2GodBDGlory

Yeah, I'm not too worried about it. It seems that most of the time, at least, there is some degree of correlation between high quality builds and reputable forum members, so any cheating would likely come from people whose builds aren't likely to win either way. That said, I like the idea of forcing contestants to vote for themselves at the top. That way, all contestant votes will still cancel out, but all contestants have incentive to vote, so there's not the situation where people don't vote to gain an advantage. If it was a hard change to make, I wouldn't bother, since I'm not too worried about it, but because it's such a simple change I'd say we might as well next time.

Yeah, it is kind of annoying that one could gain an advantage by just not voting, but it is within the rules. I always vote because it's fun and feels like good sportsmanship, but I can see that it could be a good requirement to have in the rules.

Yep! Tension is high!

Yeah, reading that review is what brought it to mind! I was thinking it was hard because that's what it's listed as here: https://brickset.com/parts/6472027/shock-absorber-hard-no-1 It's not necessarily right, though, nor is it necessarily the same naming convention we usually use. Hard ones do look like overkill here!

I don't recall anyone mentioning this yet, but the 60431 Space Exploration Rover from City includes a black/gold shock absorber, which is an interesting color scheme! Apparently it has a hard spring. It's be fun to see that in some Technic MOCs, though it shouldn't be too interesting functionally

Quick question: When is the official end date for voting? In the voting topic, it says Monday, Jan 29, but if we were doing a two-week voting period, as I believe @Jim said we would, that would work out to Friday, Jan 26 (if we're taking that strictly literally). It doesn't really matter; I'd just like to clarify!

Oh, fun! That scissor lift mechanism is always cool to see

Thanks! Just as a caution, when I started trying to use this design, I was finding connection between the hub and PyBricks to be spotty--I'm not sure what exactly the issue was, but it went away when I went back to AAs. I have seen good success in the past running PF stuff off of rechargeable 9Vs like this, though, so that could be a good option for you, @gyenesvi

Nice job! That was the second Technic set I got when I was getting in to the hobby, so I've got a bit of a soft spot for it! The topic and functions included do seem like the best choices to use the parts of this set, and the result looks good!

Quite a creative idea, and nicely done! It's always interesting when people build things like the wing mechanism here, because there's not really precedent you can copy--you have to invent things yourself! The Airbus is looking to be a really good base for alternate models, at least if you don't need wheels!

Ooh, do I see that CADA now has a 2L driving ring that works with modern gears as well? Also, do their 28T differential gears accept driving rings, allowing them to be used as clutch gears?

Eh, I think he's using MouldKing ones, given the metal shafts on them, which only cost a couple bucks. Ooh, that's always cool to see! Could you share where you bought those bearings from? I might want to try acquiring some sometime.

Looks very impressive! Definitely looks more convenient with the motor, but options are good. The outriggers are quite dramatic and solid-looking! (At least for their configuration)

Hmm, that would be neat! I doubt it would work long-term, though, because you'd get too much leaking in the closed system

Indeed, that looks very nice! I like seeing the use of those Ducati shocks here. One question: Do you think you need to have those hoses connecting the top and bottom of the pneumatic cylinders? It doesn't seem to me like that would do much at all, other than maybe adding a little resistance based on the different surface areas of the two sides of the cylinder. Thanks for sharing a Stud.io file! I may try building it sometime

Eh, probably not too seriously, but one wonders Yep, they probably care more about that! Since we don't have access to that data, though, I guess polls give us a vague idea of how popular something is. (Though, of course, just because people like something doesn't mean they buy it)

I too appreciate dark mode, but I'm currently using Chrome-wide automatic Dark mode (Done via this tutorial: https://www.howtogeek.com/721117/how-to-turn-on-dark-mode-in-google-docs/#enable-dark-mode-in-google-docs-on-google-chrome), which does a decent job of converting Eurobricks, though some icons have strange contrast now. An integrated one would be great, but until then, something like this could be an option

