gyenesvi

Eurobricks Counts
  • Content Count

    1587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gyenesvi

  1. gyenesvi

    [MOC] John Deere SESAM 2 tractor

    Wow, this turned out amazing! Great functional internals with incredible electronics amount and density, covered in a beautifully shaped body, you really went all in with the green, I like it a lot! In the beginning I wouldn't have believed that you can hide two such big hubs and all the motors so nicely. Great work!
  2. That convertible top is pretty cute! Nice work.
  3. That's true indeed, though limits your diff options and takes even more space in a floating axle. But could work for a static model even without planetaries.
  4. Me too, but I think that's pretty much out of the question, because if there you'd take a regular alternating 7x7 frame (which could exist), than the horizontal hole for the input shaft would be centered, but that's exactly the wrong position because you need to offset the diff one stud to the side to accommodate the lock. So the only possibility would be to make a 7x7 frame with some special hole layout on one side, like in case of the 5x7 (but in that case the regular alternating hole layout is not possible), which I don't think they would make.
  5. I agree that mixing the two styles is a good option and can result in much nicer look for technic models. I mostly add only plates/tiles and slopes here and there, but not liftarms, or only small ones to hold those parts (official models tend to do the same too). But more complex mixing gets more difficult due to the spacing differences between the two systems (brick/plate height vs width). Anyways, my first thoughts were exactly the models of @eric trax and many more construction machinery often seen in exhibitions. So you might enjoy looking at videos of such exhibitions!
  6. After looking at the posted video showing all the adjustability of the seats, I was thinking we might get adjustable seats :D But yeah, my very first guess was the locking differentials. I would have guessed only two (center+rear), but maybe they do a front one as well. I mean the Defender's front axle was already wide enough to accomoodate it using the shorter driving ring. The only question is what they use to frame it (and also the rear one if that's a live axle), I'd guess a built frame from 7L flip-flop beams. Sounds doable. And hope the rear axle is not going to be as huge as that of the Zetros, given that it's a static model, it does not need to take that much force. At the same time, I'd expect something like a 4-speed gearbox with the new gearbox parts (but simplified wrt the Defender), including a low range selector. And if it happens to be blue, I hope they are okay with regular blue and don't introduce a new shade.. Regular blue parts are welcome.
  7. Sounds highly probable. I can imagine the fenders and wheels of the Defender reused here.. (not happy)
  8. It would actually be enough to have parts that are often used in bodywork to exist in many colors. For all the structural / special parts, a few shades of grey is enough. Indeed, fenders are a very good example, I often have the same problem. On top of that, fenders are quite hard to integrate into a bigger bodywork unless they perfectly fit the shape you need. But if you need to build a continuation in any direction, they are hard to attach to and just don't blend in, result in really patchy looks. I just don't get the design of them, I think they are one of the worst designed parts in terms of reusability / buildability. They usually stick out too much from the bodywork and have hard to use mounting points at the bottom where the wheels always get stuck. Also, they only cover a small portion of all the fender shapes that exist; we don't even have fenders that are asymmetric (one end longer that the other) or curve inside on the bottom not on the top (many classic cars have that), and the more angular fenders are almost non-existent (only on the biggest size). Fender flare parts seem more promising, I don't get why they don't go more in that direction, system builds make use of them as well, like the Icons defender. And actually that's what old models / MOCs tried to simulate too, built from angled liftarms / connectors. They could be independent of the top shape; no curved top / flat version required, instead they could vary the arch shape itself. Could even be more independent from the bodywork color, if the actual flare would be a fairly thin part, black could work with many colors. Furthermore could be split into multiple sections to be able to vary the size and combine different shapes. It would be like.. Lego. But I guess they are just opting for the next shelf model to look good instead of thinking on the long term / bigger picture. Actually, it's amazing how hard it is to build even the simplest shapes, like a flat side with a curved fender (that doesn't stick out). And given that cars are the majority of the models, that should be a useful point to focus on.
  9. If they can be made the same length then it can work indeed. But they are definitely not the same length on the posted picture, the axle is about 2 studs longer than the suspension arms (about 1 stud offset on both ends in the opposite direction). It would have to be brought outwards on the diff end to make it the same length.
  10. Not sure what all the fluff talk is about, it's no big deal, I've just seen something like this during the weekend running around like a puppy But seriously, crazy idea and great engineering, well done! And keep them coming :)
  11. Do you mean the 5L heavy duty one? With that the driveshaft will be something 10L (5L + 3L for the other joint, + at least 2L for the spring part), so the total axle with would become around 27 wide, which sounds huge..
