gyenesvi

Wow, the tires and the whole wheel, that's amazing. I wonder how that's built / held together, the way it approximates a circle is really good! Do you have insights into the building techniques of that part?

Well that did escalate fast, I don't even understand what happened, what was wrong about what Bruno said this time? (I understood the previous one and agreed that that was too much). Or were there posts that were removed?

Maybe you could bend it in the above form but that can be easily circumvented by adding more support towards the sides, this is just a mockup to illustrate the idea.

I really doubt TLG would use 11.1V battery, I think 7.4V is more probable, just like in the Spike hubs (or an up-regulated 9V as in the Phondly insert). I'd rather be inclined to think that the "most powerful" rumor is not really true, maybe just some marketing phrase. Or if true, I'd rather believe there would be a replacement for the PU XL motor, which is not much more powerful than the L motor. I'm actually with you on this one, would not be THAT surprised :) But not likely.. Then that concern should be true for the Spike hub itself as well, and yet it exists..

I just made a quick sketch for this and built it; the two sides are not connected in the middle (of course, it could use more bracing structure, but I don't think it would be hard). Using the old 2L driving ring seems a better fit here as that one has its ridges inside all the way long. Disconnected state: Connected state: It actually feels pretty strong as I tried to flex it with my hands, but has some amount of flex that looks just enough to transmit movement between the two sides. The actual amount of flex could be adjusted by varying the length of the axles used. I think this would not be a problem, since in the resting position of the suspension, the two sides are automatically leveled and the connectors become synchronized, easy to move the switch. It would be good to see what happens in such a pose. I could even believe that in a connected state it does not let the suspension articulate, and simply lifts one wheel. So when somebody wants to pose it with much articulation they will naturally have to disconnect it to look good :) Even if displayed permanently in a connected state, I don't think the 2L and 3L axles would twist.

I've heard about that EU requirement too! It's actually sounds like one of the few practically useful ones :) And a rechargeable hub would be amazing! About repurposing the Spike hubs, I don't think they would do that for technic use, because Spike hubs are just too smart (and I guess expensive) for that. Furthermore, I hope they realize that two ports are not enough for anything useful, while the 6-port hub is just way too big. So I guess the most probable ones are a rechargeable insert for the Technic hub, or a redesigned version of it, because once they move away from AA cells, the shape/size can be optimized for LiPo cells. 6 ports and a 9x5 base size would be amazing, but not sure if that's possible.

I'm not proficient in the subject and the naming of things either, but my impression from offroader videos I have seen is that the function of this kind of torsion bar is to limit the body roll / axle flex. Examples I have seen were a straight bar (no springs) that connects the two sides of the suspension (either independent or live axle), and aims to limit its flex. Its purpose is not to provide springiness or dampening, for that the regular suspension parts are there. It is connected when driving on roads / higher speeds to limit body roll and improve cornering. So it would allow some flex, but not too much, it would try to keep the two sides at the same height. However, when going off-road, at slow speeds, it should be disconnected (the bar can simply be disconnected in the middle) to allow for max axle flex. So when it comes to implementation in lego, I think using springy parts or even plain long axles would allow too much flex and would loose the point. That's why I'd aim for some rigid connection, built from shorter axles and axle connectors, especially if it needs to be disconnectable, it must be split in two parts somewhere. I believe the slack in the parts (like pin connections) would allow for enough flex when the two sides are connected, and could still force some parallel movement of the two sides. My first idea would be to use a new 2L driving ring to connect two 2L axle connectors in the middle; not sure if that would be strong enough though, maybe too fragile..

Yeah, I was thinking of that one, I guess I mistook the endpoint trims for angle adjustments then.. But yeah, maybe the better ones have that too. That sounds pretty expensive, I also saw 4 channel FlySky receiver on Ali, but that one was just a few euros. For example this one shows up for just about 3.5 Euros for me: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005992276197.html Same thing for 4 Euros: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005004900977069.html That would be great to have as an option. I'll have check it out later, it has a lot of tuning options..

Yeah, that's why I bought the FlySky one.. However, my other option was a DumboRC with 6ch receiver, where the transmitter did have limits configs for most channels as far as I can remember, and I was guessing that it would work with a 4 channel receiver as well (and was half the price). So I was wondering if it depends on the receiver, people might be able to use it with a bit more sophisticated one to get a different servo range out of it.

Wow, that's an astonishing amount of functions in such a size! That RC pneumatic selector is pretty cool, and while it might be a bit sketchy in the current implementation (accuracy of positioning the switches), I think the concept could be made robust using parts designed for this purpose. I wonder how smooth the operation would be with an RC pump.

Can't the angle be tuned on the transmitter to make +90° and -90° turns on the two positions? On my FlySky TX/RX, that's what happens on the two position switch with a GeekServo hooked up. I'd simply do an output for throttle on ch2 through an ESC, and leave all other channels for GeekServos (no ESC needed, just direct connection from the receiver).

I was actually thinking that this should be a somewhat different case. For a torsion bar, you would use a longer axle to allow it to twist, as that's the goal. But here the goal would actually be to not allow it to twist much, but rather transmit the movement from one side to the other, in order to force the wheels to move up/down in parallel. That's why I'd say I'd rather use short axles and 2L / 3L connectors. And hence, the stress would be on the part where you have the disconnectable connection of the two sides I guess. Exactly :) Or disconnect it for that purpose.. Yes, I agree with this, as those parts/axle holes could also end up having some stress on them.

