Anto

Three years after my previous model, the Hoonipigasus, here is finally a new MOC that I can present! But what’s that super long title? In other words, it’s a truck made by Matt! A truck designed to rescue vehicles stuck or damaged in off-road environments. Introduction This is a commissioned MOC by Benjamin Lorteau. He wanted this truck to be 100% manual, using the wheels from the Audi RS Q e-tron #42160, and featuring several steering modes thanks to two knobs, one controlling the front axle and the other the rear axle. I was free to do pretty much whatever I wanted as long as the initial constraints were generally respected. Here's a little paragraph from Benjamin: When the idea was proposed to me, I immediately saw strong potential. I thought it was possible to build something very interesting, the opposite of what is increasingly found in the Technic range, with lots of mechanically boring cars. The project would be based on an innovative mechanism allowing multiple steering modes, working in a similar way to the Claas Xerion #42054, while still being compatible with suspended axles. The model also had to stand out with a very good building experience. I will come back to this specific point later. Design I tried to reproduce the lines of the real truck as faithfully as possible. The visual appearance is split into two parts: the cab at the front and the exposed chassis at the rear. At the front, the cab stands out thanks to its yellow color, while the rest is entirely black. The cab was not easy to build, since the real model features many surfaces lying in different planes (doors and rear cab pillars, top of the hood and sides for example), as well as curves that are very difficult to reproduce at this scale, such as the roof. A panel with a curvature over one stud gave a result that was too thin, while two studs resulted in something too thick. I chose to simplify certain lines to ensure a smooth appearance, while staying as close as possible to the original design. The shape of the hood was made possible thanks to the new angle connectors #7. They allow for a simple, clean build and a faithful result. The rear section came together more naturally. It was “just” a matter of building the chassis cleanly, adding the rear winch, building the arm, and adding the toolboxes and the roll bar. This required a significant amount of optimization. After all, it was necessary to fit: The rear suspension The steering mode selection mechanism The rear chassis winch The arm The toolboxes All of this in a very limited space. Suspension What would an off-road recovery truck be without a good suspension? I reproduced the original suspension as faithfully as possible. It consists of suspended axles held by links, forming two opposing trapezoids at different heights. The suspension is responsive and allows for nice axle articulation, achieved solely by the weight of the vehicle - there’s no need to press down on the cab to compress the shock absorbers. Opening parts The following elements can be opened: Doors Hood (left and right sides) Toolboxes The toolboxes are built using studful parts and are attached to the chassis with pins and an axle. The doors do not have stops in the open position, so they can be opened until they touch the front wheels. I chose not to add any in order to keep the build simple and part-efficient, and I felt it matched well with the rugged style of the vehicle. All-wheel drive and fake engine Just like the real truck, my MOC features all-wheel drive, without a central differential, driving a fake V8 engine. The engine doesn’t spin very fast, partly by design choice. Indeed, the motion is transmitted through the differentials with a 22t/14t gear pair, then from the central axle the motion goes up to the engine via a 12t/20t idler/12t gear train, and finally two 8t gears. I could have added gearing, but it would have made the build less clean and more artificial. As with the door opening, I preferred simplicity. Winches and arm There are no fewer than… five winches on this model! Two of them are located at the front and rear of the chassis, to get out of difficult situations or tow a vehicle. These are mounted on a friction pin and are controlled by pulling the rope and using a gear. The choice of a friction pin was made to save space and to offer a different holding technology compared to the other winches. The other three are used for the arm. In all cases, they feature a ratchet allowing the rope to be held without any slipping. One of them controls the raising and lowering of the arm via the same pulley system as the real truck. The arm’s range of motion is slightly under 90°, with the upper limit being vertical, which can prevent the arm from falling back down. The last two control the towing cables. Their construction is light but sufficiently robust. 