Erik Leppen

I was thinking, it would be an advantage to use large wheels on a flat bot so it could work upside down. But if I go for that, building a nice body will be a lot more difficult. Dilemmas, dilemmas...

The problem with shooting mechanisms is that you have a problem as soon as you run out of ammo. How long is a match? To be honest I prefer non-projectile weapons, also vecause that's what I'm used to seeing on TV (on BattleBots). So, expect a blade or a swinger or a hammer or a lifter or whatever. In fact, I have something in the making tthat looks painful :) By the way it's nice to see so much activity here! It's gonna be fun :)

As cool as it sounds, I don't see this work either. I mean, if one bot has a rotating blade, and the other has a hammer, which one wins? How do you even decide that? I think voters should use their judgement about what's "cool" and "effective" by themselves. If I were to vote, I might do a virtual (imagined) showdown myself, using what I think could win. Someone else might do the same, with a wildly different outcome, because he imagines a different match between the same two bots. I see the hammer smashing the blade, he sees the blade cutting the hammer.

Thanks for the answers. I have an idea in mind, now on to thinking about how to power the weapon. I know non-Lego strings etc. are allowed, but I prefer a purist solution. Also, you can have multiple receivers, and multiple remotes, right? As I see it, you need at least three functions (drive, steer, weapon), so you'll need two receivers/remotes. I mean, that makes the point by aminnich above almost moot, right?

Is there really only one motorized function at a time? I mean, we see drive, but no steering. Then we see the switch flipped, and we see outriggers and nothing else. Then we see another switch flipped (probably) at the other side, and we see crane rotation, but no raise. For all we know there's only one motorized function per "mode".

Cool contest! I think I'm in. Particularly, because I have watched Battlebots in the past and built a lot of those things in the past (non-functional though, just as a play theme. But I may use these as inspiration). Anyhow. I have a question for the first idea that comes to my mind: can we do a bot that fits the box like this (top view) (image below)? (I say it should be allowed, because whatever fits the box, fits the box.) Also, what about studded (non-Technic) pieces?

It's better then what I try in 12 weeks. It has a certain Le-Mans-esque feel to it for me, because of the low sides. One thing I like less is how the seats are really far in the front. What's inside that large area behind the seats? Also, why no connection to the top of the H beams? 2 pins doesn't sound like the strongest solution. It works, for a light car like yours, but I'd add an extra beam there.

For some reason, I really like this car. Nice color, nice size, nice parts. Original, in a way. The only thing I would personally change is the color of the black panels on the front hood. I would make them lime too. But I don't know if you have any lime panels left. Same goes for the roof - I don't like the green-black-green "stripes". I would go for a solid color (green, black or dark-gray)

I once put a light sabre 4L rod in one of the small holes of a knob wheel. It was already hard to push it in, but I have never been able to take it apart...

I like how the forum software notifies me of your mention. Thanks for the pictures!

]Doing a little search here, I found this: I'd also like to post my own alternate, on Brickshelf, 8880 buggy. Photo instructions also on Brickshelf.

I really like this car. For some reason it has a Lotus kind of feel for me. Don't know why. I really like the red-and-black color scheme. Much better than the all-black from a few pages back. The lines are so much more visible here in red. About seats, I wouldn't do a bright color like yellow or white. Orange, not sure either. Blue looks better. I think light gray or dark gray would be the best options.

From the top of my head, the old cylinder had the distance between the centers of the holes to be 6 compressed and 9.5 extended. So the length of the cylinder is 7 compressed and 10.5 extended. So the range is 3.5 studs. I expect the new short cylinder to be the same. If the new long cylinder's range is 6 studs, that's a little less than two short ones back-to-back. I don't know about the range of the long thin cylinder. But of course, someone will find a reason to put the new cylinders back-to-back to get a 12-stud range :)

Good idea to build alternatives for the pullback sets. Nice car you've got - better than the original I'd say.

