Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, suffocation said:

I use them a lot since they're fairly rigid, have plenty of attachment points and, obviosly, double as differential & bevel gear casings. On bigger models I like to reinforce them with vertically mounted 5x7 frames, 3x5 dogbones and 4x6 bent liftarms.

I see. Do you have an example of how to use the 4x6 bent liftarms as reinforcement?

 

20 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

In some cases, the extra 2L bits often have the holes facing the other way than I want them. The closed rectangle shape without the sticky-outy bits somehow feels more logical in most situations.

I have been playing around with the 5x11 and 5x7 frames a bit in LDD and I've realized this as well. They are less versatile than I first thought, but still very useful in some configurations.

About the new larger frames soon to be released; it feels like they will be very useful parts, but the larger the frames, the less rigid they will be when not reinforced.

You say 12 is more than you feel you need. How long would you say you keep your creations assembled before taking them appart to build something else?

 

20 hours ago, aeh5040 said:

Err, yes.  But that applies to every part! :laugh:

I also tend to use 5x7s more than 5x11s though.

Hehe true that. Yeah, the 5x7s seem a bit more useful in most cases. At the same time, the 5x7 frames are a lot more common in sets as well and since I only buy sets and no singles, I feel like I might want to buy a few smaller sets containing the 5x11 frames when possible. The 42075 First Responder looks to be nice little set.

Edited by zoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, zoo said:

I see. Do you have an example of how to use the 4x6 bent liftarms as reinforcement?

It's a typical Pythagorean triangle - 3x4x5, which in Lego becomes 4x5x6 since you have to account for the extra half stud at either end of each side. Obviously you can achieve the same with two 6L liftarms but 4x6 bent liftarms are tougher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, suffocation said:

It's a typical Pythagorean triangle - 3x4x5, which in Lego becomes 4x5x6 since you have to account for the extra half stud at either end of each side. Obviously you can achieve the same with two 6L liftarms but 4x6 bent liftarms are tougher.

Indeed, thin liftarms could get easily loose, so best way  for reinforcement is to use 6 X 4 bent liftarms

Share this post


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

About the new larger frames soon to be released; it feels like they will be very useful parts, but the larger the frames, the less rigid they will be when not reinforced.

You say 12 is more than you feel you need. How long would you say you keep your creations assembled before taking them appart to build something else?

I imagine the new frames not to stand on themselves when supporting a structure. They can act as a base, and then be reinforced by other parts, such as smaller frames, dogbones, 3x5 L beams, diagonals, etc.

As for MOCs being assembled: I disassemble quite quickly; I never have more than 3 models standing at once; and my MOCs are usually around 3000 parts each (at most). For exxample I'm currently redoing my latest mobile crane WIP, which is similar in size to 42009, and so far, uses one 5x11 frame, and five 5x7. (The reason for the low number is that I use studded beams for the chassis).

 

2 hours ago, suffocation said:

It's a typical Pythagorean triangle - 3x4x5, which in Lego becomes 4x5x6 since you have to account for the extra half stud at either end of each side. Obviously you can achieve the same with two 6L liftarms but 4x6 bent liftarms are tougher.

For some reason, those 4x6 beams are parts I find myself often using way less than I own. I'm often surprised how many they come in sets, but I find them a bit unwieldy to use. If I want to support a 5-tall structure, I more often resort to 5x9 double-bent beams, or dogbones, or 3x5 beams. The 4x6 beam is rarely my best option, even though I know that triangles are often the way to go. The problem I often have with the part, is that it leaves a fairly long diagonal section with 4 holes that are "off-grid", yet the diagonal covers a lot of "unit cubes" that then can't be occupied by other parts anymore (so it's more useful in more "open" areas). Also, the final axle hole on the long end is rotated, which disallows connection to other beams with crossholes there (such as 5x9 double-bent).

They're super handy to put things at angles, such as wheel arches, but for structural purposes, if I have the option to stay "on the grid" I usually prefer that. And I find that 3x5 dogbones are often super useful structural parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know where is better to post it, so decided to post here. :classic:

Finally I became an owner of six pack futuristik wheels :classic:

540d297ab1a3734836835027a4f18f46.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could make new topic "LEGO set 8285 improvements and modifications". Looks COOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys sorry for delay. THanks for your opinions. Actually I'm thinking about 8285 RC MOD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Aleh said:

Hi guys sorry for delay. THanks for your opinions. Actually I'm thinking about 8285 RC MOD.

