Erik Leppen

I\m actually trying to finish mine by next Sunday (August 26), because my home LUG is holding a meeting that day and I want to showcase the MOC there. (For those interested and near the Netherlands, see https://www.facebook.com/lowlug ) As an advantage, finishing early gives me some time to shoot a video (the part I dislike the most).

This has actually been one of my childhood wish sets I never got. I guess I was into odd colors already back then Also, I liked the futuristic theme and odd shape. Also, for only 600 parts it seemed to have quite a few functions. It was in that transition age between studded and studless, where also 8462 (the blue tow truck) fell into, another set I really liked (and actually got).

156 euro for ~1800 parts is not particularly bad, considering you get 6 large wheels, two PF motors and a few LAs. And, indeed, six motorized functions out of the box. The body is crude and I think it lacks detail, but from the motorized-functions perspective, I think it's a nice set. It has lots of gears, so the gearbox packs some nice complexity as well. And I think it's good modding material, considering the cut corners in the suspension department ;) Whether it's worth 156 euro is up to you, really. To answer that question, you could try comparing it to other sets with the same price tag.

At first I thought: it looks the base is too elongated, not "square" enough, to work as a base for a crane. But then I noticed it's extendable. A function I can't remember having seen before. Nice! Also, I like the good combination of studded with studless in the base. For the boom, I undestand it is in very earily stages, but be sure to add vertical bracing near the end of the outer boom. This is needed when the boom is extended, to prevent gravity on the second section from bending and tearing the end of the main boom apart. So be sure to add some vertical beams between the panels somehow to keep it together. For raising the boom: if you're going pneumatic, I'd recomend using the newer 2x11 cylinders, because they have longer reach than the old version. (6 studs vs. 3.5 for the old. That's quite a difference). Then you can use them 2 by 2, in the same style as 8460 but doubled up. Of the pneumatic solutions, I think that would be the best setup.

This topic had been quiet for a while, because I'm waiting for parts, but in the meantime I still have some progress. So here's the update on where I am now. The most important thing is that it's now motorized, and the three motorized functions are functional. I think the two most visible changes are The counterweights The stairs To start with the first: I added weight bricks to the other ends of the swingarms. These really improve the balance, and make it possible for the motors to lift the bench. I put the weight bricks in typical counterweight-shaped black parts. Shame on me for using system bricks to enhance the looks on a Technic competition, but remember, the weight parts are actually functional elements :) The weight bricks (2 per side) are as much towards the ends of the arms as possible. The second visible change is that it now has two stairs added on the sides so it's actually reachable from the floor. Probably if this were a real ride, the base would be sunk into the ground so the blue platform is flush with the floor, but I can't build below the ground in Lego :) Also, I covered the holes in the towers with some tiles. I think that's all the decoration the towers will get. Of course, the big functional change is the motorization. I had attached motors to the turntable drive units, only to find out that they didn't work. Everything was slipping, because the turntable was driven by a bevel gear. I thought I had secured it tightly, but it still slipped. Also, the mechanism was too complex, so there was little power left to drive the actual functions. So I had to redo those sections. I drive the turntable ring with normal spur gears now, and made the drive train simple with as little friction as possible. The drive units are very strong and run smoothly, and the XL motors have plenty of force to drive the swingarms. But the motors are closer to the function, so the drivetrain is simpler. The modules are bigger than the old ones, especially the primary one, that houses two functions. The XL motor is on both sides, between the yellow beams of the tower and drives the swingarms. The L motor is only on the primary side and drives the bench rotation. The L motor hangs a little ugly there, but I'm afraid I have little options. There is not much room, and every additional gearing reduces the force left for the actual function. So this gives 3 motorized functions. The other functions (entrances, gates and restraints) will remain manual, using the knobs at the front. (These wil probably be replaced by something in a bright color, such as orange.) A slightly less visible change is that I reworked the central area to house a battery box. This required some additional reinforcement, but as a result, the whole black structure around the battery box is much stronger now and the frontal blue platform also feels much more rigid. (Also notice I changed the yellow railing to 16L links instead of 9 and 11 axles. Currently, the three motorized functions are linked as follows: There is a IR receiver on each side (the one on the left is next to the remote); both IR receivers connect to 1 XL motor. They are on the same channel, so I can use a single remote for them. The L motor is connected via the polarity switch on the right (see the red axle sticking up). All those elements are fixed a bit sloppily to the frame for the time being. This is an intermediate solution so I can show the thing working on a meeting next week, provided I can use one RC channel. Two extra polarity switches are ordered. As soon as I receive these, I can rebuild things again and get rid of the RC solution. Basically, the three switches will form some sort of a control center. But given the short wires, the switches will be approximately in the same place where the IR receivers are now. I notice that the wires are annoyingly short on all those elements, so it's all a tight fit. Maybe I have to raise the base and let wires run underneath. One last chnge is that the white plates from previous builds has been replaced by dark gray, and the raisable floor is now built with studded bricks.

