Ralph_S

It was on the original version of Tracks. I guess the little roof that forms the chest of this version was a nod from the toy's designers to that original. It was one of the bits that caused me some trouble when building the model, because it takes up rather a lot of space underneath the car when in car mode -space that I would have liked to use to beef up the arms a bit. Thank you. Anything is possible with LEGO I have to admit I'd never heard of the Binaltech/ Alternators kine until I started looking into what Transformer to build. They're perfect though, because on the toys it's also hard to see at a first glance that there's a robot lurking inside. I posted a WIP picture on flickr a few days ago and people there noticed a seam running down the length of the hood and found the hinges in the front a bit conspicuous. In respones covered the hinges up a bit using tiles and came up with a locking mechanism that holds the folded legs in place a bit better, reducing the gaps. The point of a 'robot in disguise' is that it's, well, disguised The toy was originally produced in yellow rather than blue, according to wikipedia at the request of Chevrolet, because their Racing team used yellow Corvettes at the time it was brought out. The G1 Tracks was blue and when the toy came out in the US, they made it blue too. I wanted a blue one, quite simply because I knew I had the parts required in that colour. Thanks guys, Ralph

Thanks for all of the comments guys. I appreciate them. I'm guessing it would be a bit of a disappointment though. It all works, but the transformation sequence is a bit fiddly and in car mode the door sills tend to sag. It's not all pretty One of the difficulties was that I want the various hinges to be stiff enough to keep the whole thing in shape, but not so stiff that actually operating them makes bits want to pop off. For some bits this worked out well -the legs for instance, but for the sills it didn't. They're a bit too floppy. I used to build Transformers back in the 'eighties -unfortunately I don't have any pictures of them- and at least in my mind they were quite good. They were far less complicated than this one though. I don't own the toy, I'm afraid. I agree the comparison would be interesting, although it would also show where I had to compromise I worked out the sequence from looking at photographs that I found on-line of one of the original Japanese yellow versions. Cheers, Ralph

Thank you. Hiding that it can transform was the hardest thing. I had to make a few compromises with the looks of the car in the end -I would have preferred to use different wheels for instance, but I had to use wheels that can be stuck to a technic pin because of the way the rear is constructed, but overall I'm reasonably happy with the look of the car. Thank you Cheers. While looking at building a LEGO Transformer I searched the internet and came across the Kre-O sets. I think they actually look quite decent, but man, what a letdown that Transfoming means disassembling the model, getting instructions and building another model. Some bits do tend to break off when I transform mine, but only by accident. Dis-assembly is not required! Thanks. There were a few moments during this build where I was sure I wasn't going to be able to do it. At first the legs gave me a lot of trouble. They're still a bit short, but it's better than it used to be and I was able to use stiffer ball joints after a rebuild. Then they were very fragile and required another rebuild. The second really difficult bit were the arms. I had decent-looking arms for it at first, but no room left for hands, and at first, no matter how much I tried I couldn't get hands to fit. The solution was building the hands such that they can fold in too. It's a bit I didn't enjoy... Cheers, Ralph

A few weeks ago the flickr car group, LUGNuts started a new build challenge, called 'cars too', with all participants building cars from the film Cars or it's sequel or any other anthropomorphic cars. I don't know the movie and wasn't too keen on building a car with eyes for a windscreen. My first idea was building an ultimate anthropomorphic car: a Transformer. At the time I was still building my Su-25 Frogfoot and it took me a while to figure out how to build the Transformer I wanted, but here it is: the Alternator Tracks. In car mode it's a Chevrolet C5 Z06. This is the main reason why I chose to build this version of Tracks rather than a G1 Transformer or a more famous one: I reckoned that I could the car such that when placed among my other LEGO cars it wouldn't be obvious that it is a transformer. It has opening doors and a full interior with a steering wheel and seats and everything. Transformer Tracks (2) by Mad physicist, on Flickr In robot mode it looks a bit stubby, but I am glad I could get it to work at all! These new-fangled Transformers are a lot more complicated than the Transformers I knew as a child. Getting everything to work is one of the most difficult things I've done recently with LEGO. Transformer Tracks (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Here's the full sequence from car to robot mode in 16 steps. Some bits are quite fragile -the doors and arms, but it works reasonably well. Transformer Tracks (3) by Mad physicist, on Flickr (click the picture to see a larger view) Building something like this made for a fun change relative to the things I normally do and I hope you'll enjoy the result. Cheers, Ralph

It's by no means unthinkable that multiple people had the same idea independently. I think it's still a bit too fiddly for LEGO. They are easy to open, but not so easy to close, certainly not for small children. Cheers, Ralph

