PunkTacoNYC
-
Posts
100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Everything posted by PunkTacoNYC
-
So, I have BuWizz 1.0, which does not have ludicrous mode. But, my BuWizz does have the fast mode which supposedly outputs 9.2v, and there is a noticeable difference between regular Lego Lipo rechargeable battery/BuWizz normal mode and BuWizz fast mode. I have not had any power stability issues with the BuWizz fast mode and Sbrick - the two work together excellently. -
Thank you! And you are correct in that the lack of knobs on these tires is detrimental to its grip, particularly on loose surfaces. But, I've found that the Bully tires work quite well when kept on plain rock and grass. I'll be working on instructions on my next large bout of free time, whenever that may be.
-
Hey Eurobricks, PunktacoNYC back again with another rock crawler! This time it's called the Rocket Crawler and it is my largest, fastest crawler yet. Youtube video: Features: - 4 L-Motors for drive (one per wheel) - Ackerman steering with custom virtual pivot system to maximize steering angle - Rigid, triangulated 4-link suspension with 100% Lego-legal original, extra large links - Very minimal, light bodywork, and a cute rocket atop the cab - BuWizz for extra power and SBrick for a great custom control scheme - RC4WD 2.2” Bully Competition Tires The initial inspiration for this crawler was twofold; I wanted to build a RC competition super-class-like crawler, what with giant relative wheel size, slim body, and high articulation. I also really wanted to make use of RC4WD's quite large Bully competition tires. This project has been in development for over a year thanks primarily to issues with the front axle. The problem with the front axle was that Lego universal joints simply could not handle the high torque required to spin such large tires. I tried using custom Lego universal joints custom dremeled brass remote-controlled boat u-joints, and even knob gears at the pivot point - nothing worked. So, I mounted the motors directly to the wheels, all within a virtual system to move the steering pivot closer to the center of the wheel for a better turning radius. There is approximately 90° of articulation between the front and rear axles: Easily adjustable suspension height: (high) (medium) (low) The chassis: Wheel comparison: Concept 1: Concept 2 (later): This has been my favorite project. Let me know what you think. P.s. I got a snupps page (nice idea, Sariel): https://www.snupps.com/punktaconyc
-
I've actually wanted to build this exact machine for a while now, and it seems you have done a good job mechanically. I'm excited to see its development!
-
I have identified the cause of the hose length and rear axle rigidity issues you are having. The LDD incorrectly shows the rear links as being shorter than they should be. The picture below shows the CORRECT setup used in the video. The difference is that the rear links are essentially as long as they can be. Sorry for the confusion, LMK if this helps.
-
Soft RC tires do help. I used the RC4WD 1.9" Kryptons without foam inserts. I do not have any mods planned of this crawler specifically, but I am currently working on my largest and smallest crawlers which you can find information about here: https://www.snupps.com/punktaconyc/shelf/2705503--rock-crawlers
-
Ok, lots of questions. The two rear motors are facing opposite directions, so they do need separate ports on the Sbrick so that one can be reversed. The AA battery pack is larger, heavier, and less powerful than the buwizz, so it is certainly expected to perform worse. It is slow not only because of the AA battery pack, but also because it is a rock crawler - geared down for maximum torque over speed. The BuWizz will give it a noticeable speed and torque increase. The small Lego LAs are unfortunately weak for this application. They should be able to turn the tires completely without slipping, however. Perhaps the Lego tires are too grippy on the hardwood/carpeted floor. I think I see the issue. The LDD file has the two rear links incorrectly swapped with each other. In other words, the right link should be on the left and the left link should be on the right, the towball levers would have to be flipped so that the towball pin would be facing inwards towards the chassis. I'll post an updated LDD file tomorrow, but if you pause at the 1:39 mark on my Cactus Crawler youtube video (https://youtu.be/IyxIwBCkZ2s?t=99), you can see the correct construction, orientation, and placement of the rear linkages. This should resolve any weaknesses in the rear axle. Let me know. Thank you all! Yes, ultimately I had to decide between more ground clearance with a BuWizz and an SBrick or worse ground clearance with just a BuWizz. Because, at the time, the BuWizz app was extremely limited compared to the SBrick app, I chose to use the chassis that included the SBrick - the one that only allowed two of the four BuWizz ports to be used. I'll see if I can find pictures of the other chassis designs that allowed all four BuWizz ports to be used.
