Blakbird

I'm not sure how you noticed, but I was glad to bring it! I brought 10 models, and your shovel was easily the most popular with the public. Everyone wanted to see it operate. It held up very well to being used all weekend. By the way, I spent the weekend before BrickCon removing the batteries and I can confirm that it is possible. It took several hours, but actually wasn't that bad once I figured out how to do it. I replaced the batteries with a brick built 4x16 counterweight box, and then used an extension cable and a train regulator to power the model at the con. That worked really well because I never ran out of power. The tether was not a big problem because the model moves so slowly anyway.

Making good progress on the CAD so far. One of the advantages of building the CAD file is that I get to scrutinize every part and function before I build, and it is fun to figure out how it works and fits together. As usual for Madoca, this looks like an incredibly well built model. At this point I've completed all of the mechanical functions and the model would be totally drivable in this state. Everything else is cosmetic. If you were to alter the appearance starting with this as a baseline, I think it would make a rather excellent moon rover. I'd like to stick a lunar base plate under it and see how it looks. Edit: I had to try it. This looks awesome! I articulated the suspension to match the terrain. Now it just needs a big rocket launcher strapped to the back. The internal combustion engine could be a problem on the moon though.....

????? The GMK6400 is a remote version. All functions are motorized and remote controlled.

I think this will be my next build. Has anyone created a PDF from Madoca's photos? If not I will do it myself since I like to be offline when building. I think I will try to build it in CAD first, as usual.

That part is used in M_longer's Liebherr L580 loader. It was the first time I had seen it.

Anything is possible, but it won't fit without modifying the backup structure.

Indeed the response has been amazing. I didn't expect to get through all those models so quickly. All of the models on the original list are now complete or in work (9397 and 42009). The only other files I'd still like are the Racers models 8146 and 8682. Ideally I'd also have the alternate 8862 combine, although I can live without it.

This is some incredible industrial engineering. Well done indeed. I'm glad I don't have this or I would sit there mesmerized by it all day.

I change the stiffness number in the lsynth.mpd file for pretty much every part I synthesize. I usually end up doing a given part 3 or 4 times until I get it right. I used to just use extra constraints to try to get the right shape, but the part always ends up looking "lumpy" if you use intermediate constraints. I try to constrain only the ends and then change the stiffness until it looks smooth. This is especially important for wheel arches. For string I just use a large number of constraints, at least one at each break point.

I don't think there's any way to help without some more information or some pictures.

They have!

Done. There were a lot of angles on this thing so it took a while.

I actually would have preferred regular blue. Light blue is a rare color with so few Technic parts that you can't really do anything with it. If these panels had been regular blue, it would have really helped to fill out the blue catalog (and I really need blue panels for a certain project!). I would guess that some of those details existed in a prior version of the model, but had to be removed to hit a certain target price point.

I would guess every model goes through a quality cycle that looks like a sine wave. The very first concept model isn't very good because some things do not work quite right or are not strong enough, etc. The second model is optimized by the designer. He fixes all the problems of the concept model and makes it as good as he can. This is probably what is used to make a decision about producing the product. Then the marketing and sales people get involved and make it worse (from a design standpoint) but more profitable. They reduce the number of elements, they reduce the number of colors, they simplify to make it fit into a price point. This will almost always result in a finished product that is less desirable for the adult fan than the previous model because the previous model did not have so many constraints. So I think it is not surprising that we don't like the final model as well as the preliminary picture. I remember when a bunch of early 8275 designs were shown next to the final product, and some of them were way better (but more expensive). Those original wheel arches looked a lot better, but it also looks like they weren't supported very well so I can imagine they were not strong. The old arches were also a different color front and rear. The new parts are the same part all the way around the car, so that means fewer elements, and they are also clearly more sturdy. I'm not sure why they changed the headlights so much. The new lights are so vertical that they would be terrible aerodynamically on a race car. They also changed the front splitter a lot from something that was curved and sculpted to something very square and flat.

8457 appears in Widetent's collection, but it is unfinished (just chassis, no engines). I was also surprised to see this one had been left out. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether to do all the different engine configurations or only the primary. Thanks to everyone's hard work, we are down to only 3 models from the original list: 9397 in work by Strikeman since Sep 7 42009 in work by lego2lego since Sep 5 How is it going? Do either of you need any help? The remaining model is 42030 which is impossible until we have an LDraw file of the bucket. I've heard Philo is working on that. Edit: Philo finished the bucket so I am going to get started on 42030 myself.

Thanks! All those pneumatic hoses in the file will be really useful when it comes time to document the features of 8462. I can appreciate how much work it was. No specific reason. That category is not just trucks, it is called "big rigs" and 8065 seemed too small to qualify. 8065 is part of "dump trucks" and also part of "mini". I admit the categories are somewhat arbitrary. They are chosen with the goal of making meaningful comparisons between similar sets. Edit: Upon further reflection, I've decided that you are right so I've added 8065 to that category.

Excellent, thank you! I didn't know anyone was working on that, but I'm glad to have it. It is an amazing B-model.

They are different, but neither is inherently stronger. A telescopic boom is a lever. The hydraulic actuator is the fulcrum, and the counterweight balances the load. This results in a beam in bending, and the bending moment is highest nearest the fulcrum (which is why the boom is the thickest there). A lattice boom is pinned so it is not a lever and it is not in bending. A lattice boom is only in pure compression. The moments are carried by the boom support cables. This makes it possible to operate a lattice boom at a lower angle without worrying about it bending. Of course, both of the above descriptions refer to a crane under load. Any boom has to at least support its own distributed weight, so a LEGO lattice boom will sag in the middle like a pinned-pinned beam. Make it as light as possible. That's a "Mega Wing Lift". I'm hoping we can add that to the Grove crane some day! Helps support lateral loading at extreme lengths.

Whatever I voted for must be the winner.

I'm at the point where I am ready to render to tow trucks, so if you have the structure complete I am willing to do the LSynth work. Quiz: How many parts do you need to have in a model before MLCAD and LDView become seriously unhappy? Answer: This many: (Note the empty spots where 8462 and 9397 will be).

I agree with both of those, but if I had to choose one it would be Komatsu because I already built a front shovel this year.

That second picture looks like optical aberration from a fisheye lens. I don't think the boom is really bent. In the first picture the boom main section crippled! That's not good. In any case, beam deflection under load is a guarantee. If you look at any of the data sheets from real cranes, you will see a footnote explaining that the lengths and positions shown in the table are not quite right because they ignore deflection. Efferman is right that the deflection should come from strain and not from poor fit between boom sections.

There are a dozen cranes working outside of my building right now, and I've spent a lot of time watching them. Real crane booms bend under load too, sometimes quite a lot, so I'd say your boom is behaving in a scale fashion.

Old Technic sets required you to cut your rigid hose to length, so it certainly counts as an "official" assembly method.

The same holds true of lots of sub-assemblies. For example, there is technically a part number for just the spring and piston of a shock absorber, but almost nobody sells them. It is much cheaper to just buy the whole shock and take it apart yourself.