2GodBDGlory

No, nothing seems to detect it.

By sixteen channels I just meant that I could double the number of channels I could use from eight to sixteen, by using four Lego receivers and four Chinese ones. As for the pairing, when the receiver is powered on it flashes its light slowly, and then after it receives a command from the remote, the light stays on steadily. This strikes me as being a pairing procedure.

It looks very much like it is farm equipment designed by a supercar builder, in a good way!

Thanks!

Cool! I wasn't aware of your solution until now!

Interesting! I find it odd that a dirt-cheap knock off would use a more expensive technology, but it certainly seems that it did! If it doesn't require a line of sight, could I just bury the receiver inside a MOC like an SBrick?

Done: I now think you may be right! I see I have an antenna in there, which I don't recall seeing on Lego IR ones, and the remote seems to have to pair with a receiver before using it, unlike Lego ones. Would 2.4 GHz be seen as an advantage across the board, or are there disadvantages as well?

I should probably mention that this design, while strong, may have some friction in operation; spinning it by hand seems to lack smoothness, and my high-powered MOC would likely shrug off an additional load without my noticing it. Thanks! I wasn't aware of that idea, but it certainly is a similar alternative. I agree that the four prong design should theoretically be stronger, but that isn't necessarily how it would play out in practice. Yep! I'm not sure those would help here though, because I need two-stud protrusions to achieve a great enough angle, while ball joints would only provide one. The Bohrok eyes also seem like they would need a larger bracing to work properly. Perhaps you've got a better imagination than I, though, and can see uses for them in this application! Thanks for the input!

Does anyone have good images of the new track link and linear actuator yet? I'm working on the 2021 update to my book, and I'd like to include those. @Jim, do you think your review will have such images? Thanks

Thanks guys! What do you mean by that? Just to put more behind the first one so the axles can penetrate further?

I recently built the MKII from the online instructions using generic parts from my collection. It was a fun set to build, but it was even more fun once I was done modding it! I added my quasi-hobby motor setup to drive the middle axle and steer the other four axles, making it a very fast RC mod, clocking in at roughly 10 km/h! It was definitely interesting to control with the steering, and would roll over in corners if taken too quickly. Here's a video of this quick, goofy, little Mod:

I really don't know. It does seem to need line-of-sight, though, which I don't think would affect radio.

Here's variant #3! This time I tried to make a crawler F-250, using the quasi-hobby stuff again. There was more gearing down than the previous truck, but it ended up being way faster than I anticipated, and probably needed a bit more torque to really crawl. The suspension was also a bit too uncontrolled for crawling, and the center of gravity was too high. Almost any downgrade made it do a somersault! Despite its failure at its intended purpose, it did end up having a very fun personality! The body roll was probably even more dramatic than version #2, it could do mild off-roading effortlessly, and it was enjoyably fast! The center of gravity even allowed it to do "stoppies" when I braked at high speed! The model was based off of a single cab shortbed truck, but the bed was replaced with some sort of tube assembly for some diversity in the aesthetic of the trucks in this series. Here are the functions: Drive: Drive was by my quasi-hobby motor, geared down through two sequential planetary hubs, moved downwards using doubled 24T gears driving doubled 24T gears. The front axle then used a HD U-joint to old, heavy-duty red 9T gears in the axle, followed by Lego's new CV joints, and then 24:40 portal gearing, which made for huge ground clearance. The rear axle was driven by a new multi-piece heavy duty CV joint I designed, followed by the 9T gears and portal gearing. I should also mention that I was using MouldKing carbon fiber axles in several places, and the fact that I managed to snap one right as I finished filming is a testament to the fact that Lego ones wouldn't have lasted a minute! Steering: Steering was using a PF L-motor running a large linear actuator. It ended up being a little slow for the model, since I was expecting a crawler, rather than a frisky little puppy of a truck! It was controlled off of a separate battery and receiver Suspension: Suspension was fairly basic live axles front and rear, with the front using two long hard shocks and two long soft shocks, and the rear using two long hard shocks. Earlier, I tested it was two hard ones in the front and two soft ones in the back, but the torque effect was far too pronounced! It was a fun little mess though . This model was lots of fun! https://bricksafe.com/pages/2GodBDGlory/ford-f-series-7th-gen

I was building a MOC the other day that desperately needed a heavy-duty U/CV joint, but the space available simply wasn't enough to fit any existing HD U-joint design I'd ever seen. I messed around for a while, and came up with a heavy-duty CV joint that fit perfectly, and that I have never seen before. Additionally, it worked flawlessly in testing in a very high-powered vehicle, with zero failures. Perhaps more interesting is that the front axle of the truck used a more conventional HD U-joint, since I had more space, but that one failed several times! Anyways, here's the image: As you can see, it is not one piece, so it has to be prevented from sliding out by a frame. This can be an advantage, though, since it allows for a degree of extension. Perhaps some of you can use this unusual design!

