Brickend

Very much looking forward to this part - I'm thinking about 5 stud wide, heavier duty differentials.

I like the look of 9397 and think that on it's own, it is a good model. As a side thought, I sometimes think that lego could think more about their entire range and how to encourage cross purchases. Instead of mounting a crane on the truck, which is rarer in it's intended market than Europe, I would have preferred to see a truck and trailer. The B model of 8069 and 8265 are log loaders, they would have complimented a full truck and trailer set up beautifully.

I have a curious question - is the arbitrary red studded beam that the crane lifts, the only piece of 'traditional' beam (excluding Brick 1 x 2 with holes) in the first half releases?

You wouldn't need a steering motor as the whole point of this concept is that the steering on the vehicle is magnetized, doesn't look like RC is a requirement at all. The 9V idea is good though. Looking at a real version, there does not appear to be a diff of any kind. http://www.midlandred.info/fcs.shtml Quite an interesting challenge.

If you use two 7 stud long thin technic liftarms, you can build a differential housing that is only 4 studs wide, which would fit. It wouldn't be very strong but it doesn't look like it needs to be. Traction is an interesting problem, where the magnet it is now (when it works), it will always try pull the rear wheels off the ground as it acts as a counterweight/attracted to the road. I can't work it out but I'm assuming that adding a additional fixed magnet to the rear could actually improve the tenancy to steer???

I really like this Tiger, not surprised it is a bit of a wet cake with all that weight, but the real thing was a heavy monster.

Lego never looks truly real, but the uniformity of the method gives it an aesthetic appeal that has it's own beauty. If you introduce an element made by a different method, you remove the cohesion and the styles clash. So I prefer pure lego.

DLuders wrote Panzer IV, and showed a picture of a Panzer IV. You are referring to Panzer VIE, otherwise known as the Tiger I, which is the point I was making. I'm going to sound like a pedant, but it has 24 road wheels per side. Fascinating piece of engineering -http://www.alanhamby.com/suspension.shtml I do believe that I have also seen all of the wheels modeled by others. The rest of this model is very good however and leaving out this complex setup is understandable.

Panzer IV is not a Tiger. Not sure why it has been named as such. This model is of a Tiger I tank, that is pretty obvious from the superstructure. The missing overlapping road wheels are the only major omittance that I've noticed.

I too believe the best model won. I just think that a monthly competition could be about short, imaginative builds. They may not be the best technically, or be the most polished but they might still inspire and lead to further development. You wouldn't need to worry about the time it takes to get orders in from Bricklink, just building with what you've got and to the theme. Some of the competitors did this and I applaud them, they weren't perfect but they were very creative within the short time constraints. I would also have an overall category for 'ultimate' builds at the end of the year. They should be acknowledged as well, but in a different sense. Most of this is irrelevant as the plagiarism has knocked a lot of the spirit out of the event, I wouldn't be too surprised if it gets canned.

Firstly and more importantly, well done on this achievement and would like to say congratulations to everyone who won and got this far. The Porsche is, in my opinion, a masterpiece. BUT...and this is probably where I get banned or run off the board with pitchforks...am I'm right in thinking that model (and probably a few others) was roughly a year in the making? It's all down to Lego and if I was in the same position, I'd enter models that fitted the monthly brief. But there does seem to be a two tier standard - the 20 day build model versus the months of development, master builder models which were never really designed for the competition. To have the best chance of winning in 2012, I should have started building 6 months ago and hoped a theme was broad enough to fit.

You could mould pads for the tracks, but I can see those designs slipping off, especially when lateral force is applied in turns. Why not take advantage of the 2 unused holes in the tread? You could take an existing pin design, mould it, and then cast it in rubber.

Nice, smaller seems possible though.

Wasn't there a massive tracked camera vehicle at one of the shows?

You'll only need two battery boxes if you use all of the motors at the same time.

Snipe, how is your twin engined car going? I think people would be interested in seeing your gearbox with the 6 micro motors after all of the questions you asked about it?

It's not thievery, it's not a counterfeit or breach of copyright. If the value of the loose Lego is static, then the value of the assembled model comes from time - he has taken other's time and exploited it, but that is not a crime. The lack of attribution is disrespectful, but beyond that he is entitled to do what he is doing.

That is the oddest explanation of hard and soft tyres that I have ever read.

The problem with motorising a wheeled model is the torque and/or how to prevent damage when the model hits an object. The tracks slip before damage is caused to other parts, the current clutch gear isn't strong enough to be used in large drive systems . The current wheels grip too much, cause transmission wind up and break parts; whilst this is accepted to a TrTr/MOCer, I can't see Lego taking the risk.

An awful lot of suggestions here for fully RC motorised wheeled creations - but does anyone actually think that could happen, especially to a model of flagship size? I don't see a supercar happening, it's too close to 8070 for most people. Could be due a 'supercar' type offroader though. I like the MB-Trac idea, but maybe for most it is too similar to the Unimog, plus Mercedes probably have less interest in making a machine that is not in production. I also like the crawler crane idea, the tracks allow for the full RC and a crane seems due.

I wonder if there will ever be a flagship without a motor in the future? I guess not since 2005. I think the next model will be linear not pneumatic and quite a bit smaller (affordable) than the Unimog to avoid alienating parents too much.

I'm afraid that is way too massive to be functional or to fit the scale of any existing lego wheel. The rotational axis does not line up with the tires, so turning this assembly will be nearly impossible. I like this one, if I revisit this, I think I'd start from this point - although I am biased and think that the smaller approach is better. There might be potential for losing 2 studs of height from the connection under the turntable. The only worry I have with it, is the length of the construction and if this will foul the next set of wheels when turning.

I guess that might make these sets fairly rare.

You could make it simpler if the conventional steering mode is designed around an arc which is perpendicular to the centre of the vehicle. This would mean that the turning radius's would be symmetrical for the outer and inner steering wheels on any given side, reducing the needed motors down to a maximum of 5. Another problem would then be the transition from conventional to crab (or vice versa) - you would either have to know the wheels were aligned, either through electronic or mechanical interlocks before the turning took place, or create a system that accounted for this in the final position, although the latter would require the vehicle to come to a halt to switch modes.

By having a motor on each axle, when the model is in conventional steering mode, all of the motors will be fighting each other, especially on a model of this scale. I know the real thing has a motor on each axle, but then it would also have proportional speed control for each unit. I think the best solution is to connect the left and right side axle assemblies into pairs, with a differential, and place the (5) drive motors in the centre. There would still be issues with competeing motor speeds from the front to the back of the model, but not side to side. The real machine has a structural channel running down the centre, underneath the load area. This would appear to be a good place to position the motors and also create the structure to support the axle assemblies without compromising the load space.