gyenesvi

Yeah, I know.. That one is a good example as well. One of the things I am most curious about is if/when they'll introduce the 5L steering link. We have the 5L steering arm for suspension, now we also have a 5L driveshaft, we are only missing a 5L steering link to match them and to be able to build a 15-wide steered and driven independent front suspension or a 13-wide steered and non-driven one. Wonder how many suboptimal models will come out before they actually decide to do it. They double screwed it in the Raptor (no FWD, wrong steering geometry), and they avoided it in the Ford GT as well (worked around it with 6L ones, though complicated the structure). (cough) #onlythebestisgoodenough

Interesting idea, I'd like to see that problem solved. But there are some details in your plans that I don't understand. I guess I kind of get where these would fit, and what they would connect, but not exactly how. What is their length? Fixed or variable (swappable)? Do they include joints on the ends? Or is that separate? Why are the 3 outputs required? And why is a central differential required? We practically never build that in lego (RC) cars (just makes it worse offroad), and I think most RC cars don't have that either (many 4x4 offroaders don't even have axle differentials either, just locked). I think we have already concluded in some thread that that's not possible physically due to lack of space; the U-joint would collide with the pinholes on the hub when the joint is articulated up/down. Only CV-joint would fit in there as for that the female part remains stationary and so it does not collide with the pinholes. Unfortunately, before seeing some prototypes, it is hard to say anything more concrete, as the devil is in the details. And I guess you'd use ball beared diff frames and beams as well but you consider those available already.

Hmm, my assumption would be that the release of the lego model is timed for this year exactly to coincide with the facelift and to promote it. The lego Land Rover model also came out when the new real car. Anyways, I guess the lego model can’t be accurate enough to show the small differences brought about by the facelift, so they might not even need to know the new details.

I guess that's exactly the kind of thing @Lyichir was talking about; it's not that they fail to do so, rather they deliberately don't want to do so. Though I agree with you that there is no really good reason not to produce black ones again and use them sparingly, where it matters. I guess it's just that it's not worth for them bothering with it. At least they exist in black and old ones can be bought on BL, so MOCers can use them..

Yeah, I can accept that, but my point was that by the same argument we could have gotten a recolor of that pin-axle connector in yellow in the Jeep, or the same happened with some parts not getting recolored to orange in the Raptor.. I understand that a new part is different from the case of a recolor, and it's more complicated to introduce. My point was that they are game changing really basic useful parts at least in the technic world (though such structural parts are the ones that can actually be useful in other themes as well). I think this kind of thinking is what's problematic, and short sighted. Because define 'badly enough'. Designers can always say, well, we can work around it in some awkward way. We can come up with suboptimal solutions. We can leave out that complicated mechanism. I see plenty of examples for these, like the incorrect suspension / steering geometries of recent cars (Zetros, Raptor, Ford GT) instead of adding a long missed part for a correct one (I mean, majority of technic models are cars, it would make sense to make more efficient parts for them). This kind of thinking is short sighted and unsystematic. Instead of creating a system of parts (that would be the essence of lego in my opinion), it leads to a pretty random set of parts that cover specific needs. And with that they are not only frustrating builders (they can afford not really caring about them), but they are also making their own life more difficult. Instead of releasing obviously missing parts, they are coming out with sets containing workarounds and suboptimal solutions again and again. Only when reviews get bad enough do they consider fixing the situation. When I first looked at the technic parts palette with a grown-up engineering mind, I was pretty surprised and disappointed how unsystematic it is and how much suboptimal workarounds it requires to build with. Sure, one can get used to it over time, but.. That's a good point, this kind of more isolated status and different parts palette of Technic theme might account for seemingly less new parts compared to the rest of the themes. Indeed, these last few years are more promising, I do agree. Just wish more focus was put on the missing basics, than the completely new concepts. For example that U-shaped 2x3 beam that we are getting this year seems pretty specific, I literally don't know what I'd use that for as I never found myself needing a similar part, and I could have imagined a more basic part to have more priority. Unfortunately, I suspect some big holes will never be filled. We will probably never get a 4L beam (that's kind of a unicorn of technic parts), we will always have to work around that, even though in quite a few cases it's impossible. And by the same argument I guess we'll never get a 4L or 3L flip-flop beam (as something similar already exists), we can only hope to eventually get a 5L, as hopefully that's missing badly enough. And we'll probably also never get a proper 2x3 L shaped beam, because we recently got a 2x3 curved beam, that tries to be both an L shape and a panel piece at the same time, but now it's not great for either of the tasks (some part of it is often in the way), but now it's kind of blocking the true need for both. Unfortunately, what I see is that often when a new concept is introduced in a year, it is used in many sets of that year (which is good). So for example, I think if we'd be getting a 5L flip-flop beam this year, it would have already appeared in the January / March waves. Sure we still get some specific surprise novelties later this year, but I already ruled out some obvious / awaited ones in my mind.