It's a fun little mechanism, but it's not much of a ride at the moment. The paddle-operated function is neat, but if that's the only function, it feels a bit too simple. Also, there's no entrance or exit, there's no restraint. No gates, no floor. The base very small, so it looks unstable. Also, for some reason, you seem to have removed the little paneling and detailing (red axles) the WIP had. It looks like a proof of concept, not a finished model. I'm sure you can do better ;) And there's still a lot of time. Use it :) Also, I was expecting some kind of a launching mechanism. I thought this was some sort of a bungee ride, so I was expecting an elastic string, and then something to "hold" the seat when another mechanism builds the tension by rolling up the string, and then the hook can be released and the seat shoots upward. Then you'd have more of a Technic functionality, and more of a ride, with an "operating" state and an "idle" state, and then it will also make more sense to add gates and such, that can then be used to denote the state. (gates open = idle state).

If you want to minimize contact, I'd pick either the rare tyres from 8462/8248, or motorcycle tyres. I can remember set 8420, the red Street Bike, had almost profile-less tyres. There must have been a more recent bike with smooth tyres. Edit: 42036. /edit These might have really low contact area. Because of the thinner shape, they were also a lot harder than most car tyres, which means they give very little, so their contact area stays small. 8462 tyres are also harder, but that is because they are not hollow. But, as I said, those are out of production, so I don't know if you want that.

This is turning out to be pretty great, really. I like the swooping motion of the cars around the ends of the track. Looks like a fun ride! (I also like how the number of cars is odd, so that alternately there's one on the left end and then one on the right end. The asymmetry adds to the flow of the motion. Also, it looks like indeed your curved track has exactly the right size. Although I'm not sure what the springs are for, but if they are in the real ride I'm sure they have a function there. I'd say the missing car will be lime :) One question though. What're you going to do with all those panels when the competition ends?

"Why not" is not really how part design works, so I'm afraid you don't convince me. Also, why not? Because I don't see any uses. If you stick a pin in the long end, it does the same as the current #1 angle connector plus an axle pin. You could put two end-to-end with a pin between, but this can also be done now with two of the wonderful pins-with-pinhole and a 2L round pin joiner. So the only way to give this new functionality is by sticking an axle in the long end, which will be quite a weak way to secure an axle, because the other hole is further away and also round. Better secure the same axle with a crossblock or a liftarm. So it's not a very good part to have. That's probably why not ;) Or, that last sentence stated differenty, there's some parts I'd rather have. But I'm not sure this is the right topic for that.

