Eurobricks Vassals
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by marcus2388

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. marcus2388

    [WIP] Aston Martin Valkyrie

    maybe something like this?
  4. marcus2388

    F1 Front Wing

    I think they are talking about something like this: Either sword - or propeller
  5. marcus2388

    [TC20] Indy Storm (8445)

    maybe something like this?
  6. marcus2388

    [TC20] Indy Storm (8445)

    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.
  7. 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...
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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)
  11. 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:
  12. 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)
  13. I just saw this on Facebook... The link refers to: 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? :)
  14. 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.
  15. Amazing Unimogs! Espacially the 437 is spot on. I'd be super interested in your take of a 6x6 Zetros. :)
  16. 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 files as well:
  17. You could use several rotating discs. Just like a 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.
  18. 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
  19. Hi, I wanted to share with you my first MOC… Meaning: since a very long Lego brake – my first digitally conceptualised and afterwards actually build creation. Learning to use took me some time… And it felt like “beginning once again” when I noticed that “creating something digitally” and “being able to build that thing in reality” are two different things. So, the first project I tried to employ the skill of “trying to make it buildable in reality” was the Mercedes SSK I started in late November… I really wanted to get the interesting front right… those very thin axles… the springs… so this was actually the first part I designed to see, if this could be done at all… Behind the grill there were springs doing the work of the mock-spring-suspension… when I test-build this, I noticed that lego springs are not as strong as I remembered them to be… so in the end I needed to get rid of the invisible suspension in the front. I also wanted to have as little weight on the front axle as possible… so I thought about the principle of “moving the centre of gravity” towards the back axle: Hence I build this main frame – with the rear axle being mounted on the farthest point in the back of the car… and trying something similar for the front axle. The rear axle is actually also hosting the two motors… originally designed for two BuWizz motors… but since they are still not available, I built it with two L-Motors… this could be changed easily when the other motors are finally available. Also: this minimizes the weight on the front axle as well. When I had the impression that my digital work was finished… I looked into available colours of the bricks… a step I am likely to be doing much sooner in the building process with future projects. I nearly went for the white version… but since I am planning to do a couple of other Mercedesesessses in the future – and since they rarely have any colour beyond white and black – I opted for the red version. Also: the SSK is quite well known in the red version as a car. Actually… short brake about the original: This is the SSK of 1928… so it is the “Super Sport”-version of the model K… and in the year of 1928 it was built as a 40cm shorter version to be more corner-happy while doing hill-climbs. And it really did… it owned all the races in the mountains. This car was partially used in “sports car racing” – mostly in white colour scheme – and partly used as a very pricy toy for the rich and famous (mostly in the red colour scheme). There was also a more hardcore racing version – the SSKL. (L for light-weight)… you can actually learn more about that car also in this forum, since Sariel just posted his lego SSKL today here as well. Real SSK: Back to the building process… I stumbled over the concept of “separating the car in numerous fragments” to make the building easier… So, I tried to do that on my digital model… I can not remember how much time I burned… but it took the bigger part of December to split the car into the following segments and steps: Main Frame 84 Rear Axle 39 Front Axle 48 Grill with Lamps 60 Body -> Structual Body 124 -> Bonnit 55 -> Exhaust 15 -> Body details 51 Interior 49 Spare Wheels 8 total 533 After this was done… I tried to order the parts from bricklink… an experience I did not enjoy so much… but somehow made it through… nearly all parts arrived around Christmas… (because I have no Lego at all in the town I work) Thanks to the step-by-step Instruction in I managed to build the car… and noticed a couple of design flaws… like: It is a very different kind of force, when a car needs to be picked UP – instead of just standing on its own wheels… much like a bridge it collapsed. :D But I was able to get rid of this problem surprising easily – by strengthening the bodywork instead of the mainframe. I also had to add a bar before the front wheels to keep both of them synced… which annoyed me a bit… because I wanted as less structure as possible in the front… and I had to get rid of the front suspension and also make it much more robust… which went really well… Cross-linked Technic with Lego System is insanely robust. All adjustments I added were first developed in – than ordered via Bricklink – than finally tried in real life… since I got no Lego at all here in my work-town… So that process took some time… Time in which I got more and more interested in other projects. :D I am now at that point, where the car does what I want it to do… drive around remotely – be super sturdy – and look nice, since it is mostly standing around on the shelf. I still need to add-in the changes I made during construction into the Instruction… and I am wondering more and more, if this car would be better off without the electronics… since there is nice room for a cool engine replica… steering is designed to be easily connectable to the steering wheel… and the performance is a bit boring. On the other hand… I enjoy driveable things much more… mostly because I grew up with lousy-performance lego-cars and always wanted impressive driving stuff. :D Clearly, I haven’t made my mind up… but something cool happened today… when Sariel posted his SSKL I was finally brave enough to also join this community… I have been reading daily for some years without an account… and I would like to participate in bringing joy to others – just as you did to me. Kindest Regards Marcus
  20. marcus2388

    Mercedes-Benz SSKL

    Very beautifully styled! I really enjoyed the presentation on your website with the included history! :)