Obviously, we don't believe that some themes would have unlimited budget or get countless new molds. But it does feel like Technic gets a smaller frame or uses it in a weird way. And we are not talking about color vomit here, I agree that it helps to distinguish parts on the inside - rather talking about long missing basic, quite reusable parts for basic colors, while other themes seem to get specialized parts in exotic colors (like that one in the dragon). Something is counterintuitive about that. It seems like the opposite - Technic seems rather display minded nowadays. Many models are not very functional for their size, and many of the new parts / recolors are panels to improve the looks of models, and new structural / functional parts are rare. Even recolors of parts to an exotic color for the sake of a single set in technic are somewhat annoying, because it creates a new color that can hardly be used, as only a handful of parts exist (like olive green and bright light orange, and now the new reddish orange, though I can imagine a new upcoming larger set using that color). At the same time, look how slow is the unrolling of the flip-flop beams in many lengths. They have proven very useful already, used in many models, yet only exist in 3 lengths after 2-3 years. That's very counterintuitive; a new concept that changes the whole game and makes fundamentally new structures possible, yet they don't make full use of it (actually, the non-existing short lengths could be even more game changers for dense builds).

That's some amazing compactness there, interesting driveshaft. Speaking about changing the LBG part of the spring to another color, just wondered if this spring construction would be deemed legal? Could solve the spring lowering problem.. It is made of official lego parts only, without physical modification (only spring disassembly), in a way that the parts are not damaged and the spring can be reassembled into its original form. The top connector can be easily swapped to other shapes/colors as needed.

You know, after seeing these kind of recolors, I just don't believe that TLG would have logistical problems managing the parts inventory due to the large number of colors, and that would be the reason why certain technic pieces, like connectors, don't get recolored (as some say when the issue comes up). Neither do I believe that some parts don't exist in certain colors because TLG never needed them. I simply think that certain departments are more successful at asking for recolors than the Technic department. For example, the small Jeep Wrangler would have required a yellow recolor if this piece in its _front face_, the most iconic part of the vehicle, yet it was not made (though it would have been useful elsewhere too), rather substituted with LBG! Something feels missing in the Technic department when it comes to new parts..

I know it is possible at such a large scale (even at a smaller scale with custom rims), I assume you are using Defender rims and 96mm tires, though those tires would be a bit too big for 1:10 scale, it should be around 80mm tires, and then that rim is a bit too big (with 80 mm tires it would not look like a proper offroader, but like a street SUV, killing the point). Anyway, the construction is nice, though the upper ball joint is a bit too high, it will result in A-arms 6 studs apart, a bit harder to work with and the upper arm being quite high in the chassis. In any case, a special part would be good to have for this :)

Actually, we can get to half a tile using the Mustang rims :) Inside a mustang rim, we can use 2 round plates + 1 round tile with hole as spacer, that is altogether 1 stud + half a tile. I tried, it looks good in terms of spacing. The only downside is that we loose the same amount of axle holding the rim, so I don't know how easily it would fall off then.. I never saw that one, seems available and cheap, the problem is that it does not fit the small tractor tires :( Or we could just use a thin cardboard ring with a hole punched in it :) Would that be allowed in such a competition?

Thanks for showing the details, nice compact chassis. I like that axle construction from @AutoBacon, both the original and its evolution. It's great that it uses the new CV joint. Only thing is when I tried it I did find a slight shortcoming; if you mount the rim as close as possible (without any spacer) to this part (to have good scrub radius) then its edge very slightly rubs that rim on your last picture and does not run completely smooth (also slightly tilts the rim). It needs a bit of releasing to avoid that, but then it becomes a little wobbly (and still can touch). It would be great if this problem could be solved, because otherwise it's a very nice construction. It seems that it's somewhat less tight with the Mustang rims that you have on the previous pictures, but then you loose the extra CV axle length that could be used to better secure the wheel (and can fall off). The construction works well with slightly bigger Arocs rims though (at a bit larger scale).

What do you mean? This is a new part, that only differs in color, and all of them are frictionless, yet behave differently.

I recently bought a couple of these new frictionless axle-pins in pearl dark gray, thought they'd come handy in places where black would be needed (black exists but is super expensive). Interestingly I have discovered a slight difference between this and the other colors (grey, tan). If you put a bar into the pin end, for example this one then this new pearl dark grey variant holds the bar very firmly (just like the blue ones with friction), whereas in case of the other frictionless ones, the bar falls out pretty easily. I have tested with multiple axle-pin and bar combinations, seems to hold true in general. This is very useful in some cases, just what I need for a steering mechanism :) Wonder if others can confirm its generality?

