amorti

Heck of a thing, amigo. Self balancing bikes have come a long way in a very short time with @piterx and your efforts (and my supporting part). For a good while there @Green Gecko was the biggest fish in a very small pond, now we've furthered that, adding rear suspension, power by buggy motor, chain drive, got rid of the weight brick, removed a whole lot of wobbliness, etc. Still not sure how to feel about the bearing, but for sure it clears a problem that limits the top speed of any Lego vehicle: the Lego wheel hubs eventually melt and fly apart. And in any case, Lego hubs have too much slack for this single sided swingarm construction. Look at the Ducati, and it's already clear you wouldn't be able to drive with control. Amazing what can be done with brick toys!

@astyanax that looks great! Does it steer without the tyre colliding?

They say it's for low torque applications, now I see why. That motor is tiny! Very cool part though, will have a lot of uses in small RC MOCs.

Woop! Wonder what else we'll get? My worry for this set is the steering neck. They've always been wobbly on Lego bikes and now with 2k pieces this thing is going to weigh around 2kg, how do you put that stress sideways through a single axle, which also needs to cope with us pressing down to activate the suspension? I have to guess/hope there will be small turntables in the steering neck, or something new to make it stronger.

Oh, it got a bit crazy in here since I last looked in. Not sure I can close things but @Milan please go ahead if you prefer it gone. Kind of a shame though, since no one yet mentioned the container of CaDA goods being held in Germany due to a rights infringement claim from Lego. Based in part on the 3*3 plate... Which they already surrendered their design claim on when it was challenged by Steingemachtes.

There's a legitimate argument that they're stealing the whole damned thing. Everything from the 8mm base measurement to 2L pins, the general liftarm concept, etc. It's a legitimate argument, but there again those patents have long since expired, so now you're into subjective moral arguments. Which get progressively more shaky if you admit that Lego stole the whole building block concept in the first place and everything since that is fruit of the poison tree. If you admit those primary patents are expired, and we know you can't re-patent an expired patent... What then is patenting part of the system such as a rotary gearbox? Seems like an attempt at blocking competition. Lego saw that big supercars was a profitable market, built an irresistible feature, patented it on its first birthday, told no one, then gradually let it come out of hiding *after* other companies used same technology. It's sly, at best. Same as Lego has "black box" planetary hubs, I'd happily accept a black box LSD or torsen diff. Seems like torsen is more plausible, as LSDs usually rely on clutch plates and springs, and we all known those would be abused to breaking point. But either way, I'd take whatever was offered!

Caution! I'm certain people could claim that your game is similar to any number of flight simulators. Also, you didn't develop the platform nor language you develop on. In this story, I'm pretty sure you're CaDA, not LEGO.

I'll preface this with: Piter, I have the greatest respect for you and what you build. If it gets personal, tell me and I'll quit. Is it an apt analogy? To buy a pirated copy of an original game? If we're talking about old Lepin sets which were direct and 100% rip-offs, then it would be. Or in the case of CaDA, is it more apt to compare to that time when Sega demanded $15 licensing fees per cartridge (somewhere around 1/3 of the retail price at the time) to release a game on their console, and EA said FU, we'll do it without licensing, and without breaking any laws? https://youtu.be/x0qe1FNqtCo Or is it like saying every (tennis) video game since Pong is a cheap copy, and nobody but Atari should be allowed to make it (without a license). Or maybe it's entirely incomparable in the building block world, since I'm sure there's no amount of money LEGO would accept to break their monopoly anyway. But then, this is the best type of toy there is, with a really wide appeal from kids to all ages and all socioeconomic levels of adults, so what options do competitors have? Start a whole new standard based on 7mm instead of 8mm? Or build compatible parts within that system, without breaking any laws?

CaDA Pro servos are still 1-0-1 and will glitch the same as an other. Two of those work fine in ludicrous on Madocca's PF buggy. Keep the model light and you'll be fine.

Mouldking hyperspeed motors will definitely hit the limit in ludicrous mode and maybe in Fast mode too depending how heavy the model is. But, you won't need ludicrous mode anyway since they're already so stupidly fast. Mouldking black furious motors may trip the limit in ludicrous, but again they'll be faster in Fast than Lego motors are in Ludicrous. CaDA Pro motors will probably be the best mix of speed and torque. They're almost twice as fast as Lego motors but with comparable torque. They'll probably trip the buwizz in Ludicrous, but again you won't need ludicrous mode with these motors. Still the problem is servos, buwizz glitches with cheap ones, and Lego servos are now stupid money.

