896gerard

Did anyone notice before a change in quality of the 57518 part? The 'new' variant has a different feel to it and should really be a different mould type in Bricklink, imho. It can be interconnected with the old parts but the color and feel don't match too well. I found 10% of my 500 link treads being a different quality, Bricklink store are sure the parts are genuine Lego. Made a short about it:

Hi, reviewing your '3 axles through a turntable' solution.. I'm back from some old times. Hence also replying to an old post. Too bad Lego hasn't listened, after 9 years... video

For long, I've wanted a small strong mini Lego Technic motor, smaller than an M-motor. As I recently learnt how to draw Lego parts and had the opportunity to use 3D printed nylon (using laser sintering) , I decided to try a small motor as well. As the PU motor stuff is getting big and heavy, this is my response: a small easy-mountable motor with a case of only 5 by 2 by 2 studs. 70% of the motors in Lego Technic models don't have to be large. Only the mount of this tiny motor is 2x3 studs. The mount is tailor made for Technic applications: if you build often with M-motors you will know that an M-motor always must be connected to a 1L beam to ensure that the gears won't slip and to mount the M motor securely. The mount design of this new motor eliminates the need for the beam, so that's one stud saved already. Because the motor is only 2 studs wide, 3 mini motors can be in the space of 2 M-motors. Also, 3 mini motors take up the space of one XL motor.. The exterior design is derived from a PF M-motor, because I like the design and want to keep using the PF looks. This is still a work in progress as I need to mount a 9V connector and insert the inner electric motor(already in stock here). I also need to do some more painting and sanding. Nonetheless, the printed parts are quite accurate. I will give an update soon when the motor is working. The motor gets internal electrics that work up to 12V so also third party remote control bricks will be allowed to use their boost modes. My big hope is that TLG understands that we need small motors and remotes, not big ones. The length of 5 studs makes this motor very easy to put in all kinds of leftover spaces. Thanks for reading. I'm open to design improvements!

Interesting to see this concept here, in 2015 I got this exact same idea and printed it on a home 3D printer. You can watch it in action below. Now, in 2020, print quality of 3D printers has massively improved and nylon is stronger than PLA. Based on my own PLA gear, think this nylon setup will handle your specified torque.

Hi Konstrakt, I really appreciate your attempt at this theme. Your solution used complicated machinery. It seems that 'great' minds think alike, or not? I used a relatively 'simple' system as I had a car-like bodyshape in mind and with my wheel size, there wasn't much space left as the 90 degree swinging wheels take up a LOT of space. (roughly a car, back in 2014 my building skills were not that refined ;)

Ehm they are currently handcrafted by me in my spare time. My brother does some of the metal work. It's a very small workshop I have with low production numbers. Do you think there is a real market for these guys? These are not Lego parts!

It is very hard to do the printing yourself. A normal 'home' 3D printer is not accurate enough. This cilinder is made using SLS (selective laser sintering) printing techniques. This makes it very expensive. Cilinders start at €50 a piece, which is due to low numbers. When you make 10, the price will halve, but not much lower than that. After all, a cilinder with full metal inner workings is very strong but also.. expensive.

I tested it with three motors and I tested it in the same direction as the cilinder movement. The fact that I find a higher strength in three cases and tested the force in the direction that the cilinder can exert most of its force gives me confidence that the XL actuator is really stronger than the L actuator. Sariels setup was different.. My XL actuators were also new, as I just ordered them on Bricklink. There's lots of factors that cause differences and if you measure in a different way, you can not always compare the results. In my day job I also have to do research and we always give a lot of attention to our measurement setup. That's why I spend so much time on the measurement setup in the video. In some measurements, setup is everything. But I invite everyone to do this measurement for him/herself and verifiy.

Finally, after quite some hours of work, my video review I tried to learn some about sharp macro pics as well. The cilinders tested are listed below Here it is, the all-important result sheet: I put my conclusions in the video. There's a lot to think about when this table is considered. Driveshaft torque seems to be very important for the max. load before the internal clutch starts slipping. It might be also a good time to find out whether you have <2010 or >2010 actuators and where you used them in your MOCs..

Does anyone know how the current linear actuators are coded? I learnt that 36x0 was week 36, 2010. But now, it's 2020. A crispy new actuator can come from 2019, week 20 so be called '20x9' while it is still a new actuator. Can someone who has a Technic set with recent actuators check the coding? That would be great help!

Thanks a lot. This is exactly why I asked this on Eurobricks before I started. I think Sariels pneumatic measurement is setup correctly, with the cilinder pointing straight down. This saves me a lot of filming and editing.. However, it might be interesting to measure again and find out whether I get the same values with my relatively unused pneumatic parts, here in Holland .

