nerdsforprez

I know your pain. Years ago, when I was just returning to the wonderful world of Lego, I built my own version of a MF (from Star Wars) with pneumatic landing gear. Pretty proud of it given that it was one of my first projects after being away from Lego for over 20 years. Thought I would hang it on the wall of my study/Lego work room: This was a fairly significant piece with approximately 3000 pieces. I underestimated the gravity cost of it all, and came home to this one day: The mount itself was actually mostly made from Technic pieces and worked fine. No failure from the Technic pieces at all. But the screws were not firmly into a stud, and eventually pulled out completely from the wall. I did end up rebuilding the MOC, improving it as well, and re-hanging it with the original mount, but this time with anchors. Worked like a charm the second time around- so, in the end I did learn something. Hope the same for you. It sucks - but hopefully something is learned in the process.

Theoretically, yes, speed and torque are lost due to friction when many gears are involved. I won't do the leg work and re-look this up, but if I am not mistaken, that was one of the problems identified in the Porsche set, early on, by Paul (aka Crowkillers I think it was) as to why the gearbox was not functioning properly. I can't remember exactly how many gears drive was passing through, but it was well into double digits. However, I think for practical purposes, unless you are having drive transmitted through like over double-digit individual gears, the power lost will be negligible. This all depends, as mentioned by others, on which motor you are using, weight of machine, etc. But if the build is somewhere in the "normal" range (say 1500-3000 pieces) and you are using XL motors, I don't see using many gears as a huge problem. The drive in my Unimog in my signature block went through five individual gear meshings, for an incredibly inefficient final output of 35:1, but still, at around 2000 pieces and over 1000 grams in tires alone, was able to travel through over six inches of water, mud, gunk, etc with no problem. It was powered by a very powerful LPE, but still, I think the friction in the five gear parings did not have a horrible effect on my output. On a more recent project that I will not repost, a crawler powered by Buwizz (in the Buwizz thread if interested), I had only three gear pairings, but one of which was planetary gears through a Bionicle wheel with cleats (and flanges, BL part 64712). For anyone who has ever tried this configuration they will know that it is entirely inefficient and costs much power due to friction, but the crawler still performed marvelously; able to climb a curb with no problem.

Finally got around to completing a video for this build. I hope it does the model justice in terms of demonstrating the amount of fun I had building and driving it. Seriously a great crawler..... the rock you see in the video that this crawler can scale is just under 12 inches tall. Here are some pictures at dusk with the lights: More information at: http://www.moc-pages.com/moc.php/439753 Higher resolution pics at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nerdsforprez/albums/with/72157681874461761

Yes, I can verify that they fit, and rather nicely might I add. HOwever, I don't think I would really recommend using them. The RC tires I just them in are for off-road vehicles, and other rim configurations I have used have been dinged nicely. Porsche rims are still rare and costly, I personally don't want to ding them up. I have used other rim configurations, which I have posted before, that work nicely with 2.2 tires. In fact, in just a short time, I will post a video of a recent build with the tires and rim configurations.

Are others able to see these images? I assume so b/c there are comments.... but I cannot see them.

I promised to keep my collection more organized and do a better job cleaning my "shop" when done. Needless to say, I have not kept that vow. In fact, i just bought more shelving and now have shut down all "building" operations until my organization/cleaning project is all done. Along with family vacations and the kids being out of school this may take several months.......

LEGO = play well. To each their own. For some, building = playing. Others, buying and investing LEGO = playing. To others still.....building, then crashing while filming LEGO = playing. To try and define "playing" for others is likely a fruitless endeavor. Logic and "play" are fairly incompatible bunk mates.

Not to mention it will cause tons of friction and power loss. Honestly, I don't think the v2 LPE will give the beveled gears a problem. Yes, it isn't the strongest setup, but we aren't dealing with much weight here (or power for that matter). Not to mention the tires will be slick by either tape or something else. Imo, either lack of power or slipping tires will occur before the gears give......

interesting project. Couple of questions: You sure only a v2 going to be powerful enough? and If you are going to coat the tires with something, perhaps just coat them with something slippery... a little baby powder (just a tiny bit; or just coat the surface of what you are driving on with baby powder) or even silicone lubricant or something. I think this would be better than what is covering them at the moment. The front looks terrific IMO.....