  12. Okay, I get what you mean, but then the Ackermann geometry is not caused by the fact that the kingpin is further out, but that the steering link pivot is inboard of the kingpin, which can be done even if the kingpin coincides with the suspension link pivot. And even though it's a nice trick to eliminate bump steer, that can simply be eliminated by moving your inner suspension pivot inboard the same amount as the outer one is moved in from the kingpin (that's what lego models do usually). Anyway, thanks for the explanation, it is an interesting trickery. Wonder if this could be reproduced in lego, the driveshaft would have to be able to shorten in this case, which is harder to do as it means you need to leave space for the shortening, which also means that axles have space to fall out of their place..
  13. I don't get how the suspension pivot has anything to do with Ackermann geometry; they rotate in orthogonal planes. I think you misunderstood what I'm talking about (the kingpin is further out than where the suspension is hinged).
  14. Interesting to see that the steering pivot is not aligned with the suspension pivot in that RC wheel hub (the steering pivot being one stud further out). Is that common in RC hubs? Can RC driveshafts follow the change in length during articulation (can the axle slide in and out somewhere)?
  15. You can put 56mm rims on it, but they won’t be inside the rim. The steering pivot will be so far out that it causes a huge scrub radius, so the wheels would get caught in any fender you put on it. The Defender rims could be good for a portal construction that’s a bit lower at the top and a bit narrower altogether, then it could fit inside the rim completely, with the steering pivot next to the wheel, eliminating all the problems.
  16. Well if there exists no proper portal hub in lego technic that would fit the scale (the rims), then we can't really swap it out to make the squared version.. which is what everyone seems to prefer :) So we care because this model would be a great opportunity to update the existing portal hub to make it much more usable. I think too that that's the most probable.
  17. That pinholes on the top/bottom of the hub you use to mount them. If the U-joint has the flex point right in between the two pinholes (where it has to be to steer and articulate properly), then as it must tilt upwards for an independent suspension, it will collide with the pin you insert in there (and the support structure to hold the pin). You can try it in Studio.
  18. Yeah, I know.. That one is a good example as well. One of the things I am most curious about is if/when they'll introduce the 5L steering link. We have the 5L steering arm for suspension, now we also have a 5L driveshaft, we are only missing a 5L steering link to match them and to be able to build a 15-wide steered and driven independent front suspension or a 13-wide steered and non-driven one. Wonder how many suboptimal models will come out before they actually decide to do it. They double screwed it in the Raptor (no FWD, wrong steering geometry), and they avoided it in the Ford GT as well (worked around it with 6L ones, though complicated the structure). (cough) #onlythebestisgoodenough
  19. Interesting idea, I'd like to see that problem solved. But there are some details in your plans that I don't understand. I guess I kind of get where these would fit, and what they would connect, but not exactly how. What is their length? Fixed or variable (swappable)? Do they include joints on the ends? Or is that separate? Why are the 3 outputs required? And why is a central differential required? We practically never build that in lego (RC) cars (just makes it worse offroad), and I think most RC cars don't have that either (many 4x4 offroaders don't even have axle differentials either, just locked). I think we have already concluded in some thread that that's not possible physically due to lack of space; the U-joint would collide with the pinholes on the hub when the joint is articulated up/down. Only CV-joint would fit in there as for that the female part remains stationary and so it does not collide with the pinholes. Unfortunately, before seeing some prototypes, it is hard to say anything more concrete, as the devil is in the details. And I guess you'd use ball beared diff frames and beams as well but you consider those available already.
  20. Hmm, my assumption would be that the release of the lego model is timed for this year exactly to coincide with the facelift and to promote it. The lego Land Rover model also came out when the new real car. Anyways, I guess the lego model can’t be accurate enough to show the small differences brought about by the facelift, so they might not even need to know the new details.
  21. I guess that's exactly the kind of thing @Lyichir was talking about; it's not that they fail to do so, rather they deliberately don't want to do so. Though I agree with you that there is no really good reason not to produce black ones again and use them sparingly, where it matters. I guess it's just that it's not worth for them bothering with it. At least they exist in black and old ones can be bought on BL, so MOCers can use them..
