Saberwing40k

Nondescript? Crappy? No no no. This is a Fleetwood Cadillac, top of the line. Nobody bought this car who didn't want it. It was never a driving appliance. While it is not that exciting, this isn't a mundane vehicle. Also, as for the blog post, this vehicle had a 260hp V8. That is not low power. And, because it is a V8, even if it makes relatively low power, it does so smoothly, which is what you want in a luxury cruiser like this. Also, at the time, this was the longest production car made in the US. You could also option a 7000 pound towing package, which is also quite unusual. I'm sorry, but you're a bit mistaken. Also, this is not a common vehicle. I was not able to find numbers for this specific trim, but the total production of this generation (4 model years.) of Cadillac Fleetwoods was 90,535. In 1994 alone, Toyota sold more than 11 million Corolloas. That same year, only 27,473 Cadillac Fleetwoods were sold. It certainly is not a very usual vehicle to see in Technic, though. It's really rare to see an American luxury sedan built like this.

Why would you use these cylinders? They're the least common and most expensive type, and the stroke to bore ratio is entirely wrong. The older standard length cylinders are a lot more correct. I don't think I have seen a steam engine, or indeed any engine, with the bore to stroke ratio of the 1x11 cylinders. Those should really be reserved for pneumatic functions, and not pneumatic engines. Also, I think you should actually use bigger wheels to take full advantage of the available stroke of the the pneumatic cylinders. Ideally, the crank would match the stroke of the cylinders exactly.

I agree. This seems to be a Town model more than anything. The fact that it is minifigure scale and not a real vehicle seals the deal. Now, I'm not a moderator, but this forum is for: Models that are primarily Technic, or a large amount of Technic functions even if the shell is system. Realistic large scale models, like Model Team. Even if it is not a real vehicle, it can still fit. Scale models of real vehicles, even at minifig scale. Hey @Jim do you think we could have a pinned topic to help posters figure out which forum they should be posting in? Because I see a lot of weird edge cases and things that might be confusing. A flow chart might be helpful. But, debate about correct forum aside, this is a cute lil monster. I dig the angry eyes.

i generally don't find them to be that bad. It can be kind of annoying, but I'm pretty sure it's needed because of how the motor is sized. This makes absolutely no sense. Just leave a stud between the M motors. Boom, instant odd spacing. Plus, you have room for a driveshaft to go between them. I think this is a flimsy at best reason for the shape of the motors. Wait, are we talking about the PF L motors, or the Control Minus ones? Because the newer motors make not a whole lot of sense.

Yay. Yet another Technic set that isn't Technic, but Racers. C'mon Lego, just reintroduce Racers if you're this committed to it, and let Technic be Technic. Also, this set is probably going to be way overpriced, like almost every other control+ set. At least there do seem to be some interesting new parts and recolors. Like, those Red gears. What is up with that? This seems like stock photos, so it can't be a prototype thing, and it seems weird to have red gears given the potential to confuse them with clutch 16z gears. The 1x1 panel extenders are kind of interesting, especially for adding striping.

Well, it's taken me a while, but I have finally collected my thoughts on this. This project is absolutely nuts, and I applaud you for it. Since you seem to be adamant about not using non Lego parts, I'm not going to even bother discussing a steel frame. However, your model is huge, there is no other way to say it. It's as long as a 40' shipping container, but 50% wider, at least at its widest point. At this scale, I see absolutely no point in attempting to design a frame. There are so many potential pitfalls to designing a beam of this scale digitally, real prototyping would be mandatory. I can think of no computer or program that would be able to subject a Lego construction like this to physics testing, AND you'd need some pretty specialized knowledge to do that. Regarding the size, part count, and weight, I looked around for something I remember seeing a long time ago. This guy built a minifig scale model of the Japanese WW2 battleship Yamato. It is 22 feet long, 3 feet wide, and weights 330 pounds. It also contains about 200,000 bricks. Your theoretical Executor SSD would be twice as long, 4 times as wide, and probably twice as thick. So, 16 times bigger. Now, this of course ignores the fact that the Executor tapers quite a bit, so it's not 12 feet wide the whole way down, but your model can't sit on the floor like this one can, so it balances out. From this ballparking, your model would take 3.2 million bricks, weigh 5280 pounds, and cost about $320,000, if you are able to do the average of 10 cents per part. Now, I think you'd actually not need quite that number of parts, given that the Executor would not have nearly as much detail, and large swathes of it could be made out of relatively few large panels. This is still a nice large number, though. For some further structural inspiration, I'd look at the life size Technic builds of the Bugatti Chiron and Lamborghini Sian, which are both mobile models that are quite large, and also look at some of the stuff TJ Avery has built:http://66.39.118.91/model_17bridge/index.html Also, you may need a bigger computer. Rendering 3 million bricks would be quite taxing.

These are some interesting solutions. But, what's with your connections on the cylinders? Is this a running mold change nobody has previously talked about? Or are these clone cylinders?

