gyenesvi

Yes of course :) it is built on that chassis, so you already know the technical side :) Thanks for all the detailed insights about the anti-roll bar, it does make sense. Things become quite different when one steps out from the world of slow lego motors/cars (crawlers) to the world of fast RC ones I guess, different problems/challenges surface..

Yes, in this Bronco build I was using hard springs and that worked well also. It really depends on the weight of the whole model; the Bronco's body was fairly big and heavy, but the body I am putting on this one is quite light-weight, so it needs softer springs to allow it to flex properly. Thanks, glad you like it! Yeah, I also have plenty of C+ stuff, but now I am tempted to build more with PF stuff, luckily I have some components to use :)

It's been a while I have last posted in this thread, but now I have something worth putting here. After the chassis posted above, I have recently been experimenting in various builds with a different motor setup using two L motors on the floor for drive. I have tested both PF and PU versions of this setup. The reason I really like this setup is its cleanliness and simple but solid chassis and suspension geometry. This is a popular setup in many MOCs, and as always it has its advantages and disadvantages. As an advantage, it takes little space away from other components, such as the steering servo, has low center of gravity, and the motors are conveniently placed so that the drivetrain is quite simple. Also, a gearbox can easily be sandwiched in between the two motors. As a disadvantage, the drive motor placement is not realistic, and it takes the space away from an RC gearbox as placed in the previous chassis, though it would be still possible to add an orange selector in place of the gear stick and control that with a small motor. About the suspension. The axles are 13 wide, with somewhat similar build as above (though they got a bit more slim). The front axle has a complete 4-link setup with an additional Panhard rod that is placed quite low and results in minimal sideways sway upon flex. The steering is via a linkage directly from the servo, this is my favorite setup due to its simplicity and realism. The springs are placed fairly close to the middle, so it has a good amount of flex, about 2 studs at the wheel. The rear axle is a 2-link setup with positive caster, and an additional Panhard rod, also placed very low to minimize sideways movement, which would be bad for the drivetrain as it only has a single CV joint (like in the previous chassis above). An interesting property of the chassis is that it can easily be built both with PF and PU components, and this way I had the chance of making a comparison which had some unexpected results for me. At first I tried to build with PU components, but the length of the L motors (8L) was just not perfect for the gearbox / suspension combo. Since I had many builds with PU components and I wanted to compare them with PF ones, I checked how things would turn out with PF components. Well, I have to say many things are much better than with PU.. First, the length of the L motors is only 7L, which is just perfect for sandwiching a gearbox between them as the length of the gearbox is also 7L, which is important if one wants to build only using new CV joints. The 8L PU L motors can be hacked in, but they will be in the way for the mounting points for the rear suspension links, so those have to be moved back 1 stud, which will result in slightly misaligned geometry. No big deal, but I like when things line up well :) Also, a big plus for the PF L motors is that they are about 30% faster than the PU L motors, hence when used with planetary hubs, they result in a more playable speed while still having plenty enough torque (for a model this size). Second, the steering. The shape of the PF servo is just great for this kind of steering, it is possible to make its output low, but the whole motor is not too low to take space from other stuff. Furthermore it has a rear output, which can be used to route it to a working steering wheel. Last, but not least, it really seems to me that the PF servo is quite a bit stronger than the PU L motor for steering. (At least, based on some testing, my guess is that the control software do not make full use of the total power of the PU L motor, but it can make use of the power of the PF servo; I guess the difference is in the complexity, as the PU L motor is not designed for servo function only. Anyway, as I have tested both options, the PF servo was able to steer under a complete build with bodywork while stopped on rough terrain and the front axle being flexed out, while the PU motor was lacking here.. Here are some more images. This time I have a fitting bodywork as well, coming soon in its own thread :) Finally, any kind of battery can be simply placed in the trunk behind the seats, which again is an advantage for building / recharging, but raises the center of gravity somewhat.

Great to see this build pop up now, I am just about to post my RC Toyota very soon :) Nice build, I like the drivetrain and suspension, especially the anti-roll bar, that is something I'd like to test in the future. However, I am not completely familiar with how it is supposed to work, I mean I get that it limits the articulation, but isn't that counter-productive? We want enough flex, no? In my builds, the flex usually is limited by the springs anyway. Maybe the anti-roll bar is less useful in that case? The two buggy motor drivetrain is also nice and simple, I'd like to try that once in the future, but I guess I'd be okay with the speed from the slow output. With old diffs and planetaries, that seems to be plenty for me based on a previous build, at least using Buwizz motors and a Buwizz 3. Maybe these clone ones are weaker somewhat?

