Erik Leppen

Good to see the evolution of this model. I think you're certainly going in a good direction. The bigger wheels are much better. Also good to see you worked an engine in there. One thing I don't really like is how small the boom is. It feels out of proportion with the rest. If you check the original set, the crane is what extends forward the most, even beyond the cabin. So I would suggest using regular parts to build a boom, instead of using the prefab element.

Just asking, but why is that obvious? I mean, it's a sensible design choice, especialy in the world of rectangular Lego bricks, but one advantage of having 3 wheels is that you're sure your model is always stable and all wheels always touch the ground. With 4 wheels, how will you handle uneven terrain? Not saying you should do 3 wheels always, but I did want to make you think a second about this in an early stage of the project, so that your choice to do 4 wheels is not "obvious", but supported with some kind of reasoning :) Maybe it's easier to program, I don't know. Anyway, the wheel units look nice and the choice of wheel is great for this, as well as the turntable. I assume that with the programming you can later control all wheels (drive and direction) independently for smooth movement :) I would try to minimize the vertical distance between the wheel axle and the turntable ring, to reduce unwanted forces on non-horizontal undergrounds. The lower the ring sits, the better the forces can be distributed. So, personally. I'd make things a tight fit as much as possible here. Also remember the turntable doesn't have to be at the same height as the ring. Also, curious as to how you will brace the turntable, as the ring in the digital picture isn't a whole-number height. PS For strength: don't forget that 11x15 frames exist :) (and 7x11) In any case ... I'll be following this project with great interest :D

It's been a while since I actually built some stuff. But I'm back with a new work in progress, for the new competition. The theme is, build a small-scale (maximum 10000 cubic studs) construction vehicle. My choice of subject is a city crane, or compact crane. A mobile crane where the main cabin is on the superstructure. I won't base my model off a particular existing model, I just want to build a fun mobile crane. As far as I know, no 3-axle mobile crane has outriggers between the axles, but mine has, inspired by 8460. Functions so far: steering on axles 1 and 3. I used virtual pivot steering in he hope the model can be more compact, but the turning radius isn't very tight. outriggers (all linked). The outriggers work very similar to those in 8460, but I managed to link the left and right pair The turntable is not linked to any knob right now. I don't think there's room for that. I'm not settled yet on the color scheme. Right now I used dark azure with white, with some dark-gray and black as support colors, but I might switch to something totally different. I already tried medium blue with yellow, but I just don't have enough medium blue parts, especially small parts. But I might switch to a whole other color scheme. As with all my models, I use red/yellow axles for functional axles. Right now it's 15 studs wide and I think I should be able to stay within that. Current length is 33 studs and height is about 9 studs. If I can stay within 17 height and 39 length, that would be 15 x 17 x 39 = 9945, just within the limit. Will be a challenge. Next main challenge will be to connect a boom. Ill probably use a LA for raising that, and I hope to add the usual 4 crane functions (slewing, raising, extension and string). I probably won't do any functions beyond that.

Interesting model. The flat truck and shape of the arm somehow remind me of a similar model from one of my childhood sets, 8042 (the blue pneumatic universal set). I like how you made the linkage so the upper arm moves together with the lower. It's too bad the outrigger gear train needs a lot of room. Wouldn't there be room to organize it differently so it needs less space? Maybe that would free up space to add a differential somehow. Also, is it normal on these vehicles that outriggers do not extend horizontally? I don't know, it just looks a bit weird because I'm used to large cranes and stuff, that would need longer-reach outriggers. The color scheme is a bit messy right now, with the red, white and blue, and the yellow pneumatics. I don't know if it's temporary, but personally I'd not use too many colors. I think the red and white works very nicely, but white-blue could also work. I'd remove either red or blue, and opt for a two-color scheme, and maybe add a few yellow details to go together with the yellow pneumatic parts. For the rest, I think you're going along nicely, and I think the base chassis looks quite organized.

I really like this one. The color yellow-white-dark gray scheme works very well, and I like how there's a lot of functionality in a model of this size. I also like the studded details (the little black handles besides the seat are a nice little detail!) If this were a set, my only complaint would probably be the usage of connectors as the knobs to control the functions. Also, using blue pins on the ripper means it probably wil have a lot of friction. But that's something to test when yo build the whole thing physically. Overall, it seems a very nice little model.

