pleegwat

There was a walking dino in the 8891 ideas book as well.

And a lifting capacity of 100 grammes?

I know the type of mistake I make has definitely changed: As a kid (90s), I did the steps more one-by-one, and I'd collect all the pieces for a step beforehand to keep from forgetting one. With modern instructions, I'm more likely to forget a step entirely, typically when the previous step has been more fiddly than usual. And I rarely collect the pieces before I need them, though part of that is more thorough organization of pieces.

The method I've commonly seen in official models (notably 8868) is to feed hoses through axle holes and/or fix them to beams using rigid hose sectons, fixing the path and thus preventing the hoses from being confused with each other.

I was reading the B model instructions earlier this week. Where the outriggers on the A model may be sagging by accident, the way the outrigger turntables are mounted on the B model just has to be saggy by design. It's only mounted in two pinholes, and they're both on the same side of the actual turntable.

Ideally, rather than setting a much different gear ratio you'd add a gearbox.Between the chiron gear ring and using the new motors as stepper motors, how much room would this take?

It doesn't really make sense to release the Control+ hardware apart from the sets until control apart from the sets is available as well.

Reminds me, I once saw a video where they put the porsche on the euro-ncap test stand. googles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCPWPj4JHqg

Like this?

One of the big problems in the reviews (I haven't checked if the local stores have any yet) is the rigidity of the 'platform' on which the outriggers sit. I see two immediate candidate ideas to remedy this: Connect the outermost part of the platform to the outside of the threads. Not realistic, and may require yet more bracing to prevent parallelogram deformation. Double or triple the platform height. This makes the crane significantly higher at least in folded position, but gives an appearance more similar to photos of real spider cranes we've been using. This may also allow eliminating the extra step-up of the superstructure, by attaching it to the upper platform layer while the outriggers remain in the lower one.

In which direction is the engine mounted in the real car? Lengthwise or widthwise? One thing that bothered me about the mack engine is the uneven cylinder timing. I have a prototype fake engine on the shelf in mack style which has a half stud between cylinders and has a proper timing, with 2 cylinders popping up every 120° rotation of the shaft. I doubt we're going to see something like that though.

Handcranks get boring very quickly, that's why we're complaining about manually-operated large LAs all the time. That's also why I mention a lever - the user pulls the lever down, that moves a counterweight (and the ball) up, and puts a certain amount of potential energy in the system that can keep various mechanisms working until the ball is at the bottom again. Or what about leveraging a chain lift? The user can pull the chain directly, lifting the ball and inputting power to a wind-up motor. When the user releases, the wind-up motor can keep the rest of the mechanism running for a while. Would require some clever gearing around the motor. And quite possibly multiple wind-up motors, I have no clue how much energy those things can store. To be interesting, I think that a short (5 second) manual operation to activate the mechanism should keep the machine running for 20-30 seconds.

If you go the desk ornament route, I think it would actually be better to have a non-motorized machine, where a short turn of a wheel or push of a lever moves a ball. A motorized version would quickly become visual noise and probably get disassembled before it runs down its first set of batteries.

He means it has a PF connector, rather than the 9V connector of the original buggy motor.

You wait how that lego land rover acts after several years of heavy use.

Do we think the new CV joint is deeper than the old one?

I could imagine the torque sensors being sensitive enough to detect the 'click' a friction clutch makes if it skips, especially if the friction clutch is close to the motor.

Red, green, and yellow in that photo. Colour coded per function.

So I guess the reason the Liebherr is postponed is basically that they expect if they release the liebherr and the 4x4 at the same time, people will pass on the 4x4 while this way more people will buy both.

I wonder the same. Though in the German video @incognito posted above they show the superstructure rotation display and how it can be reset.

Is this 4 wheel steering or 2 wheel steering? If only the front wheels steer, there's no need for the steering motor to be in the middle. And actually it may give more accurate steering if the steering motor is on the pendulum axle, instead of outside it.

It's significantly wider, which may cause clearance problems in the folded situation. But I definitely agree it's a more playable design.

That's a lot of motors. You can't feed 2 axles through the small turntables so you'd have to think of a trick to drive both the 2nd and 3rd stage from an axle on the base. You might be able to feed an axle in from the side (since it only turns about 120°), but I don't think the CV joint allows the axle length to vary enough. Or you might be able to adjust the 2nd stage levering mechanism to be driven from the base. Additionally, the front and rear outrigger turntables need to be folded in sequentially, so you need either two motors or something clever with some levers that makes the inner outriggers fold in faster than the outer ones. You could put one or two motors on top of each outrigger but that would be cheating ;) Pneumatics may offer more options, but In that case I suspect you might as well start from scratch. Doing all 3 stages pneumatically off a single master switch would be an interesting challenge as well though.

I wouldn't mind some candies either.

The A pillar is 6 studs long between the pivots. The horizontal component would be 2 studs if the other angles were straight. That means the vertical component should be sqrt(6*6-2*2)=5.6568, which obviously won't match up. Vertically the distance is 10 studs minus 11 plates. A plate is 0.4 stud (since 5 plates makes 2 studs), so that makes 5.6 studs, or an error of about 1/20 of a stud vertically. And if I look closely it does indeed look like the roof angles very slightly upward.