Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gyenesvi

  1. Hi All, Although I have posted a few pictures previously, I wanted to make a proper writeup of my Trial Unimog alternate of the Zetros set (42129), because I think sharing the design process is valuable for people around here. Also, I am going to share my thoughts about the set itself as a parts pack. But for the curious ones, here's an action video of the end result and a short summary of the features: Features: - good actual outdoor performance :) - permanent AWD, no differentials - 2-speed gearbox, faster gearing than Zetros - relatively large increase in ground clearance - 4-link suspension on the back, large articulation, soft suspension - 3-link suspension with Panhard rod on the front, slightly larger and softer articulation than the Zetros - opening (and lockable) doors and trunk bed When building alternate models, I always try to build something different from the A model, both functionally and in its looks. So when considering what to build out of the Zetros, keeping the Mercedes brand but going for a different form factor, my first idea was a G-Wagon - quickly taken by Grohl himself. Then I though, let's fall back to a Jeep - also taken quickly by Tim.. Unimog was on my list of potential alternates, but I wasn't sure about it yet. But one thing was sure: I wanted to improve the actual off-road performance over the Zetros. So putting the form factor aside a bit, I started experimenting with chassis and suspension designs. One option I had in mind was to keep the live axle setup, but improve it to make it actually useful for off-roading: increase suspension travel, ground clearance and responsiveness. Furthermore, I wanted to see how lightweight the axles could be built, because the Zetros's axles are pretty bulky. I was okay with doing away with the diff-lock, since I wanted to use the M motor for a 2-speed gearbox anyway (just like others). During experimentation with axle designs and suspension travel, I have realized that the 3-link live axle setup of the Zetros is not only limited by the springs' short travel, but also by the 3rd link on the top. That link cannot rotate sideways on the chassis side and is mounted very high on the axles, and as the axle tilts, its top can move sideways significantly, and as the link cannot follow it sideways, it limits the axle's tilting movement; hence very limited articulation. The setup only works for a short range of movement as on the Zetros, which is limited anyway by the springs, but cannot work for a setup that aims for more articulation. One way out of this is to allow the 3rd link to rotate and follow the side movement of the tilting axle, but then the axle needs fixing sideways. There are two ways to fix that. Either a 4-link triangulated setup, or a 3-link setup with a Panhard rod. Although the Zetros does use a Panhard rod at the front, it is unrealistically mounted and too short, that would cause kind of bump-'steer' for larger axle articulation (not exactly bump steer, but more like shifting the whole axle sideways). So after taking the limited number of suspension parts into account (only 6 towball sockets left out of 10 since 4 must be used for mounting the front wheel hubs, and only 1 6L link available in the set), I opted for the following design: on the rear axle, I used 4 towball sockets for a 4-link triangulated setup with long links, allowing the upper links to rotate sideways and follow the movement of the axle. The springs are attached to the middle of the lower links. This allows for long upwards movement of the axle at the end of the links, and makes the suspension much softer even with the hard springs. Pretty solid and allows for large articulation, just what I wanted. Furthermore, the axle itself is quite slim and rigid, and has good ground clearance, especially in the middle where it's most needed (as proven by my off-road tests). The front axle was more challenging. First off, increasing the ground clearance is only possible with one trick: the towball socket liftarms must be built at an angle, going upwards in the middle, and that limits possibilities. Second, the steering motor and its mounting takes space on the axle, and is in the way for the suspension mounting points. I have experimented with two other options: steering through a driveshaft coming from the chassis, but the placement of the motor in the chassis was problematic do to space required by all other motors and the battery, along with the largely articulated suspension design; second I tried to put the steering motor above the front axle, actuating steering through a linkage system. Although, this worked quite well mechanically (verified with the Powered Up app), unfortunately, the Control+ app itself killed this direction: the app limits the steering motor angle to about a 25 degrees less than the calibrated range, which is normally 90 degrees or motor rotation, resulting in about 65 degrees in case of the Zetros (that's why it's steering is so bad by the way). Now in my alternative steering design, the max calibrated angle would have been 45 degrees, and the 25 degrees minus by the app resulted in about 20 degrees of movement, resulting in almost no actual steering at the axle. Pretty sad that you can build something mechanically sound and then not able to control it with the app :( So I fell back to mounting the motor on the axle, and used the remaining 2 towball sockets for two lower links, which again, I built longer to allow for a bit more articulation. Luckily, I was able to mount the motor in a way that it allowed to use the single 6L link as the 3rd link, allowing free sideways tilting movement of the axle, as it is attached to a towball pin on the chassis end as well. I also experimented with the spring mounting technique of the rear, but it was weak and wobbly on the front without the 4-link setup, so I went back to mounting the springs on the axle. However, I managed to move the springs closer to the center of the axle, resulting in both slightly larger articulation and softer suspension. Finally, the axle is fixed sideways by a long Panhard rod going from one end of the chassis to the other end of the axle, eliminating