gyenesvi

@efferman If I understand correctly, this increases the movement range of the steering rack by half a stud. According to my own tests, this is already too much for the CV joints, at that angle there is already considerable amount of friction on them (the wider part of the neck of the male part pushing against the edge of the female part, there's a 'hump' on every turn); sure they will turn with force, since the motor is strong enough to drive it, but I believe that they would get a lot of wear over time, especially at higher speeds. To check this, you should try to disconnect it from the drive motor so that you can spin it freely, and spin the hub from the wheel side to feel the friction. What I found is that roughly 1/4 stud more space for the movement of the steering rack is still ok, but 1/2 is just too much unfortunately. Let me know what you think.

I have posted free building instructions for this model on Rebrickable: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-86341/gyenesvi/8830-remake-moon-buggy

Thanks for the answers, I have been thinking exactly in this direction, but some crucial detail was missing, but now I have figured it out. It's probably something like @Gimmick is talking about, although I am not sure exactly what he means, but here is my solution. As opposed to an 8-speed gearbox, which has only a single output with different speeds, something must be fundamentally different here, and what I have realized is that in the generic case of up to 8 functions, you need not just a single 2-output gearbox and a single 4-output gearbox, but you need two of the 4-output gearboxes after the 2-output one. The 2-output one is which changes once after every 360 rotations of the 4-output gearboxes, and basically selects which of the two 4-output ones are active. So theoretically the drive part is not too complex, maybe the switching mechanism is a bit more involved, but that does not really effect the performance. The whole thing would be probably quite big though. On the other hand, the special case of 5 outputs gets more simple, as one of the 4-output gearboxes can be left out, simply using the second output of the 2-output gearbox without further multiplexing it. So that would be somewhat more compact, although probably still large enough.

I don't think he put it wrong, step 24 flips it upwards, otherwise it wouldn't be doing anything there. I think the friction is just like that, I remember wondering the same. I think it didn't matter at the time, since it's a manual set, and large enough so that you don't really feel it when you push it around.

I totally agree with this. But it only gets worse, as they are not even really compatible SW-wise. I bought the Mindstorms set, as I saw great potential in the rechargeable 6-port hub and the motors, but it turns out that the Powered Up app is not compatible with the Mindstorms hub. I learned that they use different Bluetooth technology for remote control (Technic hub uses more recent BT Low Energy, while Mindstorms uses old BT technology??? (although it does contain some BLE HW AFAIK), and does not use the Lego Wireless Protocol as the Technic Hub). It just seems a bit uncoordinated for me, lot of potential left on the table, all the HW seems to be there without proper SW, which is annoying.

So at least in theory it is possible with current pieces? Do you have some reference to see how it would work?

While I agree that LAs are more precise and hence more playable, I would have loved to see an RC pneumatic solution with the new PU small motor for switching valves. Also, the 6-port rechargeable hub from the Spike / Mindstorms set applied to the Technic lineup. Although, if I count it right, drive plus 4 functions requires 7 motors at least (2 for drive, 4 switchig, 1 for the pump, right?). But other solutions for avoiding more than one hubs would have also been interesting, such as the separation of the control unit from the battery, or some way of connecting two identical motors that are driven together to a single port. I have already asked in the CAT thread if anyone actually sees this even theoretically possible (with a single motor for drive and one for switching, I don’t) and so far I did not get any solutions.

This. Another opportunity missed for improving the range of available parts. The review is really nice, even with the too dark background, the photography is great, and the summary is to the point.

This is somehing like what I meant to say. I don’t mind lack of perfection, a set is totally okay if I can build something else with functions that I like better. But sometimes that needs the right parts, like those suspension parts you mention and missing links in the PU electronics system, and I feel that Lego is not too fast grabbing the opportunities to introduce those. This year’s off-roaders don’t innovate too much, and the new parts in this set are nothing revolutionary either. I could have imagined a small motor for gearbox switching for example.

My problem is more the direction where Lego is NOT going. This behemoth could have been a good opportunity to release for example a 6-port hub, like the Mindstorms one (or even just reuse the yellow one from the Spike prime set). Then two more functions could have been added, like a ripper tilt and some lights (which could have been a really nice addon to a construction machine). I guess the ripper tilt was excluded because it does not add too much to the play experience, and the fancy ladder is probably going to attract more 18+ buyers..

Low ground clearance on off-roaders. And bulky live axles.

