Erik Leppen

There's no feasible way to control the third section other than manually. There's too much friction.

Next-up was the new boom. As mentioned by the replies, the original boom was too thin (mainly too low). So, per the advice, I increased the height. I also increased the width, and put the attachment point further upwards and backwards, to the boom could be longer. This is close to the real life Demag AC-55City which I use as inspiration. Increasing the boom size has another advantage and that is that I managed to get a third section in. It won't be controlled in any way, but at least it's there, so the model is more poseable and has bigger reach. The second section is one of the weakest pieces of engineering ever to be found in a crane boom, but hey, it works. I also increased the mechanical advantage of the LA (moving about the connection points of LA and boom, changing the shape of the triangle formed by boom, LA and frame.) However this comes with the disadvantage that the maximum elevation angle has decreased. The maximum reach is now as follows: As with the previous version, the boom is off-center to allow a 5-wide cabin. Also, there's almost no bend-through of the boom at the joints of the sections. The red parts at the end are temporary :) The gray bricks at the end of the second section, I'm afraid, are not. But i might change about some of the colors used.

I'll be rebuilding the model, using the original version as inspiration. First of all I got the larger tires from 42024, so I'll be using those. The WIP of the new carrier: I make those photos with my phone, once the model is complete I will be using a proper camera, and take pictures on a better time of the day. The larger tires made the carrier three studs longer, which can be problematic since the old model was 45 studs including everything. It also sits a bit higher off the ground, which I like. I changed the stairs on the sides to gray, I didn't like the black. Unfortunately I don't have the plates 1 x 2 with ladder in gray, so I used panels. I might switch to gray rims to reduce the "mass of black" effect of the wheels. I could also use wheel covers, but I don't know if there's any of which I have six. This however is the easy part. Creating the new superstructure and boom will be the main challenge :)

"Valuable" has almost nothing to do with "expensive" ;)

MSSJIANOTTTRTLOTD Maybe someone should jump in and nudge others to try to raise the level of the discussion ;)

This is shaping up to be a very good entry, really. Specially with all the different angles. Surprised you managed to fit the large turntable in the turret. Also I like what you did with the large disks to form the front end of the tracks. Neat job so far, can only become better :)

I wouldn't. I view rebuildability (by others) as an important aspect of Lego models. Relying on very rare parts influences that aspect negatively. So I try to avoid that.

I do think next time the size limit should be all-inclusive. That's the only way to avoid discussion about it.

I have thought about this as well. It would be neat to have a pin without the large ring, that can be pushed through. I think the main reason for the rings is building ease. In all of Technic, the building order is beam, then pins, then the other beam. The rings on the pins make sure that when applying the second beam, the pins don't push through, are misaligned and could hit whatever's behind the first beam. If the ring weren't there you'd need to align all pins after applying the second beam, and who knows if your finger can reach that spot. So, while neat, I think it would create more problems than it would solve. Yes it would allow for some new constructions. But it would make almost all other constructions harder to build. Also, lots of what you're showing can be done with axles currently. All you'd be losing is the friction, and you'll have to add something to prevent the axles sliding out. That said, I'm all for a specialized part that looks like a pin without rings. In a sense, the thicker equivalent of a bar. Would be a nice part for a 4L friction pin?

Thanks for the comments. I think you're right on a few aspects. 1. I'm not going to change the subject of choice ;) (I actually wanted 4 axles but that was over the length limit and would be too symmetric, thus less exciting). But do note that the reference you are posting is an all-terrain vehicle. This is a road vehicle. So naturally it has smaller wheels and a smaller ground clearance. 2. Some real cranes have two-seat cabins, and I just consider it logical that a crane operator can bring his/her assistant along to the construction site. Cranes with carrier cabins have two seats too. Also I personally thought it looks better :) 3. Good point. I could widen the boom. It remains to be seen if the LA will fit (as it has to fit between the "blocks" on the turntable. But I might be able to move it a half-stud sideways, which would enable it to be wider. Might be worth an experiment :) 4. I have thought about adding a jib, but haven't yet found a way to do it in a non-ugly way. But looking at references I see some cranes have closed jibs (rather than lattice jibs) so it might be feasible. Who knows. I think I'm heavily inspired by my own AC70 of ages ago, but it has more likeness to this AC55 than I'd imagined :P Thanks for finding the match :D Maybe the place where you live has other vehicles than our place, but if I do a google search for "city crane" then what I get is close to what I built ;) So I don't think it's as unconventional as you might think :) But even what if. As I said it is not a real vehicle. It's merely a realistic vehicle. One that could exist. Not one that necessarily exists. I saved your image for future consideration :D (But not for this compo.) Thanks! Yeah I'm quite happy with how it turned out as well. (But I like playing with color combinations.) Heh, thanks :D Yes, I might add a jib, if I can get it to fit and look OK. Those might be a good fit, but unfortunately I don't own them (and I don't like the idea of buying parts for a specific MOC. Budget is limited at the moment. But to be honest - I want those tires anyway...) Thanks all for the replies so far :D