bump 'steer' quite well even at larger articulation. As a side note about parts, it would be really nice if the set had another 6L link somewhere, for example as a Panhard rod on the rear axle. It could be used to build another 4-link suspension to the front, and also as a steering link in an independent setup (which is problematic to build for other reasons as well). So after sorting out the two axles and the suspension, I though this could be used in a Unimog chassis. Though not too different in form from the Zetros, but at least it keeps the brand. Furthermore, I decided to make it different in its functions: the first step was focusing on a proper suspension. The second was the drivetrain. And that also caused some difficulties. Unimogs are short. You'd think that's not a big problem at this scale, as many RC Unimogs have been built before, but it is with the latest drivetrain parts. The new CV joint with a sliding axle hole is a whopping 8 studs long!! (Compare that to a 3L U-joint; sure, the CV joint has the axle built in on one side, but this construction limits builds quite a bit. Not sure why the new sliding variant needed to be 2 studs longer, I thought it would be just 1 longer, enough for the sliding, which is typically about half a stud, but 1 stud max). So two of those, plus, two non-sliding ones at 6 studs length, and your driveshaft is already 28 studs long. Add to that the amount of space required by the differentials (2 studs on each end until the axle center), and your axle distance cannot be less than 32 studs. Add one more to get a nice odd length middle section, and we are at 33 studs from axle to axle. It is quite long for a Unimog. (As a side note, I tried to split the driveshaft in two halves, shifted sideways in the opposite direction to let them overlap in length and hence make things shorter, but it did not work out due to the axle length limitation of the CV joint part and also space limitations from the motors). So because of this, and other considerations I decided to do away with the differentials altogether. It saves 2 studs in length. It allows for a slightly faster 12T / 20T gearing; the Zetros is just too slow. Furthermore, it allows for larger ground clearance, as the differential does not stick out from the axle. It even allows for a slimmer axle design, as there is more space in all directions, such as for mounting the steering motor. And last but not least: no differential - no need to lock them :) With unlocked differentials the off-road performance would be bad anyway. Once I settled for the length and the drivetrain, I needed to place the remaining motors and the gearbox. I was able to sandwich the gearbox between the drive motors, and put the gearbox's driveshaft motor on top, the flip-flop beams and the frames proved to be very useful for building a strong but lightweight chassis. The final challenge was the driveshaft from the gearbox motor. I am not sure why TLG used this motor here as it is super cumbersome to work with. It needs substantial down-gearing (and the right amount for your actual application, which is 180 degrees final turn for a gearbox, but 90 degrees for a diff-lock), a clutch mechanism for safety and physical end stops for calibration. These all take up space as they need to be routed somewhere. Things would have been much easier with another L motor.. (Maybe to make the set slightly cheaper? Or TLG is trying to get rid of these motors on stock? They don't seem to fit well into the PU system without positional control.) Anyway, finally the chassis of the Unimog was complete. I used the remaining CV joints to connect the drive to the spinning fan in the front :) The rest was just bodywork and placing that big hub somewhere. I opted for roughly the same position in the cab as the Zetros, but with the cables inside, to allow easy access to the batteries for replacement. For the design and styling, I took some inspiration from online sources like this one because of its color scheme, but I wanted to minimize the cab length as there weren't enough panels for a 4-door version. I built the cab with no opening hood to make it solid :) And also made the doors lockable to avoid them opening automatically when driving around.. Finally, the black panels were just the right size and amount to cleanly finish the bed, both the sides and the floor. The bed floor opens (but lockable) to see the gearbox, and to give room for accessing the batteries. I have also added fenders and the usual decoration like the rollbars, exhaust pipe, mirrors, ladders. Here are some renders of the whole build. As you can see, I did not use any green parts, as they would have only added clutter to the otherwise clean bodywork I think. Some more notes about the parts of the set apart from the ones mentioned above. The set has a good amount of paneling and beams and connectors, although the green parts are a bit less useful since they are limited in number and size. Another shortcoming of the set is the available gears. It has all sizes, but their number is lacking in some cases and hence high gearing ratios are hard to achieve. For example if you try to deviate from the default drivetrain, those gears will be missing for example for a simple down-gearing for the gearbox motor.. More images can be found on Bricksafe. Building instructions are available on Rebrickable. I did not know too much about Unimogs in the beginning, but during the research and designed process I actually came to like Unimogs quite a bit. I like that they are compact but seemingly efficient machines, and the trial versions actually look pretty cool. And I am actually quite happy with the end result. Let me know how you like it and your opinion on the set's parts! Cheers, Viktor
  2. In the original build, it is actually attached on the same level as the upper arm, I guess that's why I observed less toe out in that case, than with the modified build. However, I think what you say is only true for non-Ackermann geometry, for Ackermann, still there's a very slight offset. Furthermore, the effect is only totally zero if the steering link is attached with a towball pin, so that the link can rotate on the pin and is not effected by the tilt of the hub.
