Kisvakond

I'm in Love too.. Nice work! (the 8110 set is really useful for spares..)

(I've just read that above)What..?! Only ~925 rpm..?! Noo.. it is impossible or it may not the no-load speed. Are you sure? Maybe it is the loaded rpm during the test.. (?) I never measured concerning any of my RC Buggy motors less than approx. 1300 rpm on the last axle (this is the right no-load speed, isn't it?) So, the half of it for the calculation may be ~650 rpm. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It is awesome!

OMG!!! I wanted it soo badly for ages in a smaller "volume" like this! NICE slim! You know: as you managed to built a smaller coaxial rotor >> you are able build things like the Ka-52 now: I really like this amination: ..and Jernej's great helicopter from 2010 too:

Nice work, Tom! I really like: - the two-speed gearbox: it is quite the same like on the RC cars: bottom positioned and strong - the extra big wheel travel (thanks to the 3-link suspension) - the Monster Truck.. eer.. Bigfoot.. eer.. RC Crawler "look-alike" (if we except from the profile/form & shape of PP-tires) & the 3-link crawler suspension is also nice! - the lightweight body (which is possible by using the big, heavy & wide PP-tires) - the low center of gravity is perfect (again, credit goes to the PP-tires) - the mixing of linked-hard & spring suspension It performs quite well, it can be clearly seen in your vid! I think, you prove: the PP-tires really a good alternative for building even a real RC Crawler look-alike thingy, because it has many positive effect on the requirements of a crawler spec. Well Done!

Hey, it seems to be not too slow, it has really quite good speed.. Nice!! ( If I would you, I will try the 4 RC Buggy motors configuration, with double RC reciever units.. )

I've seen it previusly in your BS-folder, it is really awsome! Nice compression of many technics in so tight volume!

This is genial! Awesome indeed! Congrat!

Hey z3_2drive! I really love this design, nice work indeed! - I see you just mount your PF Servo like the way on most RC Crawlers / AWD Cars was mounted >> Q#1: Is it stiff/holds itself enough? - I love the longer 4-link suspension supports >> really nice wheel travel achieved! Congrat! Sooner or later could you make for us some short in-action vid, please..

Hey, Conchas! It seems, somebody just got much further than you with those PP-wheels last time on that sandy beach.. See (previously posted) Third Party Tires In Action!

Finally public, all photos (3 page..) available now: LEGO 9398 4x4 Crawler MOD Outdoor Adventures BS

Thanks Tom! Same here.. Yes, your idea would be a perfect idea: a remote controlled sliding heavy thing (e.g. PF battery box) depending the position of the truck/car will suit for this mission.

Not yet, but I think it is not my favourite design.. (moreover it is really exrta high, too high..) The point is (to be exact): - as I said the Crawler is slightly bottom-heavy. - if you balance it with some extra weight, it will cure this problem. - but if you add more weight than it is needed, it will be nose-heavy, which is aslo not so good.. - if you think, when you drive forward: you will need more traction on first axle , so nose-heavy config win, when you drive reverse: you need more weight on the rear axle to climb easily.. - of course when you have nice, big & heavy machine (like LUGPOL trucks) you will not need to mess with so "exact balancing" because you have the proper traction / grip by weight.. - only in case of these "easy thingz" (like 9398) needs this messing Anyway: as we mostly drive forward during a Truck Trial / Rock Crawling, etc. and just rarely backwards, we rather need the slightly nose-heavy config.. I hope it is clear now.

OK, I've got it.Well, to tell you the truth, my opinion is: - there are many different factor concerning "rock-crawling ability" if we use your phrase. >> (#1-5) - these factors are mostly independent from each other, but not always: - if we try to separate them we see: #1 is relative with #5 as both depends on Axle Load/Weight, these have effect both on "static" & "dynamic" Stability as the part of the suspension system(!) #3 is completely in contradiction with #4 >> as trying to improve low Center of Gravity is the "enemy" of higher Ground Clearance, these factors mostly depend on Design/Geomerty, it has effect mostly on Stability. #2 and finally gear ratio concerns the Force/Torque/Power of the system, it has effect on "dynamic" properties of the drive-chain. #6 we not mentioned a well-tuned SUSPENSION(!) system yet, which is the most important part in case of AWD/ATV performances. (Fortunately the 9398 owns a quite good suspension) Conclusions / to answer your question: - all of these factors is approx. equally important concerning "crawling ability" because the original design is not really a crawler design, than a "Bigfoot" or a "Monster Truck".. A real trial / crawler thingy looks like this: >> rc crawler thingy (BTW the 9398 is really exceed my expectation, so I appreciate the designers good work, nicely done! ) * * * The main problems with 9398 set: - relatively high center of gravity(!!!) >> change to 8878 LiPo OR rebuild it.. :) - it is slightly bottom-heavy(!!) >> add some nose weight on the front as low as possible (approx. 100-150gr is enough) - other things: at your taste.. I really don't want to make anybody to buy third party tires.. (just if they really like they nice profile, like me! ) I hope it was helpful..

I just changed the 2-2 low positioned grey bent liftarms in the bottom of the front & rear live axle to these ones: after you can see this: ..because the front & rear angle of approach is very impontant even concerning the ground clearance too. Yes, definetly this question was also the most important concerning these tests. I try to summarize my experince briefly: #1 if you play just in the room/ on the carpet / on the floor inside the house: so on the most artificial surface believe or not there is really no significant difference between LEGO tires and third party tires. #2 but if you go outside / off-road for some TrTr / crawling on natural surface / soil: it really has significant difference in case of performance, because LEGO tires was NOT ABLE TO CLIMB AT ALL e.g. on this stage: #3 Ansmann (or any similar type!) performs better than Pro-Line: thanks to the stiffer (but still more softer than LEGO) rubber material than Pro-Line Flat Iron (or similar type) rubber compund, which is extremely soft! (Very-very soft, only recommended for RC Crawlers on rocky surface) #4 The second important cause explaining Ansmann (or any similar type!): Ansmann (or any similar type!) has optimal hard foam insert, then Pro-Line, which is also too soft for a heavy car.. Softer tire requires more torque from motors and from servo, so too soft tires is rather NOT RECOMMENDED for average playing.. Of course you can build several tire inserts, like these completely made of pure LEGO: http://www.brickshel...y.cgi?i=4657759 http://www.brickshel...y.cgi?i=3878210 http://www.brickshel...y.cgi?i=4902982 (of course some easier stage would liked more for LEGO tires, but the not rubber material used and the insufficient tire dimension and it's shape and it's pattern is a real shame.. )