3-mode steering Alright, enough with the small classic functions, now we’re getting to the core of the model. What it was built around. As I mentioned at the beginning, I wanted steering behavior similar to that of the Claas Xerion #42054. But I couldn’t simply reuse the mechanism from this set, since my MOC features suspended axles, which requires steering to be controlled by a rotating axle rather than linkages. With linkages, the suspension would have influenced the steering. To counter that problem, it would have been necessary to add a translation/rotation conversion mechanism, which would have been a real mess. (Actually, using linkages wouldn’t be impossible with the right geometry, but it would add complexity and likely reduce reliability.) I based my design on a very simple principle that has existed for centuries: bevel gear transmissions. You’ve probably noticed that when the crown gear of a differential is placed on the left or right, the bevel gear connected to it will not rotate in the same direction for a given wheel rotation. That’s why, on chassis with multiple driven axles, the differentials don’t all have the same orientation. That’s what I needed: a mechanism with a bevel gear transmission, capable of reversing the direction of engagement - but using knobs to avoid losing wheel alignment. So I came up with this: Steering is controlled by the vertical axle. This axle is directly connected to the front wheels. The different steering modes are achieved by swapping, or not, or disconnecting, the rear axle steering shaft relative to the front axle - just like the Claas Xerion. When the grey knob on the carriage is up, it engages with the upper knob of the vertical axle. The front and rear steering axles rotate in the same direction: this is crab steering When the grey knob is down, it engages with the lower knob of the vertical axle. The rear steering axle rotates in the opposite direction to the front axle: this is 4-wheel steering When the grey knob is centered, it is disengaged: the rear axle is disconnected. However, this introduces an extra difficulty compared to the Claas Xerion: the linkage system naturally locks the rear axle on the Xerion, which is not the case with my system. So I added an automatic locking mechanism. When the carriage is in the central position, locks block the carriage knob. When the carriage is moved, the locks spread apart thanks to rollers pushed by slopes located on the carriage. The selection lever rotates almost effortlessly, but it can sometimes be a bit hard to grab since it is close to the toolbox. Just like on the Claas Xerion, the wheels need to be straight for the change to occur - within a certain tolerance. Since for each axle the steering shafts rotate slightly less than 90° in each direction (thanks to stops), you can’t, for example, switch steering modes when the truck has its wheels turned to the right in crab mode and end up in front-wheel steering while the rear axle is locked to the right. Well, it is possible - but you really have to want it and perfectly align everything while forcing against the stops. Front-wheel steering: Crab steering: 4-wheel steering: The selection lever rotates a cam fitted with a roller. This roller raises or lowers the sliding carriage of the moving knob. Position holding is ensured by the rubber band located at the front, which presses the rollers rollers against the slopes of the carriage. The carriage/slopes/elastic/rollers assembly naturally tends to return the carriage to the central position. For the upper and lower positions, a toggle point prevents the carriage from returning to center, enabled by a green connector located near the rear suspension - the travel is not ±90° but slightly more. Using a long CV joint makes it possible to compensate for the change in distance between the carriage knob and the rear axle steering shaft when the carriage moves, in addition to suspension travel. And that’s it - you know everything now! Build and instructions I did a significant amount of optimization work to achieve a build that is both elegant and enjoyable. I wanted to create a model that would stand out from most MOCs, which often feature poorly optimized construction and an unpleasant building experience. The construction is done through small assemblies that are attached to the main structure, as LEGO usually does. I reworked each sub-assembly until the build felt "obvious" and intelligently designed. (Well, I hope that’s the impression you get! ) The instructions came naturally thanks to the work done during the build process. I wanted them to be more “challenging” than current LEGO instructions, while avoiding all the pitfalls encountered with alternative brands. Concretely, I made sure that all parts in a step are clearly visible so none are missed, avoided (except in rare cases) mixing callouts and parts added directly in the same step, optimized the build order to avoid rotation steps, or prevented issues where a previous sub-assembly blocks progress, for example. Everything else came naturally during the build, and I didn’t have to do anything at the instruction stage regarding build contrast (use of colors), assemblies that don’t fit properly, etc. The goal was to make the build more stimulating by avoiding chains of single-part steps, without the difficulty coming from poor instructions. Basically, it’s a rally with a good co-driver, not an orienteering race with a bad map. It’s not perfect though - there are, for example, a few assemblies where I prioritized aesthetics over strength, such as the studful parts around the front and rear winches. But it’s the best I could do for now. Result: a MOC with only 1211 parts, featuring: 5 winches 3-mode steering Suspension All-wheel drive with fake engine Opening parts For reference, 1:10 scale sets usually range from 1500 to 1700 parts. Building instructions: Rebrickable Stickers: send a request to Forwartsticker Parts: (coming soon, on MOCBoxing) Video All photos can be found here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/162173007@N06/albums/72177720331182416/with/55013628563 That’s it for this truck. I hope you like it!

