marcus2388

So… if I vote for the entry which I like most… and there is a good chance this ‘liking’ is based on a brilliant colour scheme of the model – that’s a bad thing? And if the majority of forum members likes this exact model also best… that’s still not a valid reason to win the contest for the best model? Even though it managed to obey to all the contest rules. This seems like the perfect setup to lose sight of the “trending Zeitgeist” – especially if it is directly ignored. I do not understand why this seems to be a recurring motif here… for instance: why are you annoyed about “soooo many cars” – instead of celebrating it as the major lifeline which kept Lego (and the interest in it) alive? I am aware of the principle of qualified Jury voting… but I believe this can hardly be applied to judging Lego Technic Models. There are simply too many different approaches to “what makes a great Technic Model” of which a Jury is not able to fully incorporate. Like/Dislike Electronics Styling VS Function VS True Scale Playability / Robustness / Exotic Building techniques … As an example: I do not believe a great Lego Technic Model of a real life car should have a gearbox the size of a hot tub (if converted to real size)… especially if it’s always the same gearbox design. It’s a much bigger (and from the perspective of MODEL building: important-) job to focus und true-scale appearance. I accept that there are (very) different opinions to the one I just voiced – hence I would not feel comfortable seeing my decision as the sole reason for naming a winner of a Lego Technic contest… But I would love to see how the Zeitgeist develops… what’s currently appealing to the Lego-Technic-loving majority and what’s not. And if there is bias - which there will be - I would rather try to understand it (& use it) instead of trying to ignore it.

Hi & Welcome! Have you considered breeding cats as well? They seem to be more popular on the internet. Are you sure you want to motorize the Sian? By keeping the gearbox, you need to find space for the electronics in the cabin space… and obviously: by keeping the gearbox you should come up with a motorized clutch as well – which will cost you a lot of space and power. And getting even more meta: the gearbox is a device that is not necessary in an electric vehicle (unless you want to have ONE SPECIAL gear… in an off-roader: ultra low range… in a speed-build: high-speed gear)… having more than two gears will only grow the death-count of molten parts by the BuWizz motors… which – to be honest – will never be 0… even if you get rid of all the gears. Maybe it would be best if you could tell us what you are trying to achieve… - A super fast car which provides lots of fun racing it o You shouldn’t try to achieve this with Lego… unless you are willing to permanently change parts… not only axles and gears but also parts bearing them… unless you need to make videos for selling BuWizz-power-units this endeavour is not suited for Lego - An interesting and complicated motorized build with Sian-aesthetics o Keeping the gearbox will make the built very complicated/crowded and from a purely engineering standpoint a bit dull… because… why would you, when using electric motors? o Getting rid of the gearbox will give you the space to achieve at least a good-looking motorized car… but chances are: it’s either not as fast as it looks… or it will burn rubber and plastic - Something totally different?

probably 2

"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

is this like... the essence of the new contest? just asking because GT7 servers are still down

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.

...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"

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: https://www.wheels.ca/news/citroen-ds-rocket-powered-flying-car/ 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.

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.

maybe something like this?

I think they are talking about something like this: Either sword - or propeller

maybe something like this?

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.

Actually... you can still buy the car in the civilian "professional" version - even as a PickUp-truck... https://www.forcegt.com/news/mercedes-benz-introduces-g-professional-cab-chassis-workhorse/ 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...

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.

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: https://www.mercedes-fans.de/fotostrecke/mercedes-erlkoenig-auf-erprobung-neuer-mercedes-amg-g-klasse-4x4-bei-testfahrten-auf-der-nordschleife.6159.1.html This should allow much higher Autobahn Cruising speeds... hence they are testing it - on the Nürburg Ring.