Very good suggestions! The goal of my current measurement is to measure mechanical linear actuators and use one large pneumatic cilinder to take a reference from another world. But as I see suggestions to rather measure pneumatic actuators, I might make a separate video for them. Hmm I never thought of that difference. But I guess this setup will work.

Scroll down for video You all will know that new XL linear actuators are on sale for some time now. To my knowledge, there is no video or result that directly measures the exact weight that they can push away. So here we are, this is my measurement setup. It is a basically a Technic tower that can support more than 15 kgs in either Z direction. Should be plenty. A weighing scale of 5 kgs is below the pushing rods. As we speak, I'm doing the measurements. The photo below is very fresh.. I'm going to measure five types of actuators: The 'old' linear actuator sold before the 8043 fiasco. The improved linear actuator that was sold after 8043. The new XL linear actuator The large pneumatic actuator SURPRISE This is the first time my homebuilt Laser Sintered 3D printed linear actuator will be shown to the public. It features an inboard electric motor and all-steel inner workings. Should be more reliable and MUCH stronger than the old actuator. But will it be stronger than the XL actuator? Let's see. My question to you: can you think of more measurements to do on this setup? Because I have the setup now built and ready, any comparison will be best if it's measured with this exact setup. I'm open to suggestions!

How to adjust the size of the 1:1 size guide of e.g. axles? Currently, the goal of my new building instruction is to print it on A5. But the only way to get correct size guides is to select a recommended format and A5 is not in the list. Is there a way around this?

I fully agree. It seems like The Lego Group is listening to our needs. Look at the development of Power Functions models. At first, they only made tracked vehicles because the powertrain is more rubust, which fits TLG's requirements for child use. Then, when they saw that the adult community made motorized vehicles using differentials, they came up with the 9398 and 42030. Both had 4WD, a robust powertrain for child use. Then, when they saw the adult community makes a lot of rear wheel drive vehicles, it got them thinking. Maybe 2WD is buildable in a small Technic set. But... how to make it more robust for child (ab)use?? Hmmm... throw in a stronger differential. The same theory holds for gearboxes. We have seen some amazing sequential gearboxes (Sheepo .. ) but it got TLG thinking: "we need to do something with this. Let's design a new part that revolutionizes gearboxes". And they did. This intention to overengineer parts for child use gives us, the AFOL community, a lot of much stronger parts than before. But it only started when we built things that TLG thought were impossible before. So as a general message: when we are pushing the boundaries of our parts, LEGO is watching. When it becomes popular enough, they will come up with a way of implementing it in Technic sets and they will make stronger parts for it. How nice!

Lastly, I did some thinking on custom Lego Technic parts. I tried to think of 7 rules or guidelines for new Lego Technic parts: The Seven Golden Criteria of custom Lego Technic parts: The part must have a general Lego Technic look -> OK The part must be fully compatible with Lego Technic -> OK The part should enable something in Lego Technic that was not achievable before with combining pure-Lego parts -> 2.4 GHz control with physical remote, WOW! The part must be connected to other parts with only Lego parts -> OK The look and strength of the part must adhere to the same high-quality standards as general Technic parts -> OK (but not yet sure of long term quality) Possible electronics must work with Lego Technic electronics and adhere to the same safety standards as pure-Lego parts. -> OK The part may not be a slight alteration of an existing Lego part -> OK So to answer all naysayers: when looked at seven very important criteria for a new Lego Technic part, it flies past all of them. I think we should welcome these remote control parts. They can be a great addition to an existing line of S-brick and BuWizz products while TLG gets some time to clear the mess they made by introducting the Control+ system..

Thank you. I also get the pure vs not pure, meaning that building with Lego should be some kind of a challenge: you don't have the shape or parts you need but build it with Lego. Using a custom part can remove the challenge of building, i.e. a suspension can be fully 3D printed OR carefully engineered from pure Technic parts. This is kind of unfair, because designing parts for a specific function is much easier than using general non-specific parts for a specific function. To make it 'fair' again, I created this list. This pushes the challenge back into making 3rd party parts! Maybe then the name should not be 'rules', but 'guidelines'. Whatever. Thanks for your opinion! I'm planning a full length comparison video with the new XL type linear actuator. Stay tuned!

