Saberwing40k

With the massive ground clearance, this almost looks like a Foremost Commander carrier. That isn't a bad thing, it looks really nice. If I may suggest some things, I think your outriggers look a little bit wimpy, and kind of narrow. It looks as if you have enough room in the chassis to include some actual extending outriggers, which would look a lot better. Also, you should add a slew bearing using some of the hubless gears from 42055. What you have right now would not be adequate for any kind of superstructure. Also, I dig the fact that you have actual transparent parts for the windshield. I don't think I've ever seen that on a Technic model.

You know, I think a lot of the beef with this set boils down to it's not very innovative. 42009 pushed Lego cranes forward, whereas 42082 is a giant step backwards, with the single section boom and unrealistic outriggers. 42082 just isn't exciting in the same way some other flagships were. It's not a bad set, but it is not exciting. Also, I feel as if both the scale and number of parts are wrong. Lego seems to have focused on making the set as big as possible, instead of as big as it needs to be.

Okay, first of all, you should always put questions in your thread title. Secondly, you're a bit behund the times. With the set you have, the motor direction never needs to be reversed, so the baterry box only needs to be on or off, and thus 1 position is blocked off. With 42054, the reversal of functions is done mechanically, which means you assembled it right, and there is nothing wrong with the set.

This set really feels like a missed opportunity, and the B model, if implemented better, would have been a far better set. Also, the PF really adds nothing, and the colors are horrendous.

You know, in this case it was bad to show the prototypes. The excavators in particular would be way better set. This set feels like a real missed opportunity, both in terms of new colors, and functions. It seems rather empty for such a large set. Also, why does Lego continue to do non numbered bags for some Technic sets? Why use color barf to make things easier to build, and then use non numbered bags to make things harder?

The trouble is that it is overpriced. The PF adds nothing to the set. Also, both the A and b model are ugly, there are too many colors and it is overpriced. I'd be a lot happier if Lego had given the set 4 pneumatic functions instead of PF that adds no value to the set.

Time to make a custom pin using some 3mm brass rod! I'm really surprised, usually the bevel gears fail long before the diff does.

Okay, Update time! "But Saberwing, you went 2 months without posting an update." Yes yes I did. The awkward moment where you haven't updated in 2 months. However, I believe that it was Confucius who said,"It does not matter how slow you go, so long as you do not stop." Also, @Sariel has had plenty of projects he's worked on for years. And, I have had a few Real Life things slow me down, and a few things with the build. I ran into a nice builder's block wiring in the taillights, which was a real pain in the rear, and still isn't done. But! I do have some substantial structural work done. I have modified the rear outriggers, rebuilt the frame, and connected that to the front outriggers! It's only temporary, but it gives you an idea of how this is going to work. Kenworth C500 Outriggers. by Saberwing007, on Flickr Ignore the yellow beams, they're just there temporarily while I figure out the rest of the internals. The whole outrigger module with crane is going to be completely detachable, and not reliant on the truck frame. The outriggers extend really far, as you'll see later. IMG_20180702_144022~01 by Saberwing007, on Flickr Side view of the outriggers. The small turntable makes them more reliable, while the two geartrains extend the outrigger (top), and lower the pad.(bottom) Figuring these out and getting them to interact with the frame was rather difficult. Outrigger Internals. by Saberwing007, on Flickr Internals. This also shows the linear actuators that spread the outriggers. I wanted to use a worm gear mechanism to do this, to sync with the front outriggers, but that proved unworkable. Instead, I'll be using a differential somewhere. Outrigger Joint by Saberwing007, on Flickr The joint that connects the outrigger leg to the frame. this was rather complex, because it has to be fairly stiff, and pass 2 functions through. There's only 1 function now, I haven't added the other one on this side. Getting this to work was an exercise in frustration, but we got there. So Far So Good. by Saberwing007, on Flickr And now, the moment you've all been waiting for, the outrigger subassembly on the truck. They're not connected yet, but will be. Wingspan 1 by Saberwing007, on Flickr Wingspan 2 by Saberwing007, on Flickr The outriggers at full span. The span is 55 cm wide, and 41 long. That gives us a nice large support base. Kenworth C500 Old Rear Outrigger by Saberwing007, on Flickr The old version. These ones sat too high, and had a bad deployment mechanism. The outrigger itself is mostly unchanged, but the frame was scrapped. The new version is lower and stiffer, allowing the outriggers to sit at a correct height. I'm sorry for the sporadic updates, but, you know, real life.

