Eurobricks Counts
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by agrof

  1. @M_longer That is correct, he wrote this in the first post too - what parts/solutions he plans to use from who.
  2. I think I get it. Title: offroader with independent suspension - explained: A promising start -> went off-topic (off-roader) -> and got independent (by moderators) suspension (taking a break). I was expecting other kind of MOC first, but I appreciate the irony. Back ON topic: I also miss the pictures and can not see the inserted ones (please use Bricksafe or a photo sharing website), so I quickly rendered the file from the first post, and leave it here for the colleauges. As the original idea still sounds interesting, let's hope after summer holiday it will get a new start, with more fluent communication.
  3. Absolutely stunning in this scale , congratulations for the collaboration!
  4. Like it, especially the hands-on manipulation - so much, that I wouldn't even miss the motorization of the undercarriage. Nice MOC!
  5. Great reading for the morning coffee, thank You Jim! I was coming for nice pictures and to read a nice story with some objectivity, I am not disappointed.
  6. @AVCampos is right, the Mack is great in every aspect, the garbage truck is on pair with any A model, and 42079 seems to be my most anticipated set for 2H for me. Though, I would warmly welcome Creator like 5-in-1 sets (500-800 pcs), of course with printed instructions. That could be also show the versatility of Technic system, and also great learning material.
  7. @Jim It is your opinion, You like it. I don't. I guess, we could still sit to the same table and have a good beer with a nice chat, could we?
  8. Back in beginning of 2016 I started a similar concept (shame on me not to finished it yet), 1 direction ON/OFF battery box, 5x bi-directional clutches (same as 42082), + some manual functions, as it is, still below 1000 pcs... I admit, my MOC doesn't have fake engine, nor 4 wheel steering, but I can see it possible easily with 2000 pcs.
  9. Great pick-up/truggy truck! Congrats for the 2nd place!
  10. I am one, who is complaining about the size. It is not a price issue for me, but a design issue. As mentioned before, adding parts for example on the wheel hubs just for sake of adding parts and be able to present the set as "The next biggest" is far away from Technic. They not even add a valuable aesthetic improvement in my opinion... just parts to be in the list. Similar effect to make a larger scale to reach the same target (The next biggest). There is nothing more in function and technical solutions, than in a 3000 pcs set. As an engineer, I find this just against my instincts, it is just marketing over engineering - and literally: overengineering. I like compact, efficient, smart solutions - size alone doesn't impress me. A design is successful to me, if it has the technology, functionality, usability, and elegance in one package. This is one example for those profanes, who are not WOW-ing the 4000 pcs count immadiately. BTW: functions are fine for me, even the outriggers speed. May I note, that the speed of those are not linearly connected to race extinction? Except, if the last member of the certain race is beneath the outrigger's feet...
  11. Hello! I would like to present my first MOC, which i was tempted to build since a while. I was always more a "fan" of Class 1 buggies ( https://en.wikipedia...i/SCORE_Class_1 ) over Baja trucks, and I also couldn't find any LEGO versions of them, so i decided to build... and failed, built again, and failed..., built again, and so on... The long travel independent suspension with driving was really a challange, finally I found a solution, which works... kinda. I reached my goal, to make this thing move, but I must admit, the driving performance is poor, as the suspension arms are still not rigid enough, so the rear wheels start to lean. It moves, but not what i would call: clear run. Still, i thought, maybe it is worth to share, because the rest of the car is OK. I also would like to inspire others to build such MOCs, i would be happy to see more (and better performing) unlimited buggies! Building instruction (V3): here And now... the pictures (edit: no more video will be made, lack of patience and knowledge) - fixed: EDIT: as updated version is available, old pics and video removed. Pre version pics added. V0 - sketch model: V1 model with XL motors - not really good performance... V2 model with L-motors: Update: V3 is ready - see page 2. A clever patch by @Didumos69 for the rear swingarms, now they can not disconnect at all!
  12. I am afrad it is the Li-Ion battery inside. I strongly recommend not to use it, and keep it away from every flammable material (don't store in a cardboard box f.e.). Do not charge it! It can start fire, and it's smoke is toxic. I would wait for answer from Buwizz @Ron1 can help for sure. Also do not send by post back to BuWizz, even if they ask for it! It must need a special inflammable transport case for it, otherwise it can burn down anything around, yes even a complete warehouse, or airplane (happened with UPS). I am working with such batteries, exactly the transportation of them in my profession, injured batteries have very strict transportation regulation with a good reason! After answer from BuWizz I would bring the injured unit to a shop, where they sell Li-Ion batteries, and ask them if they have waste handling and leave it there.
  13. As outsider - indeed the new door shape is more fitting to the overall design. I like this angle:
  14. Looks nice, I have 2 remarks only: the panel behind the rear wheel (rear bumper side) is too long / or should be lifted by 1 stud at least, and the wheels appear slightly small to me.
  15. Yesss. We definitely need more MOCs like this! HOF material.
  16. I don't think its that common for the forks of a forklift not to reach as high as the roof of the cab.
  17. This is the only thing that bugs me, very displeasing attitude to hide facts (message to marketing team: ). We need to find a solution to make the fork movement range properly up to the top. Other than that, this is the most convincing set to me for this batch, perfect size, functions, great B model. Like!
  18. agrof

