mdemerchant

Looks like it, the teeth are much larger. Also putting the extra 14 tooth one in seems to be just to help support the differential. I am a bit puzzled as to why they put this in the Ferrari. I assume they will appear in some future motorized set where it might be useful for them to be stronger.

Well you can always wait to see what the build is like before deciding to buy. But a crane of that type is going to inherently involve building repetitive boom sections. It will be minimized if they use large new pieces as expected but it will still be there. If you want a big tall crane model it's unavoidable.

I really doubt TLG would cancel a set just because someone else released the same sort of vehicle. Outside of China those brands have to be just noise to them. In this case that MOC is a nice crane as all of Peter's are but it really doesn't look particularly like an LR13000. Presumably TLG is making theirs look recognizable, being a licensed model.

The most common application (trains) just rotate the entire assembly. Rover type vehicles just rotate the wheels directly with a motor, no conventional steering linkages. Were you contemplating doing it with some sort of conventional type linkage to a steering rack? Given the range of motion of your suspension I'm not sure that will be possible without having wheel turn somewhat as the suspension moves. The sketch above solves the Tatra suspension motion but then you've got the right connection point that can move up and down vertically and slightly forwards/backwards relative to your steering rack. The distance between that point and the steering rack will not remain constant.

It does look good. Am I imagining things or is the front and back only connected with an axle?

Isn't that going to come apart as soon as you push up on the wheel? It's a bit hard to tell from the photo but it looks like both top and bottom steering joints are assembled in the same orientation so the portal hub assembly can just lift vertically off. What's the benefit of the Tatra part of the suspension? The swing arm is pretty short and you should already have tons of travel from the bogey arrangement. I'm definitely not a suspension expert so that's not a critique, just curious.

That's very interesting. I know some excavators are available in different track widths but I didn't realize any were actually dynamically adjustable. Definitely a fairly unique function to include.

I'd vote for the cabin on the right, 2nd choice would be the one on the left.

I think the cab looks fine as well. I kind of agree with @jorgeopesi that it could be much smaller to be more in scale with the machine but then the ladder needs to be way smaller as well and you can't realistically make either smaller with technic parts. Regarding the gap, it looks to me like the back wall of the cab is not attached to the structure so if you build with real bricks you can have no gap and just end up with the cab wall and roof not quite perfectly vertical/horizontal. I don't think it will be very noticeable. But neither is the gap. Overall I think this is a really nice entry. Everybody is making something "small" but you've been really ambitious to make something at an extremely small scale and it's worked really well.

How are you extending the boom? I don't see a gear rack or any string.

I think for an educational account or a business account you are out of luck according to YouTube help. You probably just need to download your videos and reupload them to a new channel. I guess you can only download one at a time with the YouTube management interface which might be painful if you have a lot but there are also lots of 3rd party apps for downloading YouTube content. Some of them claim to be able to download entire channels in one go. But they are more intended for watching videos, you may not get exact copies of the original source files. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3056283?hl=en Move your YouTube channel to another account You can move your channel and its videos over from one account to another. Note that if your account is a supervised account or a work or school account, you cannot move your channel.

It is readily available in North America from lots of places including the Lego website which suggests it's not a fundamental supply problem. Maybe something specific to your region.

Air filters. But they do look like giant headlights because of the placement and shape.

Looks fun and having two winches in the boom and counterweight on the crawler base are nice realistic touches. The cab is nicely done and the details around the walkway. The whole thing looks very solid. I would consider modifying the winch rigging. Big Liebherrs do have two or three winches in the boom but the main hook is not run off of them. That would always be connected to one (or two redundant) winch in the main body. I see you have a winch there but does not appear in use in the pictures. The second winch in the main boom is for the luffing jib when installed so if you hook it up that way it will be both more realistic and more fun to play with. The base of your main boom is an interesting design. I've never seen a real crane use a right angle triangle like that, what drove you toward that arrangement?

It may well be the big ring but it is way too big unless they are going to make the crane at a huge scale. The slewing bearing on an LR13000 is maybe 75% wider than the tracks so something like 9L if they use the 5L tracks. On most large cranes the superstructure is fairly narrow compared to the undercarriage width. A big crane like an LR13000 isn't proportioned anything like 42100.

Yes, maybe solid beam structure wasn't the best choice of words. I just meant a beam of some kind as opposed to a truss, an I section is certainly most efficient. For a soft material like Lego with give in the joints it will be possible to make a stiffer beam than truss for the same overall dimensions. Given the desired very low span to depth ratio here you would use I beams for this kind of structure 99% of the time in real construction. Your truss design looks quite nice. And we're definitely on the same page that if you're going to use a truss, you need lots of diagonal members to spread the load mainly to limit deflection.

