Appie

@DayWalker Yes, but doesn't that only apply to countersteering? For crab steering your Ackermann will be inverted (or does the real model have no Ackermann at the rear at all for crab?)

That was what I was thinking and why I chose to not add ackermann to the rear. His is right for countersteering, mine more right for crab. At least that is what I think. Perhaps I can combine both gearracks (since the Avtoros uses 2 as well) to get the best of both solutions. I am already sacrificing some parts of box 2 behind the rear axle, why not in front as well

Oh yeah his Avtoros. Funny enough I wanted to use that system for a different model I had in mind, but maybe it could work here too. Sounds like an interesting system for your commission. Don't know if I could make that work on the Porsche, such a system would probably require a whole new chassis, for which I can't be arsed (i'd rather use that chassis on something that isn't a Porsche). And yeah, DayWalker made me think that I should post this method

Well recently I started building this set. I got to page 110 before I couldn't take the sheer amount of obvious Technic flaws in this model anymore. Luckily there was the work of @Didumos69 and others that fixed pretty much all of these glaring issues within weeks after release. So I started to apply some mods. Then I remembered this model still didn't have a proper 1 speed reverse solution. I never really liked Max Supercars' mod, because it only stopped the problem, it didn't remove it, plus it wouldn't work with the HoG shift mod. Then I remembered @Jeroen Ottens DB11 mechanism of 1 reverse gear which was stupid easy to apply to the Porsche as well and should work with most/all (?) previous mods for this set. In order to preserve ground clearance I had to use 3x 8T gears here (these are only hooked up to the front 16T gear obviously), which meant I had to invert the output of the driveshaft from the gearbox (the 3x 12T bevel gears between the gearbox and the D-N-R switch visible in the next pic) so the engine still turns the same direction while going reverse. I didn't apply Didomus' "eliminate friction in the gearbox" mod, but this whole thing runs very smooth on my chassis. The reverse axle then meets the centre of the gearbox at the bottom. This has the same gear ratio as first gear. Easy simple mod, courtesy of Jeroen Ottens, I couldn't have thought of it even if I tried Another mod inspired by Jeroen Ottens' work on the DB11: an attempt at counter steering (gear 1+2) and crab steering (gear 3+4). Instead of using an additional driving ring to give 4 more speeds like the DB11, I decided to try and add a switch for this function, combined with Didumos' work on the PDK shifter for the gear indicator mod I had a nice amount of space in front of the D-N-R switch to give this mod a whirl. Due to the given play in Lego driving ring gears, there's a huge amount of slack in the rear axle, so much that the function won't work when the model is on the ground. I doubt it will even when I add some form of return-to-centre on the rear axle. All I know at the moment is that the hockey spring is too strong, but I didn't want to use that option anyway, because I wanted to use current parts up to 2016, basically the stuff that was available at the release of this set. What I also wanted to do was make this mod compatible with box 2, which I managed at the front with the switch mechanism, but failed at the rear with the steering rack, there was no other way with 2 springs blocking my path. Also about the rear with the gears and rack, that part is heavily in the "mock up" phase, so that won't stay like it is, don't worry In first gear: 4th gear: The rear steering angle is different from the front. Originally I wanted to completely rebuild the chassis and add more features (like a 8-speed gearbox), but those first 110 pages of this set wore me down, especially after building awesome stuff like Jeroen's DB11. So I had to adjust his mechanism for a switch between 2>3 instead of 4>5. This works pretty well, except on a rare occassion 3rd gear will pop out of the driving ring. Any adjustment I try to make this though, has a negative effect on the other gears. But ya, the main issue with this mod is the lack of return-to-centre on the rear axle, caused by play in the driving ring gears. If anybody has any suggestion on how to improve on this or better yet a complete different system in mind, I am all ears. I tried quite a few things to make it fit within the set, but I keep coming back to this, because it seems to me to have the least amount of issues, but I am suffering from tunnelvision on this system at the moment, so I am letting it rest a bit.

