anyUser

Sorry for not being clear: I was referring to the 42126 truck + box.

The box size is similar to 42112 concrete truck. Do you have a picture of the truck together with its box that you can show?

Price? Nowadays: small steering angles = large turn cycles

I can't remember... For my version I replaced the dark grey 3L connector with its 2L version. Also some modifications for the rear buffer bar..

Not all bar can be pushed through. The image shows the max. distance:

Did you try the old 49.6 x 20? I believe they can be swapped 1:1 by a twin 49.5 x 14:

This? There's a 1/2 bushing on the axle 'inside' the wheel rim

I may grow on them: I think you are right: the front axle may be expanded from 9L to 11L width. This would allow for for 'feature' inbetween. You don't need that 1/2 bush from the 20-mm-wheel hubs.

A remark on the non-progress of the excavator: old & new version were placed near my desk: I wouldn't like the width of the new tracks. Eventually I made an attempt with the old ones (similar to what Toitoine did for the bulldozer). As consequence it would have been necessary to narrow the whole base, probably skip the (large) turntable. But this would have made the model similar to the original which didn't feel OK to me. Secondly I didn't want to cut the pneumatic tubes to clean up the tubing. Would you imagine that I couldn't find proper lengths in mine not-so-small collection?

Doing a classic technic set appeared to obvious. Therefore I went to other sets from my past to find one that might be sufficiently interesting to re-create. Last weekend I started with Mobile Crane. That was always fascination as it has the boom sloped from two hinged plates. Instead of four pair of wheels from the original set I chose tracks. The length of the rubber would define the scale. My attempt will be about 75% (14 studs instead of 8 for the chassis) larger than the original: There is plenty of space inside to allow for a linear actuator to adjust inclination of the boom.

I like your recreation of my favourite technic model. I started a studless version (cmy f. avatar) some time ago but got carried away from the original shape. I notice that you don't use any rubber bands on the bucket tilt. Is the bucket movement of your build as responsive as the original?

These wheel are almost too narrow - not the typical technic wheels. I can't see: Did you put them on the front axle as well? (It seems that my order has been shipped today)

Just picking up this line: I would doubt / analyse / .. the points assigned by any user at all. It would be up to the 'official' judges to check if entry is according to the rules.So maybe a pre-check may be reasonalbe in the future as indicated earlier...

33: 10 37: 6 29: 4 27: 3 19: 2 10: 1

42. Oldtimer Crane Original set: 643 Features & Functions: Tracked vehicle Manually controlled winch Adjustable boom (small linear actuator) Design information: Scale of the model is about 60% larger than orginal due to size of tracks Tracks were only available around year 2000. Newer one would not work with four wheels Estimated parts count: 150 ( = more that four times the amount of the original set) Discussion topic:

This: ? I sometimes wish I had the "inverse" of this part: , e.g. two pinhole and one axle hole in the middle.

All: thanks for your kind remarks. (Not sure if I understand your comment about "open" correctly) I am using the bucket from 42055, 42121. As the attachment point(s) are diffenrent from the old shovel I used almost the first and most simple 'lever' that I came by: I would rate the angle of the bucket towards the boom as similar. However, the shape of the new one at the front / teeth has some impact on the appearance.

The yellow plate is just a base / stand to have some stability during construction of the superstructure..

I sketched an outline of the original superstructure (right, orange beams) onto the new tracks: Current setup is less squar-ish than the original one using angled beams at the front and a curved panel in the back: The few pneumatic elements will fit in nicely: (Do I need to recover the pneumatic from 42053 since the one shown has anti-studs?) Draft tubing - I didn't want to cut my pneumatic tubes (yet): This is current status: I'm not fully convinced respectively satisfied: The overall appearance differs because studless beams are narrow compared to studded ones. Therefore my build seems to 'miss substance'. Also the body of the original excavator has a height of 3 bricks compared to 3M for the rebuild. Adding one more layer would congest the current layout. Last, the superstructure is narrow compraed to the tracks since new ones are wider. This has considerable impact on overall appearance.

Next thing I addressed was the excavator arm. The original one is very sleek. I could easily copy the setup:

I am considering to shrink the crane - without changing to smaller, System wheels. In the meantime, I started another project that was in my mind for long time: Draft for the base came together quickly:

643

If I may add a few observations on your very handy table: I could not find 49.6 x 28 VR tires (from e.g. 8286) respectively 68.8 x 36 ZR (from e.g. 8386). The 'tractor tire' from 42122 is not shown for all possible occurences of the rim.

I thought the same. However, the connectors (15100/65847) from same building steps pose similar limits to the steering angle (both front and rear axle). There is no chance that wheels would touch the chassis.

Thanks for your suggestions. I didn't think about assembling a tool = using more than one part for deconstruction.