syclone

Really digging the octagon-based design of the vehicle (both the hull and canopy) as well as the use of small wheelarches inside the cabin. And great to see the powertrain finished with extra POWER. Will be eagerly avaiting the next update/ finished model!

You can get a MISB 9398 AND still have at least 30$ left for this price. Or get a used 9398 and upgrade it w/ BuWizz lmao. or for some more money get a limited edition 41999 of which there are ONLY 20000.

The weight difference in between the two is 58 vs 81g which is roughly 90 gramms less in total, but a major problem as mentioned above is the diameter - 94.8 to 107mm or a difference of almost 2 studs, reducing the front height from 3 to just 2 studs. Only thing needed is a proper gear reduction - the model seems too fast for a crawler of that size. Source for wheel data: http://wheels.sariel.pl/

I know perfectly that I'm a terrible person, but that is MY opinion. You can agree or not with it. I build MOCs in a different way than lego sets and haven't bought a new set in 3 years, only spare parts. having a hobby doesn't automatically mean liking everything everyone does, including "official stuff". I love BuWizz and overpowered motors (or something built very well to run off only m-motors without having bad performance) but not toys sold in the Technic line. Pardon me @Jim , seen your comment posted. In regards of the set after some cooling down and processing: As a parts pack or starter set, not bad albeit looks to be expensive. Can't say much more about PU without the app (and hopefully, someday) a remote. Would've been nice to get some large hard springs as they're very expensive nowadays, but there is already a large new part selection in the set. The planetary reduction hubs probably mean that portal hubs will never make an appearance again ( unless required by vehicle type) as their reduction is the maximal that portals offered. The weird square (crackers?) liftarms are a nice addition, reminds me of Bionicle technic frames and have already proven useful in planetary hubs with "old" turntables. CV joint are a welcome improvement for large vehicles, specially the larger axle at the end of the female joint and 1 stud deep axle hole on male. Tbh I hope 2020 will continue the RC under 100$ trend but with a car this time, not just track steering - PU seems to allow easy return to center steering without bulky servo. Would be nice to see new parts implemented there or any other set to make them more accessible.

@vectormatic not sure what you have against floating diff in comparison to this, but here's that 8860 suspension within 15 studs. Personally I don't like it as the wheels camber while suspension is in action. Shocks not mounted, but it's not like there's room for standard ones (images are click-to-enlarge)

What you described is exactly the same problem I had with the Offroad Challenger. In regards of the photos, I'd recommend to clean whatever that brown material around the wires is, and apply a little of hot glue to protect them. I have no idea what it is, but it definitely had seen better times. What worries me more is the rotation sensor, the part you haven't dissasembled (where the transparent cable goes) as it has a brown-ish color and is responsible for the steering return-to-center and angle. Personally I'd check it as it seems to be problem having in mind how clean the motherboard is.

Paave's 500 piece crawler - basic PF only. Compare for yourself the performance of both these vehicles and make your own thoughts. https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/139638-moc-trial-pickup-truck/ @BusterHaus As excited as I am for a better, more capable "official" control device, unfortunately the size of it leaves a lot to wish.

https://brickset.com/article/43035 There's the motors as well, page 60-61 of this topic ;)

Some bodywork.... clear as ever that I can't afford to build it, so going all out on it, red colour, white rims, blue interior, butterfly (typical "ricer car") doors.

Ehem, fixed it! Geared down the m-motors et voila, all works great! Some prototype seating in the video as well - adjustable forwards/backwards "Action" shot Cya later!!!

Judging by the size, properly geared m-motors (worm geared if high speed isn't needed) or 1-2 l-motors should do fine. XL motor will give you lots of torque to work with and proper offroading abilities. Afterall, 9398 was powered by 2L motors.

Thanks! Don't worry about the axles, those were just temporary Although I do wonder how an m-motor broke an axle... UPDATE: Put together the build yesterday. The gearbox itself and the shifter work very well, I also added a stopper to prevent it continuosly shifting from 4th to 1st and viceversa. M-motors would happily use a downgear, but can cope with the load. 1st and second gears work like a charm while driving, 3rd was clicking (solved by reinforcing m-motors placement), 4th doesn't have enough torque to drive the car. Basically an XL motor should be used instead, but the car can be driven and l-motors wouldn't fit and would cost extra $$. Steering has no problems at all (maybe a bit too fast). Here's a video (with suspension test at the end) and photos Updates will be much scarcer now that the mechanical part is complete (small reinforcements here and there). Cya later!

Had the same issue with electronics in 8675, most probable cases are: corrosion in the receiver motherboard corrosion in the steering subassembly dirt in the steering subassembly corrosion in the remote A few photos could help identify the problem

Basically a lower functionality Mindstorms brick disguised as PU. Or a bigger size Sbrick+ that needs a huge space to be installed and proprietary motors at the moment, without support for real (gamepad or remote) controls. I'm not convinced at all.