This is super cool. I never thought Lego would do this. I'm a little disappointed that the legs aren't poseable, but at the same time I know why. Hip joints are one of the hardest things to get right in a mech, and so Lego decided to forgo that for sake of stability.

That B model is so lazy and poorly designed, yuck! I'm willing to forgive it, though. It at least tries something new, and I've always seen good B models as a bonus. So, it's not that bad. Also, I don't think there's an overall downward trend in B models. This just happens to be one of the bad ones.

That's very interesting. I find the part about the camera arm striking. The Volvo designers didn't see it as needed, until the kids pointed out that they wanted to know if the machine could see them. That's a part of engineering that is often left out.

Black and gray, please. Yellow and red should only be used for decoration. But what about axles with stops? I think they should be dark gray for even lengths, and tan for odd ones.

The problem you're having is that the digital file does not actually show the suspension at rest, which would have the beams angled downwards. As shown in the files, the suspension is bottomed out, and can not be compressed any farther, but in practice this just limits travel.

What kind of dye did he use? I'm generally against painting parts, unless it is a non Lego color for a special project, or a color the part is not manufactured in, or if it is, annoyingly rare on Bricklink. Even then, it has to be done well. Dye would work far better than spray paint, depending on what it is. Boiling water with dye might distort parts, but he might be using something different. Speaking of, @mahjqa had some custom painted panels on one of his creations, and they were painted, but he got them from a friend, and said friend was cagey about how he did it.

What about a contest where Jim picks an industry, and we must pick a machine from that industry, like the crane contest? It could be any industry, like mining, because the mining industry is diverse, and includes many vehicles and machines. Another idea I've had is to have a more technical kind of challenge, where the vehicle must perform a set number of functions, such as climb over an obstacle 7 bricks high, or carry some kind of defined container and be able to off load it without manual intervention. One such implementation is a vehicle that can drive and steer, and fire a projectile. Yet another idea, which is going to be at least mildly controversial, is to have an all military contest. This probably could only ever work with an SBrick sponsored contest, for obvious reasons. I do not support rules based on part count. Unless everyone has LDD files, or something similar, it's just too much of a pain in the butt to be worthwhile.

I'm going to go into agent provocateur mode and say I don't really like any of these. The second one in particular. Also, for #3, how do you define non vehicle? Do tower cranes count? What about a rail mounted harbor crane? For this contest I'd say #3 is the least bad, but as others have said, it's almost a little too broad.

Thank you Jim, the contests are always great for the community. Also, I have another good idea. What about a Technicify a set contest? Basically, you would take any set that isn't Technic, and make it into a Technic set. I know @Thirdwigg did something where he made an old City set into a Technic set, and the result was rather nice. Given Lego's rich history, I think it would be a nice diverse contest with lots to choose from.

What about a Mercedes G63 AMG 6x6? That's a head turner, but I reckon that a Defender would attract people to look at it in awe, as those people would for any large set. A Defender is iconic, yet humble, like the Beetle or Mini, which Lego have done, albeit not in Technic. I think for the UCS Technic line to have any staying power, Lego has to introduce new parts and functions to attract actual Technic fans. Or maybe they don't, and people will get upset at Lego for churning out endless supercars with similar functions, when they could be doing more technically interesting things.

A music video for Daft Punk's Harder Better Faster Stronger, with Technic letters, filmed using a GoPro on a custom Mindstorms controlled rig. Made by this guy:https://www.youtube.com/user/fastythefastcat

Hey @aminnich, I've got a 17 stud wide axle for you: 17wideaxle by Saberwing007, on Flickr LXF file:http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/saberwing2/Ideas/17wideaxle.lxf

Firstly, I'd get it connected together. It looks good from a functions standpoint.The first piece of advice I'd give is the cab could stand to be much larger.

So, you're a little bit lazy?

Why are so many people asking? Do you not know how to Google search and calculate scales? I don't mean to sound harsh, but there are some questions that you can answer easily.

Xerion would be way too big for the scale, but I can make a recommendation.If you use set 8264, you can get a nice articulated dump truck that should scale with the Mack. You could also consider making a dump trailer of some kind to go with the Mack.

It's actually a bit closer to 1:20. I calculated based on wheel sizes.