amorti

By putting two threads on it? I don't believe the diameter of it makes a difference? @Sariel is usually the expert on gears.

Agreed! However the conspiracy theorists would rather believe mk has stolen a prototype Lego design to advertise with, and taken thousands of pre orders based on fake model renders which they will then supply a completely different model to their customers. I'd also like to know how those conspiracy theorists imagine mk plans to steal this Lego model then add motors to this and still ship orders before Lego plans to ship. Mk have (belatedly and only partially!) gained the designer's authorisation on a few of their (still to a large part stolen and unacknowledged!) moc sets, so it's not beyond possiblity that they would find someone willing to earn a paycheck as a set designer for them.

If you'd use those though, you'd need to get the steered wheels to turn within their own footprints under the arches so as not to hit them, as on a normal car. You'd also want them to gain camber through the suspension stroke to avoid the arches. So, while it's possible with Technic parts I'm not sure it's possible with the usual equal length double wishbone suspension.

Is the increased diameter not just to make it align with modern gears (12,20,etc instead of 8,16,etc) than changing its ratio?

Maybe that's the distinction then. New CV joints for RC models, and they can be ran at higher speed / lower torque by using them exclusively with the new hubs. Shame though, they're a lot better just because the better angle and the engagement nubs are now on the non-wear part so they can't really fail catastrophically, only wear out gradually.

It won't have planetary hubs, too expensive if nothing else - but I don't see why they shouldn't use the new CV joints on a new non planetary hub? In any case it's a logical part that we don't have yet. Time will tell.

I don't think it's a good enough reason? There's perfectly good suspension on the back of 42099 using those joints so it's not like it can't be done.

Now that would be useful. The new CV joints get up to 30° of steering angle which would really help with playability. Let 42096 be the last model using the previous generation of CV joints. There doesn't need to be two options on CV joints not when one is clearly so much better. It also feels like by putting the location pins on the wheel instead of the hub, you could make the hub a stud narrower as well as having the nicer looking wheels. So again, better turning angles become possible as you don't need such a big gap under the arch. Maybe the images show that? the car seems to be steering at an angle where previous hubs would have the wheel moved more forward in the arch? Or it's just a dream.

Maybe. Not sure though, still seems there's a few separate parts that don't quite hang tight together. Fuel cap needs to go 4-5 studs back too.

L motors might be a better bet then? I have some scheme in my mind where they're opposite each other into a differential, they can then share gear-down paths into their diagonal diffs? Idk... You're the savant here :) In testing, be sure to replicate the total model weight. I was certainly surprised how many more grams came to greyhound after the technical part was done.

I'm no expert in Lego PF. Wondering why to use the notably bigger XL motors if they'll be geared faster than an L motor and you're looking for the same torque from them as an L motor?

That might be an option? https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=g9#T=S&O={"iconly":0}

Looks nice, but the MouldKing Lambo has more motors and the CaDA Lambo isn't half bad either (looks like @T Lego could really have used these new panels though) and both will cost half as much. Those new arches are nice and all, but the leading edge of them on the front is kind of ugly and doesn't speak of a part made fresh for this job.

Is there any stronger 90° transition? Are the black bevel gears stronger?

Yeh, I need to slow down and read my replies before sending, not to mention "read" the renders. My mind read the gears the other way round. Any way to use planetary hubs to gear up before the differentials, before gearing back down at each wheel hub? Today's idle Google search was wondering if any RC cars have 16mm bevel gears in their differentials...

I fear those bevel gears above each CV joint will be under tremendous stress. I've been busy reinforcing the back of greyhounds swingarms (you can easily get a 5*3 I beam piece on the back) but no matter what I do, in a swift back/forwards move those gears will click. I think it's now to the point that they're meshing perfectly but still the material isn't strong enough. Any chance to gear up further and use planetary hubs? The planetary hubs have (I think) less slack in them than normal hubs, even if they have more than turntable hubs.

I think it could use a skirt here, or something to tie the front door into the rear bodywork which seems disconnected.

That would be a tough sell in the modern world where everyone is (happily) moving away from excessive plastic packing!

This model will give you an idea of how quick 4*L motors can go in a 1200 piece shell with a buwizz. It uses the drive module from Madoca Icarus, which seems a great way to get the power of 4* motors to the wheels without skipping or stripping gear teeth. He says he had to use the new CV joints to get the power down. Next question is where are you racing? Assuming outside, suspension will be the next limiting factor. If it's too stiff your car will bounce around and shake itself to death. Make sure you have some ground clearance too.

Aah, yes. Definitely Lego: "if it doesn't sell, stick a license on it"

I've used the same parts in place of U joints on didumos greyhound. They're holding up remarkably well so far. I think what wears them in that application is a combination of torque and consistent slight misalignment, as Lego small ball joints are "approximate" at best.

I completely missed that charbel's connection pivots on two different points. I guess it doesn't matter on an undriven wheel but I see now that it can't work for this project. Looks like you're talking yourself round to the turntables... just be sure the complexity is worth it before you do it. How fast do you think the model will drive? Will better hubs make a difference?

The only thing which surprises me, is that Lego pieces can withstand that :) For sure it'll be a good thing, that this has such wide tyres.

So many functions! Nice

Have you considered using your small turntable based hubs? You've done the testing yourself to see they have less friction, but maybe the wheels would be forced even further outboard? I spotted this on @Charbel's 720s. Seems like a brilliant way to dodge the inherent slack in Lego's small Balljoints. Any chance to use it? Ps, I'm definitely in for this thread :) Of course, that anti-balljoint won't work with the caster angle. Turntable hubs because they might let you flip the CV joint around, giving it a hard stop against the wheel centre. I'm not sure about that though, don't have the new wheels.