Saberwing40k

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but the 10283 Space Shuttle includes 1x1 bricks with axle hole: I don't know how useful this part is from a pure Technic perspective, but it could be very useful for builds that integrate Technic and System parts. Also, panels. I would not call these Technic, but they would be useful for boilers and tanks and other round things.

No significant force, this part pairing moves very freely. So much so, that you need a mechanism of some kind to lock movement if you intend to use it for something like that.

One thing I have never seen discussed with subtractors is power loss due to the driving motors backdriving the steering motor. I had this problem a while back with a MOC that lost a lot of power driving straight because of this. How do you prevent this?

I vote no, because I have no balls (Phrasing), which is a part that is not common among builders on this forum. Plus,some of the cooler, more impressive mechanisms are not the domain of most users, and are much harder to make, which raises the bar for entry. I feel that it would be a lot harder for a user to submit a simple model with GBC. Plus, while a lot of users like GBC, and like seeing the models, I don't think that interest in building is a common thing. But, the poll will prove me wrong or right. I have no personal interest in GBC building, which is another reason I voted no.

Whaat? Does this make them like the first friction pins, which were really stiff?

I think it might be human factors engineering. A 6x6 vehicle with front/middle axle steering behaves a lot more like a normal truck than a vehicle with front and rear steering. I think it has to do more with simplicity, though. A Stalwart needs only 2 extra links to get the axles to steer, whereas having the front and rear axle steer would require a second steering box, and a long steering shaft. You can see the steering link between the 2 front axles. Your design does look cool, though.

It sounds like you actually want a clutch mechanism controlling section B, and not a differential. This is a system used in GBC modules fairly often. In this video, you can see what I'm talking about. I think having a clutch over a differential would work a lot better for your purposes. If you're wondering what's the clutch, watch the little wheel that is used to grab the axles, and how it moves. This video shows an even better clutch.

I always get stuck with driven and steered axles, especially at smaller scale. Lego lacks certain parts that would make this easier, but I digress. Another hard part is wire and/or cable management. If you are building a large MOC with lots of electrical or pneumatic components, you know the struggle is real. This may be particular to me, but sometimes I run into the problem of I have a good solution, but I don't have enough of a specific part, and I don't want to buy parts. There is an easy fix, of course. I also sometimes have issues where I have to figure out what everything does after leaving a WIP, and coming back weeks or months later. Again, this may be a just me thing. Lastly, space management. Sometimes it's hard to fit in/around parts of your MOC you already built, like you thought you gave enough space for another component, but didn't.

I really like the review, but as for the set... Two thumbs down. This is not a Technic set. This is a Racers set sold under the Technic brand name. I really dislike how Lego has chosen to make Technic more like Racers. If this set has no drivetrain, why couldn't it have had proper live axles, versus this basic pendular stuff? Why no drivetrain? It should be perfectly possible to do that, with pendular axles. Also, the front minus the grille is kind of ugly. The lights just look plain wrong, and a lot of bits of the real Jeep are missing, for no reason. This just feels like it's a Technic set designed by and for someone who doesn't care about about Technic. If it were Model Team, like the Mustang, this level of functions would be fine. This set tries to split the difference, and manages to have all the cons of both approaches, but none of the pros. Model Team or Creator Expert sacrifices function for looks, whereas Technic usually does the opposite. This set awkwardly has neither the good looks of a Creator set, and offers none of the functionality of a Technic set.

Yes, do it. Chaining these Throwbot gearboxes is very cool, and done in some of the combo models. I don't have any pictures, but I have done this, and it's real neat. Not the most useful thing for Technic, but you could use this chain as the spine of a large mecha model.

Well, that's.... I'm not really sure what to make of this. This looks like some kind of weird NASA testbed, to be honest. It's kind of ugly, but if those white panels were adding some shaping to the nosecone instead of being canards, I think it would look way better. Looks kind of like this, I think.