After a lot of pondering, it sounded like a good idea to me to make a list of criteria for 'allowed' custom or new created Lego Technic parts. Then I will consider some examples. It will be quite a read, but your opinion is appreciated! The Seven Golden Criteria of custom/new Lego Technic parts: The part must have a general Lego Technic look, so all shapes and curves should look like typical Technic shapes and curves. The part must be fully compatible with Lego Technic: all dimensions have to fit in a 4mm or 8mm system. The part should enable something in Lego Technic that was not achievable before with combining pure-Lego parts: its function should be new and clear. The part must be connected to other parts with only Lego parts. Connecting to other 3D printed parts using non-Lego methods is not allowed. The look and strength of the part must adhere to the same high-quality standards as general Technic parts. Possible electronics must work with Lego Technic electronics and adhere to the same safety standards as pure-Lego parts. The part may not be a slight alteration of an existing Lego part. Based on these rules: what IS NOT a valid custom Lego* Technic part? Mindsensors sensor additions for EV3 and Mindstorms NXT L12 EV3 Linear actuators Cutting or gluing parts together The underpinnings of the life size Lego Technic Bugatti Chiron Based on these rules: what IS a valid custom Lego* Technic part? Wheel covers, GoPro mount, pneumatic cylinder bracket (here) Bigger sprocket design for Technic tracks Custom frames that look alike real Technic Torsen differential, really useful Custom aluminum turntable I'm really curious whether you find these rules acceptable. Do you know of more examples of either kind of parts? Thanks in advance!

You're right. But there's always a catch. I agree with you that some additional sensor would be nice. Maybe will turn this in a project at some time.

My new MOC is probably the weirdest Lego Technic car (I) ever uploaded- it is made to be invisible and to work autonomously. Its use case is based on the fact that at a party, you never really get the snack you want without interrupting talks of others. My solution is a small robot that follows the edge of the snack table while carrying the snack tray(s). That is where the name comes from, it 'races trays' around the table and I liked the software-origined word 'Raytracer' a lot. For the same reason why a car exists with the name 'Interceptor'. I have done some exploring in this area, a few years ago TrayRacer 1.0 was published. But it could only follow rounded tables. And that got me thinking: can you build a Lego Thing that is able to understand when there's a corner coming up? The first answer was 'no'. It was never done before and I couldn't think of any way. The second answer was 'Well, for the intended size, you will need a mechanical sensor and a mechanical 'brain' that is able to translate the 'mechanical sensor data' into 'Let's start a steering action NOW'. That's a lot of quotes, how to convert this into hard plastic bricks? After a lot of thinking, tinkering and tuning TrayRacer 2.0 was born. It is really hard when you throw the remote out of the door, to make the robot think for itself without using the convenient Mindstorms sensors. TrayRacer 2.0 uses only a single PF M motor and is full mechanic Lego Technic. There's an important reason why I only used an M-motor: power consumption. A nice robot system with a lot of sensors and actuators will be always empty as the testing is done and the party is starting. A simple rechargeable battery box with a PF M motor is small and reliable. I added PF navigation lights because it looks good in the dark, which looks good on the party. The new TrayRacer 2.0 is 4 studs high, exposing the 4-stud batterybox as a load on the back. This had to be accepted as I needed the speed control: you HAVE to be able to set the 'feeding speed' on parties otherwise people eat way too much. In other cases, maybe an old battery would have been a solution. [As a sidenote: with the new Lego Technic electronic systems coming up, I don't see battery boxes and motors becoming any smaller. This is a bad development that TLG should be aware of. ] High quality photos (Brickshelf files not yet public, so direct links:) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The video explains it all: The deep technical details- a dynamic system Usually, 'mechanical sensor data' is fed into a clutch/driving ring or a differential, which means the device using the data also influences it. The 'mechanical imput impedance' is too low (This robot is built using mostly electronic engineering concepts..). In the RayTracer 2.0, this effect is visible in the sensor wheel. It takes some effort to shift the driving ring, which means the rubber band needs to be stronger. As said in the video, the sensor wheel needs to be pressed to the RIGHT (so robot pressed LEFT) for straight driving, which is harder when the rubber band is stronger. Because the robot is very light (lithium battery, no big electric components) a stronger rubber band means it needs to push harder to the LEFT, which is only possible when its rotational inertia is higher, so then it needs to be heavier. But weight kills power consumption. A lower weight causes oscillations, as the robot slams to the left using its inertia after a succesful steering action - enabling straight driving- , then the rubber band springs back because the robot is not able to press hard enough to the left continuously- enabling the left wheel brake again-. When the rubber band is too strong, it oscillates forever, when it is just a little too strong, the robot is designed to reach a stable orientation in a few oscillations. In the video this effect is sometimes visible, you can see different dynamics with its bodywork removed! Also, as you can see, the sensor wheel is on a long lever. The lever enables tuning of the force needed to press it to the RIGHT, thus for tuning it together with the rubber band system. To summarize: because the 'mechanical information' is influenced by its 'processor', there is a fine optimum in rubber band strenght vs sensor wheel lever length vs overall robot weight. For this reason, I could give you instructions, but there's no guarantee that any reproduction would work. Any axle that is a tiny little bent, any driving ring with some small damage, even the friction of individual pins, these are all factors that influence the final tuning and need to be optimized. Instructionless building with Lego Technic is not only a unique combination of parts, it's also the way it's built and tuned that makes it a final product. Some quick photos:

These have axle holes. However, these in red is also great. Any reviewer of the mini Claas Xerion will say that it has exactly the same driveline principle as the 8281 Mini Tractor set..