  22. Yeah, I can accept that, but my point was that by the same argument we could have gotten a recolor of that pin-axle connector in yellow in the Jeep, or the same happened with some parts not getting recolored to orange in the Raptor.. I understand that a new part is different from the case of a recolor, and it's more complicated to introduce. My point was that they are game changing really basic useful parts at least in the technic world (though such structural parts are the ones that can actually be useful in other themes as well). I think this kind of thinking is what's problematic, and short sighted. Because define 'badly enough'. Designers can always say, well, we can work around it in some awkward way. We can come up with suboptimal solutions. We can leave out that complicated mechanism. I see plenty of examples for these, like the incorrect suspension / steering geometries of recent cars (Zetros, Raptor, Ford GT) instead of adding a long missed part for a correct one (I mean, majority of technic models are cars, it would make sense to make more efficient parts for them). This kind of thinking is short sighted and unsystematic. Instead of creating a system of parts (that would be the essence of lego in my opinion), it leads to a pretty random set of parts that cover specific needs. And with that they are not only frustrating builders (they can afford not really caring about them), but they are also making their own life more difficult. Instead of releasing obviously missing parts, they are coming out with sets containing workarounds and suboptimal solutions again and again. Only when reviews get bad enough do they consider fixing the situation. When I first looked at the technic parts palette with a grown-up engineering mind, I was pretty surprised and disappointed how unsystematic it is and how much suboptimal workarounds it requires to build with. Sure, one can get used to it over time, but.. That's a good point, this kind of more isolated status and different parts palette of Technic theme might account for seemingly less new parts compared to the rest of the themes. Indeed, these last few years are more promising, I do agree. Just wish more focus was put on the missing basics, than the completely new concepts. For example that U-shaped 2x3 beam that we are getting this year seems pretty specific, I literally don't know what I'd use that for as I never found myself needing a similar part, and I could have imagined a more basic part to have more priority. Unfortunately, I suspect some big holes will never be filled. We will probably never get a 4L beam (that's kind of a unicorn of technic parts), we will always have to work around that, even though in quite a few cases it's impossible. And by the same argument I guess we'll never get a 4L or 3L flip-flop beam (as something similar already exists), we can only hope to eventually get a 5L, as hopefully that's missing badly enough. And we'll probably also never get a proper 2x3 L shaped beam, because we recently got a 2x3 curved beam, that tries to be both an L shape and a panel piece at the same time, but now it's not great for either of the tasks (some part of it is often in the way), but now it's kind of blocking the true need for both. Unfortunately, what I see is that often when a new concept is introduced in a year, it is used in many sets of that year (which is good). So for example, I think if we'd be getting a 5L flip-flop beam this year, it would have already appeared in the January / March waves. Sure we still get some specific surprise novelties later this year, but I already ruled out some obvious / awaited ones in my mind.
  23. Obviously, we don't believe that some themes would have unlimited budget or get countless new molds. But it does feel like Technic gets a smaller frame or uses it in a weird way. And we are not talking about color vomit here, I agree that it helps to distinguish parts on the inside - rather talking about long missing basic, quite reusable parts for basic colors, while other themes seem to get specialized parts in exotic colors (like that one in the dragon). Something is counterintuitive about that. It seems like the opposite - Technic seems rather display minded nowadays. Many models are not very functional for their size, and many of the new parts / recolors are panels to improve the looks of models, and new structural / functional parts are rare. Even recolors of parts to an exotic color for the sake of a single set in technic are somewhat annoying, because it creates a new color that can hardly be used, as only a handful of parts exist (like olive green and bright light orange, and now the new reddish orange, though I can imagine a new upcoming larger set using that color). At the same time, look how slow is the unrolling of the flip-flop beams in many lengths. They have proven very useful already, used in many models, yet only exist in 3 lengths after 2-3 years. That's very counterintuitive; a new concept that changes the whole game and makes fundamentally new structures possible, yet they don't make full use of it (actually, the non-existing short lengths could be even more game changers for dense builds).
  24. That's some amazing compactness there, interesting driveshaft. Speaking about changing the LBG part of the spring to another color, just wondered if this spring construction would be deemed legal? Could solve the spring lowering problem.. It is made of official lego parts only, without physical modification (only spring disassembly), in a way that the parts are not damaged and the spring can be reassembled into its original form. The top connector can be easily swapped to other shapes/colors as needed.
  25. You know, after seeing these kind of recolors, I just don't believe that TLG would have logistical problems managing the parts inventory due to the large number of colors, and that would be the reason why certain technic pieces, like connectors, don't get recolored (as some say when the issue comes up). Neither do I believe that some parts don't exist in certain colors because TLG never needed them. I simply think that certain departments are more successful at asking for recolors than the Technic department. For example, the small Jeep Wrangler would have required a yellow recolor if this piece in its _front face_, the most iconic part of the vehicle, yet it was not made (though it would have been useful elsewhere too), rather substituted with LBG! Something feels missing in the Technic department when it comes to new parts..