Saberwing40k

Eurobricks Counts
  • Content count

    1529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Saberwing40k

  • Rank
    Technic catch of the day

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tabgha Lunar Base
  • Interests
    Lego, obviously. Giant Robots, Science Fiction, Catgirls.

Extra

  • Country
    Luna
  1. Yeah, I just tried, it does not work.
  2. [Epic Fail] Small Ring Crane

    None of the parts are ruined. Even though they were bent, it was just part to part flexing. So, they're still good, a testament to Lego quality. Also, I didn't use the pulleys with axle holes. I used primarily Wheel 11mm D. x 8mm with Center Groove, because of the exact issues you mentioned. And, as I mentioned in my main post, I couldn't add enough weight to the hook without the rest of the crane falling apart.
  3. [Epic Fail] Small Ring Crane

    I have no idea why I did it that way in the first place, guess I didn't see much of a point in making a remote control model of a static crane. Sorry, but like I said, this thing is demolished. I need the parts, and I've got other projects that I'd rather restart over this. But I will revisit ring cranes, just not anytime soon.
  4. Good grief, this thing has been sitting on my desk for over a year now, and I just now got around to taking pictures of it. tsk tsk. Anyway, this is a failed attempt at making a ring crane using a hailfire droid wheel as a base. It is loosely based upon a Sarens SGC-120, and uses a 3 way reversable distribution gearbox, much like 42042. Each selector controls one function, forward and reverse. The crane features 3 winches, controlling the boom luffing, the luffing jib, and the hook. The winches are run by one M motor. The counterweight is 5 PF AA battery boxes, plus some old train weights, and some ball bearings. Now, I mentioned that this is a failed attempt, and there are a good number of reasons for that. Firstly, the gearbox connecting the M motor to the distribution box was very weak and overly complex. Then, this model had several critical structural flaws. The main boom wasn't nearly stiff enough, and would warp with the slighted provocation. The individual sections were strong enough, but the connections to get them in a triangular shape were not. Then, the main frame of the crane was very weak, and bent a lot under the weight of the main boom. Same thing goes for the rollers on the base ring. They were not structurally sound at all, and due to that, motorized slewing was not possible. Lastly, the hook was not heavy enough to put tension on the hook line, and so the lines of rope going to the hook would jump at the slightest provocation. Still, even if this did fail, it looked impressive, and I learned from it. IMG_20170813_202442189 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The crane, in all of its glory. Ring Crane 002 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The gearbox. Each selector controls a winch. Ring Crane 003 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The M motor. This was one of the weak points of the model. Not the motor, but the gearbox it is attached to. Ring Crane 004 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The rollers. Not stable enough. Ring Crane 005 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The counterweights. There were two more battery boxes, but they got used for something else. IMG_20170813_202804340 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The crane base, without the booms or counterweight. Ring Crane 007 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The winches. Ring Crane 008 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The frame bending. IMG_20170813_210407144 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The gearbox extracted. Ring Crane 010 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The underside of the gearbox. It's dead simple, aside from the connection to the M motor, which was more complex than it needed to be, and would fail with minimal provocation. Well, that's it. There will be no video, as this got demolished for my TC12 entry. Enjoy, as much as you can enjoy a train wreck like this.
  5. I tried taking the poll, and it disappeared after voting. I have no ad blocker.
  6. Hey Jim, does third party parts include SBricks? I'm not making any assumptions, just yet. Also, my entry will probably end up being more Mad Max or Redline than Wacky Races.
  7. Hey @Jim, I just thought of something. Sometimes, contests are started abruptly, and waiting is hard, so maybe you could give advance notice, or give a specific start date, giving people a chance to prepare, and then be ready when the rules are revealed. Also, what if you could give out notifications for new contests? That could be helpful.
  8. Efferman's Custom Parts

    I've never done this with Shapeways parts, but I've used both Dremel bits and jeweler's files to get in tight places for sanding. I'd hit up Harbor Freight, and pick up some tiny files.
  9. Technic 2017 Set Discussion