Such a flexible part is an interesting idea, and even the solution to make it using existing pieces, though I also agree that it might end up having an invisible effect. I guess for it to have a visible effect, it should be rigid when connected, so that it actually transfers force from one wheel to the other. I have been thinking how much stress it would actually mean on parts. Obviously when disconnected, no stress. When connected, and the suspension would be pressed by both wheels at the same time, it would mean no stress either, as there is no difference between the two sides. So it would potentially mean stress when one tries to make it articulate. For a manual model that would mean tilting it left/right and pressing down, which is not common to do for prolonged time. Even in that case, the system would try to lift the wheel opposite to the tilt, so maybe that would not be too much stressful either. As for rigid parts, I imagine the left-right connector to be built from short axles and connectors. Do you think this would have more stress than a driveshaft in an RC model? I believe the weak spot could be the connector part, which would have to be some kind of sliding part (like a linear clutch).

Indeed, that is probably true. Sure, but lego models are lacking realism in so many areas that can be improved, I just don't see this as a key feature for an off-roader. That's true, and I'm sure they will do it in the next supercar.

I believe that this does have a chance of happening, because of the reasons you mention! I would dig this one in dark tan color, though I'm afraid they would reuse the fenders pieces of the Defender, which are way too much out of proportion. I really hope that would not happen. Why would an off-roader need paddle shifters and more gears? The Defender was overcomplicated enough in terms of gearbox. Those sound good on the other hand. The real car has IFS and 4-link live axle rear suspension, locking central diff when low gear is engaged, and also rear diff lock. Those actually sound quite doable at this scale. Another interesting feature it has is disconnectable front stabilizer bars. That could also be nice to see implemented! Thanks a lot, glad you like it, even though we concluded that there's room for improvement in the suspension. So hopefully you'll like my next Jeep Wrangler coming out soon on a smaller scale ;)

+1 for a large variety of parts coming in purple, it could be a cool color if there were many parts available. I think it also combinse well with black and DBG as an accent color.

To be honest, I would not have high hopes here. I guess we can't even know what that phrase refers to; the lego model or the real car it's made after? We've seen such vague marketing phrases, for example it could just be like in the case of the electric garbage truck, that it's the real thing that's electric, not that the lego version is motorized. I agree that it sound unlikely to get any new motors..

I'm also curious about the upcoming 4x4 and was thinking the same, that if it's not RC, it should be something like the Defender was. I guess also that with the 18+ label it's most likely not RC? But for that, the price tag seems to be a bit too high. Was the defender something like 180 Euros? Anyways, in case of a manual 4x4 with that many pieces, I hope they focus on something else than a gearbox (leave that to the supercar); rather make some interesting suspension.

Those look pretty interesting, especially the dark blue one :) Was thinking the same, at first I though it to be a new mould of 24119, otherwise the stickers could not be put on the inside of 24119. But would they make a new mould just for this? Also, the edge profile towards the bottom of the picture suggests that actually both sides are concave, so it may be an entirely new panel?

Which of course you can't tap easily when you are not looking at the screen, but at your car that you are driving. By the time you look at the screen and find the brake button you already hit the wall...

Yeah, I was considering exactly the same potential problems. I think that adding some 3d printed parts inside to fix the motor inside the case could be okay, I mean those 3d printed parts would not be visible, and they would only support the motor, so they don't need to be friction resistant or anything I guess. I'd even be okay with holes drilled on the side for ventilation. And I guess the cable routing would also need extra holes. Another option is to 3d print the whole back section of the housing, in a way that it can accept the motor properly fixed, and with holes for ventilation / cable routing.. :) The important is to reuse the front section of the housing to obtain the planetary gears and to have good mounting points at the front. With a reprinted back section, even the rear mounting points may be improved.

Well I imagine something like Zene is doing (I guess you’ve seen that thread). Sure, that’s a different form factor for the motor (inrunner, not outrunner). But the end result fits into a 3x3 space (not considering the length), which means you can make any regularly spaced gearing downwards and route a drivetrain under the motor, which is the most straightforward way to build it. But yes, I agree that a planetary gearbox is harder to find. I’ve seen someone experimenting with 3D printed one on instagram (also 3x3 form factor). Another option could be somehow reusig the housing and gearbox of an L or XL motor (get a cheap one from Ali). I have been thinking whether the front part of an XL housing could be attached to an A2212 motor somehow.. Or even better, to fit it entirely inside. I think the length (of a shorter one with lower kv) might even fit, the problem is more the attachment.. and also the cabling may be in the way

This may be related to the latency problem I found and reported but never got a reply to. Basically, it seems that the Buwizz is not fast enough for processing controller input, meaning that new controller positions come in faster than they are processed, and it starts building a long backlog and ends up executing commands that were issued a few seconds ago. For me it was really visible with quick steering and qick forward-backward direction changes. The same problem does not exist with technic hubs, because those drop the queued commands when a new one comes in (for each motor independently), so it does not get flooded. The Buwizz firmware should do the same, but that would require an update.. As far as I know BC2 tries to mitigate this problem by sending controller commands with some 10-20 ms delay to avoid flooding the BW, but that introduces a latency on its own, although still less problematic because it does not end up acting on its own for a few seconds. Any plan to deal with this problem? I did report my version already, was that ever reviewed? This does make sense now that we know that the battery is only 5C. So maybe a battery with higher C rating could be a solution and would make using amp limiters unnecessary. Would be interesting if someone could test..

Yes I think those are dark turquoise/teal

Then it indeed seems that that one is faulty. Yeah, that's a problem, what I do is try them one by one, and start with the large files (by file size, usually there are only a few, maybe ~10 in a pack), those are probably the actual parts, and the rest are just subparts. I haven't tried, I usually don't load complete packs to keep my custom parts organized, only pick the ones I need.