What a cool model! Generally, models in this scale look too bulky when they are packed with as many functions. But here, the result is pretty clean! You managed to reproduce all the functions with no compromise on the stucture or the design. The result is rather light and you can play with it all day long to see how everything works! The other contestants will have to work hard to beat this one! ;)

This is simple: there have been so many similar MOCs over the past decade that if I had to make list of the MOCs I am fascinated about, there would be two. Yours is the third one. One question: are you really serious when you are wondering if it is recognizable?

Your prototype is interesting, but in order to be used, the axle connected to the 8t gear has to have positions multiple of 45°. Here, the positions are n times 45° + 22.75° - you can't make the cross axle perpendicular to the liftarm. If you want to correct this, you must change the lock-mechanism a little, but it will be way harder to create a clamp that is able to push the teeth of the gear. It's hard to explain, but if you try, you'll understand what I mean! (I hope )

@R0Sch: I also had the idea to use 2 knobs, but I don't have gray knobs to test in real life... Be careful when you try to design a stepper in Studio, because in real life, even when you think that it could work, you often have bad surprises. So with a virtual design, it's even worse! Anyway, these prototypes are interesting and must be tested in real life! I have quickly tried, and it seemed compromised. The tooth are so small that it's hard to push on them correctly. It's also difficult to make a good 45° lock-mechanism using 8t gears.

I'm back with something new! For my new gearbox, I needed a 45° shifter. At first, I reproduced the one of the Yamaha MT-10 SP, but I was not satisfied with it. Indeed, I didn't like the feeling (you have to assist the lever until the gear is shifted, it doesn't feel like a keyboard touch) and the return to center doesn't work properly. This is why I decided to work on a new shifter having the following features: "Keyboard" touch Uses only one 8 tooth stepper gear More compact 45° lock-mechanism Working return to center The architecture is based on the one of the shifter from the Bugatti Chiron, using 135° connectors. Here, I used a tile round with bar holder to obtain the right distance between the connectors and the gear. The result is a compact shifter with a nice feeling, a working return to center and that only uses one 8 tooth shifter gear. Link to Rebrickable: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-175515/Anto/45-stepper-mechanism

Here is the video!

It is the most probable option in my opinion, to stick with the previous 8+DNR gearbox architecture. But an 8-speed gearbox would be harder to make, because you can't easily get 4 different speeds on a same axle, like @Stereo explained. Yes, it's possible, but too complex for only 2 more gears. However, it's interesting to notice that the new 8 teeth stepper gear perfectly fits pins, so you can make something similar to my 8+N+R gearbox using a pin instead of a microphone, to have 1/8 of a turn in output for each turn in input - or more. This is interesting, but what does this solution add compared to the forks, except the price of the parts?

I'm happy that you like this gearbox! I didn't check if they can allow 45° offset - anyway, it's not an elegant solution to me, a fixed assembly is still the best in this way. Moreover, a clutch wouldn't allow more shifting options. On the selectors, all the letters have to be aligned, so you need a multiple of 45° offset. Thanks! That's what I thought at first, but the new 2L driving rings allow to fit allmost everything inside the frames. I had the exact same reflexion. The best explanation I came up with is that it was the "less worse" configuration for: 4-speed gearbox, like the Yamaha, where the 45° offset is used. 8-speed gearbox, when the 45° offset can be cancelled. But it's impossible to make a dual-clutch gearbox structure. 6-speed gearbox, where 3 cylinders are on the same axle. But it requires more space than an 8-speed geabox for fewer gears and only 6 positions on 8 of the stepper are used, so this configuration seems useless. So I can't figue out why they made this pattern neither the 45° offset, this seems to only bring issues. That's why I'm so curious to see the next supercar. This is an interesting way to solve the 45° question, but it's a rather complex solution (more than the one I used), which doesn't explain why LEGO chose this design since they started from a scratch. Like you said, the forks are really interesting to make a realistic manual gearbox.

