Erik Leppen

I don't understand what you're trying to do. What kind of unit is it you're building (not the whole thing, just this section/module)? Should the black parts rotate? The lime beams won't make it so. Slide? Is it some kind of suspension? What are the lime beams for? What would the "illegal" connection (in your opinion) be? What are the rubber parts for? Should the red parts at the ends (with the #3 angle connectors) move, rotate, or be still?

Those wheels look much better, I think. Curious to see where this will go. I can't remember having seen LMP cars in this scale ever before.

Pneumatics, I'm afraid, is not an option. I sold my pneumatic parts a few years back and I missed out on the Arocs. Anyhow, after a looong stretch of fiddling around with MLCAD, I might have come up with a way of motorizing 4 functions. It has a few problems though, and I have to try it in real bricks to know if it even works. Medium green = steering Azure = motorization and switches Orange = outriggers Violet = main boom lift Purple (only that one gear) = will go to the extension Light green = car lift This means the winch will still be manual, which I find to be a nice compromise, because then I can add a ratchet mechanism. First, I noticed in the version on the photographs, there was empty space under the hood. I figured, what if I could put an M motor there? And could a battery box fit behind the cabin (where it often is in sets as well)? Maybe... So I started trying to fit a gearbox in the remaining space. To make this fit, I had to make the truck one stud longer. The dimensions of the truck were taken from a photo, so I didn't want to move things too much. One stud may be OK. The possible issues with the solution are: he hood doesn't fully close anymore. So I may have to change the shape of the hood a bit. ll the gearing just fits. In many places there's no way to switch gears around. The 20:16 gearing from the motor can only be that or 24:12, or it won't fit. The two orange gears you see have to be 16:16, or it won't fit. The light green 16:20 can only be that or 20:16, or it won't fit. Same goes for many other places. So, if any function moves way too fast or way too slow, I'm basically screwed. The light green geartrain uses a lot of universal/CV joints to go around the rest, but this is a small function so I hope it won't be a problem The truck is 13 studs wide, and the battery box is 11 wide (I don't have any other BB's). I had planned for some nice chimneys right behind the cabin using 2x2 round bricks, but that wouldn't fit. So I will have to change the chimneys to something smaller. I used the old 2L driving ring, so the switches are offset a half stud. The sleeper cabin will be entirely filled with gearing... The battery box prevents me from adding a reinforcement beam straight from the top of the cabin backwards. Hopefully rigidity won't suffer too much. I haven't planned the cable from the BB to the motor yet Next step is to try this with real bricks to see what works and what doesn't... (By the way this is how I always work nowadays. Use MLCad and real bricks in unison, because by switching all the time, I automatically build everything multiple times, and with every build I keep finding new solutions (and with real bricks I see other things than virtually), making for a better end result.

I'm building a tow truck, and I'm running into a problem with the design of the functions. First, let's do an image of what we're talking about. As you see, it's a smaller-scale version of a tow truck similar to 8285, but with an extra axle. The wheels will be those from 42024 and other sets. Because of the scale, there is probably not enough room to add PF. So right now I'm aiming to have it manual. As far as I can see now, there will be the following functions: steering main boom raising/lowering main boom extension main boom winch car lifter raising/lowering car lifter fold out/in outriggers The steering is done and controlled by the gear on the roof. The car lifter fold in/out will be manual with a knob at the back. Remaining are 5 functions. The question I'm having now is, how to drive those. Of course, with the model being manual, I could just add a knob for every function. But this doesn't sound like the most technically challenging option, so I am thinking of adding some kind of switchbox. But, 5 functions is kind of an unwieldy number, ecause it requires 3 switches with 1 being half-used. Currently, the outriggers are driven by knobs on the side, and I could leave it that way and have 4 functions running from the switchbox, but this feels kind of incomplete as well. So I'm unsure about where to go from here. So I'm looking for some advice. What do you think? Are there other options? What would you do?

I think you should relaly make it so that the wheels you have determine the scale. If the wheels are not in scale, your model will have weird proportions, I'm afraid. So maybe you should first pick the wheels and then calculate the scale that comes out from there, and then draw the correct grid over the photo.

