Cumulonimbus

Next iteration: I made the modules more structurally sound. In the image below I separated them from the rest of the chassis. As you can see this chassis is interrupted, which is not really ideal for the rigidity. As mentioned, I copied the 8258 design, which means that the second steering axle has a geared reduction on the steering. In other words, the wheels of the second axle will follow a turning circle with a different radius, but with the same centre point. This eliminates the problem you described. My 8258 MOD even as steering on the last axle as well, with an even bigger reduction in the steering angle. It is very common on European trucks (at least here in the Netherlands). The chassis height of 5L is again based on the 8258. In my opinion it will create space for later, more complex mechanisms such a suspension, PF and/or RC components, gearboxes, outriggers, etc. And although I'm not planning to transport depleted uranium, battery boxes, XL motors and large cargo modules on this scale will add up to a considerable total weight of the model. As for the double rear tires, I think they are needed for a realistic look of a truck. But I'm aware that the space they require is a big price to pay.

I volunteer as a builder. I dont't exactly know what you mean with 'serious', but I'm willing to do some thinking and building in LDD and with physical bricks, in fact I started to elaborate on my earlier suggestion: As mentioned before, I used the 8258 as a starting point. I roughly built 4 simple modules: a steering module with a chassis height of 5L, a steering module with a chassis height of 3L, a rear wheel module with a driven axle and a rear wheel module without drive. I joined them crudely so that the chassis has the length of the original 8258 truck. Still very early days, but the image below illustrates the general idea. I already ran into some interesting issues which will need to be solved or defined at the start of this project, for example: - Does the chassis need to be part of the module? if it is, the load bearing structure is interrupted at each module, possibly making the transition very bulky. - In this model there is a need for two chassis heights: 5L for most parts, 3L where the fake engine and the cabine sit. - Something similar is true for the chassis width as can be seen Suggestions and ideas?

Sorry to keep going on about the truck suggestion, but I really think it would be ideal for this idea. As a trial we could keep it very simple and the truck could simply consist out of: Rear axle module, Basic frame, Front axle module, Cabine and a Flatbed. Once this is realised extra modules with increasing complexity can simple be added. Similarly to the modular supercar shown here somewhere, the goal could be a library with building blocks, so that anyone interested can build their ideal truck(s). Alternatively, I wonder if we can find the unique advantage of such an international cooperation? Could this be an opportunity for "something" that hasn't been done before? An unconventinal scale, a machine that hasn't been done before, record breaking build time, ... I can't really put in words, but I have the feeling the potential is huge. To be honest, I'm a bit bored with cranes and telehandlers are not my thing. But I'm very curious what the consensus will be. Maybe a poll could be a good starting point?

I was thinking: maybe the 8258 could be the startingpoint for this excercise. Its design is already partially modular, so by making is truly modular we could identify the requirements such a module must meet. Dimensions (min/max), rigidity, room for axles and/or pneumatic hoses passing through, structural connection to the other modules, etc are some of the aspects which will need to be standardised. Once we have the basic module, designing can start. It might also be useful to make a wishlist of features and functions, and possibly make a choice to reduce the complexity if needed.

I like the idea as well, especially the suggestion of building a truck collectively . For a while I have a similar project in mind, where I want to design a truck similar to the 8258. This scale gives the freedom for many variations and features. In my opinion a modular design would be most promising, although the need for a standarised interface makes it a bit more complex, there are many advantages: - Allows for individual styling (cab over engine, long nose, ...) - Create huge potential for features (cargo, cranes, trailers, RC, ...) - Creates freedom in the amount, position and steering of axles - Modules with separate functions (steering, retractable rear axle, ..) can be developed separately, by different people for example I'm curious what this could lead to.

My last Technic set as a kid was the 8459 Front-end Loader. During about the decade of my Dark ages, I was very tempted to buy the 8416 Forklift because of its double section boom, something I tried to build, unsuccessfully. I had similar fascination with the 8294 Excavator. I didn’t buy these, but they made me realize that the studless design created possibilities which were previously impossible with the studded system. I hesitated a long time, because after all, what can a grown-up possibly do with a toy? Eventually I gave in to the urge and bought the 8288 Crawler crane because it was so unusual in my eyes: small scale, big set, manually operated through winches, unusual color scheme and it had tracks (law of nature: all tracked machines are cool). After building it, it remained mainly a display model. The second studless set opened the gates and unsurprisingly it was the legendary 8258 Crane Truck. Since then I bought most flagship models and others that inspired me, gradually performing increasingly complex MODs. Only the last few years I felt I had enough insight in the studless design to start designing and building my own MOCs.

