suffocation

Does anyone happen to know the weights of the carrier and of the superstructure respectively?

I'm afraid the new planetary hubs would be really awkward (and costly, at least for now) to implement on this model. Not a bad idea, though, and definitely feasible on something a bit more "enveloping" like a tank.

That's the superstructure rotation youv'e got there - I was talking about the sprocket drive. And now I see you and Ngoc had been talking about the superstructure rotation the whole time. So I'm officially senile and stupid Sorry, Efferman

In the original 42100? I think not - the set's only 2 8-tooth gears are in the superstructure rotation drivetrain.

I think it's pretty clear that wasn't my aim An added bonus to my design is that the track module is stiffer thanks to the extra space freed up by the lower number of gears, which enabled me to make the module more structurally sound.

I know, I was pointing out HOW the reduction was achieved. Fewer steps = less friction = more efficiency. I find the original design inefficient, too, but then again I guess it was the only way they could: 1) avoid using the 8-tooth gear (which in my experience isn't remotely as fragile as it's made out to be but is arguably the weakest of all regular gears) 2) fit in the linear clutch because, uh, I have no idea.

But we Brits live by the Python I wonder how many users found actuators with metal rot. These things go for 10 euros a piece on B&P - still not enough to pay for decent QA?

I thought we were practicing mutual unintelligibility. Anyway, back on topic, specifically point number 3: I've noticed TLG doesn't like making users click more than 2 pins together when joining modules, unless strictly necessary. I guess a lot of users can't handle the friction (which is what she said).

People called Romanes they go the house.

That actuator looks really bad.

- More speed without losing torque - More efficient transmission (8-24-40 instead of 12-20-12-20-12-20-12-36-28-36) - Tried and tested on this beast:

One motor per sprocket, like on my telescopic crawler crane. The total weight including the BuWizz unit is 1.1 kg; it'd be nice to know how much the original 42100 carrier weighs.

Nope, there's plenty of room for the 40-tooth gear - the new sprocket gears are about 2 studs wider This is what I've come up with. I focused on the mechanics and making sure the carrier was as rigid as possible, ignoring the model's aesthetics. Drive with 4 XL motors geared down 5:1; superstructure rotation with 1 M motor geared down 30:1. Powered by BuWizz.

Trying to rework at least the carrier for PF; aiming for 1 XL per sprocket geared down 5:1

This, unfortunately, is very likely The last thing I want to do when I'm building is to look at a bloody screen.

I'm kind of perplexed by the weight of this thing - 4.4 kg seems like a lot. My telescopic crawler crane is more cumbersome, has 9 motors and yet weighs in at only 4 kg, give or take a few grams.

I guess you live in a happy bubble, away from the intricacies of modern legal systems and the explosive mix of idiocy and perversion running rampant in most if not all modern societies. Lucky you. First, TLG don't know if these 3D parts are sold with an appropriate, ironclad disclaimer against improper use (that same disclaimer TLG uses and which demolishes the last part of your "argument"). Second, and this should have been obvious, the "kid choking" is an example among many and far more likely than it is in your happy bubble: a 3D part might break and cause damage or injury or, very simply, "distress" to someone (doesn't work as intended or hoped; needs sanding down but user doesn't know how; and so on and so forth) - more than enough for a quibble-happy lawyer to have a field day and a draconian judge to blow a massive hole in TLG's balance sheet, not to mention the damage to the brand's image. Third, a decent corporate legal team is always going to protect the company from even the most unlikely scenario, so anything they sell is going to have a disclaimer that can be upheld in court against pretty much anything and everything, an anything connected to the company's brand(s) without authorisation is going to be cracked down on. Fourth, read Appie's comments. Over and out.

I sometimes wonder what happened to common sense. It's not just a matter of folks using the Lego name to make money. What if some kid chokes on a "Lego-compatible" part? You do realise, don't you, how much (unfair) vitriol TLG would get, right? Hence why they don't want unauthorised people and/or companies marketing anything "Lego-compatible". A competent legal department will always work to prevent worst-case scenarios - no surprise, e.g., that in countries such as the US you might buy a packet of salted peanuts and see the disclaimer "Warning: contains nuts". Stupid legal department? No, smart legal department pre-empting a stupid society.

I get that they're new and all that but compared to the price of large actuators this is extorsion.

A rare comparison between a crawler crane and a Maine Coon.

The new actuators cost €10 a piece

Great video, @kbalage I especially enjoyed the partial builds - you really made the experience feel more exciting, particularly with all the interlocking modules. That part towards the beginning where system bricks are used inside a 3x11 panel - how effective do you think it is in adding to the section's rigidity?

And rightly so. Legally speaking, "Lego compatible" can be interpreted to mean so much more than just "mechanically fits with Lego bricks".

Keine Ahnung, but I'd wager that their disclaimer is worded in a way that gives them the right to take down pretty much anything and everything, not out of douchebaggery but because when it comes to protecting IP a company is always going to err on the side of excess, especially with all the copycats and similar scum that have emerged in recent years.

TLG states that it doesn't want the name "Lego" and other bits and bobs used without permission. You use them without permission, you've had your fair warning, you get taken down, end of story.