T Lego

Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About T Lego

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
  • Which LEGO set did you recently purchase or build?

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location


  • Country
    The Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

12821 profile views
  1. To me this looks like a CVT. The contact points between the two pulley wheels and the disc hubs can vary by sliding the upper gear rack. By inspecting the rest of the photo's it looks to me like this CVT is also connected to another gearbox using the new selector part. Very interesting and unique setup! Source: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=408660194706739&set=pcb.408661011373324
  2. Good Luck with this project! The big shocks will look so good on a car like this. Maybe I need to do a complete revision of my Centenario one day... I can't really comment much because there is barely any visible progress at this stage, however one suggestion which you could experiment with: Use a 12 tooth gear in the steering rack for the rear axle and a 28 tooth gear in the rack of the front axle, coupling them directly (no gearing). This way you get the difference in turning angle and minimize play at the same time, which is crucial for a properly functioning 4 wheel steering setup. Looking forward to whatever is comming next!
  3. Wonderful model! As usual, great job on the gearbox and and the other functionality. I like the bodywork a lot! Despite the scale, the proportions don't look compromised at all and I love some of the details like the flat silver soft axle surrounding the headlights capturing the characteristic McLaren eyes. IMO the front is a little too extreme on the connector usage, but that's obviously part of your building style. I am curious about the stacked liftarms in the doors; didn't panels fit? And have you considered filling up the rear end with grille or fence pieces etc. ? Thanks for sharing and looking forward to the video!
  4. IMO it is not so much about having access to resources, at least not if you are in the game of publishing premium MOCs. I only whish I could have a 1:8 scale diecast model next to a WIP for optimum comparison, instead of blueprints, allowing me to judge the proportions more accurately. Unfortunately making such purchase is simply not lucrative in the end. After releasing my Centenario I was soon full of regret not having taken, let's say, three extra months to focus on improving build quality and DFA, so it would actually be able to compete with UCS supercars on that level. Despite having disappointed a number of people who purchased my instructions, the model could still be considered a relative succes, looking at the rebrickable statistics. And for me personally too, having gained valuable experience. Now, my personal standards have risen and consequently the portion of 'hard work' needed to fnish a moc has increased significantly, part of the reason why I haven't published anything myself for the past two years. MOC designers are not obligated to meet certain standards, they can do whatever they want, even if they sell their instructions. They are hobbyists doing it for fun, and pollishing everything up to TLG equivilant standards takes a lot of discipline which can take away that fun. In the first place, I think one should rather be thankful for making it availble to the public, regardless of whether it meets up with the expectations of the buyer. After all, it doesn't harm or compromise anything. Shifting back to the topic, it is logic to pressume that Dugald first designed the motorized version and then converted the design to a manual. Meaning the RC is probably all round much more sophisticated in design as the model was primarily designed around that.
  5. I second this. We haven't seen this feature in any of the modern generation (MOC) supercars because the discs were too large relative to the rims. Operated with a brake paddle in the interior which is easily accessible with the roof off. The 5 star spokes will expose the feature nicely. Maybe a way to store the roof in the frunk, like a Koenigsegg.
  6. @thekoRngear My hypothesis would be a small defect in the plastic which led to crack propagation when driving the car around, finally causing it to shear off. I cannot remember seeing a differential broken this way; its usually the bevel gears that take a beating. Good luck replacing the diff
  7. This will definitely be one juicy parts pack! I presume the new 3x5 panel will have both a left and right version, so there is two studs of 'hollow space' in width inside. Otherwise mounting them would be quite awkward. As for the new smaller curved tapered panel, I think the one behind the doors and the rear wheels are similar. If you look closely, you can see that the angled edge does not continue further down the back of the door. I think I see another one on the inside of the inner mudguard panels as well.
  8. Lovely build my friend! It has all the functionality you want in a 1:8 technic car of modern age and the replication of the shapes is done very well. Building a bodywork in black does hide away some of the lines, but on the other hand cluttered areas and less fluid shapes don't trigger your eyes as much - you know what I mean . The combo with the gold works really well so I think it was the right choice. All the details are spot on though the suspension could have looked more authentic IMO. Impressive how you also managed to make 3 seperate functions run trough the center tunnel - I am curious about the layout. It looks like I will have some good competition, because I have plans to build a Huayra myself next year. It will probably allow me to learn from and appreciate your solutions even more. Thank you for sharing!
  9. Great job on this modern supercar interpretation! The bodywork and chassis are of high quality and I like the spacious cabin. There are a few areas which could be refined IMO, but admittedly these areas are always struggling points on any sports car. Keep up the good work buddy!