INTRODUCTION This gearbox is the successor of my previous 8+N+R-gearbox. It is based on the new parts released on the Yamaya MT-10 SP #42159. Thanks to these, I could make a new and better gearbox for 1:8 manual supercars. Thanks to the 8 positions by rotation, I made a 6+N+R gearbox. The best arrangement I found was to put 2 cylinders between 2 shafts, each cylinder controlling 2 forks. Thus, I would need 2 cylinders to make the 8 positions I wanted. VIRTUAL DESIGN I started with simulations in Excel when the parts were not available yet. The purpose was to virtually recreate the functioning of the new rotary cylinders to find out a configuration that worked. So, I reproduced the sequence of the cylinders. Then, I created an offset between the 2 cylinders. To make the best gearbox possible, it was necessary to obtain: Reverse gear on an extremity of a shaft Not 2 gears engaged at the same time on the same shaft EXCEL TABLE The Excel table may seem hard to understand, but the main difficulty is because I made written in French! The first column represents the positions of the rotary cylinders. The second column is used to create an offset between the 2 cylinders. I tested all the configurations and keeped the ones that respected the criteria above. Then, I used the supposedly working configurations to calculate the possible gear ratios. The sub-table called “Transitions” corresponds to the ratio between the two main shafts. Then, on the sub-tables on the right, I put the gears on the primary and secondary shafts to get 3 different ratios on each shaft, placed in the correct sequence, for each remaining possible configuration. I got only 2 possible configurations (A and B). Other configurations exist, but they are symmetries of these two configurations, so they are useless. I finally came out with only one possible configuration, which is the one I realized in Stud.io and in real life. IMPROVEMENTS Compared to my previous gearbox, this new version features: Way better efficiency More compact, easier to integrate into a chassis More reliable gear selector More realistic and easier to understand The shifter can be less robust The input and the output are centred, and can easily be moved It is reversible, meaning that you can power both the input and the output Gears better staged HOW IT WORKS? The way it works is close to a dual-clutch gearbox - however, the exact same operation cannot be achieved due to the way the sequence of a rotary changeover cylinder is made. The ratios are better staged than the ones of my previous gearbox. The reverse gear is situated between the 1st and the 2nd gear, making it more realistic. R: -0.375 N: 0 1st: 0.25 2nd: 0.45 3rd: 0.50 4th: 0.75 5th: 0.90 6th: 1.50 A simple mechanism prevents from shifting from 6th to reverse gear. This mechanism can easily me moved to another place (for instance close to the shifter) though. The centre changeover cylinder is used to create a 45° offset between the two other cylinders. However, to spare a part, you can use one of the following assemblies. VIDEO REBRICKABLE LINK Here is the Rebrickable link if you want to test this gearbox! https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-171508/Anto/ultimate-6nr-gearbox-with-forks/#details I’m wondering what the gearbox on this summer’s supercar will look like. It should either be pretty similar, or totally different. What do you think?

Wow, the amount of functions you packed into this model is unbelivable! Even though the mechanism to select the pneumatic switches is not 100% reliable, that's a pretty good concept, never seen before! Now I want one!

Your entry is absolutely incredible! You made the right choice with the #8284. It's a quite empty set so you were able to reproduce everything without any compromise. Even the building of the chassis looks the same, every single part looks like the original one! Great job!

Thanks! They hold pretty well. They are attached by 4 half-pins and do not fall, even if you push a little on them. Thank you, I'm happy that you like the editing because I spent much time on it to try to make it look cool to watch! I edited the video with Hitfilm Express. It's a free software but you can do a lot of things with it. For the camera movements, I mainly used a GoPro Hero 9 fixed on a tripod, with wipe underneath, so it was easier to have smooth shots. For a few shots, I directly slided the camera on the background (homemade with plywood and a black fabric on it) or slided the camera with my hands between it and the fabric. Sometimes, several tries were necessary to obtain a satisfying result but it was not too much difficult. :)

Thanks! I'll make a RC version, I just need to find time to work on it!

Thank you! Indeed the wheels were perfect for this model, since they look really close to the ones of the real car and I couldn't have done it with other rims of this diameter - because the ones of the Discovery have got an offset, allowing a shorter width! Yes, I didn't want to make a non-LEGO model just because I was asked to, I wanted to make something pretty unique that wouldn't seem a great idea when you thought about it (Barbie's car?) but that actually looks nice! It's a while since I thought about this but I didn't have an appropriae model for this!