To make all functions RC is interesting challenge, but end-result could be great surprise...not to mention to make suspended axles...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question not worthy of its own thread. My 2 Kilogram MOC is a bit sluggish, is this more than one L motor should be moving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ukbajadave said:

Quick question not worthy of its own thread. My 2 Kilogram MOC is a bit sluggish, is this more than one L motor should be moving?

Definitely. 2, maybe 3 are required for such weights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The upcoming blue sports car evokes something I've always wondered: how does TLG ensure that Technic models doesn't infringe patented vehicle designs?

The car looks really similar to a Chevrolet Camaro, but is released as a generic sports car. Does it infringe the Camaro design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can patent vehicle designs. GTA has been using vehicle designs for years, and simply giving the cars a made up name. And I reckon TLG knows how to play by the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woah, this topic comes up a lot now. I suppose you could also draw parallels with Farming Simulator and the ingame Lizard-branded vehicles - in FS2013, there's the Lizard Wheel Loader that is essentially a rebranded Liebherr L566 with the brand name replaced by Lizard (funnily enough actual Liebherr vehicles appeared in the next game).

Plus, and yes, I am bringing 8283 up again, but TLG were clever with it - they used a mid-2000s Manitou design for the vehicle itself, but the colour scheme (red mudguards, white hubs) is from the earlier '90s models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that the unlicensed car looks like a real Chevy, while the licensed Chevy doesn't look like the real Chevy. :laugh:

Edited by Ngoc Nguyen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are two things that I've been wondering for a long long time. I really hope someone can help me with them.

1. Why do cars have protruding wheel arches?

2. Why are truck's cabin doors slanting down towards the front? Why are they not rectangular?

001639038.jpg

Share this post


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

These are two things that I've been wondering for a long long time. I really hope someone can help me with them.

1. Why do cars have protruding wheel arches?

2. Why are truck's cabin doors slanting down towards the front? Why are they not rectangular?

001639038.jpg

2.Because it's more comfortable to climb inside a cabin.

Edited by Yevhen

Share this post


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

2.Because it's more comfortable to climb inside a cabine.

Can you explain more? How does the shape of the door affect climbing into the cabin?

Share this post


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

Can you explain more? How does the shape of the door affect climbing into the cabin?

You have a deeper and not interrupted stair behind the door.

Edited by Yevhen

Share this post


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

These are two things that I've been wondering for a long long time. I really hope someone can help me with them.

1. Why do cars have protruding wheel arches?

2. Why are truck's cabin doors slanting down towards the front? Why are they not rectangular?

1 - There are several reasons: wheel arches must be a bit wider to protect against water/mud spraying from the wheels. This is not only practical, but also a safety feature (for other drivers), reduces the water "fog" in wet conditions - visibility. Also safety feature in the perspective, that in a case of collision, tire to tire contact is reduced, so one car can not catapult the other as the wheels contact each other - think of Forma-1 or gokart accidents with open wheels. 

2 - as the cab is over the wheels for these trucks, the driver needs to enter by climbing in. Therefore You have steps in the cab, which help to get in and out. Older models had those more visible (see picture below), at modern trucks those are covered by the door (better air flow, etc..). Drivers used to store their shoes on the top stair - the cab is their home, You don't enter in shoes. :classic:

s-l640.jpg

Hope this helped a bit. :classic:

Junaidah-Ibrahim-httpautoworld-com-my.jp

Edited by agrof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yevhen    @agrof

What I mean was the bottom side of the window frame of the door.

Like in this picture

standard-f150-cab-truck.jpg

The bottom side of the window frame goes like this
______
            \
              --------------

In this picture

001639038.jpg

The bottom side of the window frame goes like this

         ___________
       /
----

replacement-truck-cabin-spare-parts-isuz

 

 

So what I wanted to ask is that why isn't the bottom side of the frame flatly horizontal.

Like
     ________
  /                |
|                   |
|                   |
|___________|

instead of

     ________
  /                |
|                   |
|       ______ |
|___/

Edited by Ngoc Nguyen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It offers better sight for the driver to check the position during maneuvers, simple. :wink:

My other bet would be: just to make harder to replicate with LEGO.

Edited by agrof

Share this post


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

why isn't the bottom side of the frame flatly horizontal.

In a truck or larger van you need ALL the sight you can get as driver.
I've worked for Mammoet as engineer but also had the opportunity to drive with some of the larger equipment like a Liebherr 1500-8-1 crane.
Now when you're on the road with such heavy stuff you suddenly find that you are surrounded by brainless pedestrians and bicycles that don't realise they are about a few centimeters from a horrible death.

So truck designers design their trucks so that you can see as much as possible.
Especially next to the cabin (the dead angle) every mm extra sight is extremely welcome and saves lives.

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.