Good to see this discussion having so many people chime in and so many ways to look at things. I think all of us look to it differently because we all pursue different goals when building. I want to find out what's possible, en I enjoy working within a fixed set of options en exploring the emergent possibilies from there. I also strive for rebuildability, I try to design stuff as if I'm designing a set. The rebuildability rule means that I strive for that others can rebuild what I build. This means that in theory I could even go and use something like SBrick as soon as this becomes as commonplace as a normal PF motor (But I haven't come across cases where IR doesn't suffice, and I wouldn't know what's wrong with it to be honest.) So the rule doesn't only mean, no third-party, but also I'm wary of using out-of-production parts (although I have some exceptions, such as the old gear racks.), or even very rare parts. This means that even I sometimes use non-Lego string - as long as Lego provides a functionally identical string, I'm fine, because it doesn't break the rebuildability rule. I would never use stickers, I evne think the original Lego stickers are a form of cheating by Lego themselves, and only meant for the targeted audience. I never apply stickers when I build sets, they're not essential to me to a model. A model is always a representation, a simplification, of something, and adding stickers adds nothing to that representation for me. It only makes it less "focused", less "beautiful" because it uses more tyeps of components. I like emergent stuff, I like doing much with little. I like pureness; minimalism. This includes not using third-party stuff, but also includes limiting the number of types of pieces. Using fewer parts if possible, not using studded even though that would make a model nicer looking. That may also be why I don't like the Porsche set #42056 - it uses 2700 parts to do what #8070 does in 1400 parts. Forgive me the exact phrasing, because I couldn't find the topic, but in fact, you used a "illegal" build exactly because you couldn't find a solution to your wishes with Lego. Otherwise you would have used that, of course. In exactly 100% of cases where third party is used, it's because the builder wants to do something he can't do in Lego. Otherwise he would have used Lego. Your wishes being aesthetic rather than functional doesn't change a thing. There was no Lego solution that satisfied your needs, so you went out of the box. I would personally have altered my expectations, by leaving a function out or making it uglier. Either solution is fine, but personally I prefer purity over aesthetics (or function). :) And I'm not intending to insult anyone. You know me well enough to know this, right? :) It's merely a matter of personal taste. I'm quite strict about these things. Your model is not a special offender in any way, I just used your car as an example of my story because it was recent and I still remembered it. It's nothing personal (I didn't even know it was yours) :)

I notice there is less resistance against using non-Lego solutions in this board than in the past. In a recent topic about pulleys for a crane, http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/150151-heavy-lift-crane-boom-pulley-design-will-pay-for-ip/, at least three different people suggest modding pulleys by changing the axle hole, while the same problem can be easily solved by putting the wheels on a bar instead of an axle. In a recent topic about turntables, http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/149965-alternative-turntables/, the first suggestions are to use AFOL custom part designs. This is suggested before anyone even thinks about how this can be done in Lego. In http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/148319-little-8865-my-tribute-to-40-years-of-technic, someone built a miniature verson of 8865 using only the springs from the shock absorber parts and the first 20 replies made no mention of that specific point. (What speaks in favor of the builder though, is that he provided an alternative solution using rubber bands.) I thought this was a forum about Lego, where people use Lego pieces to solve problems, without "cheating". I remembered the days where if you used a modified piece your MOC wasn't even considered a Lego model by many people. Nowadays, there's hardly mention on this and it sometimes feels that I'm the only person here that still cares, that can't appreciate a model if the builder copped out somewhere. My rule still is, If you can't do it in Lego, then you can't do it. And a model that doesn't do it is better to me than a model that does it by cheating. After all, if you're allowing A, then why not allow B, and then C, all the way to Z and if that happens, what are we even doing? I understand 3D printing has something to do with it, but isn't the whole sport that you have a limited set of pieces that you'll have to do with, and that that means that some things can't be done? Isn't that the whole idea? I mean, if everything can be done, where's the achievement in doing it? Having done my bit of a rant, I am curious to see how others are seeing this. Have others also noticed a trend over the years? What are your opinions on it? What are your opinions on purism vs. using non-Lego solutions? Do you use non-Lego, and if so, why? What's OK to you and what's not, and why? Custom string? Custom stickers/prints? Custom tyres? Custom coloring? Custom springs? Can you define a limit that makes clear what's within and what's outside? If it's not clear, how do you handle the gray area? If you're an extensive user of non-Lego solutions, why are you into Lego instead of scale modeling in general? What are your opinions about all this?