Thanks! I agree with that, it was a challenging point to make. I tried several things: using flex axles, other panels, studful... But I could only get an average result from every angle. With the panels I used, I got a pretty nice result when you look the car from the front and the sides, but not as convincing from the top. I prefered something really nice from most of the angles that something average from everywhere.

Message sent!

Thanks! Check your inbox. :)

Thank you for your comments! The original Hoonipigasus is still in developement and on the first pictures, there were no rear headlights nor visible exhausts (there were holes but no pipe). But more recently, I found pictures on which rear headlights were added. As I build two versions of the car, I thought it could be interesting to have a version with readlights and another one without.

My new model will be something quite unusual. To begin, I would like to say a little word about Ken Block. After revolutionizing what’s possible with a car and cameras, including rallyes, snow board and more – he passed away in a snowmobile accident at the very beginning of the year. This model will rather be a tribute than the representation of the car that he was to drive at Pikes Peak this year... The origin of the project Back to July 2022, I was contacted by WeBrick. They asked me if I could build a model using their parts. They provide adaptable LEGO parts, and their main advantages are the number of available colors (no limitations contrary to LEGO, for instance due to the few colors for mudguards) and the cheap price. This is why I accepted: it was an opportunity to create a model that I could’t have imagined with LEGO parts. I could choose any color and avoid all the color issues that you meet when you build with LEGO parts. Furthermore, it was possible to bring a MOC that is not more expensive than the equivalent LEGO sets, whereas usually, MOCs are way more expensive than sets. I won’t add more details about WeBrick, because this is not the main subject of this topic. I thought it was necessary to quickly explain why I accepted to build a model with non-LEGO parts and why I chose to reproduce the Hoonipigasus. So please, if you have any questions or remarks related to WeBrick, contact me by private message or by social media to keep this thread about my model. And you know what? There's even a 100% LEGO version! Choice of the model My model had to be built around these two main aspects: A never seen color An affordable price for a nice looking and functionnal model This led me to the Hoonipigasus in 1:10 scale (1:11 to be exact because the wheels are huge). The aim was simple: do better than LEGO’s 1:10 scale models. Eventhough the Porsche and the Ferrari have got a pleasant design for a low less high price than the 1:8 supercars, they are missing interesting functions. I wanted to provide a design at least as good as these cars, but with more interesting features. My model includes: Steering with return to the steering wheel and a HOG Openable doors and trunks F1-type suspension 4-speed sequential gearbox Here is the result: Design The most important thing I understood about design is that what looks best is when the panels are placed in the simplest manner, so the result looks simple. But it isn’t. That’s what I noticed on the Predator and the 1:8 Porsche of LEGO: everything looks simple, without angles between the panels, but this looks really nice. I tried to do the same thing on my model, with parts tilted around one axis at most. I longly wondered how I would replicate the mudguards. The real car was widened a lot, and the mudguards have got a really low profile, making impossible the use of LEGO mudguards. Flex only would have resulted in a too empty result, and I was afraid that using flex + beams would look too heavy. But finally, flex and beams look fine. On the rear, I even succeded in reproducing the slight inclination of the sides thanks to the use of 3x11 panels slightly pushing the mudguards on the exterior! https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52626681965_a4ea88c804_b.jpg[/img] And a lot of stickers to make the design as faithful as possible! LEGO Version A few details change compared to the WeBrick version (12L flex instead of 14L, no rear headlights), otherwise they are identical. Steering The system is simple, you can see the pictures of the 3D model below. The steering can be controlled using the HOG as well as the steering wheel. However, there is a little defect: if you move the car backwards using the HOG, a gear of the transmission may slightly touch a bush, producing some noise. This could easily be fixed by removing the HOG, but to me, the pros of the HOG beat the cons. Openings The doors and a panel of the front trunk can be opened, while the rear trunk can be removed to see the rear suspension. F1-type suspension The original car features a pushrod suspension. I wanted to reproduce the system, while having something reliable. And with space constraints. I can tell you that I spent hours and hours making messed up prototypes! It was necessary that everything worked in compression and not in traction. Because suspensions like on LEGO’s F1s work well when the model was just assembled, but after some time, nothing works anymore: there are too important constrainsts on the ball joints and the connectors. Also, I had to get a geometry allowig a perfect height of the car. That’s all, I think I summarized the issues quite well! Gearbox Due to space limits, it’s a 4-speed gearbox, with a paddle shifter. The shifter is almost exactly the one of Lego Technic Mastery. On the WeBrick version, it doesn’t work as well as the LEGO version if you take the paddles from the upper part. The 3L axles tend to bend the holes of the liftarms, so you have to be careful and take the paddles by at least the middle. But on the LEGO version, no issue. Et voilà! Other pictures of the 100% LEGO version : To finish, the video ! Each model has got around 1750 parts. It’s a little more than LEGO’s 1:10 scale models, let’s say that it’s the fault of the mudguards. ^^ I also optimised the inventory: I managed to limit the number of references as much as possible by removing the useless colors and replacing some parts by others when it was possible. All the pictures are available here for the LEGO version and there for the WeBrick version. Fun fact: when I uploaded the pictures on FlickR, I realised that there were 43 images. What a coincidence! Here are the instructions for the LEGO version. If you are interested in building the pink version, reach me on social media (Antonin Laurent on Facebook of anto_lego_creations on Instagram). Please, don't use the forum to speak about the non-LEGO model. Spacial thaks to @Milan and @Jim who authorized me to present the non-LEGO version on the forum.

