Igor1

I think it sucks. Again those flawed wheels and boxy design. I thought the set would be as good as this, but no.

I think you are right, that is why BuWizz 3.0 doesn't have different speed modes as BuWizz 2.0. It's only a little strange that the BuWizz website says "Battery capacity: 7.5 Wh", while on the BuWizz 2.0 battery itself we see only "7.03 Wh".

Now I've specially opened my BuWizz 2.0 to take this photo. As you can see, there are two glued silver cells, the top one of which has 3.7V, 1900mAh, 7.03Wh. I'm not sure if these values are for both cells or for two at once. The bottom cell is very tightly glued to the top one, so I don't know what is written on it.

@Lukes_Brick_Studio Agree

@grohl What is the mass of the model?

https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-92394/grohl/mercedes-benz-g-wagen-42129-b-model/

@Danil For me an acceptable option to use the gamepad is through the BrickController2 app, which recently added support BuWizz 3.0. So now you can use PU electrics with buggy or BuWizz motor. Or you can connect the buggy motor to BuWizz 2.0 and use PU electrics at the same time via the Technic Control+ Hub.

@gyenesvi I really like! What a pity that there is no bottom view.

I only know the reset procedure for BuWizz 2.0. For BuWizz 3.0 it was promised that it should easily handle two BuWizz motors. In addition, if it doesn't turn on at all, then it looks like some kind of warranty case.

@wower It seems like it was just about BuWizz 2.0.

Nope.

I'm probably exaggerating a little, since in the case of using planetary hubs, the load on the transmission is really low and you can put the differential lock without any special consequences. But if you don't use planetary hubs or portal hubs with large reduction, this can be a real problem.

Yes, you need to wait a few days for the device to be discharged and reset itself. Or disassemble and do a reset forcibly. If someone really needs it, I can probably describe the procedure in more detail. But I think, if you search, somewhere here there could already be a discussion of this problem, since it is quite well-known.

Did you think that only pathetic weaklings use the differential? Actually, I was faced with the fact that even on the rear axle it's not worth doing a differential lock without extreme need, since this also leads to increased loads on the transmission, so that the gears may start to crackle somewhere. You can only get away with all this if the MOC is really very light. On heavy MOCs it is better to use differentials.

For the future, I strongly advise you not to connect two BuWizz motors to one BuWizz 2.0, as even in normal mode without load, they can break the device. True, now I know a way to restore BuWizz 2.0 to work after this. But it requires you to wait completely discharge the device, which is inconvenient, or to disassemble BuWizz 2.0 and hard reset.

Quite good silicone lubricant LIQUI MOLY Silicon-Fett (7655), which I use occasionally. Unlike sprays, it is thicker. If you choose from sprays, LIQUI MOLY LM-40 (8048) probably works well. But the spray is difficult to apply locally only to the desired friction pair. It's very strongly sprayed and spreads over all parts. As a result, the entire MOC may end up in grease.

Did you mean BuWizz 3.0? It's just that now I know that two BuWizz motors can also break BuWizz 2.0. Only there it seems that some kind of strong protection is triggered, so that the device starts blinking red and cannot be turned off with a button.

@gyenesvi In general, the geometry of Ackermann is changed to negative not by the fact of the location of the steering rod in front of the axle. But by the place of the articulated fastening of this steering rod to the wheel hubs, relative to the pivot axis of the hubs themselves. Thus, for any location of the steering rod relative to the axle - positive, negative or zero Ackermann angles can be obtained. Of course, this also depends on the fastening of the pivot axis of the wheel hub itself, which in this particular case you cannot change. Given the fact that in lego the axis attachment points go in one stud increments, it's most likely simply impossible to get the correct Ackermann angles on such a scale. Therefore, many are inclined to make the Ackermann angle zero, since with the backlash of the parts that we have, this isn't critical at all (on this scale!). So, initially you had a negative Ackermann angle, which led to the fact that the inner wheel (which was located closer to the center of the turn), turned at a smaller angle relative to the outer wheel. Perhaps it even compensated for the speed of rotation of this wheel somehow, since you don't have a differential on the front axle. I just initially thought that the geometry of the wheels when turning was not ideal and that this would lead to slipping of the inner wheel when turning. However, if you were to say that the negative Ackermann angle was deliberately made to compensate for the lack of a differential, I would gladly take note of that. But it looks like you were guided by other considerations. Indeed, the MOC rides very well in your off-road video. I don't think that now you should urgently change something in the front axle, since any change can be critical and lead to even greater problems. Such things need to be thought out initially, because when you change the fastening of the steering rod, the lever and the maximum angle of rotation of the wheels change. As I understand it, you are very limited in the current size of the MOC, so you can't put a differential in the front axle either. And it's simply necessary for the correct steering geometry, and without which wheel slippage and even jerks can occur when turning. Also when adding a differential an additional question will arise with the location of the servo motor, most likely they will interfere with each other. Nevertheless, I think your solution is quite balanced. Given that you are limited in the choice of parts, the design was most likely very difficult! I would never do that myself. But in fact, someone also makes from Lego sets and alternative models with the addition of a small number of critical parts. I made my initial remark more for discussing technical solutions that are not often encountered when someone presents their MOC. Yes, Lego sets are being poured with mud, but there is practically no technical criticism of designer's MOCs, or very little of it. This leads to the fact that the authors don't immediately receive more feedback on the correctness of their technical solutions. Which they may simply not know or not notice during the design. As a rule, everyone only praises the appearance of the MOC or is simply silent, which of course is good form here. I just wish the technical discussions of the MOCs were a little more varied as well. Thank you @Attika for joining us on this topic. I'm always pleased to read your thoughts on any occasion.

The appearance is gorgeous! I just don't really like the inverted Ackermann geometry in your steering, I think it spoils the handling of the "Premium" mос. This is despite the fact that the front axle also doesn't even have a differential. It's a pity not many people read notes like this, for example:

Very good news!

I've seen three different implementations of Megalodon moсs already. But of course I'm very interested in what Lego will do in the end.

I also like the very first color and the wheel option. I would only replace the rear shocks 9.5L with red ones (2909c02). They are really rare, but for me personally this isn't a problem.

And in my opinion these new tyres suck. On hard surfaces, they have no grip at all.