Thanks! I don't think it's worth the trouble of selling it, when producing it is as easy as a single 3D-printed part. If people want a copy and don't have a 3D printer, I'd recommend either seeing if there's a publically available printer nearby (At a library, etc.), or looking into an online 3D printing service that could print/ship the part for you. I mean, I could print/ship units to people myself, but that's probably not very cost-effective. To an extent that's true, but I've got a couple objections. First, it is likely to have smaller capacity, but I think the difference is less than one would expect. After checking out my rechargeable AAs and AAAs, I found that I have some tiny, nasty, 600 mAh AA batteries, (Which are admittedly much smaller capacity than usual), and some Amazon Basics AAs at 2000 mAh. My AAAs, which are also something people would realistically use in some Lego models, are rated at 1000 mAh. To compare to these, my lithium 9Vs are rated at 1300 mAh, which puts them at 65% of the capacity of the Amazon Basics batteries, while actually at higher capacity than the AAAs or those other lousy AAs. (And keep in mind that because the AAs/AAAs are attached in series, their amperage doesn't go up when you add multiple batteries; just their voltage). (Also, because this battery is higher voltage, at 9V rather than 7.2V, it's capacity in watt-hours is 11.7 kWh as opposed to 14.4 kWh for the AAs, which is a more impressive 81% of the capacity, if not the battery life) So, it doesn't have as much life as good rechargeable AAs, but it's still fairly respectable. Second, I'd just like to point out that not everything needs high battery life. I'm really not a fan of PU for general-purpose use, and will generally use PF wherever possible. Because of that, I tend to only use PU when I specifically need programmable servos, which don't run constantly, and so don't take that much battery. For example, in the MOC I'm currently working on, I have six PF motors running various functions, including high-load things like drive, as well as four PU motors, all of which are functioning intermittently as servos. Because of that, I expect that even a smaller battery life would be just fine for a model like that.

Nice job! I always like seeing these large motorcycle MOCs, and that custom piston is pretty clever too!

Alright! I had thought about using a cable like that, but there's not enough room for a straight USB-C port, so it would require a fairly unusual 90 degree USB-C extension cable, like this one here: https://www.amazon.ca/Extension-UseBean-Aluminum-Extender-Nintendo/dp/B0836HS4LQ/ref=sr_1_5?crid=466J2XAW947F&keywords=90%2Bdegree%2Busb%2Bc%2Bextension%2Bcable&qid=1705341396&sprefix=usb-c%2B90%2Bdegree%2Bex%2Caps%2C178&sr=8-5&th=1 Not something most of us are likely to have lying around, but it wouldn't be too hard to modify the design to make it work with one, which would be quite convenient! I'd only hope that the 0.6 foot cable they're advertising wouldn't be too awkward to fit in

Brickset just released the results of a similar poll, which Rivendell won by a huge margin! https://brickset.com/article/105280/result-what-is-your-favourite-set-of-2023 If Lego is trying to gauge interest in the theme, this looks like the kind of evidence they should need

Oh, that is a fun idea!

While working on a project involving a PU hub today, I got frustrated with my hacked-together system for running it off some random 7.4V battery I had lying around, and came up with a simple idea that would make it easily possible to power the hub directly off of a standard 9V battery, specifically, one of my rechargeable lithium-ion ones. The idea is that this battery would give peak voltage (Actually 9V; there must be some kind of voltage converter inside the battery to get there) over most of the battery life; that it would save weight; and that it would allow for easy battery swapping and recharging. The key thing here is that a 9V battery's output terminals are spaced such that all you need to run a Technic hub off of them is to hold the battery against them--no messing around with wires, springs, soldering, or contacts! With that idea, I modeled up this design for a 3D-printable part in Fusion 360, and had a very workable part on the second prototype! I think this is what I'll probably use to power my PU models going forward, and I thought it was an easy enough idea to replicate that I'd share it here. You can think of it as the "poor man's" version of the impressive Phondly EnBo battery pack It isn't as nice of a product, because it has lower battery life (I'd assume), and no external charge connection, but it can be easily produced by anybody with access to a 3D printer and a 9V battery (Very preferably a lithium-ion rechargeable one!), so I think it's an alternative that could be useful to quite a few people. This is the battery I'm using here, so you have an idea of what I'm thinking (I can't really vouch for these ones, since I just bought them to replace some different ones I had)--basically they just output 9V in a 9V form factor, but have USB-C charging, which is quite convenient! https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B08D925V8H?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details&th=1 I have yet to give it extensive testing in a model, but in a basic test I ran a motor off the hub while shaking/whacking the hub for a while, and didn't experience any issues, so I expect the connection is good. Just make sure you don't jam the battery in backwards! It should only fit in one way, but if in doubt, there's + / - markings on it. One last caveat! I designed it to fit in the clip-style hub, and I can't confirm whether or not it works on the screw-type one or not. If anyone wants to try printing one, here's my Thingiverse upload for it: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6434892

Very nice! The studless/studfull mix is quite interesting, and looks very good! I really like the idea for that micro flat-six engine, with the sort of automatic-piston-return functionality. The only unfortunate bit is that that only works with the less realistic flat-six motion rather than the boxer-six motion Porsches really have (Where opposite pistons should be moving opposite directions), but that's not something people even manage to do on large-scale models, so I mean that as no criticism! It looks great, has solid functionality, and has a nice motorization option too!

I keep meaning to comment on this, and keep forgetting... It's pretty cool to see that self-balancing principle working here! I used to have one of those "hoverboards" that worked like that, and always thought it was quite a clever working principle. It's definitely nice to see in Technic, and the programming that went into it is impressive, though not as easy for the casual observer to notice!