Erik Leppen

Maybe not both gera racks are for steering? Is 4-wheel steering confirmed on this set yet? maybe one of the two is for extending the counterweight? The biggest surprise for me in the part list is 80 blue pins 1/2. What can so many of them even be used for in this set? Edit: what I also find good to see is that black 5x7 frames are becoming more common.

I really like what I see in the build pictures - it all seems quite compact and dense and filled with Technic functional stuff. So far, I approve (I don't mind the odd colors on the inside, as long as it stays on the inside. The green and orange 3x5 beams seem to be to differentiate between the front and rear axle.) For such small angles, this doesn't make any difference. You'll only notice when the angles are sharper.

Things I noticed in the part list: First set to come with 5x7 frames in two colors First set to come with dog bones in two colors 6 driving rings, but only 4 changeover catches? So there must be a 4-way (or more) switchbox that uses one switch to control two or more driving rings. Why orange and green 3x5 beams? Also, yellow beams, blue #1 connectors, white bushes-with-pinhole, for no other apparent reason than easy part distinguishability No blue 20t clutch gears Has at least 117 gears, which is quite a lot

Maybe we can inspire each other. I say if you don't have another idea, go ahead 7 hours ago, Marxpek said: Why not join the competition and work out your prototype further? I think it's cool to see different people take on similar projects. The idea is that the two swingarms will move independently. Which means there is no center bar (the horizontal tube that holds the big letters in the real version), because it would be in the way. Anyhow, I have some progress, as I had most of the day today to build. First fo all I played with lots of different ideas for the bench and its restraint mechanism. I'm not sure if I found a good-enough idea yet, but the idea that seems the most promising is this one: It uses a wormgear to drive the restraints, meaning it can't be backdriven. The idea is that the big 36t gear will couple with something in the floor of the base. The part with the transparent Technic teeth should come in the base and raise/lower together with the movement of the entrance/exit. It's a bit large though, I'd like to find something more compact. I tried some other ideas, inclding a link-driven idea, but that wasn't reliable and took a lot of space. Also, it owuld need a system to prevent the restraints from getting loose. A wormgear seems the simplest way to achieve this. I also have tried laying out the bench; which seems to be smaller than I hoped. (as in, small seat space)… I hoped for a slightly better ratio of seat area / ride size. I used some paneling to create a curved bottom, but I only have the 3x13 panels in weird colors, and I don't like all those colors together. So I'm not sure yet about the paneling. Or I may have to order black 3x13 panels. I also worked on the frame of the base with towers. I went with a studded structure, which seems very strong so far. I have only built one side, the one that controls the bench rotation. I also made the swingarm 2 studs shorter, so the radius of the swing motion is now 13 studs. Not very much, but enough I think for the idea. Currently, the tower holds the gearsystem for the swingarm rotation, a gearsystem for the bench rotation, and a switch to couple or decouple the bench rotation. I hope that if decoupled, gravity will let it swing by itself (which is done on the real ride too, although the real ride only has a couple-decouple; when coupled, the bench is fixed relative to the swingarms). Next up: build the other tower and swingarm; connect them to form the whole frame, put the bench between them and see if I can get the restraint coupling to work.