You're right. A motor is placed inside the cilinder and also in the same tube, not placed in a box behind it. This gives a smooth finish and a Lego look which is not always achieved..

I have done a lot of tests on the above outtriggers with linear actuators and the internal clutches kept engaging. Then I tried pneumatics and the air escaped from the hose fittings, while at the same time my tiny onboard compressor couldn't create enough pressure. The only solution: an entirely new linear actuator, fully developed in house, made to be fully compatible with Lego Technic electronics. This was a complete new experience for me and I learnt a lot in the process. The cilinder gets SLS printed and has full metal mechanics inside, much higher specced than the usual Lego Technic linear actuator. I'm excited about this new cilinder. Soon, the large actuators from the Lego 42100 Liebherr Excavator will be available. Cannot wait to setup a comparative test!

Once in a while, every Technic builder wants to build a Lego boat. I was no exception, but there's a lots of boats being built: how to make an original boat then? I decided to not design a good-looking boat, but to make it a tool for filming. This choice asks for a boat that can be quickly placed into its filming position, which means it should be fast and agile. It should also have enough remote control range to film on big water areas. The 1980's Power Functions remote is thus completely out of the question: responds very slow and outside, there's 2 metres of range. We all must thank S-brick for existing. S-brick (or alternatives) makes this boat possible: without sufficient range, there cannot be a camera boat. Many boats have a keel and a rotating propeller at the back. A submerged plane behind the propeller acts as a rudder. Sadly, a rudder becomes less efffective at lower boat speeds and the boat reacts slowly to it: turning the rudder does not mean turning the boat, it first needs speed (and thus space!) to turn. In Dutch ditches (where I wanted to test the boat), there is not a lot of space available for maneuvering. Having a a slow-responding boat with a rudder there means the boat being into the reed all the time. I therefore eliminated the rudder and mounted the propeller on a hinge. Any hinging of the propeller system at any propeller speed the boat causes immediate turning, which is a nice direct response on the steering input. Good theory, but when a single rotating propeller is mounted on the rear, the boat will rotate along its Z-axis. I'm not sure why this happens. It may happen due to the gyroscopic effect of the propeller or due to the Lego propellers not being made for water propulsion, but anyway I had to deal with it. A second propeller placed next to the first propeller that rotates in the opposite direction seems to to the trick. However, when you mount this system on a single hinge, the (larger) system swings out quite far and easiliy hits reed in the typical tight Dutch waters I tested it in. Also, in windy waters, having a single propeller at the rear means the steering is countersteering all the time just to sail straight on! To deal with the problem, I mounted 1 propeller at the front of the boat and one steered propeller at the rear. This means the boat always tracks straight (even when the wind comes in from any side) and that the propellers can be mounted close to the boat, reducing its draft. The boat is made from 2 boat hulls to create a stable camera platform. This concept worked, it gave a lot of control. I decided to use a race buggy motor as it provides a lot of RPM at low torque, excactly what a boat needs. As no additional parts (for looking nice etc) were added, the boat was light, controllable, fast and really fun to use. The steering is a quite unusual setup (for me). It contains a rack with a 24t gear, a PF Servo motor and a ball link system. This setup had the power and speed that was needed for the steering to be quick. The video The GoPro is mounted upside down under the boat. The high speed axle to the front propeller is also visible. For water level footage, the GoPro is mounted starboard-side of the boat. As the boat only weighs 831 grams, this effects the balance a bit.. Sometimes, I used a rearward-facing camera, mounted in a Lego frame and adjustable by a large linear actuator. The same camera, facing to the front. Due to the size of the boat, there are weight restrictions. The boat wouldn't sink with a mounted DSLR camera, but it would not be stable enough when the wind increases. The Sbrick and PF battery box are mounted on the left side to keep a low center of gravity and to restore the balance (the servo is not in the middle). The boat packs some power, which is visible from the wake in the water. Thanks to S-brick the boat never went out of range so it was also a really nice toy. It might have been faster with BuWizz though, but that question might be answered later. I think this boat really makes a case for the race buggy motor. It has good RPM and power for its size and in the water it never runs out of torque (a problem that can occur on land.. ). Hopefully someday somehow it will be made compatible to Powered Up, otherwise this hero will disappear in the shady realms of the past.

My condolences to his family and friends. I remember his incredible trucks and videos. I even bought parts from him: BrickLink Order #5541672 - ... Buys LEGO(R) From Ingmar Spijkhoven 896gerard buys LEGO from 2 LEtGO Or Not 2 LEtGO. Sadly, he had to let go in the end..