This is (to become) my entry for the Model Team competition. It is a city crane or compact crane. On day one of the competition I made the choice for this subject matter. City cranes are interesting because they don't have a cabin on the carrier - only on the superstructure. Therefore they can be shorter and can manouver tighter places (which makes them suitable for tasks in the city center - hence their name). This is the first presentable version of my entry for the model team contest. It is not modeled after a specific make or model, but it is inspired by various existing models. The colors are based on what I had in my collection and personal taste. The size is 45 x 15 including all sticking-out parts. Height (in transport mode) is about 17 studs. Height in crane mode is about 54 studs. The "bulk" of the carrier is 34 x 12. I want to stay within the limit including all parts, so that there can be no discussion about what parts do or don't count for the size limit. The only stickers are the licence plates, these read AP 5342 and are from an official set (I don't know which one). I'm also keeping up a digital version, hopefully I can get to creating instructions for this one when it's done. Currently, the digital version is fairly up to date and has about 1300 parts. Functions: knob-operated four-wheel steering knob-operated raising/lowering the boom via LA knob-operated rolling/unrolling the hoist knob-operated boom extension manual slewing manual outriggers manual opening engine bay It is not finished yet. Feedback, suggestions etc. are very welcome :D

Is this within 46 studs of length? If so, and if you can replace the chrome by gray, you could modify it to comply to the rules of the Model Team competition. I'd try it, you'd make good chances I think :)

Oh, no problem. It's good to underline the importance of a good alternative model once more :) Yes, Richie, 8479 was great too. I especially remember the buggy that made a backwards turn when it bounced into something. I also remember my mother liking that buggy a lot back in the day. That's a quality as well - the way parents react to it. Speaking of qualities, I think there's another quality and that's longevity. As good as 8479 is as a set, it has one big flaw - the electrics. Some of the cable's protective rubber has eroded (for lack of a better word), showing the metal wiring inside. Also in my experience the contacts are very sensitive. If I were to build the model today, the electronics wouldn't work. Problem - as the electrics are what made the model what it was. 8480 has a bit of the same problem. No electronics? Everything stops. (But I agree that 8480 is a magnificent set. The submarine alternate never caught my interest however to be honest.) Another point that I would like to mention is set size. I notice that what most people mention as the best sets are the biggest sets. Why is a bigger set better? Of course - it usually offers more complexity - but the size shouldn't be a criterion when deciding about the actual quality of a set. There are a lot of good mid-range sets. You don't need 1300 parts to make something good. I'd like to mention 8856, the rescue helicopter - including the lovely alternate that I remember driving endlessly over the floor :) - and 8462, the kind of weird looking blue tow truck. Both sets offer a nice array of functions for a reasonable number of parts.

I'm really surprised that in a topic about best sets, this one hasn't been mentioned yet. This is surely one of my favorites. 1. It has all the functions. Two-axle steering, outriggers, slewing, boom raising, extending, the hoist. 2. It just works. The outriggers actually lift the model, the boom has quite an impressive lifting power, the height is respectable and the turning radius is pretty tight. 3. At fewer than 850 parts, it is not ridiculously large. 4. It looks the par :) 5. It has a good alternative model. 8421 misses out on 1 (no slewing), 2 (much less lifting power), 3 (more than double the part count), and 5. Yes, it has the awesome double-extending boom, all four outriggers working at once, and it looks really good, but a set can only be a "best-of-all" if it score on every aspect - as 8460 does.

