gyenesvi

This brings back the nostalgia of the 90s motorcycle that I never had, but always longed for. I don't like the angle of the front fork, but the rest looks kind of cool. Great to know that the new 6L spring is on par with the 6.5L one in terms of hardness.

That's a really great alternate build Nico! Very smooth looks with great part usage and impressive list of functions.

Nice work on the brown, cool that it could be done with the limited inventory, interesting vintage model! I like the steering solution too, if I see correctly it is linkage based. I agree that the hood of the first version was a bit too round and too angled. But the second version looks a bit too low to me. I think that the front grille should be raised a bit too, about half a stud, then the corner of the hood would align better, and then the hood should be raised back half a stud too, but keeping it close to flat.

In a way, in a model that's designed to be sitting on the shelf, and not to be played with, almost everything is included just because we can. So I 'd say, things make more difference in smaller scale play models, and especially in RC models, where technical differences can actually translate to better performance. Also, furthermore since sportscars have virtually non-functional suspension (max 1mm travel), all those technical differences of suspension design would make more difference in off-roaders. For example, a gearbox can lead to better torque-speed tradef-off, a responsive suspension or more ground clearance can lead to actually better passability, etc. In case of off-road suspensions, there are tons of details that could be improved (more compact live axles, portal hubs), or even ones that are not even possible with existing parts (a basic independent trailing arm is pretty much impossible in a robust way, unless it's way too big for RC models).

I agree, I have been thinking a lot about the best solution for this issue, and the more I think about it, the more I believe there is no clear cut solution; some compromise is needed. This sounds simple at first, but it's not. The crux is that having those toggle switches for channel selection only worked because of simple separate two-port IR receivers and overly basic bang-bang controllers with two parallel joysticks (not really good for steering). Once you want to improve those, which is definitely required, than you loose the simple config option. So I think the crux of the problem is the configurability. And then the core question is where to put the configurability; into the controller (like RC transmitters), or into the hub (like PU / Buwizz / SmartBrick)? The problem with putting it into the controller is that it would be prohibitively expensive to include with each RC set. So the only option is to leave it to the hub. But then the next problem is that if there is a cheap/dumb physical controller, how could that connect to multiple hubs? And where does the config happen then? I think the only way out is to have a one-to-one connection; one cheap/dumb controller and one hub that has enough ports in case of large models, and is configurable. Of course there could be smaller and larger hubs for different model sizes, but then again it's more expensive. Config could happen through Bluetooth, from a single BT enabled web browser interface that works on all kinds of devices and is simple to maintain. Config could be done without programming, and there could be predefined profiles for sets and for basic setups like simple drive and steer models. An interesting direction that could be further explored I think is the separation of drive motors and servos. Most functions don't need powerful motors; those could be reserved for drive, and all others could be run through angular and speed servos, which exist in small form factors, and have their control circuits integrated, so don't need speed controllers inside the hub; thus can have many output ports in a small space (a small RC receiver can run 5-6 servos). Would be interesting to see how that would impact builds. A hub with 2 power outputs for drive and 6 servo ports for other functions would be really interesting.

I have the feeling that the 6L will be just as stiff as the 9L, and will be just as hard to use in smaller builds. I guess this car needs substantial support, and since the long spring is horizontal on a short lever pushed by a long lever, it needs quite a bit of help from the small springs. At first I also thought that the 6.5L is annoying, but now I think it makes sense for many setups. I think it was originally designed for independent and trailing arms setups of off-roaders, in which it is used either vertically or kind of diagonally. If it was 6L, in both cases, the arms it controls would become close to horizontal, supposing that the other end is fixed in a proper grid position. In the vertical use case, it would make the arm horizontal no matter where you mount it, and in the diagonal use case it would often be close to a 3-4-5 Pythagorean triangle, again making the arm close to horizontal. This is why the extra half stud length is beneficial, it makes the controlled arms slanted in most cases. Furthermore, the half stud offset is also very useful when building small scale live axles, where longer springs are out of the question. The control links of the live axle are typically 6L links, which should stay close to horizontal (parallel link setup), because if they are not horizontal, it would result in the axle being pulled to a non-grid position horizontally, resulting in all sorts of problems (like driveshaft length, not being centered in the fenders, bending vertically mounted springs). Now the simplest way to achieve close to horizontal control links is if the axle end of the link moves from -0.5 to +0.5 vertical offset relative to the chassis end of the link; and this is exactly achieved by the 6.5L spring, which becomes 5.5L when compressed completely, giving the axle a 0.5 off-grid position at the two extremes, resulting in quite clean link geometry, and the axle position not deviating much horizontally (about half a mm) from the grid position. That said, I think the new 6L links are targeting different use cases, for example when we explicitly want the control arm to be about horizontal, such as in sports cars.

What's the length of those short springs?

I totally agree with @gheneli on this one, I had the same thoughts. It's just marketing bullsh*t. I mean I appreciate the complexity of making a bodywork that size/shape and complexity out of lego parts, it even has interesting techniques for building a good looking surface, and it's impressive that it does not fall apart at that speed, but that's the actual engineering feat here. The rest is just a marketing lie. It's not a lego car, just a lego body, and it's not the fastest lego thing that drives, because its core is not lego. I don't really like these kind of gimmicks, I find it to be a great waste of plastic. I wish they instead put the effort into designing better parts / models. Spot on :) About the model itself, it's really great that we are getting a bunch of new parts, and that Lego was forced to up its game, but it's kind of sad that it's only due to the hard push of an engineering focused licensing partner. I wish the Technic team/management had the same kind of drive in themselves, and treated most licensed models like this. Thinking of that poor Unimog suspension; that's the price we paid for this model :D Build for real!

Those new gears are really exciting! I'm just building an RC model, where I'm struggling with the right gear ratio, and I just figured that a 14:18 would solve my problems perfectly, and then boom! there it is.. almost, since the 18T gear is a free spinning one with clutch, so we cannot yet use it in a regular gear train, but I really hope that a regular 18T will also appear soon! Those 6L springs are interesting too, though I guess they are probably quite stiff ones.

You're really fast with these cool little alternatives! Although, the scale is your area of expertise :) Have you ever heard that you can dismantle a lego model to build something else out of it?

This blew my mind as a child when I first understood how it works! They don't make them like those any more..

Unfortunately, it does not seem that much useful for that purpose. You can't push a bar into blue pins, neither into red axle-pins. They only go into the pin end of blue axle-pins, so could only be used when that end is facing outwards.

Spokes are bendy and have tilted pinhole ends. Does not really seem to be very useful as a regular link, other than pulling agains something from an offset position :(

Oh, that one is easy, the 98959: Motor set :D They already started it, the 2L beam exists! And 4-6L thin beams too, so.. A 6L would also be really useful, right now I'm having a build that would really need a 6L beam, in a position where strong structural support is required, so thin beams would not really cut it, and a 7L is just too long.. But to your point, if they really want to, they can actually color code them in a set to differentiate better from other lengths, just as they actually often do now with odd lengths as well. That does not need a globally unique color, just one that different from the 5L and the 7L in a given set.

I have a genuine wish for next year. For the 40th anniversary of technic, Lego came out with a 3L beam with the number 40 on it. I wish they continue this "trend" (of a single sample :D) and next year they come out with a 4L beam with the number 50 on it :D I hope you get where I'm going with this.. Come on TLG, it's time! We all could use that beam for so many things!