Blakbird

Actually, that's not the same link I provided on TechnicBricks. The file I linked to did not have a reflection: I made my model using the same picture you did, so there is no way to know whether or not my model is correct.

You need to use that XML file to create a wanted list. Once you have the wanted list, you need to click on the "Wanted" tab and then on the "By shop" tab. It will tell you which stores have the most parts. It may not be possible to get them all at one store though.

I have two copies of this set and noticed exactly the same thing. Not sure why they stopped selling the metallic painted wheels, but the "plain gray" version of the set is definitely newer.

Philo rules. He has made more LEGO creations that have actual real-world applications than anyone I can think of.

The answer is in your question. A concrete truck. A tapered, cylindrical, angled, rotating drum should be a challenge!

Fewer parts may or may not translate into lower prices depending on how complex the parts are. For example, Bionicle is very expensive on a per part basis because the parts are so complex. Handling cost probably is not a large percentage these days since robotic pickers do it all. To take advantage of economies of scale, they want to make as many of each simple part as possible and use them in any many sets as possible. If the mold costs and machine setup costs are amortized over more parts, each part gets cheaper. I understand your point though. Everything LEGO does is a calculated decision. Whether each of us may agree or not, they have a good reason for each thing they do.

Seems people are being too serious. I certainly welcome a large number of the changes which have evolved and improved the Technic system since 1977. I fact, I think many of the modern models are much better than even some of those classics. And I have no objection to the new part in question; it actually looks like a useful part. I was commenting on certain parts (not this one) which add nothing to the System because they are just a combination of multiple parts into one. Those parts I don't like because they only make the building system more restricted. Any part which enables a new way of building or improves on an existing one is a good thing to me though. By the way, I did not coin the phrase POOP. It is already an AFOL word.

Ah yes, the POOP (pieces of other pieces) trend. In my opinion, a part should only be created if it allows something to be done which cannot be done with assembled individual parts. This is why I like small, simple parts the best. The fun and creativity of LEGO comes from combining parts in interesting ways to achieve useful results. That's why I don't like most of the Racers R/C line. They are basically one big part with wheels on it. Where's the fun in that? Contrast that with set 853 in which the steering was built up out of 2x2 turntables, axles were used for steering arms, and the crankshaft was built up from gears. That's LEGO!

Yes, it is very common for these to break but it has nothing to do with sitting for a couple of years. The material used to make them is very brittle so extreme care must be taken when attaching the end fitting or they snap. You also have to be careful not to flex them too far. I'm sure this fact was a big part of why the flex system was discontinued.

Excellent! How many chain links did you have to use? How did you attach the bungee cord to the individual log support sections to that the spacing would be correct?

I'd certainly call the addition of a working suspension an improvement, but I'm afraid a Ferrari (especially an Enzo) needs to be red. I like the sport truck.

For ridiculous suspension, you can't beat Grazi's monster truck. Doesn't really drive though.

Perhaps for a Supercar MOC, but all 3 of the first LEGO Supercars had adjustable seats. http://www.technicopedia.com/cars.html#comp

Forget the gearbox, tell us about the process you used to create that animation!

The LA produces chips because the harder metallic male threads cut the softer polyamide female threads. This effect cannot happen with pneumatics because there are no sharp parts. The only thing to wear out on pneumatics is the seals, but this is a function of time, not load. No, you have to have the valve block. The pump has no check valve because it needs to produce both pressure and suction. If you don't use the valve block, there is no way to push the pump more than more time because there is nowhere to draw air into the system or let it escape. This all happens in the valve block. In order to do multiple strokes and build pressure, you have to have the valve block.

Even the new actuators would be working very hard to lift the 8421 boom and I predict they would be heavily damaged over time. Conchas showed how significant loading produces plastic chips inside the actuator.

The old pneumatic actuators have the same area so theoretically have the same force output as the newer ones. It may just be that your actuator has leaky seals due to its age. A new linear actuator would not be able to handle the weight since the LA's fail on the 8043 boom and the 8421 boom is even heavier. They would work for a while, but I'd use pneumatics. It is impossible to use the old pneumatics without a valve block because there is only one port.

Voila!!

It is probably just a matter of changing the extension. LPub will only open .ldr and .mpd files, so just change the extension to one of these.

Another fantastic creation. Looks realistic, tough, and devastating! One question I have had since your choice to use 4 motors and two battery boxes though..... A problem I've always had with the IR remote system is that it is line-of-sight so it is easy to lose signal. You have two motors controlled by one receiver and battery box and another two motors controlled by the other receiver and battery box. On any given track side, there are two motors that are on different circuits. What happens if 1 of the 2 receivers loses signal? I would think that it only one motor was driving it would attempt to backdrive the other motor and cause some horrible grinding. Has this been a problem at all? I love the self levelling main gun and the machine gun that stays parallel to the chassis. The torsion bars are a simple yet effective touch as well. Hardly any automobiles use this any more, but my old Chrysler had torsion bars on the front suspension. I really liked it.

As usual, thanks for all your great work. Do you plan to share the LDraw file as well? That's the only way for me to make a render.

Me too. If there was any yaw rotation, the possible beta angle would have to be quite low or the rest of the linkages for the other axes would get tangled. No reason you couldn't add it though!

What are you talking about? I think everyone is being way too harsh on 8043. Firstly, I wouldn't call it a "failed" design. It is still one of my favorite sets ever. And even though it did have some problems, that can't be blamed on Anders. He is a designer who comes up with dozens of models, and I'm sure even came up with many versions of this model. Some probably had more or less motors, XL motors, or even pneumatics. Someone else decided which one to release to the public and yet another person was in charge of testing. Anders did nothing wrong and I'd count him as one of the best designers there is or has been. They released a great product which was just a little slow. Most companies would have left it at that but LEGO went farther to go back and make the product even better. Please remember that the things written here may very well be read by the people at LEGO. I'm sure Anders feels bad about the things which happened with 8043, but in no way should we be blaming it on him or saying he should lose his job. I think that's ridiculous. By the way, Monica left the team well before the 8043 set came out, so her departure has nothing to do with it either. Be nice, people!

Cool simulator, but I don't see any yaw. This only has pitch and roll.

I stared at the 8466 animation for a while, and it looks like the shift lever may have a 1 stud "orbit", meaning that it is 1/2 stud off-center along the length. So I guess 8448 is the only one that's perfect.