Appie

Glad to hear it. Keep on MOC'ing, you make awesome stuff. Thank you very much. Here's another pic of it: It's driven by PU, 1 L-motor for drive and one L-motor for steering. This is basically what's under the bodywork: This was an early version, tweaked a few things since this picture. Mostly the 3 points where the axles are linked to the chassis (made the LBG 5L suspension arm in this picture parrallel to the 6L links so the suspension worked better). The reason I mounted the motors like this was so I could get some good gear reduction under it to crawl up obstacles. Yes, it's ackermann, like the original axle from Keymaker. Here are some close up shots of the axle. Keymaker could use 2x 5L thin liftarms for his axle, but for 9L I was a bit stumped for options. While making this axle I found out there's actually a thin 9L liftarm now, with 3 holes which could work for this setup, it's in the new Orient Express set. Since I didn't want to pay €5 for a single liftarm, I came up with another solution. The little rubber thing on top turned into the connector is to stop the connector from seperating (without it, I'd tear it apart when just removing the wheel). It adds a little bit more flex to the axle (wheels pointing outwards) than it probably would have with a 9L thin liftarm or Keymaker's 11 wide solution, but I had no other ideas or parts that were half a stud high and had a pinhole at the end. To prevent CV-joints from popping and have a little less flex on the axle, I started to build an axle with the new CV-joints similar to the one from this topic: My version so far of his axle: In order to make the axle sturdy where the one from AutoBacon used a 3rd party part, I needed 1 more stud towards the rear (where the red axle pops out, also the red axle is a place holder for the new CV-joint of which I ran out atm ) I want to figure out a way to lower the springs 1-2 studs. Not that I mind the solution from the original designer by just using springs, but I personally like to also have a "normal" alternative when I use that.

You sort of were. A few of us (I think I did it the most) took alot of inspiration from your Kraz 255 for you axle setup (and skid plates ). For fun I made it 9 wide instead of 11 wide (no dual drivetrain though), which made the car 15 studs wide, 2 below the allowed maximum. In hindsight not the best choice, I nicknamed my little car "the tumbler" after seeing the video where it's upside down quite a few times (and in the ranking as well) Originally both axles have steering, but one of the cv-joints on the rear axle kept popping so I adjusted it to a fixed axle before the video of the truck trial. Thought I'd mention that in case somebody wonders why the rear axle isn't steering in the video.

Thanks guys! It does drive, just not very well when steering (and still not because it won't move, but because it isn't really moving in the direction you want it to move). None the less, I agree, even if it did work perfectly while steering, it's still 1-3km/h you can get out of such a model this size with Lego motors which is hardly worth the effort, but I had to try

Exactly this. The XL's could handle it fine, the wormgear could handle it fine, the 36T gear however, it bends, not just to the sides, but also (due to how that 36T is constructed) inwards. I have tried 2 gears, it still skips under the weight. Swapped to 40T gears, still skips. 28T look alot more solid, but due to them needing half a stud offset with the new wormgear, not ideal. Not to mention that 40T and 28T both mess with the desired gearratio. The current plan that might work is 2-3 (normal or large) LA's in each leg instead of a wormgear. Or perhaps some sort of pulley system. I don't think I can optimize the cabin transformation anymore besides making it slower at the motor (so the weight stays longer in the center of the model). Nor do I see much options for Optimus to lose some weight Actually, when he was a skeleton, he got up with L-motors instead of XL's in the legs, but the guy needs some bodywork and I tried to keep it light. @Dennis Bosman Oh yeah, the trailer. I was considering that (also to cheat with a sort of rope system hidden in the trailer )

