ozacek

Are there MOC vehicles that are both 4x4x4 and with a gearbox that has a single-ratio reverse that bypasses the gearbox?

I can't say about suspension arms, but it seems pretty rigid thanks to the 'pin with pin hole' parts, which are much tighter than regular pins. I was surprised when disassembling the dummy windshield frame I showed earlier, that when I tried to pull the ball out, the axle joiner came out first, even though the ball has only two contact points instead of four. If you use 'axle with pin hole' parts instead, and use a stiff anchor like two liftarms 1x3 with axle holes, then it takes a lot of force to pull out.

Good idea! I also have that problem in my current project, I think I can make use of that right away. UPDATE: it works! Panel secured at crazy angle: I think Didumos69's find is a gold mine :)

It can be used to make awkward things like car windschield frames. I have a feeling there's a wealth of possibilities.

What a great find! In fact I will check if I could use this concept to improve the tail of the Ripsaw vehicle I'm currently designing (which is bent in two directions).

Probably, since Lego alternatively uses both in their tracked models. Note that you actually need 6 soft-spring shocks, not hard-spring ones like on the prototype. With 6 hard shocks on such a mid-size machine, you could as well use beams :)

Very nice! What is the difference then between a limiter and a stepper? I thought it was the same. (never mind, I understand from your 2nd video) I changed the post title then since it's not about steppers anymore. The original title was a a song title by Ima Kamoze, thus KevinMD's reply. So much ingeniosity out there!

Just for fun: the smallest 90-degrees limiter - just about 3 x 3 x 3. Or can someone do smaller? :)

It's exactly the same feeling as the original, and I find it quite good already. One hand holds the remote (good grip), and the other controls the steering wheel & transversal motion.

Thanks! Here's the final version with decent colors.

In the end I made one myself. This is a modified MOC-10719 with an embedded limiter that gets triggered every ~20 degrees, which gives 2-steps turns.

Great, thanks a lot! I didn't know about LDCad. It looks good, I guess I should have a try. Though I've been using MLCad for so many years, a change to something else would be hard.. :)

Are there LDRAW parts for technic soft axles sections & ends that can be used with MLCAD's flex hose generator? (like the 77.dat/u9053.dat pair for rigid hoses).

I'm actually talking about the two-motor case. Of course I could just manually control the two sticks on the remote, but I was looking for a more elegant solution in the style of MOC-10719. I guess one way could be to add a small limiter to that remote. It could be difficult to keep it small though. This is certainly true for slower models like construction machines, but for tracked racers (which is the case that intererests me), the responsiveness of the train remote is too slow..

Does anyone know of a PF 'small remote' mod for controlling tracked vehicles, that makes a difference between forward+reverse & forward+neutral for turning? I.e. if I want to turn right, there's a difference between L-track forward + R-track backward (harder turn) and L-track forward + R-track neutral (softer turn). MOC-10719 on rebrickable is a really great tracked remote, and it can actually produce both turn types, but it's delicate to do, and easy to overdo (i.e. fall into a hard turn). In his book, Sariel shows a great tracked remote using the large one (the train remote), but like he says, the reaction speed of the large remote is quite slow which makes it somewhat clumsy to use in such a case.

I finished the design, and I will now go on with the tedious task of making instructions for it. I'm happy that I could keep the build very modular - all these modules more or less just clip to each other:

Here's what it looks like once attached to the frame.

Actually I think I found a solution that solves all problems: it keeps the motors up, the U-joints angles below 45, removes the hard-coupling but still allows to drive the fake engine (via a differential).

I still prefer the look of the two L-motors standing up there... (but I might change my mind if it prooves too hard or too weak). I'm not sure I fully understand your suggestion... maybe I need a drawing :) (If you're talking about directly linking the motors' output with the wheels, that's what I first tried, but the angles are too big for the joints).

Of course I could do that, but the original vehicle has the motors way up, and I like that look :) Good point... hadn't thought of that :D I guess I would have found out right at the end :) I only got into technic two years ago, and this is only the 2nd time I'm designing something from scratch, so I do still make that kind of mistakes...

I came back to this project and made some progress. I raised the motors to be more prominent, fine-tuned the cabin, Improved the stability of the top cover, switched to large sprocket wheels, and fixed all the half-stud alignments (there are quite a few). However I still have trouble with feeding the power to the wheels, since I'm using U-joints and the angles are now too big. Starting by rerouting the axles down currently leads to too much vibration, and heaving gear clicking. Still thinking... And BTW, I previously mixed up terminology: I'm not using a substractor but simple hard-coupling. First there's very limited space at the back, and also one would typically use two motors of different size (which I can't do here obviously).

Here it is

I see. 7.4V vs 9V is a 20% difference. When I tested, it certainly didn't seem like the Mould King box was 20% slower, so it might be 9V. For now I'm very happy with it. The reason I bought it is because I hate using disposable batteries, and I'm not paying CA$80 instead of $20 for a battery box just because it's rechargable, like Lego charges. I find that outrageous. Also I find it crazy that with Lego, in order to simply drive two big motors on the same port, you need a rare & expensive V2 receiver. That's also unacceptable.

Wow, I also think it looks better than the original! (second time it happens recently, as with 42066 Shark MkII).

I have no setup for make measurement, but here's what I observed: - Speed compared to a PF regular battery box (I don't have a rechargable one): seems to be the about same - Speed compared to AA battery box: also seems to be about the same (but I would except both Lego boxes to run motors at the same speed, no? - the speed depends on the voltage and they're both 9V) - Can it really run 4 L motors and a Servo under load: I guess I'll only be to answer that once I have a big vehicle with 4 motors to test with. I was planning to build Madoca's 8x8 Shaman anyway. - Quality of the app, configuration possibilities: can't answer that as I don't have a smart phone. - Range of control with remote: it works at least accross the entire length of my appartment which is about 12 meters. I could try outside when I get the chance. - Does it have proportional control with the app: again, can't say for the app. Remote buttons are indeed on/off only. But considering all the advantages, if that's the only drawback, I'll take it!