  3. No it's not, but it's really simple: the lower A-arm is simply rotated downwards as it goes out to the hub, its outer end is 1 stud lower than the inner one. As a consequence, it becomes shorter, and the hub itself is tilted inwards a bit at the bottom to reach the A-arm, so the wheel is not vertical, but this whole effect is so small that it's hardly recognisable (and part of it is kind of offset by the freeplay in the wheel mount). Unfortunately, this is the only way to mount these hubs with more ground clearance in the middle. I did not invent this trick, but learned it from others here. An unfortunate side-effect is that the vertically middle point of the hub also gets closer to the center. It's not a problem for the driveshaft (again because of some tolerances), but there's a very slight toe-out in the steering. But it's still a good compromise I think.
  4. Of course not, haha But I thought the lack of diff would manifest itself differently, just slipping, since these tires slip quite easily (my test was done on a flat floor). So what counts as extreme need for you? On the terrain I tested this (and the Zetros), I found that it gets stuck quite easily with open diffs, that's why I decided to remove them. But I think it depends heavily on the capabilities of the suspension as well; with a suspension that's highly articulated, it gets by much better with open diffs as well; for example this build of mine has a more articulated suspension, and I found it still climbs still quite well with open differentials too. But it's good to know that the closed system may stress the gears a bit too much..
  5. @Attika, you were right! I have popped in differentials to both axles (had to use older CV joints to make space in the driveshaft), and the jerkiness disappeared at high steering angle. Thanks, another lesson learned! I would have thought that these tires would just silently slip without me noticing it.. I have experienced that already with PU motors when geared up or when pushed hard off-road.. Thanks for the tips from both of you! I have also tested this, put 1x1 tiles on the half pins in the second steering link design, and it worked better than I thought; the resulting steering lock is not very bad, quite similar to the original design, and at that angle still there's no jerkiness (without diffs).
  6. Thanks for taking the time to chime in! I actually enjoy the parts limitation sometimes, as it restricts the options and gives you some finite limits to build with, instead of the unlimited possibilities you would have otherwise, and also forces you to be creative with what you have available. But I understand you, nowadays I also want to push the limits and design build with all possibilities that lego allows, which is also somewhat limited. I've only read that anti-Ackermann geometry is used intentionally in race cars, that it has some benefits when cornering with high speeds. I guess that does not apply to crawlers though.. That's a good idea to test just to understand the situation, I'll give that a try, because the axle actually has space for the differential, so it should not be too difficult to test, I will only have to modify the driveshaft to use an older CV joint which is shorter. Thanks, haven't seen that video before, nice one, and good to know. Do you mean driving them with buggy motors? :) I just want to get some BuWizz motors, but a bit worried about putting wear on some parts with it. Does lubrication eliminate the problem? What kind of lubrication is safe to use with Lego? Yes, this is new behaviour, I have tested it with the original setup and it wasn't a problem there. I did think about those 1x1 tiles or plates, haven't tried it yet, but my guess is that it will limit the steering angle too much. Anyways, will give it a try. No it, was not deliberate :) Not sure if that could work as a compensation either, but there might be some explanation, just like in the case of fast cornering race cars in my comment above.. Exactly, agreed. I have also observed such a focus on the appearance by many comments, which is good as encouragement and appreciation, but as you say, the technical aspect should also be viewed and occasionally 'criticised' constructively. I'm totally glad that you did bring up this technical aspect, as I have already learned from it. And it's not just for this MOC, but also for others in the future, as I know I will use similar axle constructions in my future builds. So the reason I want to see possible solutions for this is because I want to understand how well it is possible to build such an axle. Unfortunately, as I see, it's really hard to build a proper steered and driven axle with a differential using any of the currently available joints and wheel hubs in an RC car in medium scale, even at large scale. You will have to compromise something, something will either be bulky, or some geometry will always be just approximate.. That's not too difficult as long as you are okay with a modest gear ratio, just check out how the hi/lo gearbox is in the Defender for example. And then remote controlling it is also simple with a PU L motor, for that you could check out the Volvo hauler's gearbox.