  10. @Lipko Thank you for clarifying! Appologies if some of my comments about these gears were inaccurately/incorrectly described. I was under the assumption that is contact line was reduced in most helical gear designs - I am no expert in this field, I will do my research better next time. At least they still have the advantage of reduced tooth load because at any time instant more teeth are in contact at the same time. I am affraid I have mixed terms clicking and slipping/skipping. The latter obviously occurs when at high torque the gears push each other away by this radial force. I meant the application of helical gears in lego creations would be new; of course they appear in real life applications for more than a century already. Yes, although I don't know if they appear in any released sets so far. I suggest asking it in the main CaDa topic.
  11. Yes, at the moment the helical gears are noting more than an idea I had though, but I will propose it to Martin very soon! The gears 'clicking' is caused only by the radial force on these regular/spur gears because of the angled contact line. I came across this pretty cool animation the other day which vizualizes this, as well how gear meshing generates friction. This radial force is reduced significantly in the case of the slanted teeth of helical gears, so in theory we can transfer very high torque with less bracing! I too see this revolutionize gearbox efficiency and compactness, for RC applications in particular. I might be wrong about the carbon gears though, the fibre glass mixture makes a lot more sense.
  12. @astyanax Thanks again for the entertainment! It looks like you are getting somewhere and I am looking forward to seeing the video! I am not sure about the current CaDa parts, but I presume they are quite similar. New carbon fibre gears and axles are being developed as we speak, so soon the limits can be pushed even further! It would be cool te see helical gears in the future as well since they are ideal for high load applications. Their slanted teeth result in more gradual contact and less friction. Though they will bring some disadvantages such as axial thrust and increased gearbox assembly difficulty.
  13. Exciting stuff! These new CaDa buggy motors make as much noise as the real car when redlining at 8000 RPM, making it seem even faster. The heavy duty differential comes in handy, becease it can handle more torque and reduces the final ratio at the wheels. The overal solution looks quite satisfying! Looking forward to seeing this develope. On the side, I was wondering the other day if the two ouputs of the buggy motors could be used in a clever way to make a compact 8 speed transmission. Basically using a 4 speed gearbox with a larger spread of gear ratios and using the 1:1.35 (approx.) ratio between the inner and outer buggy motor ouputs as increments of these speeds. This in such way that e.g. gear 1 in the 4 speed gearbox combined with the inner (faster) buggy motor output, is slower than gear 2 in the 4 speed gearbox combined with the outer (slower) buggy motor output. This can be realised for all speeds by using for instance this 4 speed gearbox by Crowkillers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bMFSqc8_cc ). In order to sequentially shift trough all speeds the buggy motor ouputs need to be switched every shift while the 4 speed gearbox shifts alternatingly, so you could say it has somewhat similar behaviour compared to a dual clutch gearbox. ...annyways, what you are working on seems like serious challenge, and my lego brain too can't resist the joy of discovering the answsers to these crazy and bold ideas!
  14. Yes, I see what you mean. However, in such situations you ususally have a part that is serves it's application very well in a single part of the design, but in broader sense doesn't to bring a lot of potential in terms of versatality. E.g. introducing a variant of every axle lenght with stop will doesn't bring much to the table, nor will liftarms in every length. I could also come up with an infinite amount of liftarms with arbritrary amount of pin holes in any concievable shape, which beyond the use in a specific creation will not be any better suited than earlier existing parts. Obviouly there are many exceptions like the mentioned gears with new number of teeth, since this can reduce the size of many gearbox designs and make other mechanisms more efficient. Or in the context of smaller scale, I think a new type of suspension arm with socket could be very useful but then again it's exaggerative to add five new ones in different sizes. We are talking about CaDa producing these parts, which would be appearing in master sets mostly. You will not find any colour vomit in most of the existing and upcomming sets because most MOC desigers simply prefer a monotonously coloured chassis. Axles are usually more hidden and don't affect the appearance as much so it's not the same story. Yes, you can simply count holes in a liftarm or put a 1:1 scale picture on every single page and grab the correct size after a small number of trails but this simply isn't practical or contributing to a satisfying building process - agree to disagree.
  15. @howitzer Exactly! There is no point in manufacturing so many variations of existing parts from a financial standpoint. One could also wonder if these parts would actually improve models in a signifant way. You simply have to be more creative with a limited selection of parts and as a designer myself, I do frequently run into situtuations where I think ''this non-existing part would be perfect for the job'', but after some tinkering and rebuilding in the 'existing parts domain' you usually end up with something of comparable quality. Of course most of the mentioned parts would be great, however I wouldn't be a big fan if liftarms of even length would be introduced, because people would no longer be able to easily distinguish the different lengths when building a set.