From the outside it looks pretty nice, better than the official alternate. To me, it has a bit of a classic-sports-car feel, with that long front bonnet. Form the inside though, it looks scarily empty. It's the bare essentials, and that's it. Of course, this is understandable given how little choice you have from a set that doesn't have any functions by itself beyond the absolutely necessary, so not your fault. It's not the easiest set to create C-models for. But it does look a bit like an empty shell. One thing I don't like is how the suspension arms have such a steep angle, rather than being closer to horizontal, because it means the track width increases a lot when suspension is compressed. The vertical differential case is a smart solution I haven't seen before. By the way I really like how well the large "Porsche wheel arch" panel at the front and the small red panels work together with the large white panels, and these in turn with the 3x13 panels. I like the shaping and the color-transition between white front and the rest in blue.

And probably not even then. I don't know how much force one has to apply to LAs to activate the internal clutch (to press them together manually, like you would a pneumatic cylinder), but a LA has 5 studs of range, which is 4 cm. If your boom is about 1 kg and you are going to lift it 40 cm up (vertical displacement of the center of gravity), then the force on the LA will be 40 / 4 * 1 kg, which equals 10 kg. My expectation is that a pressure of 10 kg will activate the LA's internal clutch, meaning it simply won't work, at any speed. But I encourage @gate to try and fail, because every mistake is a learning opportunity :)

Double thd scale, 8x the pieces. 2 cubed is 2x2x2 = 8, not 4.

I think sets in the 600 - 800 part range (BMW motorbike, first responder, forklift, mine loader) are often very good sets. Any smaller and they become too simplified, too large and they seem to get more complex without adding many more functions (the functions just become more complex). 600 - 800 parts seems to be a sweet-spot for nice, playable, manual Technic models understandable for children without becoming oversimplified.

This is a weird list. Of the 7 sets, 5 are "fast things". The other two (the helicopter and tracked loader) are the only two that sound interesting. A helicopter of around 400 parts should have at least a main rotor, tail rotor and something like a crane. Landing gear would be a bonus, but I'm not expecting it (even though it's very possible at 400 parts) I'm thinking 8856, who remembers that set? t'Was a brilliant set. Rescue helicopter will probably be red. A tracked loader of 800 parts could have the same two arm functions the ZEUX has, but on tracks. Personally, I hope they are operated by knobs at a distance from the actual arm, so not like the ZEUX, but more like 8853. Probably has the same tracks as 42028, and maybe a similar scale? With 800 parts you can do a lot. Probably yellow, but I hope orange. Also, I'm very curious what a $50 supercar looks like. 500 parts is somewhat larger than the 42022 hot rod. Would be about the size of the 42037 buggy. I'm expecting the same functions as that set or the 42077 rally car, minus the flappy side panels. Could work well as a towed vehicle for the tow truck from 42079-B. Would be cool to see a yellow car set this time (yellow still misses some panels). The GT Race Car could be a nice follow-up to 42039, the bright green Le Mans car; I expect similar functions. Maybe an adjustable wing? $150 is about 1300 - 1600 parts. Ford GT colors, blue/red/black, could work well for this. Police pursuit is probably pull-back. Maybe the missing number 42090 is the other pullback?

What worries me a bit is that your actuator has only 5 studs of range. That's the same as a LA. I think the main advantage of a custom actuator is that you can make it longer. Do you plan to make it longer? Then, you can move the connection points away from each other (for example, the mounting point of the boom could be at the top, instead of at the bottom, and further backwards), which reduces the forces.

Then why not add an extra pair of black 1x4 beams? It's 4000 parts anyway, an extra 8 beams shouldn't hurt.

