Cumulonimbus
-
Posts
682 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Everything posted by Cumulonimbus
-
While I really like the idea of a bigger (and blue!) crawler crane, I'm not really convinced by the proportions of it: The curved side panels, the strange ratio between the length and the height of the cabine, the length and height of the tracks, the width of the upper structure (where the winches and gearbox are), they all look not quite right to me compared to the real deal. I know I will buy this set, but I will also heavily modify it. -
Those are meant to represent something called "cab edge vanes". They can be found on most European trucks and are aerodynamics aids to improve the airflow around the sharp edges of the truck cab. This should reduce the turbulence of the airflow, reducing drag and buffeting.
-
I find the position of the outriggers a bigger issue than their speed. In my opinion they should be located much closer near the crane, preferably between the two front axles like the 8258. I can understand that this was difficult to do with the front suspension and complexity of the crane, but the current solution is not very realistic in an otherwise very realistic truck. Might be interesting to investigate the feasibility to MOD this feature. Nevertheless, I'm very impressed with the truck. Looks like the Lego Genie has granted all our wishes.
-
I wasn't aware there was any need for redemption.
-
As I suggested before, it would make sense to use this part for the outrigger function as well. Maybe it will be provided in two colours (red and grey/black)? That suspension setup at the rear would be nice, relatively simple to build, but effective in following bumps and dips while driving. This sound very good as well, phiew, this is going to be an expensive summer ...
-
Just a thought: Could it be possible that this new sliding panel is also part of the chassis to support the outriggers in this truck?
-
The first association I have with a "fire plane" is the Canadair CL 215 or CL-415. This aircraft has been on my MOC list for a while, so I hope TLG has done a lot of the work for me . Not the prettiest of planes, but I like its though and rugged looks.
-
Yes, as I said in my OP, the 42036 misses a lot of features. It made me realise even more that the 8420 was a fantastic design, a true classic (but it had its drawbacks as well). But I must confess that this bike has its merits as well: It looks more sleek and mean next to the 8420 and has less rolling resistance than the 8051. It is a much more playable bike and that was exactly the point I believe. I have build one from my stock parts in red with gold rims, added some details and it starts to grown on me. However, I'm still planning a major redesign with a functioning gearbox, different engine layout, possibly 8420 rims, and more details (pegs, levers, brakes, etc). Undecided about the colour scheme yet, but the dark blue version is not (yet) possible in real bricks, unfortunately.
-
I have been exploring the possibilities of blue for this bike:
-
But the point is that they are being shared, even as we speak by those who say they can’t. Just not to the ones who ask politely. Apparently, I overestimated the comradery on this forum. ‘Nuf said
-
I respect the fact that you made a promise not to share. I highly value a (wo)man's word and I'm certainly not pushing you to break that promise. But on the other hand, I like to decide for myself if the preliminary images are worth the view. Even blurry pictures contain a lot information about proportions, stance, color use, etc. As hinted before, the 42039 preliminary image was more valueable to me than photos of the finished set. If I ever decide to buy the 42039, it will be because of the pre-lim image. I will shut up about this now and try to be patient for the first glimpses. Edit: I wonder if it would be possible to share the preliminary images after other photos are available. This would still allow for the comparison, but not be a threat to TLG stakes.
-
As so many others, I too would like to see the preliminary images. In many cases, they are spark ideas to mod the sets because often good ideas and solutions of the preliminary models get lost in the development process (42039 is one of the best examples). I like to recreate those features if I feel they make the model better. The descriptions of the 2H2015 sets so far really push all my buttons, much more than the 1H2015 sets (I haven’t bought any of those). In addition to this, I find it very fascinating to see how a model has developed. Besides, I find it rather childish to mention “I have seen the images”, but then not share or help to find them. What is the point? I have spent some time to find the images too, even on the obscure Russian sites, but no luck so far. Another thought: If TLG is so successful at protecting their preliminary images so far this time, is there any chance that the 2H2015 sets will be better protected at the Nuremburg fair as well? There might not even be any pictures during and after the fair.
-
It's really surprising that the preliminary images haven’t been leaked by now while they’re obviously going around in a group of select insiders. In other releases, once a few had seen the preliminary images, they were spreading pretty quickly soon after that. Could this new ‘behavior’ be a direct consequence of the storm of critique following the differences between the 42039 prelim and the final model? Based on previous experiences, I imagine that the models which will soon be shown in Nuremburg are pretty close to finished?
-
Favorite Technic Sets
Cumulonimbus replied to DrJB's topic in LEGO Technic, Mindstorms, Model Team and Scale Modeling
I don’t want to sound too negative or grumpy, but what is the point of topics like this one, where everybody just give a list of their best, most favorite, worst, most (im)popular, most expensive, biggest, … sets they own or have owned? What is the intention of the TS? To be assured that their sets fit in the lists of other AFOLS, or see which they should buy to make a list complete? I could appreciate if this data would be used by the TS in a graph or another way of making trends and evolutions visible. But just listing them seem a little pointless to me. Yes, I can and do choose to not read these topics, but they seem to be more numerous than before and cluttering the overview of topics. -
Haha, nice work JunkstyleGio! This was exactly what I meant with my OP: With some small tweaks, a lot of B-models are a very nice additions to any collection. You might actually have convinced me to buy a 42038 and do something similar. For those who are interested, here is a picture of my 42009B Stacker (sorry for the low light conditions)
-
As promised, this is a screenshot of the mechanism I came up with (coloured for your convenience). The principle is very similar to the one of efferman, but by putting the gearbox upside down, the mechanism can be put under the floor of your car. I also separated the linkages for the two necessary movements (left-right and front-back), so I created more options to tweak the movement and the forces required for each independently, for example by changing the length of the levers. Be sure to brace this mechanism properly though, any play could prevent selecting some gears properly.
