Silcantar

Differentials are disadvantageous when one or more wheels are likely to lose contact with the ground, such as when offroading. For a 4wd vehicle driven by one motor with 3 differentials, only one wheel has to lose contact with the ground for that wheel to receive all power from the motor. This vehicle is helped in part by the fact that the front and rear wheels are driven by separate motors, so if one wheel loses contact, two wheels will continue to receive power. Around 1:45 in the video, you'll see that one of the wheels loses contact with the ground, and the vehicle has to go back downhill until it is touching the ground again. In a truck trial, this would represent vital seconds lost in completing the course. Trial trucks generally operate on ground loose and uneven enough that a differential is largely superfluous, even when turning, as the outside wheel can easily slip to catch up with the inside wheel. I'm not a truck-trial-er, so the lack of differentials actually really bugs me, even if they are a disadvantage. It sort of decreases the realism and the theoretical functionality of the vehicle. If I ever build a trial truck, I will likely try to create some kind of automatic locking differential, which would combine the advantages of having a differential and not having one.

I don't understand the assertion that it's an "epic failure" either. Without a doubt it's the closest thing we've had to a supercar since the 8466 Offroader, and, in my opinion, it's the best-looking of all the supercars. 8448 is the only one that even comes close, not counting the Ferraris, as they weren't supercars. It's hard to tell right now, but it may be better looking than even the Ferraris. Also, it has two completely unprecedented features: the hood and the spoiler. The doors are fundamentally different from the hydraulic ones in 8448 and 8466, and are nearly completely unprecedented. As others have said, a gearbox isn't all that exciting of a feature, at least for the target audience, which isn't us. Even for Technic and auto enthusiasts, a gearbox controlling various features is really more interesting than one that controls engine speed, especially since Lego gearboxes are completely unlike real ones and the engine is driven by the wheels anyway. I would, however, love to see Lego produce a more realistic gearbox, maybe using 24t and 20t clutch gears in addition to the 16t. But we will have to continue to wait and hope for that.

Surely you didn't miss Mahjqa's ? It's infinitely better. Honestly, this MOC isn't worth posting here.

I'm with Pauger. You can't tell from the pictures, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has mini-LAs. I'm glad it's not a Lamborghini, though I am disappointed that it's red. Also, Dano got around Flickr's copyright rules by posting his pics elsewhere. EDIT by Staff: No more links to the prelim pics please!

They look like mini-LAs to me, judging by the bottom mount point. Very similar to the full-size LAs. It looks to me that the dipper and the bucket of the back arm move in tandem. That could be interesting (perhaps not in a good way).

Micromotors like the one(s?) in 8480 break often, I'm told. You may have a bad motor. I don't know about the fiber optics, but it's possible that's broken too. Seeing as you got it used (I assume, since it came out in '96), and judging by the condition of the battery box, it's not unlikely that they are broken. They are 14 years old, too.

You could combine those two into a sumo competition. That would prevent damage to any parts, since it's not violent, and it might keep the "tug-of-war" from devolving into a competition of who can gear their vehicle down the most.

I'm guessing you've already disassembled this, but is it necessary for the feet to rotate along the longitudinal axis? That would keep it from dragging its feet so much, I think. Maybe that's not the solution either. If you already have 10178 AT-AT, then to make it remote control, you'll need 8885 Power Functions Remote Control and 8884 Power Functions IR Receiver.

You're referring to Cyberarm II on page 416. I'm referring to Cyberarm V: "Force Trainer" on page 418. The book doesn't include instructions for either, but for Cyberarm IV (pictured on page 413), which is far more complex than either of them.

As a mechanical engineer(ing student), one thing that fascinates me is combining function and simplicity, like having multiple functions controlled by one motor (or no motors, like clocks/clockwork automatons). Not necessarily by gearbox like in 8043, but all sorts of mechanisms: differentials, ratchets, or just functions that look separate but actually work at the same time, like recoil-powered semiautomatic weapons. One of the most fascinating MOCs I've seen is Cyberarm V by Hideaki Yabuki (on page 418. Unfortunately, that's the only place it has ever appeared, I believe.). It uses the light sensor and single motor in the Microscout to control a robotic arm, essentially with three functions. I've built it myself, and it works reasonably well. (better than one would expect a single-motor robotic arm to work)

Absolutely not. It's the ugliest lampshade I've ever seen, too.

Bricksmith Lego Digital Designer Those are the only ones I know of.

You would need to use a rubber band or a spring to provide some resistance. When the load is heavier than the resistance provided by the spring/rubber band, you could make it so that the touch sensor is released.

I'm not sure this would be useful as a force limiter, but you could use it to automatically shut off a motor when it has reached the limit of travel. There is a way to hook up the wires to a touch sensor and a motor such that they are in series and the touch sensor works as a switch. The sensor would have to be normally pressed for the motor to run, though, so you would have to alter the design somewhat.

Roboriders, and 8222 VTOL. The Roboriders don't even have clever names, like Throwbots/Slizers. "Swamp" and "Power"? Really? 8222 is a $15 set (I think) with only 1 real function: the whole wings rotate using a worm gear when you rotate the jet engine on the back. On a real VTOL, only the engines rotate. You can also spin the propellers and open the cockpit, but those don't even count. The only plus is the figure.

I don't think there's any summa of Technic designs, but I believe Sariel.pl and TechnicBricks have pretty good collections of designs. You can always try Flickr and MOCpages, too.

I don't own many flagship sets, but my favorites are the 8455 Backhoe and, of course, 8880. Of course, the Robotics Invention System has no rivals (except NXT, which I don't own), if you count that as Technic.

What would happen if you were to use parallelogram linkages on the ankles to keep the feet and the body parallel to the ground? I don't know if that is the problem, but it might help.

It looks like it's based on 8856 Whirlwind Rescue to me. The cyclic for tilting the main rotor especially looks like it was inspired by 8856 to me.

Something's going to have to change if you want to change the gear ratio. Would it be that hard to move the XL motor down one plate? It wouldn't affect the height of the tread sprockets.

Is the worm gear supposed to drive the axle under it? If that's the case, you need a 12t gear.

I have Jin Sato's and The Unofficial Builder's guide. Other than the MIBO project (the dog on the cover), Jin Sato's wasn't particularly interesting. There was a rather basic robotic arm, and a couple walkers, but nothing I hadn't already built. I haven't looked at The Unofficial Builder's guide in years, but the only useful technique I remember was one for building spheres using only bricks, which is somewhat limited. There may have been some basic SNOT techniques, too. Neither are particularly interesting. I would recommend, however, Lego Mindstorms Masterpieces from Syngress (if it's still in print). Some great advanced projects and interesting techniques, but a little outdated (Robotics Invention System based). Still useful, though.

I've never had a problem with 16t gears sliding off axles or axle pins, but 8t's do it all the time. My 16t gears all grip pretty tightly.

I think the screw breaks above the first thread not because the first thread is bearing all the force, but because the shaft between the head and the first thread is under more tension (all of it) than the parts of the shaft below the first thread. Below the first thread, the tension on the shaft may decrease proportionally to the number of threads above it, or it may not. It seems to me that all the threads should support an equal amount of force, so long as the threads are spaced properly (which could possibly be the problem with the LAs).

Judging by that geartrain, that's the Brickshelf account God uses to share his Lego MOCs. I am convinced that if God has a favorite toy, it's Lego.