Brickend

Could two of the blades be under the motors and two on top (conventional) in order to flip them?

The cabin looks studded? I'm very curious as to what made you choose studless for this model?

I quite like the smaller cranes. I'd argue that the play-ability decreases when MOCs get this large. Often the axles appear to be collapsing under the weight and they don't fit an awful lot more functions in because the extra space is taken up with reinforcement.

I think the main problem is just a few people on here who hold strong opposing views and feel the need to raise their agendas given any opportunity, relevant or not to the discussion. Within the first few lines of their posts you can tell where it's going so I skip them; it does break up the discussion somewhat.

Isn't the weight cubed not squared when scaled?

I'd try it with off the shelf RC copter blades in order to test if the motors can produce a good enough power to weight ratio for any sort of flight.

Thank you Hopey, I hadn't considered that connection before.

Looks like there isn't an easy way get drive through those hub cases as the dark bluish grey hub will be right where the UJ/CV would need to be, which means that the steering axis won't work.

This would look really good as a 1970's police car, Blues Brother style.

Trail provides stability because it allows for self correction. Fixing a motor directly to the steering without any play in the mechanism removes this ability to self correct. Think of a riderless bike, even at slowish speed it doesn't need external steering inputs to obtain stability because the geometry is self correcting. Essentially, I think you need to dampen the steering inputs and allow the geometry of the bike to work to your advantage. I would also watch the effect that the torque of a laterally positioned steering motor may have - when the servo was mounted high up, this could have caused a few negative issues.

I'd lower the center of gravity and slacken the head angle for stability. Speed won't gain you a lot of stability, there's not enough mass in the wheels to have a meaningful effect.

How are you going to tell if the person uploading the instructions actually owns them? If I had created free instructions and then found someone profiteering from them, I would go after them and the site that facilitated them for remuneration. It also concerns me that instruction makers using free software for non commercial use, feel that it is fine to profit from other's time/ work.

How can it be an enhancement when the 5L axle cant secure the newer part in place? Lego would not do that. I am sure that it is an error.

Just buy loads of white and blue bricks cheaply off bricklink and replace the more expensive beams?

Big certainly isn't beautiful...

I can't see how you could get more data than is supplied on their technical sheet unless you went and measured a real one. http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedkingdom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_website/en/home_mpc/Unimog/home/unimog_overview/models/u_3000_-_u_5000/technical_data.html And http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/media_library/unitedkingdom/mpc_unitedkingdom/Unimog/pdfs/U4000_-_U5000/u4000-5000_brochure.object.Single.File.tmp/UHN%20Range%20-%20U4000%20-%205000.pdf

I tend to agree. When there are more motors, there seems to be a lower comparable part count for a flagship. I really hope it isn't a motor per axle, I'd hope lego would retain a sense of accuracy. Truck Trialers do it because it is an easy solution.

Most Technic sets are from the age of 7 upwards. Maybe it is possible in 10 years time that every 7 year old will have their own tablet, but if this is not the case, Lego would become exclusionary.

It does say preliminary image, the box art could just be an indicative mock up prior to the creation of the final image. In the case of the Unimog, I believe we saw the use of photoshop to either hide or omit details that they did not want us to see/had finalised

I wonder if the M motor is being used as a stand in image for a new motor on the box art. I always thought that if Lego did produce a motorised wheeled vehicle then they would have to consider some sort of driveline protection that was more effective than the white clutch gear. I also think, due to the rim to tyre ratio, that this model uses the largest offroad tread tyres.

Thanks Snipe. So far I have only found 2 of the reels that I need so I haven't tried the gearing. The part of the reel which actually engages onto the axle is off center by less than half a stud, which makes things awkward, but I do now see how you viewed this as working. It is a nice curiosity and an imaginative use of parts but I am still not sure that it's low torque handling characteristics lend this design towards practical application. That said, the idea of the reel as a selector does work, which is something I didn't think would happen.

Snipe, if you finish the gearing and point out where the input and output shafts are, I'll build it. As it is, I can't see how it can function. The right and left hand shafts are always running at the same time, due to the winches - I can't see a way to get 6 different speeds in there as the gears would be constantly meshed, but with different ratios. It also looks like the spacing of the winches would be awkward for standard lego gears.

Snipe, please build it. I want to be proven wrong.

Any proof that the above actually works....maybe in the form of a physical, implemented and complete gearbox?

It's not hard to get them to share a crank shaft. The problem is that to get the staggered cylinders whilst retaining bank angle, you would get an engine that is at least 16 studs long using standard lego cylinders.