I love the fact that this set brings back the trans clear engine blocks. I liked those better. I gotta say, the design of this set just doesn't scream "Batmobile". It's not the fault of the set though, I am not fond of the source material design. But that's not very relevant to this forum. Although, I can't help but think, why have this Batmobile as a Technic set? Most Technic fans would want the Tumbler or the Arkham Knight version, which could have interesting Technic functions, and most movie fans would want something either UCS or Creator Expert. Kind of an odd choice.

Hmm, we seem to have veered kind of off topic with discussion of 4 wheel steering. To answer the OP, No, I do not think that 42110 is the best Lego car since 8880. Now, this is not to say that it's a bad model, but it sure does not live up to 8880. In my opinion, no Lego car since has. I think the best one since 8880 is actually either 8448 or 8466. Both distill a car into a very fun technical model, with well working functions, wrapped in a stylized concept car body.

You could argue this back and forth. I'd say that the Ponsse Scorpion is probably closest, but even then, the cabin is still ahead of the chassis pivot, not above it. I think the real problem with 42080 is that the wheels and chassis are way too small in comparison to the cab and boom. Also, in 42080, the cab sits way too far forward, it should be farther back.

Yup. If Lego wants to make cars with low amounts of functions, then they should bring back Racers, and put cars in that. Some actual infuriating details include: 42037. Just, all of it. Formula Off Roaders are very specific vehicles, which have V8 engines, live axles, and four wheel drive. Not four bangers, 2 wheel drive, and the same tired double wishbone suspension. They could have called it literally anything else, but no, marketing had to go with something the set is clearly not. Car sets that do not have the drivetrain of the vehicle they are replicating. 42122, 42126, and 42056 are some egregious examples, being RWD models of vehicles that are 4WD. 42122 is double egregious because it lacks an entire drivetrain, and 42056 is triple egregious because of the flagship level price. On that tangent, some sets have just stupid suspension choices. 42122 arguably fits here, but one could also argue that sprung suspension does not work as well with such a small model. 42099 is a much worse example, with the stupid pendular front axle, which is unrealistic and unattractive. Sets that should use 9.5L shock absorbers, but don't. Why Lego? 42099 would have worked a lot better if you had used these long shocks. Did they lose the molds, or something? Why has Lego not used the very useful long shocks since 2012? These are sought after parts, but also obnoxiously expensive because they came out in only 2 sets more than 9 years ago. Lego, please bring these back. I may be a bit salty about the prices of 9.5L shocks on Bricklink. 42066's wings. Sets with ridiculously bulky axles. I'm looking at you, 42129. 42129's grille. It looks bad, and nothing like either version of the real Zetros. Hyperactive clutch gears Lack of clutch gears where they are really needed. 42055's conveyor belt has some small gaps that sometimes have parts fall in, causing jams and the machine to stop. These could have been easily designed out. Manually controlled linear actuators. Not fun. Tires are too wide/wrong tread. Wheel design is badly compromised. Others have talked about this better. The standard wheel hub design is also a needless compromise, and has flaws that should be addressed, like wobble and poor steering angle. Plus almost every thing else already mentioned in this thread. Oh, and Control+ is infuriating, but I don't think that's on topic.

43. 858 Blue Boxer Original Set: 858/8858 Auto Engines Description: Functions: Rotating crank with reciprocating pistons, belt driven fan, belt driven distributor with rotating contact piece Part Count: 627 (Original 240) Differences from original: Pistons and crankshaft are now in correct boxer configuration, with pistons on opposing sides reaching top dead at the same time. Sets of pistons are clocked 120 degrees apart, distributor is functional as opposed to cosmetic. Pictures: Original Set Picture: (Image courtesy of Blakbird's Technicopedia) Discussion Topic:

I've added some more pictures to the first post.

So, I had a lot of ambition, and good ideas for my studless remake. Originally, I was going to do a studless version of set 6957 Solar Snooper, a set from my childhood. Unfortunately, my mental illness kicked in, and I was left at a week before the original deadline with no model to enter. But, I wanted to build something, so I looked at Technicopedia for inspiration, and landed on set 858 Auto Engines. This set is unique, because as many Technic sets feature an engine, only this one is dedicated to engines. The model I chose was the 'Boxer" engine, as that is one that I could improve on, without adding any functions. Now, the original engine is not actually a boxer, as the pistons do not reach top dead center at the same time. In addition, a 6 cylinder boxer should have the pistons clocked 120 degrees apart, which would have been impossible to do with the parts at the time. With all of the advanced parts introduced since 1980, I was able to correct both of these issues. Now, the engine is a proper boxer, with the pistons clocked 120 degrees apart. Aside from that, there is one other major functional difference. On the original model, the distributor is just a rotating shaft that does not actually do anything. On my model, I was able to add a rotating contact piece that connects to each of the spark plug wires in sequence. The engine also has a belt driven fan, just like the original. My model also features the detailed exhaust pipes and spark plug wires. As for scale, I think my model is about 50% larger, given that I used 3 stud diameter pistons, versus the 2 stud pistons of the original. But, the scale increase allowed me to make the crankshaft and pistons much more realistic and functional. Believe it or not, the fan was actually one of the biggest sticking points for me in terms of what to use. No brick built fan felt right, so I used the fan tail from 8068, which is actually a repurposed wheel cover. Unlike the original, the belts are configured in such a way that they can be added easily, without any bent paper clips. Size comparison with 42123. My engine is roughly the same width, and about 2/3rds the length. LDD cutaway to show the crankshaft. Video:(No Sound) https://bricksafe.com/files/Saberwing007/tc20-studless-858-boxer-6-engine/20210808_175126_1.mp4 So, that's my entry, a new version of the 858 Boxer engine.