So I haven't changed anything since my last post in october, but figured a video and some more photo's might be appreciated. As I pointed out earlier, the steering (combined with drive) only works so-so. This is due to the arms being able to bend (no idea how to fix this without completely diverting from the look of the game model), slack in the gears and the (small) difference in rpm between motors make it near impossible to get it "perfect". I am now considering to change the purpose of this model to more of a "demo" and remove drive and put it on a stand. Also when I would do that, I'd change to PU instead of PF since you can control the rpm and I could program the transformation instead of doing it manually like in this video. Not sure when I will get started on this, but here's some more pictures of the current model: Managed to squeeze in some computers (on both sides) for Batman to use: Detailed shot of the turret: Easy accessible battery boxes: Belly shot: In the belly shot, the little wheels at the front and rear of the chassis is what actually drives and steers the model, powered by an XL each and some gearreduction they manage. To see how these wheels are angled I have 2 visual indicators from above, at the front it's the steering wheel in the cockpit, at the rear however: It's this little DBG thing under the "shark bat fin". It's also victim to a little slack, so it's not perfect, but better than no visual indicator at all Thanks for reading. Another update might be some time down the road though.

I made this last year and didn't get around to make a topic about it until now. A video of it transforming: The model weighs 1.6kg and most of that is on the front axle. I haven't been able yet to make a mechanism that will allow Optimus to lift himself without a "hand of god" Some more photo's The rope you see between the front wheels in the photo above is what makes the flaps with the headlights at the front besides the grill fold back when Optimus is standing, but flex (thanks to rubberbands) when the hands need to be folded back into the body when he's transforming into a truck. The little grey wheels you see at the rear wheels make the black rear wheels barely touch the ground, this helps the leg spread mechanism. Speaking of which, the clicking in the video comes from these 2 mini-LA's in the legs: They make Optimus spread his legs a little when he's standing. I thought that looks better than him simply having his legs straight when standing, but the gearratio is off. If I manage to make a mechanism for the legs that works in lifting the model on its own then I might be able to tackle this gearratio too. In case somebody wonders where I put the battery box, it's external Thanks for taking the time to read my topic, hope you enjoyed it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

What an awesome little nimble truck and the looks are perfect. Great video too. In march I got a truck trial with the LUG with 56mm tyres, so this is great inspiration for that, thanks.

Thanks, and yeah, that title is tad long I shortened it a bit

It's been a long time, but here's an actual update of the MOC. Updated the OP with this reply as well Update october 2023: After abandoning this MOC about 7 years ago, I felt it was time to revisit it after years of brewing ideas to make this work. I am getting close to a full functional model, but not sure I can eliminate the last few issues completely. Currently the transformation works flawlessly, drive works, brake flaps work, steering wheel in the cab works, actual steering works somewhat, 360 turning works somewhat. The problems with steering is mainly in the arms for the wheels, the part above the wheel with the small turntables has too much flex, I need to tackle this while trying to keep the look of the arm as close to the source material as possible (and I already took some liberties there as you can see). It houses 2 XL for drive. There is 1 wheel at the front under the cockpit and one behind the exhaust each with their own XL. A concept was made to put the motor besides the wheel, like how the "real" model has an electro motor there, but it gave similar problems like the steering arm flex problems. 2 L- motors to steer these wheels 4 L-motors to steer the wheels at each arm 1 L-motor to act as a switch for "360" turning with 3 PF switches it inverts 1 drive motor, 1 steering arm motor at the rear and 1 at the front. I also use this setting to turn the wheels close to completely sideways for the transformation (I didn't do this in the picture above) 1 Servo for the brake flaps 2x (train) battery boxes. Also to be clear: the arms do not carry the weight of this model. I cheated, those 2 wheels for drive under the model+4 bogey wheels placed directly under the battery boxes carry the weight. One of my biggest mistakes from 8 years ago, was thinking Lego could handle this, so that was abondoned instantly for this. I also figured it would be nice to have a vehicle that's basically a tank, build like a tank, so it has about 40 5x7 frames, flip-flop beams and I tried to secure every panel into position. This makes it very heavy, but quite sturdy. Special note to https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/profile/21067-hass-kabal/ He made a system bricks model of this batmobile long ago (2015) and I used some of his solutions, like the wheel arches on the side of the front arms, the steering wheel in the cab and I pretty much sized up his "electro" motors on the inside of the wheels. I hope to make a video of the whole thing within the next month, but no promises More pics will probably happen sooner than that.