We should vote on the best background to goots dancing. My vote is for he-man

Looks like we both messed up a little eh? I never said "are my MOCs cool?" - Ah...... the rapid age of the internet. Honestly, I meant no harm. And I never recommended leaving this site. That is not my position nor intent. Wonderful that you are here for getting ideas, etc. that is terrific. I just thought, in addition to sharing here, you might want to broaden your audience. For what it is worth, your need for appreciation of MOCs is becoming almost palpable, so I thought I would make a recommendation. Best of luck.... and remember, most importantly of all, JUST HAVE FUN!!

You recently made a whole other post, eerily similar to your "how many buggy motors" post, but added a question "are my mocs useful?" - but it got locked for obvious reasons. Then add a whole other post asking "are my mocs good?" - I dunno.... but this sounds eerily similar to the "are my mocs useful question" just couched in a little different wording Yikes!! You sound like you are trying really really hard to have others "like" or appreciate your builds.... which is understandable. I guess we all do. But as others have already noted, really, that is not the point of building. Build because you enjoy it. I know this sounds cliche and perhaps gibberish, but sometimes over-used phrases are over-used for a reason; in that they portray some form of truth. To fill the void of acceptance about your MOCs, it is not that others think your MOCs are good or not, useful or not, etc. I am sure there are many out there that love your MOCs. Even on this site there are many who really enjoy them. But, generally your will find a hard audience here. Members are adults, and many have occupations that lend themselves an exceptionally keen eye to this sort of stuff. If you really are so focused on acceptance of your models, perhaps another forum to share them on might be considered. Some sites are targeted to a much more generalist audience, with all age groups, young and old, with perhaps a greater range of acceptance of different builds. Mocpages may be considered one of these. Not really a forum, but still allows one to comment, etc. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder..... and if you aren't getting the attention you want in your MOCs on this site, perhaps reaching out to other "beholders" (i.e. audience) might be helpful.

Really loved this build - and TY for making the lxf file available. Being a fan of crawlers..... I gave building this one a go. Terrific machine. Details and thoughts of the machine and build are below: - Changed the color scheme. Orange, black and white. - Added PF lights. - Huge 2.2 RC tires. Much bigger than 1.9. Increased ground clearance by 3/4 of a minifig - Buwizz for power and control. - Small changes in building process I wasn't really surprised by the performance, which is terrific, because I thought it would be. The videos by the original builder are just fantastic. What I am surprised about however, is the durability. My version took its fair share of spills, falls, etc and really, relatively nothing broke or failed. Couple of the links get pulled out from time to time, but that is about it. I even have a crack in one of the U-joints in the front axle, but it is so well braced that I haven't even bothered changing it out. It really only skips in the most dire of situations. I hope to make a video soon. Videos can be hard for me as my kids spurn helping dad and his "geeky" projects. If I get my wife to help tape then well..... I have a whole weeks list of things to do to compensate..... We go on a trip here shortly but hope to get something done when we return. Couple of thoughts - - I am a OCD about friction. I think this arose from oven TLG warning of friction in their instructions and my building experience as a kid. Now, as an adult, I test my models through the whole building process for friction. If the infamous 42056 taught us anything it was the perils that can arise from too much friction. On step 109 I wondered if the thin 5L lift arm was needed. I get why it is there.... for bracing, but I hypothesized that it would not be needed. This was important b/c when testing the model at this point in the build the (w/o the motor) things were very difficult to turn. Tons of friction. Mostly due to the thin liftarm being flush with both beveled gears. So, I eliminated this lift arm - and .... no problems. No skipping of the gears, etc. This allows much more power to the front wheels. Which is needed because the 2.2 tires with rims are hefty and difficult to turn. - The steering is especially superb. Worm gear implemented is especially nice - Lego RC vehicles are fun to built, but honestly I have never really had much fun driving one. Perhaps that is because I have several real RC, brushless cars so the performance is not comparable. But, I truly have fun driving this crawler. Crawling is a different style of driving, much more about calculating and planning where to put your tires, power to add, etc. but this little guy is quite a bit of fun. - Buwizz can add alot of fun to not just vehicles built for speed, but also those that need power. Great for truck trials and speeded vehicles alike. Like I said, I will try to get a video soon. But hats-off to PTNYC for this build and for making the instructions. Had a lot of fun building this MOC and have even more driving it.

