gyenesvi

Sorry, I think I linked an older one, the latest one (the one in the video, Furitek Python X) is actually 80 amps continuous, same price: https://furitek.com/products/furitek-python-x-80a-120a-brushed-brushless-esc-for-1-10-rc-crawlers-with-bluetooth

That's a very creative idea from that set!

I don't think this is the case anymore :) Some of the latest high-end ESCs can also control sensorless brushless motors really well (via that back EMF feedback loop), and that opens up new possibilities. It's just a matter of very well written firmware. Here's an example (Furitek Lizard / Python): https://furitek.com/products/furitek-python-40a-70a-brushed-brushless-esc-for-1-18-1-24-rc-crawlers The same ESC can even control brushed motors! And it can be configured from a phone app (via Bluetooth connection) with all kinds of detailed settings. How cool is that! Here's a review video of it, and I have seen quite a few more, all of them being blown by its performance. Here's another promising one (Holmes Hobbies Crawlmaster): https://holmeshobbies.com/speed-controllers/crawlmaster-mini-v3-rock-crawler-esc.html

@ZENE thanks a lot for the detailed answers! Your products seem promising, I hope we can evolve them in directions that make them useful for many use cases. Here are my notes and further questions. Differential I like that it has two kinds of outputs, both U-joints and axles, this makes them usable both for independent suspension (with the U-joint) and for live axles (with the regular axle output). So I think it would be good to keep both options, so that a buyer could use it in both kinds of builds. If I understand correctly, the input end behaves the same way, so that I can put a U-joint there, and the pivot point of the U-joint will fall right next to the frame. That would be great. The differential is open, right? Would it be possible to make a locked version as well for off-roaders? Another thing I have been thinking is that if the middle of the O-frame is filled with a differential in a housing, then we might not actually need the complete frame as a structural element (in case of a single output). I'd be really happy to have a variant where the end of the O-frame where there is no output would be simply cut off. It would be useful in live axles, where that part of the frame is just in the way of the steering linkage. Have you considered such a design? Could it be solid enough? Let me know if it's clear what I am trying to explain. Wheel hubs Thanks for the clarification about the bearings, I get it now. However, the issue about the pivot point of the U-joint that @Ryokeen mentions is really important. I am interested in AWD vehicles with significant suspension (and I guess many more people as well), so it is really important that the pivot point of the drive axle (U-joint) is in the same line as the steering/suspension pivot point. So the U-joint has to go 1 stud deeper in the wheel hub as far as I understand. Motor The motor / planetary reductor combo is really nice. If I understand correctly the motor's diameter is about 3 studs, so it fits into a 3x3 space, which is really useful. In fact it is critical for AWD vehicles, because that way it is possible to run a drive axle right under it, after minimal amount of gearing. Is this correct? What I could not find out is the length of the motor / reductor combo. How many studs are the two together? As for the mounting points. So those are pinholes in the front, right? It seems to me that more connection points could be added to the corners, making the front of it like in case of the PF L motor, so that it would be possible to mount it from the side as well. Do you think such connection points could be added? That would make it quite a bit more versatile in mounting. Another thing is the speed of the motor. For fast sports cars that's great, but another interesting use case of brushless motors is in crawlers. With modern ESCs, brushless motors can be run at very low speeds very precisely, while still being capable of quite good top speeds (for an off-roader). So for that use case, a 1000kv motor would be more than enough. With a 2s LiPo, that would mean about 7400 native RPM, which after 1:4 planetary reduction would result in about 1850 RPM output. That's like the fast output of a buggy motor, but hopefully more powerful (more torque). Something like that would be immensely useful for lego offroader builds, especially when combined with metal parts. Do you think that a variant like that could also be produced? Thanks in advance!

Why am I not even surprised.. :) Yeah, even if you are using a motor, don't bend the pieces.. :D

Apparently, it does not seem so straightforward, given that the OP was using the PU app from the start, and it seems that the update did not happen automatically for him. I doubt more than 0.1% of users knows what that even means and how to do it..

