DrJB

Here again, there are of course different 'perspectives'. My attempt was merely at .... if you're getting this set for parts/MOCS (as many of us are) ... and half of them are "nails" ... just know what you're getting. And, is such parts distribution 'uniform' across the Technic theme? Or maybe even more: if one were to track the % of small parts (nails) in sets over the years ... what would be the trend? No intent to affect one's decision to go and buy their favorite set (I do have a large collection) .... but just a statistic.

Well, Often when perusing various items on eBay, there is a link that says 'have one like it to sell?' .. and if you click yes, it simply copies that same page and asks for minor modifications. Thus, I'm tempted to say that a large number of listings on eBay are recycled versions of other postings ... Does eBay encourage plagiarism? .. Hard to tell, they simply want to make it easy for their sellers to post items ... and given that eBay charges a fee for listing .. then IT IS plagiarism (for profit) ... isn't it?

The set consists of 2603 parts, the largest ever under the Technic theme. Thought I'd give a 'perspective' as to how many of those are most common. Of the total 2603, 1002 are pins and bushings ( e.g. 495× 2780 , 113× 43093 , 214× 6558 , 68× 3713 , 64× 32054 , ... ), 300 are axles of various lengths (e.g. 76× 32062 , 62× 4519 , 29× 32073 , ...). Thus, of the total 2603 parts, about half are pins, bushings and axles. I do consider those parts the equivalent of nails in a piece of furniture or screws and bolts in a car. They do up the part count substantially, but weight wise ... they're but a small fraction. I wonder if such statistic is 'typical' across other Technic Models ... should be a rather easy (yet tedious) task to undertake.

I'd really love to see 57702 included. So much potential, not just for Bionicle.

Just some background on how speed ratios are achieved in transmissions. Typically, for a fixed input shaft rpm, the output speeds are related through factors of 1.26 (or something close). In a 5 speed transmission, this means the highest speed is 1.26^5 = 3.17 times higher than the lowest. Incidentally 1.26 is the cubic root of 2. Now, achieving such low progression ratio in lego might be a bit tricky since, if we mount all gears/cogs on the same shafts (same distance between them), then the number of teeth increases not as 1.26 but as sqrt(1.26) ... The Lego gears simply do not have that fine of a resolution. In my discussion I've assumed a progression of 1.26 ... in fact auto makers typically use numbers close to that. The approach is to pick lowest and highest speed ratio, and then decide how many speeds in the transmission. For example, if the ratio is 4, and we want a 4-speed transmission, the factor is 4^(1/4) = 1.414. If however we want a 6 speed transmission, then the factor is 4^(1/6)=1.26. With the multiple clutches discussed above, we can get close to a 'realistic' transmission layout/geometry .... but might not be possible to get realistic speed ratios... my 0.02 Nicely done!!!

Have you tried dropbox? Once you get it to work, would appreciate a copy.

Thank you for pointing that out. History is often replete with re-invented ideas. What I get from this however is that this 'mod' works ... no need to 'sacrifice' any of my gears then. Cheers!

I think Technyk32231 is talking about making a 20-tooth clutch gear by machining 32269 and 6542, then gluing them together. I however was talking about cutting a 6573 which has 24 teeth on one side and 16 on the other. In fact, combining the above two ideas, we can start with one differential cage 6573 and one 20 teeth gear 32269, and end up with 2 clutches: a 24 tooth and a 20 tooth. Simply Brilliant Technyk32231 ... now, where is my dremel tool?

What is the difference between LXF and LXFML files?

I have an LDR file, looks fine in MLCad, but when I load in LDD, it comes totally messed up. Any help on fixing this? Thanks!

I agree but ... I think my solution is far 'easier' ... as you only need to sacrifice a single part ... . I bought a set of ten 6573 from Lego Education a while back .... now I could put them to good use. EDIT: I got it wrong, you were talking about making a different size clutch. Thank You!

. Not quite, I had to try 3 different BT dongles before finding one that works with NXT. The fact that the iPad (or any siblings) won't talk to any BT is another mild aggravation.

In another thread, we've been discussing ideas on how to make auto transmissions more 'realistic'. One common 'desire' was to have different size clutch gears as the current gearboxes (8448/8466) are far from real life. I was just looking at one of the previous generation differentials, and with some skills and a sharp blade, one can in fact obtain a 24 teeth clutch. (The current clutch has only 16 teeth). This is not for the purists but nonetheless one 'option'. The real question is: When are we going to see a transmission based on the newly found clutch?

