JLiu15

AFAIK all of mine are of a similar mold (black, gray, red) except for some gray ones from the 42099 set that have a thicker wall for the pins. I agree. I'll probably leave it. I'll only change it if I notice the suspension having a hard time springing back up when compressed.

Nice review, been looking forward to this one. The fact that it's a licensed model AND has Control+ makes this set great already. The gearbox, however, is next-level - totally didn't expect that early on. Too bad I got the 42099 before more info was available about the set...as you said, it's such a better deal than the 42099 in terms of price per piece.

There's two versions of this part? I don't think that should be too difficult. The C+ motors have got more than enough attachment points, so I could easily reinforce the area around them if I want to lower the upper attachment point of the shock absorbers. Once again I'll only upgrade it to dual shock absorbers if the suspension starts sagging under the model's weight, so I'm not even sure if I'll make any changes to the current suspension setup.

That's a good idea, haven't thought of that

UPDATE 7/17/20 The front section of the chassis is essentially complete. I've installed the Control+ hub and added a mechanism for the working steering wheel - the hub sits in front of the front axle, connected to the chassis by four of these. They have enough clutch force to keep the hub firmly in place without the risk of it falling out while driving, but also allows the hub to be removed for battery replacement. The hub may appear to sit way too low in the chassis, but a stud higher and it would interfere with the 24T gear connecting the steering motor to the steering mechanism. Also keep in mind that this is without wheels - when the wheels and bodywork are in place, I doubt the hub would protrude much from the underside of the chassis - one stud at most. Even with the hub in front of the front axle, I have not noticed any issues with the suspension. In fact, the hub is actually not touching the ground here - it's being kept off the ground by the front axle. However, I am ready to modify the suspension at any time if the suspension starts sagging (e.g. when the bodywork is being built). I'm not sure how to use multiple shock absorbers on each wheel in a live axle suspension setup like this - the shock absorbers have to move in multiple planes, which makes attaching the shock absorbers more difficult than a suspension with shock absorbers moving in a single plane, such as a double wishbone independent suspension. Any suggestions on how to incorporate dual shock absorbers per wheel here is appreciated Photos:

Do you know how I could incorporate double shock absorbers in a suspension design like this? I've never seen more than one per wheel used on live axles so any advice is appreciated here - there's just so many different planes involved unlike an independent suspension or something.

The articulation joint allows movement in the axis of roll (hence the turntable) but not in the axis of pitch. And yes, the entire rear section of the chassis will be attached to the turntable.

UPDATE 7/16/20 I've made some progress on the front section of the chassis. The steering motor and mechanism is in place, the suspension is fully set up, and the articulation joint is complete with turntable and linear actuators attached. I was worried the articulation joint would be a weak spot as the pivot point is connected by pins rather than e.g. small turntables, but I've found it to be pretty robust in all 3 axes of rotation. The only thing left to do in the front section of the chassis is to attach the C+ hub. The chassis will dip downwards at the front to create an attachment point for the hub, and I anticipate a solution that allows for easy removal of the hub for battery replacement. I might also add a working steering wheel as the steering motor's output sits so close to where the steering wheel will be, but it'll be a little unrealistic in that the steering wheel will continue to rotate past the left/right extremes of the steering mechanism. Still, it'll be nice to throw in some extra functions/features. If you have any suggestions for me, please let me know. Photos:

Oh of course, I always make sure to reinforce my builds as much as possible, especially in load-bearing situations such as axles. In fact, sometimes I even find myself reinforcing my builds too much

Thanks! btw what do you mean by "form-locked"? Do you mean the front axle? I've only built the front axle so far - nothing behind the articulation joint is built yet. Unfortunately I don't have any of the newer differentials. I wish I had them, but since they're relatively new they're still quite expensive on BL. The 12:28 gear reduction would also be a bit overkill together with the ~5.4:1 reduction in the planetary hubs imo.

The small LAs for steering are driven by a C+ L motor geared 1:1, which I find to be the perfect speed - not too fast, not too slow. I'll be controlling it with the BuWizz app which has proportional control, but I still prefer articulated steering that isn't too fast to ensure precise control. Wheels will be CLAAS Xerion wheels with gray rims, as well as a small disc in the middle (I'm thinking of using this piece). I was debating between CLAAS wheels and Unimog wheels, but CLAAS wheels are more realistic here imo.