If you're going for sturdy and rigid, I wonder why you're working studless. I would expect it to be much easier and more effective if you took the 75192 approach to frame building... Personally, I find studded frames take less space for the same rigidity, and mainly for that reason I find them look more elegant. Studless frames meant to be very rigid, quickly look like a giant block of parts. And to be honest, that's the first impression I get when I see your photos. There's lots of double layers, but mostly, it's relatively small/short parts (5x7 beams are great for three-dimensional work, but they are only 7 long). Every joint adds more play. Also, on your last picture, the left and right halves aren't connected, except for four pins between pairs of 5x7 frames. As a final advice...triangles. Your whole design seems to trust on the rigidity of parts themselves (I know studded frames usually do this too), mainly 5x7 frames, but you don't seem to have built in much other rigidity in the structure of those parts. There's no long continuous beam covering the whole length that will absorb the tensile force at the bottom and the compressive force at the top. Secondly, adding those little red connectors along the sides will hardly make things stronger (I think they only make it harder to build); but do add weight and complexity. I think the best way to achieve stiffness is having two horizontal layers of studded "planes", one bottom, one top, connected by angled beams forming triangles. The larger the triangle (and the more "equilateral") the better. If there's little play in the joints, the forces will have to be abosrbed by beams as stretch/compress, which beams are very good at. See this bridge model. It consists of mostly triangles, because triangles are rigid. Filling up a triangle with more stuff wouldn't add anything - what matters is that the 3 sides are robust and connected firmly with as little play as possible. Even if the sides of a triangle could hinge freely, the fact that it's a triangle will prevent it from doing so. I think I would approach your base structure as two parallel bridges, crossed by two other parallel bidges perpendicular to them. Like a tic-tac-toe grid (seen from above) of bridges. Yes, your structure may become (much) taller than 5 studs. But you may need that to achieve the strength. Strength-wise, it's best if the force-bearing elements are far apart (because a larger arm results in a lower force), so they form a large hollow structure. Any free space between the frame and the bodywork is space that could have been used to add a really strong extra triangular link. (Also, why would the base need to be flat at all. I think a more pyramid-shaped design, where the center sits higher, would give you much more space to build a strong base. PS I'm not an engineer, but I did play Bridge Building Game a lot in the past. Edit: here's a quick example I fiddled in MLCAD: More diagonals will still need to be added (yellow lines as suggestions; probably with diagonals too). This whole thing (so far) is only 140 beams (and, if my count is correct, 280 pins). Of course, you'll need a bunch of connectors at the crossings. It's 13 tall because that allows to use the 5-12-13 triangle (12 being vertical). As a bonus, you could combine this with 12-12-17 triangles which are an almost-exact fit (you won't notice it's not exact). Another edit: here's a quick test with 12-12-17 triangles:

This is starting to look very interesting. The bright colors are really suitable, and the tower looks quite rigid despite being very light on parts. I'm not sure the way you mounted the XL motor is mathematically sound, but if it fits, it fits, and it certanily looks interesting and uses only a few parts. Do you have a link to the geometry tool you used? The motion of the red triangular things folding around the chain at the ends looks really cool too! Also, why is the arm extendible? Or, what is the reason for using the red gear-rack housings?

Have you thought about how you're going to make it functional? Especially (of course) the swinging motion? Any ideas how you will be tackling that? I think that's the biggest challenge. If you have that, I'd also suggest putting a turntable between the "disk" and the vertical shaft, so that you can make the disk rotate. I believe this happens on the real rides too. (But maybe there's already a turntable there?) Also, I think you could build at least a quarter of the disk in real, to see how "round" it ends up being. It would be a shame if you find yourself having tons of cool color schemes for a disk that doesn't fit or is not nicely circular. But I think your digital versions seem really nice and the yellow-white works well here. Good work so far, curious where this will be heading :)

In this topic I want to keep the progress for my TC14 (Theme park rides) entry. The first idea I got for a ride is a Top Spin with independent arms. I call it Excalibur because the inspirational ride from my home park (Walibi Holland) has that name. I won't literally copy that ride though, because it doesn't have independent arms. More info on the real ride (in Dutch): http://walibi24.nl/parkinformatie/attracties/sherwood-forest/excalibur/ Random photo of the real ride: The real ride has water. I won't do that :) The other inspiration is an unfinished version of the ride my cousin once built when I was younger. (I believe he used the Control Center to operate it.) This was in the studded age, and there are no pictures, but TC14 seems like the perfect opportunity to try and build such a thing. I started by laying out the frame, getting a sense of size. It's huge (for my doing) The arms are independent. This means two things. 1. one of the arms will need to bend inward so the bench can be at an angle without the whole structure deforming. 2. the connection with the bench needs to be flexible. As I also want to control the angle of the bench, I needed a U-joint type of connection (with 2 degrees of freedom, but control over rotation; as a normal U-joint). As a normal U-joint would not hold, I invented my own heavy-duty U-joint: A Unimog ball joint goes through a turntable (it just fits). The turntable holds 4 ball-pins that connect to 4 ball-links on the other half using 6L links. (I'm happy they removed the stops on these links a few years back.) It does mean I have this weird 4x5 frame on the bench though, that makes the link unwieldily long. The length of the whole things is dictated by the length of the vertical swing arms, and the maximum angle of my U-joint. I think I will make the swingarms slightly shorter, so that the whole thing can shrink a bit. I also started some work on the bench. I made a test thing which whould basically be a cross-section showing only 2 seats. There's a little system for the restraints driven by the three 24t gears. I'm not happy with this system yet; I think the range of movement is too small. This is what I have now. The next things to do are: Build a very strong and rigid studded frame for the base and support towers. Make the swingarms a bit shorter, so the ride can be shrunk a bit See if I can connect some of the seats to the main ride. As far as I can see now, the ride will have the following 5 (main) functions: Rotate left swing arm Rotate right swing arm Rotate bench along its own axis Operate restraints Move entrance/exit paths out of the way Hopefully I can combine the last two in one move, thanks to an idea by @pleegwat on the general information thread (and others who made suggestions, but I will probably try his solution first)..There are probably other functions to come, like operating the gates, but that will emerge when the build evolves. I really hope I can get this done in time, and to my own satisfaction, because I think it's a pretty tough challenge :)