It certainly wasn't my intention to create a hype, I'm not good enough to live up to the high expectations a hype can create. As I said before, many good arguments are stated here and in some way I'm reassured that opinions are as diverse as the people. The main thing I will take away from this discussion is to don't take this LEGO thing too seriously. With that in mind and with the danger of going off-topic: to illustrate what my 'style' is (if you can call it that) I include an image of two of my MOCs: As is often the case, I was inspired by an new TLG set (the 42006 Material handler in this case) but I thought it lacked crucial features from the machines I see in real life. So I build a wheeled chassis with outriggers and steering, rebuild the upper structure so these functions were lead though the turntable and there was space for extra function (raising the cabin) and finally I added an angled extension to the boom. Technically it is a WIP, as I need to finish some details and buy some missing parts in the correct colour. During the build I was inspired to derive a wheeled excavator from this, featuring a similar but shorter chassis, controlled blade on the chassis and HOG steering on the upper structure. To bring it back on-topic: These MODs/MOCs are not large scale, very complex, innovative or completely original ideas and yet they are perfect in my mind and I haven't seen anything similar online yet.

There are very valid points made here, I would like to add some points in addition to my OP. I expressed a personal feeling and sure, I might be perceived as arrogant or paranoid, but that doesn’t mean the sentiment is not real. I don’t live in a cave and I love this technological era where it was never easier to create, share and build on a global level. LDD, custom parts of Efferman, the Sariel book, the 41999 contest and so on, are fascinating phenomena which partly fuel my hobby. It’s even my job, but without Lego unfortunately. At the same time, I can’t shake the feeling that the ease of copying stuff results in the loss of respect for that stuff and its creator in some way. After all MOC stands for “My Own Creation”, this term loses it meaning once disconnected of the creator, then it becomes “Somebody Elses Creation”. I also would like to clarify that, for me personally, being inspired by an item is something completely different than copying that item. I always try to figure out why an innovative of unfamiliar solution looks the way it does, understand the principle behind it and apply it in my own way. These solutions are not exclusively sourced in MOC’s. Official TLG creations and real machines are by far the biggest sources of inspiration. What do I have to lose? That is a good question. The uniqueness maybe, the lack of obligations (a level of quality, pressure to finish) potentially, not sure about this yet. To be very clear: I am not after any reward (money, status). I was just thinking out loud about my what my expectations would be and whether or not this would lead to disappointment or satisfaction. It is also true that the boundary between MOCs and MODs is vague. I often start out with a modification of an existing set, which then slowly evolves in a completely custom machine, which is an own creation but has some of the looks and functions of the initial set. Can I take credit for such a MOD/MOC if it is based on a TLG set? Come to think of it, part of the doubt is probably the question whether or not I think if I’m good enough. Is anybody really interested in my insignificant attempts in an ocean of MOCs, MODs, WIPs and TLG sets?

For a while now, I struggle with the dilemma whether or not to share my MOCs and WIPs with the online community via this forum and/or Brickshelf. On several occasions I read about MOCs being copied and even sold without proper reference to the original designer. I’m also hesitant due to ‘losing control’ of your design. By this, I mean the fact that other AFOLS make LDD files and building instructions which tend to lead their own life and create the impression that it is their work. I’m not certain whether this should be interpreted as a complement or if this is typical for these modern times where ownership of creative content is more and more ignored. To me, creating MOCs is all about finding a creative solutions for the challenges a certain model poses. Once I have finished a MOC (if it is ever finished), the satisfaction is in owning a functional model with the correct proportions of the real deal. On one hand I don’t really feel the desire to fish for complements or get satisfaction out of comments, forgive me if this sounds a bit arrogant. On the other hand, I’m always eager to learn and have a drive to improve my skills. One of the best tools for this is getting constructive feedback from peers. Additionally, other peoples MOCs have served as a source of inspiration for my own, so is it time to return the favor? What are your opinions about this subject?

These are some anniversaries and events I can find: - 100 years since the start of WW1 (not likely due to TLG ethical policy, although the Sopwith Camel is from the same era) - D-Day 70 years ago (the ethical thing again) - Fiat 595 Abarth 50th anniversary - Dodge 100th anniversary - (2015) Ford Mustang 50th anniversary - Mazda MX-5 25th anniversary

I was thinking, licenced Lego sets often are designed to celebrate some kind of anniversary or special occasion. The Unimog, The Simpsons house, Ferrari (I assume) are good examples. Most requests in this topic are about actual machines for which TLG will need a licence of the OEM. My question now is: Are there any interensting jubilees, anniversaries or other occasions this or next year which could lead to licenced Technic sets?

