nerdsforprez

All due respect @Ngoc Nguyen and ultimately I agree with your overall premise (cost of 42131 does not make sense in comparison with 42100) but we really should be phasing out piece count out of the equation when comparing costs of sets. I have harped on this alot, but so have others. Box weight has a stronger relationship to price than does piece count. Sure, piece count is heavily related to box weight, but often time there are other influential factors as well. Even though, with 42100 having nearly twice the number of motors as 42131 I am sure its weight is right up there if not exceeding 42131's weight. The other factor to heavily consider is unique pieces. And if the tracks are indeed new, I am sure this has a lot to do with the price. Each new element Lego creates means new molds, which can be leveled out over time with many sets using these molds, but for the first set using new molds I am sure there is a premium here. Ultimately I am curious to see how overall box weight of 42131 compares to 42100. They may be fairly similar and if so, although folks may not like what is IN that box it will at least bring some (hopefully!) rational to the price. It will be an interesting theory to test.

Well darn.....I was seriously considering getting this set. But with only one hub and for motors it is hard to justify cost versus 42100 with 2 hubs and 7 motors.

Curious to hear your explanation. Just because it makes the gearbox more complicated?

Actually, I think this is a great idea! Though I do think it would be great to keep it motorized if possible just to maintain fidelity to the original.

Respect @allanp, but you're missing the point. The comments were not directed at folks changing their mind. At all. No one said its fun to watch people change their minds with new information. What was said it that it is amusing to see to vociferous nature of folks sooo early in the process of models being released. Especially when we now have multiple data points of models changing as their release date nearing. That is great that you haven't changed your mind. That is not the case for others, however.

Agreed. It does not upset me, my frustration has now morphed into a type of amusement....

Lol... it is funny to see how some shot-from-the-hip on this one. Even folks in this thread. Only to notice how cool this model actually might be once the real pictures are released. Folks should take notice. No reason to shoot sets down when there are potential leaked images but are far from the model release date. They very well may not be the final sets, not even close.

Which Balloon Tires? If they are larger than the official tires when you are right. If smaller, there is a chance that a larger diameter tire would do the trick.

Can anyone let me know if the gearing of the Zetros is such that when going downhill there is enough resistance to keep the vehicle at a stopped, or "braking" position?

Check above. That's all I pretty much used in my room. These storage bins are great....

This has not been my experience. Wormgears have been successfully used by others with no problems for steering. I mean, once you hear a change in the motor pitch as long as you stop you should be okay. If you keep power going and going, sure, it will break, but there is sufficient warning for you to stop....

I like this option but then obviously you cannot take the feedback from others into consideration if it is posted after-the-fact. I chose Option 3. I am not sure. As mentioned, I like @Lipko's response, but it has an obvious limitation. I would definitely prefer WIPs, but I am admitting an obvious limitation. No one has time to chime in on all posts, and I don't want to discourage seeing a finished product. Therefore only seeing finished projects might be the way to go.... with the obvious limitation of not seeing the process. Then again, my limitation of not being able to chime in all the time should not deter a WIP posting.... others may have the time. So ultimately, this is why I chose option 3.

More info would certainly be helpful....

Thanks for the info. If I read the chart correctly, looks like rpms for both mouldking and Cada are definitely higher for the L motor, but not the torque. But the difference is small for torque and since the RPM differences are so high the overall power is greater for both mouldking and Cada. I will look into purchasing some of these motors...

22: 10 5: 6 20: 4 17: 3 25: 2 27: 1 Honestly, it was hard for me to get into this competition. Great job by all, but this one did not speak to me in the first place. That being said, I don't think I should have sat out in terms of not participating in the voting. Couple of concerns. I can't help but wonder if nostalgia affected voting. I mean, that word seemed to come up as I read building threads much more than a critical aspects of a build. In other words, can't help but wonder if the quality of the selection affected voting rather than the quality of the build. Also, the voting criteria was odd. Participants were supposed to recreate an old Lego model, in Technic, but functions were at the of the list in terms of priority? Lots of entries were simply exchanging beams with LAs, which didn't seem much of a challenge. Oh well, again, great job by all. Don't let my pessimism taint the great work done by all!

First time I have seen this thread.... I have not looked into CaDa motors but I recall from another thread that such are more powerful than the Lego L PF motors? Do I have this correct?

Sorry for the bold type. I typed all this up in a Google Docs document and it would not transition when I copied and pasted to the forum.....