I have started too (building the first idea that came to mind @aminnich), and I have to say, this is going to be challenging. I mean, doing he ride's movements is one thing, but I run into multiple problems immediaely: this thing is going to be huge. I don't like that. It's already about 70 studs long, which I find a bit much. the entrances/exits need to move out of the way before the ride can run. So I need moveable entrance/exits how to operate the restraints without the restraints getting loose during the ride. I'd like to have the moperated from the "floor", rather than from the cart itself (in the latter case it would be easy). I'm mentioning this because maybe others haven't thought about this yet. People need to enter and exit the car somehow, and we would like them to be safe during the ride's course. For the restraints I see two options: mechanic (driven with an axle through the turntable). But as the car hangs on rotating arms, any motion of the arms will also "unwind" any axles through the turntables (people doing crawler cranes probably know this), meaning the restraints may get loose over time pneumatic. But then, the pneumatic tubing prevents the arms from rotating unlimited, which makes things less fun to operate. So I wonder, for those thinking about operating restraints from the base rather than the car, how do you tackle this?

Water rides? Wow, you guys are really going crazy on this contest. I'm not referring to the judges, I'm not against allowing it; I mean the people who are going to build such things. I don't know, water and electrics… You're sure taking on a challenge, guys. I think I have settled on an idea and will start building soon. WIP topic will come then too. As far as I can see, my ride idea is an existing ride type and has three independent movements so far (at least), more if the floor needs to move out of the way somehow, and I might add a release mechanism where I let gravity take over. It's inspired on a thing I remember my cousin once showed when I was little (in the studded age ).

I'd say 8868's studless successor is 9397. https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=104623#T=I. Clocking in at only ~1300 parts, I think you could say that studless building requires about 40% more parts than studded. For the rest, I agree with all you said. I think 42043 and 42009 are the largest reasonable sets. Anything beyond that and sets become unwieldy. (The BWE 42055 is unwieldy too, but I take a exception for that because it's such a unique subject matter and I think the size is justified there)

It's not a debating tool, because there's no debate. There are personal viewpoints and opinions, supported by arguments based on personal taste and preference. You can't really "debate" those. At most, you can disagree, and state why. Which also means there's no "golden ratio" or whatever "acceptable" ratio. What is acceptable differs per person. Also, the number of functions isn't a very accurate measure, because it disregards the complexity. 42030 has 4 functions but I find it a very boring set, because I find it lacking in technical complexity. Yes, I find the Chiron lacking in functionality and arguably not even Technic, despite the marvellous gearbox and nice looks. But I also personally find the BWE's size perfectly acceptable given what it does, and one of the better and most original Technic sets of recent years. And for me, for now, 42082 seems to be larger than is needed for the functions it seems to have. I don't say you have to agree, or that it's not acceptable. It's just an opinion. And my opinion may change when I see the set being reviewed, or it may stay the same. We'll see.