Sure the final word is theirs, but I guess they would listen to our ideas / preferences and make the rules accordingly, so I don't think it would be pure guesswork, we are rather giving them hints. That all sounds reasonable, but I don't believe that's how people cast their votes :) It's rather just like it is about technic in general: people just prefer large good looking branded iconic (sports)cars, they care less about technicalities. (That can be observed from the evolution of lego sets though FB responses to responses here on EB. At least that's what I see.) I even think people would easily overlook the amount of leftover parts as well when voting. The only way to make that work would be incorporating it to the rules, such as some % of the parts must be used, but then again that could lead to models that are just using excess parts for the sake of using the parts. Also, a bigger source set is an advantage not just in terms of part count, but also because of probably larger part variety, from which more ideas can be implemented. That's why I think it would be safer to just restrict the source sets' size. It would be much easier to compare entries that are about the same size/complexity.

Yes, I was talking about an alternate model contest, not the shrinking contest. For an alternate model contest there needs to be a max limit on the chosen set, because if not, then if everybody can choose their set to build from, then simply the bigger ones will have an unfair advantage (more parts to build from). This could be circumvented by having a few pre-selected sets of roughly equal size that everybody can choose from. But even then, these pre-selected sets would probably have to be not too big so that they are more probably available to many people. For a shrinking contest, it's a different story. For that a max limit is not required I guess, but nor do I get the min limit for the set. I guess nobody would choose a small set to be shrunk.. I like the idea of a relative size constraint. @howitzer, @SaperPL did you mean an upper or lower limit on the shrunk size? Maybe something like it should be no bigger than 75% of the original? I am not sure a min is useful here.

I think that the size of $10 sets is too small for an interesting competition. I was also thinking in the max 1000 pieces range, many sets have lots of small parts (something like the size of 42139 or 42151). Indeed, preselecting a number of sets with roughly equal number of parts seems like a good idea! It circumvents unfair set selection and also there's a bigger chance that people have at least one of them. Oh, we weren't talking about sets for the shrinking contest, but a possible alternate model contest. If I am not mistaken..

Oh, do you mean everybody would choose one set on their own? Then the entries become incomparable I guess, bigger sets are much easier to build from. I thought choosing one set collectively and then everybody builds from that one, so that everyone starts with an equal pile of bricks. But then it would have to be a popular, maybe smaller / cheaper set that many people potentially have. But such sets have less interesting parts for mechanisms. Or we could allow color alternations so that even people who don't have the set but have the parts in other colors could participate. Another way could be letting everyone choose their set but limiting the part count to be more fair.

That's a brilliant idea for a helicopter alternate, great part usage, and nice execution of functions! BTW @grohl, any comments on the new CV joint part in the Ford GT I asked about above? Would appreciate some insights if possible!

I just wanted to chime in to agree with many speaking here, with @allanp about the theme of the current contest being a bit lacking in requiring technically interesting solutions, with @howitzer about it being difficult to decide a ranking for voting (for me it would be easier just to independently give points to each build on a 1-5 scale), and with @msk6003 about the one-set alternate contest, though the hardest part could be choosing the one set :) But I also like the shrinking contest idea.

That's some serious performance, and cool video! The more I think about it the more I get convinced that by swapping only the motor and drivetrain parts to metal ones and adding a few frames with ball bearing it is possible to build a durable high performance vehicle. And then all the rest can be genuine lego to do the suspension and body shaping as one wishes..

