Didumos69

What he said. They are placed one stud more apart. Actually the wave selector has a 2.12L distance from the driving rings (center-to-center), where it ideally should have a 2L distance. It would be great if you could test if this works, because I don't have the wave selectors yet. I want them desperately, but I'm going to wait until I can order them via bricklink.

+1. I have been playing with the new wave selector a bit more (in LDD) and tried to figure out a 4-speed gearbox that meets some of my criteria: To minimize friction, I don't want clutch gears to be involved in tranferring drive. When one clutch gear is engaged, all the others should be plain idler gears. To allow for easy integration with a fake engine and with front or rear axles, I want to have a symmetrical setup with he input axle, output axle and the control axle nicely centered. One of the things about the new wave selector I'm not so happy with, is that it is hard to make a symmetriacal setup. They are easy to use in a setup with one driving ring to the side of the wave selector and one underneath or above the wave selector. If you put the wave selector right inbetween two driving rings, you can't make a 4-speed sequential gearbox, because either both driving rings will be engaged or none. By making use of some half stud offsets, I think I found something that should work. Ratios are 0.83, 1.67, 2 and 4. LXF-file here.

Impressive rear face! I like it a lot!

Sorry, no, I have no reason to think the instructions are wrong, but it is easy to make a mistake. I probably should have made more clear what I meant with 4-speed gearbox and low-high gearbox. The complete gearbox is in fact composed from a 4-speed gearbox and a low-high gearbox. Drive flows as follows: engine -> DNR -> low-high gearbox -> 4-speed-gearbox -> front and rear axles. The 4-speed gearbox is basically the left half of the complete gearbox (in the foreground of the render). This 4-speed gearbox iterates through 4 speeds. The low-high gearbox is the right half of the complete gearbox (in the background of the render). This low-high gearbox toggles between 2 speeds; low and high. In fact it iterates through 4 positions, but its 1st and 3rd position give the same ratio and its 2nd and 4th position also give the same ratio. The 2L-lever with towball shifts the low-high gearbox once every 4 up-shifts or 4 down-shifts. So, the low-high gearbox would only iterate through all its 4 positions after 16 up-shifts, or 16 down-shifts, which effectively means the entire gearbox runs through all its 8 speeds twice. So @Sariel's conclusion it is in fact a 16-speed gearbox wasn't really wrong, only the second sequence of 8 speeds is a repetition of the first sequence of 8 speeds. Now what I meant to say is that: When the 2L-lever with towball is pointing to the upper-right side (as in the render), then the only correct position of the 4-speed gearbox is 4th gear, which corresponds to the engaged clutch gear in the foreground of the render. That's all. The position of the low-high gearbox is irrelevant here (it only becomes relevant when a 8<->1 gearblock is added). PS With the explanation about the low-high gearbox, it is also more easy to understand the idea behind my (and @Appie's) suggested gearblock mod: When we would have an 8<->1 gearblock, the low-high gearbox only needs 2 of its 4 positions, because you should no longer be able to iterate through all its positions. As a consequence the low-high gearbox could do without 2 of it's clutch gears: either the two at the back side of the driving rings or the two at the front side, plus the 16t gear they mesh with, could be removed. This in turn, creates space for the gearblock itself. All-in-all you could say, the gear block creates its own space. In the render below I removed the gears at the back side of the driving rings of the low-high gearbox. Note that the position of the perpendicular axle-pin-connector in the render indicates the wave selector should engage the upper driving ring (starting from the depicted position it can only rotate in one direction and if it does that should engage the lower driving ring). So now the position of the perpendicular axle-pin-connector and the position of the wave selector are related.

No, also with my mod, the paddles won't be able to move further. The perpendicular connector attached to the low-high gear selector confines that selector to 2 positions only, just like your approach. My main point is that when you have an 8<->1 gearblock, it would be a pitty not to remove the gears in the gearbox that have become unnecessary. And removing those gears creates space for the gearblock. Also, your solution relies on slack in the 8t gears. The blocking axle with the 2L red levers can only rotate 45, maybe 60 degrees, where the gear selector should be allowed to move 90 degrees.

That could have been done much more elegant by skipping the gears at the back of the low-high gearbox. Those gears become obsolete when you have a 8<->1 gearblock.

Just to illustrate the basic reverse system. Here you see the whole drivetrain. The DNR is at the front and the red clutch gear at the very front is supposed to route the engine to the main drive shaft running from front diff to rear diff, right underneath the DNR driving ring.