Nice Esprit. Also, interesting choice of car. Love the typical pop-up headlights - I like how you used seats for those. The wheels fit the car quite well. Also I see there's some nice Technic inside already. Nice! :) As for interior - I'd choose a color that stands out. Red, as Seasider suggests, would be great.

You might be just right Kierna. The Black Cat had almost 1700 parts. I don't know if there was any vehicle set with that many parts that time. I believe only the much more recent dark-blue VW Beetle came close. I'd hate to remove functionality because many functions is not Model Team. Also, what I noticed is that Model team sets are usually vehicles that you couldn't really add much functionality. There is no construction vehicles in the theme. So, say you're doing a loader. Is it automatically not Model Team? It looks like all Model Team sets are trucks or cars of some kind (including monster trucks or dragsters), never construction machinery. Edit: Richie's post confirms my theory - they're show models, not play models.

Hear, hear. This is a topic to my liking. I'd like to see more PF-less sets as well. I think the current trend is disturbing, one cannot choose a large model without even more motors anymore. I like PF - but there should be choice - and if one wants PF-less models, one can't have the largest models around. and these things easily add a significant amount to the set's price. And I don't need the parts - I already have more motors and battery boxes then I need. But there's not only a PF trend going on. There's also a trend going on where sets become larger. Compare today's flagship with a 1990 flagship. I can remember a set like 8868 to be the largest set around. Put it next to 8285 and it looks puny. Why are sets becoming bigger (and more expensive)? I think the same of 42009. It looks like a great set - but it's way oversized (8421 was on the edge). 8460 has almost the same functions with less than one third of the parts, and it hasn't the problem where the LA looks way out of proportion with the rest of the set. And with that size, 8460 doesn't need PF, because hand cranking a moderate-sized model isn't nearly as much of a chore as with so large a set as 42009. I'd relaly like to see more sets in the 800-parts range - with no PF. These would be just as interesting, without the challenges caused by size and weight. That said, PF and RC can certainly pose a challenge. 8043, having one of the most complext gearboxes around, proves this. (8043 by the way is a great example of a set that is not ridiculously large). I think 8265 is a much more interesting set than 42030, for example. The problem I have with huge sets is that they start to look like stacked-liftarms too much. You see that with 42009 and with 42030. Most parts are liftarms. 8265 and 8043 look much more balanced.

Magnificent model you have here! I think you found a very nice balance between functions and looks, with an emphasis on the latter. I like what you did with the curved panels to create the shape of the boom. I'm surprised a single LA works as good as it does, unfortunately it looks a bit weird with such a small cylinder for such a large boom. There are a few details I don't like so much though. (but please know the model as a whole is astounding) 1. The tiny outriggers 2. The fact that yo ucan see the PF motors under the cabin when looking from the front 3. The dark gray axles sticking out of the wheels. By the way, you might want to know there's a model team contest running as we speak, and it has just started, so if you can build something of this quality but with a smaller size and without sacrificing the looks, you might be a very serious contender in that competition :) Check the pinned topics in this board.

Then we can just as wel grab one of the official set's instruction booklets and build that. I know I said restrictions sprout creativity, but there should also be some freedom for good models to come to life. Also there's tons of cool new parts that have appeared since the theme - let's make use of them. I think LAs are one of those elements. (But i'm kinda biased because my model needs LAs and some studless beams as well for the functions. Sorry, I'm a Technic person. I can't build a vehicle model that has no functions with knobs and gears :p But with all the Technic hidden away (and most functions being rather simple) I still think it's more a Model Team then a Technic. But, what's the difference anyway, between a Model Team with more functions, and a studded Technic with better looks? ;) Edit. What about tiles? The Model Team sets of the day had lots of studs visible. Current Creator sets have many surfaces covered with tiles (or round slopes), so only a few studs are visible. I much prefer this sleeker look. But it is a style difference.

Hmm. Windows... For now I have taken the Technic approach to windows - just outline the posts/edges, and leave the rest open. I don't think I could do a closed cabin better than an open one.