It really depends. I went to tow truck parade some time ago, and all of the trucks have vertical slats over a grill mesh. But, I think you could also get a grille with horizontal slats. Like this:

I don't know if this belongs here, but CADA also makes the battery box with remote, and that's fine, so this should be as well. Recently, I was watching a video by Brickmeet, a Youtuber who reviews military models made by Cobi and other manufacturers. He was featuring a remote control model of a Tiger tank made by CADA, and the model included a part I could not identify at first, but turned out to be a motor. Now, this is very interesting, as it is 2 studs wide, by 4 studs long, making it very attractive for builders of compact models. And, unlike Circuit Cubes, the motor uses a standard PF connector, meaning that you can use it with any PF power source. Now, I haven't been able to find where to buy this, but this could be a great find for our community.

I may be interested in some sets as well, but I'd need to know price before committing to anything.

I have never, and I mean never, seen a truck like this with a steering rear axle. Keep in mind that this is designed for towing potentially other trucks, which is why the rear axles are so far back. This is so that the axles can take the weight of the vehicle on the towing fork. The road trains I have seen that are like that have 3 rear drive axles, and then 2 steering front axles. I have not seen very many vehicles with 3 rear axles that have a steering axle, but they do exist. Most of the ones I have seen have been trucks with cranes or else some other kind of equipment on the back, and not tow trucks. I see this configuration on some euro style trucks with mounted knuckle boom cranes, often times the truck needs the steering angle because they are operated in the mountains or other areas with twisting roads.

Yuck. That's all I can say. Yet again, we have a set that was better in the preliminary photos, that somehow got worse for production. The white 6x6 wasn't the best, but it was loads better than this. This looks like the B model for something much cooler. Heck, there was a C model Zetros made from 42043 that looks better than this. This looks to be 42070 all over again, where Lego has an off road truck that can't actually go off road, but has a lot of compromises that serve nothing.

I think the candies I received were contaminated, what is that? I thought the first version was bad, this is somehow even worse. Like straight up barf inducing bad. What is going on with this set?

I in particular don't like Monster Jam, and I don't think such a limited contest is that good an idea. I mean, I thought that even the motorcycle contest was too limited. I'd like to have some freedom. I think the best contests strike a balance between being super restrictive, and being too broad.

I also like the idea of a remake contest, but I propose a category that has a studless set remade in studded style. I think it would be interesting to see 8258 remade like 8868. Another thing that I think would be cool would be to remake City or other non Technic sets in Technic style, which Thirdwigg also did, with a Technic remake of 6352. I have suggested this before, but I think it would be cool to have a Shrink Ray/Expand-O-Ray contest. There would be two categories, one where a big set is made small, and one is where a small set is made big. I also really dug the Lego ideas contest to design the Volvo construction equipment of the future, so I'd like to see some wacky concept machines. Unlike some, I do support a military contest. But, it should not be Lego sponsored. I don't think they'd like that.

Shame you didn't attach any images, this is a really nice model. Especially for something that is almost pure Technic.

Yeah, the new picture is only somewhat better than the old one, and is still clear as mud. The wheel size is uncertain, but the tires are definitely not Xerion ones, based on counting the number of channels in the tread. I don't think the wheels are the 56mm ones, just going by the apparent size of the model. I still can't decide if I like this model or not. I don't see it as being more than a 42099 with an extra axle, and probably similar piddly performance. Any complexity seems to be nonexistent. But, like I said, the picture is clear as mud, so who know. A very real possibility is that Lego is using decoy models to fool the bootleg makers in China, and the actual set only shares the vehicle type and color scheme.

The more I look at this thing, the more I dislike it. The rumored part count and price have got to be way off. At least, I hope they are. In my opinion, this looks worse than 8275, and does not seem to really innovate much. Now, if we get planetary hubs for the drive sprockets, that would be something. But, as it stands, this feels like a really half baked model, and I hope the final version looks better. One thing I really don't understand is the linear actuators going to the blade. That assembly looks like the lights would spin as the blades are raised and lowered, but I'm not so sure. P.S. If you want to see pics, check out the Technic subreddit. I'm allowed to mention where I found these, right?