As this seems to have become the go-to topic for all Chinese electronics, I'll use it to share some findings of mine. I've bought myself four generic IR receivers off of AliExpress to supplement my four Lego PF ones, mainly because I like the idea of running 16 different motors at once (The Chinese ones use different frequencies!). For no good reason I ended up using one of these Chinese receivers on a truck of mine outdoors today in the sunlight, and I noticed that I was getting really good reception--no cutting out at all! I then gave it a rough distance test, and was shocked by how much range I was getting. Tonight I decided to do some basic testing, and set up LEDs connected to two receivers, one Lego, the other Chinese, and then proceeded to pace backwards to see how much range each would give me. I did two trials, and switched batteries in between in case that made a difference. Here are my findings: Trial Lego China 1. 13* 23* 2. 12* 26* *All units in paces As you can see, the $4 Chinese one performs dramatically better, with almost twice as much range! Perhaps some of you will find these handy, but then again, maybe not. Maybe in some cases it will get the IR range to an acceptable level, avoiding having to use Bluetooth?

Your bikes are one of the things that make me want a Buwizz the most... Great job!

I for one would love to see motorization! As for PU vs. PF, it probably depends on whether you go full RC or not. If you are having four or five RC functions, I would recommend PF because you would only need one small battery (and 2-3 receivers) rather than at least one large Technic hub, or more if you have five functions. Two other pieces of advice: First, I have my doubts about whether the chain you have will work well under load. I find that they tend to fall apart when stressed, and it would likely be in a very annoying spot for fixing it all the time! I would probably use axles between each set of actuators using sets of three bevel gears at each corner. Second, I would suggest adding some sort of friction clutch to the mechanism for sliding the car out, unless you are willing to rely on quick reflexes to keep it from breaking stuff. Good luck!

Do you think it does have preset coding to know the position of the motors? In past PU sets I thought it determined it when the set was turned on by running until it found both limits to its motion.

I like it! I think this is the first model I've seen to use quite so many hubs! Fortunately you seem to have space for them all... Powered Up isn't supported on my phone anymore either.

I just meant that your MOC is the only one I've seen with remotely controlled pop-up headlights, not that the original Toyota did. This is correct, right?

Nice work! The "drifting" mechanism is interesting, it has the only RC pop-up headlights I recall seeing, and it models a classic Toyota. What's not to like?

Good work! These mods would probably add a lot of play value to the original set!

I'm back with my first variant based of off this bodywork. This time it's a Ford F-150 with long-travel independent suspension all around and high-powered rear-wheel-drive, using my quasi-hobby motor setup! This makes it reasonably fast (I clocked 10 km/h in an informal test), though not amazing (My burnout/donut dreams were crushed ) The most interesting performance characteristic for me was the suspension. There was dramatic body roll in corners, and you could definitely see the suspension working over speed bumps and such. It was a lot of fun to drive, and helped confirm the hypothesis that a fast, good-looking (relatively..) MOC is the one best suited for use as a toy. Here are some mechanical pictures: There are some more images at: https://bricksafe.com/pages/2GodBDGlory/ford-f-series-7th-gen

I once painted a whole pile of panels to LBG by hand using acrylic paints. The finish isn't great, but it's close enough for me, at least. Now I'd probably just buy LBG stuff from China, though.

Thanks! I am noticing a lot of embarrassing mistakes in the book, but I plan to fix them when I add the 2021 sets in a month or two. I agree, it would have to be bigger to improve structural integrity, but then weight would be an even bigger problem. I always find that I need all available space for the functions I have planned, and then have no room to reinforce stuff properly. I can't tell you how much it weighs though, because I already took the chassis apart... Thanks for appreciating my focuses (foci?). I think the wider rear end was a direct result of Lego's tires being too wide. Originally I built it with the 81.6 tires from the front all around and built the rear axle so that a single-rear-tire version would be flush to the side of the standard bed, and then just added the width of a second tire to the bulges. I guess my reasoning involved the fact that I'll be building other variants with single rear tires and I wanted it to fit that (rather than having a recessed inner tire). If this were my reasoning, though, it would be flawed, since my other variants will have different axles anyways. Oh well...