I don't think people complained about low part count in 42070 - I think many complaints were about high cost, unnecessarily big size and general ugliness of the model (the last one is a result of low part count, but it was not the part count itself that spawned the critiques). And I don't think people complain about high part count in 42082 - i think many complaints are about, again, needlessly big size, and high part count in relation to functionality, or differently stated, unnecessarily high part count. I think many of us complain from a buyer's perspective - many of us will buy the set anyway. I think many complaints are from a designer's perspective. Speaking for myself, I think the set could have become a better model, in the case of 42070 by being smaller and more detailed, and in the case of 42082 by being smaller and using fewer parts. But, that said, it still remains to be seen whether the size of 42082 is justified by what's inside. It may very well be.

The thing is, they don't extend at the same rate, because the idler gears of each LA (shown in 3:01 in the video) are on different sides. The gray 20t idler gera for the left LA is on the right, and the gear for the right LA is on the left. This means that as the LAs rotate, they will move very slightly inwards or outwards. And this means that a length difference will occur when the boom moves up or down. If the LAs are aligned with horizontal boom, they will be slightly at different lengths when the boom is up. The slightly further extended LA will bear the most load. You can test this by doing a test build, and then insert both 20t idler gears in a single LA bracket. So you get a closed loop of 4 bevel gears (2x tan 12t, 2x gray 20t idler). You will notice that the LA can't move up or down. If the position of the idler gear would have no effect, you could just have the same motions as with a single gear. Or just do a test build similar to the bulid in the set, and connect the tops of the LAs with axles. You iwll notice that if you rotate the LAs over their mount axis, their lengths will start to de-align.

This is an interesting theme. A theme that could have been expected, in a way, but that I somehow didn't see coming. I do have a few ideas immediately (which is a sign it's a good theme), but I notice I mainly think of existing rides, and one of them rather simple, so it might not score high on originality, and the complexity and impressiveness that usually gathes some votes too. Also, I don't have the required 'figs :P (I know they are not required, but I think they do add something here.) One thing I'm a bit afraid for is that those who will decorate their ride extensively will get the most votes, which would turn this basicaly into a modeling competition rather than a Technic competition. But let's hope that both the voters and the judges will decide using Technic-minded voting criteria. Anyhow, this will be some real fun getting to build and seeing all the other builds. I'm really looking forward to both :)

Just open a topic in the appropriate board (probably Technic board). Most people open a new topic for each new MOC. Some other people keep all their stuff in a single topic. The choice is yours :)

If you want to stick to sets currently available, maybe the Rally Car 42077 is your best choice. Personally, I dislike the set as a model, but as a parts-pack it might best suit your needs. It's not super cheap, and it's a bit light on actual functions and gear systems, so you may need a second set with more gears if you want to extend those, but with 42077 you get a decent starter pack for a car with suspension and some panels in dark azure and white. Also, you're getting a fake engine. Here's a picture showing the underside. This shows what you'll be getting in the suspension and techniques department. If you don't mind bricklinking old sets, then I want to mention 8070. It's in a single and common color, which is useful for MOCing, it has more functions, including a switchbox, and has all the suspension bits 42077 has too, and it's in my opinion a really good set, so be sure to build both models before you're sorting the parts for MOC usage.

Cool little tool. I particularly like how it's so quick to use. One glance at an approximate angle and you find results immediately. An advantage of the Technic version of the app is that you can see smaller similar triangles because the pin holes match the holes in the long green beam. These are harder to see in the system version. I particularly like the "near fits". I don't know if you pan to extend the applet in any way, but one thing that slightly bugs me personally is that the measurements are taken as "beam length", i.e. including the end holes. I'd like to see an option where the 13, 17, 21 from your image is replaced by 12, 16, 20 (the distances between the centers of the relevant holes), because that's how I work, also because you immediately notice that 12, 16, 20 has a common divisor 4 and can therefore be "reduced" to 3, 4, 5. Also it's easy to check that indeed 12^2 + 16^2 = 20^2, which is why the triangle "works". Calculations such as these require an extra, non-intuitive, step if you work with 13, 17, 21. But I understand that others may prever to use beam lengths rather than hole distances, so I think it'd be best if it were a toggled option that can be set on or off, just like the system/technic button.