But here's the thing. If there is the possibility of having a 150 dollar fire truck, would you rather spend the other 150 dollars on motorization and lighting of said truck, or another entire set with cool functions, say a dump truck or a grader or whatever? I much prefer having two sets, also because I can then spread the spending and have twice the fun and twice the anticipation, and more functions per dollar. My experience with the few large sets I built (the Defender and the Chiron) is that around 40% of the build, all the functions are done and all the rest is cosmetics. I just didn't enjoy the second half of those builds. I know all sets have cosmetics, and large sets more so, but I didn't have that problem when building the good old Unimog, because the ratio between function and form was much better in my view. I could take a shot how I would love to see it. Not saying it would make any economic sense, just what would be an ideal approach for me personally. Taking 2020 as an example year, I see a year comprises of about 15 sets. Categories that could speak to different audiences: Construction Logistics Farming Trucks Racing Air Water Non-vehicles Let's see what models are possible within those categories: Construction: mobile crane, excavator, trench digger, skid loader, front loader, bulldozer, grader, concrete layer Logistics: container stacker, forklift, telehandler, port crane Farming: tractor with plow, log loader, tree cutter, combine harvester Trucks: skip truck, dump truck, crane truck, concrete pump, concrete mixer, mining truck, garbage truck, tow truck Racing: dragster, hot rod, buggy, formula 1 car, supercar, rally car, drift car, monster truck, snowmobile Air: seaplane, aircraft, helicopter, space shuttle Water: hovercraft, fishing boat, hydroplane racer, jetski Non-vehicles: amusement ride, robotic arm, GBC, static crane That's 30-or-so different things that could be made. Each of those can be made as a small, medium, large or flagship-sized set, giving 120 options. Every year, pick 15-or-so options, maybe including 1 or 2 not on this list. Aim for at least something in every category, and not too many same-sized sets in one category: Small construction - €10 - Mini skid loader Medium construction - €45 - excavator - tracked, manual Large construction - €150 - Mobile crane - a compact crane this time Small logistics - €10 - Mini forklift Medium logistics - €50 - Telehandler - manual, 4-wheel steering, raisable and extendable arm, manual forks at the end Small farming - €30 - Tractor - like the recent John Deere but with a plow instead of the trailer Large farming - €100 - Forest log handler - pneumatic, similar to the green-lime-white one, allowint optional motorization of the pump Medium truck - €80 - Concrete mixer - like the one we had recently Flagship truck - €280 - Tow truck - large 4-axle black longnose tow truck with rotator crane and chrome details. A truck of this size deserves suspension. Small racing - €15 - Beach buggy - front steering and rear suspension and a 1 cylinder engine Small racing - €20 - Monster truck - pullback Medium racing - €130 - Drift car - remote controlled - like the top gear car, but less ugly and with slippery wheels to do all kinds of cool manouvers ;) Large racing - €180 - Licenced car - suspension, gearbox, steering; scissor doors. Special function: height-adjustable suspension. Small air - €30 - Helicopter Medium water - €60 - Boat - with a small crane or loading bay or something, and hidden wheels to control rudders and fake engine Flagship other - €240 - Amusement ride - with swinging arms and rotating seats, and entrance/exit gates. Motorized, with physical levers on the model to control it. That's 16 sets, ranging €10 - €10 - €15 - €20 - €30 - €30 - €45 - €50 - €60 - €80 - €100 - €130 - €150 - €180 - €240 - €280, so all kinds of pricepoints covered. In the price-ordered list, put the 8 odd-numbered sets in the first half and the 8 even-numbered sets in the second half, so that every half-yera, there's something in each pricepoint, yet the summer sets are still slightly larger on average than the winter sets. There's pneumatic, there's remote control, there's motorization, there's lots of manual functions, and lots of different subject matters. Air and water are a bit under-represented, so next year will have a large aircraft. Cars are still represented, but the majority is vehicles with more functions than just drive and steer. Optional motorization packs are not year-bound and are always available. It will be one heck of a year

I like this. I like this a lot. It's what this theme is about It's simple to state Everyone understands what the goal is The only thing I would change about the dscription is to replace "as many functions as possible" by "as much functionality as possible". Then, you won't get into trouble counting stuff. Also, you might want to have some kind of constraint, to prevent people to make some kind of nonsensical abstract thing just because it can do 26 different movements. Basically add the rule "the functions need to make sense" and you're off to go :) The rest can be done via judging and voting.

The idea is not new, but it's still a great idea. I wouldn't lay any numerical scale requirements though, just "rescale a set", meaning the scale should not be the same as the original. Scale it up, and add some functions, or scale it down and remove some functions. Both can be interesting. I think too strict scale requirements put too much emphasis on looks. I think we all intuitively feel when a rescale is "good" - no need to put numbers on that, I'd say. In fact, I think making a set 20% smaller is a really interesting challenge, because even at 20%, everything changes.

