gyenesvi

You mean something like 56mm? That would be nice!

Really cool little beast! I like the construction for the suspension, especially the rear, and the layout of the drivetrain; it's got massive amount of power for the size. Nice that the gearing can be adjusted. The looks are simple and clean, maybe only that large hole in the front of the hood could be filled. Why did you use XL motor for steering? In my experience it's less precise than L motor. Is it for structural consideration?

This is one of my favorite B models ever. I remember I was fascinated by the whole mechanism when I first built it at the age of about 14 :) Maybe fragile and weak by today's standards, but still a great one! Great that you managed to fix it!

Beautiful build, very nice blend of technic and system parts! I only wonder if it would have been possible to use 5x11 panels for the sides of the bed? Even the bevel effect could be replicated with those, but maybe the size is not ideal.

While in some sense I agree that fewer well designed sets would be nice to have, I do see an advantage of the lots of small sets too for MOC-ers; they provide lots of new part recolors, which is really good! But yeah, at least one good flagship (not a licensed car) would be great to have per year!

I'd also be interested in this ESC, do you guys have more info about it? I don't find too much original info on it by Googleing, just a few resale sites like eBay. It looks small and powerful though.

Such a part would be interesting, and bricklink already lists it! That's pretty cool! I guess it was not just made for that SW set.

As a quick example, in this set, there's a 1x2 slope under the door, that is kindkf disconnected from the piece behind it, and also leaves a lot of gap around the door. At the same time the curved assembly for the taillights blends in better for me. Another could be the Koenigsegg set. Same situation, the slope under the door is even more disconnected from the part behind it. At the same time, the system assembly for the front of the roof looks nice for me.

That's dark blue (and larger size). He meant that the small blue ones that were previously only available in printed version will now be available in a plain version.

In general I like mixing system and technic parts, but I think there are good and bad ways of doing so, so I kind of get what you mean. When some system parts are thrown in in isolation just to fill some gaps, that does not work for me. But when a coherent system assembly is added to make for example a certain curvature/surface that is not possible with technic parts, I like that. But I guess it's the same with purely technic parts. There are part families that have different style than other, and when they are mixed, the end up being an incoherent/discontinuous surface. That's what does not work for me in general. So I think the problem is not what system the parts come from, but rather how they fit together.

What else would you need? You get them by halving angles, that's already a nice mathematical property. The two most basic angles are 90 and 180 degrees. You half the angular space between them, you get the 135 degree one. You keep halving the space between those three and you get the 112.5 degree one and the 157.5 degree one. And by the same logic in between 90 and 112.5 now we have 101.25 as #7.

That's true, but I think that way we'd get the 3 driveshafts too wide apart, which would need further space to get them to the right place, and the integrated hub is already too long and would take up too much longitudinal space. It would also leave the rest of the superstructure behind the cabin empty. Another complication might be that the bottom dual actuators on the arm actually need two inputs, and the routing for that would need to avoid collision with the driveshafts for the other LAs (which could only enter the arm using a U-joint at a specific height at the flex point of the arm). I think actually a simpler solution would be to put the hub with the rear outputs facing the arm, entering the arm immediately through U-joints, and route the 3rd output under or on the two sides of the hub to drive the dual actuators that lift the arm. Maybe that's feasible. Not that I wish it was so.. The latter, I'm kind of trying to rule it out in my head :D

I just described above why I don't think that's really feasible, so I wonder how you think it's doable with those hubs..? I mean routing of hub outputs.

I wouldn't hold my breath for it; it can just be a static hammer-looking head. Especially if it is interchangeable with a bucket, as is rumored, which would probably not need any mechanical actuation. But yeah, functional demolition jaws would be more interesting.. As for the idea of this using 2x of the new all-in-one hubs. True that it has 3 functions, and this could be implemented using 3+3 functions, but that hub is long and has 2 outputs at the back/side and one at the front. How would that be incorporated into the bottom / superstructure of this kind of machine so that the outputs can be routed where they are needed? I guess the bottom could be hacked around, drive looks simple, the challenge being the front output for slewing, the whole hub / mechanism would stick out longitudinally. But using that hub in the superstructure would be quite complicated, and certainly very impractical, I don't see how it could be placed so that all outputs can be routed properly. So I guess that hub is just for sportscars. So still curious what kind of actuation mechanism this will use. I hope they will want to do something different from previously existing approaches. An RC pneumatic system in the superstructure would be perfect here :))) 1 motor for the pump, 3 motors for the switches. But I guess that's just us dreaming.

I like how the engine bay / steering is made. But the looks are quite lacking for me too, and I also don't see so much need for that new part. Sure it can be useful for something, but they could have used the budget for many more useful things as well. Btw, how is it used here? I could not catch that.

How many?

Very cool little model! I have always wanted an RC wrangler (on wheels) in this scale with proper suspension features but never managed to squeeze it all in the tight space. You did a great job, I like how the electronics are placed and routed. Even having a working engine is great! Would a similar layout also work with wheels? Or is there something special about the tracks that enabled this model (apart from being more useful in the snow)? I like the rugged look, and by the way, the 1L liftarm in yellow is finally available this year, along with all the micropanels, those could be used to polish it here and there!

What do you mean? There is a linear actuator in it..