B model has in dark-orange or orange (in the front bottom).

Haha, now this is sure different! I think I like the BMW bike best. The bright colors work together better than I would expect. The rally car is still an ugly set though. Even for this recoloring it doesn't work because it has too many large panels. The patchwork of colors looks disturbing there, while it has a great effect on the bike and buggy.

In fact, I try do adopt the same rule for MOCs - at least for their instructions. Also, by the way, it's not entirely true I believe. I believe it can differ between different set of bags. In the same set, bags #1 can have yellow 5L and 9L, where bags #2 can have yellow 7L. I can't remember which set this was but I remember having seen this. Actually, I have always liked the gray axles, I hated 5L axles when they were black since I always confused them with 6L. It think it's the switch to gray that made 7L and longer odd lengths possible. These may be nice-to-have in studded (even-length-based) builds, but in studless (odd-length-based) builds I think 9L and 11L are indispensible. I use them a lot - more than 10 and 12. This black-gray system worked fine for me for years, so I wasn't really happy when they introduced red/yellow axles. But they grew on me and I bricklinked quite a few since then. My Delta carrier benefited from the red axles (and the red 3L axle joiner for creating odd lengths). I'm not so sure about the need for brown axles - I found dark-tan and dark-gray fine. And the tan 4L axle with cylinder section doesn't seem to serve any purpose to me. I can't remember any case where a normal 4L axle would've had notable drawbacks, so I really fail to see this part's point. I wouldn't mind to see it go.

My guess would be that some part of it bent and got loose during transport. It's not the easiest set to move, or so I understood. The support structure has many rectangles that can deform into parallelograms, and only a few triangles (which are rigid). So maybe a support beam got disconnected and it's not perfectly straight anymore?

This is probably because overestimation results in much more dissatisfaction and frustration, and less sales, than underestimation. You gotta remember, for a commercial organization there is, in the end, only one measurement that counts: the profit. Whatever they do; ultimately, the goal is to increase profits.

I actually dislike the large flat panels. That's partly because of those silly out-of-style stripes on them, but also because they're often too large, have holes in the surface and leave ugly gaps because of their rounded edges. I often find large Surfaces consisting of 5x11 or 3x11 panels to look very messy because of all there different shapes involved. In some cases I prefer stacked beams if done well. Or else, there's always tiles you can use to cover the holes :) I much prefer the asymmetric panels (the numbered ones that come in left and right variants), because they can be put in many different ways because of their asymmetry. Every angle has a different effect on a build. Especially the smallest 1x2x5 variant, which I think if my favorite panel. Anyhow, to prevent this from becoming a new Technic pub topic, let's return to opinions on Technic theme… I think what we're seeing is that flagship sets are becoming borderline too large, but the mid-size models are very often really nice sets (for their target audience). There are a lot of good mid-size sets lately, and I think the new parts, colors, building techniques, colored axles, new pins etc. contributed to that.

That said though… I can remember fondly my favorite studded set, 8460, the great mobile crane, and I had tons of fun playing with that, and I was really impressed by multiple things in that set: the tiny steering circle the fact that when the outriggers are extended, the wheels are not touching the ground the lifting capacity the large movement range of the boom That set was perfect. As a bonus it had a really nice B model. Granted, I was young at the time, and I have always been technically-minded (but isn't that who Technic is for? ), but I can't help but think children can definitely feel disappointed with a set like 42070 (whose color seems to indicate "this is for the kids"), that doesn't have the nice steering radius (does it even steer? That's hard to see ), that doesn't have outriggers that actually support the whole truck, and whose crane doesn't seem to be the strongest ever (I don't own the set, so I don't know). And it's not like I picked a cheap set. I know my MOCs don't have lifting capacity either, but that's three functions where 8460 achieved better than 42070, making it more playable for less money. Yes, it's not "BIG!!!", but it was a blast. I think for kids, the best 2018 Technic sets are the First Responder and the upcoming forklift. (Edit: and indeed, 8109 and 42008 are both great sets. Technic the way I like it.)