I noticed that sets in rare colors use said colors surprisingly sparingly. For example, 42064 Ocean Explorer, which is clearly a dark-blue ship, has 1000 parts, of which only 24 dark blue. Is this intentional? And if so, why is this? All those new colors are cool and all, but having limited parts in each such color isn't very useful for builders like most AFOLs. There are obvious gaps in the range of parts in a color. For example, in white or blue. Is this intentional? And if so, why is this? The color coding on pins has obvious benefits for such small parts, but why are large parts like the 5x7 box frames only available in one color? Why are Lego truck tyres (especially those from 42024 and others) wider than their real-life counterparts? Would it be feasible to have beams longer than 15L? Why are there gears with 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36 and 40 teeth, but not 28 and 32? I have the idea that sets use more bags these days than before? What is the reason behind this way of packaging everything in smaller bags, especially when thinking about the environment? How are bags sorted? Is there any logic to it? (I haven't been able to find any, and I often think it looks very random)

The brown panels look very interesting to me. Brown is a very unusual color, I would like to have it, even though I have no idea what for yet.

I don't think I have a holy grail set. I'm not much of a set collector. Yes, maybe I should have bought 42009, or 42043. Or 41999. Back in the day, I wanted 8446 for a long time, but the studded era has passed anyway. As for dream sets. I think we are spoiled alreasy, and I don't buy most sets. But what would be cool is an unusually-colored set that actually has lots of parts in that color. Like the Porsche, but less ridiculously overpriced... The cargo plane 42025 was a perfect example of a set that brought us a lot of white parts in an age when white was rarer than it is today. As for dream parts. I understand color-coding for small parts like pins, but what I really don't get is how large parts are color-coded. My biggest wish as for parts is that the 5x7 and 5x11 frames come in black; and the 3x5 dog bone beam as well. Also, I think it would be nice to have a 6.5 L spring with a strength somewhere between the gray and the yellow one. Often, the grays are too soft and the yellows are too hard. The other part wish is more complete ranges of parts in the existing colors. Orange is being filled up pretty well now, but new colors like bright green or azure are really hard to use right now. Regrets? Deleting my old photos of things I built when I was young. I had dozens of old photos of really bad MOCs (including a whole range of battlebots), but I still regret not having them anymore. Forever gone...

Congratulations to the winners, and to all contestants actually. Also, thanks for the many votes, I'm surprised I did so well (sixth place overall)! I really enjoyed the competition, and got to build something unusual. Thanks to all for participating, discussing, voting, etc. And of course thanks to the staff for organizing everything, you did great! I'm looking forward to TC12 :)

If you're purist, like me, then maybe you can go for a brick-built design, with the normal Technic turntable, with an extra circular ring around it that has rollers between two tiled surfaces. For example back in 2008 I made this one: for a large mobile crane that got never finished. The gear of the large turntable might not fit, but there is enough space to connect two plates strongly to a studded Technic turntable and have this roll in between. Here's another solution to the same problem (also from before 2010): Using 2 x 2 round bricks as roller can be stronger, because the bricks are thicker; and easier to connect maybe because the diameter of the bricks is 5 plates. These two might give you lots of options; as you can make a ring of all kinds of sizes. Use the normal Technic turntable in the center to hold the halves together, and use the roller bearing to carry the weight. it would be a real shame, and honestly a step back in ingenuity, if that what was done with regular Lego pieces ten years ago, would be done with 3D printed custom parts today.

This looks to be a really good set. Especially that it can rotate easily, and connected to a motor. Also great that the rocking motion from the previous caroussel makes a return. It looks executed beautifully. Especially the frog looks cool in motion. Curious to the details about the workings and how it's built on the inside.

It's coincident that this topic comes up, I was thinking something similar lately. I was thinking, everything I want to build, has already been built by others, better. I know everyone builds for their own satisfaction, but I like bringing something new to the table, and is is getting harder as more and more awesome stuff is built. (Although I have found something interesting lately that I'm trying to build now) Another problem is that there are so many things to build. I have a folder on my pc called "inspiration" that contains pictures of cool things I want to build. Problem: I can't choose :) Also I usually lack the patience to build and rebuild the same model until it's perfect. That's why I like the competitions on here so much, they really help me focus on really doing my best on one single model, instead of losing interest and starting on something else before the first thing is finished. The result is sub-par models. Also, the studless system is now quite fully understood by builders. Around 2002 when the studless was still new, we all had to learn a new system. Now, some of us have so much experience that we can almost build anything we want. There's so much quality here on the forums that it's sometimes depressing ;) And yes, I would love to see Technic do more varied vehicles. Although they're already doing that a bit. See the BMW motorcycle (B model), the reach stacker, the ocean explorer and race jet, all this year; the hydroplane and funny car last year, and the arctic truck and LMP in 2015. I hope this is continued.