Interesting topic, I have also observed that there seems to be a high concentration of good builders in Russia and Poland, and also a lot of RC competition events organized compared to other countries, and wondered why this is the case. I am from Hungary, but I only find a few technic builders here and no events, though I'd really like to participate. So even though you say Russian and Polish groups are small, they still seem to be bigger than in other countries. I do agree with your theory about RC offroad being more of a good fit for lego. Also, I think another point might be that there seems to be more technical challenge in building offroad cars than supercars as the mechanisms of suspension / drivetrain are more varied. I am not sure about your second theory though. True that the roads are often crappy in eastern European countries, but I think the USA has a great deal of off-road culture; they have lots of natural places for it, I'd guess more than in Europe. Also it seems to be a popular sport among people who like to be in nature. And there are many people in the USA who live out of town literally in the middle of nowhere where they need off-road trucks to get there on a daily basis. At least these are my observations from my latest visit, when I specifically targeted popular off-roading regions (it was amazing :) )

Really cool idea, and the shape looks so smooth with all those little panels. I like that you added some technicality also in the form of the virtual pivot steering. Well done!

Looks really cool with all those addons, too bad you were so fast. Sadly, now I have to come up with another idea because I wanted to do the same after building it in technic form before. By the way, Willys is spelled with two Ls ;) And it is called a Willys Jeep, not a Jeep Willys (at that time the company Jeep did not exist, Willys was the company name).

That is neat :) I use duct tape for similar purposes.

BTW, I guess the Buwizz API will also be updated with a new command to set the current limits? Will that be published soon so that other apps can also implement the feature?

Thanks for the info! Wouldn't it make sense to set lower default limits (at least for the PF ports) for more failsafe operation? And then if someone / some app wants to maximize performace at the risk of shutting down it can increase them. So how do I do that? I only found info about the LUT in the Buwizz 3 protocol, so I guess that's another thing that any app could set. In the Buwizz App I did not find anything about it. Moreover, when do I have to disable the LUT? When I set the limits, or when I want to use the already set limits? By the way, PF servo positions seem orthogonal to the limits. What if I want to use limits with a PF servo? Can that be done? Or does that not make much sense?

Thanks a lot for the fix! I was wondering if these current limits get saved in the firmware and transfer to other apps? For example, if I connect to the Buwizz unit using the Buwizz app and set the current limits, and then I quit and connect using the BC app, will it preserve those limits? Or does the app need to set it again? I updated the firmware and did a quick test, left the current limits on the default values. With the Buwizz app I haven't yet managed to shut down the Buwizz, but with the BC app it does still shut down. That suggests that the limiters are working but don't transfer to other apps but need to be reset by every app. Does the firmware apply some default limits or is the default that there are no limits? Are these limits actually applied by the firmware itself or by the app? I'd guess it needs to be done in the firmware to be fast enough.

Have you tried charging it for a whole day? That's what helped for many people, including myself.

Exactly what I thought. Also, I think it could look better if the roof was 1 stud shorter, the curvature would be better placed. But with these parts it cannot be done I guess, those new curved corner pieces are just too big there. Great! :)

I guess no car model ever stood a chance on Ideas. I believe Ideas are about different stuff than what lego comes up with on their own. Yet another supercar is not such a thing.. Hmm, that's an interesting one for sure! I'd love a 3x5 L flip-flop beam!

I was thinking that too, but I can't see it being continued past the 5 wide point (assuming that it's placed in the middle) and it looks like it's curved down there. Though it's dark in there, so it's hard to see..

On the image at 17 seconds I can see a lime part in the front of the cockpit under the black fender flare that looks like a flip-flop beam, and it looks like 5L, at least I don't see it being continued and it cannot be a 5x7 frame. Any tips on that one? In any case, that might hint for something coming in lime color, as this car would not need that special part in lime color. Interesting drivetrain setup with the two types of differentials, and the front one has a sideways offset as well, so there might be something interesting going on there. Or it may be just because of the tight spring placement. Btw, I don't see springs in the rear either.

I have just received my Cada order, in which I ordered 20 x 4L pins, and I only received 2.. Also, I got some metal U-joints, and wanted to try them, but it is extremely difficult to insert Lego axles into them, and they scratch the axles hard if I force them in. I wanted to contact Cada about it, but the email to info@decadastore.com could not be delivered, it bounced back. It's not really a good first impression. Anybody had similar issues? What's the best way to connect them?

Nice project, I like the suspension design, all the geometric details that has gone into it. Do I understand correctly that both the caster and the kingpin angle is achieved by half-stud offsets of the suspension arms? If I see properly, the lower arms are half a stud out (kingpin) and half a stud front (caster)? I also like the bodywork, it has clean lines :) And nice idea with the motor placement!