johnnym

Maybe this is more something for the support, but maybe someone in this forum already has a solution for it: When having two motors hard-coupled to one axle but connected to one BuWizz output each, is there a way to copy the power curve from one output to the other one? And is it only me or is the orange LED color on the BuWizz hard to distinguish from the red one?

@Coolusername: How resilient is the spray paint on the pin holes, does it get off easily? I assume you needed multiple spray rounds until the original black vanished so you should have a "thick" layer of white on it and I wonder how that will work with the pins of the wheel hub. @JunkstyleGio: Sorry, actually off-topic, but what's the white and green car in the background? It looks interesting, you're using axle connectors as fenders, right? Can we see more of this, maybe in a new thread?

Nice car, any chance for a digital model? This could be used as basis for a whole series of Race Formula cars (e.g. also in red, orange or a mix of all colors). I think kids would like that.

Well, the black rims are OK for me, but IMO orange and red are also the more pleasing colors than dark azure. But hey, we can now create a rallye car in the Martini Racing colors with the dark azure fenders.

Missed that one. Nice bodywork. The door locks are really useful and simple to implement. You put the mark very high with that truck. Some questions about the drive lines: If I understand it correctly, left and right wheels can spin at different speeds, but all wheels on one side always spin at the same speed? So a single wheel in the air won't stop/affect the other wheel on the corresponding axle? But all wheels on one side in the air and the truck stops - not that this would be a common situation and you can still lock the diff then. Have you used such a setup in one of your motorized vehicles already? Is the off-road performance superior to per-axle diffs?

Say do you find both black and dark gray shocks being of the same quality? I have used both shocks (black ones are from 42007) and have a feeling that the black ones do not work as smooth as the dark gray ones, when compressing they seem to twist more easily than the dark gray ones. I'm unsure if this is due to the softer spring or the mechanical quality of the plastics.

Back to topic: The hub from 42099 also has gyroscope and accelerometer sensors included - not that I have a need for something like that in my models ATM, but maybe something to consider if you have a use for these in what you plan for the future @mugwump.

You're welcome! I also prefer the dutch version...

Wow, great "little" excavator! The video is also nice to watch and funny. You need to create a miniature version of @efferman's dump truck now.

Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but the PF parts you can buy from shop.lego.com are also sets. They have a set number but just contain a single part.

I know that some PU parts (or better part sets) are already available separately, I just wanted to emphasize the difference between the (PF part) sets and replacement parts.

The situation differs a little for the PF equipment, as the PF motors, battery boxes, LEDs and receiver are available as sets from shop.lego.com and not (only if at all) as replacement parts. E.g. as replacement parts for 42095 the PF parts are either out of stock or not for sale (though battery box and remote have a unit price tag between 35 and 37 EUR there). I assume it's like @kbalage phrased it, it will just take a little longer until the new PU equipment will be available separately.

Ok that could be a reason, but for PF, Lego just didn't want to make money? Or was the situation similar when PF came out years ago (i.e. equipment not available separately)? Well, maybe there wasn't even a shop.lego.com at that time - I don't know as I wasn't interested in Lego at that time. For example look at 42095: it contains 2 PF L (2 x ca. 15 EUR) , 1 AA battery box (ca. 8 EUR), 1 IR receiver (ca. 17 EUR) and 1 IR remote (ca. 11 EUR) - so ca. 66 EUR in total when bought at shop.lego.com in Germany compared to usually below 60 EUR for the whole 42095. I once even saw it for below 50 EUR, but already had bought four at that time so thought that was enough. Generally I'd assume that PU equipment in the sets would be less expensive then when bought separately. But what do I know? Well, right, that wouldn't help, if you just want a singular item though.

That shows the importance of the "right" colors. And black is really useful to hide details.