Maybe the need the 3L axle somewhere in the B model. I'd actually prefer the 3L axle, those are still on the uncommon side.

In order to make it narrower, I'd actually invert it, so that the turntables that currently control the axial rotation become the bearings for raising and lowering, and the other turntables become the axial rotation. I'd then have a single shaft driving both axial turntables, you can get that by meshing the 12z gear and the turntable with an offset. I think that if you had a shaft right beside the black beams, you could do it.

Speaking as a Nerf fan, there are several reasons as to why this is. These projectiles are rigid, smooth, and dense, basically the opposite of a Nerf dart. The real issue with Nerf darts and hoppers stems from the fact that the darts are a little bit sticky, due to the foam and rubber heads, and compressible, so they don't hold their shape. The feeding mechanism used here would utterly destroy darts. It's a very cool model. Might you build a tank around this?

With 12 independent motors, I'd go with 3 Sbricks. Unless you are short on money, this is probably the simplest solution. Switching functions adds extra bulk and complexity. But, if you have enough PF IR receivers, you could have one used to switch between two battery boxes, hooked up in such a way that when one is on, the other is off. Doing this would leave you with 6 functions available at any given time. Although, I am curious, what do you need 12 motors for? I only see you needing at most 8 channels. If you think you need more than one motor for a function, you can just stack motors.

You don't even need the wave selectors, they just make things easier.

I don't know how many functions you need, but there are many ways to accomplish what you want for more than 8 functions. For instance, you can use splitter gearboxes, so 1 motor is used to control multiple functions. Set 8043 uses this principle to get 6 functions from 3 motors, plus one for switching. If you used 2 way splitters, you could get 14 functions. If you used 4 way splitters, you could get 28 functions. You could also use 3rd party Bluetooth bricks, like SBrick or Buwizz. Each of those has 4 channels, and you can use many with the same control profile. You could also use Lego Control+, but that might be more expensive, especially if you already have a large number of PF motors. Another option is to switch control of motors electrically, but this is trickier than doing things mechanically. But, how many functions do you actually need? For this crane, you'd need only 6 functions. Drive Steer Outriggers Slew Boom up/down Hook up/down You could also add 2 more functions, like ladders, or a mode to switch steering.

Wait, what? I look away for 5 minutes and we have info about 2021 Technic sets already? Oh wait, these all look boring. I am not optimistic. Why does it feel like Lego is trying to turn Technic into the old Racers theme. I'm all for entry level sets and diversity, but this year, I feel like we didn't have that many good Technic sets. Like that garbo stunt bike set. I really think that Lego should bring back the Racers theme, for pullback and other car models, and have that be a stepping stone between regular and Technic sets. I think there's enough room in the market for that. I'm also still a bit sore over Lego canceling the Osprey, because of a group of activists who probably hate all kinds of boys toys anyway. I think Lego giving in to them is a bad move, but I also don't think it's something to argue about here. Another thing I find kind of weird is the way some sets with Control+ are priced. Some cost what you'd expect a set of the size to cost, while others cost a lot more. Why can't all the C+ sets cost the same amount as a normal set? Also, I'm slightly bitter, because Lego could have done that with PF sets to, but didn't, for whatever reason. I need to see some pictures. I don't have high hopes, but that means I probably won't be as disappointed.

That looks loads better, but I think any issue you are going to have is the frame itself flexing. With that in mind, have you considered splitting the difference between this and a tracked version, and made a wheeled version that was skid steered? That might be easier to make strong, but issues with turning could make that a problem.

Ah 2020. It's like, to quote the Angry Video Game Nerd, mixing $h!t with turds! It's been an absolute dumpster fire, and this MOC reflects that. Excuse the potato picture, I think my phone might be broken. Stay safe out there, the big 'Rona is no joke.

Wow, for being such a long and well shot video, the builder manages to include shockingly little actual information. But, I had my suspicions, and the video confirmed it, the transmission is indeed a design that uses a motor that rotates one direction only, and has a gearbox that is setup to change between directions, automatically. I'd have to actually make something to show this, I'm not sure how best to explain in words.

