nerdsforprez

Okay, I will look. Thanks @Milan. Btw... this begs the question. Does anyone know the strongest orientation of a liftarm? For really short ones it does not matter, but lets say a 15L liftarm. Which orientation is it strongest when used horizontally? Holes vertical or horizontal ? Wondering if this has been tested before. Would be a great experiment for that brick experiment channel on YT.

Brick machine shop on Brick Link, which I do not believe is running anymore, is the original place where stainless steel axles were made available. They also had flip-flop liftarms, made out of stainless steel. With lengths up to 32 studs. I know, I purchased several items from that shop back in the day. SS axles, and regular liftarms. But sadly, I never purchased flip flop SS liftarms. I wish his shop was open again.....

Micro trucks are cool... but adding mobile cranes? Ooooph... that would open a whole can of worms. Not sure we want to do that.... BTW... what do folks think about rock crawlers..... I guess they are trucks... or can be. Folks cool with adding those? Here are my contributions.. I have several of the above (crawlers and mobile cranes) but I will wait to hear what others say.... Pneumatic powered Unimog. Altered chassis /body with 8110 cab. Tires are 2.4 RC tires. Yes... the comparison is next to the actual 8110 tire. I can honestly say tires make the machine. "Redneck Muddin" Truck" - I don't mean this derogatory. If any one knows the extent that certain folks in the US go to create these monsters you will immediately see how much fun they can be. Yes... I learned the hard way I had put the tires on the wrong way as well..... After all.... what is a truck if it doesn't get dirty?

I would not completely count out 8448 (Super Street Sensation). Introduction, at least on a large scale and for Technic, of flex axles so one can still really see the insides. Not to mention the first supercar that really focused on looks while keeping a brick versus liftarm chassis and maintaining nearly (not completely) the complexity of 8880. Also, engine is cooler, wheels/tires are cooler, and even stock set comes with configurations for different bodies and configurations.... I still have the set in my Lego Room. I love it.

Wow.. I think you have updated some since I last saw this thread. I love the engine! Not sure of its placement.... but better than nothing. Using the flower elements.... Brilliant!

Agreed. I mean, they are still fast, don't get me wrong...but don't be fooled at the same time. This was not copied in less than a month. Copying began the day Efferman started his thread. THey probably worked right along side of him. I am sure they are a team of lurkers, and they have gotten to know the big names in the Lego MOCing world. Once a thread begins... the copying starts b/c they know the end product will be spectacular....

I love the sound of speculation as it goes whooshing by......

Wonderful rendition of a horrible car....

I am enjoying staying tune with all these updates. Looking good so far.

Thank you everyone for the kinds comments. It does appear that way, yes. It is actually not that bad. It is the standard steering angle, as in M_longer's version and 42108. But, as you noticed, there does seem to be a bit of a lag towards the end of the drive train. I am afraid this is a product of ABS. As can be seen here, the axles driving the steering have much to go through. And a lot of friction. Pic one (left) below shows half of the friction points. I actually tried also using just one large axle (as much as I could) as I still have some of the very long ones from 42009. But things were even worse. I considered using all stainless steel ones, because I also have those, but I wanted to keep things all Lego. I even have to bypass the outriggers (pic on right). Or at least the first pair. That is way using a solid axle for that entire length was not possible. This adds to the lag for as we all know force passing through Lego gears suffers backlash. But good observation nonetheless. I have to agree with you on two functions. Boom raising and lowering and obviously the hook block. I really like manual functions, agree that the boom extension is tedious...good observation. this needed a lot of force and therefore geared with worm gears x2. Extending the boom does take a long time....

Hello Everyone – I wanted to share my first MOC in well, several years. Our beloved Grove GMK6400 crane scaled on the 62.4 mm tire has been an AFOL favorite for years. I think it is actually one of the largest group-sharing projects we have had on here. 42108 inspired me to do a similar one, just at a smaller scale and without electronics. Using 49.5 tires for scale, the below is what I came up with. There is some inspiration from 42108, to be sure, but so heavily modified that it really is no longer recognized as such. Also, it is kinda a motley of others’ creations as well. The outriggers are taken from @M_longer modifications of the set, and a big kudos to him for such a genius solution to fix 42108’s abysmal ones. Also, as is easily recognized, the boom is a modified version of our fan-favorite Grove GMK6400 at the larger scale. One of my sources of inspiration was a comment I made a while ago on that thread stating that as beautiful as the model is, I think the boom is undersized. By my calculations, and looking directly at the blueprints of the real crane, it easily could be increased to 8 studs instead of 6. @mkbryant assisted with my comments and calculated the following: So, with this in mind I kept the same dimension of the larger version (with undersized boom) and applied to a smaller carrier (at tire size 49.5 instead of 62.4) just slightly shorter. I think this given the proportions of the crane greater accuracy than our current Grove version at the larger scale. Boom is 7 studs high and the cab is 10, giving the boom 70% of the height of the cab, which is much closer to the real thing. Functions in the crane are all the obvious, all steered axles, outriggers deployment and raising/lowering carrier, boom raising/lowering, extending/retracting, hook lower/raise, but I also added superstructure rotation, superstructure cab lifting/lowering, carrier side-mirrors with two way movement, and lifting vent in cab (superstructure). Also, all are manual. No electronics. Difficult to throw in electronics, motors, etc. at this scale. I like the manual functions, although they are tedious, especially for raising/lowering, extending/retracting boom. Carrier only: I won't bog the thread down with any more pics. I have a few more on my flickr page. But here is a youtube video showing it and its functions. Comments are all welcome. This was one of the funner (sp?) projects I have been involved in, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