What you describe is a fun experiment, but if this is the outline then I'm out. I'm simply not going to spend 400 dollars on any Lego set, period. I'd much rather see four well-designed, fun and diverse manual 100-dollar sets of somewhere around 1000 parts each and then I can decide to buy one or two of my choice. If the "boss" - or whoever - wants a 400 dollar fire truck, my opinion would be that that's the wrong goal to set. What I think he should say is, if we do a fire truck, then what should it do, technic-wise, and then, if we want to put all that in a set, what price point would we end up getting? What should a Lego Technic fire truck do? The basics suspension steering fake engine the specifics for the subject matter turntable with raisable extendable ladder 2 outriggers and of course, lights (if one set should have lights, it's a fire truck). the details tiltable cabin openable doors a winch or a hose reel I think all of that should be perfectly doable within a 150 dollar set, without requiring any new moulds. Of course, you can extend endlessly, but then the set will get out of reach for increasingly many people.

Wait, what? If the functions work really well, what's there to suck? This is the technic forum. In the end, what we like best is functions that work really well ;) so if your model has that, that's not suckitude, that's a suc-cess :) Anyhow, I like it. I like how it has a reasonable size, and I even like the red bits at the top. The truck especially looks quite nice, and I think the color scheme is nice too. It's a bit of a mix between the almighty 8460, and 8052. It could be a set and I'd probably like it. The superstructure is a bit too boxy for my taste, but I assume a lot happens inside. But you could alleviate the problem slightly by using a smaller side panel, and let the black core stick out a bit at the top. That way, you suggest a flatter shape even though it's not actually lower. Also, about the outriggers, the reason they may not be strong enough is because their geometry isn't "locking". If you look up the instructions for 8460 and rebuild those outriggers then you will find out that the legs rotate when extending, and it has a locking function. This is done by making the two connection points on the base (where the 1x4 beams connect) slightly further apart than the two connection points on the leg. If you do that, the outriggers will also extend further sideways, which is an added bonus for stability. (But please note, doing outriggers right is hard).

Or you gear up before the long axle, and gear down afterwards. Then the twisting has less of an effect, because it's geared down afterwards. On the flipside, there will be a bit more friction.

Popular isn't the same as good. Edit: I don't mean to say you say otherwise :) /edit Popular means TLC makes things that sell, meaning they make what the public thinks it wants. Good means TLC makes things it itself thinks would support their view of how it should be and what children should learn etc. As they're a business, they do the first. It's understandable in the capitalist society, as it's basically the only way to stay market leader, but it's not what I would like. But "it's popular" it not an argument for any quality standard. In fact, it's often the opposite, because actual high-quality stuff doesn't tend to be popular with the general public. (This is not toy-specific) Also, I think this very personal opinion is the topic of this thread :) Please don't generalize ;) I complain a lot, but I don't buy many sets (why would I buy sets I complain about). In fact I buy more 18+ and creator expert sets lately than Technic, and I likely will buy the Botanical collection's upcoming orchid set as well :) That would be no problem at all, if all those car sets wouldn't be taking the place of other cool, actually technical sets that could be. The tow truck is basically the only good large set of 2021. Compare that to the year 2003 (around a time frame often considered to be the worst years of the TLC company) and according to Brickset (Technic | 2003 | Brickset: LEGO set guide and database) that year had 5 new technic sets, none of which were cars (or any other "fast things"). All 5 sets were actual technical vehicles with all kinds of functions, meaning that 2003 had more cool sets than 2021. And I'm not even picking a year that anyone would consider a great year. I get that they sell cars. I also get that people buy cars. I get that they sell cars made of studless parts, as that's a cheap way of making relatively big-scale cars. What I don't get is that they call this Technic. Let's call it Racers already, as that's what it is, and then add some actual (non-motorized, medium-size, affordable) Technic sets for the non-car people, such as 42121. The Ford Mustang and Aston Martin creator sets had more functions than many Technic cars and these aren't called Technic.

Just asking, but can the amount of topics on the page be changed? If so, you can just increase that, so the first page is longer. Edit: but in any case, I simply don't get what moving contest topics to a subforum would solve, and I do suspect new problems to arise, mostly, less contest activity. But if you want to experiment with the topics, go ahead, but at the very least, keep the announcements and main pinned topics in the main forum so they can't be missed, and only move the seperate entry topics.