Cool that you are doing a genuine five-link setup instead of using the ball joint (cheating). As for the link geometry, I'd say your upper link is too short, and not mounted in very good positions. Your lower link is 9L (I'd try using the existing 9L lego links, it's a bit harder to mount because it's one sided, but much slimmer for tighter spaces), so the upper link could also be a 9L. In case of a 5 link setup, the 4 main links could be roughly parallel, since the panhard rod will take care of fixing the axle sideways. The upper link on the axle end should be mounted higher and more to the back. The role of the upper links is to prevent the whole axle from rotating forwards, and in the current configuration it would be weak in serving that purpose. A nice test for that would be to take off the springs and see how much play the axle has in terms of forward rotation (now I think it's mainly the spring that prevents the axle from rotating forwards). The mounting of the spring on the axle end is also a bit problematic, as it cannot follow the angle of the axle, which is already tilted on your image, and may change during suspension travel. You may think it's not a big deal, and it has some play anyway, but even slight sideways loading of the spring can effect the smoothness of the spring travel, and ultimately, the axle may not articulate as much as it could. So that end may also need two degrees of freedom for the spring mount. However, if you ensure by 4 parallel links of equal length that the axle never tilts forward/backward, and also your links are close to horizontal, so there's not much movement of the axle forwards/backwards moving away from grid positions, then straight springs mounted with one degree of freedom can also work smoothly. But your current setup does not satisfy that. Also, for the driveshaft on the chassis end, I'd try using another strong CV joint instead of the U-joint, though that may only be the relic of the conversion you mention. I know that's also harder to mount, but it's stronger. Keep experimenting!

That's looking really nice, and you squeezed in a bunch of nice functions in a relatively small scale, good work!

@Appie, thanks for showing that model in detail, it is a beautiful looking one with a great compact form factor. I was just wondering how the axle is built in such a narrow space with those deep rims being used, but now I start to understand. Is the steering geometry actually Ackermann on that? What / how many motors is it driven by? PU or PF?

That yellow would look cool, and I can see the Volvo fenders reused there :D But I actually see these vibrant colors appear on the lifted 4x4 Squared version mostly, and I don't think we'd get that, more like a street version, which seems to use simpler colors. Or a crossover between the two versions.. The street version often looks somewhat boring to me. Don't joke with that, I do see a chance of that happening..

Doesn't matter how many and what size of shocks, as long as it's the same old independent double wishbone suspension.

That photo has nothing to do with the upcoming set, that's just a placeholder, as usual in these early leaked info videos. Isn't there a 2024 variant as well? As far as I understand it has been re-released every year since then with minor modifications.

C'mon, you can't be wishing for that. That's the lazy unrealistic approach that many of us are bored of. It's exactly the requirement of a live axle in a tight space that would force the evolution of the suspension parts. Again, would be very impractical in a manual model, where it is driven backwards and generates excess friction and high speed for the gearbox/engine. Unfortunately, I could see that wish become true, because TLG seems more into cheap eye-candy with these car models.. I think you are more into supercars than offroaders, based on all your wishes :) Interesting, but would that be realistic though? I wouldn't think they'd go for a crazy suspension on this one, as it will probably be a street model. I just hope they do improve something on the suspension, at least some recent official models have more realistic suspension geometries, so there's a chance..

That would be nice to have, but why do you think that's necessary? I think lego moved away from those shocks, and tries to get away with small ones. Why could it not be the same like on the Defender at the front? Also, on the rear, a live axle could easily be done with single hard small ones. In a live axle, there's less leverage on the springs than in an independent suspension. In my Jeep Wrangler build in the same scale, even the single hard ones were a bit too hard, and that was RC model, so heavier. The Zetros should have been offroad capable as well, so that's not a problem for Lego when it comes to suspension, unfortunately.. Yeah, that's what everybody is referring to.

I actually think this upcoming one might as well be designed by Grohl, and that alternate build might have been a preliminary experiment. But I'm sure this upcoming one will be much more polished, though I could imagine the front grille construction to be similar. That would not be so good. Yet another incomplete color, just like the olive green ever since then.

To me on this photo the height (going sideways here) looks like 1 liftarm + 2 bricks, maybe 1 more plate, which is still less than 4 units in total, so that would make it 4x5x4 (excluding the PF connector of the motor).

I think that one makes sense for manual model as well, because it has better steering angle than old (those are somewhat limited) ones and it does not generate extra friction when driven backwards (model pushed around). For the rear live axle it does not make much sense though, it would be quite cumbersome to integrate. Plain non-steered hubs would make more sense there.

Oh, I did not connect the dots.. makes sense, and good to hear, because I really liked that one for its simplicity and solid looking mechanics :)