Not to stir the conversation of painted parts again, but the white edges of the 41999 rims were painted. This is also why they were inside the rubber tyres in the box to protect the painted edge. I remember this being said by Lego themselves back then. Lego started 2 colour molds with the Simpsons house if I remember correctly for Bart Simpson and some other minifigs (think they mentioned it in the design video), which was a couple of years after the 41999.

Thanks @Didumos69 and @Attika I actually don't mind this. Some people don't like this way of using a Lego part. That is fine, we have different views on that then. What I found offensive is that that according to @Erik Leppen I did not have an alternative solution for the problem at hand that would fit his standards. Want to know how many times I thought how freaking easy my little bulldozer would have been if I just caved and used a 3d printed smaller diff from @efferman? Alot! But I stuck with it and got a full sized original Lego diff in there and I like the model more for it. I like that Lego puzzle as much as alot of guys here. The same question returned on the mini 8865 for the diff, but I did exactly what @Erik Leppen expects people to do in that situation: dropped the feature and went with a legal Lego solution. So to come here and read that I couldn't find a solution in Lego that fits his purist standards for the suspension on the mini 8865 is insulting. I found a solution for my purist standards and offered a solution for his standards.

Apparently this was in dire need of being posted: The 2 minutes rubber band solution. It has pretty much the same jumpiness as my "illegal" solution, at the front it's actually a little stiffer. Normal white Lego rubber bands. At the front I turned it around the ballpin one more time and at the rear twice. With only one turn at the rear the suspension will stay compressed, so it needed to be twice. If I sat down for it I could probably even save my original solution besides these rubber bands minus the springs (so the 2 crossblocks+4L axle with stop that housed the spring will remain as fake "spring") for the best of both worlds, but I can't be arsed, I like my springs.

That's quite some different wording than what you used in my mini 8865 topic: The problem with your posts now is that I actually could do it with Lego. I offered a choice to you and explained why I made my choice. Yet that seems to be completely ignored, only that I made the "wrong choice" by your logic is remembered by you it seems. I still stand by my choice, but you are free to adjust the model to your standards, because it can be done easily. Just don't expect me to follow and especially don't accuse me of not being able to find a solution legally with Lego, because I have. You might not have meant it that way, but offence was greatly taken. Also in your opening post you write it down like it is a quote from me that I couldn't find a solution in Lego, yet it is no where to be found in the mini 8865 topic as being said by me (or anybody). It would praise you if you adjusted the OP to reflect that. Now you might say that by your standards and therefore logic that I might as well have said that, but fact is I never actually did. Choose the uglier option (rubber bands) or completely remove the function? Fine, whatever makes you happy, this made me happy. I don't consider removing the spring from the Lego part any less purist than not removing it (I consider it grey because it requires disassembling a pre-assembled part). Different opinions, but no need to shout nonsense that I couldn't find a legal solution, especially when I mentioned rubber bands twice in that topic and offered to make an actual effort to meet your request by showing it to you. Not my request because I already liked the model, your request to meet your standards. Since when is a spring from an actual Lego part "third party"?

Yet when I specifically asked in my mini 8865 topic if people wanted to see the rubber band suspension version, you (nor anybody else who had a problem with this suspension) spoke up... My very first MOC on this forum had rubber band suspension, so it's not like the concept wasn't already in my head. Of course, for you it's a no-go to use this kind of suspension. That's fine, we differ on that. Now you might wonder, why did I choose for this option? Well that was quite simple: I consider this suspension a grey area and I simply found the grey area aesthetically more pleasing than the completely legal alternative, especially considering his big brother. I did it just for the looks. Not because as @Erik Leppen tries to imply "I couldn't find a solution with Lego". Which I find rather insulting to be honest. Like him, I always try to solve stuff with Lego parts, because I agree: why else would you build with Lego? I was a backer for the Sbrick, yet mine has never been used. I still use the "lame" IR as my controls for models. BuWizz, while also being a backer, is still in its box. The Sbrick might never be used, the BuWizz I might end up using with my buggy motors and even that's iffy. So while I got them and like their concept I still don't want to use them. I always keep the normal Lego IR controls in mind when building. Back when I made Sheepo's Mustang in white, I ordered third party white pneumatic hoses instead of soft axles for the simple reason that it was cheaper. I think they lasted a few weeks before I bought actual soft axles. I had a car that worked great, yet was only 99% Lego and that annoyed the crap out of me. The suspension I got going on the mini 8865, doesn't feel like 99% Lego to me, it's from Lego, so 100% Lego. That other people don't like it, no problem, if you bother to speak up: enjoy the rubber band version (which I'll post later). tl;dr My only rule in my builds concerning purism is: it has to be Lego, wether it's a full Lego part or not, I personally do not care. Just Lego. Replacing IR with Sbrick and BuWizz, I don't care, but I do appreciate if that is optional on the model and that the model works with normal IR too.

