gyenesvi

The way you are showing this here (clutch gears only on one side, I guess that's intentional) allows them to be independent (@Void_S, what you are saying would apply with clutch gears on both sides of the driving ring I guess), but this setup has only 4 outputs (all of them can go in two directions though). However, the same 4 outputs can be achieved with a simpler setup, with only 2 driving rings like in 42114, as @M_longer says. And I don't see how such a RC gearbox could even in theory be scaled up to more than 4 independent outputs. So I guess that's why it will only have 4 functions apart from driving. I think even if the weight was not a problem, it would still not work out for the play experience. The reason is that in 8043, you don't want to drive and dig at the same time, so it's okay that you need to switch between them. However, with a bulldozer, you probably do want to move the blade/ripper while driving it, so it's not okay that you can't control them simultaneously.

I don't get how the function directions and what the wave selector engages would be related to each other. It's completely independent. The direction is determined by the motor direction set by the app (not by the gearbox; could be but it would be complicated and wasteful). The wave selector needs to engage one function at a time to be able to control every function independently (in both directions). One wave selector can only select between 4 functions, since it engages in 90 degree rotations, after 4 such rotations it gets back to the first position.

Exactly this setup, and that's only 4 gearbox functions so far. Not sure what you understand by one direction being blocked though, all functions need to be bidirectional..

So if you are talking about 6 functions, how would you implement that with a single gearbox?

Just seen a comment on FB that RJ had to deactivate it, as he's having a Lego Ideas Johnny 5 entry, and can't sell MOCs related to it..

This is a really good question I have been asking myself as well when presenting my builds, and it's hard to decide. In the end, I voted for finished MOCs for a couple of reasons. I agree that some builds are great for WIP threads when there is a technical challenge that needs discussion or help. However, in many cases when I build, I just like to try solving problems as hard as I can first before asking for help, and since many problems have already been solved I can just find an answer already. Furthermore, I feel like I don't want to spend time on making photos and writing a lot about something half ready that will probably change a lot over time as I test it; I'd rather spend that time on building, especially when I know how I want to build it. But there will probably be some MOCs that I'll do as a WIP in the future. About digital builds: I use them a lot, mixed with physical building. I find it really helpful when I need to design something complex, like a gearbox or a floating axle, where you know where certain things need to be positioned, but you need to find out the bracing around it. In digital form, you can place things in the air, and see clearly what bracing can come around it. You can't do that easily in physical form. However, when it seems okay, it definitely needs testing it in physical form, to see if it holds (especially for technic, especially if motorized).

That makes sense, nice idea! I thought you were going to do a 4-link suspension and not use the full ball joint, just one side. However, now I understand what you are up to, so in that case, the U-joint should be fine as others say. I think U-joints are only vulnerable if one of their ends are floating in the air, but the ball joint braces them.

Nice idea, I am planning to do a rock crawler MOC with the same key components you list here, although I was thinking of putting that steering motors sideways and using a lever mechanism. How is your steering implemented, is it with gearing or is it with a lever mechanism? Are you planning to control it all with the RI app? Can that handle PU XL motors? I guess you'll be using the large 6-port hub then. Instead of the U-joint going into the axle, I'd suggest using the CV joint that comes with 42099, that is less prone to break under heavy load.

Thinking exactly the same, this looks quite promising. The description names it 'Technic Small Angular', so there's some hope that it would be compatible with the PU software as well.. And if it's like the other angular motors, it has a two-way axle exit..

Nice review, thanks for spelling out clearly that we'd expect more functional complexity from a technic model, especially when it comes to replicating crucial technical features of the real car. As others noted, they probably bumped into issues with the drivetrain in a small space, but it's a pity that TLG does not take these opportunities for releasing new parts and improving what's possible to build especially in smaller scales and tight spaces. There are so many possible improvements that could be made for drive-trains and suspensions (and I think the Zetros also missed quite a few of them). I also like your points about the misleading age rating system, and agree with the need for some differentiation between functional and display pieces. I still like the set, including the colour that grabs attention, so will probably get it for parts. The tumbler wheels would look better (maybe a tiny bit too small for the fender pieces, I guess that's why they went with the buggy wheels), but since I don't have the buggy, I am happy to get these wheels in another set as well.

This happens to me regularly with the C+ app and the standard Technic hub, although I have not observed that it would correlate with the hub rolling over. Also, with the C+ app, no recalibration is needed for me, it is enough just to move the steering a bit, and then it goes back to center. Is that not enough in your case? By that, do you mean something like integer overflow in the software?

18: 10 11: 6 5: 4 21: 3 27: 2 38: 1

Wow. I have to say my heart started beating faster when I saw this :) The overall shape is instantly recognizable, the lines of the original are well retained, and the modern paneling also works really well, both the wing shapes and the flat ones at the front. I also like that you changed the gearbox into sequential, and I think 4 speeds is enough, especially given the original. Furthermore, I like how the whole bodywork and suspension feels lowered compared to the original, it's more sporty this way. For me, the original had a bit too high curves especially at the front. Great job!

Sadly, I have to agree with this. Slim live axles are pretty hard to build with lego, especially with the planetary hubs, exactly where it would be most useful, and this would have been a good opportunity to innovate something in this area. I mean the new CV joints are useful and all, but when watching the review videos, I though those axles are huge. It's surprising that it falls apart, it seemed very solid..

