Jump to content

dhc6twinotter

Eurobricks Counts
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,700

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by dhc6twinotter

  1. dhc6twinotter
    I would run both XL motors to both rear axles. Madoca, Sariel, and others have done it this way, and it seems to be the standard setup for twin motor, tandem axle trucks.
  2. dhc6twinotter
    A 128 output gearbox can be built without needing a center position for any of the gearboxes. That would be 4 motors to operate the functions and 4 motors to operate the gearboxes. To achieve this, we would need twenty three 8 output gearboxes linked together. The overall gearbox would be massive and playability horrendous, but it's doable. (I think I did all the math right )
  3. dhc6twinotter
    Oh, right you are! For the designs posted in the original post, that would be correct. I was thinking about a couple other gearbox designs when I wrote that. The 15 output gearbox I plan to use for my future project doesn't need a center position. [EDIT: Typed the wrong number for my gearbox output. Should read 15 instead of 17. 17 is the total number of function I plan on having, not the amount the gearbox will output. ]
  4. dhc6twinotter
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if a worm gear is used on the changeover catch, the driving ring position can be held indefinitely. Whenever I build a gearbox used to multiply functions, I use a worm gear on the changeover catch with a 24t clutch gear between the worm gear and motor. When building a gearbox that is used to multiply functions, like the ones being discussed here, a center position is not really needed. It's more advantageous to have the driving rings engaged all the way to the left, or all the way to the right (or up/down, forward/backward…whatever direction you want to use). I don't think a servo motor would work well for the standard 2 position gearboxes being discussed here, however, some people have used servo motors for 3 (and maybe 4) position gearboxes that use a ratcheting mechanism to keep driving rings engaged. I question the reliability of such designs, but perhaps my building abilities are not up to par. The people that have built such mechanisms seem happy with the results, and it's something I'd like to further explore.
  5. dhc6twinotter
    I don't see why it wouldn't work. One of the mocs on my list of things I want to build would have 17 or 18 functions, and I plan on having a dual stage gearbox with 2 m motors for switching and 4 motors for driving the functions (or more likely, I will have 8 motors driving the functions with only 4 of these pulling power at a time). That would still leave me with 2 motors for drive and steering. Playability might be a bit of a challenge, but I think as long as the functions are grouped properly and it's easy to see what position the gearbox is in, then it shouldn't be too bad. I would agree with that, but I think it also depends on what is being built. Theoretically, with TheItailianBrick's design, you wouldn't need a function to be any more than 2 gears away from a motor. EDIT: It is possible to have 16 functions off 4 drive motors and 2 motors for the gearbox.
  6. dhc6twinotter
    I think Crowkillers uses a generic AC adapter spliced into a PF extension wire to power some of his static displays.
  7. dhc6twinotter
    I like it! Nice use of the red 8tooth gear, and the gearbox design is great.
  8. dhc6twinotter
    I'm working on wheeled excavator right now, and I hope to have it done by Brickfair, if I go (which is looking more and more likely).
  9. dhc6twinotter
    The Gottwald AMK-500 is really interesting. Are the two carriers attached together to support a single boom? An AC700 is on my list of MOCs I want to build, and the thought of building one is one of the things that got me back into LEGO. I've started some of the planning for it, but I'm not sure I'll ever get around to actually building it. I've been working a little bit on a Cat 140M road grader, but I just work on it when I get tired of working on my other projects. I won't have that one done for a while. That's a neat truck, but the scenery there looks amazing. I would love to visit Norway someday.
  10. dhc6twinotter
    Oh how I wish LEGO would make the 6x6 dishes in yellow.
  11. dhc6twinotter
    IMHO, for somebody to claim they made LEGO fly, it should be 100% LEGO. No 3rd party batteries, wing coverings, or motors. Once 3rd party parts are used for motors, etc, then what we have left is an RC airplane with a heavy LEGO shell. That being said, the helium balloon blimps are pretty awesome.
  12. dhc6twinotter
    Really nice entry! A good number of functions for 200 parts, and I like how all the controls are on the chassis. Nicely done!
  13. dhc6twinotter
    Can we change the rules to allow up to 350 pieces? Just kidding. This is a fun challenge, but is harder than I thought. Now on to plan B….
  14. dhc6twinotter
    If you plan on using the parts for mocs, and particularly remote control mocs, 42030 offers a nice range of PF elements. However, there aren't a whole lot of gears in the set. IMHO, if you don't necessarily need all the PF parts, 42009 Mobile Crane is a better starter set. 42009 offers more parts and a large assortment of gears. If you can afford it, buying both 42030 and 42009 together would make for a nice starter collection (if you don't mind building in yellow). If you're not into mocs and you plan to build something to play with, than 42030 offers better playability.
  15. dhc6twinotter
    Awesome tiller! The colors look great together.
  16. dhc6twinotter
    Welcome Bruno! Nice to have you here.
  17. dhc6twinotter
    Yeah, the B model could use more refinement, but I think I'm in the minority with the A model…I actually kinda like it. It reminds me of the old Power Wagons.
  18. dhc6twinotter
    I agree with that, but overall, it's not bad. It's nice to see LEGO offering something different for a change. Now all we need is a forwarder flagship model...
  19. dhc6twinotter
    Looking great!
  20. dhc6twinotter
    I'm all for a Technic meet up, but I'm still not sure if I'll be able to attend. Probably won't know for sure until I'm there.
  21. dhc6twinotter
    I'm not sure what you consider "interesting", but when I went a couple years ago, there was a really good assortment of mocs. Some high-quality stuff there too. Not much Technic though.
  22. dhc6twinotter
    Awesome. I had forgotten all about that set, and this is pretty neat.
  23. dhc6twinotter
    Looks great! Nice number of functions as well!
  24. dhc6twinotter
    I think red would be fine. The older u-joints were red, as you mentioned.
  25. dhc6twinotter
    42030 may have better playability and a few awesome parts (yellow rims!), but IMHO, 8265 is better in every other way.
×
×
  • Create New...