Cumulonimbus

I disagree, my guess is that the bucket wheel excavator will have a similar scale as the 8288 crawler crane.Large machine, small scale so I would expect a part count in the range of 600 to 800 pieces with the same tracks as the 8288. In my opinion, the functionality of the real machine (spin bucket wheel, raise boom, rotate super structure, drive and conveyor belt) is just too limited to justify a large set. The only question then is what the bucket wheel would look like on that scale.

Nice work, I saw it on Brickshelf the other day, it's a well proportioned and functional truck with an attractive colour scheme. I'm very curious about the other ideas and entries of that contest. Could you give a link?

The suggestions above remind me of this: Before affordable toy RC helicopters were available, there were toys with a small helicopter powered by a motor in a stationary base. The helicopter was light enough to fly and circle around the base. The height and forward speed of the helicopter was controllable at the base by varying the RPM of the motor and the angle of the helicopter. I loved the simplicity of it and I remember the Science Museum in London having a similar setup a decade ago which I really adored. Some examples: I doubt a Lego version could be light enough to actually fly, but it's a nice source of inspiration to me.

Thank you for another enlightening episode Blakbird, please keep going, I really appreciate the explanations. I'm familiar with the mechanics of a single rotor helicopter, but I never took time to figure out the working principles of a coaxial helicopter. My respect for Sheepo and his creation(s) only increases.

I will actually find it very funny if nothing stated on the previous 20 pages of this topic would appear to be true. It is still very possible that it's a hoax, potentially to distract form the real developments.

The internets is full of pretty pictures... But seriously, just keep breathing, it hasn't even been confirmed that there are pictures out there. Just a bunch of dudes getting each other psyched.

That would make sense, since it the iconic current Defender model will be retired soon. That might motivate Land Rover to participate in this cooperation. Even better, although the Defender submitted in Cuussoo would be very expensive, the fact that it got 10.000 votes could convince TLG product management that the potential market is big enough and that it would be worthwhile for TLG. If this all true, I have only one request: can it be green please? EDIT: quote from the Land Rover website: "As UK production of the current Defender enters its final phase, Land Rover will use 2015 to celebrate its global automotive icon and look ahead to an all-new family of Defenders"

I agree with you, contests with part count restrictions lead to more creative constructions. The MINI contest was, for me, the most fun and biggest challenge to build and has lead to the biggest amount of well tough through and creative entries. The Technic community tends to get spoiled by huge and incredible creations with thousands of parts and many PF and RC components. Although I have huge respect for these builders and their creations, I'm more fascinated by small and mid-sized sets which force the builder to be much more creative with parts to create functional mechanisms while getting the look and feel right. That said, I don't think all contests should be restricted in size or part count, it is always interesting to see what people come up with. But I hesitate to enter these kind of "unlimited" contests because I get the feeling that my creation will be blown out of the water by huge creations made by people with bigger budgets or more time. To be honest, I think this will happen with the current TC8 as well. Somebody will enter with a 5000 part, full RC crane and most of the voters will throw superlatives at it and forget about smaller creations which could be much more brilliant in the creative problem solving. A piece count limit levels the playing field and lowers the threshold for novices to enter. As I have seen in my profession so many times, constraints lead to creativity.

This is the nicest Atom MOC I have seen: (Source: Brickshelf)

Hmm, personally, I would like to see a Technic set. Maybe the 42037 offroader or the 42036 motorbike driving though all the landscapes you will see or the 42032 tracked loader digging in all the surfaces you will encounter. Maybe the 42023 construction team is nicer and more diverse to pose. Or maybe you should even take your 42043 MB truck and load it with memorabilia as you go along, one for each city/landmark/state you will visit. Maybe you should just take a load of bricks and start a collective build that progresses with all the people you meet, although normal studded bricks would better suited for that. Maybe you can let people build stuff at each overnight stop with the 1210 Architecture studio set, inspired by this museum I visited: ... I better stop here before I get carried away.

Sound like a trip of a lifetime, Jim. This summer I have made a similar trip through Scandinavia (yes, Billund as well) and I can endorse a motorhome roadtrip to anyone (VW T4 California FTW). Photo's would be nice, but I do expect a Lego set/creation to join you on your trip . Maybe it can be part of your pictures or maybe you can take pictures of Lego related stuff along your trip like shop displays, collectors along the way, etc. Anyway, all the best on your trip!