That would be mine 8865. It's custom suspension from actual Lego parts... And more importantly (!!!) I gave a solution with rubber bands, so before you comment, I'd suggest reading the topic first. I agree it isn't what Lego intended, to disassemble a part to only use the spring, but I think it's more in a grey area than absolutely illegal. I first saw this type of suspension used years ago by piterx on one of his small builds. Iirc most people didn't mention it being illegal then either. In fact, they found his solution very creative, because the parts were still 100% Lego and could be restored to a fully functional normal Lego spring.

The wheel loader from the 'family' photo in the opening post is actually in the HOF. So the staff already considers little models for the HOF. I guess the rest of this discussion would be better off in the HOF discussion topic

I am not sure atm if I am going to be using one to extend the boom, but to raise the boom I definitely will. Thanks again guys for the compliments

Thanks guys!

Thanks guys! Yeah, added bonus of building small, they are awesome to display anywhere. Next up is probably Lego's other trademark in this workvehicle segment: a mobile crane, so a baby 42009 (I want to use the 1x11 cylinder for this). I'll keep the articulad loader in the back of my head though. All these digging vehicles need something to dump their dirt in after all :) As for instructions, there's an LDD for the wheel loader, as well as a couple of photo's in its topic to show the hoses (topic also has the LDD, made by VKTechnic). I never bothered making a LDD for the bulldozer. I could obviously, but I didn't want to take it apart back then to look at the lengths of the hoses and make pictures to show how to route them. This excavator is the same story, except a little worse in the hose department than the bulldozer. I am not sure how to translate this to pictures for instructions. And finally here's a video of the pneumatic functions:

Thanks all, the amount of hose used surprised me as well. For the hoses of the bucket cylinder my mock up used the longest hoses from the Volvo, which were only about 10cm too long. the main issue with the hoses were with the hoses of the bucket and the one from the second section from the bottom of the arm. These had to be guided properly and have enough length to make the full motion (as seen in the photo on top of the box). The ones from the bucket were extra annoying, because the cylinder before the bucket is mounted with a little play. This play in the system is helpful when the arm is fully upwards, but also only when the hoses are just right. This then had to be combined with 'just right' from full down motion of the arm where the play isn't really a plus. In the end the DBG hose connectors you see near the base of the arm provided the play where I wanted it and firmness where I wanted in this setup. To be honest when all was done, I was quite surprised I didn't have to remove/toss entire hoses because I cut them too short for this sweet spot. I'll see tomorrow if I can give a video another whirl though.

Thanks everybody! Hmmm, now that you mention it, I remember the dark grey hoses of the 90's being less rigid I think. I chose all black hoses for this, because I didn't like Lego's regular colour coding for this model. I wouldn't mind third party hoses, but how it is now, it works pretty well, so there isn't much need for it anymore.