There's two ways you can look at building beams and rigid structures: by function by style which is to say: style is how a model looks, apart from its function. So where the best way to build functions often follows from the properties of parts (such as strength), style is very much a free choice. As you said, there are many styles: pure studless; mainly panels (curved shapes, flat areas) pure studless; closed with beams (beam stacking) pure studless; open with beams (truss-like) pure studless, more open structure (axles, flex axles, connectors) studless, but also using system parts, but with few studs showing (many tiles and curved slopes) studless, but also using system parts, with many studs showing (plates, etc) mostly studded body, but with few studs showing (many tiles and curved slopes) mostly studded body, with many studs showing (plates, etc) (Model team style) I think that's kind of the "range". Your option "undersides of plates showing" is also an option, but not very common (personally, it wouldn't be my taste, but maybe the underside of plates has the right texture for what you're after). There's lots of in-between options. What I think matters most is to have a bit of consistency. If one half of the model is open and the other half is closed, or one part with studs showing and anothe section tiled off, it looks like a mistake somehow, or as if you ran out of parts. I think which style you chooes is mainly dicated by your collection and your taste, as long as you follow the same style throughout a build, you're basiclaly fine. And of course, if a model has really different sections, you can mix styles. For example, if a GBC module has a tower and a slide, you can pick some style for the tower and another for the slide. But if you're building a model consiting of one thing, like a car or a crane, I think you're best off following a single style.

Crab steer, raisable cabin, detachable counterweight, separate jib. suspension. All of these are possible, maybe not all in the same model, but I have used each of those in one of my cranes (whether finished or not :P); all models that are less than 4000 parts. Some people have built elaborate Y-frames, or how're they called, on their crane's booms, which would also be a nice function. So it's not like there's a lack of functions not yet seen in recent official crane sets. Especially a crane with only 4 wheels, as opposed to 8 or 10, would have been a good opportunity to introduced for example pendular suspension or crab steering.

Yes, that crankshaft piece is part of a really ingenious linkage meant to let the crane fold exactly right when the LA retracts. The brilliancy lies in the fact that the final crane section has to rotate 180 degrees, which requires a linkage. I rebuilt just the crane of this set for my Delta carrier a few months back (but in another color scheme), and I copied this linkage to appreciate its elegance again.

I'm not so sure to be honest. It looks too big for its own good. I'm afraid that by choosing such a large scale, you set up a pretty tough challenge for yourself. There looks to be a lot of empty space, and it's mostly panels and beams. I would guess that things would be more manageable in a smaller-scale model - you'd need less parts and less room, and you'd get less of a weight problem. I sometimes say: small MOCs, small challenges (but I'm sure @Appie will disagree :P); big MOCs, big challenges. The fact that you had to give up suspension on the front axle, is a hint of things to come. Especially the boom will be a serious head scratcher. On a mobile crane this size, the boom (with extending section) will be several kg at least, and a hundred yellow panels. 42082 will look like a kid's toy next to it. Any idea how you're going to raise that? A series of LAs probably won't do. (But I've been surprised before.) Pneumatics also only get you so far. So this is probably going to require a worm-based or string-based custom cylinder, or another string-based solution. Also, that turntable looks puny. But by the looks of it, you own the 42055 BWE, which comes with those yellow 11x11 quarter ring gear rack things, which can be put to perfect use as a slewing ring. I understand the above may sound a bit too critical, so please let me say I'm really impressed by the performance so far, in your video! It's quite an achievement to let a model this size run so well (and with very good speed), and even take a pretty steep hill with seemingly no trouble at all! That's quite a thing. And if driving performance is what you're after, then you're very well on your way. Also, the chassis seems more rigid than I'd expect from such a large model. I think you made good use of all the frame parts, and some diagonal beams to reinforce things. That all said, I'm sure this will be a tremendous learning experience, and a very fun project for anyone who's into big cranes. Looking forward to how you'll be tackling the superstructure! :)

At least 8270 has a proper B-model To be honest, to raise the boom properly I'd use 4 pneumatic cylinders, 2 side by side, 2 "in series" (as on 8460). That would also probably increase the range of the boom, and solve the "non-horizontal boom" problem. Then, while you're at it, you could even think of using pneumatics for the outriggers. The easiest way would probably be to just replace the small LAs by old large cylinders, one per outrigger. That would probably require only little change to the geometry and mounting points, and would probably make them move faster too. Using pneumatics for these 2 functions would eliminate two complex gear trains, freeing up space on the inside to simplify things. But you would loose the unlimited rotation (as is always the case when a pneumatic hose goes through the turntable. And using pneumatics, it may even work to tuck in a tilting cabin as an extra function.