Interesting experimentation, thanks for doing that! Unfortunately I cannot experiment now with this as I am abroad and away from my lego for two months to come.. Great that there may be an optimal angle that minimizes the wheel movement. It's nice for an initial concept version, but for a working heavy duty version I see several problems that need to be addressed: first, it has to be built with planetary hubs, because otherwise the drivetrain with 2 Buwizz motors is not possible, the speed is too much and torque is too little. That means for example that you cannot use the pinholes on top and below the wheel hub, because those have permanent balls on the planetary hub. the trailing arm cannot arrive to the point where it arrives now because the rim would collide with it (the buggy is using a deep Defender rim to be able to move the wheel further inwards). Of course a non-deep rim could also be used, but that would make the buggy look a bit too wide, and front suspension would also have to be adjusted accordingly. the current construction will be weak, fall apart in seconds. For example the radius rods would easily disconnect and also the structures that create the angle are weakly connected and I believe it would be hard to strengthen up without compromising ground clearance for example (my current version is form locked, it literally cannot fall apart). Just to illustrate the amount of forces it needs to take, when I built the initial 4-motor version and started making really hard turns, it broke one of the trailing arms (at that time it was not completely form locked though).. there will be an additional problem of mounting the shock absorbers, as they will also be at an angle. I guess that may be compensated for at the top, with maybe a ball joint, at the cost of complicating the chassis structure there as well. By the way, the fact that my current version is on a half stud offset is important. Even though the wheel angle changes a bit, it ensures that it is never too much off from the straight line. It starts out with a bit of toe out and it transitions into a bit of toe in through the straight position. I found that as a good compromise.

Yes, but you mean sideways tilt, right? That doesn't change things, it still turns the wheel as well (toe in). And in lego form, the parts have enough slack to simulate that (liftarm on an axle).

Unfortunately, I can only agree with the above and what people have written before above. First I was enthusiastic about PU and programmability, but soon I learned that PF was easier to use and less complicated, and more compatible with 3rd party stuff. I agree that the position sensor in all motors is mostly pointless (bulkier, more expensive), even though I saw a lot of potential in it in the beginning. Here's why I don't find it too useful for technic: For steering it's just slow and inaccurate. Proper servos are much more precise, smaller, faster and cheaper. They were never really used for speed regulation. Maybe the Zetros profile works in that mode, but the model is so slow to begin with that you only want to go full speed anyway. The only truly useful thing is positioning of LAs with these motors, as in 42100. It's a fun gimmick, but for that one thing they could have just used a dedicated motor (or rather system like all the Mindstorms stuff). Also, many people say that the app control is a disadvantage, which I agree with, but very few people talk about another pain point: calibration. This can be frustrating even for simple models, like a car with steering or gearbox. Apps often loose calibration info, and it does not always work properly. Even when it works, it just feels overcomplicated compared to plug-and-play PF or RC toys. A servo with marked center position would not need calibration either. I think the frustration from this was also underestimated. Though true that for models like 42100 the calibration is needed. I guess for the robotics use case, the features of PU would be great, but I agree that it should be separated from plain RC stuff. And technic model could incorporate both. Most technic models would require simple RC stuff, and every now and then there could be a few models that incorporate robotics-like electronics, like 42100. Why wouldn't that be a viable option? I see electronics as a completely independent subsystem in lego, that could be incorporated into different products and multiple of such electronics systems could co-exist, like PF and EV3 did.

This is such a cool mini motorization, it shows how much more useful lego electronics could be! How much play time does it have with that small battery?

In general they are useful in the same geometries as the 6-4 version (which I agree is more often usable), in cases where they can/need to be extended differently. But yeah, I have seen the 7-3 more often in aesthetic positions than geometrical ones, where some corners needed to be rounded off..

Yes, indeed, I have seen that on real buggies the trailing arm is positioned at a bit of an angle, and was thinking whether that is making up for the geometry. But I am not convinced, I don't see how that would fix things. I mean it does not change the fact that the radius arms will push out the trailing arm and the wheel will have some toe-in. Or do you see if it changes anything? Besides it would be quite hard to implement such a slight angle in lego in a robust way, for one it would need quite a bit more space right where the Buwizz motors are in the buggy, for two, the same angle would have to be compensated at the wheel end of the trailing arm, and that would be really hard I guess (mounting the wheel hub was hard even the straight version), so I decided not to bother with that in this model.

Thanks for appreciating it! Thanks! The steering with one CV joint is okayish, but with two (the version in the Buwizz camp) it was getting sloppy. The caster is a good question. I have the feeling that it is not doing so much compensation, so I was thinking of trying a variant without caster and direct steering for next year's model. But I like the realism aspect :) Thanks! Yes, I know about the irregular geometry of the rear suspension, this is exactly what I tried to explain above. Do you know how this is resolved in reality and how that could be implemented in lego? Because this is something that I don't quite understand in reality either. My guess is that it is actually irregular, but it is so slight that it is not too noticeable. So if you know how it works, let me know! BTW, the purpose of the half stud offsetting is that in the neutral position it is close to parallel, so there's not torsion in the parts. Thanks, glad you like it. Aren't those 20 tooth ones more prone to break? That is actually an interesting idea worth trying! Thanks! Thank you, glad you like it!