Digital Update only: In the end, the selector mechanism was relatively easy to make, but routing the drivetrain was a real pain, resolved in a change of approach . As of right now: [click the images to view full size] rear suspension with springs - not tested, but shouldn't have problems supporting the whole model's weight motorisation - complete, placement of drive motors in the rear, steering motor in the dashboard, gear selector on top of gearbox. BuWizz has a free output right now, so I plan on installing lights as well. the gearbox - no major changes, only changed input/output sides shifter - not tested in real life, but even LDD "accepts" the geometry of the links, so there shouldn't be any problems. Here's a color-coded schematic : lime - drive violet - steering pink - gearbox yellow - selector blue - PF motorised drive LDD FILE DOWNLOAD As can be seen, shifter mechanism still doesn't have support, and PF drive axle has to be reinforced. This shouldn't take much work, so by today-tomorrow it should be done and the whole chassis rebuilt irl. Cya later!!

There's a 500 piece crawler MOC that outperforms 42099 in most of your "parameters". And I'm not sure how 9398 really crushed anyone's work on TTs?? When I originally said best it meant actual abilities ... because people use different techniques and have their own building styles, but abilities/performance of a model are a clear factor. If you build a crawler and call it a crawler it has to be able to CRAWL over obstacles. Wasn't technic about functional vehicles? Of course MOCers don't have constraints, but let's comply with the names given to any model, be it from TLC or a freelancer

@nerdsforprez After carefully analyzing your post, I completely agree with you in this topic. Afterall TLC was on the verge of bankrupcy in 00's with 800$ million in debt... they wouldn't like that to happen again, so marketing team is the one ruling probably. @Anio Isn't that TLC sets right now - BIG, high number of functions through gearboxes, eye catching (Liebherr, 6x6...). There are definitely MOCs that break these stereotypes - check this one. Not that typical, yet very popular and even for sale. In regards of building experience, imo there's not much of it when the process isn't challenging. +1 about the actual limits of those parts, but bet they're quite tough - the planetary gears are probably very similar to those inside PF motors. Again, just imo, I have weird tastes afterall.

Of course suspension is better on this model, but that HAS to go in-hand with proper clearance - of which there is none PUp is a failure imo. Sbrick was released 5 years ago (I won't even talk about BuWizz), and TLC still has the same power cutoff problems from 2007. 12 years and still lacking power to even justify "crawler" name. Non-stackable connector and huge size of the receiver aren't helping either, but yes, they finally used bluetooth and you can ride your monster truck on flat terrain with your sunglasses on. Planetary reduction sounds cool but these are simply hubs (black ones were released not too long ago as well) 1 function, that's all. Of course, my specialty isn't large offroad MOCs. However, from what I can see, people on this forum have done amazing offroaders without those. Most probably I'm too picky, but how hard it is for an enormous company to make something using current parts lineup, and make it good - there are thousands of MOCs that are a million times better than official stuff. I grew up admiring crazy sets like 8675, 8110, 8466, 8258, 8043, 8275... wtf happened now? Sometimes I wish I were born earlier to enjoy these in their days of glory.

(rant incoming) I didn't expect much from the start, but honestly it's just pathetic now. Front suspension is clearly sagging, and 3 studs can't even be called ground clearance for a vehicle this size. Performance of this vehicle goes in pair with the 6x6 released previously, but now with tons of specialised parts, another color/sticker barf and a brand new electrics system that not only hasn't improved anything except the control range, but now uses an unnnecessarily big battery box and terrible connector. For the good part... planetary gears seem cool, but only good for independent suspension setups, as portal axles will offer higher ground clearance in other types of suspension. Hopefully the fact that XL and L motors are now faster doesn't influence their torque specs. Personal conclusion: nothing new, 9398/41999 were much better offroaders IMO, more realistic and better looking than this wannabe monster truck.

Weeeell, at first I had no plans at all to motorize it, just wanted a "dustcollector", buuut there should be enough space for some motors here and there. Unfortunately I can't spend 30-40 euro on electrics as I'll have to buy some parts for bodywork as well, so it'll be just a lot of innnecesaruly complex mechanisms powered by m-motors XD. Thanks for the motor placement ideas though, might end up using something similar in the end As a teaser, rear axle and gearbox are being completely redone due to: the gearbox input/output have to be swapped as there's too much resistance if power is applied from the front. rear suspension sags a lot when I added motor weight on top, plus it has already deformed a 7l axle, and a self-destructive suspension is the last thing I need. motor & other mechanisms placement

Woah, that's some intricate panelling work on the bodywork, really like those taillights and how they mix in with the curvature of the flex axle. Looking back, it is very interesting how the chassis was put together and evolved, sad to see the suspension gone, but as you said diffs are definitely more important to a good driving experience.

