Jump to content

agrof

Eurobricks Counts
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,941

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by agrof

  1. agrof
    It seems too specific application to me - if there would be such an essential need, the current machines would have the same function already. Not to mention, by raising the back, the efficiency of dumping is decreased as the angle is being reduced.
  2. agrof
    For me it doesn't - ground clearance is mostly effected by the axle itself, not by the midpoint of the chassis - axle height is constant. Also, raising the COG on rough terrain with higher load... not a clever idea. Okay, let's say it is related to movement to counterweight and balancing the bucket at heavy loads, still questionable to me, as raising the counterweight makes the wheelbase shorter = worse support for heavier and higher weight = tipping danger is increased (think of mobile cranes with and without otriggers). Also, what is the situation / need for such solution in the dumper than? As for LEGO set, I think it is a "cool" feature, I see children happy about it. As for real machine, I still don't see the point - maybe there will be a designer video, which explains the features in details. p.s.: please note, it is not against the set, it is just engineering curiosity.
  3. agrof
    I like the concept of "futuristic" (it is the very near future actually) machines, Lego should be up to date, but even showing the route where we are heading towards to children. IT, robotics, computers, drones are everywhere, we start to reach the point where children will not understand why the hell is a man needed to physically "sit on" a machine. The B model looks more and more appealing to me - better than the A. For me a minus the probably rather slow play ability due to the actuators. Anyhow: does anybody have an idea what for should be an actuator to adjust the rear axle - even on the real machine? I just can not figure out what benefits this solution could have. Increasing the wheelbase is fine for stability, but to decrease while raising the Center Of Gravity...
  4. agrof
    I love Cranes ETC - very good website and video reviews. Still, watching this (perfect commentary btw!), I can not get out from my head:
  5. agrof
    @Jim It seems to me, that we start to get some similar opinions in each fields, which could be groupped. Would be an idea to make a poll to see where is the bottom line in which percentage of this discussion (topic)? Maybe there could be only statements to choose (multiple choice) to see, which are the most important ones. It would be interesting to see how the community is built-up preference wise, where are the weights of the general interest of AFOLs. Some kind of market mapping.
  6. agrof
    Ah okay, I misinterpreted slightly - my bad. Meanwhile it is a bit confusing, while opinions were shared previously in other topics - those triggered the idea to create a dedicated topic (rightfully), - this brings by nature of course the appearance of the same opinions again in the dedicated topic. In this point of view i don't mind to have duplications, but of course if same people put the same comment in every topic, than it is a different.... eeeeerrrr.... topic. Sorry for being off topi...
  7. agrof
    @Permo Good to see different opinions, and even more important: to accept them. One of us finds the pleasure in MOCing, another one is on building official sets, one can be fan of both. I see no issue in this. New parts are essential for improvement, they are always welcome, meanwhile the sets as stand alone products can be / must be evaluated too. What you are saying is like people should get banned who buy TVs for sake of having TVs (and demanding to work them flawless), instead of buying IC-s, resistances, wires etc... and build their own TV. There is simply many interest, many aspects, there is no universal truth in the universe. You have the right to get annoyed by complaints - but than You just keep away from the forum for a while. People, who complain also have the same choice, or even further to quit from this hobby if LEGO is not evolving in their's taste. We are here to discuss, it is a friendly place to give out the steam, or just share the fun. Cheers!
  8. agrof
    In my job I am also bounded to "design to cost", so I have some clue about what You are writing about. Though, please note, that I put it into a context: Speaking of flagships... Yes, there are sets, which do need to match these limitations, but for flagships it seems the only goal is to make it bigger and bigger for no good reason - only for money and profit. Which is not Technic to me.
  9. agrof
    I am with @Erik Leppen. I am one who tends to complain more, than praise recently, but this goes for certain models - and especially about the quality. I believe the "problem" is, that TLG seemingly deleted the price tag limit, and shoots for market ceiling. This is understandable from company pont of view, but bad for design. Speaking of flagship models: designers are less bounded to budget, which brings lazyness, as You can rather easily pick 30 pcs more (also could be a target to raise the PCS tag year to year), than think twice about solving the same functions with more smart solutions with less piece count. This is the spirit what I miss in models like 42082 and Porsche + Chiron (even if I consider those a bit borderline sets). So I think releasing the leash is no good for Technic, and either for creativity in general. 8043 and 42043 (note the Nr 43 in both) are perfect flagships for me in every aspect: functions, solutions, realism AND reasonable prices.
  10. agrof