-
Hi fongalv, You are 100% correct about using the 15100 Technic Pin Connector Hub piece instead of the green piece. I inserted that green piece (and colored it the standout green color) because Lego Digital Designer - or at least my version of it - did not have the 15100 piece which is, in fact, the correct piece to use there. Nice job, I probably should have made public note of that somewhere . Anyway, I am delighted that you chose my Cactus Crawler to build. Please let me know if you have any other issues and I'd love to see the end result! Also, here is my snupps page, everyone, where you can find the instructions (LDD file) for my Cactus Crawler: snupps.com/punktaconyc
-
I like the better bracing. I do hope there will be some sort of extension hub for the wires. The real question is if we will get a PoweredUp SBrick or BuWizz... Also, is it the PoweredUp ecosystem that allows low-level programming - like the SBrick Plus? Or was it Wedo, or Boost? why's there so many?
-
Thank you Ctan. I just bought a Dremel today!
-
BuWizz or SBrick?
PunkTacoNYC replied to Tarix819's topic in LEGO Technic, Mindstorms, Model Team and Scale Modeling
This is exactly what I did for my LEGO Cactus Crawler. I haven’t had any issues with it on iOS 11. I connect to the BuWizz with the app, switch the power mode to fast, then switch to the SBrick app for its superior control customization. -
I just wanted to let everyone here know that I, too, have had issues with my iPhone 7 iOS 11 not connecting correctly to the BuWizz. I tried everything including deleting and redownloading the app, reassigning motor controls, restarting the BuWizz, turning Bluetooth on me phone on and off. What fixed it? Restarting my phone. So just keep in mind that the issue may not be what you think it is.
-
Great job with the U-joints, they fit perfectly. So perfectly, in fact, that I need some for my own crawler project. You see, I am currently building a relatively large lego rock crawler with huge wheels (these 2.2" bully comp tires with Lego porsche rims). Unfortunately, I am not using portal hubs for this crawler as the wheels are large enough, so I cannot gear down to reduce stress on the U joint. Thus, I have been looking for a metal alternative to lego U-joints and you seem to have made it. Could I buy some of those modified lego-compatible U-joints from you? If not, could you please give me more information regarding the U-joints you bought as well as the drill you used so that I could create them myself? Sorry for the slightly off-topic reply. What can I say, your post was inspiring. (I didn't want to hijack this thread at all, but eurobrick's apparent lack of a messaging feature somewhat forced me to)
-
That's pretty great looking, I love the non-traditional mounting of the drive motors. This is also the first time I have seen someone use those tires for Lego, and they seem to work well. Those perpendicular gears in the rear axle, though, worry me. Have you had any issues with gear slippage there?
-
Nope, I'm not doing body work as it would, in one way or another, detract from its performance.
-
Yup, definitely for this crawler. I've even tried working it into the steering for larger crawler projects but its size makes it very difficult.
-
Thanks! It was in Brooklyn, near the bridge. There are a lot of great areas to film there, especially recently since they have now renovated, adding lots of great rocks for crawling as shown in the video. This is actually where I filmed most of my shots for my Unimog Trial Truck. I, too, like my steering solution. It provides a great turning radius, rigidity, and a decent speed. The only downfall, however, is that the plastic linear actuators cannot handle too much torque and, thus, slip quite often. There is absolutely nothing I can do about this, however, with the only solution being lego designing a more heavy-duty LA of the same size. Thank you, that is what I am aiming for!
