2GodBDGlory

Well, my analysis is that in order to avoid hitting the firewall, the biggest possible driver gear is a 24T, if you can find a way to make the stud where its teeth rub something else, like a bush. If you want a differential in there, the smallest ring gear you can have is also going to be 24T, since I don't see how you can reverse the 24/16T one in that space without the 24T side rubbing the motor. Therefore, the fastest gearing you can get using a differential is 1:1, with a 24T gear meshing with another 24T gear on the differential. If you get rid of the differential, though, you have the option of moving the motor closer to the axle and gearing up with either 20:12 or 24:8. Either way, you could potentially put a second L motor on the front of the axle, though you may need the space for something else, and the torque may not be necessary with the low 1:1 ratio, at least.

I got tired of waiting to acquire the AT-AT ring gears, and now that the B&P interface has changed and they're no longer on there, I decided to take matters into my own hands and 3D-print some of my own. That led to experiments to determine which gearing options worked with it, and in the end I found four options: 24:12:24, 20:20:20, 16:28:16, and 12:36:12, plus a bonus of 14:32:14 using a 3D-printed 32T gear: That got me wanting to try out options with the old 48T option from the Power Miners wheel, and in addition to the three options commonly known (20:8:20, 16:16:16, and 12:24:12), I noticed that by using retro 14T gears one can get 14:20:14 as well. This is also another area where the new non-beveled 12T and 20T gears will be handy, because my existing designs with beveled ones require the carrier to be set back half a stud, which would not be necessary with those. Finally, I decided to make a spreadsheet of all the possible combinations of gears for all possible ring gear sizes in multiples of 4 from 24 up to 60, using the formula that the sun and two planet gear tooth counts must add up to the ring gear tooth count. The takeaway here is that the 40T ring gear is likely the most practical for Technic MOCs, though it doesn't exist, because of its compromise of many ratios and small size, while the 60T we did just get is rather disappointing in that it doesn't even have five possibilities like 52 and 56 because two of its ratios happen to land on gears we're missing, with the 32T and the 44T both working theoretically. 56 would also have an extra possibility with a 32T gear. With this in mind, I'll think about designing and printing a 40T ring gear housing and designing a more realistic automatic-style planetary transmission, though I've got plenty of other projects I'm interested in.

I don't think it's going to be legal, but I know I've done it with the similar 64589 connector!

Thanks! It's not really suitable for Rebrickable, though, because not only would the complexity deter all but a few people, but the unreliability and need for constant troubleshooting by someone with a deep understanding of the machine would make it extremely frustrating for the few who might build it. Perhaps one day I'll come up with something practical enough for that, though!

Thanks! You're referring to my post from a few days ago? I did actually program that calculator shown in the video there, but the idea was for it to just be funny that I did such a useless thing without the appeal of it's being mechanical. Thank you! It did take a lot of parts, but surprisingly little math. The tricky part was just in covering simple math operations into workable mechanims. Yeah, the backlash was disappointing. The nice thing here was that any backlash before the spirals didn't affect accuracy, but even with that it ended up being too much. Yeah, this is totally overkill for the basic math it can go, but I at least haven't been able to think of any way to simplify the design, though as I mentioned I've got vague ideas for one using linear motion instead, which could change a lot, and get rid of a lot of backlash. I've even got hopes that the working principle will allow me to add multiplication and division for the first time, but that'd be pretty hard.

Yeah, Wranglers do default to RWD, and some generations (JK at least) were sold in a solely RWD version. The live axles are a worthwhile feature!

Do you mean updating it each year? Yes, I've been doing that since 2017 (though I hadn't shared it yet), and I plan to keep doing it for the foreseeable future.

I took apart my 42130 BMW yesterday, and got a few pictures to share: First is the large front shocks taken apart, for any curious about what that looks like: Next are two different ideas for using the disc brakes as rims. This first one is the Defender's (actually the old 8880 version, but it doesn't matter) tire on the non-Defender rim as a simple wheel cover for a strange futuristic look: The second is the Porsche/Bugatti/Lamborghini tire mounted on two discs, spaced two studs apart. They're not quite as big as they should be, but they hold the tire pretty nicely and look good. You'll give up the offset, though, so it's not a great idea.

Hmm, my impression had been that this contest was intended to be for really small models, of only a couple hundred pieces or so. My opinion would be that a contest of really small stuff doesn't need a theme, but by the time we reach Corvette scale the entries will be too diverse to compare with each other effectively without some kind of theme. I think my preference would be for smaller stuff, just because it's an area I've never really explored, but I don't feel strongly about it.