    Am I the only one who is disappointed for the lack of a real 40th anniversary celebration for Technic? No contest, no good flagship, no homage sets, just an afterthought combo model, a bad flagship, and some printed bricks. 10 out of 10, Lego. Oh well, in 2027 they might do something spectacular for the 50th anniversary, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
  10. I'm seeing some 42070 sets on bricklink for $215~, and that is almost worth it. If you want that set, that is an almost decent price for it. I still have no love for this set, and it is without a doubt in my mind one of the worst Technic sets ever. Why? I've got many a reason. It's luridly overpriced. Somehow, sets with only one motor and battery box don't cost any more than their non PF counterparts, but the second you even have a receiver, the set price balloons. Somehow, this turd costs more than 42030, while having half the motors. Furthermore, 42030 had one new, gigantic part, and a license to boot. I calculated the price of this set, and it should be ~$230, not $290. Am I the only one who wonders where the other $60 went? It's unfinished in some places, yet wastes parts in others. The front wheel mounts in particular come to mind, as they could have had it like the Unimog, but instead of using a single piece, the design includes an inferior solution that uses more parts, and is weaker. Less noticeably, there are places where 2 half bushes are used instead of a single full bush. But, they can't spare any parts to fill in the cab, or the crane, or anything else. There are several asinine design compromises, like the lack of suspension on the front axle, and the weird rear axles. Now, I was thinking, maybe that was because Lego would not allow U joints in the drivetrain, minus the steering axle, to give the set the ability to crawl, but that idea is undermined by the open differentials, the clutch gears in the drivetrain, the weird suspension again, the IR receiver, and the improper gear ratio. If Lego is not willing to make the set something with any degree of off road performance, then what's the point of those weird compromises? Also, the turning circle is obnoxiously wide for no particular reason, the crane arm is unfinished, and why have an RC set with a manual gearbox? Why not have something like 8043? Or, why not just make it a manual set, with good suspension, and good design? Also, why does a big, 6x6 truck have a 4 cylinder engine? There are no new parts, even though there are ample opportunities to have them, like stronger U joints and diffs for the drivetrain, so maybe the truck could have actual suspension, or new concentric pieces so that 3 functions could pass through a turntable, and others. Color barf. The chassis has so much color coding, that is needless. Lego only does color coding like this in Technic, not in any other theme. Even other System or Creator sets that are in the 11-16 age range don't have color coding. And, if this set is more aimed at younger kids, why is it labeled 11-16? The designer should have known better. Uwe Wabra designed 8258, one of the best Technic sets ever. The design is simple, and boring, even ignoring the parts that aren't finished. Finally, all the above would be bad enough, but Lego let the fans down in a major way by releasing this turd of a flagship on the 40th anniversary. Oh well, there's that off my chest. I actually posted several rants about this set, as it is bad, and my only question is why? Why did Lego rush this out? Why did they make the design choices they made? My problem is more with the unanswered questions than anything else, but that's just me. But, this is Lego. I think I'll put my money where my mouth is, and prove that I can build a better flagship.
  11. No, I was just rejecting your specific argument. You still didn't say how old your kids are, and I don't think kids can make an honest opinion on a set because they don't understand how pricing works, and can't compare it to other sets. If your kids, for instance, are 3 and 4, then their opinion doesn't matter, because they have not yet developed standards. So, no. I am not rejecting your opinion because it doesn't agree with mine, I'm rejecting your argument which is badly supported. Also, you somehow ignore several massive problems 42070 has while arguing it isn't that bad. If that was your opinion, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but you are presenting it as an argument. Also, I think we can formulate opinions of sets like this based on reviews. (That's why people like @Jim and @Sariel make them), but yes, I have built the set, in LDD, and it is still bad. So no, I don't disagree with your opinion, but you try to present an argument, and fail to do so in a logical manner, which is what I disagree with.
  12. I reject the argument that because kids like something, it automatically gets a pass on being bad. Kids will play with a bag of dog s--t if you let them. Or MegaBlocks. (#shotsfired). Also, how old are your kids? If they're young, and they like it, Lego actually goofed, because Technic is an older demographic. So, what? Are you just putting an arbitrary number on the box so that people will think they are more advanced builders, even if the set itself has been dumbed down? Anyway, it's been a long time since we've had a true stinker of a set, and 42070 is it, for the 40th Anniversary of Technic. If the B model only makes the A model look good, and does nothing else, you've failed, because the 2 in 1 thing is part of the value of the set, and if you put two lousy models in the box, and charge $290 for it, that's charging too much. I almost can't believe that Lego would let the designers get away with such a blatant display of laziness, with a B model this bad. I'm sorry you wasted 2 hours of your life building this monstrosity, @Sariel You know, I have a question. With all of the blatant shortcuts in the flagship set, and less so the entire 2017 lineup. is something bad happening in the Technic department?
  13. I'd say it ain't worth it. I just checked Bricklink, and I found a couple in multiple places that are 170 euro, versus 270. It really isn't worth paying extra to get the set MISB.
  14. Impossible LEGO

    I've had great success using tiny screwdrivers to get at stuff like this.
  15. Technic 2017 Set Discussion

    Hey everyone, the B model instructions are up.