It's the Autobot Tracks, a blue Chevrolet Corvette. It's not the G1 version though. It is almost done. There are a few small bit I still want to look at to see whether I can improve them and then I'll take pictures. It should be done this weekend. In car mode it's 11 studs wide because it is built to a somewhat larger scale than your Jazz. I needed every bit of room I could get to get everything to fit. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks Christopher. I always start my models by figuring out the parts that I reckon will be the most difficult to build. It probably won't surprise you to know that for the Frogfoot the canopy was one of those. Cheers, Ralph

It think it doesn't look all that great in car mode, bricked one, but I've been working on a Transformer in the last few days and I know how hard it is and your model is probably next to impossible to improve on this scale. It looks absolutely fantastic in robot mode and I love how you did the Martini Stripes on the front. Cheers, Ralph

Placing the elements in MLCad is done in the projections, but it does give you a 3D view which you can rotate. I actually like the projections. I gave LDD a brief try a few months ago, but deciced to stick with LDraw / MLCad a while ago for four reasons: -I frequently use 'illegal moves' and other techniques that -while not technically 'illegal'- are unlikely to be supported in LDD. -I frequently use old parts, such as finger hinges and 1xn technic plates that aren't available in LDD. -I can manually edit the LDraw files. This may seem a difficult way of doing things, but is brilliant if you want to mirro some part of your model, say the right and left wings. You make one in MLCad, copy the file and mirror the coordinates in the copied file. Presto! -LPub: Perhaps things have improved with LDD's latest release, but the main reason why I used CAD in the first place was to make instruction booklets for some of my models and LPub is brilliant for that. Cheers, Ralph

Yesterday I finally got round to making the comparison pictures with the A-10. Adversaries: Frogfoot vs. Warthog (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Adversaries: Frogfoot vs. Warthog (2) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Cheers, Ralph

Interesting question I do pretty much the same thing you do. I have a general idea of what parts I need before I start building and I also know what sort of parts I use frequently. If I buy specific parts for a particular model I will always check whether the same seller has some other bits that I know will come in handy in the future such as small plates, finger hinges, jumper plates and headlight bricks. I also always check whether the seller has bits in a few rarer colours. By adding lots of small orders of rare parts over a long period of time I end up having enough parts in an unusual colour to be able to build stuff in rare colours rather than just using them for accents. I used CAD to design a model last year, to see whether it would be useful for the sort of things I do (and because I was away from my LEGO bricks for weeks on end) but ended up making a lot of changes to the model once I had it in front of me built in actual bricks. If I would have based the parts for that solely on the basis of the parts list, I would have been in trouble. That said, I actually had all of the parts I needed in my collection. Cheers, Ralph

Nice ambulance, Spacysmoke. I personally don't care about seating minifigs side by side in my vehicles, so I generally opt for something a bit smaller. Given that you do want side-by-side seating, you've still managed to keep the overall dimensions reasonably compact. It's also nicely proportioned and detailed I can't be sure the doors to my bus are where you've first seen the technique you used for the doors, but I know I never saw the technique before I applied it. bus doors by Mad physicist, on Flickr Of course, it gets easier to open the door further if the door is actually wider. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks. I am glad you like it. The flaps can indeed be lowered and I can open the wing-tip mounted dive-bakes as well. Su-25 Frogfoot (5) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Mounting the stabilizers at a small angle is a fairly easy thing to do (and they are actually rigidly mounted), but not particularly easy to explain. I probably should make a picture that shows how it works. I know some people prefer studless builds, but I don't have that stud lovers icon under my name for nothing Thanks. Would you believe it, compared to prototypes that have been shown at air shows over the years this one is actually quite lightly armed I too prefer the A-10, but I already have one which I built a few years ago. I did take a few pictures that I intend to usefor a comparison of the two, but haven't gotten around to editing them yet. Thanks. In some respects the camouflage makes things a bit easier. I couldn't have built this if I couldn't mix the colours, because I have used some parts in brown that I don't have in tan, for instance (tan cheese slopes). The trick lies in grouping same-colour parts such that you get a nice size and shape of the spots with relatively few straight lines (longer than about three studs) between them. In tan and brown this was fairly easy. The dark green was more difficult. The only plates I used on this in dark green are 2x4 and 1x6 studs ones. Fortunately I was able to compensate for the lack of small plates by using a fair few tiles. The canopy 'glass' is non-LEGO transparent plastic, so non-purist. You can see how I constructed the frame for it with LEGO parts (lightsabre blades stuck into clips, among other things) in this Work-In-Progress picture from more than a week ago: Su-25 Frogfoot Work In Progress by Mad physicist, on Flickr It's not to everyone's liking, but I prefer the overall look to any of the purist alternatives that I have considered. Cheers, Ralph

