gyenesvi

Good to know, thanks :) Yes there are some areas that could be improved, but not big sacrifices, most of them on the inside, a few on the outside, like cosmetic ones. For example the axles could be built better with more parts, the set does not have 5x7 O frames for example, a pretty essential one for axles. So in the front I had to build a frame out of beams, which is harder to stabilize and comes out more bulky. Also, in the rear, some more 9L links would have been useful, and I would have rather built a diff locking rear axle frame out of 7L flip-flop beams than using the 11x7 frame. That would have left more room for spring placement for example. In general, I'd be curious if it would be possible to build a version of this with long springs, slightly more lifted and longer travel. Maybe some 24T and 8T gear could have simplified the gearbox, but at the same time the 24T needs more space, so bracing would have been more difficult. On the outside, the fender is a part that could be simplified / improved with more connectors (as I wrote above), especially reddish orange ones (the right angles exist in the color, so it would be doable), but also in case of the black version. Some more #1 connectors in orange could improve the looks of the rear side windows as well. And a longer (2x5) black winglet panel on the front of the roof. The area that I would like to definitely improve is behind the doors, where the last 2x3 orange panel is attached at the bottom. That does not look very nice, but improving that is difficult, because that panel has connection points in not so good places. The best solution I could do would require a corner pinhole with two axles in reddish orange, but that does not exist. Maybe the gap between the base of the hood and the bottom of the windshield could be filled with more orange beams.

Thanks, glad you like it so much, and that you appreciate the presentation as well :) I get what you mean about the looks, I also had that feeling when looking at my images. I guess it's mainly due to the color and the overall shape. Other alternate models are luckier in this respect. But indeed there's actually almost nothing in common with the G500. Thanks for appreciating the technical details! Glad you like it, thanks! Thanks for the kind words, glad to hear! Thanks a lot! Always good to hear when people say they'd buy the set to build an alternative :) Hope you'll find the instructions easy. Agree that someone without being predisposed to the original set's pictures would get easily that it's a Defender :) Glad you appreciate the details and the description. Well, those details are just my own experience / opinion, and I always try to get as realistic as possible within the bounds of the building system, and thought this time it could be improved, kind of low hanging fruit that Lego did not nail for some reason. Thanks for the nice words about my alternates and write-ups. Glad it compares well to the real-life counterpart and that the technical side is also interesting!

Hi Guys! I'm happy to present you my (first) alternate model of the Mercedes G500 (set 42177) into a classic Defender 90! A classic Defender has been on my todo list for a long time, I have tried it with set 42110 as well, but certain details just did not work out (oversized fender pieces relative to wheels), but with the G500 set I finally went for it as the parts are quite okay for making the iconic details of this model. Due to the orange color, the model was heavily inspired by modern variants in classic shape, such as the Heritage version, which does exist in almost exactly this color. Let me take you through the design process as well, but to start off, here's a video to showcase all the features! Features 4-link live axle suspension on both axles all wheel drive with central and rear differential lock 3+R gearbox in an H pattern working inline 4 piston engine working steering wheel and HoG openable doors with functional locks, including the rear clean interior with seats and classic benches in the rear section numerous accessories such as roof rack, reflectors, toolbox, cans, ladder, spare wheel, snorkel, spade and axe Design process Bodywork As already usual for me with these kind of models, the design started with the bodywork to see whether it is possible to make a good looking model using the parts of the source set. This was done in Studio to be able to easily build in the air. Certain parts were key, such as the trapezoid panels to be able to make the hood (actually I already suspected this possibility when I heard about the G-class as it has a similar hood shape). Then I tried the front face / lights / grille. Luckily the source set has an unusually high number of 1x2 grille tiles, just enough to make the entire large grille (which had to become even width because of the 1x2 part). Also, enough clear parts to make the light cluster, even the luxury of choosing from 2x2 and 3x3 dishes, somehow the smaller ones looked better for me, but they are actually exchangeable. Next was the fenders. This was critical, since the Defender has a distinct shape of fenders, with angles / curved shape that are different from the 4x6 angled beam used in the G500, so using those parts was out of the question. Also, the set did not have enough 112.5 degree angled connectors, which would have been perfect for the job, so I had to resort to different technique to make the angle. Luckily, there were just enough black connectors in the set, which could be used with some tricky mounting points. Another key detail was the curved slope running through the sides; to see whether there's enough material for that and whether it can all be connected firmly to the rest of the body. Especially the door are was tricky, where I also had to pay attention to allow it to close easily. The new angled connectors also came in handy to add that small but important detail to the side windows, which is best seen on the rear view. So slowly the sides and front got together, and using the curved black panels, I just managed to put together a convincing roof shape too. Last I made the rear door/windows, where I also managed to model those little side windows while allowing the door to be openable. At first I did not want to bother with door locks, I did not find them very convincing on the A model, but then I saw that all alternate builds do it, so I thought I had to give it a try, and I am happy I did. I tried to make a more realistic and smooth mechanism than the A model, and I stumbled upon a simple way that opens by pushing the handle down. It works like a charm, and I managed to replicate it for the rear door too. Chassis, drivetrain, suspension Once the body was looking nice and the dimensions were known, I started thinking about the internals. First the suspension. The rear suspension was the part in the A model which was the most underwhelming for me. Even though there is a ton of space at this scale, the linkage geometry is just unrealistic; it even binds up if there is no weight on it because of too much constraints (triangulated upper links plus a Panhard rod constraining the axle at different heights is just physically impossible). The use of that new suspension arm feels out of place, a simple parallel 4-link with long 9L links and the Panhard rod could have been much simpler and realistic at the same time. Another thing I don't like there is the chassis rail geometry and the spring mounting. The chassis rails are unrealistically tall along with the springs which end up being in the middle of the trunk. Again, I was thinking, at this large scale, in a manual model, it should be possible to make something more realistic. So that's what I aimed for, if even with the part restrictions of the set. In a chassis with live axles squeezing in the 3x19 frame is a bit more difficult as longitudinal space is a luxury because the axles need more space, but it turned out to be just okay. So I aimed for a solid but slim / flat chassis railing that does not protrude into the bed area in the rear. As for the suspension linkage, I used the short ones on the front, and for the rear, I used longer ones to allow the lower ones to pass under the frame. I also moved the springs out to keep the bed clean. In this model I did not aim for long travel anyway, as I wanted to keep the body lowered on the wheels, to look more realistic, unlike the overly lifter G500. I mean it's nice to have that long travel, but when it comes at the cost of obscuring both the chassis / spring geometry and the fenders at the same time, then something does not feel right. I think the core of the problem is using these short springs all the time instead of bringing back longer softer ones. With these short ones it's not possible to build live axles with realistic geometry unless the spring ends up in the middle of the chassis / trunk, which is no good. Once the suspension geometry was sorted, I moved onto the drivetrain / gearbox. The most challenging part. To make something true to the real world model, I definitely wanted an H pattern gearbox with a reverse gear. On one hand the availability of the new 12T clutch gear in the set made this possible, as it allows to move one of the 4 gears out of the connected gear-train and reverse it without effecting the others. On the downside, the set is quite short on various gear sizes (no 24T and 8T gears typically used in 3+ speed gearboxes), so actually making the 3-speed part was more difficult, I had to use a longer train of gears which made things harder to route and brace, caused some weird friction issues as well, and also I used up most of the gears in the set. The inclusion of a central differential with lock also complicated things, so I just settled from a bottom operated lock, as in case of the rear axle anyways. Another difficulty with a 3+R gearbox in an H pattern is where to put the reverse gear. The problem with the more obvious / favorable 1-2-3-R positions is that the reverse gear gets opposite to the 3rd gear, which means it will naturally become similar speed as the 3rd gear, which is unrealistic. So I went with the R-1-2-3 pattern, which allows the reverse gear to be similar speed as the 1st gear which is realistic. On top of all, the HoG steering axle also had to pass through the chassis. Luckily, I could avoid routing it through the middle, colliding with the gearbox, rather on the side instead. This is because the steering is based on a linkage, as in case of real live axles, which is actuated from one side (where the steering wheel is) to the other. It turned out, that I had free space on the right side of the gearbox, which was lucky, because then I could put the steering wheel and the HoG routing to the right side, which is just a good match for the Defender being an English brand (interestingly, mirroring the gearbox would not work because then the H pattern would also get mirrored which would be unrealistic for the gear sequence). In the end I ran out of gears, so I had to use some tricky linkages to get the steering wheel move. I even had to resort to using the 20T clutch gear on a friction pin, which works okay when using the HoG and it moves the steering wheel in the cabin, but the steering wheel could not be used to steer the model (though can be fixed by swapping that green gear to a proper 20T one). An interesting thing about the build is that the actual gearbox submodule turned out the be a single piece dropped in between the chassis frames. Interior and accessories The final touches were the interior, and some extra accessories to make the model more interesting, less plain. As for the interior, besides the usual front seats, I definitely wanted to make sideways benches in the rear section. Luckily enough, there was enough DBG material to make these happen. As for the extras, an obvious one was the spare wheel and the roof rack, but I also added a ladder on the side, making sure that it (and the spare wheel) still allows the rear door to open. I also took some inspiration from the Icons Defender to mount some tools (spade and axe) to the hood, and add a toolbox and some cans on the top. Also a simple snorkel mountable to the A pillar. Here are some photos to showcase it in real life. More images are available on Bricksafe. Building instructions are available on Rebrickable. Let me know how you like it! Cheers, Viktor

Actually I think that's a nice idea, except it would not have the letters, not even a surface for custom stickers.

But you should be replacing the tiles with a technic equivalent :D

The Zetros is 15 studs wide as well. Yeah, those long arms do help I guess :)

That's a neat model, and interesting driveline, I like your solution for the power to the swingarms problem using the CV joint. Are the axles 15 wide in total? Also, you crammed a lot in there with all the steered axles and the working steering wheel and fake engine! Is the single servo powerful enough to steer all axles when on obstacles? That will be a serious contender for the truck trial :)

I don't understand how this would make an Animal Contest more possible. I'd think if some people throw in their animal ideas here then there would be less participation in a future animal contest.

No it's not able to do that.

While I like the idea of a typewriter itself, I also feel that there's too little originality in it since the core mechanism would just be copied I guess, and the cover is not so essential to technic.

@Jim I find it a bit weird that all moving things are disallowed except animals. Also, it seems from the general discussion thread that many people like the idea of the animal contest. So I'd say why not keep the animals for the animal contest and just say that in this contest all things that can move themselves are disallowed? So a robot arm would be allowed, but a walking mechanism would not. Would that make sense?

Well, this is what happens when they let a skilled designer go all in :) Amazing blend of technic and system, very functional and beautifully built model. Congratulations @eric trax! I wonder how much it weighs due to all the system pieces, more specifically, how much the system cover adds compared to if it was covered just with technic panels. The side plates/tiles don't seem to be that thick, but there are quite a few DBG walls under to green paneling, that may be adding a bit more weight.

On one hand, I agree that a generic non-vehicle contest is too wide as a topic, with incomparable entries, maybe building techniques and execution could be judged, but that feels a less meaningful criteria alone. Just for fun everyone can just build without a contest as well :) It's like organizing a sports contest without specifying the sport and the course to compete on. One could choose running or biking or swimming, plus one can choose their distance as well. And then we give points to how well they performed in their own sport. Quite a meaningful contest, no? On the other hand I'd be okay with leaving the animal contest for later because I probably won't be able to participate now, and I'd definitely like to participate in the animal contest :) And that's a complex enough topic to deserve exploration. Those are pretty good examples, exactly what I have been thinking of!

Actually, I think the animal theme is a good idea, not too festive though, but I think in that case we should go all in with it and not allow a non-animal category as well otherwise entries will be incomparable.

These! We do all loose interest in everything over time, that's natural. But I think there's a big difference in this respect between people who design / build themselves, and people who just assemble sets. The latter is more sensitive to official sets and gets bored much sooner. For the former on the other hand, it is all about the creative process and the challenge of designing their own ideas. And as long as they haven't tried out everything possible (and interesting) with the existing bricks, there is always something new that's exciting (and adults usually have less free time than ideas to try out). And new parts feed this process, because more and more builds / realistic mechanisms become possible, and even rebuilding something that has previously been built is completely different with new parts. That's what I really like about Lego, as long as the possibilities evolve, there's always something new to build.

I second this, taking half of the screen and making things super hard to use. Even the previous banner at the top was already bad because it was making the top menu unreachable..

In that case maybe the Generic Part Discussion thread :) Anyways, fine with me.. Well, that's the root cause of the problem then :) That's a lot of power for the plastic. Probably greasing / lubricating would slow down the process of eroding the components and building up the freeplay, but I guess it would not prevent it totally.

First off, the mods will probably tell you tht this should not be a separate thread but in the dedicated thread for 42160. Second, what are you driving this with? Original technic hub/batteries or is this a Buwizz3 mod? Your wheel hub seems pretty worn, with plastic dust on first image? That's why there's much freeplay maybe? Do you remember if it touched when it was not worn out? Though true that it was probably close enough to start with..

I agree with what @allanp said above. I understand them making models that sell well, sure, but feels like they used to put more effort into making them technically more interesting in the old times, and I don't think that the two would be mutually exclusive. I feel like old models used to push technical possibilities to the limit (maybe even too much and some became too complex / weak?) and nowadays they are not doing that, just settle with "good enough to sell" solutions, instead of approaching "only the best is good enough". And as I said above already, where it really effects us MOC-ers is when that 'lazyness' effects new parts, or rather the lack of them. Though true that some interesting new parts have arrived in the recent past and more seem to be coming in the near future, which is really good, so hopefully these rants do have some effect :)

Hmm, after looking at some videos and the mechanism online, I don't think that's accurate. I think what you mean is that without separation of the links, the actuator head remains parallel (or the pencil perpendicular) to the ground (base) plane. But you can raise and lower the actuator, just as shown in the video of @oracid, so you can move it out of a single plane, and if you want to keep it in a single plane (as you did in your example drawing machine), you have to calculate the right angles for the 3 motors. It seems relatively simple though, I wonder how complicated the inverse kinematics gets, whether there's a closed form for calculating the motor angles, or is there a need for some iterative approximation algorithm. I'll try to look into it. The whole machine looks simple to build as well, so I feel tempted to try this. I have a Mindstorms kit I have never really used for anything, maybe this is a good one :) I think the angular L motors would work fine for this without any gearing needed, and it also seems easier to integrate them due to their shape. And it's interesting to see how rotation and tilting can also be achieved with link separation.

Indeed, I had quite a few situations when that one would have worked.

I have thought about that recently too, and even designed a few parts, I will post them later. I think it would be good with cross holes on the end, rotated 45 degrees, so that things on the two ends can connect in a non-diagonal direction. The length could be square of 2 or the double, as in the part above.

I think that would be kind of useless. True they understand motorcycles, but they probably don't understand what's possible with lego technic and what's not, so they cannot tell how good the lego representation is. All they could probably tell is how good it looks, and things like "wow, cool, it even has suspension and gearbox!". They probably wouldn't say, "oh, it's the same as in the previous lego bike"..

Sure I agree some are and there is progress in that aspect as well, I did not mean to say there isn't, just that there seems to be more emphasis on visual parts. Flip-flop beams are awesome game-changers, I agree, only thing is that the series is getting completed really slowly, even though everyone says it is a radical change, so TLG designers must also realize this, so I don't understand why they don't speed up its rollout if it's so beneficial. New transmission parts and gears are also great, and I welcome heavy duty drivetrain parts as well, though they have a few missing pieces, and some recent pieces could have been designed better as well to make them more versatile. But what I really miss is the more basic structural parts / connectors. A prime example could be L shaped beams / thin beams with axle holes; there is a lot missing there, that if existed could also be quite a change for compact builds. That's just one example, I have listed a lot more in this thread. Why not build your own stuff instead of relying on sets? It does not matter whether the parts come from old or new sets or just Bricklink / PaB..

These are true, I like this point of view. However, I believe that the technical quality of official sets and hence the novel elements and hence the potential for MOC-ing are interrelated. And that's where I could imagine improvement, I don't really care about the actual models made by TLG, as long as I can build what I'd like :) True that there are novel parts, and hence the range of parts is only ever increasing. But it also matters what parts are coming out. The good looking shelf queens imply more paneling than technical / structural elements, and even obvious opportunities are being missed for introducing new technical elements. I'm fine with TLG going with cars, but then at least make the most common technical side of those (suspension, drivetrain) cars good, especially when a model would require. The Ford Raptor was an example of a missed opportunity for 4WD at that scale, and for me the G500 is also underwhelming on the technical side. It's a large scale, expensive set, and yet it doesn't even have a proper (non-steered) floating axle rear suspension, the simplest thing you could imagine; the geometry is unrealistic, the linkage binds, the springs are in the trunk, and the chassis frame is also unrealistically shaped. Lego is even missing structural parts to make simple strong ladder frame chassis, which sounds like a basic shape (just one example, there are other basic shapes that are also hard to build).