Not sure it will quite scale like that in practice because a truss behaves differently than a solid beam and a Lego truss very differently than an ideal theoretical truss. But with the right design I still don't see why you couldn't make something to support 100lbs over a two meter span. Many years ago when I was in school all the universities would have a competition to make bridges out of popsicle sticks, glue and dental floss. For a 1m span bridge the top teams nationally regularly exceeded more than 1000kg load. Lego pieces aren't quite as strong as popsicle sticks but 100lbs isn't that heavy and you don't really care what the structure weighs so you can put lots of pieces in parallel. I am a lot more skeptical you could support that weight over that span with only a few mm of sag though. With a truss I think it would be pretty hard because of the pin connections. In a simple textbook analysis of a truss you assume the pins are perfectly rigid and deflection occurs as a result of stretching and compressing the beams. But in a Lego truss you've got bendy plastic pins in oversize holes and actually the vast majority of your deflection will come from there. Making it bigger doesn't help if you end up with the same number of pins. By contrast, if you make a solid beam deeper, suddenly you have lots more material to resist the stresses so it gets stiffer and stronger non-linearly with depth. That's why I would prefer a solid beam structure for this purpose, it seems like it will scale much better. If you do make a really deep truss I think you are much better off to make it by tying lots of parallel small trusses together instead so you get more connections and less load/connection.

Both can be right, it depends who they are trying to appeal to. In general companies want to grow and the way to grow is to find new customers. New customers aren't going to miss tons of functions and they will be drawn in by cosmetics and recognizable licenses. We are not their target market. If you like to build sets and/or play with them, cool functions are great. More interesting to build, more fun to play with. But if you are mainly interested in building your own stuff what difference does it make what functions TLG puts in their sets? New parts could let you make things you couldn't make before which is fun. Whether a set is appealing totally depends on the person who's contemplating buying it and what their motivations are.

That will be quite a set when it comes out, it's a huge model. Lego's upcoming crane won't be looking very impressive compared to that.

Really? I admit I have not looked through their set catalog in detail but all of the ones I have seen do not appear to have licenses despite being very recognizable vehicles.

This flange design will be very unequally good at dealing with compression and tension. Under compression it will be very strong but under tension it will be much weaker because it's only the beams attached to the web holding it together then. This could be fixed with running more beams in that direction to better pin the flange together, preferably on the outside of the flange for maximum effect. The green construction is a clever way to strongly attach the flange to the web but is it actually possible to assemble in real life? How do you get the green plates on?

I may be in the minority but I'm not sure building a 40 foot long beam to hold up several hundred pounds will actually be that hard if it is supported every 6 feet. That's 45 lbs/span if several means 300. Not that I have built that sort of structure but based on the breaking strength of liftarms and pin connections (https://eprints.usq.edu.au/20528/1/Lostroh_LegoTesting_2012.pdf) it seems like it should be very possible with the right design. I think it's important to do some rough math and figure out how much weight you really need to hold up. You said several hundred lbs but do you know it will be in that range or are you just guessing? Here is a simple beam calculator that can help you to understand the forces involved in the beam if you want to try some theoretical analysis. https://mechanicalc.com/calculators/beam-analysis/ The problem will be with 6 foot long spans you will likely have buckling and/or the structure just popping apart sideways long before you hit the max theoretical load. You will definitely want to have it form locked transverse to the length of the beam and probably use two or three identical beams (or trusses) in parallel with cross bracing connecting them to avoid that.

I wasn't saying it's hard to make a crane in general with a couple of motors and a gearbox. If you want to make a 1:40 or smaller scale LR13000 and not have the whole drive train exposed under the winch area it will be hard. Even if you're willing to have it exposed it will still not be easy. I'm sure they could do something but it would be better done with two hubs in my opinion.

Yes but it's technically more difficult for them to do a model like this with only two or three motors. If it's actually a reasonably to scale LR13000 there won't be a lot of space in the superstructure to be putting the hub, motors and a big gearbox. But you can't put it in the carrier where it might fit because of the difficulty of transferring enough drive lines to the superstructure. The carrier can live with two or even one drive input if they don't bother to make it turn. The superstructure will need at least three for derrick, main boom and lifting winches, at least four if it has a moveable jib. However, if it's not an LR13000 and just looks like a new 42042 then a gearbox is more of a possibility.

Many, many pieces. I would guess easily 50+ truckloads for an LR13000 depending how big a boom and how much ballast is needed. Even ignoring the boom and ballast you have a huge number of components that break down to workable weights/sizes for transport. I doubt the model will be designed to come apart in a realistic way but probably the boom and derrick will be pretty easy to remove which will solve most storage problems. But that does mean undoing and redoing all the rigging which is a pain. Best keep it together and find a tall display location if you buy one. I was planning on trying to do just that on my current project to see how it would work but I'm not sure the powered up app will have enough programming features. I haven't played around with anything beyond simple motor drive from controls but it seems it has basic math and variables so it may be workable. I need to build a few more crane components before I can try. It definitely seems like it should be very possible for TLG with the custom C+ app but the real crane doesn't have that feature so I'd say it's unlikely to be included.