Impressive work. Just one question, how much play is left in your swash plate setup? I have played around with something similar to MOD my 9396, but the lack of a physical pivot point for the turntable made it unstable.

Thanks for the opportunity, I will consider this my plan B. I have another (twin) project in my mind, I will focus on this first. This contest is a nice excuses to actually finish a MOC . One question though, what is the motivation for the mandatory video? Does it need to explain the functions or do you consider it as a sort of a proof of authenticity?

Ah shoot, does this mean that my WIP of my MOC tower crane is not allowed as well? http://www.eurobrick...54#entry2300316

Thank you for the links, I had no idea that TLG is committing itself to sustainability on so many levels, nice to read that they are ambitious and committed. It is my opinion that all people and companies thinking up and creating "stuff" have the responsibility to do this with our environment in mind. Most companies have yet to be convinced or simply do it as a advertising strategy instead of a genuine concern. I find it very impressive that TLG is even considering an alternative for the omnipresent ABS. I'm very curious to see how this strategy will pan out.

Hi Doug72, Nice MOD. The 42042B has inspired me to design and build a MOC tower crane. Here, I have run into the same issue as you, when using two spools for the traversing movement the difference in diameter between the two will cause one of the threads to sag. I'm thinking it could be solved by using one continuous string connected to a drum at each end and a pulley which keeps the sting under tension with a spring. I have to test it yet, but I don't have time for it now.

As an industrial design engineer, I have had the opportunity to work on sustainability of plastic parts and products as a whole. I find it a bit limiting that the questions asked mostly inquire about sustainable materials since, in my experience, the sustainability of any product is determined by so much more than just the materials it is made of. Anyway, here are my answers and I have clarified my point of view in the last question: Q1. First, please list what consumers can generally expect when a toy product is made of "sustainable materials": In my opinion, for most consumers sustainable materials is synonymous with natural materials, so a wooden toy will be perceived more sustainable that a plastic one. The average consumer will not stop to consider that a plastic product can still be the more sustainable option if it has for example a longer life span, a better end of life solution or hasn't travelled as far before it is in the same shop. Most consumers will feel that Lego sets and parts are of a higher quality than a typical "Made in China" equivalent, but most will not associate this quality with sustainability. If I see a product advertised as "sustainable" I expect that the manufacturer has taken every factor about the environmental impact of that product into account. This means that aspects such as the material resources, the energy use during production, the impact of logistics, the energy use during the life span and length of that life span and the end of life solution are well thought through. If this hasn't been the case while the product is claimed to be better for the environment (often associated by terms such as "green"), I see it as a marketing trick to fool consumers. So honesty and clear communication is very important to convince me as consumer. A sustainable product for me must: 1. Present a clever and viable solution for its environmental impact 2. Be honest about its impact 3. Ensure its quality during its life span 4. Provide recycle and/or reuse options at the end of life. Q2. What characteristics of the LEGO experience are currently most important to consumers? Since this is a Lego Technic forum, I won't elaborate too much here. For me the most important values of Lego (Technic) are: 1. Modularity (flexibility, freedom of design, possibilities outrun restrictions) 2. Quality (longevity, fit and finish of parts, high build standard of official sets) 3. Innovation (new parts, evolution in sets quality and complexity, creativity of represented machines) Q3. What characteristics of the LEGO experiences are relevant to consider when addressing "sustainable materials"? I find it difficult to say anything about the sustainability of Lego, since I haven't done any LCA as a cases study. Sure, the parts are made from a oil-based resource, but then again, the quality is so high that parts have a life span anything from 10 to 30 years. Additionally, the parts can be used countless times and do not require much energy or resources during its use. They are relatively light weight and nicely packed in boxes with not a lot of empty space inside, so the logistics are quite fine as well. This leads me to believe that Lego will come out quite favourably in a head to head comparison with other toys. Therefore, I see a lot more potential for TLG in education about sustainability, like the 9688 Renewable energy education kit has done on a small scale. The solar panel and the generator educated kids about sustainability in construction and this could be elaborated much more by incorporating this more in new sets. If TLG is considering sustainability as a goal it must consider: 1. Formulate a clear sustainability vision for the future: which goal is TLG trying to achieve and why? 2. Ensure no loss of quality and full compatibility with current bricks, even after some use 3. Education: explain meaning and objective of sustainability to kids and teach the basics. 4. Find responsible (preferably renewable) resources Q4. Is there anything else you feel is important regarding Sustainable Materials that wasn't covered in the questions above, that might help get a better view about the topic? It is crucial to understand that the environmental impact of any product is the sum of the impact of each phase in its life cycle. So not only the pollution, materials and energy demands of the production and distribution, but the impact of the use and end of life phase as well. As explained, the impact of the use of Lego bricks and sets will be small, so the greatest potential for improvement will be in the production of parts (IF the quality doesn't degrease) and at the end of life. In my opinion something very interesting can happen at the end of life of Lego. Should old, broken Lego be collected and recycled? Is this still a good idea if TLG decides to switch form ABS to another (biobased) compound? What about the impact of the logistics involved to send the old parts to a recycler. Could the recycling be done at a local level, eliminating most of the logistics? All very interesting questions to which the answer is not easily formulated. Literature describes that a perceived beneficial (for the buyer) price-value ratio is the reason why purchases are made, and very few consumers will feel that a low environmental impact will add enough value to justify an often higher price. Therefore for sustainability to be successful, it must be economically viable as well. Luckily, reducing materials and energy used, limiting transport all result a lower cost price of a product. Therefore sustainability is good for the planet as well as for profit. In my experience an LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) is the only tool to get scientific data about sustainability of a product(and/or service) and its life cycle. This tool breaks the environmental impact of a product down into all the aspects of impact in each of its phases. It is a laborious process and the accuracy greatly depends on the quality of the databases used. But if done correctly, it allows to compare the impact of different product-service combinations and make a good choice. My humble advice would be: 1. Don't focus too much on just the materials 2. Use proper tools and experienced professionals 3. Formulate a clear vision on how sustainability will fit in the TLG business model. Will it just be the parts, or should this be reflected in the sets and models or even in the TLG buildings and other TLG activities?

