JLiu15

Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

    344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About JLiu15

  • Birthday 12/01/2000

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
    Technic
  • Which LEGO set did you recently purchase or build?
    42099

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Verona, NJ

Extra

  • Country
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

3167 profile views
  1. Thanks! Yeah the model turned out pretty realistic in the end imo, probably one of my most realistic MOCs up to date.
  2. Thanks! As for the mast tilt, I agree - a drawback of pneumatics is that they can't hold the load precisely in place like linear actuators can. Nevertheless, the pneumatics worked a lot better than I expected here. I was worried they won't have enough load capacity to tilt the mast, but they can tilt it back just fine even with the fork completely raised.
  3. Thanks! You can take a look at some recent Technic sets featuring pneumatics for a general idea of how they're implemented, such as the 42043 set. You can get individual pneumatic elements here: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=P&catString=159 The L motor has plenty of torque so it has a pretty good lift capacity in theory, but unfortunately the mechanism starts skipping under load. I'm guessing a little more reinforcement where the pinion gears meet the racks would've solved that. Thanks! I'm glad you like it
  4. Oh haha I saw that But yeah, I'm glad you like it, and once again thanks for your support in the WIP topic Here's a secret - the fake engine wasn't actually part of the original plan. I only added it when I found sufficient space for one, and this was thanks to keeping all the motors close to their respective functions thus optimizing space in the chassis. Thanks! And yeah one of the things I like about how this MOC turned out is how all the functions work with a pretty good speed - like nothing is painfully slow. As for the steering, you can take a look at my WIP topic to get a general idea of how it's done. The first few images should have a pretty good view of it.
  5. Model of a Kalmar heavy forklift controlled using SBrick. Features drive, steering, fork elevation, pneumatic mast tilt, kissing forks, tilting cab, 6-cylinder engine, and lights. Functions/features: Drive Steering Fork elevation Mast tilt (pneumatic) Kissing forks (manual) Tilting cab 6-cylinder engine Lights It's been a while since I created a MOC featuring pneumatics, and even longer since I created one with remote-controlled pneumatics. My last MOC with fully remote-controlled pneumatics was from 2015, and that was before I had an SBrick. Ever since I obtained an SBrick I had made two MOCs with remote-controlled pneumatics - a front loader in 2016 and a Volvo EC350E excavator in 2019. However, both projects were cancelled before I finished them. I realized the mast tilting function on a forklift would be a good choice for pneumatics, especially the 7L cylinders. I originally just wanted to make a generic heavy forklift, but when I came across Kalmar's heavy forklifts I was really intrigued by their design so I decided to make the DCG180-330 by Kalmar. My model maximizes functionality while minimizing the amount of moving parts. Most functions have their motors connected directly to their inputs, thus minimizing moving parts and optimizing chassis space. The drive motor is placed directly behind the differential, and gear reduction is done via portal hubs placed horizontally. The servo motor for steering is placed vertically in the chassis, connected directly to the steering linkage without a rack-and-pinion mechanism. This allowed for a large steering lock which is commonplace among forklifts, but this also meant that the chassis around the axle has to be thin so the wheels don't bump into them - in fact, the chassis is only 3 studs wide in the rear but is reinforced well nevertheless. I limited the servo's range of movement in the SBrick profile designer as the steering input can only turn about 45 degrees each way. Even then I still had to add towballs as limiters to the steering mechanism to ensure the wheels don't rub against the rear body panel when turning. In the end, I wish the wheels could steer a little tighter, but the end result is impressive nonetheless. The mast is built with a PF L motor near the top, which drives a worm gear mechanism controlling fork elevation. The section that lifts up is essentially a frame with two sets of racks that contain the fork module sliding freely within it. A single rope pulls the fork up, and the range of movement is pretty impressive. The fork module contains two manually controlled linear actuators that allow the forks to move closer to each other - "kissing forks", as the PDF for the real-life counterpart calls it. The pneumatic system for the mast tilt function is comprised of a PF L motor driving the compressor and a PF M motor controlling the valve. The L motor for the compressor is geared up slightly to allow rapid pumping, and the valve mechanism is placed at the very front of the model to minimize the length of the hoses connecting the valve to the cylinders. Other features include a tilting cab, a 6-cylinder engine with mini pistons below the cab, and lights connected directly to the 8878 battery so the speed dial on it can be used to control their brightness. The 6-cylinder engine is accurate, as one of the engine options on the real Kalmar DCG180-330 is a Cummins B6.7. The fake engine is connected directly to the drivetrain and makes a pretty cool noise while driving. The functions overall worked pretty well - it had decent driving speed, a really good turning radius, the fork elevation had sufficient torque without being painfully slow and the pneumatic mast tilt had good precision. There were some issues - such as the fork elevation mechanism skipping at the racks when under load and the pneumatics not being able to tilt the mast back when the fork is fully raised and the mast is fully tilted in the forward direction. The fork mechanism also lacked a clutch, so it was really important to stop the motor precisely at the moment the fork reaches the bottom to prevent it from stalling. Still, given how well the functions worked overall and how realistic and detailed the bodywork is, I feel like this MOC was a great success. Video: Photos:
  6. JLiu15