Indeed this is a great topic. So much to say, but I think I will just discuss my thoughts on the purist versus non-purist argument, rather than my thoughts on any trends or personal preferences (which will likely already be obvious at that point, if not already). As a caveat I want to reiterate that I do think it is a great question, that I mean no offense by my comments, and that although I don’t personally adhere to Lego purism I respect and understand those that do. To Erik – wonderful thread and totally respect your efforts of remaining and advocating for Lego Purism. Here are my thoughts on the argument: I think the “purist” definition is itself a slippery-slope. The “Puristic” definition that we are discussing is being applied to Lego, but every year Lego is coming out with new parts. How can something be purist when itself is changing? Purism due to certain geometric shapes built with certain combinations of pin and axle holes I could understand if there was some underlying absolute, infinite, unchanging physical law that defines it. But there is not; elements are always being revamped. The “absolute,” “unchanging” and “infinite” law upon which all elements (Lego pieces) are built upon has nearly nothing to do with the laws of physics but rather the simply laws of business, or worse, the simple fact that new pieces facilitate easier building and more possibilities; hence, their changing nature. This thread is highlighting some of the problems with 3D printing. The rationale involved in 3D printing is something like this “wow, this piece (individual idea) would work great and be very useful, therefore I am going to print it.” This is being criticized for being a “cop-out,” “cheating” or other derogatory terms. However, is this not the EXACT SAME RATIONALE that is being used by TLC themselves when they come out with a new element. They come out with a new model (new BWE for example), and need a new element to build it. So they create the element, and “voila”! There it is and they use it for their build. How come no one is chiding TLC for being “lazy” or admonishing them for not building it out of what Lego pieces already exist? Can you just see how ludicrous this sounds? How funny would it be if I wrote a letter to TLG and said “I am not going to buy the BWE b/c it is not a purist model. You (TLG) could have made the BW out of the available pieces to date (prior to 2016). You should have done your research and figured it out from the pieces that are already available.” There is an endless list of examples as above. Purism itself doesn’t have a definition unless we want to define purism by years or (everything prior to say 2010, or whatever). Again, if there were absolute physical, geometric, or mathematical laws that dictated possible Lego pieces (not connections) then I would understand the rationale to the argument, but there are not. Heck, just a little while ago we had a debate among builders on this very forum about official Lego elements that “feel” or are “considered” as cheating because they “make things to easy.” So even official Lego elements are “cheating”? I mean com’on, there doesn’t seem to be anything more subjective or whimsical than that. To me it seems that the whole idea of Lego purism is built on an ideal with a complete and thoroughly lacking definition. What happens, if in the first half of 2018 TLG comes out with the pulley wheel (wedge belt wheel per BL definition; as discussed at the beginning of Erik’s initial post) with no axle hole, but pin hole, through the middle? All the sudden it becomes “legal”? Personally, there is not nearly enough rationale in that argument to hang my hobby-hat on. I have to say this, and truly don’t mean to offend, but sometimes I get the sense that the “purist” argument is getting propagated with a hint of a feel of intellectual or elitist superiority. I could understand this if the purist argument were built on something foundational, objective, or at least on tradition scientific ideals. But as I see it, given all the above information it seems to me that it is built on anything but that. It completely lacks any objectivity. Truly, I think that the real value of Lego Purism exists much better embedded in an argument of consistency than anything else. What I mean by that is the value of something being “purist” lies in defining something as Lego and it actually being so. That is a wagon I can hitch my trailer to. If someone builds something and calls it 100% Lego then it should be just that. 100% Lego. If not, then simply define what part (s) is/are not. That easy. I can really understand the frustration of something being called Lego when it is not. If anything in my above argument appears extreme, well then you are right. I think “purism” itself is defined by extremism. I mean, that is its meaning… right? “Pure” is by definition a categorical term whereas “purity” is one of a continuum. I hear comments by some that they accept third party (TP) string, or tires, or whatever…. But in all other things remain “pure” and therefor call themselves “purists.” How can that be when the exact same logic that they use to build with TP elements [i.e. “Lego is so inferior with this (tires, string, whatever) that I have to use something else"] is the exact same logic that non-purists use to get where they are in using many non-Lego parts for their builds. As brought up by Erik in his initial post…. Where is the line drawn if not by an exclusionary black/white dichotomy? Why is it okay for people to build with custom stickers but not whatever else if the logic for doing so it the exact same? That being said I totally agree with @sariel and suggest a inching away from the purist verses NP argument and look at purism from a continuum POV like Sariel mentioned. Everyone who in the first page said they were purists really are not…. B/c they build with either TP string, tires, etc. Rather, I think most are actually non-purists just to different degrees….