Just made a MOC based on a real vehicle - the Kalmar forklift. Well, how about another one? This will be a model of the Bergmann C815s (formerly Bergmann 3012) in the swivel tip dumper configuration. It will be my first MOC to use Control+, with 4 motors to control drive, articulated steering, dump bed rotation and dumping. It will feature AWD with planetary hubs from the 42099 set, a sprung front axle (live axle), and will tentatively feature pneumatic dumping to reduce the amount of driveshafts for functions. https://www.bergmann-dumper.de/pdf_files/folder/folder-sammel-2018-eng_826_9.pdf https://www.maskinia.se/upload/products/documents/neu-2020-folder-c815s-h03-10452-11758-en-web-einzelseiten.pdf Note that the name of this vehicle was Bergmann 3012 prior to 2020. My model will be the current version of this vehicle. There's very limited space for electronics and mechanisms here - I already had to scratch the idea of including a 4-cylinder fake engine. I anticipate this model being packed to the brim with mechanisms - for instance, the steering motor (which will be a C+ L motor) will sit back to back with the drive motor, transferring drive through a driveshaft directly below them as to not interfere with the suspension's travel. The C+ hub will sit below the steering motor, directly in front of the front axle. I'm hoping this won't cause the suspension to sag or anything - there's literally nowhere else in the model I could feasibly put it. So far, I have the front axle and parts of the chassis in front of the articulation joint completed. It seems to be well reinforced at this point - thankfully the C+ motors have a lot of attachment points so I can see them supporting the chassis here pretty well. The articulated steering will be done by 2 mini LAs - this was quite a challenge for me to figure out, as they sit directly in front of the gears for the drivetrain. I had to make sure the mechanism is sturdy, can be geared easily, and not be too high as the body slopes downward right here. They feel a little wobbly, but a test with some beams representing the rear section of the chassis shows that there's little play in the mechanism. The LAs will be installed like a 'Y' (I find this to be the best angle for them), which isn't the most realistic as the real-life counterpart seems to have them pointing rather parallel to the chassis and are installed lower, but given the limited space in the chassis I have to make some compromises I guess. If you have any suggestions for me, please let me know. Photos:

Thank you!

Thanks! Yeah the model turned out pretty realistic in the end imo, probably one of my most realistic MOCs up to date.

Thanks! As for the mast tilt, I agree - a drawback of pneumatics is that they can't hold the load precisely in place like linear actuators can. Nevertheless, the pneumatics worked a lot better than I expected here. I was worried they won't have enough load capacity to tilt the mast, but they can tilt it back just fine even with the fork completely raised.

Thanks! You can take a look at some recent Technic sets featuring pneumatics for a general idea of how they're implemented, such as the 42043 set. You can get individual pneumatic elements here: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=P&catString=159 The L motor has plenty of torque so it has a pretty good lift capacity in theory, but unfortunately the mechanism starts skipping under load. I'm guessing a little more reinforcement where the pinion gears meet the racks would've solved that. Thanks! I'm glad you like it

Oh haha I saw that But yeah, I'm glad you like it, and once again thanks for your support in the WIP topic Here's a secret - the fake engine wasn't actually part of the original plan. I only added it when I found sufficient space for one, and this was thanks to keeping all the motors close to their respective functions thus optimizing space in the chassis. Thanks! And yeah one of the things I like about how this MOC turned out is how all the functions work with a pretty good speed - like nothing is painfully slow. As for the steering, you can take a look at my WIP topic to get a general idea of how it's done. The first few images should have a pretty good view of it.

MOC topic:

Model of a Kalmar heavy forklift controlled using SBrick. Features drive, steering, fork elevation, pneumatic mast tilt, kissing forks, tilting cab, 6-cylinder engine, and lights. Functions/features: Drive Steering Fork elevation Mast tilt (pneumatic) Kissing forks (manual) Tilting cab 6-cylinder engine Lights It's been a while since I created a MOC featuring pneumatics, and even longer since I created one with remote-controlled pneumatics. My last MOC with fully remote-controlled pneumatics was from 2015, and that was before I had an SBrick. Ever since I obtained an SBrick I had made two MOCs with remote-controlled pneumatics - a front loader in 2016 and a Volvo EC350E excavator in 2019. However, both projects were cancelled before I finished them. I realized the mast tilting function on a forklift would be a good choice for pneumatics, especially the 7L cylinders. I originally just wanted to make a generic heavy forklift, but when I came across Kalmar's heavy forklifts I was really intrigued by their design so I decided to make the DCG180-330 by Kalmar. My model maximizes functionality while minimizing the amount of moving parts. Most functions have their motors connected directly to their inputs, thus minimizing moving parts and optimizing chassis space. The drive motor is placed directly behind the differential, and gear reduction is done via portal hubs placed horizontally. The servo motor for steering is placed vertically in the chassis, connected directly to the steering linkage without a rack-and-pinion mechanism. This allowed for a large steering lock which is commonplace among forklifts, but this also meant that the chassis around the axle has to be thin so the wheels don't bump into them - in fact, the chassis is only 3 studs wide in the rear but is reinforced well nevertheless. I limited the servo's range of movement in the SBrick profile designer as the steering input can only turn about 45 degrees each way. Even then I still had to add towballs as limiters to the steering mechanism to ensure the wheels don't rub against the rear body panel when turning. In the end, I wish the wheels could steer a little tighter, but the end result is impressive nonetheless. The mast is built with a PF L motor near the top, which drives a worm gear mechanism controlling fork elevation. The section that lifts up is essentially a frame with two sets of racks that contain the fork module sliding freely within it. A single rope pulls the fork up, and the range of movement is pretty impressive. The fork module contains two manually controlled linear actuators that allow the forks to move closer to each other - "kissing forks", as the PDF for the real-life counterpart calls it. The pneumatic system for the mast tilt function is comprised of a PF L motor driving the compressor and a PF M motor controlling the valve. The L motor for the compressor is geared up slightly to allow rapid pumping, and the valve mechanism is placed at the very front of the model to minimize the length of the hoses connecting the valve to the cylinders. Other features include a tilting cab, a 6-cylinder engine with mini pistons below the cab, and lights connected directly to the 8878 battery so the speed dial on it can be used to control their brightness. The 6-cylinder engine is accurate, as one of the engine options on the real Kalmar DCG180-330 is a Cummins B6.7. The fake engine is connected directly to the drivetrain and makes a pretty cool noise while driving. The functions overall worked pretty well - it had decent driving speed, a really good turning radius, the fork elevation had sufficient torque without being painfully slow and the pneumatic mast tilt had good precision. There were some issues - such as the fork elevation mechanism skipping at the racks when under load and the pneumatics not being able to tilt the mast back when the fork is fully raised and the mast is fully tilted in the forward direction. The fork mechanism also lacked a clutch, so it was really important to stop the motor precisely at the moment the fork reaches the bottom to prevent it from stalling. Still, given how well the functions worked overall and how realistic and detailed the bodywork is, I feel like this MOC was a great success. Video: Photos:

I got it for like $170 I think lol I agree with your opinion - it seems to be a mixed bag when it comes to the price. There's usually a linear correlation between the price and piece count, electronics, license, etc, but there's definitely outliers like the ones you mentioned.

Used 8436 for $80 (?) at BrickFair Virginia last year. It was like new, and considering new ones currently start at $160 on BL I got a pretty good deal imo.

I'm seeing a positive trend here with the price of Technic sets. Both this set and the 42114 were significantly cheaper than I expected given their piece count, electronics, and the fact that they're both licensed sets. It's listed on the LEGO shop for $150, which is the same price as the 42080 but that one had ~600 parts less AND was a generic model (granted that one had pneumatics, but both sets are motorized). I feel like LEGO may finally be improving the value of Technic sets here, as plenty of motorized sets in recent years (e.g. 42109, 42070) were WAY overpriced. Honestly I might even consider buying this set in the future, as it'll provide a small boost to my collection of C+ elements and it's a great supply of DBG panels.

The part that really blew my mind about this set is the price. I saw that it got listed on the LEGO shop and the price here in the US is $250 which is oddly the same as the 42099, but that one has >1k parts less and no license as well as the same number of electronic components. When I saw that the price was going to be 250EUR I assumed the US price would be $270 so I hesitated and bought the 42099 instead, but in retrospect I could've gotten a much better deal :( On the bright side, at least I got more CLAAS tires from the 42099. And admittedly having 2 C+ XL and 1 C+ L is better than having one of each of XL, L, and Angular imo (e.g. you could hard couple the 2 XLs for more torque). But all in all the price was totally unexpected for me, as all I've been seeing lately is sets with electronics getting more and more expensive (e.g. 42109, standalone C+ elements). It sucks for me that I should've waited longer for this set, but it is pretty good news in that LEGO may finally be improving the value of Technic sets. I noticed the same with the 42113 too, as that one is the same price as the 42080 ($150) but has ~600 pieces more AND a license, and both sets are motorized. This could be a positive trend here...

I think that a transverse link like I mentioned above could be the solution to that - every time I make such a suspension I made sure to include them. As for the tires moving forwards/backwards when the suspension compresses, I'm guessing you could install the suspension arms as far apart as possible without colliding with the wheels when steering and use 4 (or more) of them to connect the axle to the main frame instead of 3 if you're using my method. Here are my MOCs that use the aforementioned suspension design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBnszw-WX7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds_9KVoJwwI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AumoQdYt71E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqkPARznWng

In my live axle suspension designs I’ve usually found this piece to work pretty well. It serves the function of a link yet doesn’t allow movement transverse to the chassis. If there’s quite a bit of play in the system (which there usually is) then you could install a link transverse to the chassis attaching the axle to the main frame so it doesn’t move side to side. 3 of them is usually enough to keep the suspension stable - you could take a look at the 42043 Arocs’ front axles to get a general idea. If the aforementioned suspension arms are too short you could attach a beam to them to make them longer. Additionally, this piece should work too.