M_longer

It is way too slow, don't you think? Also, how will look rest of the model?

No idea, but mine did :) Maybe becuase it did not had that worm gear case.

First version was built exactly like old set, but it had some problems with lowering the arm (whole thing was starting to shake).

Does it count as a new model? It is a rebuild of earlier existing set.

Sooo there is a set: Which I always wanted. Now I have my own version, built for contest held on LUGPol (about building old sets in style of new, liftarm based) Steering, bucket raising and dumping. That's all :) Works like this: Comparision with older version (click to enlarge) And I decided to make instructions for it:: Styled as old ones: Available for free HERE. Parts list on Rebrickable can be found HERE.

And this is why I have asked about it...

After looking at this picture: I must ask: Isn't it too wide compared to real machine?

It is quite good, but your model is build without proportions of the real tank?

It is not 8x8, but 8x6.

If anyone likes their transfer, pictures are larger than 2MB / and are 4128x2322px.

It looks quite nice, but there are few thing that could be improved. Engine section has wrong proportions, grill should be higher and bumper should be placed lower: Bucket is way too small, a larger one could be built from liftarms and panels. Why have you used so much white? Real ones are red, and only white element is the cab.

JUŻ. O. TO. PYTAŁEŚ. Actually, check all hoses, maybe one of them is squished somewhere and air does not flow properly? W sumie to sprawdź czy któryś wężyk nie jest zagięty lub ściśnięty, bo to może być powodem.

He says that pneumatic cylinder does not lift upper section of crane arm in his set. He also says that when cylinder is not connected to arm it works smoothly.

8043, 8258 and 42008 have interesting gearboxes, and are very complex.

Try looking at instructions for inspirations. There were a lot of different mechanisms used in Technic sets.

XL motors will grind those z12 half bevel gears.

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=116652

Random builder means random builder. In other words, it just someone who plays with LEGO. WITHOUT saying anything about his/her building skills.

I have spent some time on watching Sandvik loaders in action, on reading its specifications and on building them with using photos and blueprints. Sooo let's say that I have a little bit more knowledge about those machines than random LEGO builder I just said that LAs are good for motorized models, not that Technivor should motorize this loader.

No, he could not. It would be off scale (and Sandvik loaders does not have teeth on the bucket blade).

Funny thing is that they changed colour of 7L axle to yellow, and on that picture it still is in LBG.

I was waiting especially for review of this set. Let me add few things about this... thing. It all will be complainging of person who works with these type of machines, so if you just want a unusual machine in your collection, ignore my complaining :) I see underground loaders almost every day, and believe me, this model would now work in the underground mine. First of all, its cab should stick out more from the frame. Each loader has cab placed out of the chassis, to provide better view for the driver. In this class of machine it would help a bit, but in low loader ones it is extremely important: This is the view from the cab of a low profile loader (looking at front - and yes, front of the machine is where engine is placed, because at least at KGHM all machines drive engine forward): Another thing about that cab is that seat and steering wheel/joysticks are placed perpendicularly to the machine chassis, to provide same view for driving forward and backwards. So another weak spot of the set. The model lacks of trans clear lights on the engine part, because all machines that work underground have same lamps on front and back. Another thing that comes to my mind is that warning light and antena would not live too long in the mine, becuase it could be torn apart by ramming into tunnels roofs. It does resemble shape of underground machine, but not a loader. Only machine that comes to my mind is something that are used for moving/placing hydraulic support jacks in tunnels. Sorry for poor quality, I didn't find better picture of it: It does have claw, four wheels and articulated chassis, but have much greater range of movement of the arm. Anyway, I'd give it at least 3/5 for overall look. Model itself, as a set, looks unfinished (or cut down on pieces after visit of an accountant...) For me it looks like engine part was built differently, with knobs for steering/claw operating sticking out from back. Claw needs almost seven full turns of the worm gear to close from opened position, and is rather annoing to use it in way it is built in this model. Bracket that holds bevel gears responsible for steering is rather loose, being hold in place by single 3/4 pin. On the other hand, the steering works very well. It seems that lack of differential will be more common in LEGO sets, becuase it is another model that have fake engine driven by single wheel (like in old russian RC cars...). I am OK with that, but it is a pitty that this model has only R2 engine. Thing that I do not like the most in this model is how the claw arm works. First of all, it barelly lifts the claw of the ground, the movement could be much better. And it has major design flaw - universal joints are not placed in line with articulation points, and this is main reason of 5L axle not being suported on both sides under the turntable. While rainsing the arm, it bends a little! I really would like to see this model built differently, with normal bucket and better range of movement.

If I were you, I'd change steering system to something faster. Linear actuators are good for motorized models.

Ignore idiots, that's all I guess. I have been asked many times about selling my MOCs, usually after that person heard price, conversations ended with "no way, it is just LEGO, it can't be that expensive".

I have seen chinese version of this set: It had some cost-cuts on the material, which ended with gears that had smaller diameter and they just didn't worked.