First and foremost this is not my MOC. As promised in his thread, I finally found the time to build @PTNYC’s Rocket Crawler. Now, I don’t call it the Rocket Crawler, and made some modifications (discussed below), but other than these this is his build. Also, I am creating a new thread for this and other builds as I am also building his Chili Crawler. I did this years ago, and I loved it. One of the more fun Lego models to drive out there. HOwever, I took it apart; so I had to rebuild it with minimal changes. Original video can be seen on my YT video. I plan on doing more videos with these two beasts and some comparisons. At this point, I do not know which, the Rocket or the Chili crawler will be superior. The Rocket has 2x the power, but also tons more weight as well (need to get an official weight). It will be interesting to pit them against eachother. My money is on the Rocket, with a longer wheelbase and likely (unconfirmed) better power-to-weight ratio. But as for now, here is my version of PunkNYC’s Rocket Crawler. I call it the Bully Crawler. This thing really is a beast. Really the only differences I made were to the body/appearance, the tires and hubs, and added planetary gear system inside the tire hubs. Final gear ratio is 3:1 x 4:1 = .0833. If we take information from philohome then the final RPM output for each axle would be approximately 31 (unloaded). ANother reason for this new post is that I wanted to share a few principles of rock crawling for Lego. I know these principles from personal experience with the sport. Not with Lego or RC Crawlers, but with rock crawling in side-by-side vehicles. One is the advantage of having good, strong steering. In crawling, it is often necessary to begin at one angle, only to turn against that angle while locking your brakes so that your tires bend into the rock as you turn. This can cause immense pressure and an exceptional power steering system is needed. In the video I am posting this can be demonstrating when at the top of the “hill” (minute 2:26) I am steering one direction that is about to steer me off the hill, but then I stop, (vehicle is locked so it doesn’t roll backwards) and then turn the other direction. Because the vehicle is locked in place and I am bending the tire against the obstacle I am creating something like a “pinch” technique. Not only am I increasing traction as I increase the tire’s surface area over the rock but I actually am pinching the obstacle against the front and back tires (because they are staying in place). I tried to climb the obstacle in question multiple times without this method and I could not make it. Using this method however the crawler was able to overcome it handily. Another principle, at least in Lego crawlers with no brakes, is to have the drivetrain so heavily down-geared that it is near impossible to turn motors from the tires. This serves as brakes for going down hairy slopes. If one is not cautious about going down, with a good crawler the greater impediment may very well be going down a mountain rather than going up! In minute 3:58 of this video one can see how well this is demonstrated. If the gearing did not stop the vehicle, even though I was giving no power, it would have easily tumbled down my little “hill”. In another video I did years ago with my modified Chili Crawler I had an incident where this was even better represented. My Crawler was going down a slope (minute 2:36), and one tire even became airborne, but because of the intense resistance in the drivetrain when power was cut off it stopped dead in its tracks, stopping what would have easily been a failed attempt at de-escalating that obstacle. Here are the two videos. Enjoy!

Original poster. and to your other comment....

This indeed is a great build. Loved to see the different shells that can go on it as well. Seems like the small LA works pretty well. But for more extreme crawlers, I would recommend a Large LA. But I suppose it does not really matter. The OP is deciding to build a trial truck, which I conceptualize very much different from a true crawler. One is made for just real rocky terrain, whereas the other specializes in boggy terrain, hilly, etc. The upside is it is more versatile, the downside is I don't think trial trucks can keep up with real crawlers in terms of rocky terrain...but honestly I am not sure of the distinction.

Great review and TY for posting this. Interested to perhaps purchase one of these. As I understand it.... one can buy the instructions only right?

8. He has instructions on rebrickable I believe.

I do not. But... a large would be perhaps too large. Check out this crawler (it just so happens I am completing my own review of this crawler, which is excellent!) where the builder uses a worm gear (along with 8x40T gear pairing). I can confirm this is an excellent set-up (see the video I just posted on that thread). This builder (@PunkTacoNYC) also build his Rocket Crawler using the L actuator for steering. It too is excellent but his Rocket Crawler is much bigger than the scale you are thinking of building at.

Yup. It should be a small crawler then. I think the power/strength and range of motion with a s linear actuator wouldn't be sufficient otherwise

Hey @amorti sorry for the late reply here. I am just getting to this. I built this model a few years ago with some modifications and I must say it is excellent. So much so that I re-built for a second time Along with the Rocket Crawler (more here with video hopefully soon). In a nutshell, one of the most fun Lego builds out there to drive. Modifications were I did use a planetary hub system (not the same as you proposed, in the video) but kept the original gearing. Quite fast for a crawler if you do not. But....a build with the new hubs would be interesting as well.