In psychology there is something called a "lighthouse personality" - someone who desires to remain at a distance from society at large but remains diligent, hard-working, and a good steward of something. Tie this in with unending opportunities to observe nature and weather and, at least for me, you have an optimal opportunity. For this reason I have always dreamed of being on a lighthouse, and perhaps even in charge of one. Great build... nice to see something different.

Thank you both for your responses. I will look into both irfanview and bricksafe. I am w/o computer right now as my old one died... but I have ordered a new one and it arrives tomorrow so your responses come at a great time! Cheers!

This makes sense I think. So instead of specifying my dimensions perhaps I just need to play with resizing parameters. New computer coming this week....I'll play with things. This for the feedback...

I am not sure what you mean here. Is there a distinction? Decreasing size of photo versus just the dimensions? Doesn't decreasing the dimensions automatically mean the size of the file is decreasing as well?

Okay, we all know the size rule of photos. No larger than 1000 in any dimension. It has been a long time since I fiddled with photos, and camera/phones these days take huge photos. So in resizing some photos I took of a build I recently did I noticed a decrease in quality. I am not using anything fancy. I have tried various photos apps in my phone, various microsoft apps, etc. All decrease the photo quality. Does it matter what software you use to resize images? I tried also the built-in features in Flickr and I saw the same results. I have used GIMP in the past, but not recently. I did not notice such decrease in quality in GIMP. Should I download GIMP again? Is it necessary to use some high-powered, or at least with more power, software to down-size images so as to not lose quality? Took quite some time and effort to get good quality phots, I would hate to lose some quality.

Good submission. Though I think perhaps actually adding more functions would make it more appealing to Technic folks. IMO, the amount of Technic pieces a build has is less important than how functional it is. I think it would be really cool, if it does not make it to an official model, if it were made into like a flight test simulator. A series of pneumatic cylinder connectors with movement might achieve that. I have been inside a flight simulator before. They surely can be as jolting as would be the movement from the fast-acting movement of the Lego Pneumatic system!

Those are the exact pieces on the front of @horickdesigns motorcycle. Second place in our latest TC19 Technic competition!

I had the exact same thought!! Great MOC. Thxs for sharing. Ditto to what others have said. Also, like to add it looks great in yellow and DBG tracks. Looks like some Caterpillar machine... Btw... grew up in the Rocky Mts (USA - TONS of snow) but now live by the coast. I love the coast but boy....do I miss the snow!

Lego PF lights system is a burden. You may want to consider a third party light system. I have used them in the past with great success. They are much thinner and it should allow you to use two lights... I have also found that the Lego system has poor reliability/longevity. The old lights I have all have varying levels of brightness (with the same battery source).....

It is not a good stand. I agree. It works, but it does twist and contort things a bit. I think I saw similar remarks in some of the reviews. It may be entirely possible that you built it correctly and the problems you see are just due to poor design....

It's literary. I feel reading should be a priority. When I see a thread that has articulated that a video is coming, or at least stills of the insides are coming, and then people actually criticize a post for not posting any, I feel it is a half-a-response. Reading an OP's entire post doesn't seem to be an unreasonable expectation before choosing to response to someone's post..... __________ Sorry for the smart a$% post. Truly- I am. Could not help myself - I'll see myself out. Joking a aside- your point is entirely accurate and valid just not pertinent. It had nothing to do with my post My post had nothing to do with you wanting more about the functioning of the MOC, which I agree with you is not a bad expectation. It was about that the OP clearly said, right up front, that he was working on it. And you decided to comment about the lack of posting regarding functioning anyways. What this looks like is someone who is eager to point out something lacking in a post but not willing to actually read it. That was it. You weren't the only one. We all have done it... myself included no biggie.... Yes and TY. Like others, looking at the gear box gives me a headache. I will have to study it more to understand it. It is pretty humbling to barely be able to understand something that others actually create. Thanks for sticking with the project.... it is sure fun to observe and admire.

That is fairly brilliant. I am not sure I have seen the actuator and boom controlled by string yet. At least not the second stage. The third stage yes, which mimicked the 42009 boom function. But not the second stage. GL with the rebuild. Once finished... you really should make a video and share with all. I think your way of controlling boom and actuator are unique. At least for the boom, it hides the ugly axle running along the dorsal part of the boom.

Oh No! Sorry to hear it was KIA . Impressed that you are going to try and rebuild. Not sure I would have that type of stamina. I mean how did you raise the boom... not in terms of power but mechanics. Most versions of the Grove, or even 42009 for that matter have long axles running the length of the dorsal part of the boom turning worm gears that activate the second stage of the boom. I don't see it in yours, so I was just wondering how it raises and lowers.....