    The CLAAS was licensed set, so it is understandable for me not to have a proper B-model (which for I consider Mlonger's wheel loader, as since than CLAAS brought out one).
  11. agrof
    @Ngoc Nguyen It is never the designer's decision, they work in teams too, and all teams have leaders. They can pass over the B model for another designer as You wrote, it can be the same designer as well. Time has no matter in this either, what I mean: nobody in this team within TLG said, that this is not good enough, not worthy for a flagship model - please do alternatives, guys (all designers) please sit down together and give some ideas. They probably just lean back, and rely on the fact, that most of the customers will build the main model only, ran out of time and ideas, or is the whole B-model concept just a pain in the asss, so made a rushed just-to-show-something solution. I can not see the LEGO Technic legacy in 42082, neither in A, nor in B model.
  12. agrof
    Watch out for the wording, I was just a few types away from writing something nasty...
  13. agrof
    Nice, new infos - although new disappointments for me too. 42079 - my only complaint is the limited lifting range, other than that, this B model makes this a perfect set. 42080 - I don't get the original machine either, the B model is almost good, but how ugly proportions... parts pack. 42081 - Like the idea of futuristic machines, but as Technic set, I find those pretty boring: all functions seems to be operated directly, very basic for a 2nd biggest 2H set. I don't get the actuator to raise the back by rear axle, I hope there will be some reference for the real thing. Still, I don't think it will be very playable. The B model looks nice though. 42082 - Big. Unnecessarily big. The B model is just a huge let down, unimaginatie, and feels lazy - same undercarriage as the A model??!! 4000 pcs and this is what they could hammer together as a B model? This is not a year for me, maybe 42079 saves it.
  14. agrof
    Just for my understanding: did @Didumos69 and @jb70 a more compact, but similar effective (or even improved) gearbox for the Chiron in 2 weeks, using their free time? Fantastic job Guys, I am amazed, thanks for sharing! If I set it in comparison with full time engineers working on this for couple of months... You feel for sure, why I am scratching my head right now...
  15. agrof
    @kbalage Professional work, beautiful compositions! ? ? Building the 2 cars side by side brings a next level experience. I also like that there is no judgement (in terms of which one is the better) in the end, so everyone concludes according to own impressions. I must say, I like your comparison review the most from the available online selection.
  16. agrof
    Just checked, those parts (Part Nr: 35186 and 35188) are indeed can be purchased at Bricks&Pieces: https://www.lego.com/hu-hu/service/replacementparts/sale No Cents parts, but still cheaper (and more available), than via Bricklink for the moment.
  17. agrof
    Okay, I had hard time to believing this filmsyness to be authorized by TLG. Thanks! EDIT: surprising, that he doesn't show the suspension as function... maybe we AFOLs here overrate it's significance. BTW, I found an interesting discussion vie Promobricks (in german): https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=s3yUV5E5Vsg
  18. agrof
    I just watched the build video from Brick Builder, and the assembly of the front looks strange for me: @Somebody Who already built it: did he made a mistake, or are the sub assemblies of the front really, so poorly connected (1 pin for headlight, and panels below)? Can those parts move when You touch them? It seem very strange for me, as he attach the "eyebrows" everything seemingly wants to fall apart...
  19. agrof
    I would recommend to make 2 MODs at least: - an easy to install, with as less additional part count as possible - like @DugaldIC did. For people with low patience to rebuild the whole front, and want it simply work. - a complete upgrade, with optimized design for total front (weight saving +++). For people who are not afraid to go back to drawing table. Both have the challenge.
  20. agrof
    Nice old-school calculation, like it! Meanwhile, discussing about forces is just one thing to consider, but You also need to offset the upper pivot point - otherwise You flatten the geometry, thus reduce the base clearance of the suspension. So might win on spring force, but loose on suspension travel + ride height.
  21. agrof
    Thanks for the answers guys! Maybe this topic is good to be linked here:
  22. agrof
    @Ivan_M Now that is a brilliant idea! Can you please share what parameters (length, diameter, strength) the spring should have, what we should ask for?
  23. agrof
    I am a bit involved in RC business lately, and I was always wondering about using RC shocks with LEGO, example: https://www.ebay.com/itm/4pcs-70mm-aluminum-shock-absorber-Set-for-rc-rock-crawlers-CC01-D90-SCX10-/311703830304 In theory they could work, adjustable, for LEGO You don't even need to care about filling them with oil. I have 90 and 100 mm long shocks at home, maybe without the pivot balls (can be popped out) an axle would just fit through, I need to check.
  24. agrof
    Holy Moly - I didn't realized how big is this from the pictures previously! Questions: Do You happen to know how many pieces does it include? Does it have a steel frame as the usual big LEGO sculptures, or do the Technic pieces actually do the job? In second case I am super impressed.
  25. agrof
    I am not trying to underestimate those car people, so I am confident to say: they will also notice, if the suspension doesn't work.
×
×
  • Create New...