I have been looking through Model Team building instructions and what strikes me is that for most (all?) wheeled vehicle models, steering seems to be the only function. I'd say, a model team model is a model that resembles something that is realistic, and that is not intended to be played with - it is a model after all. I think Creator is very much Model Team - but with a different name. Most sets have the same detail level - but with newer parts, andoften less studs visible for a sleeker look - but I think it's very much the same thing. Most Creator sets though have more functions than Model Team sets - increasing their playability, and therefore limiting their suitability as a model. They seem to be play sets - not model sets. But for the rest, they are on par with the detailing and functionality, if you ask me. Scale - the Black Cat was not the same scale as the white truck. So Model Team didn't have a fixed scale either. The question is - if you take a studded Technic set, and cover the beams a bit, have less holes visible and add some detail/greebles, is it Model Team? Or would it have too many technical functions to be Model Team?

I'd like to build a truck that is 3 meters wide at a scale of 1 : 22. That will come down to be very close to 17 studs. Can we change the width to 17? See what I did there? The number 22 sounds like any arbitrary number to me, just as the number 90 used by VF. I see nothing special about the number 1 : 90. He can use scale 1 : 100 and it will be within 15. That's why I personally think his argument doesn't hold water, and that's why I started this argument. Which is perfectly OK :) Don't worry. I'm not displeased. I'm just quite strong with my principles, and in principle I'm not even against changing competition rules (I have done so myself). I'm much more against asking for changing competition rules by entrants for reasons that don't seem to benefit everybody. Also when I feel one of my principles are broken, I can get very vocal about it, especially if I don't see others mentioning it, just to show another train of thought that others might not have thought about. Please don't see it as an attack on whoever, it's a way of trying to make people think in new ways. Seeing post #88 makes me think I succeeded :) (Also please note that English is not my mother tongue so expressing feelings stays hard). Also I am working on a pretty nice entry (if I may say so myself) :D

It looks like a great MOC by itself, but of course due to the size it has nothing to do with the current competition ;) In a sense, all you said about the competition is "this is the type of behicle I'm planning to build". Which is OK, but why reveal your idea so early? :)

What kind of nonsense is this? The rules say 45 x 15. So the rule is 45 x 15. It was 45 x 15 for a reason, right? I completely understand asking questions about the rules or asking about things that raen't stated or are unclear, but my idea of fair play is that if the rules say 45 x 15, you don't go ask for 46 x 16 and try to adapt the rules to your idea. You adapt your idea to the rules given. That's what challenges are for - to be creative within a given set of rules. Restriction is what sprouts creative ideas. Also "If you promise to enter the contest with a newly built ship". What? There is already a rule that entries need to be new, so this is vacuous. Sorry if I come across as a dickhead (as I probably do) but I just don't understand the thought process behind asking to move the goal posts a little bit to make way for something that otherwise simply wouldn't fit. That something that in my eyes you simply don't do. The size limit was clear - there's no reason to ask for a change here. And as said, if you can't work with 15, work with 14. Also, Jim, could you please explain why the argument made by VFracingteam in post #63 is somehow better than the arguments made by Milan in post #16 and JGW3000 in post #55, who both asked for the same thing but got rejected?

Why is this competition exceptional? Won't there be more model team competitions in the future? Anyhow. I'd be against digital entries, I still feel it is hard to compare the two in a voting system. I also think that without building something in real life one wouldn't find possible errors in the digital model. At least every time I created a model digitally, when I recreated it with real bricks there were things that didn't fit, or that didn't work etc. When a model is built with real bricks at least we can be sure that everything fits, everything can be actually put together (no impossible constructions), everything stays together, all parts exist, etc. Also, it just won't be a level playing field - the medium (photograph vs. digital) will affect some voters, one way or the other. Also, those who don't have many parts can build small models. I do like to point out that what I really disliked about the previous copmetition is that the real mini models - those of about 100 parts - got almost no votes - everyone seemes to have voted for quantity of functions/looks/details, rather than quality. If the previous competition is representative for this one, small models just won't stand a chance against bigger models. I think the voting criteria should be adjusted for that in some way.