gyenesvi

Oh, yes, I forgot that even if there would be a possibility, no actual batteries would probably be included for safety reasons.. only sold separately.

Well, because of the seemingly unexplainably high price compared to similar previous models, and the seemingly unnecessary screws for regular batteries, I am hoping for exactly the same thing :) That could explain the price, couldn't it?

If it's the central diff, then one wheel cannot spin freely, only two wheels, one front and one rear, right?. And it's quite unlikely that the model would be standing on two wheels and two would be in the air..

Now I'm not even sure it's recoloured. On the photos posted by @Ngoc Nguyen where it's partially built and has proper lighting, it seems pretty white and LBG to me. I'd say on the other image it seems darker because of lack of lighting. Thanks, I did not catch that. Based on that I'd guess locking of central diff, as that's simplest to implement (no need to transfer the (locker) motor drive to the live axle).

On which image do you see that? I can't seem to find it.. I was also hoping for this, but it seems from the images that it's just the same Wedo motor, which I don't think is so great for technic builds (fairly limited mounting options). I have been wondering what a detailed gearbox could mean, and how it could be solved without proper position encoding. But now I am guessing a 2-speed gearbox with mechanical end stops and a clutch gear for protection. More than two speeds would not be possible without position encoding I think. One thing I could imagine is that switching to low gear also locks a differential at the same time (no need for extra motor).

While I can easily understand this I am not sure I understand what this means, can you elaborate? (just curious about the physics behind things). So I would say I am pretty sure that the way the hub end is mounted does matter in some way and changes things visibly, as This is exactly what I have seen in my experiments, this may be a more precise way of expressing what I have vaguely described as forces kind of cancelling each other, thanks @Lipko. So I can accept that the forces don't really cancel, but in some way the bending is less serious (maybe they do partially? I don't know).

Yeah, but what I was trying to say is that the lower part is also being acted upon by sort of a lever (the pin that holds it from one side), and that puts an opposite direction force on the spring, which kind of cancels the upper one. Although the towball and a pin are not exactly symmetric, as the towball enables more freedom of movement, I didn't think about that. But on the video, it's behaving quite okay, maybe with harder springs it would be different. Anyway, could be an okay compromise..

Really nice use of panels on the bodywork, simple and quite clean results. I also like the front suspension, as it's something rare and more realistic, and I haven't seen it before at that scale. But was also wondering about how smoothly it actually works: Does this actually happen? In my experience, when the spring's two ends are supported from the opposite side (as is the case here), it can actually work smoothly without bending/jamming, as the two opposite forces at the two ends kind of balance each other I suspect (depending on the exact geometry). @lnteknik can you share your experience or maybe a short video of it working where it would be visible whether it bends or not?

I guessed that, my question was more about accessing the load on a motor, but I suspect the answer is the same.. Thanks for that video, I haven't seen that, great start with that concept! @Andman Your method seems okay on paper, along with the cases for up/down shifting, but I have the feeling that if you tried to implement it you could run into some unexpected corner cases :) For example when the moving average hasn't yet caught up with a sudden change, it might trigger some false gear switches. These things just need to be tested in reality.. And yes, this exponential averaging could be an easier way to implement a moving average.

Now we're talking :) I built all my childhood models mostly out of 8880 parts, as that was my only big set at the time.. Yeah, Defender tires are almost the same, only 2mm wider. A studless version of the manual 4-speed gearbox is pretty easy to replicate, I just did that in my Willys Jeep alternate of the Defender, exactly inspired by 8880. However, I agree that it could be a good idea to modernize it, but I would suggest instead of adding more speeds, adding maybe a DNR selector and changing the manual shifting to sequential shifting, but not as in the Defender, and not with paddles, but with the gearstick as in Nico's Ford F150. That would be more interesting for me, I have never seen that in other cars. That's also quite easy to do with the hubs used in the Defender by connecting a 2L liftarm to the hub. Good luck!

Sorry for not being clear, I don't mean code in the PU app, but I mean a custom app running on my laptop, communicating with the hub through BT. I have done that before, just needed to play with the readouts a bit. I am not sure what would be the best way to tackle this problem, first I thought about the same solution as you mentioned. However, I remembered that I saw this load readout mode previously, and didn't know what it could be used for, and now figured it out. It could be a more direct way of achieving what you calculate with the speed differences, and therefore it may be a more robust way to do it. For example, I noticed that with new batteries there is no noticeable speed difference between the set speed and what you can read out of the motor when it's running free, but when the batteries are depleted the actual speed only reaches like 90% of what you set. At the same time, I'd expect the load would still be zero (for a free running motor), though I haven't tested. Such factors may impact the gear changing decision, though not sure what would be better in this case; maybe with depleted batteries it is better to switch to lower gear earlier.. Just thinking out loud.

Same here :) So curious about this one. @Ivorrr, have you thought about converting the rear suspension to a proper live axle instead of a trailing arm? Seems like you already have the crucial piece in place..