I really like the fact that this is a C model from 42055. Bonus points for that. (I see you used all the frames to build a sturdy base :P ) Using buckets for seats is a bit "abstract" but I think it's fine really, and emphasizes the C-model aspect more, I think. Maybe you could use the many yellow axles from this set as railings? The gear quadrants are fine in the center ring, but I'm not convinced by their use as outer railings. Also, maybe you could "use" the fact that the dark-blue panels are rectangular instead of curved, and use angled shapes and straight lines for the outer railing, instead of circular shapes. Right now, the angled panels are a bit of a mismatch wit the curved railing. (By the way, your pictures are fine.)

To be honest, at the moment I think motorizing the extra functions isn't even necessary. The way I'm thinking right now, is to view the person viewing the MOC as the "ride operator", similar to a slot machine for example. Then, the "ride operator" can just turn a knob to lower/raise the restraints. There doesn't have to be a motor between this. On ‎7‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 9:44 AM, Appie said: You're correct that in real life, the ride follows a pre-set program. But I kind of like the idea that the ride can be "controlled" by someone. Also, adding some kind of programmable unit somewhere would make things too complicated and large I think. I don't own any Mindstorms or similar things, PF remotes are the most advanced things I have. Gearbox stuff would be cool, and I've toyed with this, but I think this would eat too much torque from the motor. I think I will need direct drive from the motors through a geartrain that's as simple as possible, so that all torque can be used to obtain a reasonable speed. But I have put the PF switches on my BL wishlist and will probably place an order very soon. For now, I have left motorization for what it is and focused on the entrance mechanism. Which, I think, turned out pretty cool. Also, I'm almost out of long (7, 9, 11) yellow axles, so I hope I don't need many more railings. I do still have a few 16L links in yellow though. This is how it looks with the entrances up. This is the "enterable" position - riders can enter the bench via the blue stairs. Unfortunately though, the gray ball joint parts with half frames block the path to the rear row. This means that technically, riders can't enter the back row. But I think I leave it like this, because I see a Lego model as representing a thing instead of literally being it. So I don't mind if details are incorrect, and I consider those gray pieces to be "details". If the gray ball piece was the same size as the dark-gray ball-socket piece, things would be fine. Here it is with the entrances down. The inner railings of the stairs fold down using a 9L link (connected to the black 3x3 T-beam connected to the studded frame at an angle) so the rotating bench doesn't touch them. The outer railings don't need to move away. I also added a front blue platform, and two red gates. I continued using blue as "walkable platforms" and red as "safety", hence the red gate. This would be the area where guests can walk by, or a waiting area of some sort. I think it works really nicely. One thing that is not realistic is that the gates open towards the queue. Normally, the gates open towards the walking direction. But this is a minor thing. The image below gives a better view on the linkage used to fold the inner railings. The stairs are simply connected to the moving bed (the thing with the white plates) at the top, and hinged at the bottom. Here's the whole thing so far: As you can see I also quickly used some gray frames to lay out the maximum reach of the counterweights at the other ends of the swingarms. This will be replaced by black studded things holding 2x6x2 weight bricks (2 per side) (which I freed from another MOC). Digital version is at about 2400 parts so far. I actually expected it to be less.

I believe I missed out on the previous C-model contest, because of lack of ideas. Personally I would just continue the numbering. Also, TC5 only used small/medium sets and you could combine 2 sets instead of using only 1. A C-model compo using any set would be different enough, and I think, interesting enough given the amount of interest there is for C-models.

Somehow the tow truck reminds me of the B-model of set 8853 (A model is a front loader), the Technic set I remember as my first (probably not actually my first Technic set, but my first large-ish Technic set). A set I have always liked a lot.