  7. Thanks for the kind words guys, I really appreciate that! Well, I wouldn't say it's not possible to do out of these parts, but it would definitely take more space and hence would require a different form factor, for example something with a less space-hungry suspension. So in low gear the gearbox is 1:1 and instead of the diff there's a 12:20 gear mesh, and there's the 1:5.4 ratio of the hub, that's 1:9 in total. In high gear, there's a 20:12 up-gearing, so that's just the 1:5.4 altogether. I have added one more render from the front (I forgot that previously), where the mounting is well visible, does that do it for you? @Igor1, thanks a lot for bringing my attention to this thread, I missed this completely, although very interesting topic (I was actually on holiday that week, and the discussion only lasted two days, probably went out of view pretty quickly). I only saw the video from @kbalage about the resolution. Anyways, the whole explanation in there is really useful. And thanks for noting this! I'm not even sure why, but I never really took the time to think this inversion effect through properly. If I understand correctly, you are referring to the fact that if the steering rod is in front of the axle, then the Ackermann geometry reverses. I have been using this geometry because I saw it in many builds, from builders that I respect, for example in @keymaker's Hornet or even @Didumos69's Rocky uses it (although that one is a bit more complicated in this respect, because it uses two steering rods, one behind the axle with Ackermann geometry, and one in front with anti-Ackermann geometry (actually steered here), so not sure what the total result of those is, but I think it works in lego because of all the tolerances of the loose links). Not trying to point at people here, just quoted them because I am curious what they have to say about this matter. So this problem made me think for a while about how to resolve it. It's not enough to fix it by mounting the steering link further out on the hub as @Attika did (I adopted his solution to this axle, see the image below), because then the steering rack will be 1 stud in front of the mounting point, and that also creates a minimal anti-Ackermann effect in my case (in the case of @Attika, it creates a slight Ackermann effect, which is just what is needed, so that's really nice when behind the axle). So to resolve that, the steering rack would also have to be brought backwards, which then would collide with many other things (not just the motor, but the springs and some support as well). The thing is that routing the steering rack only two studs away from the center of the axle is pretty hopeless for a driven axle with a servo on it if you don't want it to be huge (for example, the solution of the Zetros would not fit into the short nose of the Unimog), as the towball liftarms need quite some support that's always going to be in the way. And a differential would just make things even worse (actually, this axle could house the differential, it's just that the driveshaft on the back would have to be moved back by 1 stud). However, using a 13L steering rack could elegantly solve the problem, because more link mounting options would be available there, but that's out of the question for this build as there is no such a part in the set. So while the solution below solves most of the anti-Ackermann problem, it raises another issue. Now the steering angle is more aggressive, because the mounting point on the wheel hub moved one stud closer to the axle. At that steering angle, the wheel starts to bump into the chassis.. So I had to insert a half pin to the steering link to limit the angle a bit (then the wheel does not seem to touch anything). However, even at this limited angle, I can hear that the angle sounds a bit too much for the CV joint. It starts to move slightly jerky at max angle; it is especially noticeable when reversing, or when moving slowly, the sound of the drivetrain is not uniform but bumpy. I wonder if that happens to the version of @Attika, did you test reversing or slow driving, observing the sound and see if it gets jerky? So at this point, I am not sure if I should update the model to this version. The steering performance is definitely improved, but I am worried a bit about complaints about the jerkiness and damaging the CV joint. You know, when selling instructions, it may be more important to avoid damages and complaints than to have the perfect geometry (obviously, if it was just for myself, I'd go for the better geometry). So let me know what you think about this possible fix!