Yet another little excavator. Jono Rocky's model was great, but one main thing I wanted to add to that model was some functions to the undercarriage. Then Efferman started his Liebherr Compact 926 project and figured I could add another cylinder to Jono Rocky's arm. This is the result: As you can seen, also used the standard Liebherr colours. Yellow and DBG just happened due to the panels at the rear and the colour of pneumatic switches and I figured I'd use white for the cab instead of "yet another black cab". It isn't scaled to existing Liebherr though. Functions: - Full functional pneumatic arm - Pneumatic dozer blade on the undercarriage - "L2" engine (let's say it's a little "out of sync" though more on that later) - Full 360 degree turn with controls at the rear I was pretty surprised the blade holds the entire model up, especially after every single cylinder on the arm nagged about hoses not being the right length or in exactly the right position. If anybody has any suggestions to make the hoses less stiff (some kind of oil?), I'd love to hear it, because this was just stupid. These panels just screamed: use me here and never ever remove me from this place I added a second pump to the undercarriage so the superstructure could turn 360 degrees 1millmeter of play between the gears+axle and hoses I actually wanted to add another function: cabin lift, but besides having a lack of space behind the cab for this (hoses) it would have a serious negative effect on the support of the arm. So I dropped this idea. I didn't really like having the controls for the turntable stick out at the rear so much as this, but I had no room for other solutions. I tried lowering the "knob" one stud so it wouldn't have to be that long (it's this long so it doesn't collide with the superstructure while actually turning). I tried looking for a way to make a sliding mechanism, but there was simply no room. So I settled for this third option: removable and click it elsewhere on the body. I didn't try to close up the whole rear with tiles, mainly because the hoses ruin any type of mounting points available. On the other hand I like seeing a bit of "the guts". Especially when I spend quite a few evenings on these "guts" (hoses) to get it to work properly The L2 is poorly tuned In the space available my options were limited. I used @Attika's half pin solution for the fake engine, but these pins won't work with plates with a clip on top, because they can lock up on these pins. So I needed parts that were round on top. I could only think of this crankshaft part in the 2x2x2 studs space available. In this WIP you can clearly see the current situation: I added the 2L thin liftarm for the simple reason that I like the engine more going 2 up> 1 up> 2 up etc. than 2 up > nothing > 2 up. Neither option is realistic, so I chose what was most fun for me With his other pneumatic buddies: Some WIP pics That moment when you realise that your superstructure is 1 stud too long or your undercarriage 1 stud too short... I tried making the superstructure 1 stud shorter, but that would really hurt the rigidity of the arm. So I made the undercarriage one stud longer, which funny enough was a bit of a puzzle to make it bigger, but in the end it turned out better (mounting of the blade didn't stick out on top anymore for example) and the whole undercarriage is stronger than it was. No idea how much hose I used. Jono Rocky was at 1.3m of hose iirc, with 2 more pneumatic functions I am probably closer to 2 meters. There was an attempt to add a diff to this model, like the previous models I made. However due to the size of the diff and the ground clearance it would turn out something like this: As we all know from Sariel's gear calculator, there isn't a combo of gears for 1 stud down+1 stud right, but these bevel gears with half a studd offset, work pretty well for this purpose (though I doubt it would play nice with torque from a motor). It even has that, as @Didumos69 would say, "sweet Lego gear rattle". It's probably common knowledge, but it was funny to stumble upon this during the build and something I might find another purpose for in the future. I decided to drop the diff from the model in favor of the dozer blade function. I also dropped the scale of this diff concept, because the bucket would be too big. I didn't want to build a smaller bucket or use one from normal Lego, so I decided to scale up to the normal Technic bucket. In case you wonder why there isn't a video of the pneumatic functions. I tried, but my big paws block alot of the model when operating the functions And here's a video of the pneumatic functions, don't ask me why I didn't think of holding it this way yesterday... Thanks for reading yet another too long post from me

Wow, great work on the functions and look of this model. I really like the colour scheme the Claas parts provide. Excellent job on the range of the arm and grabber with the mini LA's!

You seriously want me to repeat something I said right in the post above yours to Erik Leppen why so many people read stuff that isn't there? I'll start once you do, deal? Same goes for the putting words in your mouth. I specifically mentioned the BBC program when I talked about the flipper (hint: they didn't use Lego). I am not "only right", I just gave a reason for why the rule was as it is. And seeing Milan's post, my reasoning for the rule was not the same as his. His logic was even better.

