Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Attika

  • Birthday 03/08/1977

Spam Prevention

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Technic, Studless,


  • Country
  • Special Tags 1

Recent Profile Visitors

2402 profile views
  1. Confess, you heretic! That tyre of yours has an unnatural belly. It is forced to a slightly bigger rim than it supposed to be. Now I know I'm the last one who should comlain about that (I've got a past ) but that printed rim isn't the same size as the lego counterpart, is it?
  2. The inner diameter of this rim is less than 5 studs, so an offset rim could not take the hub.
  3. Hi, I'm glad you appreciate my brainf4rt. Sorry for not reacting back then when you posted the G-wagon. I had the look, I just didn't react. My bad. It is my pleasure. wow, hold your horses! You're going to regret this question, I promise. Sooo, diff lock on the front is virtually imposible at the given width of the axle. Because of the steering, the hubs need to be held by the ball joints. That is only possible by using the 5L ball socket ended steering arm which is going to collide with the differential if -like at the rear axle- the 7x11 frame is being used to brace the mechanics. Even if this problem would go away, there is not enough room beside the 7x11 frame to connect any steering rod to the hub. My opinion is that by keeping the original dimensions of the axle, it cannot be done (properly, at least). I've scheduled to rebuild the whole chassis, using the bigger tyres and conveniently use the defender rims. That offset rim gives me another 2 studs on width and beside I'll give an additional 2 studs to compensate for the tyre size and make sure it does not rub against the chassis when the steering is at full lock. That seems to be quite manageable (says my Dunning kruger). Up to the news: Today I woke up and made the front axle even shorter by a stud. (If I had a month probably I could make it disappear as a whole ) That's how it looks: Also some hastily made instructions: Some additional changes I made on the front of the chassis: 1. Eliminated the panhard rod, changed the 3L axles with stop to 4L ones and by sticking them from the outside, could connect the two sides with that red connector assembly. It stiffened up the whole structure making the panhard rod redundant in it's function. 2. changes the springs to soft ones (all 4 of them) it lets the axles flex way more than the hard ones. The front end therefore is "floating", siting in a bit more than half on the suspension travel length. I'm happier with it this way, but it is mainly a personal preference. Do as you like. 3. Lifted the panel on the bumper by one stud (by taking out a 9L beam). It meant to compensate for the slightly lower stance caused by the softer springs. That's it. Have a good time with the set guys, I go back to my cave now. Bye Please keep in mind: This is my take on the subject, made in a very limited time window. The design may contain some solutions which satisfy my taste, yet can disturb others. Time and users (preferably @Didumos69) will tell if it is good enough or not.
  4. So, I had a go on this problem and in advance I have to say it is a compound problem, hence it requires some dissection. 1. The designer states in his related video that the steering lock is limited to about 30 degrees to protect the cv joints. I -respectfully- tend to disagree. Personally I've found the best point of these joints at their debut is the max working angle is around 40 (+) degrees. Since then I've built them in many application and never came across any problem in this regard. 2. In the same video the ackermann geometry is mentioned to be used to improve the steering lock. Sadly it does not do the job, here is why: - The angles are not correct. If the wheelbase was the half of what it is, the designed angles would be moreless accurate, but at the current distance between the axles the given angles are too high. Having this kind of excessive ackermann geometry is even worse for the the steering lock as having no ackermann built in the design. Why is it worse? - If the maximum angle for the cv is given, it means -with ackermann steering- that the inner wheel takes that maximum angle. The angle of the outer wheel is going to be lower by defenition. So we've got 30 degrees inside and 26(ish) outside. Due to the reason that these angles don't line up with the wheelbase, it means, one of the front wheels going to skid sideways when cornering. Usually it is the inside wheel with the higher angle that is skidding, so our practical steering angle is down to 26(ish) what is represented by the outside wheel. The rest of the problem is in the code. Using the PU profile (first time I did btw) there is a callibration process to go through. At this the motor takes both endpoints and settles at the middle point. When it comes to playtime however the maximum angle is lower, I assume it is to protect the components. Nevertheless it also decreases the steering angle. And now to the good news: To be honest I forgot to measure the original turning circle but I had two sources to get data. The designer states it is 195cm and @Sariel's gadget displays something over 2 metres (would have been useful if you show us the method instead of playing with the cat) Anyhow, I've rebuilt the front axle taking out the ackermann design from the equasion and connecting the steering rods one stud closer to the hub pivots (basically where it supposed to be by default). This gave me about 20-30 cm decrase on the diameter of the turning circle. A bigger chunk has been chopped of from this number by using the BrickController2 app made by @imurvai (God bless him). This method of control doesn't apply safety measures, it just does what you want. The end result is 90cm diameter between the inside wheels (130cm between the outside ones) A humble demonstration: I'll make a file soon and link it here.
  5. Hello there good people of Eurobricks, haven't been around for a while, as I've moved country and turned my life upside down. Anyhow, thanks to @kbalage I had the pleasure to peek into this upcoming model and share some workshop hours on the forementioned problem. Upon the quick fix I've felt the urge to make a deep fix, just as my noble colleague @efferman did. Here is my take on it: Made some sloppy building instructions too, please find in the link below: I've the pleasure to report that it's been tested IRL and have passed it. (yes, straight against the wall, that's the way it is ) Link for file:
  6. Attika

    [MOC] Unimog U400

    I haven't been around for a while, yet I came back just in time to see something incredible. Such a density of perfection. Kudos
  7. Very interesting concept on every level. Drivetrain, suspension, both quite unique solutions (at least for my eyes) and the bodywork makes it pretty. I'd love to see it on video.
  8. Looks nice, drives nice, solid job again, congrats. I perfectly understand the way of your thinking. My first build with the new hubs was also a tatra with buggy motors. It is mini compare to mine at least. Besides, building a driven tatra suspension in this scale is more of a challenge than using solid axles. (I suppose)
  9. HOG means "hand of god". It is simply a steering output outside of the body to enhance playability, regardless that you use gear rack, or not. Nothing to do with each other as a matter of choice. Would be easier though, if you share the current state of the build. A technical question. Are you building it digitally only, or you have a hard copy (plastic) on your desk?
  10. Looking forward to see the developement.
  11. I quite like the axle design. While the way they are connected to the chassis, raises the question: Is there anything to keep the axles centered? Beside that, I'd recommend to move the shock absorbers closer to the axle, preferably right above the half axles to avoid the tilting effect when the suspension is compressed. Also worth to connect them close, or top of the wheelhubs, so the structure of your axle not involved in carrying the weight.
  12. It's a unique idea, nicely executed and packed in the theme adorably. You've got no reason not to be proud about this project.
  13. Hi @Dimitry Very pleasant modification of the original. A bit more detailed description would definitely help the audience to appreciate the work behind it. I can see a number of studless beams replacing the original ones. The detailed exhaust system is surely a nice touch. Same on the engine. Noticed the HOG is imprisoned. Why did you keep it? Are there any changes under the hood? I mean the gearbox, suspension?
  14. Wow guys, you two should work together. Same idea, same editorial tools, even the title!......what are the chances... On the other hand, that box deserved the dedicated video for sure.