Appie

Looks great with nice details and functions. Great job of part usage with the ribs in the doors/sidepods. One thing I personally don't like because it is quite different from the real life counterpart, is the lack of flow of the roof above the engine. It suddenly drops a full stud to the panels. Now I am sure you tried alot to sort this out like the doors, but just to make sure: flex axles above the panels wasn't an option? Or another construction to not have stuff above the panels so they could be raised a stud?

Thanks and nope, just LDD.

Ye, but it's only the banana at the moment, so give me some time to finish it.

I redesigned the internals since the first version was quite messy. Much like me being unable to build outside-in, I can't build from up (right under the banana) to down either. So while having the 1.0 guts as reference I got to make a more efficient 2.0 that doesn't move while turned on (can see it moving forwards on the table in the 1.0 video) and has room for a big battery box now that is easy to remove (as was my original intention). Some minor tweaks to the banana itself while making a LDD, the rear of its head is now half a stud higher (caused a collison in LDD that I didn't notice on the panels in real life) and for a more rigid base, moved the legs half stud out. Main changes are here though: Fun fact: the banana alone is about 260 parts in LDD

Thanks, perhaps expanding it to a "construction yard" serie might be a good idea I think a dump truck would be pretty nice with these 4.

There sure are, all got a topic on Eurobricks Little Wheel Loader Little Bulldozer Little Excavator And since Ludo Visser's question about the pump I noticed I didn't provide a shot from the other side of the superstructure, so I quickly made one.

Thanks everybody. @Ludo Visser Here's the pump: And yes, I still have the other 3 this image is from the little excavator topic:

After seeing @jwarner's excellent smalle crane and @Ludo Visser's WIP on a good looking undercarrage, I kept being reminded I still had one of these on my "to-do list". It's the last (I think) in what turned out to be a series for me of small versions of vehicles that are usally the big 4 "flagships" in Technic that return every couple of years. It features: - Boom lift by pneumatic cylinder - 1 stage boom extension - Rope (with old school 90's lock and also a hook from the 90's ) - 3 axle steering with different steering angle for the front wheels (bottom 12T bevel gear at the rear) - Working V4 (allthough a little out of sync, can fix that as soon as Lego actually makes parts to shift direction at this scale on 1 stud instead of 2 ) - Cabin tilt on the superstructure (through a worm gear controlled by 12T bevel on top) - Superstructure rotation (top 12T bevel gear at the back) - Outriggers (couldn't fit a central operating method so they are moved at the rear through the LBG crank shaft parts usually used for fake engines) Stuff I couldn't squeeze in no matter how hard I wanted to: - 2 stage boom extension (with 11L thin pneumatic cylinder). I tried, but with ropes in play I was looking at a 2 studs wide crane without a shell to give it ridigity, anything with 3 and 4 studs in width with the shell still felt very flimsy. And shortly after switching to a 1 stage boom with these 11x3 panels I really started to like that clean look on the crane vs the thin liftarm extravaganza I had in play earlier - A diff (or at least have the fake engine run in some form on both non-steering wheels). I barely managed to get 1 wheel driven. Had to use some ancient 90's Space Shuttle technique with a rubber band to get the stuff routed. I considered a blue clutch gear from the Chiron on the steering shaft, but besides that really killing my ground clearance it wouldn't fit up top thanks to the pneumatic cylinder. Why not leave the feature out? Can't do that when all the other mini's I made had fake engines. It was this or never getting finished pretty much - And as mentioned earlier: the outriggers being controlled by 1 knob. Couldn't route it to the rear, already crowded, the cabin in the front was blocked by steering angle of front wheels and crane up top. I am happy though that they at least can lock into place and lift the whole vehicle. And a couple of more images: Instead of messing with the length of the hubs on the 2 rear steering axles to get different steering angles, I shortened the front steering hubs by 1 stud to get a sharper angle with space lost in height (rear of the driver's cabin) but not in length. It's turning radius is pretty sweet, very small. Tried to get some details in the cabin, but they are missing half of their bottom seats thanks to the steering wheels. Also messed around a little with options to get the outriggers folded into the body as much as possible, not sticking out more than 1 stud up top and when extended looking at a decent angle. Hmmm, now that I am looking at this picture, perhaps I should swap the 4L thin levers for LBG or something to make the fake engine "pop" from the black chassis. Anywho, thanks for watching and reading.

Hmm, how has my building style changed over the years? Well this was my first MOC since my dark ages: (I still have this build lol) And some of my more recent ones are barely any bigger always trying to cram in as much functions as I can. As @Aventador2004 pointed out, smaller isn't always more complex. At this scale you can get away with alot more to get a rigid build because the plastic can handle quite a bit and the forces applied at this scale. Bigger always needs alot of reinforcements eating up room. One main thing I did learn about myself is that I can never work from the outside-in. I see some people build the most amazing bodywork first and then manage to get quite a few funtions into that empty shell after. I have a rough idea of the scale and looks of how I want something to look in my mind when it is finished, but I always need to build the internals first or the whole thing will fail.

Thanks everybody! Glad you all enjoyed it. Thanks, tried my best to get the motions to mimic the original gif (from @dr_spock's post). Thanks for the feedback. I considered this at first when building it, but after looking at the gif+original YouTube video from 2006 (?) I saw no mouth movement, so I decided not to either. And now it's a key element in making the banana firm. Hmmm, maybe?