I had to get back to this. I gave it a little more study and it turns out the modified 4-speed gearbox and the original low-high gearbox required different rotation directions for the wave selectors. So I changed the setup. Now they work in the same direction, but opposite to the original gearbox. To change that, the gerabox would have to be completely mirrored, but I don't regard this as a real replacement, more a thought experiment. As a side effect the gear ratios between the gearbox and the engine could be normalized, but that messes up the reverse ratio. LXF-file here.

Didn't you make a similar error as the zusammengebaut review?

Wow, that's what I meant. Even less parts?

I built my front suspension MOD. I made one error in the LXF-file. I used friction pins where the extra wishbones are connected to the vertical 5L thin levers, where it should have been frictionless pins. I fixed that in the LXF-file. I checked it's strength and I think it's good. With a weight of over 1500gr it only just starts to compress, the wishbones are flat at a weight of over 2000gr and the suspension is fully compressed at about 2800gr. Does anybody know what the weight of the Bugatti is and how it's divided over the front and rear axles? The only thing I'm not completely happy with is the rigidity of the bent liftarms sticking the top. Will see if I can improve that.

Nice attempt, but the cylinders are too far from the crankshaft imo. Also connecting everything to two.small engine blocks feels a bit off. I'm not sold. If this is an attempt to improve the Bugatti, I think it belongs in the mods and Improvements thread.

Also the Porsche rims and tires.

I updated my front suspension MOD, so it no longer collides with the steering gears: A little more background on this MOD. The suspension arm length can be extended to 6L and 7L using 5L and 6L thin beams. By extending the suspension arms inwards and leaving the shock absorber where it is, the strength of the suspension increases. The amount by which it increases can be roughly expressed in terms of the relative position of the point where the shock absorber is mounted to the bottom suspension arm. In the original suspension, the shock absorber is mounted halfway the suspension arm: 2/4 = 0.5 (note that distances are measured between the centers of the pin holes). When using 6L suspension arms, this increases to 3/5 = 0.6 (increase of 20%). For 7L suspension arms it would increase to 4/6 ≃ 0.67 (increase of 33%). The 2L and 3L levers are only to reinforce the suspension arms sideways. The 7L version is much harder to incorporate in the model (mainly because of the steering gears), so for now I only worked out how to integrate the 6L version. LXF-file here.

Yes, very nice. I like how it takes full advantage of both gear ends of the diff. I don't like the idea of using 3 layers of gears for a gearbox, but it can be rotated by 90 degrees.

What @Meatman posted.

By @Paul Boratko: https://www.facebook.com/groups/LEGO.Technic/permalink/2129729877099034/

I posted about a MOD with 6L suspensions arms - so gaining 20% strength - in the MODs and Improvements thread. Perhaps someone could try?

But someone has to compile such upgrades and it won't be me this time. I will just be sharing my MODs and eventually list pointers to the most relevant MODs - also the torsion-bar-mod - in the OP. In this case I think there are also people looking for a non-torsion-bar fix for the front suspension, without completely redoing the front. Btw, there are not so many options for suspended driven front axles hard enough for a heavy model. Pushrod suspension would not be consistent with the rear axles imo.

Here is my attempt at a modified front suspension with 6L suspension arms instead of 5L. This should add 20% strength to the suspension and it should be less sloppy as well. It uses CV-joints as a replacement for the original U-joints. No friction pins for moving parts. If it's not strong enough, the suspension arms could be extended to 7L in the same way, but that would require a lot more tweaking to the front part of the chassis. I think it should fit as is, but I'm not 100% sure, because I don't have the physical build. I did check al kinds of images though and I'm sure it doesn't collide with the paddle shifter unit. Travel is not much, about 2/3 of a stud, but if it's strong enough I think it's good. Perhaps someone could test this? LXF-file here.

Some context is missing, but that is exactly what me and @Erik Leppen are trying to say.

You have my vote. There also seems to have been a kind of review race. Not good for the quality of reviews in general. Quite some errors have been made. I haven't seen a thorough review yet, with for instance some info about how the gearbox works, that it has been built up from a 4-speed and a low-high gearbox, etc. I hope he takes his time

A single topic with speed builds and review videos would maybe be a good idea?

Maybe a fifth where we can discuss the other four? More seriously, I understand your remark, but it's quite common. With the Porsche we also had the general 42056 topic, before that the 42056 speculation topic, the 42056 price and availability topic, the 42056 MODs and Improvements topic and the video reviews topic. And of course @Jim's 42056 review topic.

Right. However, moving the spring towards the wheel is still highly hypothetical. You can't drop the thin levers tying together the wishbones and you can't move the springs away from the drive axis either. There is only one option, which is using 6L suspension arms. The max clearance will slightly decrease, but I reckon you gain more clearance from the stiffer setup.