Now you can see, video added to the first post! (Later than expected ^^) The aim was to make a short video in the style of the ones with racing cars transporting a Christmas tree. And to show how fast this buggy is and how the suspension works. Merry Cristmas!

Thanks! Oops, I didn't use the right size! That's corrected now!

After a while without a new MOC (because of my studies ^^), I'm back with a new model! It was made for BuWizz. The aim was to make a model in the continuity of my cross kart. I wanted to get rid of the torque effect on the rear axle (as it was a suspended axle on my cross kart), that made the behaviour unsymmetrical in corners. So I used 2 BuWizz motors as wheel hubs instead! The rear suspension was made so the rear shock absorbers generate friction, in order to have a slow rebound. On my cross kart, the suspension was extremely reactive, but the kart was "jumping" on gravel. On this new buggy, having a slow rebound helps the wheels stick on the ground to gain adherence. However, I wasn't able to do the same thing on the front axle. Why a police buggy? I have never seen this before, I thought it could be nice. I wanted the design to be as agressive and massive as possible. I wanted the design to be close to Polaris or Can-Am, looking heavy, indestructible but fast in any situation. People had to fear seing it in their mirror. You may have seen that the main part of the bodywork was made with 2x5 panels. This was a very useful part to achieve the shapes that I wanted, and to have simple assemblies (no one uses complex building techniques). The BuWizz 3.0 has got 2 PF ports and 4 PU ports. The 2 BuWizz motors are connected to the PF ports while the PU L motor for the steering (acting as a servomotor) and the LED lights are connected to the PU ports. The performance is really great! It is absolutely impossible to use more than the half of the power into a house! And outside, the suspension works well. You can go almost everywhere without being stuck or loosing grip. I also had some crashes but nothing was broken nor fell apart! Little video: And the instructions! https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-132106/Anto/police-interceptor I hope that you'll like this model, and see you soon for the next one!

You're right, but when it is integrated into a model it's possible to remove the parts with the frame so the shifter is more directly integrated into the model and that looks more compact! @Bluehose: I've never had this issue. Maybe it comes from the column. Mine is able to limit the motion of the mini-LA, I don't know about yours.

After a lot of tries, I managed to get a paddle shifter with return to center! The key to do this was to make a small shifter without any knobs, similar to the one in the Chron or in the Sian, but which is more compact. There ae two main differences with @Charbel's design : since mine has a return to center, it is a bit heavier. Also, I put only one paddle instead of two (like in WRC cars) for two reasons. The first one is that I could get something a bit smaller. And the second one is that, to me, it's simpler to use. With a single paddle, no matters how the steering wheel is turned, we know that when we push the paddle we shift the gears down, and when we pull the paddle we shift the gears up. Whereas with two paddles we can do anything with one side.