keymaker

I do not understand, why AFOLs with their MOCs on Rebrickable should be afraid? They are selling instructions, not bricks itself.

If it eventually helps to be able to control Buwizz 3.0 via some physical controler then it is great news!

Great one, packed with functions and in my favourite scale.

Thank you, I fixed that.

@Igor1 Wow, it is so nice to see that some one built it. I see that all you need are bumpers to lock the body :D Please share your photos on rebrickable site and if you have some opinions, please also share them (positive and negative of course). I wish to know what other people who actually built it and test it/played with it think about it.

@Igor1 Thank you! In case of redesigning front axle. It shouldn't be a big problem, because I used C+ L motor and PF servo is not so different. Only connection points need to be adjusted. I very like PF and I won't resign from using them. Main reason behind creating this MOC was to test new Buwizz motors. And as they are power hungry, I decided to use Buwizz 3.0 (which I also bought along with motors). I was forced to use C+ L motor because two reasons: only C+ ports available on Buwizz 3.0 unit (motors took PF ports) and range of motion in steering mechanizm - half a stud to right and to left (but I perfectly know that this can be adjusted on PF servo when using for example Buwizz 2.0). And yes, such fast models desperately need some possibility to use physical controller. I am not able safely control this car with touch screen. I know that Buwizz 3.0 is expensive, but I believe it not the problem to replace it with Buwizz 2.0. I simply wanted to test motors and prepare my first really fast model.

This is not a problem, inside the cab there is place for two or three Buwizzes 2.0. The problem is that Buwizz 2.0 do not work with C+ line, so you need to redesigne front axle or put C+ battery box next to Buwizz 2.0 - which also is not a problem - there is place for that. All you need is to remove driver seat and steering wheel.

Right? I noticed it to, but I am not sure what is the reason. Because there is only a little bending even when rear suspension is fully compressed (and remember there are hard yellow shock absorbers there). Check the photo: Decision about direction of the motors was made at the very beginning of the design. If it was the right one or not, I am not entirely sure. Model is still work in progress, I was managed to eliminate most of the bending in rear axle (check the photo above). But as I havan't tried this other way of placing motors, but I will. It can be interesting if I will be able to come up with better design, because this one above has many advantages. The risk of wheel falling of is addressed by using parts 4185 insiade (rear) and outside (front and rear). They do the job. In case of moving ball joint to the front, I tried this way, but resigned (too much length of the frame, too heavy rear bridge). I would also wish to give credits to great designer @rm8, who designed very capable trophy truck couple years back. Rear axle, shock absorber mounting points and rear part of the frame are based in his creation, yet modified and improved by me. At least in version I presented above, which doesn't have to be the final one if I manage to achieve better results with different placement of the motors. I believe I should also share some (briefly ofc) story behind my MOC. It is WIP topic after all. I started from this monstrosity: Then I designed solid rear axle. It was too long and too heavy: I improved it. I made it stiffer, lighter, stronger: And then put it to the whole frame: But after all I wasn't satisfied with this state, tired of the model and I almost abandoned the project. After a week or two I decided to check, how more talented designers dealt with this type of cars and came across RM8s model. I was so impressed that I used his design in rear part of the car, try it out extensively and started to redesigning, addressing problems I find out. Present state of rear axle (presented in action in the video and photos) is this: I do not know where I will finish with this one, but definitely RM8's model helped me out to come back to working on this MOC, thank you!

Unfortunately no place for additional two shock absorbers. In case of driving performance of the model itself, you can see some on the video. In case of suspension performance itself, I need to prepare some video to show it, it would be better than describing it. You are right, 95292c01. Those 2909c02 are out of the reach for me. As I am playing with paint job, some monster energy vibes:

They look fine, minimal signs of worn out. But after playing with those Buwizz motors I can say I understand why TLG abandoned this kind of motors. They ARE powerfull and other parts - plastic elements of the drivetrain or any other parts, which ultimately always hit floor/wall are no way near to be able to withstand conditions which are created by those motors.

Hi, I have bought Buwizz 3.0 and two Buwizz motors and decided to put them to test. I choose Trophy Truck. Model is still work in progress, so any suggestions are welcome, especially related to the colour of the body. Some parts of the car I am happy with: front bonnet, front lights and grill and what is underneath them, roll cage, but some I am not so sure: bull bar shape, rear looks a bit unfinished to me compared to front, rear shock absorbers (yellow) are a bit too hard, but on the other hand black ones are too soft and saggy. What do you think I can do to improve this model and what colour choose (only original Lego parts) to make it shine in crowd? :)

@TechnicBrickPower I also haven't had time to check it out yet but it looks great and if possible I also plan to use it in video presentation of my future models. Credits of course will be given :)

What do you mean exactly by "single module"?

Wow, @brickless_kiwi, thank you for the link but your answer sounds like you somehow took my lack of knowledge personally :D @Milan s answer is much more informative without "additions" In matter of fact, I did MOC Tracked Dozer D10T a while ago and I was aware of most of pros mentioned by Milan, but I also noticed cons I mentioned earlier. It looks like that in this case, more pros than cons for upper drive system

I wish to see some info from experts related to real machines, if we have anyone here. From my point of view, I would say that lower wheels are better to be powered, because there are more points of contact wheel with tracks.

Can you tell anything more about what hides under "redesigned actuators". Because the black color I believe we all can see and if this is what you are referring to then :(

THIS IS HUGE! And definitely more interesting for me than 42100. I definitely see 4 large LAs in black color ^^

I am not such an experienced builder, but I do have some experience with selling MOCs on rebrickable (for example my UAZ 3151). I would say that advertising is very important. I mean you should consider buying Desinger plan on rebrickable. Also apart from advertising your MOC here, I would recommend to show it on FB lego technic groups, own yt channel ofc, instagram etc. P.S. I am pretty sure I saw you on nicjasno streams, where you are often present viewer

One more thing. I know it is nothing new, but I believe that we as Buwizz 3.0 and especially Buwizz motors users desperately need Buwizz to support some kind of manual, physical controllers (with proportional control ofc). Touch screen isn't very useful when trying to control MOCs equipped with those monster Buwizz motors.

Testing my buwizz 3.0 with 2 buwizz motors and L C+ motor for steering I came across an interesting feature (It's not a bug, it's a feature! xD). Every time my MOC rollovers due to too tight turn, Buwizz loses center steering synchronization with L C+ motor. As a result wheels were locked in max left or max right position (I didn't check that carefully). After every such event center steering synchronization in buwizz app was needed. Does anyone came across such behaviour? Or guys from Buwizz team, have you tested such scenarios? @Zerobricks are you familiar with such case?

Yes, large LA would be unstoppable indeed. But it takes space, a lot of it. And I tried to keep rasional size, hide and secure main mechanisms. And so far during testing I didn't notice problems with lack of power with small LA in this configuration. Instructions are available without charges, so anyone interested can check out front axle construction in this MOC :)

I would not say that small LA is the best option, but.... It works pretty well in my Crawler, which is not the smallest one :)

Yes. Rims from Zetros are less than 5 studs, sadly.

I love the fun and diversity of contests there. And what is more, it seems that nobody bothers so much about the look of MOCs, the most important thing are fun and their capabilities. I wish to be able to be part of something like this in Poland.

Constructive feedback is necessary if anyone wants to improve. Aware constructor knows that. My UAZ 3151 at the beginning was ugly as ... Let's say it was very ugly :P But thanks to advices from people here and from FB group it became quite a beauty (at least as pretty as old UAZ can be) and it was appreciated in this improved form.