Limga

I do think that there will new hubs. Something like this, but narrower and, of course, it will be two monolith parts.

BuWizz 2.0 would be accepted appropriately if it have been announced in a appropriate way. I have backed BuWizz on the Kickstarter, got it several month after it was promised and had no clue that after a while there will be second version so soon. I would like to have a ludicrous mode, I backed the product from the start to have it and now I feel abandoned and cheated in some way. And still no custom profiles, still no gamepad support and those have been kind of promised. Even BuWizz 1.0 has characteristics that are different from the official Tech Specs on the website (battery capacity, e.g.). Also, there is still no information on the mysterious white connector. I really understand all those difficulties when it comes to development of the final product, but still, I think this is an example of bad attitude, especially to the ones who backed the project on Kickstarter.

I have a brand new set sealed in box, but right now I am in another city. Hopefully, I will make a review and scan instructions if there is any:)

That is amazing. I am still have to work out how this cellular automaton machine works, but I understand that cellular automatons are not the easiest things to build from LEGO pieces. Nice work!

One ring to rule them all:) Great work of reverse engineering BuWizz protocols! Will there be downloadable version of .apk?

Wow! Can't wait to test it!

Wow, nice work! Have you written to BuWizz team? I hope they will share protocols with you.

Why there should be an equilibrium of torque? By what law of physics? Imagine the following situation: we use only one motor to power the inputs. One input is connected directly to the motor and another with gear reduction 1:2 from the same motor. In that case the torque on one input will always be two times higher independently of the load on output. The speed of the system will remain constant anyway, even in that case. I agree, that the power that is produced by the motors is only dictated by the load, but it couldn't be any higher than the maximum power of an input. As usual DC-motor has linear RPM/Torque curve, they deliver maximum of power at half of their maximum rotational speed. They just cannot provide more power than this at certain voltage level, no matter how much current the source can provide. So if motors, for example, can provide maximum 8W each the system just can't have 18W on the output. No matter how high the load is.

Theory couldn't be use in case practice do not confirms it:) Imagine that there is no friction and power loss. Even in that case law of conservation of energy should still be working as it is fundamental law of nature. So, I state that initial calculations of TheMindGarage are not correct. Calculations of JonathanM are not correct, too. What kind of speed do you assume? Proof is simple: try to calculate the same thing but assume that motor A rotates at 2Hz and has 4Nm torque (power is 8W) and motor B rotates at 8Hz and has 2Nm torque (power is 16W). Total power of the two input motors in that case is 24W. According to your calculation we need to average 1/2 and 1/8 and we get 5/16, or 16/5. At 6Nm that'd be 16/5 * 6 = 19.2W. Where does the rest of power go? Law of conservation of energy is still working and in case of ideal mechanism without friction and power loss there is nowhere for power to go. Yes, of course, in real mechanism there are always power loss because of friction, but they can be calculated theoretically, too. Here is the explanation: frequency is the speed. In that statement TheMindGarage is right. Linear speed of the outer point of the gear can be calculated by following equation: V=ω*R, where V is linear speed, ω is angular velocity and R is the distance between the center point of the gear and the outer point (the radius). Angular velocity can be calculated by simple equation: ω=2*π*ν, where π is Pi, mathematical constant, and ν is frequency or number of rotations that occur during 1 second. So there is no point on averaging inverse values. This statement is wrong, too. Why should be there any type of equilibrium in the system? By what rule? When there is 6Nm * 3Hz = 18W power at the output the law of conservation of energy is broken. There is no point to believe that the law of conservation of energy is wrong or not working:) That statement is correct in some way. But we can assume that motor, for example, rotates at 2Hz and has maximum of 4Nm torque on that rotational speed. I think, it is quite obviously that the output will be rotating with 3Hz. If anyone doubts it, let me know, I will provide some drawings and more explanation. So the question is what is the maximum torque, that we can use on the output on that rotational speed? This is another proof that Lipko's statement is wrong. I totally agree with this explanation. It is the implication of the law of conservation of energy. I have the LEGO Speed computer. Some day I will try to provide an experiment that will prove my and sheo's statement:)

I agree. Could be some additional discount for Kickstarter backers at least.

One more video from the event:

I admire the effort you put in the truck. It is beautiful, both in aesthetic and mechanisms. I guess the solution to differential problem is to use planetary gears. It will be 100% Lego and will reduce the load on differentials by 4 times. I think it will be enough to make this beaty ride properly:)

15-stud with or without wheels? I guess you need to choose between portal hubs and diff lock. Diff lock is possible using old diff but the axle will be huge.

Thank you for the review, Sariel! As always a pleasure to watch! I really like idea of 6x6 truck with outriggers and other bells and whistles but the final product is disappointing. Clutch gear in driveline is disrespectful. I don't like how they've done steering system using the 3L pin with center pin-hole to connect portal hubs to axle. It resulted in noticeable camber angle and the front axle even doesn't have suspension to somehow excuse that! Still, in my opinion, that would be a great set if not a price. I think it will be such a pleasure to rebuild the driveline, add a second XL-motor and proper suspension and see how it becomes a normal trial truck.

It does have at least 2 hard yellow shocks and 4 soft grey ones. It can be seen on 1:20-1:23.

This problem occurs quite often and the limiting angle is not the main reason. The reason is the bad engineering inside the servo. Unfortunately, my English isn't good enough to explain it correctly, but I'll try. Servo obtains it's position by turning on 15 conducting segments that are not connected between each other. When some segments become connected by any reason (bad quality) servo-motor can't know that it is in the 90 degree position, for example. So if you want to repair your servo you need is to disassembly it (very unpleasant experience) and make sure that segments are not connected with each other by scratching their borders with a needle's end. I did it with my friend's servo that had such problem and it worked fine.

Nothing really bad will happen with servo-motor and no thermal protection will kick in, because it is servo:) When servo-motor is being stopped at non-90 degree angle only "bad" thing that is happening is that it power consumption raises up to 1A for only about 0.25s and then it stops consuming power. So I think you can use servo-motor in a such way. Source: http://www.philohome.com/pfservo/pfservo.htm But still I would prefer using some ways to save 90-degree motion. I will show you my favorite way of how to reduce servo-motor's motion without gears and with minimum slack when I get to my parts:)

I tried some, but didn't made any pictures. It is possible to have a return to center steering. Still, no proportional control. I will try to rebuild it soon.

Here you are:) Turn on English subtitles.

I tried it with gamepad and it works wonderful! Thank you very much!

Thank you for your reply! I have downloaded app into my iPhone just to see how it looks. Tomorrow I will get my MFI gamepad and try it out. I would advice to add an option to choose SBrick. Now it connects automatically and this could be a problem on a race, for example, when there are a few models with SBricks. If you need something to test, just let me know, I will do:) I do have 2 SBricks and BuWizz and can test how app work with them. As far as I know BuWizz haven't shared their protocol specs yet.

That is wonderful, thank you for sharing! What kind of gamepad (with analog sticks) do you use? I want to buy one and try the app:) How reliable the connection is? Were there any disconnects with SBrick or gamepad? Does the app support two and more SBricks?

I have the same problem. It is pretty annoying as the high quality is what I am awaiting from purchasing expensive LEGO cables:(

The direction on both channels can be inverted in "Setup" section of BuWizz app:)

Oh my god, I am so excited to see details! Please, release it to public:) Any chance of proportional control with other iCade-compatible gamepads with sticks?