Even before I started building my Su-24 two months ago, I'd looked at building its smaller cousin: the Su-25. One of the reasons why I didn't was that I had some doubts about being able to build the jet's camouflage. However, two weeks ago I decided to give it a go, after having bought a few more dark green parts. The Su-25 was primarily designed for the Close-Air-Support role and in similar fashion to the A-10 'Warthog', it's closest western equivalent, is armed with a 30 mm gun and can carry a wide variety of armament on a large number of hardpoints. To improve survivability in the face of air defences many vital systems have been duplicated or are surrounded by armour. Su-25 Frogfoot (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr More modern versions of the Frogfoot have been developed, but most of the versions in service are relatively simple bombers equipped with unguided weapons. My model carries four 500 kg general purpose bombs, four S-24 unguided rockets and two AA-8 'Aphid' IR-guided air-to-air missiles for self defense. Su-25 Frogfoot (4) by Mad physicist, on Flickr Soviet Su-25s saw combat during the war in Afghanistan. A number of aircraft were shot down after the Mujaheddin received Western air-to-surface missiles, such as Blowpipe and Stinger. To increase survivability, many Frogfoots were fitted with extra flare launchers above the engine exhausts. Su-25 Frogfoot (6) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The undercarriage on the model can be retracted. It doesn't work in quite the same fashion as on the real aircraft (in which the main wheels seem to end up lying flat in the bottom of the fuselage), but it looks correct when extended and the doors that cover it do have the right shape. Su-25 Frogfoot (10) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The shape of this plane isn't particularly complicated, but the parts palette in reddish brown and in tan isn't particularly extensive, making this a fairly tricky build. Cheers, Ralph

I think the Jeep looks a bit ungainly with all the Power Functions stuff crammed on top, but I'm impressed by the compactness of the technical bits in the chassis and the apparent agility of the vehicle. It's a fun video too. I reckon the vehicle would be properly awesome with a custom designed body rather than the Model Team Jeep. Cheers, Ralph

I don't quite feel the need to build Fabuland MOCs myself, but it is one of the few lines that LEGO produced for which I have some nostalgic feelings. As a child I had a lot of the sets. At the time, minifigs were all pretty much the same, all with smiley faces and with just two types of hair. Compared to minifigs at the Fabuland figures had a lot more character and I played with them for years. I still have 30-odd of them. I think you are right in your observation that a lot of the criticism that is directed at some of the more modern lines can also be applied to Fabuland, but in their criticism of current lines quite a few AFOLs seem to forget that the sets aimed at kids and that what is important to an AFOL may very well be utterly irrelevant to the children the product line is aimed at. They themselves may have a sense of nostalgia for Fabuland, for instance, that is mainly based on how much they loved the sets when they were kids themselves, and when features they might now criticise in current sets were irrelevant to them as well. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks for the compliments, AussieJimbo and Legolass. A working rain layout does seem to go down well with the public at events. My stuff is generally stationary. Some of the buildings and most of the cars that are now part of Brickston Borough have been on display at various events and what seems to draw most of the attention there aren't the houses; it's the cars. The yellow ambulance and the red Routemaster bus. I could bring just those two to a show! I've seen Carl Greatrix' trains and his railway station up close and they are brilliant. The new layout looks good too. Besides the quality of the individual models, I think it also looks very well integrated -much more so than the original layout. The emphasis may be on the rolling stock, but the buildings are an integral part of the set-up. Very interesting thread. Cheers, Ralph

I've seen many pictures of your city on flickr, jth781, and I have mixed feelings about them. I don't agree with the comments that the mix of old sets, new sets, and MOCs really works. No matter what angle you photograph it from, there always seem to be open backs of buildings facing the camera and it's got too many different building styles and vehicles that are mismatched in scale for my taste. In parts it's a result of LEGO changing the way they do things, of course. I reckon it's also because I'm not being particularly nostalgic about older sets. On a brighter note, I like the hustle and bustle you've got going on. It looks lively with the little scenes with minifigs you have in it. Cheers, Ralph