Seeing the mechanism in the original Claas set, then in Nico71's mini and now this one. Each a little different from each other, but each working very well. The whole concept of this mechanism still amazes me and how you figure this out to make it smaller is no small feat. Kudos.

Never have I considered this a statistic to watch. I can understand why you would though. I can also understand wanting to do well in a contest, but if lost? Oh well, had a good time building, the rest would have been a bonus to me. Personally, if I have nothing to add like a suggestion and my comment would boil down to "nice work", I am not sure how much value the reply has for the builder and I'd usually not reply. Me (or anybody else) not replying shouldn't stop the builder from giving updates though, sooner or later somebody is sure to chime in and share his/her thoughts on the build.

Jim has gone to great lengths as more competitions came to be on Eurobricks to have more and more detailed rules. He would still get questions about stuff already mentioned in the rules and he'd still answer them with amazing patience. Milan and Jim have also in the past made replies in topics for a contest that a model might not meet the criteria of the contest to prevent people from "wasting their time". Reading the comments from SaperPL just on this page, it really feels like it is even though he claims it's 50/50. He build an awesome model for the contest, one I'd be happy to build once I got some more free time on my hands. As long as you enjoyed designing it and are proud of it, does it really matter where it ends up in the ranking? Even if it didn't fall in the top 3, it's not like that hasn't happened before with great models in competitions here. Sure, you can disagree with the public voting or in this case the jury, but at the end of the day, is it worth getting this worked up over it and overanalyzing it? I'd hope not, but it seems you already made your choice.

Flex-system revival in modern times, nicely done. Perhaps a well-placed rubberband at the claw to make the default position open would remove the need of having to open it by hand? Will probably be a fine balance with the force needed for the claw mechanism, but since you're adjusting the gearing for it, it might work out for this too?

1. Accepting a red axle sticking out or not is up to you. I wouldn't, but I don't know how much alternatives are in that space. As I said, if you are up for making that connector axle moveable this would be an option to have it remote controlled. 2. Yeah, I edited that to my earlier reply, but you already started a reply it seems Could try to add a brace somewhere so the mini-LA or liftarms don't go further, but that's under assumption it doesn't need to go that far to reach the ground. If it needs more, than that 3L axle won't work ever and that would pretty much toss my whole moc-up out of the window with the current chassis. 3. Depends on the routing at the towbar imo. Straight to the center 2L connector, yeah that will fumble on those 3x5 liftarms. Guide them in a straight line from 2L thin blue liftarm, to towbar and then to 2L connector (or just stop at the straight to towbar) should be no problem. 4. As I said, you could make the angle slightly bigger than 90 degrees by having them face towards the red 1L liftarms in the towbar folded position. Other than that, you could mess a little bit with where you knot you ropes on the liftarms to get a 2L flip to a 1L flip. I don't have my Lego ready to build a prototype, hence the Studio image

Made a little moc-up in Studio. How about a rope through the blue thin 2L liftarms? Each side a seperate knot on the rope, which runs back to the towbar from underneath. Once it reaches the red 1L liftarms (for which I extended your pin with axle to a 3L pin with axle) it would flip the towbar. The thing could be slightly angled towards the red liftarms when the towbar is in resting position, should still flip if not too far angled. This should make it require no slack on the rope, since that part simply goes later in the mechanism and first when sliding back. Obviously, combined with a rubber band to make the folded position the default one. I am aware that in this moc-up that 8L red axle would be sticking out at the rear, but that construction of how you want to slide it out and brace it, is up to you. I'd need to build the whole thing to figure out the wiggle room I have or don't have in that area I'd even consider putting something else in place of the flip-flop beam if it would help, but I can't make that assesment at the moment. I am also aware this 3L axle on the #3 connector might collide with the liftarms connected to the mini-LA from the bed tilt, I don't know the wiggle room for it. It seems the bed is already on the floor before the mini-LA is fully extended?