OK, now try to build a frame around it. It doesn't fit. It's fractionally wider than a whole stud. It's not "in system". If you build in real bricks what you designed, you will find this too. This is, IMO, a stupid design flaw in the new driving ring system.

The driving ring extension doesn't work with the new driving rings. Unless, of course, they designed a new mould for it.

There's real (plastic) progress! :) All pictures: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Mods/42064Technic/boat1_1.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Mods/42064Technic/boat1_2.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Mods/42064Technic/boat1_3.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Mods/42064Technic/boat1_4.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Mods/42064Technic/boat1_5.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Mods/42064Technic/boat1_6.jpg @schraubedrin: Yes, small LAs might be better, indeed. I have used large ones right now, but I may switch to small if I can connect them in a nice way. @Seasider: I think the current distribution of modules is the best possible option. If I were to move the lifeboats forward, then the gearbox has to move backwards, and the winch will be in the way. Also, the engine will then be covered by the gearbox. Also, in the current setup, the gearbox is right below the bridge, meaning the upwards axles to control the shifting are at almost the same place as the knobs for the original crane in the official set (which I think is the best place). The only other option I could imagine possible for the engine, is to have two inline engines at the sides (these are only 3 studs wide), probably in the rear, below the LAs. But even then, I doubt whether it can fit in. The other option, which is what I am trying right now, is swapping the engine and batterybox, so that the batterybox is below the engine. This means the BB isn't covering the engine anymore. I understand the front engine isn't realistic, but it's the best space distribution currently possible. The functions are nicely laid out from front to back, meaning the model has no "boring sections". @Appie: The mini-vehicles aren't bad. On the contrary (I still think they could have been sets on their own. As you say, at least they are proper Technic models). The problem with 42064 is that the ship is bad. I'm building a better ship, in which there won't be enough room to have mini-vehicles. I ditched them, because I wanted to use the space for functions. This is Technic, after all ;) Also, personally, I just strongly dislike multi-vehicle sets. I rather see one big thing with a lot of stuff inside it, than two separate smaller builds. @Cumulonimbus: yeah, I might redesign the lifeboats a bit (even if only to fit the string piece better). But maybe someone else can make something up for them? :)

Thanks for all the replies so far! About "budget" and PF. I am not a set designer, so fortunately, I don't have a strict limit. So I will add something if I think it makes the model more functional. Hence the LAs. I don't want to be too strict in this. The main reason for making the ship shorter is because I think it will make the model more technically interesting. Keeping part count in check simply means I don't want to add things that don't "add" anything, like the helipad or the mini vehicles. Power functions as an add-on is a good idea though. Both the motor and the battery box are already in a position where it can be easily added. I could easily replace it by an HOG axle. I don't own a set of lights myself, so I probably won't add those. About the engine. Yes, it's true that it's hidden by the battery box, and in the wrong place in comparison to real ships. I don't like that either. I could remove it, but the reason I added it there is because I hate large empty spaces in Technic models, especially at the bottom. It just fits perfectly, and the drive axle is nearby, so it takes almost no extra effort to add it. Also, there is no other place where it could fit (which I think is a good thing. It means the space is used well). About C-model and using parts from the set. I won't use any dark blue that's not in the set, simply because I don't have any. I replaced the rudders so I can use the blue panels elsewhere. Apart fom the length and some internal connections, the hull is the same. I will use the same red panels (but 2 fewer), and the bridge will also be mostly the same (although the CAD has yellow windows made from parts instead of stickers, because I don't like the sticker solution). But I have to add a lot of parts, like connectors, axles, gears, bushes. Most of this will be fairly common stuff though, in fairly common colors. By the way, the CAD file right now is 980 parts. This includes the tiles used for the "fake" panels, but I left out a lot of pins for the hull, parts of the bridge and many details, so currently this will be around 1200 parts and it might be 1400 at the end. The primary goal is to make a good model. Everything else (C-model, part count, "set-like-ness") is secondary to that.