Agreed. Here is an image showing the exponential relationship between differing scales. Top is Sheepo's Mustang and on the bottom is Paul Boratko's Vampire GT. Sheepo's 'stang is 1/8 scale whereas Paul's Vampire is 1/10 scale. Former has over twice the number of pieces ..... which is a huge difference for such small differences in scale.

Hmm.... I did not see that. Thanks for the heads up....

I saw this when it first posted but have only recently been able post my thoughts. Incredible project - and although not the beginning of a trend I think this may be the real beginning of popularizing a trend. I have commented on this in the past but we are seeing some really great, small or micro projects that are yet packed with some great functions. I kinda see micro builds yet with tons as functions, such as this one, an area that is somewhat untapped in our community. Although this project is really great, it will likely never be something that is voted or even nominated to the HOF. Not even saying that it should be, but.... wondering if it is worth discussing a HOF for small projects such as this. People usually don't think of HOF for really small projects, but if there were a HOF for small projects then they would have to? Thoughts? (and..... if this discussion gains any traction then I can create a new thread to discuss. If it does not then there would not be a need)

Ha! These r great. Most the time when we discuss third party tires we focus on 1.9 size tires. Smaller ones are great too though.

Not sure the engines were meant to be taken very seriously. At least how I saw this project, I think over the top was the name of the game

I think this is exactly the issue. The "sheaves" are not real pulleys in the first place. Lego designed them for wheels. They are one stud wide, and when designed for other than their original purpose (pulley) the inside of the wheel has one stud width of surface area (friction) against the axle whereas the strings surface on the pulley (outside of piece), and therefore the friction it has on it is much less than even 1/2 stud - so it easily can get bound up. As mentioned above, much better to use a different element. The pulley pieces would be perfect if they did not have axle holes. But this can be easily rectified if you are willing to drill a hole through them. That is what I did for this project (look at about minute 2:50 - you will see what I mean) Now..... if you get a little skweemish because this is not a purist method I find it helpful to notice that many others have also recommended this trick. A piece such as my home-made version is also available on Efferman's Shapeways site. And honestly I believe it is only a matter of time before this piece DOES become an official piece. So, might as well get a head of the curve! As you can see, the little trick above works perfectly. It is because the friction of the pulley on the axle (surface area) is more or less the same as the friction (surface area) of the string on the pulley. More information is here on this mobile crane I built about a year ago as well as info on the piece offered on shapeways http://www.moc-pages.com/moc.php/420370

Agreed. 12-14 sheaves, unless lifting twenty plus pounds, is likely too much. Also second the request for pics. Technic cranes used to be all the rage, very large ones using many sheaves. So it is possible

Too much fun......I really like the theme- park details everywhere as well

wow.... the shaping of this car is near perfect. There are hardly any gaps. Wonderful to look at. Cant wait for final product and video of performance.

I was one who voted for this build. Compact, fast, and powerful weapon. Although the mechanisms are simple, the function is solid. I know that everyone has their own criteria for judging, but if everyone used the criteria of a real battle bots competition (i.e. who actually wins) - then I think yours would one of the top contestants. Never-mind looks, complexity, etc... based on who actually wins I thought this was one of the top options.

Fun stuff All.....congrats to all contestants. Loved to also hear everyones criteria for judging. Glad to see that my personal criteria was close to everyone else's. @PKW great graphs. Fun to visually see the scores