Appie

What I am about to say is perhaps a little vague, but it's been years since I read it. What might be the problem on the ring is there should be some lines which seperate the different servo positions (should be about 7 or 9, you can utilize these with a PF train remote for example). Anyway, I read back then if the servo has issues, it might be because of the fluid (not sure if fluid is the correct word, but it is on there by default) is wiped across the 7-9 lines. This results in it making contact over the entire ring. To fix this, you'd need clean between those 7-9 lines to make the servo work normally again. I found the post to which I am refering actually: Wasn't fluid, but copper apparently :) Maybe this helps

I'd try this too. Last time I had a similar issue (would light up with nothing attached and do nothing with a motor connected) with a PF box and PF motor, turned out one of the batteries was leaking.

... You received an email from them, hit the reply button and just ask them why it was declined. Why do I need to be a middle man for this? Edit: I can give an educated guess why it was declined (to be clear, this isn't from the judges but from me): - Similarities with GBC, which always has a (big) place at the event, because kids LOVE it. - Overlap/similarities with the (big) train layout that's also present every year as kids love it. - Your creation lacks a bit of dress-up maybe? The train layout for example tries to have sections you'd see in a city while trying technical things in their builds, where yours looks more like a a showcase of what's technically possible. - GBC and Trains taking a big chunk of the limited space available, yours would be another that would cost 4-6 tables. And not only that, but that's also 4-6 tables that could have gone to other individuals. Meaning that it could be that 4-6 other people had to be declined to accommodate your setup. Again, this is not from the judges, but just my guess.

However, the people who review the entries are volunteers who do this besides their normal fulltime job. And while it is nice to explain in detail why somebody didn't get selected, it could be time they might not have. Yes, it's "only" 16 entries that would like such feedback now, but there have been years (2019 for example) where they had over 120 applicants for the Fan Zone, with the same 80 person limit. Which would result in them writing 40+ emails with feedback. That said, if Hanso just asks them in an email, I am sure they would provide such feedback, but I can fully understand them not doing it by default for everybody that didn't get in.

I can assure you that the people who judge the entries are technical knowledgeable. As for Hanso, tried emailing them at the address you got the email from? We can guess here why it was declined, but they can actually tell you.

New video from Mahjqa

I really like how this turned out! It's very cute in how small it is and fully functional. Personally not a fan of the usage of Cada motors, but that's just a personal thing. I draw the line at 3rd party battery boxes like Buwizz or recievers like Sbrick (and even those I tend to use rarely), but this model is a great demonstration as to why Lego should make a new micro motor already.

Thanks everybody Glad you like that as well. It was one of my favorite sets as a kid and couldn't help but think of it when I made this.

Looks to me like, if it has something like that, it will be some paper stuff similar to the Porsche Creator package that was only available at the start of the set on sale. What I am able to read from Promobricks.de sounds pretty similar. Which means the set won't be limited but that "slipcase" that comes with the first batch of the set will be. (edit: again, IF there is a "slipcase") This is besides me thinking that there is no way the set itself will ever be limited production.

Thanks guys

5. Compact tracked loader Functions: Drive Lift Tilt Easy swappable attachments for different duties: loader, dozer and forklift Flashing light on top functions as Power ON button for the Control+ hub Dimensions: 30x13x19 studs (LxWxH with largest attachment and height rounded up to full studs)= 7410 cubic studs Discussion topic:

Made a video and some pictures for the finished model Technic fig compatible :) The light on top of the cab functions as a Power ON button for the hub's button located below the seat. Three different attachments: loader, dozer and forklift attachments Easy access to replace batteries: Size of the model with the largest attachement is 7410 cubic studs (I rounded the height upwards to 19 studs, instead of using 18.5 studs). Thanks for watching

I like it alot more now, good job! One minor suggestion is when the crane is lowered, to have the hook in front of the cabin hooked on the bumper/bottom of the grill instead of behind the cabin. With the crane being longer, that looks more natural to me.

This is just my opinion, but I actually liked the smaller one more. Yes the wheels are a tad too small, but Lego has new 37mm tires since a few years: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=35578#T=C&C=11 Similar in style to his brother from the 80's even, which might be a good fit. The small LA could perhaps work better with a different geometry instead of a 3x3 liftarm, a 3x5 liftarm for example, so it's further from the pivot point, which should improve its power. I like the new fake engine you put on the new version, but the whole model feels too short and/or too high to me. The dead space between the crane and the cabin makes me feel that way especially. I think the whole cabin and crane lowered by 3-4 studs would improve this. Swap the big LA for 2 mini-LA's perhaps if this causes space problems? I also agree with Erik that the boom is too short. I didn't mean any offence with this, it's still a cute thing, but just personally I think it could be a little better, so I hope you appreciate the feedback.

I tried finding a way since Jurss mentioned it, but since it needs a wormgear for the tilt, which takes space to brace, the options became very limited. The only option I saw was to sacrifice the cab, which I chose not to. Of the 7 studs behind the "hub power button", 6 studs are the motors, of which the tilt motor is resting on the hub, so I can't lower it further. The lift motor is resting on the drive motor for one of the tracks, so also can't be lowered. Placing them horizontally would have meant sacrificing the cab or making the model longer to accommodate the gears.