-
Hey Everyone! Here is the successor to my Lego Technic Chili Crawler, the Cactus Crawler It took about half of a year of design and revision to reach its current state, of which I am proud of. THE VIDEO: youtube Features: - 3 L-Motors for drive (two in the rear axle, one in the front) - M-Motor and a small linear actuator for front steering - Rigid, triangulated 4-link suspension for the front axle, with large, soft, black shock absorbers - Extremely rigid 2-link rear suspension with ball-joint pivot point on top of the axle, similar to that found in the RC "Mantis" crawler - 100% Lego-legal custom curved rear links that, with how the main cab is shaped, provide exceptional ground clearance towards the rear of the crawler, allowing it to climb up relatively large vertical structures such as street curbs - Very minimal, light bodywork - BuWizz for extra power and SBrick for a great, custom control scheme Note: By the time I finished designing the cab and it's battery enclosure, BuWuzz had not yet come out with the update for their iOS app that allows a single joystick/slider to control multiple outputs, so I was forced to use an SBrick with the BuWizz, providing the extra power from the BuWizz, but with the ease-of-use and great custom control profiles of the SBrick. When used with the SBrick, the BuWizz does in fact still provide more power than the standard Lego 8878 LiPo battery box. - RC4WD 1.9" Krypton scale tires - Two green pieces so that I can call it the Cactus Crawler ;) LXF hopefully coming soon, the tires can easily be found with a quick google search of their name. YES, I know, there is no body. This is meant for performance, meaning I made the cab as small, light, and rigid as possible. I will be able to reply intermittently throughout the day. I figured I'd put this up now anyway! pt
-
Sounds great, I'd like to see the photos and video. I was considering using a Servo motor as it would have required less gearing and therefore theoretically should have been more efficient (less backlash/friction) than the current solution. As you mentioned, though, because the Lego servos are weak relative to those used in actual RC crawlers, we must decide between having high torque and small steering angle or vice versa. Another issue I have found with the servos is that they require constant power to hold their position; at least when they are not in their default position. This means that the servo is taking power away from the drive motors, whereas my solution requires no power to stay in any position, allowing full power to the motors. Until Lego releases a more powerful servo/battery solution, I likely won't use any servos in my larger creations. That being said, I have not yet tried using a servo setup with the BuWizz. The extra voltage and temperature limit will make it less of a strain on the vehicle's other functions. The M motors are an interesting idea. pt
-
Wow, I just read your article and watched the video. Firstly, I think the crawler looks really cool in blue, it's like my Chilli Crawler's inverse, a Chilly Crawler. Thanks for letting me know that you made it, it makes me glad to entertain people by doing what I love. And your BTBox... Well that is simply on another level! That is incredible that you just decided to, instead of buying an SBrick or BuWizz, make your own! That's beyond impressive. I'd be interested in seeing if you plan to do anything else with BTBox; perhaps a BTBox 2.0 sometime soon . Thanks again. pt P.s. Oh, and by the way PlastiBots and everyone else, I will release a video for my new, better crawler hopefully by mid-September, maybe sooner.
-
Well, granted, this entire competition is online, which inherently limits our ability to judge correctly. It would require MUCH more planning, organization, work and therefore time to do this competition if we were being exact to the point where we thought that everything was "fair" and "standardized." Keep in mind that these are Lego cars that are not even using buggy motors or BuWizzes or anything, so it is nearly impossible to make a Lego car that has enough speed or simply overall performance that it would need to be controlled as if it were a real RC. And, even if we decided to be this exact and use some sort of complex track design that everyone had to assemble, how do we fairly judge? Yes, watch the video. But who is to say someone will not simply do multiple takes of the car doing each part of the track and stitching together only the best takes. That certainly won't be fair and there will be almost no way of controlling for it. Thus, I think we need to relax on the track restrictions as we can only be so thorough in an internet-based competition. LXF, I am not targeting you in any way. I am simply using your points as a springboard for mine.
-
Yes, great. Hopefully ZBLJ will be on board.
-
Hey, I like this So I'll probably jump into this competition as well. It all looks great and I like the vehicle requirements. Something that I am not sure about, however, is the track requirements. They are way too specific and seem as if we have to do way too much work for the track itself. We should focus on the vehicles. Speaking for those who live in densely populated city areas, making and utilizing a track of this size and complexity is no easy feat. I am going to go ahead and assume at least a few people here saw the online truck trial competition video that me, White Shapes, Samorak and a few others had a while back: here The requirements for the vehicles themselves were about equally as specific as the ones we have for this comp, but there was essentially no limit to the track. This made it much easier to plan and film and also provided leeway for us to be somewhat experimental and showcase specific traits of our vehicles. I feel that that competition was planned and executed very well (credit to Samorak’s Technic Vehicles) and turned out to be a lot of fun. If we put too many rules on this comp, including forcing people to buy materials and assemble an entire track layout, this comp will be less about creativity and innovation and more about work and skirting the rules. All I am saying is that the track requirements are too specific. We can certainly ask in the requirements of the comp for like a clip of it doing a 90 degree left turn and another of it going full throttle on a 3 ft straightaway; in fact, I think this is a great idea. But having us literally make a large track is unnecessarily laborious as well as quite impossible in some of the places that people here live. Sorry for shaking things up.
-
OMG! It drifts so well! And it doesn't even turn on the voltage protection.
-
Despite - or rather because of – its simplicity, I may actually have to build this. And yes, a BuWizz on this would be nuts!