I've been thinking about building a fire station to house my fire engines, and the interior of this building definitely an inspiration, toorayay. I'm curious to see your fire engines. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks Thorsten. I am glad you like it. I wasn't going to post the picture again, as I am sure quite a few of the regulars in the town forum have already seen it because I keep bringing it up It's my own little reminder of the years I lived in the UK. However, showing it may make it clearer what we are talking about though, so here goes. Brickston Borough (1) by Mad physicist, on Flickr The train is British by the way; not Dutch Let me rephrase my sentence: I personally don't consider the train the centrepiece of the layout, even though it is be in the centre of the actual picture. My layout is supposed to resemble a London street and I wanted some sort of background for the buildings and the street to give the impression that the city continues behind it. London is crossed by a fair few elevated railways running on top of Victorian arches. This seemed the ideal thing to put in the back and I felt that it wouldn't be complete without a train to go on top of it and I've been on very similar trains rolling into Waterloo Station. I like the train and I certainly think that it adds a something interesting to the layout. I also felt that if I was going to build a train (my first in two decades), I should put some effort into making it good enough for people who are actually into trains (including the train fanatics in the Brickish Association) to appreciate it. I seem to achieved that goal, but it did come as an after-thought. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks Thorsten. There are plenty of good arguments on why 8-wide and a matching length isn't always a good idea. This works as long as it sits still or if you can run it on a layout with large radius curves (made with flex curves or by interspersing straight track between the curved sections) and that's often simply not an option. A member of the hispalug forums has seen it here on EB and posted it on their forum, with somebody arguing that it would have been better at 7 studs wide (Hispalug showed up in my flickr stats). It's a never-ending discussion. Over the years I've been having a fair few discussions on what constitutes minifig scale. With this new train I decided to take a picture showing the respective sizes of some of my vehicles and the train. It's a question of scale by Mad physicist, on Flickr I'm not sure whether anybody else will be prompted to have a go at building a train MOC after having seen mine, but I certainly enjoyed it. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks. I'm not a great train expert either, but it was a fun build. It looks nice sitting on a shelf. I'm even thinking about whether or not I should add a few cars to it. Thanks. This model would definitely be too complicated to be sold as a set. LEGO may be doing some SNOT lettering for the Cafe Corner series, but this is rather more complicated. It can navigate a standard curve. I tried it on Saturday, but it does look rather silly because the radius of the curve is too small compared to the length of the locomotive. Oh no, I'm turning into a train head Ralph

Some of the stuff I do actually isn't very hard. Where I can I tend to use simple solutions. My models aren't intended to show off some new technique or application that I've invented. However, sometimes I need to get creative. I've often had people look at my models on shows and tell me that they didn't realise how intricate they are until they saw them in real life. You mentioned the C-pillars and how I worked the details in the back (10 wide) into the rest of the car 11-wide. I'm sure plenty of people won't have noticed that it is actually 11 wide overall.The area around the headlights was quite tricky too, with cheese slopes mounted upside down and a bit of SNOT work to add the grille tiles to the sides. I think that people -certainly those who aren't used to building MOCs- sometimes look at my stuff and don't see that some of it really is quite complicated, because it's not obvious. On flickr several people have tried to reverse engineer some of my models and had a very hard time. Making things look simple can be a very hard thing to do. I'm sure the same applies to many of your MOCs. Cheers, Ralph

Thanks for posting the picture of the real car. It is quite a land yacht indeed. I saw a convertible of a similar vintage drive through my street not too long ago, and me living next to a canal in the city center of a Dutch city the road is quite narrow. It only just fit The picture with the Crown Vic was to show how large the Cadillac is. Most Americans will have a rough idea of how big a Crown Vic is (that is very) and the Caddy is even bigger. Thanks Lasse. Indeed, no alternate models. That's settled then. The Cadillac Fleetwood from 1985 doesn't actually look all that different! There's a fair bit of somewhat subtle stuff going on in this car. At a first glance it may look like a big box on wheels, but the mix of odd-wide bits with even wide bits caused a few difficulties, as did the covered rear wheels. Fun though. I've seen the comments about the windows and I have had them myself as well, actually. Perhaps people are getting used to me using them. My standard reply is that I'd rather have a window like this than no window at all. That normally seems to suffice. Of course, I have a history of using non-LEGO windows in my cars and even the people who don't like my current way of doing things tend to agree that it is better than 'cheating'. Cheers, Ralph

Thank you. I understand why the designers of the set chose to use stickers for some of the details, because they do complicate the build, but I wanted to have them brick-built. I'm glad you appreciate them. Thank you very much. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm normally not a train builder either. This made for an interesting project though. It's fun to build something different for a change. Unfortunately that does mean I have no idea how many parts it has. For cars and such I normally have some idea, because I have built many of them and can estimate the number of parts based on my knowledge of those that I've either counted the parts of or have also built in LDRAW. With this one all I can say is that it's bloody heavy, so a lot! I used 50 medium blue cheese slopes, for instance. Cheers, Ralph