Thank You!! Thanks!!! UPDATE: 1. Rear axle redone front to back (quite literally) allowing the placement of the gearbox to be closer to the rear axle. The suspension is still torsion axle as it is compact and has proven to work really well; the differential has been flipped and drive is now transferred from the back. (Purple is the suspension assembly - lower wishbone and torsion axle; the 1/4 pin obviously has to be mounted on the other side of the connector) 2. As can be seen from the pictures above gearbox and engine are in place. Having failed at building a sturdy engine I opted for a more standard design. The gearbox was a headache, and it really makes one appreciate all the effort MOCers put into these to make them freely rotating. The gearratios -Sariel's tool for these cases is a charm- are (gearbox only, not counting the transfers from wheels and to the engine): 5.001:1 3:1 1.667:1 1:1 It will take some gearing up from the gearbox output (24z gear in front) to the engine to get some decent speed, but does work good enough as of right now. The complex part - the shifter/stepper/selector - is still to make as well as the transfer gears to the engine. The input of the gearbox is the 24z in the back, which sits VERY close to both the differential and the 5x11 frame underneath (it actually requires the frame to be oriented a certain way to not grind - watch the small indentations on the inside) The engine sits at a decent height and cannot be lowered as it just clears the differential underneath (still enough space for suspension action). I went for yellow color of the "block" due to only having 2x LBG cams, and yellow made it stand out just like typical red camshaft covers in Ferrraris. Unfortunately there's not much to see underneath apart from two 12T gears Finally here's how the chassis looks so far: Gearbox in purple, steering in violet, driveshaft in lime. Right now I'm worried about driver/passenger comfort if a traditional seat placement is used, so I'm looking into central driver position as in a Mclaren F1. The sequential shifter will have to live above the gearbox, allowing a drivetrain to motor and leaving space for a detailed cabin as well as a gearstick and maaaaaybe a gear indicator. That's all for now, cya later!!!

Looks more of a successor of the second generation Discovery, but not Defender...

Thank you all for your comments, it is indeed a floating differential. As of right now, it able to receive 33.84 N.cm. of torque (XL motor geared down 2.3:1 times with rear axle not powered at all in the video) without grinding gears. plus, the final model will be manual, so there shouldn't be any problems as of right now. Video to prove so (car in FWD only!!!), available in HD 1080p with close up shots while driving. @JurssIn regards of how it is driven, there is a 12T bevel gear under the 20T bevel, see schematics below: Now, the suspension: (purists, avert your eyes) Simple spring suspension in front, forced into 1L space (works perfectly as the wishbone cannot go any lower than the 5x11 frame underneath and the top connector is fixed vertically and horizontally), torsion bars at rear ( at least for now, as I'm too lazy and if it works why fix it). The 9L links are part of the chassis structure and make the assembly quite sturdy (LDD legal connections too). Not much, but it took some time with different suspension prototypes. Cya later!!!

Hello there again! Having no fresh ideas for the TC16 model at all, decided to give a go with a new project. After seeing T Lego's amazing small size cars, the objective was crystal-clear. (relatively) small size, AWD, gearbox, fake engine - classic supercar basically. i started with a 1/12 model, but 56x28ZRs were perfect for a 1/11 model, so I gave in to a slightly bigger scale. Scaled using Sariel's amazing scaler basing myself off a Lamborghini Gallardo LP550. The outcome is 21 studs wide, 29 studs in-between wheels. So just like last time, sketch time! I'm not a fan of modern cars, so I tried looking up older 90's - 00's supercars for design elements, such as vents reminding shark gills and curvy, flowing lines. -Technical design Building a small scale independent suspension is no challenge at all, but add drive&steering and some limitations quickly appear. One of the main problems are the enormous cardan and CV joints that take up 3-6 studs, then the titanic 3-stud wide diff with some bracing and you're off to 1/10 or 1/8 scale. Now, using Nico71's method and applying some unusual design this axle was born: LDD FILE DOWNLOAD No matter the number of times people tell how good new hubs are, personally I find the old ones the best out there for compact MOCs. Being only 3 studs tall, they allow for super slim suspension, something that allows me to have a frame underneath them to serve as a base and to tilt the wishbones out of the way of the differential. Now, the main drawback is the suspension travel of only 1 - 1'5 studs, but for a supercar with 1 stud of ground clearance this is more than enough. My first prototype was even smaller - at just 19 studs wide, but the steering was way too high and too jerky, one of the reasons to go with a 1/11 scale. Wishbone geometry is even LDD legal, steering is off by a milimeter or two - close enough. Rear axle is a simplified version of this with standard wishbone direction. In regards of transmission, I currently have in mind an old school 4 speed manual, maybe a 4 speed sequential, driving a mini v10 - based off my own design used in the unimog WIP (with 4274 as pistons driven by technic cams) Suspension is currently missing from all wheels, but it'll be a matter of a few parts and should be done in the upcoming update. Cya later!