Ok, thanks for the thorough answer! I hope someone does a full on comparison video at some point, especially to compare torque outputs.

Can you direct me to any info regarding the difference in power between CADA and Lego buggy motors?

So, as you may know, I’ve built a couple mechanical calculators before, my Technivac I and Technivac II. I’m pleased to have completed those, but I recently came up with an idea that should make even state-of-the-art mechanical calculators like those look obsolete: namely, electrical calculators!!! Electronics would allow me to make the calculator far more compact, give me far superior reliability, and even allow me to add the elusive (though arguably irrelevant) multiplication and division operators. Naturally, I jumped into the powerful and innovative Lego Powered UP app as the obvious choice to attempt such a calculator. I had a few difficulties along the way, but no great breakthrough is without them. And a breakthrough it was! After only a few hours of labor, I had successfully created a completely electrical calculator controlled from my phone, which didn’t even require a single Lego brick (they’re overpriced anyways). Beyond that, as projected, the reliability was flawless, allowing me to add, subtract, multiply, and divide single-digit numbers with ease. I think this idea has enormous implications for the world that go far beyond being a simple Lego MOC! People everywhere will be able to trade in their mechanical calculators for a simple, pocket-sized device, freeing up valuable space in their houses that can now be filled with Furbys, or whatever the latest fad is these days! Beyond that, there will no longer be glaring mistakes in complex calculations, which should allow engineers to build bridges that will last longer than a week. My patent is still pending, but before I reveal this breakthrough to the public, I wanted to make it available to the community here on Eurobricks, free of charge! All you have to do to add this digital revolution to your pocket is download the Powered UP app (if you don’t already have it) and then copy the code blocks and widgets from the images provided here. Enjoy! Here’s a video, where you can see this marvel in action:

Well, in a way yes. I did actually make what I said I made; the joke was more in why someone wouldmake it.

Glad to hear you like it!

Thank you! I agree that the ability to build this MOC without physical bricks at all is its key feature. Here are my previous two mechanical calculators, should one have archaic preferences in calculation technology: I'd have to learn how one of those works first... Thanks! If I had a tablet I could definitely make use of a larger user interface, but alas my phone is too small. It's also annoying how the only dials available take up a 2x2 space on the screen. A 1x1 one would be really handy! -------------------------- So, in case I didn't make the tongue-in-cheek nature of this post clear enough, this was my idea of an April Fools joke--A MOC that isn't really Lego in any meaningful way. In case you're wondering, I have actually been working on a third take on my Mechanical Calculator, and finished it a few days ago. It's still not as precise as I'd like, but I think it's nonetheless my best one yet. Once I get some more free time, I'll get around to posting it on here, so stay tuned for that.

Nice job! I've never seen the rear suspension angled like that. Is there any advantage to that when the wheels aren't being steered?

Again, nice and clean! One thing that could be worth trying is having two HOG knobs; one on the back, and one on the top. The top one would be used with a trailer attached, since there would then be enough weight on the rear for it to work, while the bottom would be used when there is no trailer, because there is then access to it.

It might not be too bad with a backpack, but it still seems annoyingly complicated!

I'd love to see any solutions people come up with for an onboard air compressor, but I can't help you there. I would imagine that by carefully operating the lever on a pneumatic valve, you could perhaps slow down the airflow enough even with a fixed-speed compressor, but I don't know for sure.

It's cool to see in those different colors, but if I'm not mistaken those wheel covers don't exist in black.

Though because the upper pivot is so far up, it is a smaller effect than it would be if it were lower down.

I like it! It's a much more interesting suspension than we usually see, and looks pretty solid.

Maybe this isn't helpful, but even when I bought a brand new one direct from Lego, it did have noticeable bend. It's not an issue in a model because of how easy it is to straighten under constraint, but maybe it's just normal for these parts.

Very nice job and presentation! A trailer like this could easily become an afterthought, but you put a lot of thought and engineering into adding functions and giving them good execution.

One suggestion for the front suspension would be to go to a MacPherson strut setup, using a spring taken from a small shock absorber on the steering pivot. This wouldn't be as realistic for this car, and could have trouble fitting under the hood, but would eliminate the need for any upper wishbone. I guess you could even just use a vertical axle for the strut to locate the axle, and then use a rubber band somewhere else for the actual springing.