I don't even ask how you put those stop axles into the fork piece. Pro tip: if you have to bend pieces to put them together, you're probably doing something wrong.. Yeah, that Technic Builder's Guide book quoted above sounds like a good way to start learning. Or just a lot of youtube videos about how to build technic stuff. Anybody noticed that every newcomer's threads start with somebody teaching them about how to embed images? Great to see some people are more patient about that!

Love the video, it has a really cool vibe and good use of accessories :) The build itself it also a nice one, good mix of technic functionality with those boat hulls and some studded parts, I like the propulsion/steering mechanism, and the way it's done in the center of the hull split into two parts. Also, the way the technic panels complement the hull in the middle is a nice idea. The overall looks is pretty smooth, hard to tell at first sight where are technic panels used, and the overall detailing is cool!

I love the red fire truck version, and the yellow accents make it really cool! It's really nice how much can be achieved without stickers, I love the diagonal striping on the back :) Also like the mix of studless and studful elements.

There are quite a few differences. 6x AA rechargeable batteries usually supply 7.2V, while the Buwizz 3 supplies 11.1V. A Technic hub with 6x AA batteries weighs something like 200+g, while the Buwizz weights 70g. Last but not least, the size: a technic hub is 9x7x5 studs (plus the mounting handles, with which it's more like 9x9x5), while a Buwizz 3 is about 9x4x4 struds. And yes, it can even matter that you don't need to be able to remove the batteries, because it can be hard to build the Technic hub into a model in a way that leaves the bottom open or allows the whole hub to be removed (it means that the huge hub may not be used as a structural element). If you can charge it inside the model, it can make things much easier. About the mAh, I have actually been thinking the other way round. 3s LiPo batteries at the size that would fit into that casing are usually rated around at most 1000mAh, ones above 2000mAh are usually much longer, so I have been wondering how the Buwizz 3 is capable of squeezing in a battery of 2200mAh..?

That's a pretty cool build from that limited inventory! Looks good, and I like the steering / drivetrain solutions.

Oh that looks like a nice one! It seems solid enough because even when disconnected, the axles themselves still have a (pinhole) connection, and it seems robust for engagement as well. This shows that the concept could be turned into a solid legal solution if there existed a special part for that assembly on the left. And the whole package could be made 4 units long.

By breaking I did not actually mean parts breaking, but the drivetrain disengaging / skipping / bending, etc. One other problem with the ring not meshing the gear properly: you won't be able to actuate the ring with something that wants to move it exactly by half a stud for a proper mesh, such as a wave selector. Oh, so do you mean two axles inserted into a bush half-way, to get half axle lengths? A bush won't hold two half axles properly, so that will be flimsy I guess. Here's the linear engaging mechanism (clutch?) that could be built. The red and yellow axles are independent, not connected in the middle. A 2L ring could connect or disconnect the two halves, actuated by a wave selector for example. However, it does not work reliably in practise; when trying to engage, the ring can get blocked by the bush if the two halves are not in sync in rotation. This only gets worse, as the two halves are not connected and can wobble a bit, becoming misaligned, and get blocked with higher probability. Longer support for the axles, or maybe a different mechanism to move the ring would result in less jamming, but I doubt it would become reliable (the synchronization is still a problem). EDIT: I tried it with more axle support, better, but can still jam when trying to engage while stationary, needs slow rotation to click in. Note that this is nothing really new, as this technique has been used in old MOCs with the old 2L connector and 2L ring (for example Sheepo's Jeep Wrangler uses this for RWD/AWD selector if I remember well). However, I have seen comments about that not being reliable and jamming as well.

Because we know that it breaks under load :) Many people would want to use such things in motorized builds. May fly in manual ones though.. Less and less.. But we still don't get what you are trying to achieve.. ?? Is it the linear coupling? Because then the gear mesh does not matter, but the other problems above still exist.

Then I suggest relying more on images than writing, and writing just shorter comments. Starting a topic without anything to show or any actual progress just a written idea is kind of pointless anyway. It may be more useful to post when you have reached some milestone.