Great, thanks, I get the picture! Wow, those chromed rims look gorgeous! The Mustang rims also look nice, I'd really like to use them on my Palomino - maybe the Palomino in red and with black roof and with white stripe and the Mustang wheels in chrome silver... BTW, I find it interesting how open and empty the red version above looks at the rear part of the cabin. I either didn't notice that in pictures of the blue version - maybe due to its black interior - or I am already too much used to the look of my mod of this car, which closes that part from the sides. All three versions are pretty identical at that position apart from the colors used, aren't they?

@gregorski904: Can't remember if you already wrote it somewhere in this thread, but are you using PF or PU equipment in your mod? Actually off-topic, but would you be so kind and post one (or more) pictures of your red mod of the blue car from 42098 in the 42098 mods thread? I haven't yet seen it in red in real - only in a rendering from my mod in red and my red parts are in use ATM. Maybe together with the blue version, that'd be cool to see the different impressions both colors give. I have only built my mod in black & orange so far.

Why's that? Can you please elaborate a little more on that? Say, has this phasing out already started? Because last time I checked shop.lego.com PF XL motors were (already) out of stock and I thought there'd be a little more time.

I'd add that the PU L and XL motors are also slightly bigger (i.e. 1 or 2 studs longer respectively) than the respective PF ones. Though this most likely won't change until the switch to something different in the future and is also not strictly to topic, it's something to consider. Sure, their shape and mechanical connectivity could allow to integrate PU motors more easily as structural parts into creations, for PF motors I could imagine that one sometimes needs even more space to attach them firmly to a creation, but I could also imagine, that some compact motorized designs are no longer possible with PU L and XL motors - even more without compact battery boxes, though a simple car with a motor for steering and one for propulsion should be doable with that small PU battery box (Hub) and requires less space for the power supply and remote control than PF alone or PF w/SBrick. E.g. for my motorized Palomino with PF L and Servo motors and BuWizz the +1 stud in length of the PU L motor would have been already 1 stud too long for the simplest application - i.e. driver gear directly above first idler gear at the rear. With 2 PU L motors the room to put the power supply would shrink by 2 studs in length. BTW, can the PU L and XL motors already be purchased separately? I think the pricing will also be a relevant factor for a decision and if you take the PU Hub as example, it's more expensive than a PF setup (AAA battery box ca. 14 EUR, IR Receiver ca. 17 EUR, IR remote ca. 11 EUR ATM, so 42 EUR total, compared to ca. 50 EUR for the PU Hub alone in Germany) and that even if you already have a smartphone (of course not an argument when using SBrick or BuWizz).

Can't speak for SBrick, but recently purchased a BuWizz and using this with PF (L and Servo so far) motors feels genuinely like "cheating" compared to PF equipment alone. The fast mode alone already feels like a boost compared to a AAA battery box with fresh batteries and V2 IR receiver. I can't tell, what an SBrick is capable of, but assume this is in the range of a V2 IR receiver (though with 4 outputs) or better and hence suspect that the current limit of the battery boxes will be the limit in this case and according to @Philo's research these are limited to 750 mA, though I'm unsure how fast this limit kicks in. The BuWizz specs promise more. For me, I'd definitely say yes. Of course a BuWizz isn't cheap, but compared to what I invested into AAA battery boxes and a V2 IR receiver and what I got out of them compared to the BuWizz, this is not that much more and you have more power (according to specs) and more outputs available and the required amount of space is less than with PF alone or PF w/SBrick. There's also a price comparison available at the BuWizz site, but you should do the math with the current prices at shop.lego.com yourself. If you can gather a few people and buy multiple units at once (2 or 4), you can also save some money (e.g. when buying four units the per-unit discount is enough for either 2 M, or 1 L, or 1 Train motor or nearly 2 XL motors or nearly one Servo motor). Even more, if there's a discount already active - e.g. there was one in the summer IIRC which was in the range of the VAT which comes on top.

Just now finished a preliminary RC version of the Palomino. I indeed did remove the differential and installed a single PF L motor for propulsion. Gearing is the same as for my buggy: 28z => 20z => 12z. Steering is done by a PF Servo motor. It's powered by a BuWizz. Feels quick inside. Wow, that 28z gear is really useful! Will post pictures later this week.