A little silly MOC I decided to make after I could find plenty of Lego banana's in peanut butter jelly time pose on Google, but none that moved Thanks for watching, hope you enjoyed this trip down memory lane when the internet was still on dial ups Edit: Check this post for the LDD and information.

? Why are you apologising now? It makes sense, either you use ttoobbyy's and end up reinforcing the gearbox housing or use the one you already made and don't have that issue while taking a (very) little bit more space than the 2 liftarms method from ttoobbyy. Nothing wrong with that, so need to to say sorry imo Also thank you and jb70 for the great work on the gearbox. Nice to see a more efficient design. Once I get the set (not in a rush) I will certainly use it.

@Didumos69 Ah yes that makes sense. My apologies for assuming you didn't think of it.

Simple and effective I'd say @ttoobbyy Seems @Didumos69 and me were thinking overly complex, because neither of us thought of this option after my suggestion for a 1<->8 gearblock in the free space

Cool, great work. Looking at the bottom image it looks like a peaceful gearbox, compared to the busy original

Exactly, couldn't agree more. I agree the Chiron still has its flaws out of the box, but I think it's a good 2 steps in the right direction coming from the Porsche. Perhaps Lego will release updated hard springs with a higher base hardness so even the lower variance is within the margin, if that is the main issue for Chiron's front suspension, we'll see. I am not sure that is the issue 100% because I have no clue about their tolerances on the springs. As for your first question, yeah it should be for all parts, which is why I have my doubts it's related to the quality of the springs, but without knowing their process or testing methods, I can't tell.

To be honest, with the release of the Porsche I left my expectations of "must be high quality" at the door 2 years ago. And @aol000xw is right, TLG was very arrogant about it back then. Proper gearbox sequence (it was indeed mainly about that Pvdb) made the friction reach levels of impossible. Now instead of sitting down and looking at where the issue was that caused this (like @Didumos69 did) we get a reply: "working as intended". Arrogant, lazy and above all, felt like a rushed product. However, the front suspension of the Chiron still does not fall in this category for me. Sure there can be a variance in hardness of the springs and friction pins, but the fact is, it does work for some, so claiming "does not work period" goes a little too far for my taste. That's the key difference, if the suspension really worked for absolutely nobody I would be laughing here as hard as I did when I heard of a supercar with no working gearbox (Porsche), but I can't do that now. And while Sariel had this issue at his live build and his review kit, his speedbuild clearly shows him making a building error, so who's to say that didn't happen the other time as well. I assume he build it twice, so the speedbuild video we see with the flaw is the model shown in his review or from the live build or he build it a third time and made the error every time (since he tried to find the error in his review video)? Should Lego have tested for the variance in hardness of springs if this is indeed the underlying issue? Yes, but looking back at the Porsche, I am already quite happy and surprised alot of stuff from this set works out of the box. Now you might say the Porsche put the bar for that achievement very low, so no wonder, but still, the Chiron could have been just as bad. I am glad TLG at least took some of the feedback of the Porsche and applied it to this model.

Is that really so? Reading comments and watching video's it seems to be 50-50. I got 3 groups of people so far: - Works fine and dandy, car gets back up to normal resting position every time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwW7LuCv46w= at 10:15 in the video) - Works, but sags over time (DugaldIC iirc) - Never worked despite being properly assembled Now what's the trigger for group #2 and especially #3? No idea, but the fact that group #1 is a thing means to me that it isn't as black and white as for example the Porsche's gearbox, which didn't work for anybody.

Yeah sorry meant with hubs that work for the Porsche wheel, but good to know I need 2 pulleys in there. Thanks.

@DugaldIC Could you tell me if I mount the wheels of the Porsche if they get the same depth on the hub (how close they are to the springs)? I don't own the Chiron yet, but looking at your pics I think I might have an idea for the geometry, but need to know available space, figured I'd mess with the Porsche wheel if possible.

It's dead space right in front of the engine though, meaning routing the axle/liftarm w/e to the back to control the spoiler is blocked by said engine. Underneath might be viable but I don't know what is blocked by the gearbox and whatnot which is directly (?) below it. I think a mechanism like Jeroen Ottens' DB11 might work even though this spoiler is alot heavier than that of the DB11. It's a very small mechanism and Lego already did half the work by at least making the spoiler adjustable.

Currently messing with this. I build the engine with Sariel's speedbuild video and then started swapping 24T's to the front. I don't really like how I have it now (24T only braced on 1 side) and it only seems a little smoother so far. The old space of the 24T I still have open though, pushing the whole engine one stud back would make bracing easy, but not sure if that will collide with the body later and it is not really desired to move an engine closer to the rear axle from the middle I think (from a real life technical standpoint), so I'd rather not Might look at a complete new setup. Going by Sariel's speedbuild, the subassembly he places at 14:27mins seems to indicate alot of dead space underneath it.

@Didumos69 cool thanks for working it out digitally. That would at least sort out shifting from 8 to 1 and back.

It gets even weirder because in Brickset's review they are mounted at the angle desired angle (or at least the better angle than vertical), yet they claim to have an issue similar to Sariel (though not sure if it stays flat on the ground in their model). From brickset review:

On the DB11 reverse just bypasses the gearbox like on the Chiron, so can switch from any gear to reverse on that as well.