gyenesvi

I'm interested in how you do the careful cutting! Do you use a saw or a sharp knife/blade? Do you post-process the edges? What I'm thinking about is buying a few of the female part of the new CV joints that come with 3L axles, and cutting them to 2L length like the old CV joint has, it would be very handy in quite a few places (like coming out from the diff in a narrower independent suspension, entering the 5x7 frame going to the diff in a live axle, or just in the middle of the drivetrain when there's less space).

The truth is I have mixed feelings about this one. On one hand it looks awesome and close to the real one, made me curious already when it popped up on FB for the first time. Also it seems mechanically well done too (e.g. I like the way the Buwizz motors are integrated into the rear axle). On the other hand, the amount of stickers and custom parts is astonishing (especially all those small ones on the front bumper), although it gives it a cool vibe, you can hardly see the lego structure underneath. I was wondering how it would look without stickers and custom parts (because that's a version I'd be interested in building), and I found an image under one of the links; then the patchiness becomes apparent in quite a few places, especially at the rear section around the fender (that's where existing curved lego fenders are hardly useful). I wonder how well something smooth and interesting could be brought out of this using only colored parts and no stickers. Obviously, the details of the real car could not be approximated so well, but at least something resembling could probably be done (though some key parts like fenders in the right color may not exist). Anyway, in general you've done a pretty good job! I'd be curious though how it rides off-road, as that's what its real purpose is! Do you have a video of that? Also, a bit more detailed description about design / functions would be nice. Also, another thing that this made me think about is that I find it a bit discomforting that this level of stunningness (and customization) seems to be what's required for frontpaging. I still rarely see technic posts on the frontpage, and what does make it there is typically never a 'standard' technic build that's simply mechanically interesting or otherwise challenging (like alternate models) but rather something that looks great. At the same time the forum is full of comments that we'd like technic to be more about technical stuff and less about looks (and stickers). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that builds like this don't deserve frontpaging, sure they do, but why isn't less eye-candy enough to hit the bar sometimes? At least here on the forum we could popularize such technic builds a bit more as there seems to be an interest for that. When I look through the frontpage, I feel that in other themes, more traditional builds are enough to make it there. Wonder what others (especially mods) think about this. @Milan if there's a better thread to place this discussion, feel free to move it; don't want to divert this one.

Indeed, that one seems interesting, nice continuity of panelling around top corners of the mudguards! That missing corner always bothered me about current mudguards, I mean I get that cutting that corner may be useful in the front section of sportscars, but at the same time it makes it impossible to continue smoothly everywhere else.

Oh, you mean the top is flat, not the side.. I wish that completely flat fender panels existed (to which fender flares could be attached).

Does such a fender piece exist at all? Do you mean completely flat like a 5x11 panel for example? Or what are you referring to?

That is really good news :)

That's a cool video :))) Great to see that you made instructions for this, thanks! And it looks even cooler with the tractor tires!