Hi there, I'd like to present a MOC I've been working on from time to time since a few months: It's a small RC buggy, something I'm missing from Lego: Pictures show the V2 model. An interactive 360° view of the V1 model (with different rear axle) is available here: http://pub.clusterd.net/lego/technic/mocs/buggy/ Steering: PF Servo motor Propulsion: PF L motor (geared up 28z => 20z => 12z which is good enough to drive on office carpet and short distances on thicker carpets with fresh batteries, it works great on smooth surfaces; 36z => 12z => 12z also works, but requires more power and works best on a smooth surface; RWD) I initially used it with a AAA battery box and V2 IR receiver (not shown in the V2 pictures above, where it will be fixed to the rear spoiler, the V1 model had it at a slightly different location), but the AA battery box also fits - though it looks not as good due to different mount points, and it will also be heavier then. I assume it will also work with the LiPo box and SBrick and I can - since a few weeks - confirm that it also works with a BuWizz, but then it's more something for outdoor areas, as it gets pretty quick in fast and ludicrous modes. I created the main chassis of the V1 model of this buggy during a long evening/night and added most of the body parts the following day or days, don't remember exactly. The stickers are from the 8048 set and IMO fit the buggy theme great. Steering is also from 8048. It's fun to drive around and it can also take some hits. I took inspiration (mainly for the rear shock mounting and general setup) and motivation (I wanted to have something about as small as this) mainly from this video on YT: ...and some other videos about small RC buggies. The creator's buggy itself is also roughly based on the MOC (video and instructions for V1 model) of someone else. Instead of (re)building this one, I created my own - also because I didn't have a Buggy motor at that time. I also created a V3 model. It's slightly bigger, has front lights (using PF LEDs) and uses bigger wheels but shows some deficiencies of the design: The rear axle tends to tear itself apart in this model on rough surfaces, making the gears slip. I assume this is due to the bigger wheels used in the V3 model. I use some additional axles with stop and bushes now to hold the rear axle together for a longer time. I assume this maybe could be fixed by using a frame around the two axle holes that shouldn't move apart. When doing tight turns the V3 also lifts one of the front wheels - the one on the same side as the gear that sits on the drive axle. If someone has a good explanation for this, I'd be grateful. I suspect the softer shocks compared to V2.

Two changes for today: Now that I have enough Tumbler tyres - yet still not enough for @Madoca 1977's Avtoros Shaman - I wanted to see how they look on my 8081 off-roader mod. What do you think? Maybe they're a little too much for this version (especially in the front shot), but for the exploration outfit I have in the pipeline, they might fit well as low-pressure tyres. Nearly forgot: the shocks are now rotated 90°, so lifting a wheel doesn't bend them anymore. Took me some time to figure that out. I assume the bottom mount point of the shocks at the front is still not perfect, but it should be definitely better than what I was using in the initial version. Sorry, no progress for the engine and steering. **** For the 8081 facelift I added 1 stud to the bottom of the rear end. With that change I actually wanted to continue the line of the side skirts, but I noticed, that that was already the case with the unmodified rear end. I still believe the current rear end - also with "lengthened" fenders - looks better when holding it in your hands, though. Suggestions welcome - at least it gives it a phat look.

Hm, can't decide what looked better, old look or current look. But the black hose over the grill definitely defused it for me. Looking forward to the remainder of the body. BTW the white (lower body) and black (upper body) color scheme on the second car on: ...works really well, I like that!

Wow, awesome machine! Your track selection for the video is also cool. At first I thought this might be from Carpenter Brut, but then saw the actual artist - SPACEINVADER - in the description. Never heard of, but will surely check that one out.

I can't say, as I don't have the 42098 in real, but I actually doubt it. Even if possible, I think it will be too long for the two slots on the lower deck anyhow.