Eurobricks Vassals
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About marcus2388

Spam Prevention

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

485 profile views
  1. "Everyone is Awesome" - very Lego - fitting to the times we live in - long overdue to be celebrated in Technic - challenging enough for anyone who needs his/her creativity forced
  2. is this like... the essence of the new contest? just asking because GT7 servers are still down
  3. I’d try to do a compromise… by making a 1:8,2 car with only slightly too small wheels (1:8,4)… 1:1 Car Length: 3950 Millimetres; 493,75 Studs 1:8,0 Car Length: 494 Millimetres; 61,71 Studs 1:8,2 Car Length: 481 Millimetres; 60,21 Studs 1:8,4 Car Length: 470 Millimetres; 58,78 Studs 1:1 Wheel dia: 577 Millimetres; 72,12 Studs 1:8,0 Wheel dia: 72,12 Millimetres; 9,01 Studs 1:8,2 Wheel dia: 70,36 Millimetres; 8,79 Studs 1:8,4 Wheel dia: 68,69 Millimetres; 8,58 Studs You’ll be only 1,5 studs off of the 1:8 car in length (at a 60 studs long car)… and your wheel arches can be closer to the real thing and give the smaller wheel more room to actually move around.
  4. ...if you are trying to simulate a ship maneuvering in water... then it might be a good idea to get rid of that part of the hull which is usually under the water? including the rudder and the propellers... otherwise there's a high risk of "looking just strange"
  5. There are surprisingly few transforming vehicles in “real-“ or “movie-life”. Those few vehicles which can be built in Lego, have already been built dozens of times in Lego… Like KITT, or the submerging James Bond Lotus Esprit… or of course the Back To The Future DeLorean. There are mostly those vehicles left, which were only able to “perform” their transformation with camera trickery and different cars… like the flying car from Phantomas: they had one car with no wings for driving… one additional car which slides way too short wings from under the car to the outside… and a final car which had longer wings (with additional moving wing extensions) to finalize the “transformation” and do the “flying”-scenes. So – there is no chance to build an accurate scaled down version of that car… because the main part of the wing (without the extension) is already longer than the wheelbase of the car… in which that main part of the wing should be stored when driving. Also: the most annoying thing when doing “transforming vehicles”-research is the vast amount of Hollywood Transformer-nonsense. That moronic franchise makes the google search totally useless.
  6. Not at all a dumb question. Quite to the contrary: it shows you are keen on having solid drivetrain engineering. In theory all your thoughts about this are true. In perfect conditions – and close to extreme situations (high speeds, tight corners) – you would notice a difference between an axle with a differential and an axle with two individual motors. In reality though you barely have perfect conditions… meaning: whenever you lose traction on one wheel – you lose 100% power on the whole axle when using a differential. And there are plenty situations when this happens… body roll, body flex, bumpy underground, slippery underground, rapid breaking, rapid acceleration… Only due to friction in the drivetrain and mass moment of inertia of the moving car you keep on “rolling” into a better traction situation… So using a motor on each wheel helps you to reduce the power loss of 100% down to 50% in such not-ideal situations. In the rare moment when you have constantly 100% traction (with sticky third party tires, perfect smooth and grippy underground) you are going to experience understeer. To compensate this, you could either do, what ESP does (slow down the wheels in the inner part of the corner via brakes (maybe mechanically linked to your steering axle) – or you do what Torque Vectoring does: program your power unit in a way, that [IF STEERING LEFT] happens [POWER MOTOR LEFT] is reduced to 80%... or you do – what from the looks of it nearly everybody does: assume there will be nearly never perfect traction between the car and the ground – so just do not care about it.
  7. maybe something like this?
  8. I think they are talking about something like this: Either sword - or propeller
  9. maybe something like this?
  10. why don't you use the panels on the wing also for the nose? Lego did the same thing on the studded model by using the brick in both places. this might help achieving a more similiar (and thinner) look.
  11. Actually... you can still buy the car in the civilian "professional" version - even as a PickUp-truck... and it is still a very well selling military car. The 6x6 started it's life "just recently" as a special request by the Australian army... and got converted into the portal axle monster we all know afterwards. When it comes to the G-wagon - there is nothing off limits...
  12. I can assure you: if you want those tires on your G Class – the factory is going to sell it to you. The whole G-Wagon project was started in this spirit: the Shah of Iran wanted to have a Mercedes for his military.
  13. The upcoming G 4*4 is not only about big tyres^^... unlike the previous model it will have Portals only on the back axle - and very long independent liftarms on the front: This should allow much higher Autobahn Cruising speeds... hence they are testing it - on the Nürburg Ring.
  14. A different approach could be: not relying on the ring-modules for rigidity. Also: minimizing the use of connector-connections… You could use frames… Maybe (not necessarily) reduce the space for movement by interlocking them even further… And to gain hight you could go for liftarms, or panels… But I’d prefer bricks. They are super strong. This should allow to stack quite high… And it would leave a lot of free space – always in the same spot – to maybe run elevators through it (if your intention would be to build a tower of some sort)