I have an 'non-purist' answer to all of us looking for a different diameter clutch gear ... It involves a sharp blade and sacrificing another Lego part ... Yes, it's the old differential. I just noticed it can accommodate clutches on both sides. In fact, if you're adept with the knife, you can get two clutches, one with 16 teeth, and the other with 24 teeth. The real question now is ... when will we see a gearbox based on such 'new' clutch?

That is a very slick steering mechanism!!!

I guess I was 'ranting' that TLG took few steps backwards going from the various RCX generations to the NXT. I tend to expect improvements and backwards compatibility ... not throw it all away and start over .... but I guess the whole tech industry is following that scheme. As for my comment, I was 'expecting' BT to be a solid option ... In all fairness, BT issues are mostly to blame on BT itself as the technology was still not very mature (few non-compatible flavors out there). Maybe pros/cons of RCX vs. NXT may help clarify my comments: RCX Pros: 1. Wireless connectivity out-of-the-box ... no need to buy additional component (dongle) 2. External power jack (at least with 1.0) ... could run non-movable 'robots' without worrying about batteries draining NXT Cons: 1. Some of the code required fine 'tweaking' of the motors settings. If you're building a mobile robot and do not have a working BT dongle, this means removing/reattaching the USB cable a multitude of times .... In the end I was concerned that my son would break the USB port on the NXT. 2. No option for running with AC power

I can't help but notice that TLG, once again is going after making the current sockets smaller ... This has been a trend for a while now, parts made smaller, less plastic (gotta keep up with rising crude oil costs), and yet parts count printed on boxes keeps getting higher. As much as I like lego, I find these to be deceitful marketing techniques ... One potential complexity here is that, most current parts are very suitable for 'orthogonal' designs i.e., all parts are within 90 degrees from each other (in most cases, not all). Once you go into more realistic suspensions, there'll be struts and pivot axes all over the spectrum ... maybe not suitable for lego after all.

I'm thinking some basic 'linkage' calculation should help you set target target the mechanism's 'mechanical advantage' ... Some sample thinking is like shown below: If the LA's total travel is 4 studs (I'm just throwing random numbers here) ... and the container needs to go back and forth by 32 studs ... then, you'd need a mechanical amplification of 8. That might require too great a force from the LA, and thus you'd need two of them, and possibly a bit more complex mechanism to 'stagger' the mechanicla amplifications .... Makes sense?

It does look good ... but I was hoping for a hybrid where the key components of te 8880 (transmission/wheels/steering/...) are kept in the MOC.

I should have called it 8880 with smoother/leaner curves .... how's that?

That is a gorgeous piece Paul. The car is about 32 studs wide (same as a baseplate). Are the wheels/tires lego or 3rd party?

I've always been tempted to 'modernize' the 8880, by removing all the unnecessary (bulky) beams, and replcing them with liftarms and other styling components (panels, flex beams, ...). The goal here is to keep the same key components of the 8880, such as transmission and wheels/suspension/steering. I bet the result would be 'interesting' .... Questions is: has anyone tried this already?

I would love the ability to mimic a multi-link suspension (MLS) as in some Audi vehicles. An MLS enables one to implement a negative 'scrub radius'. Such feature gives cars better handling. Though, for one to truly see the effect, the gaps in the joints need to be tighter than they are today. Some other features of realistic suspensions are: Caster angle, Ackerman, different upper/lower control arms ...

Thank You Ted ... I was trying to avoid answers such as the one I mentioned (It's a toy, you don't need any justification). Forgive my acronyms .... BT = Blue Tooth. I'm aware that BT is 'internal' to EV3 now and that's a good thing. The last thing I want (and I'm sure many agree on here) is to have dongles sticking out of the unit and 'interfering' with the build. Perhaps what I missed the most, going from RCX to NXT, was the inability of NXT to interact with a webcam. Vision Command had some neat possibilities ... Now, for the EV3, do we know about the capabilities of the USB host port? I'm thinking a webcam at the very least ... but that would require some linux drivers ...

I know my way with LDD but lately came to realize that not all parts are available in LDD. Thinking of trying something different but there are few choices out there. Granted most/all are freeware, yet, is there a comparative review with pros/cons for each of those tools? E.g. What I'm thinking is at least 4 attributes: 1. Ease of use 2. Visual quality of graphics 3. Parts collection 4. Stability (not crashing) A better title would have been: How do all CAD tools compare?