bj51

Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bj51

  • Birthday 03/09/1984

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
    Technic

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://bj51creations.blogspot.fr/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bures-sur-Yvette, France

Extra

  • Country
    France

Recent Profile Visitors

790 profile views
  1. I've tested a solution brought to me by Cypr-21 on the french AFOL forum TechLUG (new version on the right) : In my old version, I already separated each 9.5L liftarm by 1 1L liftarm, because if I had put them together, as on every other of my lattices, it would have required a 10.2L liftarm, which is even less easy to make than a 9.5L one. But I didn't think once to separate thme by more than 1 stud. Here it needs a 9.06L liftarm, which a 9L fits nearly perfectly. You can see they're now the same size and angle on both the 12m and 6m section, which I tried to avoid for some reason (I think it's visually important to make the difference between the 2 sections, and the angle of the lattice helps with that). What do you think ?
  2. Sorry if I annoyed you, but that's not just a "little bump in my road". I've been working on these lattices for about a year now, and I tested TENS of possible combinations and scales, rebuilding every section each time. From 1/25 to 1/48, i've done them all. This is 1/37, by the way. My goal is of course to get something sturdy, but not at the cost of looks and design. Otherwise why bother ? I want to recreate an existing crane, and that comes with constraints and obligations. This particular section of boom has 5 arms in the lattice, so I can't just change the angles, even a little bit, otherwise they wouldn't fit anymore. I can't go to a bigger scale because the crawler part alone is already in the 5000 parts, and I can't go smaller because the lattices would be even harder to fit. It's so hard to explain on a forum in a second langage, rather than in person with the bricks in your hands, and that's so frustrating !
  3. Thanks for all the input ! @Lipko : I'd like to keep the witdh to 1 stud, so as to keep with the aspect of the other liftarms. But your idea would definitely work ! @Filipe : Yes, the holes at both ends need to be free, because this assembly is then sandwiched between plates in the first hole (as you can see on the pictures above) and it is skewed, so there can be nothing in the second hole. @Jundis : I've tried with plates and jumpers, it kinda works. For example, i can join a 3L liftarm and a 5L liftarm with plates and jumpers, but that leaves a hideous gap, and it's not very sturdy. @Doug : Yes, but i'm constrained by real dimensions, so the angles can't really be changed, otherwise it'd be too easy. ;) Apart from the solution i presented, my last resort is to use the same lattice width as the other side of that boom, thus having a square section instead of a rectangular one, but i'll have to see if the overall design and aspect won't suffer too much.
  4. I don't think so, unless you use the old 10L threaded axles, but that's not really an option. If a normal axle is positionned length-wise, there will be sliding at one end or the other.
  5. Yeah, i thought of that. I looked for a long time before settling on this dimension. The problem is there are 8 different sizes of lattices in the crane : 2 sizes of boom, with each 2 sizes of lattice (they're rectangular in section, not square). On top of that, you have 2 lengths of each section, 6m (with 3 arms per lattice) and 12m (with 5 arms per lattice), so you've got 8 different combinations (6 in fact, the small side of the larger boom is the same as the big side of the smaller boom). Here's a family picture : From left to right : Large 6m boom, large 12m boom, small 6m boom, small 12m boom. All other lattice lengths are integer-lengths of liftarms, except for the one on the small 12m boom. So you see everything has to fit together, so it's hard to change the size of just that section.
  6. Hello ! I'm trying to find a solution to a problem i'm having. I'm building a lattice crane and one of the sections needs 9.5L liftarms... I've come up with this : But it's a little too bulky, compared to other lattice sections with just liftarms. This particular assembly fits like this in the section : Anyone have an idea for a less bulky 9.5L liftarm ? It needs : to be 9.5L long, to be put between plates at both ends, so the 2 first holes at each end should remain free, to resist length-wise efforts in traction (you should be able to pull at both ends and it wouldn't break), so an axle/axle joiner/axle connector solution won't work. Thanks for reading !
  7. bj51

    Modular Building Sets - Rumours and Discussion

    Lego just posted official pics on facebook (in France at least).
  8. I only did scale by wheelbase, unfortunately. But I could gather data for total length, width and height as well, might be interesting.
  9. By my calculations and based on the wheelbase alone, the mean scale for this new wave is 1:29.5. The mean scale for the rest of the SC lineup since 2015 is 1:35.1. So yeah, the new cars are bigger in all dimensions, not just wider. Just for fun, the most out-of-scale cars in the whole 2015-2019 lineup (still based on the wheelbase alone) are the Porsche 917K (scale 1:28.8) and the Ferrari SF16-H (scale 1:40.8).
  10. I'd advise you to look for specs on the 458 or 488, because it's definitely one of those underneath.
  11. Where did you get that perpendicular pin connector in black ?
  12. Hello, I'm in the process of modifying my design, so i'm not gonna release the LDD file quite yet. Sorry for the delay ! Thanks !
  13. bj51

    Help creating a turntable?

    Have a look at 42082, its turntable is 21L large and can support a lot with great stability.
  14. bj51

    Axle Collection Thread

    Not in between the wheels yes, but you can add one behind, from the two axles coming out.