gyenesvi

Doing away with the rear live axle in this model is cheating! A mod should rather improve the live axle geometry :) I'll definitely give it a go trying to slim down the axle (build a 7x7 frame instead of using the 11x7 frame). Also will see what can be done on the front axle to include a diff lock using the 5L steering arms / driveshafts.

That sounds somewhat irregular to be actually produced, couldn't you make use of this existing one instead?

That's good to know, thanks. I have only seen buggies in detail that are typically not factory built, there they do use ball joints. Anyways, I do think that pins are a bit of an oversimplification and would cause stress or binding on high articulation models. In lower articulation ones like this, it could be okay, but then again, for the educational purpose, using proper links would not have been too difficult. I mean the rear suspension is the only place on this model where something slightly more advanced could have been made, and not even that is pushed too far. True, but that's why a proper 5-link solution would be nice, as it avoids that compromise.

I actually checked this on the Zetros and found that it is limiting (the axle binds when the shock absorbers are removed). The reason there was that the 3rd link at the top is fixed very high on the axle, which causes a lot of sideways movement upon articulation (another unrealistic detail). I guess it will be the same here. Of course if you push it down with your hands it will work :) But it would not articulate smoothly under its own weight, as the Zetros demonstrated. But it must allow for some tilting motion, no? Anyway, the point was to illustrate the suspension geometry.

This, exactly! The Zetros had the same problem. I don't know if it's Milan or his originally better designs are always dumbed down (though his arctic explorer also uses the same technique for live axle suspension..). Btw, using (frictionless) pins would not be a problem if the links were long; then it would even be realistic; buggies with semi-triangulated 4-link suspension employ that technique, when the shocks are attached to the links themselves, to minimize the pivot at the base of the link, and maximize the pivot at the axle end, so that the links themselves don't try to pivot the shocks. But that's not the case here. Proper 6L links could have been used. That upper link would be enough to keep the axle centered. But to go even more realistic, two more parallel links and a panhard rod would have been better. This is what I found about the G-class rear suspension: Also, there seem to be variants with only 2 lower links, that are restricted to sideways pivot at the axle end to avoid forward rotation of the axle. That's also something that would have been interesting to see, as it's hard to build in technic form (never really seen). So again, as usual, many missed opportunities to BUILD FOR REAL!!

Me too, but I think this will be too big for that purpose.

Not exactly liftarm because it is also offset sideways.. And the jump is very high. Would probably consider it more like a link. But interesting / useful part definitely (when the size fits)!

I don't mind the removal of the gearbox either. But the rear suspension could have been a proper 4-link instead of this simplified 3-link one, even though it's a nice part usage. The door locks are just gimmicks for me. Would have preferred nicer doors. The front shaping is nice though. Pity that even at this large scale, there was no space for front diff lock, even if operated from the bottom as the rear one. They could have used 5L suspension arms with the 5L driveshaft from the Ford GT to make 2 studs of space for the diff lock using the new 2L driving ring.. Because the 3 diff locks are the essence of a G-wagen? Check the P1 thread ;)

Not a big deal in this case, but if I want to use it for off-roaders with high travel, it might become one. Though in that case it may be better to extend the arms to 9L. But the principle also matters :)

If I see that correctly, that will still have the steering pivot one stud away from the rim, not immediately next to it, which will result in a bit larger scrub radius than ideal (and bump into the fenders of the Defender for example). Not as bad as with the current portal parts, but it could be enhanced with a revised dedicated part that would work with Defender rims. Also, this model has steering pivot next to the hub and flies under the Defender fenders with 95mm tires. With 87 mm tires and not so tight fenders, the situation could be somewhat better though.

I see, thanks! Now that I think of it, I guess the bottom ones need to bend that way to avoid collision with the wheel hub itself.

I can see several of them that surely does not influence the door opening..

I still only see 4 of them. The reason I wonder is that if the top ones have a hump upwnwards, that means that at the bottom they would have to have the hump downwards. Just wonder how that would work on off-roaders. Sorry to disappoint @thekoRngear, but I tend to agree with @amorti here that the first pages of this thread were pure speculation and wishing based on close to zero information, just because the topic was opened (a bit early). Would have been happier with a more informative discussion, but to find that out, I have to read through it..

Yeeeaaah! Even though I don't think this thread has influenced anything, this part / the whole gearbox was probably being already designed when that gear was proposed, but I am quite happy that this happened, and that it's kind of the form that we predicted. Excited to see how it can be used in compact RC gearboxes. Not sure if that is physically possible, but interesting idea!

Wow. Blown by this one! Not fan of supercars, but getting tempted here :) I like the looks, the color is nice (and lots of new parts in it), and the shaping flows nicely, large curvy panels and not much clutter. And the new mechanical stuff is a very pleasant surprise, the 12T clutch gear already, but the suspension arms are the real treasure here for me. They seem quite realistic and seem to be working for driven suspension as well, enabling the springs to be placed inside as in real models. Those parts could be very useful for off-roaders as well, exactly something I'd need for a current build, where the front suspension I built from many small parts is the weak spot. BTW, I think they are 7L, but they have two pinholes at the base, so they can be extended. I wonder if the same part is used at the bottom though. Does anyone see that? Exactly. I hope a 7L link will follow as well. They could have just come out with that in this model though..

Well, having mixed feelings so far.. On one hand, I like the color (though was hoping for purple), at least with the space sets, this color can have a decent part selection, not sure though if they complete each other or if there's a large overlap in the orange parts. I also like the larger tires with offroad pattern, that's a good scale, the Defender would have also benefited from it, and the model looks beefy with them. Btw, these larger tires, even 95mm ones work well with Defender fenders, so I was hoping for at least those in black (or even better, a new fender part that's not so overly wide). These beam built ones are out of scale in height and boring in terms of building technique. Now the bad part. This. The overall proportions are not bad (not hard to do), but I just don't get people when they look at a model like this and say, "whoaa, that looks awesome". Even a jigsaw has a smoother finish when fitted properly. The doors look just crap to me with all those connectors and panels randomly added. When will Lego realize that such doors desperately need 5x7 panels? Even the rear door could have just been built with a 5x7 panel with a single 5L small wing panel attached to it vertically instead of those cluttered connected small panels.. And the windows. Not yet completely convinced on the new angled connector, but if they went on to produce that, then why couldn't they use this connector instead of this to make the window frames look uniform? It is available in the new color, at the bottom of the rear door. It all looks so random. Furthermore, I find that angled connector to be a not so great way of building these kind of things, because (irrespective of the angle), it makes the looks cluttered anyway, it can rarely fit the context smoothly, which is definitely not the case here. And the rest of the doors are equally cluttered. I can see at least 2 or 3 places where a 6L beam could have been handy (or even a 4L). When will they realize that producing those parts could pay off quite fast? So kind of underwhelming for me on the looks part. I don't yet want to say too much about functionality yet, as we don't know what's inside, but that bottom operated diff lock does not sound too promising so far.. This is pretty large scale, many things should be possible to fin in there.. Anyways, of course I am going to get one.. :D

Looks nice and I like how realistic its movement looks! Great feature that the rollcage is structural. Nice work!

Exactly this, it’s that simple, nothing to do with motorization I guess. Which I think is actually a nice mechanism / use of pneumatics, and probably also resembles how the real life counterpart works / is operated(?)

Yes I searched for all available orange technic parts, and I only get previously existing ones.

I think the orange Lambo parts are not here yet unfortunately; most of these seem to be reddish orange parts from the space sets.

Glad to hear you see it fit! (I forgot to mention that a GeekServo is also stronger, despite being smaller :D) True that you need to convert power to 5-6V, but don't forget that you also need a control signal as in RC receivers, meaning a PWM signal where the pulse width defines the servo position (between 500 and 2500 usec, 1500 usec being the center position). Are you going to produce that signal with the Arduino? Your prototype looks nice so far!

That's an interesting choice, and some new mechanisms going on in there, at least some novelty. Unfortunately not that many teal pieces included so that they would start to be useful a a color.. (much of the teal here is just stickers) But now that we know that the supercar is probably going to be bright light orange, and the new teal parts are for this one, it suggests that the new purple parts will go into the G-wagon..

That's already on the list on the first page. And you can buy it from Cada, I have them.

I think this kind of beam would unfortunately be too weak at the point where the 3 overlapping axle holes are.. Oh, that's a very neat design! Quite specialized, but not more than the fenders of the lunar rover :) I have also been thinking about smaller, 20T differentials, that would be kind of a holy grail for live axles, because they could become smaller in multiple dimensions which would reduce bulkiness a lot and make space for other things like steering linkages and panhard rods. There's a 3d-printable 20T differential housing (2 studs wide) and tiny gears to inside designed by Efferman, I have them printed, so it's doable. The only problem with it is that it requires a 12T gear on a 2.5 stud axle to drive it, which would probably have to be a single piece then, and then only a U-joint can be connected to it on the other side, no CV joint. Still it could work, but needs some specialized parts. I think the best way to make that would be a pre-built, enclosed diff housing with tiny gears inside made from some stronger material, something akin to the planetary hub. And then a 5x5 diff frame could be made for it.. So not quite the generic parts that I'm aiming for in this thread, but yeah, would be a game changer. @Stereo I'm not really able to follow you with these drawings.. I especially don't get the 24T or 28T gear, because the point would be to fit into 3 studs (right?), and those don't.

Maybe I heard it :D Better later than never :D Sorry for being slow.. Not that this render would change much about the situation.. Indeed, that one as well. I guess even a 2L version with 3 axle holes would be doable based on the cam piece, though may be too weak.. Edit: just realized that a 2L version with 3 axle holes would be pointless; it's impossible to insert two axles with 0.5 spacing. So the shortest meaningful one would be 2.5L (kind of too similar to existing 2L). In case of overlapping axle holes, some reinforcement seems necessary, like in case of the cam piece (wider around the axle holes).