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.. )

Thanks! You can find the list of (minor) applied mods above in the first post or also in my .NOTE: By the way it is really nothing special (very simple things), because it was really not the main point of my vid, rather I was interested in scrutinizing the custom tires question, and just secondly the set modifications. BTW yes, I like proper off-road circumstances and as this set was addressed to able to crawl & climb, etc. I torture it with pleasure.. So, just briefly: despite the relatively high center of gravity (after curing this really big problem..) this set could be able to do some really nice crawling IF you are patient to do some practice with it, as you see in .BTW it was a surprise for me too.. (BUT: Of course if anybody want some really good crawler or TrTr, they anyway just rather build a real/better crawler thing with real low center of gravity, proper wheels, like Marceloraus, Yoarish, Zblj, Mbmc, Nico, etc. or any other guys.. * * * Here you can find some photos on BS (after moderation): http://www.brickshel...ry.cgi?f=508384 Till then: .. TO BE CONTINUED..

Just another LEGO 9398 4x4 Crawler MOD.. ..tested with custom / third party tires and some minor modifications: Modded config: - 8878 LiPo battery box for lower center of gravity - Wheel hub gear ratio changed to 8/24 for more torque - Third party tires for better crawling performance - Added extra nose weight for better climbing perfomance - Modded front & rear axle for higher ground clearance - Differentials purposely not removed for more realistic & challanging play Tested third party RC tires: - Ansmann Crawler 1.9" - Pro-Line Flat Iron G8 1.9" Stages: Stage I: Loose Soil Stage II: Twisted Trail Stage III: Rocky Mountain with Ansmann Crawler 1.9" tires (proposed by efferman): ..and with Pro-Line FLAT IRON 1.9" tires: "And..?! Who cares, really..?!" ( ..if you can not tease your crawler PROPERLY.. ) So the real question is: How to torture your LEGO 9398 4x4 Crawler MOD properly..?! NOTE: Please - in the future - any of you can try testing somehow like this way (and please not e.g. on the flat beach, in the sandy water, etc.), thanks in advance for your set's good health. Till then, Please Enjoy: LEGO 9398 4x4 Crawler MOD Outdoor Adventures 720p HD Link:

I've just tested today them (Ansmann Crawler & the Pro-Line FLAT IRON) pictures soon.. My advice: Ansmann (or Rock Crusher X/T) is more suitable for any terrain, then the FLAT IRON, as it was designed for rock (if I'm right), it is extremly soft(!). BTW Rock Crusher X/T is very nice, it has almost the same pattern, size and shape like Ansmann Crawler tire, so it would be the best for your crawler.

Erhh.. and what about Pro-Line FLAT IRON G8 (1.9")..?! "Oh, noo.. I want to see them soo badly! Let's see them!" Some crawling in the rockery.. ..and on the car: 2 cat from 2 would use this tire!

Nice work! Strong built and it perfoms well. I've seen it on the vid.. By the way: How about replacing the M-motors with one XL-motor? Just an idea.. it would be stronger.

Nice stuff again! =)

Hello Denny! Very nice work, it is really very hard to build from a picture and a video.. .. almost impossible. Despite this, one of our club member has built his own 9398 replica version with 3 PF-M motor just two days ago (don't ask how can he did it, I don't know at all.. ), anyway: check out his pictures, it may help you out to continue: dokludi's BS on 9398 MOC Here is a video too: I hope it will help.

Hello Legoroni! I store my 400+ pieces of 9V tracks & switches in paper cardboard boxes beyond exhibition season ( At exhibition season >> See here ): Each box has 24 cell, each cell has a capacity for 8 pieces of straight or curve tracks (with just the same technic like Homer_S wrote: with one facing up, then next facing down on it >> less space reqired!), so if you want: you can fill them full with 192 per box! ( It has originally a box for a sort of soldered PCB cards, these are obtainable for free - I've got them for free - at some electronic wholesale shop, as they are just paper waste / packing materials ) Very stable, easy to move (it has holes for handling), and you can close it (no dust!).. etc. Other members of our club store they track pulling away of 2 or 4 - like JopieK - and set them in original LEGO boxes (some SW LEGO box has exatcly the same size for 4x tracks). Very time-efficient when you set up or disassemble a layout like this: http://www.brickshel...ry.cgi?f=486261

Yes, hehehe.. How typical (TLC information policy) .. No comment.. Great secret, anyway. ( So, life is easy when you are a LEGO Designer at Billund: you can make MOCs at your workplace in you worktime with non-released-yet parts then posting it on flikcr.. ) Back to the main topic: Yes, these will be extremely useful for a lot of thing (for cars & trains & more) ! :D

Well done, laix! Nice work, moreover functional!