Just tried it; it does not seem to work for me. In more detail, the 2L ring can successfully slide on the bush a bit, into the clutch gear. However, there are two problems. Ones is that the ring does not fully engage the gear, because the non-ridged end of the bush is stopping it too soon. Second, is that at that end position, the other end of the ring is still engaging the other bush a little. If it could slide a bit more, than it could work.. Even than, as the two axles are not connected, they are kind of wobbly, just as the ring on them, definitely not something I'd trust to transmit torque. Maybe that little friction comes from the ring still engaging the other bush Is that why you experimented with some weird spacing here? Anyway, even if it would work, I still don't get how you would use it. The only usage I could imagine is some linear axle-coupling switch, but you don't really need gears for that. Do you have any more well-defined example in mind @SNIPE?

That part has puzzled me as well, nice catch! Only wish that instead of those bunch of large, randomly shaped discontinued parts Lego made some more useful, more generic connectors / beams and kept them at production.. The model is coming together really nicely, it has a rugged look and some promising functions. I like the suspension at the front, curious how that actually performs.

Pretty sweet little Unimog, such a nice scale, looks cool with those tractor tires. Nice details and functions all over, great build!

Ha, you cheated, 7L flip-flop beams don't exist in LBG! Seriously, I love this. Cool idea, nicely designed, and the mechanical side is really clever!

Sure, you are right, I also tried to use words carefully when I said somewhat contradictory, and what I actually wanted to mean is that the hypothesis that they probably came across the mechanism means that they probably did not invent the same solution totally independently. But you are right, there is a fine line here, with lots of suppositions, so after a while it's not worth pursuing the topic further.

Stretching would not matter to me as it still looks pretty good, my problem is that I could not even start with such a part to decorate, as Studio Part Designer does not offer such parts to put the stickers on, only basic bricks. But now that I tried differently, I did manage to find the way to put a decal on any part.. Thanks that you showed me that it's possible and so to keep looking. I'll experiment with this more!

I second that. DBG is really good with vibrant accent colors, and it also combines well with black. I like how close to the real car this got with only using a minimal amount of stickers! @mla2 did you manage to put stickers onto the curved parts in the virtual model? With which software did you achieve that? Studio Part Designer? I only managed to do that on a few flat tiles.

I'd like to point out that the two statements seem to be somewhat contradictory to me. If Lego designers did come across the creation of @Alexander Hamsterton, which seems incredibly likely given the above analysis, then they could not have just independently come up with the same solution to the same problem, since they were probably influenced by it in the first place. Hence they cannot have done anything else but reused the essence of the design. To me the analysis and 'evidence' enumerated by @Alexander Hamsterton seems very thorough and convincing. So I think it's much more probable that Lego designers did reuse his design than not. I appreciate their full understanding that they have nothing to claim legally, and they don't try to do so, that's a very mature approach. However, I understand their wish to get some credit for the design at least from this community (also agree, that in Lego, making a much smaller version of an existing large mechanism can be an entirely different challenge). As an analogy, I think for many MOC designers, a really irritating thing about their design being stolen by some clone brand is not just that they don't get compensated for it (after all, I'm not even sure whether/how copyright laws would apply to stuff that we put out there on RB), but rather that much of the world will believe that it's the design of the clone brand and will never get to know their name. It would feel much better if they just knew it I guess :)

Yeah, with the touchscreen control, I kept bumping it into walls all the time.. And it's so stupid that it does not immediately stop when I release the throttle, it keeps coasting on for a while, really irritating..

I don't clearly get what you are trying to show here, you explain two innovative use cases, but your graphics seems to showcase neither, instead some weird irregular spacing width that ring that you don't even mention. So what's that supposed to mean? About using the 1L bushes instead of a connector, not sure how that's supposed to work, how would the ring fit onto that? One side of the 1L bush is circular and does not have the cutouts required to allow the ring to slide on it I think. But if it had, then the ring would rotate both bushes with itself at the same time. Even if the whole thing worked, it would mean that the axle would not be secured on one side, it would be very wobbly. Or I misunderstood what you mean..