I'd say 42129 is a good parts pack (3L motors are great, though I don't find the M motor so useful because it has no position sensor), and although I wasn't blown by the A model itself, it has also nice alternate models (including my own ones). About the App RC vs the old physically controlled RC, that's a tough call. As a software engineer, I was really enthusiastic about the programmability of the new PU line, all the possibilities of custom controller layouts, position sensors and all that, I saw great potential in it, but that potential was never fulfilled by TLG, so I am not so sure nowadays. I have built quite a few models with PU, and whenever I tried programming something simple (such as a profile for the Zetros, that has a diff lock/gearbox switch), I could not get it work the way I imagined. Also the official app had and still has bugs (steering, but maybe it's just my old tablet). Recently, I also built my first model with good old PF, and I have to say that it felt much more lego-like, plug-and-play that just works, and the physical controller just feels much better (for example, with the app controller, you don't feel the buttons, so unless you are looking at the screen instead of the model you are controlling, your finger can often slide off the knobs, in which case it just jumps back to the center, that's really irritating). And then there's this. It seems to me that the new motor lineup is not so well thought through (and also not their relation to the new components like planetary wheel hubs, hence too slow). The M motor is just the same as the PF M motor with a new plug, so it does not fit the whole line of motors with position sensors. The PU L motor is slower than the PF, the PU XL motor is faster than the PF, so they are almost identical in speed, though there's some torque difference. Then there's no dedicated servo, but the L is used as a steering/function switching servo which can be powerful and really accurate if the model has enough space for it, but it's quite big for a servo (compare with this for example), and I found the shape of the old servo quite useful too, with 2-way outputs (the PU XL is practically useless for steering, it's not accurate enough and way too big). I think this all comes from TLG trying to save cost and make more multi-purpose motors, and the end result is a system that's not really great for anything; it's not powerful enough for larger models, and it's too bulky for small models. Then there are all the Mindstorms/Spike angular motors that are promising but even more bulky, and are not compatible with the stock PU software and are harder to acquire/expensive (not in technic sets). All that said, I think it's still worth trying PU with one set. With the motors in the Zetros you should be able to build quite good models, we'll hopefully get a rechargeable battery insert for the technic hub that will make models faster than AA rechargeable batteries, and BrickController2 could be used for physical control (if you have a compatible gamepad controller).

Oh, indeed, I did not even think of that other motor.. Thanks for pointing this out! Now it's interesting to hear that that one has relative positioning. I can't test that as I don't have it.

Not sure I get this, I just explained why I believe the PU M motor is just the same as the PF M motor, no position encoding whatsoever.

So here's what I know out of experience with programming the PU motors through the Lego Wireless Protocol. I have written a diagnostics (desktop) app to test hubs / devices connected to it, to read out all the available info and test control the motors. I believe what @Toastie said is true only for L/XL motors. When you connect an L/XL motor you can query that it has various control/readout modes (power, speed, relative position, absolute position). In relative position mode, you can position it to the zero position relative to the position where it was on startup (this zero position can be overridden). You can move the motor any number of turns away from the relative zero position. In absolute mode, the zero is always the same position, even though it's not marked, but in zero position the axle hole becomes aligned with the edge of the motor (you can query the current position, and you can move to zero). You can only move within -180 / +180 degrees of the absolute zero position. The PU L/XL motors are larger than their PF counterparts to accommodate the positions sensor. When you connect an M motor, the query only shows one mode of operation, the power mode, you can only increase / decrease the power, as with PF. Furthermore, the size of the PU M motor is the same as that of the PF version. So I doubt that there would be any position sensor in there that is not revealed by the Lego Wireless Protocol. That's why I was surprised to hear that the M motor would have relative positioning. I believe both relative and absolute positioning uses the same position encoder hardware in these PU motors, so it's either both there, or none. So what I did not understand in the first place is why it was expected that the BuWizz could control the PU M motor as a servo, when no other application can do that, because of this HW limitation. The only technic set that uses the PU M motor is the Zetros for the diff lock, but it does not use it as a servo, just as a regular M motor. I also ran into this bug with the BuWizz however.

Hmm, now I wonder what you mean by relative positioning, if I’m missing or misunderstanding something. As far as I know, medium linear motors don’t have any position info (no sensor inside). Furthermore, even linear L motors usually need mechanical stops and recalibration, though they have position info, although the abs zeros is not marked on them, as on angular motors.

Just realized an unfortunate thing about the new yellow diff gears seen on this picture: the 22T is quite visibly bigger than the 28T. Even with the 28T, it's already hard to build a compact live axle around the diff because the diff's gear is always in the way for things (cross beam to reinforce the axle, tie rod, ground clearance, etc), and it is getting slightly worse with this new one.

Oh yes, I was surprised to learn recently that the good old flat 3x7 panel does not exist in red.. that's a shame. Same for the red biscuits, though I feel that's more often used on the inside where the color does not matter that much.

I have a very similar storage system to yours, except I could not find compartmentalized boxes with good bin sizes (not to mention affordable ones), so I decided to make them out of cardboard. I recently reached a state where panels are becoming a pain as they take up a lot of space, but I guess I'll just have to make more boxes with large bins. As you said, they are easy to move around, and even look okay when you don't have a separate lego room and want your room to look tidy :)

Sure, I get that :) Anyway, it did start an interesting line of thought in me for some experimentation with such suspension, so thanks for that :) Okay, thanks.

