Eurobricks Vassals
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
  • Which LEGO set did you recently purchase or build?
    42094 Tracked Loader

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. pdw

    Steering on a 6x6 design

    Front wheel steering is naturally stable, whereas rear wheel steering is unstable. If a rear wheel steer vehicle starts to turn, its momentum will act to make it turn more. A front and rear-steered vehicle is likely to close to neutral, depending on where the CoG is relative to the mid point between the steering axles. This means that if it starts to turn it'll carry on turning, but it won't get tighter as a RWS vehicle would. A vehicle that is positively stable will be easier to drive. Front-and-rear steering is used where manoeuvrability is essential, such as telehandlers, and even there they often have a 2WS mode for driving along - even on a vehicle with a 40kph max speed. The Alvis may not be very quick but it is about getting from A to B, rather than constant low speed manoeuvring. The additional axle for improved off-road ability, and the second axle is steered to avoid tyre scrub. Turn radius is the same as if the middle axle wasn't there. A front-and-rear steered 6 wheeler has the same turn radius as if the rear axle wasn't there i.e. it has half the wheel base, and thus a tighter turn radius.
  2. If you have an Android phone with an IR output and a bluetooth game controller then I think you can use BrickController 2 directly with your IR receivers.
  3. I didn't have that particular issue because the LA pivot is forward of the upper arm pivot, but the flip side of that is reduced reach. I came to the conclusion that the hydraulic cylinders on the real thing have far less "overhead" than a Lego LA i.e. they get much closer to doubling the length between pivots when extended, so it's always going to be difficult to replicate the geometry.
  4. As a parent, and a user, it's not the cost of batteries that bothers me, as we use rechargeables for everything, it's the inconvenience. I've not got any PU stuff, but the PF battery boxes are both an utter pain to get the batteries in and out of, and most chargers will only do four batteries at a time. My BuWizz powered models I just plug into a USB cable like pretty much every other battery powered device in the house. Buying something as expensive and sophisticated as the 42100 and then having to deal with AAs seems bizarre to me. That's true of the XL motor, I think, but the L has exactly the same, and the M has one fewer hole and more studs. The interesting one for me is the servo. The PF servo is flawed and has an awkward shape, but the ability to get an axle out of both ends is very useful, particularly for 4 wheel steer. You can also mount them back-to-back and get two independent servos in less than 10 x 7 x 3 studs. Compact 4WS is much harder with PU L motors if you want to avoid gears in steering.
  5. I did this as a Christmas present for my daughter, and it was put together fairly quickly as I needed to get parts ordered. It was my first attempt at doing something to scale, and was done entirely digitally - my daughter received a box of bits and instructions for a model that had never been physically built. A bit of a risk, but aside from a quick redesign to get the battery one stud forwards for balance it went pretty well. It's got two L motors for drive, behind the rear wheels, two M motors for the arm, controlled by an SBrick and the AA battery box. I was happy with result, but there's definitely things I'd improve or do differently with a bit more time. I realised too late that I'd messed up the scale, and both the roof and rear section are too high. The large LAs are too long, but I couldn't get sufficient height with the medium LAs. Looking at some of the details, I like how you kept the arms to 2 studs wide. I wanted to drive the tilt mechanism from underneath the arm pivot, as you have done, but the angle of the arm when lowered was just slightly too steep and the gears would collide. The system bricks for the mudguard and curved section behind the rear wheels work really well - I recognised it instantly as a Cat before I saw the topic title! Filling in the lower section behind the wheels with yellow beams also makes a surprisingly big difference to the appearance.
  6. Nice job. I built something based on a 216B at the end of last year so very interesting to see how you tackled it. I struggled particularly with the shape of the rear, and I like what you've done there. I also struggled with balance, although I had the battery box over the wheels which helped. I was struggling with this in another model, and discovered that if you drive them with a lower PWM frequency they work much better. Not sure which app you're using, but I have a custom build of BrickController 2 for Android that allows me to set the PWM frequency on an SBrick.
  7. The tyres look great. So much more suitable than any of the Lego options. I've managed to order some from a supplier in Croatia. I actually ordered a few sets as the shipping was more than the tyres, and I may also get an import duty handling fee. Your build is looking good. Interesting positioning of the lift motor. Are you planning to put both of the other motors in the boom?
  8. How does the on/off button work on the BW 3.0? On the website photos it looks like it's recessed into a stud.
  9. That looks better. Thank you. It actually came together surprisingly easily, except for sorting out that drive line and motor bracing. The end result looks simple, but those few pieces took me hours! Tyre clearance is a real issue. I think the Fischertechnik tyres would be a big improvement, but I can't find how to get them in the UK.
  10. Yes - the 16 to 20T. I am a little surprised, as it seems it relies on friction in that axle and any bend in the axle or lower chassis will allow separation. I only commented because I struggled with the bracing in a very similar situation after rearranging the servos in my model (see here). I have to deal with a bit more power from the BuWizz, but I was surprised at what was needed to secure it. I continue to follow your build with interest
  11. It's looking good. Do you plan to add more bracing to the drive motor? It looks like the gears are only held together by a pin and axle in tension.
  12. pdw