Seeing the blueprints overlayed, now I understand why this set bugs me so much. The dump bed is just way too big, both in height and width, and the angle at the back is not replicated. The cab is also totally out of proportion, and both those things being out of proportion makes this set look really off. And for a licensed set, proportions that are off this bad are a major detriment to it. I'm not that much of a stickler, I'm okay with a licensed set not having the exact proportions of the real vehicle, but the fact that the scale is off this much, and in a way that does not even look good, is inexcusable. To make this even worse, there is no actual reason for this compromise. Some things may be off due to there being no way to build something that would still be durable or functional, but there is no reason for the cab to be too tall, as there are no mechanisms in it, same thing with the dump bed.

My entry: This competition was a lot of fun, and there are so many good entries.

This model was the result of a choice I had to make. I could either come up with an entry for the Eurobricks small car contest, or I could enter the TLCB Lockdown Competition. I really didn't feel inspired to make a small car, so I went with making a C model. I chose 42098, largely because of the fact that it was the only set I hadn't started to mix into my large collection. Initially, I was going to build some kind of wheeled vehicle, but then I hit a real builder's block. At that point, I was looking at the small wheel arches, and thought that it looked kind of like the bottom parts of an attack helicopter cockpit. After I realized that, I made the cockpit section, and got going from there. This helicopter is ultimately a nonesuch, and combines design elements from a number of real and fictional helicopters, including the Hellhound helicopter from Patlabor 2, and a design I found on Deviantart called the Fujin, which was designed by MeganeRid, The rotors spin, obviously, but they also have collective pitch control, which was very hard to implement given the parts available in the set. 42098 includes a shockingly small selection of gears and other technical bits, so I had to get very creative. The rotors are at their lowest position in this picture. The collective does not use a turntable, but instead uses a brick built solution that hearkens back to the very first Technic helicopter, set 852. The actual control for this function is a lever with a red bushing, on the right of the photo. This is the blades at maximum pitch, which better shows the collar that is used to simulate a swash plate. The second most major function is the complex landing gear. A 12z gear at the end of both wings controls this function, which uses worm gears to prevent the gear from collapsing. The first pic shows the gear retracted for flight, the second and third show the gear down for landing. The last set of functions relate to the gun pod, mounted under the fuselage. The pod can be traversed 90 degrees to either side, and will clear the landing gear towers. This is controlled by a 12z gear located behind the air intakes. The gun will also elevate from horizontal to almost vertical, using a knob on the back of the pod. An underbelly view, showing the gun pod, as well as part of the rotor drivetrain. The rotor is spun by the 2 12z gears on the tail. The gun pod, up close. The rubber connectors on the forward fuselage are actually a travel lock, and can hold the gun in place when not in use. Maximum elevation. Or is this depression? I can't decide how you'd define this. On the tarmac. The landing gear do work, but I also built a stand so that this heli can be posed as if in flight, with the gear retracted. Some up close pictures: This detail is actually important. As most of you have probably noticed, this helicopter has no tail rotor, and is not coaxial, so what gives? My vision is that a real version of this helicopter would use a NOTAR system, which uses a ducted fan to effectively replace a tail rotor. That's what the large vents on the tail are supposed to be for. Now, in terms of scale, this model is quite large. CamelHog the hedgehog and Spam for scale. One last beauty shot: The color scheme may not be very military, but I'd chalk that up to this being an airshow/display team livery. All in all, I am quite happy with this model, it was a real challenge to make in the limits of the parts I had, so much so was actually running out of 3L pins, but it came together nicely, and the color scheme actually worked out a lot better than I expected it to. Now, on to the contest. Stay safe out there, folks. P.S. I'll give a shout out to the first person who is able to guess where the manufacturer's name of this heli came from.

Just buy from Bricklink. You could also try ebay, but for specific parts, Bricklink is best.