    42080 Forest Harvester

    Actually, I like the playability of the A model a lot, but the B model is still plain ugly to me.
  19. On big sets like this are usual above 11, for UCS it is 16+ (which basically means adults, especially considering the price). So your nephews are not licensed to understand and to play with those! Seriously, it is cute and many times admirable if a small child can operate, build and enjoy a set like these, but to be fair the expectations of a 4 year old and a 16 year old are pretty different. And as the target group is 11-16 (set by LEGO itself), than steering radius can be an issue. Just to compare apple to apple.
  20. Absolutely love it! The proportions, the build, and seemingly the functions too (I trust You, based on previous MOCs).
  21. What You are describing is, let's say external motivation. But does the crowd's low demand meet the original LEGO legacy: "Only the best is good enough"? I think, no. This motto should be the internal motivation for TLG - sometimes they seemingly gave up on this with compromises You describe above. Or just transformed the meaning of best... best what? Best toy, best functions, best within the limitations, best official LEGO Chiron set (which has rather low competition to date ) or... best... profit? I believe, if You show the best product to the market, than even the reactions from the mass will be: OH, damn is this really LEGO? - instead of: Oh, it doesn't work so well, You know it's LEGO . I think we AFOL's understand this slogen as it is valid in every (or at least most) aspects, and that's why we are picky. I agree with @Erik Leppen - if there is a function, it should reasonably work. Speaking of 42083 for easier example: a spring, which works only in one direction, can not be considered as correct function, also not as the best. Feels more like the slogan is twisted: "Good enough is the best." Meanwhile, understanding the limitations, I find the rear spoiler adjusting method reasonable, furthermore a nice gimmick with the "speed key". I can count more positive, than negative things about this certain set, but as metaphor: if there is only one nail is sticking out in your mattress - the whole night is ruined, it is just not the BEST mattress any more. All in all, I miss sometimes this internal motivation from TLG's products (not each!). Especially noted at flagship models recently (those, we expect to be the best of the bests) , that's why they are much more under the loop, and hurts even more if there is a single annoying little fault found.
  22. It seems too specific application to me - if there would be such an essential need, the current machines would have the same function already. Not to mention, by raising the back, the efficiency of dumping is decreased as the angle is being reduced.
  23. For me it doesn't - ground clearance is mostly effected by the axle itself, not by the midpoint of the chassis - axle height is constant. Also, raising the COG on rough terrain with higher load... not a clever idea. Okay, let's say it is related to movement to counterweight and balancing the bucket at heavy loads, still questionable to me, as raising the counterweight makes the wheelbase shorter = worse support for heavier and higher weight = tipping danger is increased (think of mobile cranes with and without otriggers). Also, what is the situation / need for such solution in the dumper than? As for LEGO set, I think it is a "cool" feature, I see children happy about it. As for real machine, I still don't see the point - maybe there will be a designer video, which explains the features in details. p.s.: please note, it is not against the set, it is just engineering curiosity.
  24. I like the concept of "futuristic" (it is the very near future actually) machines, Lego should be up to date, but even showing the route where we are heading towards to children. IT, robotics, computers, drones are everywhere, we start to reach the point where children will not understand why the hell is a man needed to physically "sit on" a machine. The B model looks more and more appealing to me - better than the A. For me a minus the probably rather slow play ability due to the actuators. Anyhow: does anybody have an idea what for should be an actuator to adjust the rear axle - even on the real machine? I just can not figure out what benefits this solution could have. Increasing the wheelbase is fine for stability, but to decrease while raising the Center Of Gravity...
  25. agrof

    Technic Pub

    I love Cranes ETC - very good website and video reviews. Still, watching this (perfect commentary btw!), I can not get out from my head: