gyenesvi

Indeed, it's true that using bright green could have been better color for representing the real one, but even basic liftarms and panels were missing. Hopefully this set makes the situation better.

Not exactly, that's classic darker green, I've been thinking of vivid, lighter, more curvy and faster vehicles using this bright green :)

Well, that's exactly the engine configuration that I expected, despite the marketing crap about the correct firing order. We need to take these with a pinch of salt, before going crazy about how it might come with new parts to implement.. I think I like the bodywork more than the inside due to the all the panels in a nice color. Will boost green MOCs for sure!

Thanks, indeed, I was also skeptical in the beginning, but it turned out to be great, sometimes it's worth experimenting with tricky stuff. Thank you, glad you like the color :) I'd also like to have some RC tire at 80-82 mm size, but I never really found any great ones that fit 43mm lego rims. Best I have is these Injora ones, but only 4 and does not look that great either.

Looks massive indeed, cool color scheme! I like those snakes on the top :) What is that Switch controller for? I haven't yet used it I think.

That looks like a project to keep yourself busy for some time, great idea! So are you planning to build things virtually first to see how they work out and how much parts you need, or are you going to build the smaller / medium models out physically first?

Indeed, it's true that as the model becomes heavier, with larger wheels, the high gear becomes impractical, so it might be easier to just get rid of it and then use the 42099 profile (if the steering direction is the right one, the drive direction can be flipped at the diffs if necessary). @vliet you can test the profile quickly just by disconnecting the gearbox motor!

The profile for 42099 won't work because of the additional gearbox motor.. So you are left with BrickController app or programming with Pybricks (in Python). I guess BrickController is the easier one. I know PU can be irritating when you build it and can't control it..

Good point. I didn't even think about looking because I was pretty sure about it, I was kind of surprised when people started hypothesizing about the large ones..

Yeah, but what if the large pistons simply don't fit into this scale. I'd expect they use the new pistons in this model. I don't think they really care about the realism of the crank shaft.

I agree, that is exactly the scale I'd prefer to build on, though it's not exactly 10 Eur range, but I think to build interesting A/B models from the same parts, we need to allow more than 42218.

I'd vote for pushing it out a bit more.

Actually I like that, it's a simple enough rule, and fairly easy to check also based on photos. Of course it can lead to some parts only being used in order to facilitate the B model, but that's within the spirit of the contest, and the weight limit can put a cap on the use of such spurious parts. I agree, this can work for small models.

But what's the requirement on those parts if there is no part limit? We cannot require both models to use exactly the same parts, so we need to allow some discrepancy, but how much? Because too much can lead to two very distinct models, and defeats the purpose of the original A/B model competition. In theory yes, but of course in practice nobody would actually go ahead and check it.. If somebody is not building digitally, that can also be quite cumbersome.

I know you can, but then you loose 1 (or even 1,5) stud of width reduction (which he is trying to achieve) compared to the version without pin hub. Also, moving the steering pivot as close to the wheel is going to be required to avoid the wheel hitting the fenders. An alternative that you could look into is what I call fake portals by Attika, using planetary hubs built into the axle with the lower steering arms and the driveshaft at an angle. That gives you only 1 stud of lift, but it is a relatively simple and solid build, and it is actually possible to implement at the original with of the G-class (17 between steering pivots, or wider if you wish, 19 is ideal I think). Also, it has the same good steering pivot as the G-class, so no problem with the fenders. Finally, since the lower steering arms are slanted, it actually would look similar to how a real G-squared looks. Something like this but narrower (and without the servo on top):

I think your best bet is brick built portals (without proper 3-pin port hubs) instead of the ready made ones. That way, it is possible to sink the portal into the rim, and gain 2 studs on each side. The G500 squared has rigid axles in real life, no? So that change sounds like right thing to do.

Links are in the first post.

Although I like the idea of a weight limit for a contest, as it is easy to prove with a photo on a kitchen scale, but then how would the B model requirement from roughly the same parts work? It's not enough to say that both models are under the weight limit, because that can be achieved with entirely different parts as well. The B model requirement only makes sense if parts are.

That would be a really nice trend! Actually, I realized that 56mm RC tires (I have two different sets) work better with the thin version of these small rims, and everything has better proportions that way. Also, I think TLG should make thin versions of larger rims as well, and then thinner off-road tires for them. I think they made a mistake by forcing a bunch of new off-road tires to work with wide sports-car rims; everything is now too wide, and now it is hard to change all the rims because of tire compatibility. But thinner wheels could result in big improvements for off-roaders not only in terms of looks, but also leaving more space for better suspension. For example, the G-class could have had front diff locker if the wheels were thinner.

Exactly this, I don't get it either when people get excited about a set having a diff. I have so many diff parts just from all the sets, they take up a lot of storage space. I'd say this is even bad as a parts pack. You get just 1 from many parts in a given color, just a single side from panels that are asymmetric. Not too useful. The only utility is the existence of some recolors. Besides all that, it looks really ugly. Not only is it like broken china because of the usual panel discontinuities, on top of that almost every part is a different color, and where not, it has stickers that break even the unicolor surface. Not exactly good source material for technic paneling..

Oh well.. My first reaction was that it looks like a cartoonish toy car in a weird color :) Well, it's a toy after all, but something feels really off in the proportions; I think it's that the whole thing is too tall for the size, the fenders are too far above the wheels, and the wheels are too wide out to the side as well. Feels like a go-kart. They should have used the Bronco's tires to give it better proportions. And I don't get the orange rims either. I like the shaping of the hood though, and that it's like a safari version, definitely more recognizably Jeep-like than the previous one. There definitely seem to be some new interesting parts in the rear axle, so let's see what it brings in terms of parts! I don't think there's from wheel drive, that cross liftarm visible in the front axle would collide with a differential. Can I ask you one correction? In English, it's always 'in' a certain color, not 'on'. So: in red, in yellow, in dark turquoise. You write this down way too many times, so it's time to do it properly :) Hope you don't mind, thanks!

Thanks, glad you see me making progress :) Well, I have been thinking exactly that :D My plan is to build a somewhat smaller, more compact version of this, using a brushless motor. For one, the brushless motor would take less space, as a single one is enough and no need to gear them together, at the same time would probably be even more powerful, and also more controllable at very low speeds. Second, one thing that could be improved a lot is the linkage for the suspension, because these links built from liftarms are bulky and have less degrees of freedom, so to make it possible to compact things, I have been experimenting with 3d printed links, and I successfully printed 11L links already, but even longer ones are possible if needed. Third, some custom springs for making it actually spring loaded while retaining the large amount of articulation.. So there's a lot to improve, and while it seems like a lot of custom parts, all of those would be parts that could in principle exist as generic lego parts.

Oh, luckily I stopped updating Studio a while ago since it always broke something.. it seems they managed to elevate it to the next level.

What is that part used as the lower A-arm that holds the wheel hubs? Is it 3d printed?

The overall shaping looks really nice, and I like that the body is removable, and that the chassis can be motorized. Did you consider adding a 3rd drive motor instead of the lights to achieve a good speed? Also, a lot depends on the batteries. A Buwizz 3 could help, and it would also give you two extra PF ports, where you could add more lights, that would maybe also solve your size problem with the old vs new lights. My main complaint about the lights would be that red liftarm that goes through it. I understand it has a structural role, but I'd definitely try to work around it somehow, as for me it ruins the otherwise clean look. I think one structural problem is that those fender pieces are not attached on either the outer or the inner side. Fixing them somehow, maybe on the inner end could be a possible solution. I think you should definitely mention this in the intro though, so that people don't get surprised that it's actually not buildable from genuine lego parts.