Now it's weight... seriously make up your mind man. First it's the size, now the weight. Then it's not the lack of a ruling but the conflicting of the ruling. And I will say again, rules don't have to be logical, they just have to be followed. It's a natural desire for people to wish logical rules, because that will be easier on their minds, but they do not have to be, especially for a contest. And to add on my example of a flipper then: a small flipper can flip a big flipper, it's called hydraulics, the good flippers use it to flip stuff easily 5 times their own weight. Seriously, you want to bring up the fact there's discussion about a contest? On this forum? There's a discussion about something in every contest here, because people always read something in the rules that is not there (or ask for stuff that is clearly not allowed and already stated in the rules). And how is it not this "freakin simple"? The reason I am "right" is because my logic follows the rules, your logic doesn't. You try to force your (mathemetical) logic unto the rules and Jim and Milan are like: nope, we understand your logic, but we don't want that. The discussion should have ended there. Instead here we are 9 pages after the fact, still on about the same thing. I should stop here myself. I felt sorry for Jim and Milan and wanted to voice my opinion. Keep up the good work Jim and Milan, you guys handle it with far mor dignity than I ever could.

Sigh... What other rule is it conflicting with? Or is this the "conflicting with itself" that Erik Leppen is on about? Which as I said is perfectly logical and also probably why it isn't explicitly mentioned by Jim or Milan (at least until the post on page 2 where they simply said: nope). I guess they thought it was so obvious that they didn't have to explicitly state why. I mean, when I first read that rule, I thought like Erik: gogo diagonal, but then they said nope. That resulted in my (logical) conclusion above. But this is all besides the most important (!!!) point. They said "nope, not allowed" on page 2, Now their logic for this could have been anything it would not have mattered, because it is their contest, their rules, suck it up and deal with it and just build something to meet those rules and have some fun. It is not that freakin hard. Also about the size thing... back when I watched this stuff on BBC, flipper bots were king and those were as small and flat as possible. So yeah, size does not matter, but it won't be the first contest where people think it does and it won't be the last.

I never said it was pointless until there was a ruling from the judges. As I pointed out multiple times now: there has been a ruling from Milan and Jim. It's obivously a ruling people don't like or want, hence the multiple pages in this topic only about this (very generous!!!) size limit instead of running off and building something that clearly fits within the 45x45x45 cube and just having fun with that. It's perfectly logical. I am sure Jim and/or Milan already mentioned it in this topic, but I probably missed it: 1) A bot has to be in a 45x45x45 cube at the start 2) The bot can't have any of its "weapons" go beyond this cube in "idle" mode. Now here's the key that is perfectly logical: a spinner bot is not always going to stop 100% at the diagonal with its 45+ stud spinner to fit in the cube, therefore it is not allowed. It. is. that. freakin. simple. But like Jim, I wonder why always the desire to push the limits. The only answer I got to that is "because size matters"...

Let's see... 1) Eurbricks contest 2) Eurobricks staff says no on page 2. Now here's the key: wether they (Jim and Milan) "argue" or not does not matter at this point, because as we can see Milan is actively enforcing the rule in topics with an image just like yours provided by Erik Leppen long ago. 3) They can make rules as they see fit. This doesn't mean they aren't open for discussion, but sometimes it simply boils down to: because they said so. As for the size, again, fine make it 2 studs longer if you think it helps for fake battles with proof of concepts. Just don't go over 45 studs in the 3 dimensions of a cube, not that freakin hard.

Don't know what else to add, except repeat that this is a really cool creation. Great job

Because Jim and Milan said no on page 2 of this topic? It is that simple for why the diagonal stuff is not allowed. Now you can throw images in my face and talk about idle and in battle mode all you want as if I didn't read that stuff in the first place. Fact is, it is not allowed. Therefore trying to pursue this loophole is "cheating". If the size was actually used to provide additional features besides the signature move, I would agree, but they aren't there. And effectiveness is nice and all, but fact is that they are not fighting. So all I see is alot of wasted parts on something that could have been build smaller and have the same result for these fake fights where I expect people to look at functions and form over size. And another thing: I am not saying they should be 15x15x15 studs. The entries mentioned would lose absolutely nothing in looks or function if they were simply 5 studs smaller in every dimension, yet they would prevent pages upon pages of discussion in this topic about the size rules. I look at rules as a way to challenge myself, not go on ages about them, especially when the model(s) in question could easily be build to meet the rules.