I'm not so sure about subforums for the contest. The contest is very much one of the core aspects of the Technic forum. I mean, what's the forum about? Mocs and sets. hat's the contest about? Mocs and building techniques. It fits perfectly. If anything, it's more of what we want than the non-contest stuff. That's why there are contests at all. If contest entry topics swamp the rest, isn't that only good? I mean, finally it's MOC topics swamping the endless discussions about sets we don't like anyway, and finally most of the energy revolves about people actually building stuff :)

Ask this question in the Mindstorms forum - it's their topics and subcommunity which are about to be migrating. I don't really care either way.

I really like this one. The shaping is great, I like the color scheme and the System touches to the bodywork, and it "feels" set-like. I'm a bit worried about the tiny pneumatic pistons. Would thay have enough force to move the boom? Maybe I underestimate those pneumatics, but I suggest you test the arm functionality some time soon :) Also, it will be quite the job tucking away all those hoses. Also, where will all the switches come?

Thanks for writing this. out, @Jim When seeing the title I feared for the worst, but to read you are in peace with the reviews ending, makes it much easier, at least for me, to adapt and accept the change. And, as you said, there are the review videos. It's thanks to Eurobricks I discovered RacingBrick :) Make sure to start a WIP topic when you're starting your robot. :)

I'd be happy with both, but I do have a preference for construction vehicles. I think when limiting it to construction vehicles it's easier to compare the entries for voting/judging. Just "no car" seems a bit too broad - how do you compare a helicopter to a printing machine? "No vehicle" sounds better, I like that one too, and it allows to get some ideas immediately. If the one after the next can be "no vehicle" (if this idea is that old and still sounds good, then I'd use it some day) then I would do "construction" now to make it more different.

Can we please do anything else than cars? There are already wayyyy too many cars in this theme. I don't care - excavators. Port cranes. Trench diggers. Walking machines. Container stackers. Bridge layers. There's so much we could do. Edit: here's some inspiration. Résumé des concours Technic (techlug.fr)

This sounds like making some people unhappy is a bad thing. If you try to make everyone happy, noone will be overjoyed and the result will be meh. The key is to make different people unhappy every time. I wouldn't join a free-to-build-anything contest. Because, what's even the contest in that? We have that all the time on the forum anyways. The idea of a contest (to me) is to do something different than normally. Also, having a theme sparks ideas.

Whatever the theme... I like the cubic studs measurement limit thing :) It's simple enough, flexible enough and restrictive enough. Maybe that can be of use as a generic size limit for future contests that need one.

If the top and bottom members of the truss are continuous beams, rather than joined sections, then you don't need solid material between them. The material wouldn't do much that a hollow structure wouldn't also do. That would only add a lot of weight, while the main goal is keep the top and bottom at the correct distance, so their tension/compression doesn't result in buckling. For optimal strength you want most of the material near the edges, that's why the I and H beams exist. Compare this to a traffic barrier. These are thick rails on very thin posts, but this still works because there are very many posts, so the force required to bend the structure is the force to bend a post, multiplied by their huge number. But yes, for the top and bottom I would definitely rely on stud connections rather than pin connections. Also, I would assume axles are much stronger than pins. Especially if braced on both sides. Edit: what I mean is this: The top and bottom act as full 2x6 stud (cross section) beams, which should have plenty of tensile/compressive strength, and the diagonals only serve to keep them from moving relative to each other, and, thus, from bending upwards and downwards. The pinned black beams may not be very strong, but there are a lot of them, so together they should do the job. (Again, the structure is not tested in real life. I just really enjoy designing stuff like this)

Interesting project. Those kidns of suspension are always a fun challenge to design. Seeing this almost makes me want to try a F1-type car again as well. Anyhow, this looks like a promising start. I'm not sure about the connection of the lower suspension arms with the body; looks like it would separate. Is it possible to use the 3x5 dogbone part to connect the lower left and right suspension arms? Also, there are some parts intersecting at the wheel mount. The 3x1 crossblock will have to go, and then you can extend the 1x2x0.5 beam that holds the pullrod to 1x5x0.5; that would also increase strength.

@Ngoc Nguyen Good point. Didn't think of that.

It's kinda odd what the new gears are for. They don't seem to do anything that the double-bevel variants can't do, except not rub against beams, which is more of a design problem with the double-bevel gears than anything else. Adding even more same-sized gears might only confuse things further. And why the weird coloring, if there's nothing special about them? Doesn't really look future proof. On the positive side, good to see the 19x3 frame in another set, and the yellow parts seem to be the new neon yellow color.