42064 Ocean Explorer is subject to a lot of complaints about the lack of functions. While I agree that the set is sorely lacking in functionality, I also find complaining too easy. The hard part is suggesting an alternative. So that's what I want to do: convert 42064 to a Technic set. Edit: for the finished model, see here: (end of edit) First, the plan. Let's ditch the heli and mini sub - these could have been €10 sets, and only eat up parts budget here. The helipad can go too. The superstructure can be reused as a module later. Let's remove the crane, the gray platform in the back, and generally everything else, keeping nothing but an empty hull. Now, part of the challenge of designing a set is staying in budget. As there's plenty of room, let's make it shorter. Ok, the functions. First, there are no propellors. Let's connect the front wheels to some propellors. This requires redesigning the steering module with the rudders. (As you see, I use color coding for functions in MLCAD.) The structure inside the bow that holds the curved panels is very voluminous and can be reworked provide a nice open space, that perfectly fits a V8 cylinder engine, also connected to the front wheels. So that's the basics. Now, what functions to add? Elsewhere I read about the lack of an A-frame gantry. So let's add that. It has two functions. Move crane with LAs, and a winch (not drawn). How will this be driven? Manual is nice, but why not try and fit in PF? The space above the engine is perfect to fit a battery box. The bridge will be right behind that. The gearbox to select the functions can go below the bridge. With this in place, there's only one thing from the set missing: lifeboats. The orange 1x3 beams from the set received some flak as well - these can't be serious attempts at lifeboats. So I built slightly bigger lifeboats, with the orange panels from the mini-vehicles. First, I wanted to put them on the superstructure, but after looking at some pictures of ships on the internet, I figured they could be at the sides of the hull too. There's room behind the superstructure. With a mini "crane" (just a 4x4 bent beam), the lifeboats could be deployed. This is the third motorized function. This means the space below the bridge is the only palce left to put the function-switcher gearbox. The only place for the PF motor I could find was between the white angular panels. A perfect spot, if you ask me :) The gearbox has four outputs, so one of them (drawn purple) is unused right now. Maybe it can operate a small ramp at the back, between the blue 3x6x3 panels. Of course, all this is merely some digital designing and virtual doodling. The next step is building this in real bricks, which will certainly pose problems with things not fitting or not working. So I will try to build it and make everything actually work. I'll keep you informed when I have notable progress :)

Hm, I thought the tracked buggy was purple with yellow. Apparently, it's not. It's black and gray, with a few colored elements. Really, why is it that colored parts are delibrately rare? Can't they make a purple model that is as purple as 42049 is yellow? Is this deliberately mocking AFOLs? The 42070 looks slightly better in that regard (but still, I bet it has many more red parts than azure (not counting axles and such), even though azure is presented as "the color" for this model), but what surprises me there is the low part count at about 1800. It's much fewer parts than the Claas, for a larger model. That doesn't give very high hopes... But knowing myself, I might get it. The firetruck looks like a decent set and might be the best all-round model out of the three. But I might not get it because of the bland color scheme - I have plenty of white and red already. But good to see a fire truck in the lineup.

You shouldn't be asking that, Kmuffin. Prelins are not allowed to be posted, even if people have them.

Maybe the secrecy itself generates more buzz.

8458 is not a licenced set - it's just a formula one-type car, If 8458 is licenced, then 42000 is licenced too. 8461 is a licenced set - it clearly says it has the Williams licence. I'd say a set is "licenced" if (and only if) the box, besides the name Lego, bears the name of something owned by a specific company outside Lego. Be it Williams, Unimog, Volvo, Angry Birds, whatever.

If one leg is not 2, but 3 times as long as the other one (on both sides of the "kite", then you get the other angle of the 3-4-5- triangle. See the image below, where every two connected dots have a distance of 1.

I really wonder how the 42062-B's container carrier "could have been more rigid", as you post in your review at 9:30 - given the pieces in the set. Do you have ideas about how one would do that? For the rest - great reviews, thanks for making them :) I might get a 42062 and a few of those medium-azure trucks :)