Blakbird

It is a big coincidence that you posted this model today, because I just finished building this model yesterday! You gave me the CAD file a long time ago to make a render of it (shown below). Having built it, I can say that this is a first rate MOC and I really love it. There are almost no square angles in the construction, and all of the intricate angles have been made in unique ways. I've recently built MOCs from Crowkillers and others, and this car uses a totally different building style. In fact, it was quite difficult to build from only a CAD file because many of the steps can only be performed in a certain order or they are impossible to assemble. It took me a long time to work out the puzzle, but the results are well worth the effort. (I made many submodels in the CAD file and broke some of them into steps to make it easier to build.) This is one of the best looking and functioning models on my shelf. Good work Jovel!! I especially like the mechanism for the convertible top. Not only does it use a 4-bar linkage to raise the top, keeping it parallel to the ground and conforming to the windshield, but it also lifts a hidden rear deck from below and places it to seal the space behind the top and fair it with the rear bumper. I've made a few images in my Brickshelf folder (once moderated) that show the basic breakdown of submodels in 20 steps. This model has some very rare parts including the tires (which were only in the Nitro Muscle set) and the hubcaps which, until this year, were only available in the Fiorino Ferrari. Now you can also get one of them as a tail rotor. By the way, your video presentation is fantastic!! How did you accomplish all of those complex camera moves? I wish I was capable of this level of presentation for my website.

I very much enjoy putting them together, and your observations are one of the primary reasons I created Technicopedia. I wanted to document the way each set works and to compare and contrast them. There is no doubt that there are a lot of different styles and techniques used over the years. I've just completed re-building every single Technic set in the last 6 months. Doing so it such a short period of time really highlighted all of these differences. It would take a long time to ponder and list any significant number of differences, but there is no doubt that many unique building styles exist among official sets. I'll try to get more time to address your specific bullet points later.

My excavator was also fine when it was new. I had no problems with the actuators or speed. However the strain takes its toll on the M motors. Now, a few months later, the excavator hardly moves at all even with new batteries. The issue isn't the actuators any more, it is that the motors are operating at capacity and wear out.

The maximum force from a linear actuator is based on the setting of the internal clutch. The maximum force of the pneumatic actuator is based on the pressure at which the seals leak. In either case, output force is not a useful measurement of which one is "better". The optimal design choice for a given application can only be judged against the design critera and requirements for that application. Each will win in certain cases.

This is the real point. Not everyone uses these Technic "toys" for the same reason. Some people get Technic to play with them, operate them, etc. If you are going to play with it and want it to be fun, then I agree that the linear actuators (motorized) are better in most cases. But other people (like me) don't really play with them as much as we look at the mechanical operation of them. The lure of Technic to me is the way it works, and the more realistically it works the better I like it. That's why I like pneumatics. I don't care so much how fun it is to play with. That quote is not about LEGO, that quote is about my real job. I work with hydraulic actuators every day. No war here. Just friendly discussion. I find it interesting to hear what other people like about Technic compared to what I like.

Sorry, can't agree here. I deal with all three of these (hydraulic actuators, pneumatic actuators, electro-mechanical actuators) on a daily basis. Hydraulics and pneumatics are structurally similar, have similar design requirements and critical cases, and operate in a similar manner within a system. EMs are totally different in almost every way except that they are also used to linearly position loads. There are almost no technical similarities between hydraulics and EMs. From a toy perspective though, I can see your point that you feel that the LAs make the excavator movement and control look more like the real thing, but the way they work is much less like the real thing

OK, if you and rien can make it to my house tomorrow then we'll have a digging contest/celebration. Sounds like so much fun that there are really no losers. In all seriousness though, the best thing about JC's design is the accuracy. It not only looks like a real excavator, it looks like a specific real excavator (JCB JS220) right down to the decals and livery of the operator. It's range of digging motion is just like the real excavator. Pneumatics operate basically like the hydraulics of the real thing. This makes the mechanics of the excavator as realistic as possible for a model (short of using hydraulic fluid). As someone who analyzes hydraulic actuators for a living, this is really important to me. No one uses electro-mechanical screw actuators for real earth moving equipment. Works good for toys though! The controller works like real 2-stick, 2-axis CAT controls. This can be done to the 8043 as well by modifying the controller and adding simultaneous control to all functions. So it all depends on what you are looking for. If you want a toy excavator that is fun to play with and "moves right", the 8043 (and especially Jurgen's modified 8043) are perfect. If you want a toy excavator that operates like the real thing as much as possible, then JC's is vastly superior. Both are a blast to use (and watch).

I may be the only person in the world who has BOTH Jennifer Clark's excavator and 8043 sitting side by side on my shelf. Having used both, I can say that 8043 is NOT much more precise. In fact, the movements of JC's excavator are more fluid, smooth, and operable than 8043 in almost every way. It is true, however, that JC's excavator has an umbilical while 8043 is full R/C. Both are very good looking although JC's is more realistic in that it is not so "open". JC's also has MUCH more realistic range of motion for doing actual excavation. 8043's bucket barely goes below grade at all. Both are excellent excavators and 8043 is without a doubt the best one that has been released as an official Technic set. It is also one of the most mechanically complex sets ever which I really appreciate no matter how well it works. Most of the complexity comes from the fact that it uses motors and linear actuators for all the movements. JC's has comparatively few gears since you don't need them for pneumatics (although the drive system is awesome). Personally, I believe that "Goose" (the designer of 8043) was well aware of JC's design and used much of it for inspiration, especially the track drive system in the superstructure with dual concentric axles running through the turntable.

