Didumos69

I didn't intend to make something that replaces the piston-pyramid TLG will be incorporating, but maybe with some tweaks it could fit in . Then again, if the Bugatti will have a serious gearbox, I fear my engine has too much friction, but that could be a problem with the TLG version too.

I suppose @letsbuild needs to be decisive on this. For me a free-style body would be okay too. If @letsbuild confirms the front axles need to be reworked, then I suggest @KikoTube will look into that. And if anyone is going to rework things, please use the LXF-file in the OP as a starting point.

It sure is! The fine-tuning is something you have to do with real pieces. Trying to really see why something is not working properly is the most fun. And then change it based on assumptions about the cause. Disappointment. And finally glory. Reminds me of modding the Porsche two years ago.

I've put this mod on Rebrickable. There you should be able to see the parts list with the right colors. https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-7163/Didumos/ultimately-playable-porsche-911-gt3-rs/#info

If you're not familiar with this type of fake engines than the confusion is understandable. https://www.google.nl/search?q=lego+technic+mini+engine

Well, it's bit of a fake fake engine, because what your looking at are not the cams, but the pistons. It is quite usual in mini-fake-engines to use a camshaft as fake crankshaft. Sorry .

In the 42083 Bugatti hipe here is my throw at a fake W16 engine. I wanted it to be small and easy to install. I spent some time on it over the weekend and after some trial and error I got it working. It has more friction than a mini-V8, but I'm afraid that is inevitable. It all comes very precise. For the fake crankshaft I had to use mirrored cam-pairs, otherwise the sharp side of a cam piece would hit the piston under too much angle, which sometimes caused hick-ups. To make it run smoothly the pistons need a space of exactly the height of a flat plate, no more, no less. Also the end-stops of the 3L piston-axles are essential and the round sides of the bushes attached to the pistons need to face down. If it wasn't because of the mirrored cam-pairs, a half-cylinder offset in the piston-rows would have been possible . LXF-file here. EDIT: I reworked the mini engine into a 1:8 scale version. Slightly different configuration. If you build this: Be sure to level the bottom-ends of the 3L piston-axles with the bottom-ends of the bushes by pressing them against the flat side of a beam. Sink the piston-axle-end-stops all the way into the 12t gears. Make sure the round side of the bushes face down. Instructions can be found on Rebrickable.

Good idea. @letsbuild, if you add this link, I will make sure the file.behind the link is regularly updated.

You need to use the frictionless connectors. The 90-degree limiter should enforce the right position of the driving rings. Did you include the 90-degree limiter?

It seems to work. The supports are actually the same as in many of Crowkillers normal-sized V-engines. I'll leave it up to you now.

Lovely little creatures! At this scale the number of options is so small and still you managed to make two very realistic models. Excellent work!

This could work. It misses your details, just focus on the supporting assemblies. It needs to be locked in lengthwise by the framework carrying the engine, but that shouldn't be a problem.

Did you check both mold types, 41896 with 3 pin holes and 56908 with 6 pin holes?

There are some ways to bring it lower. I worked out one way here. Btw, it appears to me that @Carsten Svendsen used bigger wheels, so the ground clearance in his image is not representative. Aha, I didn't see that. Is it leaning on the pins you are referring to or is it really attached to those pins? My concern is that when the crank-shaft also serves to secure the cylinder-blocks, we will introduce unnecessary friction.

Well, what can I say. I think I get your point, but I don't agree. My name was mentioned for the framework, because it was said I was good at adding stiffness / rigidity, which is more of an aspect than a component. To me building a framework means integrating the work of others into a modular yet consistent model and I can't do that if I'm not allowed to suggest any changes. And believe me, if I would change it to my liking it would be completely different. What I can do is trying to be even more conservative in changing things than I already am. And I will always explain the changes and ask for feedback. I explained the changes I made to the front and rear axles and asked for feedback on the first integration. To my understanding @KikoTube and @Aventador2004 were okay with the integration and thus the changes. If not, I would like to hear so. In my opinion building a model together is not just an addition of independent components. We don't have any interfaces defined, so you can't expect any components to fit in as is. Eventually we are all working on the same model albeit a modular model. This is also why I would like designers to add their stuff into the 'integrating'-LXF I shared. And they too should feel free to change or even remove things to their needs and ask for others to comment. Also @KikoTube or @Aventador2004 should still feel free to make changes to the axles this way. I can integrate the changes from different designers and for people that don't design digitally, I can do the digital part for them. We really need to have a shared understanding of our way of working, because if we are all going to build//design different versions of the whole model than this is going nowhere. So my question to everybody is, can we agree we are working on one model together with everybody working on different components or aspects that together form an integrated whole or are we simply working on a set of separate components that eventually need to fit together? Would like to hear what others have to say.