9. 6-Wheeler Moon Buggy Original set: 8830 Features: Pendular suspension linkage that averages between front and rear axles Inline 3 cylinder engine driven by middle wheels Functional steering wheel and HoG steering (front and rear wheels) Discussion topic: Background info: I chose this set as it was my first technic set, and I wanted to pay a tribute to it. The scale is a bit larger because these were the smallest wheels that I had 6 of available for now. The larger scale made it possible to add a simple but interesting suspension mechanism and the working engine, which I think could easily be features of a modern set of this scale. On the bodywork, I mainly went for the usage of modern panels and a more curvy front section. Original vs Remake: (true scale ratio) Photos: Renders: Video:

I wonder if you have ever tried squeezing a working fake engine above a live axle that has a servo motor mounted on top. Not much space left above it, in fact it is quite difficult to squeeze the servo in in the first place, and a fake engine needs quite a few studs of vertical space (about 7 including the hood). I’d bet it would not fit, and that’s exactly why it was left out, not because they didn’t think about it..

Thanks :) I understand what you mean, but as it is currently, the drive cannot go on the front, because that's where the HoG steering is routed and connected both to the front and the rear, so there it's not enough just to go around the steering axle with a blue gear. In the back, that's exactly what is happening (with a red gear going over the steering axle). I'll try to post clean renders of the drive and steering shafts to allow you to see what's happening. Thanks, actually that suspension is the core of the whole build, I wanted to experiment with it, that's why I started building this model. That's why it's pretty dense, the steering the drive train and suspension crossing each other in a small space..

Yeah, only found these old ones, but I think both the tread and the rims look cool on it. I did think about a bigger engine, but did not do it for two reasons. One is technical, as the lower part of the chassis is very dense, the drivetrain can only come up in the middle, so if I wanted to fit in something longer, more towards the back, it would just cut the main shaft in half (see grey gear in the middle below). Second, is that a moon buggy probably would not even have a combustion engine, would probably have electric motors :) So I did not want to give it too much focus, furthermore I wanted to keep the back as a cargo area (added some rock samples as well). Again, primarily for reasons of density in the chassis, but it does actually feel quite good. In fact, steering is so smooth with a very small radius that I can't stop driving around with it :) I have done some color optimizations and added some extra details, here are some cleaner images.

Okay, found a smoother and cleaner way of doing the front part.. Also, tested again with both wheel options. As much as I like the more modern Mindstorms wheels, I'd still say that the yellow ones are a better fit for this contest..

Wow, that's a really great alternate model! Related but sufficiently different from the original set. Apart from all the cool functions, I think the bodywork is also outstanding, with smooth lines, great colour consistency and nice details! And the timing.. it's like with Nico's F150.. it does happen sometimes :)

Here's a progress update. I have been working on the remaining technical details (inline 3 cylinder engine in the middle, working steering wheel in the front, improved steering rack and suspension linkage), as well as the bodywork. As you can see, I also found some other wheels of which I have 6, that may be more appropriate. With the bodywork, I aimed to keep the core lines and replicate the slopes and tail with modern panels. One thing I have never understood / liked about the original model is the rollover bars in the front; they have always looked kind of useless to me, as they are too low for the seat. I guess they have more of a cosmetic purpose. So I decided I give it a more moon-buggy like look with a more rounded frame in the front. Still not perfectly satisfied though.. Let me know what you think. Though, as I only have a day left before leaving for holidays, I won't be able to iterate too much more before making my submission..

Agreed! It's cool already, but if it was symmetric it would be cooler. Inserting a straight 180 degree LBG connector as the right shoulder joint could fix it, though the right arm may become kind of long.. As for the leg, I think this solution could be good as it would keep the symmetry and simplicity of the legs, and it would even be a kind of realistic rotation point. Are you planning to build it in a more colour consistent version?

I think this is looking pretty good now, clean job! I don't think that's a problem, why would you stick to the round shape? It's a bout modernization :) I'd just go with the crank that you proposed. Could try either grey or black. I understand that everybody would like to modernize the wheels, but if there's no good option (since the Zetros is not out yet and the Jeep's is too small), then just keeping these are better I guess.

Unfortunately I have to agree. I think the wing shaped panels work well on the front and rear bumpers, to replace the wing shaped plates in the original and also on the roof, but not otherwise. Also, I think the arches are not a good move. On the other hand, the slightly curved piece on the hood does work. I think you could even use it instead of the beams, just two of those. In general, I think it needs some cleanup, the bodywork is getting fuzzy now. The rear wing is also a bit raw, too simple. What I would do is first replicate the original faithfully with beams as a baseline, and then see where I can improve things with more modern techniques. Maybe something like the flexible hoses on the top of the wheel arches.. could look good if you can make them symmetric. But anyway, nice job so far, keep it up, cudos for taking on this big one!

I don't think such complexity is required. Instead, if it takes let's say 0.7 seconds of motor rotation to lock the diffs, then it's enough to program the motor to run for 1 second when you press the lock button. It will overshoot a bit, but the physical extreme positions and the clutch will take care of the synchronization.