I was aware of that, but you're right, it wasn't a TLG design. However, the 42022 Hot Rod and the 42029 Pickup truck which both were TLG designs launched after the 41999, are retro vehicles. Might this mean that a new trend has started since the 41999?

Not quite what I meant. I was trying to say that I think it is Lego policy to design Technic sets based on machines that are new today. The 41999 is the exception, as it the only set which was based on an old machine (so far).

According to me, Lego only designs new Technic sets based on contemporary machines. Though I would love classic cars, planes, trucks and other "old' stuff, I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm affraid that this means no retro Grove cranes, Space shuttles, Concordes, vintage race cars, etc. On the other hand, 41999 represented a classic car, so there might be hope yet.

Good idea, building in real life with actual bricks is always the most rewarding according to me. Have fun!

Looks nice, but somehow it doesn't feel 'motorbiky' yet. I think it is the sizes of the holes and the shape of the spokes inside. On one hand the extra functionality of the big holes is cool, but it make the disk less realistic. Are there opportunities to reduce the size of the holes (for example minifig hand size) and still combine other functions in this part? Maybe others here have ideas? Modern disk brakes haves so-called floating disks, which allow for limited sideways movement, These can be recognised by the bushings between the actual disk and the spokes. I have no idea if this is doable in the printed parts, but if they are, maybe these could be functional and the holes in the disk just decorative ... just thinking aloud here. The calliper has a nice mounting point. Does the other side show the round shape of the clinders? Similar to this: You must be getting tired from my requests, but I wonder if there is a market here for a good motorbike mud guard (can you guess my current MOC yet?)

Looks good, I'm very interested in your findings once it is built in the 8110 and how it will affect the handling of the Unimog. Will the steering be smoother and require less force? Does the camber mean it will have a self-centering characteristic? I'm eager to find out.

Thanks for the work, I'll put it on my wish-list but I can't promise I'll buy soon. A grapple was exactly the application I needed it for, a while back. It was a MOC meant as a modification of the grapple and the arm of the 8094 Control Centre but actuated as the pneumatic grapple from 8443 Pneumatic Log Loader. The misalignment resulted in a lack of accuracy. Other solutions were tricky as I needed the assembly at the end of the arm as simple and as light as possible. The MOC itself died a silent death. The other occasion I needed it was in an airplane MOC were the gears linked the two ailerons, but again the misalignment lead to a poorly functioning control stick. I solved it by using a lever system, which was easily calibrated.

No problem, as said: I don't have a practical use for it, I just wanted to set a challenge :). I was looking around for harmoinic drive examples and I found a cycloidal drive, which is based on similar principles as the harmonic drive. The animation on Wikipedia seems a lot more feasible in Technic, it might inspire you: More info at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloidal_drive

On a similar note: on a number of occasions, I needed a gear that makes this possibe:

Not necessarily, I would be happy with cosmetic parts. Unless you have ideas ....

Hi Efferman, if you need another challenge after all the requests, I would like to see a disk brake for the current motorbike wheels. In my opinion they can be 1/2 stud wide and have a hole pattern layout which could be useful for other applications. I'm not sure about the diameter as front brake disks tend to be much bigger than rear disks. Maybe a good compromise is possible. An added bonus would a calliper that fits around the disk, but I guess this would only a non-functional, decorative part.

Not sure if there is added value in Technic, but I would be interested to see, feel and hear the difference between helical gears and the normal "spur' gears (the standard Lego gears with straight teeth). In real life, these helical gears provide smoother and less noisy movement, for example: the noise most cars gearboxes make in forward (helical) gears is far less compared to the noisy reverse gear with spur gears. A so-called Geneva drive or Maltese cross might be a cool way of gearing as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_drive Finally, a harmonic drive would be very fascinating as a mechanism. They are a very compact way to realise high gearing ratio's. It might be a challenge to build though. I don't have an application for it yet, but others might have ideas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_drive

Phew, the 8417 was not the finest hour of Techinc bikes, I'm hoping for something inspirational such as the 8420. Currently I'm working on two MOC bikes in fact: a classic Honda CB500 style one and a modern allroad bike (not yet quite sure which one). I'm not picky regarding the potential colour scheme.

Why not? Motorbikes are a cool, recognisable subject (speaking as a biker). Their limited part count means an affordable set. TLG often introduces new or one-off parts in these sets and the large scale allows for some nice details. I would love a bike with a two-speed foot-actuated gearbox, a nice 4 cilinder inline or 2 cilinder boxer engine, a cool color combination (dark or light blue for example?) and possibly some metallic painted parts. Can't wait