andythenorth

What if there just isn't? Dumb question I know. But what if Lego creator trains are just a very niche hobby for a very specific bunch of nerds? Most adults I know who buy Lego would never buy trains, they buy Star Wars and Creator sets of vehicles like the Mini and the Batman Tumbler. The foamers (train fans) I knew once upon a time would never have considered Lego trains, far too unrealistic, no matter how much greeble is added. And that's two pretty niche groups already.

Nah, the polarity coming out of the battery box is ignored by the PF IR receiver, so the switch direction makes no difference

I found this very useful post while looking for a way to use 8 AA batteries (for ~9v output from NiMH). http://texbrick.com/tjab/?p=127 The important bit for PF hackers being to not connect certain some of the wires to power, quoting: "DO NOT DO THIS! This will make smoke come out of the PF IR receiver box."

Interesting mount for a small turntable driven by a spur gear.

Weight and speed tests 7.2kg load, truck weight is 1kg. On level ground, speed is 0.5 metres / second, or 1.8km / hr.

On-highway trucks in North America, Europe, Australia, South America, Africa etc all use similar size tyres.

Right now, there is nothing else built for this part of the truck, there's quite a lot of potential space on the truck.

Need to figure out a design for this style of outrigger, using large LA or gear rack. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QFDg1iyIjkE/S-ijP2nPUiI/AAAAAAAAAB0/Qxiw3eVzQ_M/s1600/outriggerpad3.jpg Doesn't have to be technically accurate: - could work by moving one of the hinge points using an LA or gear rack - or by putting an LA in the outrigger arm Truck uses 62.4 tyres, so 8285 sized. So outrigger needs to fit in about a 2x3 stud envelope, or it will look too big. Needs to be actually capable of lifting the vehicle off the ground and holding it there. Sure it can be done, wondering who has the best solution?

Yes. Train remote is pretty cheap if you needed one: http://www.bricklink...4429&colorID=86

L motor ftw. :)

You mean in the official instructions, right? Because I'm prepared to bet a lot on it being 'possible' </smartass>

The crane from 8436 is pneumatic and works fine at the right size for a truck with 62.4 tyres ;) http://brickset.com/sets/8436-1/Truck

I'm using the proportional (train) PF remote for drive, so 7 speeds available. The bang-bang (stick) remote is better for steering though, so I use one of each on different channels - hence the third IR receiver

Got some more crappy videos. Shot with a phone in one hand, quite hard to steer and control speed with the other hand. I swapped out the tyres for the 62.4 tyres. Wondering whether to add suspension for the challenge of it, or just let the chassis flex (working fine like that). It's really fun to drive A single IR receiver can't drive all 4 L motors at full power; it works, but there's more power if 2 IR receivers are used, one for LH side, one for RH side, both on same channel + colour. There's even more power (and battery time) if two battery boxes are used, one per IR receiver, but that's not essential. More weight = better pulling performance, and the steering needs weight over it, otherwise the truck tries to drive through the steering angle (straight lining). Driving performance with a load: https://www.flickr.c...in/photostream/ Obstacle performance with a load https://www.flickr.c...in/photostream/ Obstacle and driving without load. It's really responsive, but the driver lacks skills (hits the wall at the end). https://www.flickr.c...in/photostream/

So, Air Tech Claw rig, 2014 edition? (...and Arocs flavoured)

So eh, how about this Arocs? https://roadstars.me...en-artikel.html ...Finland where they have high weight limits, tipper with enormous drag trailer, official MB feature story, cover photo includes large Volvo loader... Also typo in their headline - "Arcos"

The L motor is basically awesome, powerful, fast, compact, easy to integrate. Any time you're considering an M, ask 'will an L fit?'. It's hardly any bigger. More power is always better, right? The L doesn't beat the XL for power, even with 2 together, Philo's site shows that two L motors do not deliver power as efficiently as one XL. But the L is easier to integrate to some models, and has a good speed range for vehicles without requiring complex gear + inefficient trains. Lego should ditch the M motor in favour of a slightly more compact S, with lots of pin holes ('BI' points). Maybe 3x5 (M is 3x6), with a curved shell that won't clip nearby gears. Wouldn't need to be super strong, just powerful enough to do things like steering, switch gearboxes, run lightweight functions in small models.

I'm kind of hijacking your thread But building a strong powered axle for 8285 / 8258 sized trucks is fun. I'm going to use it to finish this, which has been in cupboard for [too many] years: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=307694 I stuck up another couple of videos, 2 powered axles, with and without load. This is back at 12:20 gear ratio.

Flickr album of one axle I've built a second axle and reversed the gearing back to 12:20. It has enough power to pull a couple of KGs at fair speed on level ground. Top view Bottom view. The triangles should be replaced with 3x3 L liftarms, the triangle is forced against the motor shell. I think they could be left out altogether if more ground clearance was needed. They add strength, but I don't think they're 100% necessary. All in all, it's a strong structure, and easy to mount to a model.

The big ball joints http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=92910

I got sidetracked, and reversed the 12:20 gearing to be 20:12. The result is insanely fast; not as fast as Sariel's buggy, but still fast. Very little torque, as expected. Video is poor quality, but eh For anyone who thinks you somehow need a diff when using one motor per wheel, the video also shows that you really really don't. (2x L Motors, one PF switch to reverse the direction of one motor, one PF servo).

Get 42005, it's cheap, it's a fun build before you strip it for parts. It has 2 torque tubes, tyres that are good for crawling, the ball-joint links and 4 shocks. http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/Monster-Truck-42005?fromListing=listing

"Megatron" tridem-tridem knuckleboom crane truck. http://www.falconequ...tron/index.html Project for someone? I'm not doing it, I started this smaller one about 7 years ago and never finished it http://www.brickshel...ry.cgi?f=307694

Probably I'm wrong, but I'm dubious about the Arocs rumour. Why? Arocs is MB's line of construction trucks. A primary feature is high degree of suspension travel on every axle. Look at the promo images (google), they're frequently posed to show Arocs trucks with the wheels following rough terrain. There's currently only one viable tyre choice for a flagship truck, the 62.4 tyre (from 8285, 42009 cranes etc). The Unimog tyre is too big, a truck using these would be too big, too heavy and too expensive for an official TLG set imo. I don't think effective suspension can be built using the 62.4 tyre in a way that would be robust enough and simple enough for an official set, for both steered and driven axles, without new parts. And we've already had new hubs, new independent suspension arms etc. More new steering and suspension parts so soon? I'd bet against that. What about a new tyre? We just had a new truck tyre, in 42024 skip truck. That scale would build a really nice Arocs tipper (or even a cement mixer, if the right shape could be made from panels), which would be lightweight, and fun to play with. But it's not the size of a €200 flagship. And it wouldn't have complex suspension etc. So I'm betting against the Arocs as flagship. I think it's a typo of Actros. But eh, we'll know this year eh?

I figured out a new build, it's 2 studs narrower, and strong enough for this size of truck Will post pics later.