I would like it a lot, if there could be a fan-designed piece that would replace the Lego item's functionality, to be built into a fan's model, and released by a competitor. Especially if it didn't cost millions in R&D and didn't take years to bring into production.

Yep. The same way any set of car alloy wheels might have the same dimensions but a different design. To pursue that analogy, this is as if Lego had patented the technical concept "wheels", and not only protected the design of their own wheels.

It would help avoid breaching a design protection, but I think it wouldn't help here since it performs the identical technical function. I hope it's so and I'm glad to see your example, but TLG has a quite active legal department.

Lego has a patent application for the orange gear shifter: Here are the patent applications in English and Chinese: https://johnnysworld.wetransfer.com/downloads/14bc57d264ef2f8d7e16c165a3097d5820210923162736/b06d9e/grid?fbclid=IwAR0ZtEaNom2_DKLtPVSTGEII4wTymGZm8ANjEX_BvY80lyq_k03RZQujtSQ But that's a good thing, right? Why shouldn't Lego protect itself against pirates? Well, here is a video in German that explains: Short version: Lego is playing Monopoly against their competition (again). The CaDA supercars from @T Lego and @brunojj1 will become illegal. You may not be against that, but they're also playing against any AFOL with a MOC on rebrickable using that part (in a gearbox). If that's you, you're probably already infringing a patent, even though it's not been granted yet. And that's an expensive game. In the meantime, you can get a mega bargain on Bruno's red supercar in Europe as Freakware hold a fire sale: 145€ for a 1:8 supercar with PF or 100€ without PF!

Seen this @brunojj1? Lego just gets more and more unsympathetic, with how they act against their competition. It's not just about that model or sets with that part.. if you have a MOC on rebrickable using the orange gear selector (in a gearbox), you're probably infringing on a patent.

It uses these quite a lot for turning, not just in crashes. Hard to say if that centimeter matters, but if yes then you can use always 3L non friction pins to bring the mounting point further outboard.

Third party drive motors will be fine. There are even some out there with more power than Lego motors. Third party servos can be sketchy, since they tend to glitch out when attached to an analogue source such as Buwizz.

Ok, if it was lacking in both torque and speed, there's no saving it.

Actually, I see some advantages in this one. It has the height available for a PF battery box, and you could put a "primary drive" ratio 28:20, then it should be ok without ludicrous mode if the L motor is strong enough to pull it. What didn't you like about it?

No worries. You can also try letting the L motor hang out further to the right and setting the steering rack off center so the battery box hangs out to the left to balance it. There's half a stud offset on the buwizz that's easily available by swapping the half bush to both on same side. Not sure, but maybe it could work. If you build it like that without the chain and shove it across the floor, you'll soon see if it can go straight or not. You can use any motorbike wheels and tires you may have, but the scrambler tires are biggest at 100mm, so add a bit more speed.

Excited to see it :) Mounting the IR receiver is just a matter of a few pins, but you'll have two challenges: the battery box is 1 brick taller than a buwizz and will fight the top frame rail for space rechargable batteries only bring 7.4v (maybe a bit more with fresh charge) and AAA battery boxes only bring 9v even on fresh alkaline batteries; this may not bring enough speed for the bike to self balance. An L motor can be mounted in the frame with only a few extra parts (#1 connectors and 15100's) and changing the gearing from 40:16 to 24:16 for similar total speed. However the problem is that to balance the bike, the motor has to be in the middle or very close to it. An XL motor is 6L long, if you hang the extra stud to the right and the chain to the left, it balances. An L motor is 7 studs long, and to balance it the chain has to be pushed out a stud wider, and at that point it's already reducing ground clearance. Bad things happen if the chain hits the ground. Short answer: "kind of / but not really well"!

You're welcome! All I ask is to post some user pics on rebrickable. The model has had phenomenal traffic, but very little interaction so far, we'd like to see people are enjoying it :)

#3 on the hottest MOCs list at rebrickable. https://rebrickable.com/mocs/#hottest Congratulations @piterx

I don't think he is. The upcoming Small Angular Motor is really a game changer for smaller MOCs that need to steer. I stand by PF servos being junk. Inside they drag a stainless steel spring across copper/brass tracks, and so it is always going to fail after a relatively short amount of use. Add to that, they're now discontinued and cost 80€ each on bricklink... Yeh... Junk.

I already have the 4*4 off roader as my only PU set so far. It's sat in my shelf as Rocky, and I don't see it changing any time soon as Rocky is just so good. Kind of a sin in my eyes though, leaving parts sat in one model. Anyway, the next part that interests me is the small angular motor, as it seems like the perfect servo that's been missing forever (PF servos are just junk and anyway too big). I guess I'll next buy a PU set when it comes with that one.