I suppose this no problem. Do you have any idea when you will have access to LEGO again? Good luck! I guess it has gotten slightly more complex and will take some time to find the right building order. One thing I am particularly concerned about is the upper supension arms rubbing against the upper pinhole edges of the springs while compressing the front axles.

Thanks @kozso198700! I actually tried this, but with the turn-table wheel hub. Eventually I preferred the setup with 3L thin levers, because of their axle holes. They make a more stable hub alltogether. Btw, the main reason to have these complicated wheel hubs is that they incorporate the turn-tables and allow for the use of U-joint which can make a much sharper angle than CV-joints. I see you are using the normal wheel-hubs instead. Those normal wheel-hubs will bring the rim and tire half a stud closer to the hub, which will probably cause the tire to collide with the custom hub. The whole wheel-hub design comes very precise. It's optimized for max stability, max performance, minimal slack, max durability and max steering angle. Note that I also used rubber bands to reinforce the U-joints, belt-wheel-tires to reduce slack and squeezed rubber connectors to fixate the wheels to the hub. EDIT: Btw, your picture nicely shows the difference between the old 5.5L axle (which is slightly shorter) and the newer 5.5L axle (which has slightly rounder ends). The wheel hubs actually require the older (shorter) version.

You are right. I think the original axle designers @KikoTube and @Aventador2004 had soft spings in mind. It was me who painted them red (I own 8 red soft shocks) and later yellow to show the difference. About the exact color, bricklink shows the majority of (more recent) soft springs is LBG rather than dark-gray. I painted them LBG again in the LXF-file. @IA creations, I started on the LXF for your engine. I know you don't have time right now, but when you continue working on it, I have one suggestion: It would be nice if the crank-shaft does not carry the weight of the engine-block. To minimize friction, I think it would be better to support the engine block independent of the crank-shaft. EDIT: lik in this example: Or this one from Crowkillers:

@Jeroen Ottens, I did what you suggested for the rear axles. I also found a way to align the front axles with the new height of the rear axle: By using the 5L suspension arm I could move the springs one stud outward. The construction uses a pin with axle hole which is inserted somewhat illegal, but for me it would be okay (just don't tell @Erik Leppen ). Actually, the front now sits slightly deeper than the rear, which gives a very slight rake angle. I also tried inclining the front spring more, but then the ground clearance in the front would be less than a stud. @Aventador2004, I think it was a good thing to start with the same spring position in the back. I think a little more tension in the back won't hurt, but eventually the total weight will help us with final decisions about the exact shock positioning. For now I think I will adopt the new spring setup, because I think it's better. Anyone having objections? EDIT: I updated the LXF-file. Compare (red = old, yellow = new):

In fact the rear suspension has the same geometry as the front suspension, only the shocks sit 1 stud higher than in the front and in the front travel is limited because of the axle above the suspenson arms. But we could do this in the back: It would lower the back a little, but the sspension will be more rigid, so eventually it might turn out fine. It will be a lot harder to do something similar in the front though.

Of course! To make that more clear I removed the floating gears from the LXF-file.

Fascinating indeed! The driving and steering functions are in perfect balance, like is the vehicle itself .

Yea, and the adjustable headlights. Btw, I don't intend to hook this project up to a single real-life car. The features defined by @letsbuild are fine by me. I just find this kind of resemblance inspiring and it adds to the feeling that we're actually getting somewhere.

Smells like Ford RS200, just dreaming away ...

What a great model this is! I'm happy to have contributed a little.