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)

Hi, quick question regarding the size of the buwizz3.0: how far is the pinhole away from the ground? I'd love to build a dummy to already include it in ongoing projects... and the dimension between the bottom of the device and the first pinhhole is likely to be the most critical factor. (because due to cable-management there should always be space above the top of the device) I am using this mock-up right now... but I am not sure, if I guessed the distance of two plates under the pinhole correctly:

oh no - the modular car concept is such an amazing idea for the contest. I'd be super thrilled to work on something like this... preferebly with bodywork as well (or at least allowed to do bodywork, but not as a part of the contest-judging)

I just saw this on Facebook... The link refers to: https://www.renaultgroup.com/en/news-on-air/top-stories-2/victory-in-alpines-dna/?fbclid=IwAR0CfuktiHF1stB5OrXt8k-bWYQE0ysig4Oa-Dq0qQjPHxS455fegjyjA1Q not sure why the person in the image is building Lego... Maybe a new set in the making? Seems like a teaser for a marketing campaign... and talking with "co-branding experience" - just to be allowed to show products of another brand, you need to do "a lot of talking"... mostly signing contracts before doing so. any thoughts? :)

It looks like this structure would tear itself apart. It’s hard to describe… different colours for the side panels would have helped – but I’ll try to name the pieces :D The green brick which is closest to the red motor… directly on the left side of the motor… if that brick is being moved one stud more to the left – as well the opposite brick would be moved since you synchronized always two side panels with each other. But if this movement occurs the other green brick (with the black panel) would be stripped apart from the construction since it already touches the black technic liftarm. Same is true for all other sidepanels actually… they could only move one stud in one direction from neutral – but never in the other… which they would need to be able to do. The panel on top of the construction can’t move downwards – and the panel in the back can’t move in the direction of the centre of the cube… Actually – this might be the best wording: there are three panels which can not move towards the centre of the cube – but which they would need to do, because your image is showing the neutral-position. This is true for the backwards panel, the top panel and the right panel… hence it is true for all three movement-pairs.

Amazing Unimogs! Espacially the 437 is spot on. I'd be super interested in your take of a 6x6 Zetros. :)

Sure! :) The idea is to use the following music box concept: different toothed gears are sitting on the same axle - and pushing the sidepanels - each differently - outwards the box. Obviously the sidepanels should be constantly pulled into the box - maybe by using rubber bands. You actually would not need 6 different discs... you could use one disc - and use three levels of the disc... like the following: Inbetween those two discs there is the motor - which would not move/rotate - and could be connected the frame structure of your cube. This could look like something like this: This is however just a quick concept... there's need for tinkering with the "pushers / tooths" for choosing other parts which would not block each other, like they would do now... I've uploaded the stud.io files as well: https://bricksafe.com/pages/marcus2388/mercedes-benz-ssk-1928/forum_communication

You could use several rotating discs. Just like a music box. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_box The motor and battery box in the middle of the box. Three Discs above the motor… Three Discs under the Motor. Each disc with various “tooths” – pushing against the recieving brick of their particular box-side-panel. The box sidepanels are spring / gummy loaded inwards the box. You could use a very slow gearing (maybe worm gear) to make this whole contraption running smooth and sturdy… and getting with very differently “toothed” discs very different side panel-movements. Nearly stochastic looking probably. Top-tip: since you are from Germany: the German Wikipage for “Spieldose” is three times more informative than the English version.

If you are looking for a solution to handle the “too much torque” situation… there might be three ways… I guess. 1. You could simply speed up the gearbox… and reduce the speed after the gearbox in the same amount. This should reduce the torque stressing the gearbox internals… but it would also increase friction (a lot!). So, the result would be a mixture of loosing power and still stressing the material. This could be optimized with a lubricant for the gears. 2. You could multiply gears… so instead of using two gears, use 4 and so on. This might not necessarily help with slipping clutch problems. You could multiply them as well.. meaning: if you use two synchronized gearboxes, you’d half the torque for each one of them. Like… build two of Sariels gearboxes and use them simultaneously in the same drivetrain. Obviously, this consumes a lot of space… and adds more friction. 3. You could try to find ways of building a sturdier structure through making the whole gearbox bigger… with adding in crossbeams, bars and so on internally… maybe even adding in gears (and gear switchers) which only do one thing: support the existing gears, by surrounding them. This solution would put a lot more stress on the gears. So… while having a solution for your slipping gears you might end up breaking them. Since you are utilizing 4 XL motors in your MOC… I am guessing that movement is a high priority. I would consider going for a radical solution: not having a gearbox at all. I know it is somewhat of a sacrilege in this forum… but honestly: - From an engineering point of view – it does not make sense, to force the power of 4 electric motors through one mechanical bottleneck. This is neither elegant nor efficient. - From a scale-modelling point of view: having a gearbox which takes up to 30% of your total space is super unrealistic. I hope this helps… or at least draws the attention of gearbox enthusiasts towards your thread :D *runs away