    42114 - 6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler

    I got it for like $170 I think lol I agree with your opinion - it seems to be a mixed bag when it comes to the price. There's usually a linear correlation between the price and piece count, electronics, license, etc, but there's definitely outliers like the ones you mentioned.
  7. JLiu15

    Your Best Technic Bargains

    Used 8436 for $80 (?) at BrickFair Virginia last year. It was like new, and considering new ones currently start at $160 on BL I got a pretty good deal imo.
  8. JLiu15

    42113 Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

    I'm seeing a positive trend here with the price of Technic sets. Both this set and the 42114 were significantly cheaper than I expected given their piece count, electronics, and the fact that they're both licensed sets. It's listed on the LEGO shop for $150, which is the same price as the 42080 but that one had ~600 parts less AND was a generic model (granted that one had pneumatics, but both sets are motorized). I feel like LEGO may finally be improving the value of Technic sets here, as plenty of motorized sets in recent years (e.g. 42109, 42070) were WAY overpriced. Honestly I might even consider buying this set in the future, as it'll provide a small boost to my collection of C+ elements and it's a great supply of DBG panels.
  9. JLiu15

    42114 - 6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler

    The part that really blew my mind about this set is the price. I saw that it got listed on the LEGO shop and the price here in the US is $250 which is oddly the same as the 42099, but that one has >1k parts less and no license as well as the same number of electronic components. When I saw that the price was going to be 250EUR I assumed the US price would be $270 so I hesitated and bought the 42099 instead, but in retrospect I could've gotten a much better deal :( On the bright side, at least I got more CLAAS tires from the 42099. And admittedly having 2 C+ XL and 1 C+ L is better than having one of each of XL, L, and Angular imo (e.g. you could hard couple the 2 XLs for more torque). But all in all the price was totally unexpected for me, as all I've been seeing lately is sets with electronics getting more and more expensive (e.g. 42109, standalone C+ elements). It sucks for me that I should've waited longer for this set, but it is pretty good news in that LEGO may finally be improving the value of Technic sets. I noticed the same with the 42113 too, as that one is the same price as the 42080 ($150) but has ~600 pieces more AND a license, and both sets are motorized. This could be a positive trend here...
  10. I think that a transverse link like I mentioned above could be the solution to that - every time I make such a suspension I made sure to include them. As for the tires moving forwards/backwards when the suspension compresses, I'm guessing you could install the suspension arms as far apart as possible without colliding with the wheels when steering and use 4 (or more) of them to connect the axle to the main frame instead of 3 if you're using my method. Here are my MOCs that use the aforementioned suspension design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBnszw-WX7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds_9KVoJwwI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AumoQdYt71E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqkPARznWng
  11. In my live axle suspension designs I’ve usually found this piece to work pretty well. It serves the function of a link yet doesn’t allow movement transverse to the chassis. If there’s quite a bit of play in the system (which there usually is) then you could install a link transverse to the chassis attaching the axle to the main frame so it doesn’t move side to side. 3 of them is usually enough to keep the suspension stable - you could take a look at the 42043 Arocs’ front axles to get a general idea. If the aforementioned suspension arms are too short you could attach a beam to them to make them longer. Additionally, this piece should work too.
  12. Okay, guess this might be quite a common issue then. When I logged in successfully on iPad my older control profiles were gone, but most of my old control profiles get deleted anyway so nbd ig.
  13. In my experience the servo motor's center position can be off by a negligible amount. When I use it in a creation I can usually see the output rotating slightly when turning on the battery box (I'm guessing it's to calibrate center position). However, if the dots are too far apart at center position then it's probably an issue with the motor.
  14. Update: I was able to log into the app on an iPad just fine. I guess I'll use the iPad to control the MOC then. However, I'd still like to be able to use my phone to control my MOCs...