  8. Just saw an interesting one, at the center of a Rubik's cube :) Nice construction and mechanism as well.
  9. Just thought the same. And also a 2L version of it would be quite useful: For things like this. I find myself needing to connect a 1/2 - 1 - 1/2 sandwich, and a regular 2L pin cannot do that because of the division in the middle, only a 2L part of a 3L one, but that's sometimes too long.
  10. You mean like a 2-in-1 build? I'd definitely be interested in that!
  11. Hmm, this is pretty cool and simple even with this trick using the differentials as clutch gears. Imagine how more compact it could be if those appropriate sized clutch gears existed! And TLG would say it does not exist because they never needed it. Not that the Defender gearbox could have been simplified with them.. BTW, I think a 16T gear is missing from the lower axle of the lower image, under the blue gear.
  12. Well, that's the purpose of the diff, so not too surprising :) Did you keep the difflock at the same time, or repurposed the motor/switch to a gearbox? I have also built faster gearing and a gearbox in my Unimog alternate.
  13. In the meantime, I have realized that the Control+ app is limiting the angle further, so it might not be as bad as I thought, it might just stop before it becomes too much for the CV joint. But that's only true if you use the Control+ app, with other apps, it might oversteer. Which app are you using? Furthermore, I noticed considerable slowdown when turning even at lower angles when the batteries were getting down. Have you tried it with fresh batteries?
  14. How would you use that? And what does it have to do with the Raptor? It does not seem to have that part. Thanks for the image!
  15. Thanks for that piece of info, I was just about to search for such, as I did not believe that Technic is just a smaller theme. @howitzer, I could understand some of the production problems above about rare special parts like steering ones, but my main arguments were about generic parts that could be very often used all over technic models, things that pertain to building structures in general. Even those seem to get introduced very slowly if ever. And I just don't believe they pose a real problem for TLG, as other themes introduce many more parts. So at most, it a matter of priorities, this is what I'd like to understand if that's the case or not. So until somebody who actually works/worked there can confirm, we can only speculate. It would be nice to raise such questions when somebody makes an interview with a designer or product manager at TLG..
  16. Agreed, I love it with those tires, and I just bought the Ford today, so I should be covered :) But I'll need to buy one or two spares I guess :) One more tip about Studio. I have just recently realized, that if you set the detail level to medium or low while working, it also shows on the realistic renders (I think it should not, it may be a bug) on some curved panels and on the rims especially, like on yours above, the rim just appears blocky. So when doing renders, I guess we'll have to set it to high detail, to get nice round rims..
  17. gyenesvi

    [MOC] Distribution Truck

    This is really amazing, I actually like how you mixed the technic and system parts, for me the only thing that's a bit off is the front fender, maybe using system there as well would make it smoother. But the rest really blends well together for me. The cutaway view is really nice to show the inside and the functional part. I count 4 motors, and I am guessing 1 for drive, 1 for steering, plus 2 for the loading platform (which works really smooth); these could be operated from 1 hub. Is the second hub only for the lights?
  18. Yes, I have recently found them, and already used the tires in my alternate, thanks a lot!
  19. @efferman, do you maybe have .part files for the white custom towball socket arms on this image? And that top cross beam that holds the towball pin also seems interesting. I could use them for some experimental Studio builds. BTW, what software do you use to design these parts? I guess it's not Part Designer, it seems too limited for these.
  20. This is what I have a hard time accepting, because to me it would seem short sighted strategy. I think there are many generic parts that can be worked around, but if were introduced once, they would be used in many other cases (pliftarms in all lengths being a good example, but simple things like a plain 4L liftarm, or certain connector types, like 2x2 or 2x3 L shapes). I'd even argue that these parts would present no problem in production either because they are nothing special and they could be used in large masses in all sort of sets on the longer run. Exactly this is what I have also been looking at, and again, I don't understand why. It may be that Technic is a smaller theme, although I also see it as quite popular, and its parts are even used more and more in other themes to build structural support for larger system builds, so I tend to think it would be beneficial to improve it. One more note about pliftarms. When I came back to lego as an adult, the studful to studless transition had happened already, and I had to kind of get used to the completely new building style. Looking at structures as an adult, I had the feeling that something was missing, certain directions were cumbersome to connected well/easily, the whole system felt asymmetric in the various dimensions; it was harder to sort of stack layers. After getting used to 'working around' it, I did not even notice, but now that I have built my first MOC with pliftarms, it is already visible how much this was missing, it has great potential in this respect; structures simplify and become more rigid because of less pin connections. It would be nice to understand if/how TLG is measuring this kind of impact of new (classes of) parts (in a manner that's independent of sets to be actually released).