    Idiosyncratic gear ratios

    I read the subject line of your post and thought "spirograph"! I was inspired by some of the recent spirograph posts on here, and built something similar to what you have and quickly discovered the limitations of the standard gears so it's very interesting to see what you've done here.
  13. Thank you very much for the positive comments. It is very hard to improve anything in this model - pretty much all my changes come with some compromise, so I understand the decisions you made to keep the design buildable, reliable and affordable. I've actually just spent a few more happy hours modifying. The play in the front steering from the bevel gears was annoying me so I decided to try something which I'd previously declared impossible: This arrangement is much better than my previous effort. As well as getting rid of the play, it gets rid of the unsightly servo below the cab. I was concerned that removing the beams between the drive motor and servo would make the chassis too flexible, but the end result is actually very strong. The only issue is losing the T pieces that brace the steering axles which means the gears slip if the servos force the steering against the stops. Not an issue for use with SBrick/BuWizz as you can simply limit the servo travel electronically, but would be a problem for bang bang steering. I had an "aha" moment when I realised why that bracing was needed. Getting 3 IR receivers in the cab is very impressive in itself! I've got one of my SBricks in the "upper" position, and one in the middle at the bottom. Now that I have the BuWizz, I could get rid of one of them altogether. Thank you. Sadly, I've discovered a bit of a problem with them which is that at full lock and full speed, the play in the hubs allows the tyres to move really quite a lot and they rub enough to be a problem :-( I think it's the lack of Ackerman geometry that puts quite a lot of sideways force on the tyre as there's no rubbing on full-lock crab steering, only on four wheel steer. I'll carry on experimenting, but I'm running out of ideas. I had the same dilemma, it's actually 2 studs forwards. For me, practicality won out. The fact that I have impatient children may be a factor in this :-) Agreed! The reliability has been very impressive. The one question I did have is the use of the half bevel gear to drive the front diff. Is there a reason for this? My model eventually spat out the gear and I replaced it with a full 20T gear. In the rear, there's a stopped axle so it's fine. Interesting. You may be interested in some of the mods I've made for controller modes. For example, with the increased speed of the BuWizz, I have a button that toggles a "slow speed" mode which halves the drive speed, but there's lots more options for changing what controls do on the fly. The problem I had was when using the fork rather than the bucket. In order to get the fork tip under a palette accurately needs a very tiny movement. I have it set up on the "hat" on my controller, and use quick taps to get small movements, but even that is too much. So I reduced the power that the tap uses to slow it down, but then when you put a load on the fork it hasn't got enough power to consistently lift the fork. I've discovered that lowering the PWM frequency on the SBrick increases the torque so I can now run the motor slowly with a wider range of loads. There's one more thing I want to try which is that the SBrick has the ability to drive a motor for a specified amount of time. This should allow you to get short "blips" of drive more consistently, as it's not subject to Bluetooth jitter. The shortest period is 0.2s which I fear may be too long. As you can see, there's nothing holding the 4x2 beam except the side panel, and the 13L beam is only held by a single full pin at the rear. I was doubtful about relying so much on the plates for structure, but it's proven completely reliable and very stiff. Another tiny mod is just visible on the grey pin on the arm just in front of the light is a small elastic band holding the motor cable to the underside of the beam. This solves the problem of the cable not feeding into the arm correctly which is more of an issue with the extended reach.
  14. I started fiddling with the bracing for the arm extension worm gear, as with too much load on the fork the driveshaft will bow upwards and the worm gear will slip. As part of doing this I realised that it was fairly straightforward to increase the extension of the arm to get an extra 4 studs of usable reach. . Lift height is now 41cm which is bang on scale - 7m at 1:17. I've also had some success with making the fork tilt more controllable by dropping the PWM frequency on the SBrick controlling the tilt motor. This seems to give much more torque at lower speeds.
  15. The fundamental problem with this approach is that the perpendicular distance from the 5L beam to the hub is not constant. You can see in the image that the axle is not centred in the pin hole of the cross connector. To make this approach work, you'd need that connector to be hinged at both ends so that it can remain parallel to the wishbone arms. Did you mean outward or am I misunderstanding? I think this design would put a lot of stress on the connection between the brown axle and the hub.