A whole different part, in a different color. About the same size and weight though. I guess it's a rare case and I got a replacement panel from TLC with no problems.

I once got an extra black panel, when I got the 24h race car 42039. I soon noticed I came another panel short. That was why the weight check in the Lego factory probably didn't catch the error.

No, no, compensate for my own assumed votes. Also, this is a building contest, not a photography contest. I know good pictures are nice, but I don't want a good picture to help win a building contest. But don't worry, if the end result of my vote didn't "feel" right, I simply adjusted it. In the end I just chose the bots I liked most. But because this was pretty hard, I used a scoring table for help. Indeed, it depends a lot on what it does. But the big bots in this compo, in general, don't have more functons than the smaller ones. Most I see have one or two; small and big ones alike. They just used more motors, more BB's, larger wheels, etc. And to be honest, I don't care if a weapon uses 1 motor or 5. It's still one function. In fact I think 1 is more "pure", so I prefer that. As a wise man said not long ago in another topic: build as large as needed, not as large as possible. I want to encourage that mindset by voting more on bots that follow that principle. I view the bots as representing real bots, and in real bots, the big heavy ones go against the big heavy ones. So, bigger bot -> bigger opponent. The best way to counter the big spinners is have a small bot, because a small bot isn't put against big spinners (at least not in the battles in my imagination. Remember, it's about likeliness to win a battle and because there're no real battles, we'd have to imagine them; and I imagine the big bots to go against each other, just like in real Battlebots). Size is relative. :) Of course, we all vote differently, but I wouldn't want to see a bot win because it's large or heavy. I want to see an entry win a Lego building contest because it's a good, interesting Lego build.

I would hate to see people vote for a bot because it uses a hefty motor. This is a Lego Technic building competition, so I judge on Lego Technic building ability within a theme; meaning the votes to go those who managed to get the most out of their Lego. . A smaller bot is harder to build, so this is more impressive (So I estimated size and let it count negatively in my score). A bot with a spinner is the easiest to build, so I deducted points for spinners unless they had additional weapons/movements. Using battery boxes as weights seems to me as cheating, so I counted that negatively in my score. Also, to not let photo quality decide the winner, I decided to judge the photo quality and let it count negatively, in order to try to combat the automatic unconscious preference for nice pictures. I don't care for RPMs, because as always, we see a Lego model as "representing" for something in the real world, instead of actually "being" it.

17: 10 4: 6 22: 4 21: 3 3: 2 13: 1

I vote "as if these were real bots". And if these were real bots, then the large bots go against the large bots. As a result, size does effectively not matter. But it's also Lego, and I admire certain types of Lego builds over others. I made a top 6, but haven't decided the order within that yet.

To be honest I liked the snowplow more than the crane. The crane looks unfinished, and the PTO vertical adjustment seems a bit useless. For the plow it makes much more sense. But yes, the set is really great.

A "walkers" competition sounds cool to me too.

Do the judges require an image showing the bot within the measurements? My entry is within 42 x 35, so I thought such a picture wouldn't be really needed. If it's needed as a check, would it be OK if I provide it tomorrow, even if it's after the deadline? (After all, I won't be changing the entry, of course).

I have nothing to add to the discusion itself, but I wanted to say it's a great idea to have this topic. Especially with the contests in mind and the videos they require of all entries. As for software, I believe I used Videopad in the past but some day it stopped working, so they may have changed their licencing schemes.

Of all the entries, Thumper might look the most like a real BattleBot with the bionicle pieces (together with the red-and-lime one that looked a bit similar). I'm glad you ran out of panels, because otherwise your bot may have looked similar to many others. Now, it's different, and I like that. Also, I like how small it is. But yes, the weapon may not reach far enough, and the bot's own "nose" looks to be in the way. I really think yhou should have placed it at least 5 or so studs forward. Remember - the weapon should be the first thing that an enemy hits :)