-
I once started a rebuild of my 8070 to incorporate a transaxle with 4 speeds. I based my gear linkage on the flight controls of a light airplane. It only needed one change over catch for all four gears. Unfortunately, I never finished the WIP and I don’t have photo’s at the moment. But tonight I could make a quick LDD sketch if you need it.
-
After an overenthusiastic bid on an auction site, I had a spare 42009 crane, so I decided to build the B-model. The container reach-stacker isn't a machine I usually consider recreating, but I gave it a try anyway. During the build, I improved some small things: The colour scheme which is typically suffering form the restriction of the available parts of the A-model, was made more uniform and similar to the a real Hyster. Additionally, I modified the chassis so the steering rear wheels could make the huge steering angles the real one can. I was impressed with the functions, strength and complexity of the model. It really has been thought through well and, in my opinion, could have been a worthy A-model any year. This makes me wonder, how many B-models do you have as permanent members of your collection? Do you value some of them as high as A-models or are they just a nice bonus? It really is an amazing feat that the Lego designers come up with B-models for all the Technic sets each year, but I imagine they get a lot less credit for them compared to the A-models.
-
Yes, I understand. I was too focussed on the holes. Thanks for clearing that up, I will sleep well tonight.
-
I have the following question that I can't seem to answer, so I will try my luck here: Most here will be familiar with the Pythagorean theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) and the resulting Pythagorean triples like 3:4:5. These describe ratios between the lengths of the edges of a triangle so that one corner is perpendicular (which is very useful in bracing structures). But I can't wrap my head around the fact that this doesn't seem to apply to the Technic building system. The theorem should be independent of the unit of length, whether it is inches, meters or studs. So why isn't it possible then to construct the following, where the lower holes of the yellow and the green liftarm align: Assuming that TLG hasn't found a way to break physics, what am I missing?
-
I’m fascinated by the “stationary” sets TLG made in the ’80s and ‘90s. Most of them were part of universal sets, the car engine set (858) and the harbor crane (8074) are the two most inspiring examples to me. I would love to see a modern interpretation of those. There are some MOCs of assembling and sorting machines which are great as well. Wheels and tracks are great, but you are right, a little more variation would be nice from the AFOL point of view.
-
I found a nice video with an amazing Technic and Mindstorm model of the Philea lander which has succesfully touched down on a comet for the first time. It gives a nice explanation of the functions of the lander and looks like an interesting build: http://lego.gizmodo.com/simulating-the-esas-spaceship-spaceship-spaceship-la-1658223997
-
Blueprints
Cumulonimbus replied to nerdsforprez's topic in LEGO Technic, Mindstorms, Model Team and Scale Modeling
Oh yes, I sketch a lot. From quick model ideas and descriptions all the way up to hand drawn 3D perspectives to spot and solve upcoming challenges. As a result of my job, I'm much faster at sketching different iterations than building them in LDD of real life. Only when I'm working on integrating these partial solutions, I revert to LDD and actual parts. I tried to bundle my sketches into a sketchbook once, but because ideas pop up at the most weird moments, I end up with a bunch of papers of all sizes and forms. This is also a clue as to why I keep sketching: Often I don't have access to LDD or parts when I experience inspirational moments (@ work, during train travel, on holiday, in the middle of the night, etc). I don't have a functioning scanner at the moment, so I'm not able to show any examples. Blueprint on the other hand, I don't use often. To determine the correct scale, I use googled images of the real machine and photoshop LLD screenshots or photo's of my WIP on top of them. This make the differences and the areas of attention very clear. Here is an example of my 8052 redesign in progress where I was determining the chassis length, cabine position and height. The reference is the front axle with the 42024 wheels and tires. Note that the WIP had two rear axles at that time, and the real life example only one. -
I don't doubt that there is steering on a vehicle of this scale, but what intrigues me is the geometry of this illusive steering: As far a I can see, the axles seem to be similar in design as the those of the Unimog. This means that the axis of rotation of the hubs will not be perpendicular to the floor (In the Unimog this caused some undesirable effects on the steering). As a result, there is a angle between the axis of rotation of the tracks (which is always perpendicular to the floor) and the axis of rotation of those hubs. This angle could be used to generate a steering action linked to a movement such as body roll. So in short, I think Zblj is on to something when he said this machine might be steered by tilting the body.
-
Looks like an interesting idea, although I don't completely understand how it works yet (sound is not available to me at the moment). Is it correct that the vertical shafts are the output (but why two?) and which side is the input then? I also wonder about the efficiency and lifespan of this setup.