The lego PU hub can indeed measure the current, but not per port, only for the whole hub. On the other hand, motors have a mode called Load in the Lego Wireless Protocol, maybe that can be used here? I guess that's not accessible from the app, only with custom code.. I hooked up some quick experimental code, and I was able to read the load out of the motor; when the motor starts, the load jumps up in the beginning, and then decreases back to zero as the motor is running free. If I hold the output axle back with my hand, the load readout goes up to positive values. @TechnicBrickPower or @kbalage, have you seen something like that in the PU app?

Oh yes, because of the use of the CV joints you are able to place the gears (or the diff) one stud higher than if there was a straight axle, I missed that for the first sight! So GC is actually one stud more than I thought was possible. On the downside, that one stud extra on the top of the axle can also become problematic if there is lack of space in the chassis, for example if the steering motor was in the chassis not on the axle. It's a balance of many things, but it's good to see all these options :) That's an interesting solution that could work on a non-steered axle, I have run into that exact problem it is trying to solve before. I could give it a try that, I have some older gears..

I did not mean to save the CV joints that connect to the hubs (that's just a half, the other half is built into the hub), but was talking about the one that comes right after the diff. But I am guessing that you are not using a diff, that's why you can save even more GC in the middle. Mine too :) However, I have realized that it would be possible to build it with a straight axle (no CV joints after the diff, only the one at the hub). Just at the same time, this jeep topic popped up, with exactly such a build, I think it's also a really good solution:

I must agree that this is a really good one! I like how you did the front suspension, one of the best I have seen so far with leaf springs and integrating those portal hubs with acceptable ground clearance, furthermore the steering system is also pretty realistic! Furthermore, on the bodywork, this is one of the simplest and most well curved jeep fronts I have seen so far. Great job!

Thanks a lot, that looks pretty good, I have seen a similar solution previously here, but that used some weird half (or even quarter) stud offsets with a length difference between the upper and lower arm. As I see it, there is no tricky geometry here, just that the lower part of the hub is tilted inwards a bit, right? I think that's still acceptable, as when it moves up, it corrects the tilt. The only drawback of this (as well as mine above) is that it needs the CV joints for the drive from the diff to the wheels (as opposed to a straight flat axle), and I don't have enough of those, as I also want to use them for the drive going into the live axle from the body.. But maybe as @Danifill said, CV joints can also be used before the diff, as they don't take too much load yet. And I need to get some of those tires, they look way better than the tractor tires. They are ROCK CRUSHER X/T 1.9" TIRES from RC4WD right?

@keymaker that sounds interesting, are you maybe ready to share ideas just about the axle itself? I am just starting to work on the motorization of a model with live axles using those hubs, and am a bit stuck (the non-motorized model uses non-portal hubs so GC is okay). So far, my best solution to the ground clearance problem is building the A arms at an angle like this, something that I used in a previous model (that one had pendular axles, not real floating ones). Not sure this could be fit into the fire truck though, maybe it's too wide. @Danifill we can take this discussion offline if you are not interested, or we can stay here if you are, let us know.

This looks beautiful, very recognizable, technic panels work great for this kind of shape and luckily the color is also easy to get right :) I like your live axle suspension setups as well. @I_Igor I'm not sure 42099 hubs would clearly be easier to use. While you are right that the reduction is better, I find them hard to build into a steered live axle without loosing all the ground clearance (like the Zetros will have unfortunately). On the other hand, using the new CV-joints from 42099 instead of the U-joints could give you more strength in the drive-train I think.

Wow, what a pleasant surprise, that's looking pretty good so far. I didn't want to buy the buggy just for the tires, but this one looks like a perfect excuse :) The color scheme is cool as well, lots of parts in the same color. Curious about the functions and the actual suspension!

Great one, I like the chassis with that neat suspension linkage, and the bodywork is also really nice!

I was actually entertaining some similar conclusions. It may be that they are looking for a candidate who can design new stuff in ways they can't, it doesn't even matter if the candidate is not a great builder - they could teach him/her build more easily than teach him/her to design innovative stuff. Not suggesting anything like this happens actually, but it would make sense to me as a hiring objective. @1974 and @Toastie thanks for the insights on Danish living, that's a really interesting part of this discussion for me.

6 mini LAs + 3 pneumatic cylinders in a set sounds too good to be true :) From the images, I was guessing that the rear standers are operated by a lever mechanism with a worm-gear. Do you actually see the LAs there?

Oh, right, since you are using only one U-joint on the incoming axle (not two corresponding to the two ends of the link), it's also restricting the movement, and I guess the other key to make it sufficient is that the ball joint is exactly below the axle that drives the wheel, so the whole rear axle does not want to fall too much in either direction in the first place, it is kind of balanced by itself, nice trick. Though I guess this construction would be a bit weak for hard off-roading with larger forces hitting the rear axle.. But really nice for this model!

Really nice choice of model and implementation, I am also planning to use a different version of Ford F150/250 in another project. I like the suspension, especially the rear, really tight one. One thing I don't understand though: are there more links to hold the rear axle in place? I can only see two lower ones, there should one or two more somewhere, right?