Oh, I mixed them up with the LBG ones, those are the ones that don't have then. So it's a different system than on the Liebherr then? On that one they could rotate.

Those tan ones don't have a + hole in them but a round one, so they can rotate on the axle.

I love this one, it's so beautifully built with simplicity but spot on details, and the performance looks pretty good too. I like both tire options, but what are those tractor tires? Are those custom? They look a bit thinner than that of the Zetros.

I'd join @nerdsforprez and @TeamThrifty on this one. I'd even guess that @eric trax and/or @M_longer got a set from TLG for review, and once the embargo date passes, they will present it. But at the minimum they have some insider info.

We are in the same boat then :)

I agree with you guys as well that an app would be needed for config, just wanted to point out some difficulties for those who might think a totally app-free controller is reasonable to expect, and the complexities that are present event with an app-based config.

Congrats to the winners! This was my first contest, didn't really hope I'd rank well, glad I got a vote at least :) as I knew I'd be stretching the rules with size difference and an overly modern reinterpretation. But I enjoyed my build as well as seeing all those great sets of my childhood being rebuilt :) It was hard to vote indeed. @Thirdwigg, I am especially happy with your winning as your rebuilds are quite remarkable. And I still remember one summer day when I tried to reverse engineer 8854 from a few brochure pictures with my limited parts that I had at the time :)

This discussion got me thinking about how some details about configuring a physical remote could actually be implemented. While I agree with @kbalage that a simple controller with joysticks and a few buttons would be great for a lot of basic models, configuring it apart from the simplest use cases (like a car with throttle and steering) could be quite tricky. Two use cases I have in mind, that were made possible with PU technology and becoming more and more used are 1) linear actuators with end limits and 2) auto gearboxes (I guess people sticking with PF still don't appreciate advanced PU features that much and that the 'Up' in PU is not about more power, it's about more advanced control). While predefined control configs could be available for stock models, the question of configuration would still need to be solved for custom builds. And I guess doing so without an app would be preferable.. So how could it be done? 1) To configure the end limits, one would have to move the motor to both ends and then for example press and hold some buttons. Given that all joysticks and buttons could in principle be used with end limits, that would require either some way to select which one you want to configure first and then use a dedicated reset button, or quite a few extra buttons just for configuration for each joystick/button (along with switches for reversing control, as on a PF remote). That would require adding about 4 extra buttons to configure a 2-axis joystick. 2) The auto gearbox is even more complicated (but it's a pretty useful feature, since we can use 2 motors to control 4 functions, so I'd expect it to spread, as will be in the CAT dozer). In order for that to work, when you want to move for example a linear actuator, the app first issues a command to move the gearbox to the right position, and then say half a second later, it starts moving the motor itself. How would you configure that on a physical remote? I have no idea.. I guess all of this config could be easier done with the help of an app bridging between the controller and the hubs. After the config, the app would not be required. But even then, the config could become pretty involved. For the auto gearbox example above, I guess a dedicated auto gearbox control module would be necessary, where you'd have to configure how many functions it has with which motors, the gearbox positions, then for each function which joystick it's controlled with, in which direction, and with what end limits. And then I guess there are other use cases that we don't even think about but TLG is investigating. So altogether, I'd say it's much more complex than the PF system, and I can understand why the app control was chosen first (although I'd also really like a physical one), and why it takes some time to come up with a satisfying solution.

That is pretty cool again, I really like the way you make use of your Defender set, always coming up with something unconventional. Since your models include very interesting mechanics, I wonder what your background is :) The set has a really good selection of parts!

Sure, and together with the two motors for drive (as is in this set, confirmed above by @M_longer), that would amount to 5 motors. Or are you saying the 8 functions could already include the drive? Then you hit the same problem I mentioned above (can't drive and move the blade at the same time).

Interesting, that was my first thought as well for a B model, and thought others would go for it too :) And of course the two speed gearbox..

That's pretty much how it's going to be (except the subtractor), but since it'll have an auto gearbox, you won't have to switch manually, the app will do that, so you will be able to use all functions while driving, but not at the same time, just one by one (but any one of them). I wonder how many fingers you'll need for that though.. I agree about the ladder :) Not sure about the rest.. That's of course a possibility, but that would require 5 motors, and you probably don't want to add one more hub just for the 5th function.

Or just go to the first page of this thread..

Who said PF L motors? The set will come with PU motors. @Ngoc Nguyen's build was just an illustration. What do you mean by that? Auto levelling of what? The blade?