I think the drivetrain would not need to get that much complicated. First I thought that the front could be solved by a simple independent one, but realized that it cannot be done the same way TLG did not make the Raptor AWD (these are the moments when I hate their laziness/cheapness). However, maybe both front and rear could be done with simple floating axles using two towball joints (roughly flat layout), so only 2 extra U-joints in the drivetrain. The motors could be side-by-side in the middle, hard coupled. Anyway, just thinking out loud :) They look pretty good, and 75mm is a really nice size, I like the buggy wheel as well for that. I guess they don't fit any lego rim, right? Did you try that?

This. And by that same logic, I think an 8T clutch would be possible with an extension, and very much needed for making a proper 1:3 gearbox. Although the 12T clutch would already make it possible to make a 1:2.777 ratio (with less space required than by a 1:3). I am not into supercars, but after seeing the new blue gears in the tracked vehicle, I was really hoping that this one would introduce some novelties into gearboxes.. And this. It would be nice to see the new joints appear in a regular (non-planetary) hub. Currently, if we want to enjoy the benefits of the new CV joints (like somewhat better steering angle), the only option is to use the planetary hubs, which are only good for slow high torque applications. No option for faster cars. Exactly, I also agree with @allanp on this. The color vomit is also bad for B modelling, as many pieces that are there in the set are there in a useless color, for example to be used in the bodywork of a B model (like many connectors in most sets for example). I really believe that using the body color inside the model for color coding would not hurt anything, and would give the buyers more useful parts for building other stuff. But I guess that's not the goal nowadays..

Cool idea, especially like the motorization, nicely shows that small electronics could be used for interesting stuff.

I really like the form factor of this, and nice usage of the wing panels on the side, gives it a really cool look (I love the original color scheme). Though it would be nice to squeeze some suspension in, I guess it has the space for it (with a different motor placement). What are those custom tires (what outer diameter)? And what rim are they sitting on? Is it a custom rim or lego rim with some beadlock stickers on it?

I'm also secretly hoping for something like that :) thought I don't remember seeing anything motorized off-road coming in this year's lineup, so maybe next year..

These new yellow gears could be useful in high torque motorized applications as they give a (~1.5x) faster gearing ratio at the diff, so combined with planetary hubs, the drivetrain will not be super slow. I wonder if they have been developed for the Ferrari set, as they don't seem to be required there, an old 20T diff could have been used I guess (almost the same ratio, no need to handle high torque).

Thanks, this is indeed something I have been curious about! A little bit sad though that the new gears did not improve much, I hoped that they would. I like the way @kbalage explains when the problem appears even if it's assembled correctly. I myself didn't have the issue, but it may only be because I did not play too much with it, especially not in the faster gears, as when I feel the friction, I never really push lego models too far. I wonder how things would be with the Pimped Up version, and also with the Bruiser, as the gearbox in there is also inspired by the Pimped Up version. @thekoRngear, how is the Bruiser's gearbox behaving now after some time? Interesting that you mention that the framing around the gearbox could have an effect on this. When I was building the Land Rover, I did have the feeling that it's lacking solid structure in the middle, because of the gearbox. Then as I was designing my own alternates, I realized that with existing lego pieces, it's actually not easy to frame such a gearbox well (it is in some sense more tricky than the ones in supercars, where 11x7 frames can be used, because here the main drive axles in the gearbox are not running in the center of the car but 1 stud left and right). Some short flip-flop beams could help with building such structures..

I like the concept of this race, and it’s a nice looking build! So if I get it right, it’s still an RC car, but without drive, just steering and brakes. I have never build a brake system, but this looks like a meaningful application of it, wonder how it works. What does transmission brake mean? There is a drivetrain that’s not driven but free spinning, and braked at some point using a sevo motor for example?

Oh, I think I got it, thanks :)