  21. I did not mean in this MOC of course. Sure, I have seen them, but they are not driven by BuWizz motors. Exactly this is my fear, that a more realistic drivetrain would be quite risky with those motors. This, I was actually even able to 'generate' such plastic dust with 2 PU XL motors geared up, although it may depend on how well all the axles are braced on each ends, how much wiggle room they have, I guess the less the less this wear effect appears. Thanks for sharing the observations for this case!
  22. I hope this one flies here, I finally have a truck to share: Unimog trial truck
  23. In your Studio installation folder, there's an 'ldraw' subfolder. That either has a 'Custom Parts' subfolder, or if not, you need to create one, and then put the contents of that zip on the link into that folder. If subfolders already exist in there, you have to merge them. Then those parts will appear on your custom palette. I have just recently had to figure this out again :) I like the naked version of the axle, as it shows a minimum useful build, and the proper use of the portal axle is also welcome, as this way it can be reused for slower but more torque-hungry builds by changing the gearing. I have been also thinking of building a live axle with the BuWizz motors, but more for off-roading. The latest armoured version is still pretty slim, I think! A slightly unrelated question, have you tried the BuWizz motors in a setup where there's a real drivetrain, the motors not built into the axle? I am curious how much it would wear the drivetrain parts and the axle holes, as I am afraid it would be too intense for the plastic.
  24. In the patent thread, @SaperPL and @Jeroen Ottens talked about TLG having designed a lot of parts already, that were not used in production (yet), like the pliftarms. I wanted to ask a bit more about this process at TLG from those who have such knowledge (and this thread seems more appropriate). Maybe @grohl can also add some info as well (if allowed). When I was a child I felt limited by my parents' buget and will to buy lego, when I restarted as an adult on my own budget, I quickly felt limited by the available parts. I was surprised how many parts are missing that could exist. So what I have been wondering is what are the criteria to make such a part into production? How come that such practical parts like pliftarms and others were not deemed useful before, when MOC designers have come up with many cases in which they would be useful (like custom printed parts or Cada sets for example). How is that TLG’s designers don’t need them? I guess they have such parts available for testing, is that the case? What I do suspect, is that they don’t need them enough. Meaning something like those parts can often be worked around, albeit resulting in a more bulky build. And the designers may keep working around those parts in every build because of push from management. Is there something like this going on? However, on the longer run I suspect that using such parts allowing more compact builds could even save on parts and costs. Is that being considered? I was surprised to see after the release of the 15L pliftarm, that in the second wave, only the 11L liftarm came out. I expected more lengths. It seems pretty implausible, that all 4 sets (at least) using those 11L pliftarms needed them exactly only in 15L and 11L lengths. To me the shorter ones would seem more useful. Also, it's somewhat odd to often hear the argument that TLG does not want to release many new technic parts that are more special, when other themes have a wide variety of limited use special parts, like animals, food items, cockpit panels and windshields, just to name a few. For example, one area where I think Technic could still use more variety of parts is suspension and steering. It is used all over the place in models, but is still very limited, for example lengths of joints, towball arms, links, etc. As you guys suggest, TLG may have many experimental parts of this sort, and this year’s lineup had two great opportunities for addig extra parts to achieve things that could’t be done before, but TLG did not really live with it. Sure, the Zetros added a different CV joint (which I find just too long only fit for larger builds that have a lot of space), but the lack of front wheel drive on the Raptor and the axle size and ground clearance of the Zetros clearly shouts for improvements that were missed. So what I'd like to know, is in these cases, do designers actually try to introduce new parts to improve things but are not let by management, or are they not even trying to push it that hard? What warrants a legitimate need for improvement? Thanks if you could shed some light on this, it would be really interesting to know more about.