It wouldn't be very hard to take the existing functions and make them R/C by adding and IR Receiver, but if you are talking about actually making it drive, then you'd need at least 2 XL motors for a model that size and an M for steering. I don't think there is room in that very full model for that much more mechanism without drastically compromising the looks. On the other hand, I suppose my statement that it can't be done is a good challenge for someone.

I use a 12V transformer with my Control Center. Get the highest current you can find. I prefer to use 1.5A (1500 mA). You can get loose transformers for very cheap at second hand stores like Goodwill in the USA. I only paid $1 for each.

Really nice upgrades! The black car looks great. Are the updated instructions for the old model or the new model?

There are actually a few very rare "axle pin with friction" parts that are black instead of blue. But they have the same amount of friction as the blue ones; they are no different. The "Technic pin long with stop bush" parts are not color coded. That is, there are lots of colors but every color is the same kind of part. I've seen at least black, light gray, dark gray, yellow, red, white, green, and blue.

"Bucket truck" sound to me like the old 8848 Power Truck, which would be a great model. "Extreme Cruiser" is kind of vague, but it seems to me that it will be a Harley Davidson style motorcycle. LEGO has only done this kind of "cruiser" as an alternate model before. "Flatbed Truck" could vary greatly depending on how big it is. If it is the same size as the 8292 Cherry Picker and 8052 Container Truck, I think that would be perfect. The alternate model of 8264 Hauler is also such a flatbed, but bigger. "Unimog" is very exciting, especially as a flagship. From the perspective of the name, this would seem to be a licensed product from Mercedes-Benz. If it is as large as I am thinking, it could be a glorious model. Personally, I hope it does NOT have Power Functions. I much rather have that cost go into more parts, complexity, and function and make this thing truly epic. Comparing to the 8466 Off-Roader, it could effectively be a Supercar but with 4WD and PTO functions. I'd like to see 4WD (3 diffs), a gearbox, a front implement such as a plow or post hole digger, 4 wheel suspension, and a detailed body and interior. I think the Power Puller tires are too wide, so I'm guessing the narrower tires (94.8 x 44 balloon) will be used instead. Another thing I would really like to see return is expansion packs, and the Uninmog would be perfect for it. If you could buy separate implements like a plow, an backhoe attachment, a loader bucket, a post hole digger, etc., I'd get all of them. Or they could do a single expansion pack which can be built into several different implements (but not at the same time). 8466 had an expansion pack (for a crane thing), and some of the old tractors had lots of different implements you could build.

As long as we're speculating on what "Cruiser" means, how about a Vista Cruiser!

It is a "word" from a non-English language, so pronunciation in English is up to us! Personally, I also say tek-neek (like technique). Don't know why, I just do, and it is therefore correct.

That's true. If you choose to build it in red or black it will be 100x easier to get parts. Nothing we can do about that except that hope LEGO starts making these parts in yellow again.

I had exactly the same problems, the back and the middle. I eventually figured it out by just adding one piece at a time from each view where I could see something. I'm pretty sure I got it right, or at least close enough.

"Cruiser" could also be a motorcycle. I don't think it will be another car since we already have a "Supercar" this year.

I don't think a sideloader is at all likely. One of the first considerations of the design team is that the model be immediately recognizable by kids, and virtually no kid would recognize a sideloader! This strategy followed some of the sets of circa 2003-2004 that were not recognizable by most people, like the airport fire truck.

Yes, everything is legal. There are a lot of tricks here to make all the angles, including the fact that the doors and sills taper inward toward the back slightly. But everything is done with pins and pivot points; no part stressing. It was a nightmare to make in MLCAD!

That's officially the largest post (in terms of loading time) that I've ever seen! I've been corresponding with the gentleman who made these images. Truly remarkable what he has done. There's no LDraw involved here; he modeled every one of these parts in CAD (CATIA V5) from scratch, then simulated all the kinematics. I can't imagine the amount of work involved, but the results are incredible. I'll be asking him to borrow these for Technicopedia because you could not ask for a better demonstration of the functions of these complex sets. I imagine something very similar could be done with SR3D, but I haven't tried it yet. I know 8480 exists in SR3D already and that non-moving structure can be shadowed. Does anyone care to do a comparison? Can you make an animated GIF from SR3D? I've only seen Youtube videos with screen captures, not animated exports.

It doesn't look like they credited him for the design anywhere. I have built it virtually! This allows me to see that all the parts line up and I have done it correctly. I haven't built the physical model yet, but I am collecting the parts to do so right now.

At the moment, it means that I am building one and I needed to create a file to figure out which parts I need. I am happy to share the file if anyone wants it, but at this point it does not have all the building steps in it. I don't know if I will create them. If I am able to build the model from the file without the discrete building steps, I'll probably leave it alone. If I need to add steps to help me figure it out, then I'll do that. I don't plan on making full PDF instructions though, although someone else could take my file and use it to do that. I have made about 30 submodels in the file, so it is broken up into small enough pieces that it should be buildable using nothing but LDView for visualization.

Since the functions are based on turning a crank (not a motor), you can make them as slow as you like.

Wonderful model with lots of inspiring features. If you care to share your SR3D file when it is done, I'd be happy to do a couple of renders for you.