Looks spot on and love the creative way you made the barcode truck without electronics. Can't wait for the full video.

That looks absolutely awesome Ok, another idea, involving no ropes or extra space used (yet) even. I am assuming you have no desire to have the towbar and the bed work at the same time, since they would collide anyway. How about having that axle with the 2x #3 connectors (which I assume are there to guide the mini-LA upwwards) have the assembly of the towbar push back, but have the axle go through the 11L red liftarm holding the rearlights, pushing against the 2L perpendicular connector. This connector is held in its folding/resting place by a rubberband. Path of least resistance should cause it to extend first and then push out the towbar. Only leaves the problem of making that 90 degrees flip a 180 degrees flip

I wouldn't worry too much about ropes stretching or not and the studded ropes not being perfectly equal. So the area left and right of the LBG 11L flip-flop beam is available space? That 1L in height. I see some options for a rope with slack, but the rubber band is another story since where I'd want to put it, it collides with the 11L red liftarm from the rearlights

Have you considered a well placed rubber band forcing it to be folded by default and a well placed rope making it fold out when extending the towbar? Similar to the mechanism of its big brother, but without the gears. I Have no idea how much space you'd have for it and I assume you already looked into it, but a suggestion none the less.

Yeah, I got no ideas for that besides what others here suggested. I did suggest these parts on purpose (and not their respective counterparts as mirror and A-pillar attachment) so that the mirror hinge could be yellow (and not be the dominant colour in the frontview for the mirror attachment). Which would make the front similar to the set at least, but you'd still miss the black "mirror" at the rear. Adding a bracket like this in black would give you something to attach a mirror to, but it makes the mirror 2 studs wide again and also thicker (especially if you want to put a 2x2 tile on this bracket). I'd either keep it black or try yellow. Or maybe if you really like this solotion but still want a "mirror" backside, a little sticker?

Yup, that sticks out a bit too far. How about this part in black at the A-pillar instead of the #1 connector there to get them inward half a stud, I am not sure what kind of construction you have behind it (seems a #2 connector?), but perhaps work out something there? I assume you have some of this type of hinges? They require quite a bit of force to move a degree or knock them off. The suggestions with the 3L and 2L bar look nice too. I agree the one that is locked at the base of the A-pillar is a little messy and it limiting the door isn't ideal, so I wouldn't pick that. The 2L bar on the side of the #1 connector with the other style hinge looks quite lovely imo.

Nice work, those thin liftarms inbetween make it look more like its big brother. For your mirror issue: how about this part in yellow (I think would be best) with a 2L yellow cheese slope? Instead of the #1 connector you would use this Just a suggestion.

This looks great. It's even smaller than mine and it has alot of features. Great use of the angled liftarms as well (why didn't I think of that ) Those 6.5 shocks you managed to hide very well behind the exhausts. I agree with the others in making the headlights white instead of transparent, it's more like the original.

Personally, I think that system front fits perfectly. The original model had the whole center of the grill and lights made of system parts and is still considered a studless Technic set, yours just has a little more. Did you check with Jim if this is allowed? The 8110 Unimog had it's entire bonnet made out of system parts, so I think this should get a pass, but I am not the one making the rules. I wouldn't know of Technic alternatives that are smaller than the panels used in the original and look like it's supposed to be there. The experiment with the black baby panels as grill doesn't look half as good as this imo. Either way, keep up the good work, this is looking awesome.

What I am about to say is perhaps a little vague, but it's been years since I read it. What might be the problem on the ring is there should be some lines which seperate the different servo positions (should be about 7 or 9, you can utilize these with a PF train remote for example). Anyway, I read back then if the servo has issues, it might be because of the fluid (not sure if fluid is the correct word, but it is on there by default) is wiped across the 7-9 lines. This results in it making contact over the entire ring. To fix this, you'd need clean between those 7-9 lines to make the servo work normally again. I found the post to which I am refering actually: Wasn't fluid, but copper apparently :) Maybe this helps