suffocation

Great model and the front is beyond-imagination awesome Expect to see that design technique stolen quite often

Hi Hurri, welcome! I'm a rookie myself but from what I can tell, it looks like you're off to a good start. In any case, don't be afraid of test-building, tearing down and rebuilding - it's a great way to learn and quite a common one, too.

Tortoiseshell kitty

I was quite happy to answer the questions before accessing the forum. Luckily, I have yet to reach the level of apathy where typing anything other than LOL and OMG is a strain on my fingers and brain cells. You guys running the board are doing a tremendous job and if this can help cut down on the spam, users should be happy to comply.

Hi Igor, I'm not really following a blueprint of any sort - I'm just going by what might look good If you were designing an RTC from scratch, would you make the boom longer, shorter or keep it as it is in the picture? As it is, it has a dozen studs overhang.

Thanks, Igor The carrier chassis is ready - before moving on to the bodywork, I have to figure out what livery to give this bad boy. Since I want the green engine to be well in sight and the outriggers are pretty much stuck in grey (I have the gear racks in red but I don't want this thing to look like a Christmas tree), what would you guys recommend? I was thinking a mostly black carrier and a mostly yellow superstructure. I tried mounting the superstructure from my crawler crane to see what it might more or less look like: So, a couple of questions: 1) Do you think a mostly black carrier plus green engine plus LBG/DBG outriggers plus mostly yellow superstructure livery would look decent or is it a recipe for colour vomit? Please help out a colourblind lowcarder. 2) Does the boom need to be longer? Thanks for any feedback

Thanks for the feedback As I stated in the first post, I'm aware that this type of vehicle typically has live axles. However, any kind of live axle setup is going to either take up a ton of space or compromise the model's rigidity, which is much more important to me than a "realistic" suspension setup. I already used a pendular suspension setup on my first crane and, while very effective, it took up a lot of room. As for the outriggers, I actually had the 42070 setup in mind - never was even aware of 8460 - but wanted the stabilisers to extend much farther out, hence the hybrid solution. My solution goes from 27 studs retracted to 64 extended - I'm not sure that kind of reach is feasible with a typical two-stage solution without the end result being flimsy and/or taking up too much space, and/or compromising on clearance, and/or perhaps resorting to pneumatics which I'd rather avoid here. I'd be quite happy to be proven wrong.

How about another crane?

@BrickbyBrickTechnic pulled it off pretty well.

The old tread links can fit on either side into one of the holes in a z24 gear. This technique was used on a Technic set from back in the day - can't remember which.

Great work and I agree that the Claas tyres complement it best.

I always make sure the end model is laden in greasy fingerprints because it means I've been eating lots of pizza which means I've been good to myself.

5x7 frames.

That says a lot about how many pointless tiny pieces have been thrown in to bloat the part count. My crane weighs more - eight motors ain't peanuts - but is just over 3000 parts and is structurally more sound than 42082. More O frames and dogbones would've served a far better purpose than those handfuls of white 1L beams.

Indeed, I read some product sheets by Tadano and LIebherr and couldn't find a single model with a V engine. I guess 42082 has one because it looks cool, which is understandable from a marketing point of view. As for the stiffness, I tried placing three 1 KG weights on the chassis and didn't notice any sagging, so that's good. The combination of O frames, dogbones, L motors and servos works really well. I really wanted to use Claas tyres but I think they look too small. This is what it looks like with the third-party tyres I linked above: A quick test revealed three welcome positives: - there's no need for four shocks per wheel. In fact, with three KGs on top and just two shocks per wheel, they compress about one-third of the way. It's all about the mounting point (ahem Bugatti ahem) - the drivetrain works even with all that load on top. Since I plan on keeping the model a lot less panelled up, with more guts showing, I doubt I'll be adding that much weight on top anyway - the outriggers work quickly and flawlessly. I can't imagine why the outriggers on 42082 were geared down so much since they still won't lift the model. And one huge negative: - the custom hubs refuse to hold up under all that weight when the model is being driven, so I'll have to come up with something else.