In my opinion, the 8288 B-model is even better than the A-model. In fact, I have a theory that it was originally meant as the A-model, but because it was more difficult to display attractively on the box (it would leave a lot of "empty"space on the box as you can see on the manual), the choice was made to make it the B-model and put something very similar on the box as an A-model. As for the 42042B, I really like it. It might be a bit crude in design, but it instantly triggered a lot of ideas for MOCs and MODs. And to be fair, a crawler crane with a jib is something completely different as a tracked tower crane.

@BoxerLego Forgive my ignorance, but why are you're limiting yourself by (partially) building with Lego bricks? I didn't read your topic in depth, but from a distance it seems that whatever your goal is, building in plastic bricks instead of raw materials is an inefficient way of designing a machine which will need a high degree of accuracy and require very strict tolerances to come even close to its full potential. Anyway, good luck, the best inventions are made by men in sheds.

The articulation of the 42043 suspension is quite big, so the height of the mudguards in my photo is really what you need if you want to clear the wheels at maximum articulation. If you want to stay true to the 8258, you will need to restrict the articulation. However, I'm looking for an off-road look, I'm considering a lumber truck like:

This is a XL version: double trolleys and linked hooks, lifting frame, four section boom, four and a bit section mast, five counter weights: And I have started building: That's it for now, I need BL orders to come in for the rest.

This is a first try at an RC version of my crane. Some questions remain: - Are the M-motors heavy enough to act as a counterweights? - Is the gearing low enough? - Are the power cables long enough and is it possible to route them nicely? And here is a proposal for a climbing frame (made green for clarity). In real life, this can be used to let the tower crane grow without the need for a mobile crane. A new section of the mast can slide in the frame and be attached to the previous section. I'm not sure how the lifting could be mechanised in my version without it becoming too bulky. For now it is done manually.

I'll think about that climbing system, seems doable. Some more details: 1. The routing of the three cables, blue for hoisting, greens for moving the trolley back and forth: 2.Broken down into modules: 3. Some close-ups: Meanwhile I'm also exploring the possibility to make it RC, not really my cup of tea, but I know other AFOLs like RC.

I am working on some MODs for my 42043, so I build a copy of the front and rear axle of the Arocs and made a new chassis around them. In order to get a feeling for the correct proportions, I placed the 8258 cabine, front outrigger module and crane on this chassis and this is the result: Note that this is a mock-up, so none of the functions are connected to anything at the moment. What do you think, is this something worth pursuing? Should I focus on modding my 42043 or continue with this 8258 derivative? If so, what should its cargo be?

That does sound exciting, thanks for the info.