perfectly within the rules, as long as you can make it fully transform back to the nice, generic MOC form.

[Jim]

1 hour ago, howitzer said:

Perfectly within the rules, as long as you can make it fully transform back to the nice, generic MOC form.

That is actually a good comment, which I haven’t memtioned. It needs to be able to transform back and forth  

[Appie]

On 11/15/2021 at 7:43 PM, Jim said:

Yeah, I guess so. But only motorized!

Hmmm, I had an idea to use 2 motors with a manual flip between 4 functions, one of which will be the transformation of course. A third motor means I can't use the small PUp hub with only 2 ports and have to use the big bulky Control+ hub, which also means additional weight. Any chance to reconsider? If not, all good of course. 

[Jim]

1 hour ago, Appie said:

Hmmm, I had an idea to use 2 motors with a manual flip between 4 functions, one of which will be the transformation of course. A third motor means I can't use the small PUp hub with only 2 ports and have to use the big bulky Control+ hub, which also means additional weight. Any chance to reconsider? If not, all good of course. 

All the motor driven functions need to be remotely controlled. Manual switching defeats the purpose of the contest, I'm sorry.

If I allow this, I'm opening a can of worms. Manual functions only for extra stuff like opening doors, and I wouldn't object to manual steering. But the core functionality should be remotely controlled.

[Appie]

1 hour ago, Jim said:

All the motor driven functions need to be remotely controlled. Manual switching defeats the purpose of the contest, I'm sorry.

If I allow this, I'm opening a can of worms. Manual functions only for extra stuff like opening doors, and I wouldn't object to manual steering. But the core functionality should be remotely controlled.

The core functionality would be remotely controlled in my plan. Think of it as the gearbox of the 8043. Except where that has an extra motor to switch between 3 functions, I would have only that switch be manual. 2 functions on one side and 2 on the other. That scenario still a no-go? 

[Jim]

The words/terms "manual" and "core functionality" are not to be combined, sorry.

I started with a single motor for the transformation and I ended up allowing three to allow some flexibility, but I won't budge for manual functions 

The idea behind the contest is that you remotely control the vehicle/transformation. A manual gearbox doesn't make sense in that regard. Again sorry, I'm sure you have someting wonderful in mind, but it's not in the spirit of the contest.

You have to find a way to switch between the group of functions while doing the transformation. That might be feasible and it would probably catapult you towards the top 3 

[Appie]

1 hour ago, Jim said:

The idea behind the contest is that you remotely control the vehicle/transformation.

Ok, here's the plan I have:

2 motors and a gearbox.

Gearbox switch left: drive and steer

Gearbox switch right: transformation and walking. 

Since steering manual is an option as you said it was, we could consider the "transformation and walking" state the default. Remote controlled core functionality: check. 

The other state would be a bonus that when if I flip the switch, the drive and steer would be remote controlled too instead of just manual. 

I could make it bigger with a Technic hub and add a 3rd motor for the transformation and have the transformation switch the functions, but I want to build it smaller if the rules allow it 

[Jim]

Okay, I will make the rules more clear 

NO MANUAL SWITCHING BETWEEN POWERED FUNCTIONS

 

You can think about omitting the driving and steering part and leave that as manual functions. Or you can try to use the bigger hub. The choice is yours 

I'm sorry for not allowing this, but manual switching of functions touches the soul of this contest.

[Appie]

Okido, no problem. Good to have it clear. 

[howitzer]

9 minutes ago, Appie said:

Okido, no problem. Good to have it clear. 

There are ways of performing 3 functions with 2 motors, just look at some of the older universal sets like the 8094 Control Center. You just have to be very clever about the mechanisms.

[Appie]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I need 4 functions from those 2 motors though, not just 3. And combining them doesn't really work since they have to do very specific things without affecting the other 2 functions. But it is fine, I'll see what I do.

[npicard]

7 hours ago, Appie said:

Thanks for the suggestion, but I need 4 functions from those 2 motors though, not just 3. And combining them doesn't really work since they have to do very specific things without affecting the other 2 functions. But it is fine, I'll see what I do.

TBP got four functions out of one motor. If he can do that, I'm sure you can get four from two!

 

[Appie]

15 hours ago, npicard said:

TBP got four functions out of one motor. If he can do that, I'm sure you can get four from two!

Oh yeah, I forgot about that glorious machine. 

Not sure I would use it myself, since that mechanism takes alot of space, not a very good starting point when I wanted to keep it small. 

[Jobo]

Since joining EB last year, I've been dreaming about this type of contest. I was initially disappointed about the restrictions on motors, but that YouTube link above demonstrating what can be done with just one motor has changed my mind.

A bit miffed about pneumatics being restricted, but I think I get the reasoning behind it. Thanks for organising this.

[Seasider]

I think too many people are getting caught up in the other functions. I’m sure what the contest is after is a great transformation and the movement of either model should be secondary