Erik Leppen

I suspect the problem is not the springs, but the way they're mounted. I mean, 8448 has four of the smaller springs, which are much lighter, and 8448 has more parts so if you count the suspended mass only (so don't count the wheels) I think 8448 might even be heavier than 8466. Yet 8448 seems to hold up pretty well. lack of suspension stiffness is probably not the problem, so simply adding more of it won't do. Well, yes, it will do, but it doesn't suddenly make the suspension smooth. By the way, I think the core of the problem is the design fault in the springs, namely that the connection point is not in line with the spring, but offset by a stud. This produces frictional forces. You could solve this by using the longitudinal axle hole instead of the one the set uses. 8880 simply suffers from way too much suspension stiffness by the way. 8448 did this way better.

I definitely think they should return. Not necessarily Technic figures, but anything with similar posability and human-ness. I have always disliked the minifig for simple lack of posability due to the proportions being way off. Anything with minifigs in them looks odd because it has to fit the minifig. I understand the minifig is "symbolic" but I personally don't really care for their symbolic value. And I have always liked the technic figure for having more or less correct human proportions and joints that have acceptable movement possibilities. I don't care for the holes in their legs though. These as far as I know serve no purpose. The scale of the Technic figures was OK as well. Wouldn't care if they were even bigger though. Also they should have females as well. I think all Technic figures were too "alike". It's time for a whole new range of figures, if you ask me :)

Oh, you're counting over all the years? How would the diagram change if you'd only count the studless era? (and then exclude color-coded parts like pins, axles and gears). Edit: only do that if it's a few mouse clicks. Please don't spend a lot of time on a simple question like mine ;) By the way, there has been lime for a while (8649, 8256, 8291, 8284, 8274, 8249). Why is its use discontinued? (I'm SO glad I have two Nitro Menaces )

I know I have said it in another thread too but let me repeat myself here: Technic figures :) Why? because figures give your creations life and unlike minifigs, Technic figures are highly posable.

What do you mean?

Get 8868 and be sure to check out the alternative model as well. It may not be the best looking truck out there, but the way it uses pneumatics is, as far as I know, unique amongst the entire Technic theme (and a joy to only watch). Edit: although with both models, the set is basically worthless if the pneumatics don't work.

Technic should have a much wider color variation in general. Not just blue, but white, green, orange, dark blue, tan, brown... I mean, we have seen loads of weird colors no one needs just for Friends and we're at about 50 Lego colors in total. Why is Technic left behind so much? Especially since a lot of parts do exist in blue and white. Why aren't they used? Are Technic models in McDonalds colors because those make people hasty and hungry? Also I think there's way too much black and gray. That there's black in the unimog frame is understandable. But I think smaller sets, like the recent quad or snowmobile shouldn't have black or gray everywhere. But yes, there should be more blue and more white. Espeically in flagship sets. I applaud that 8071 is white, but all recent blue and white sets are small sets. Why? (Lego Ambassadors, could you ask TLG about this?) Thanks to Blakbird for posting a list of blue sets. I expect the list of white sets to be smaller. Also please note that in the circle diagram above, most of the blue is comprised by pins... So that is not very accurate ;)

Nice site. I like the design and layout. It's easy to find the things you want. Also some great instructions you have there. I know someone who has the Technic helicopter 8068 and might have it assembled right now. I'll notify her of the instructions. Do the custom alternatives use the parts that come as spare in the original set? By the way, if I may give a suggestion: maybe you should try contacting other people who have created alternative models you deem good enough, and ask if you can include those on your website. If they don't have clear instructions you could even ask them if they want to create them. If you do this and your website collects more and more content, this might become a very valuable resource!

@Meatman, 4 or 5 studs, depends.

I think most seats seen in supercars (both set and MOC) are too small given the size of the cars, and too far apart because the gear box takes too much space. The primary reason I switched to the simple 4 gear gearbox instead of 5+R is because I can put the seats closer together, enabling me to make the roof a bit less wide. I also think almost all seats in official Technic supercar sets are ugly, the reason being that they can't spend too many parts on it because it doesn't add any "technic-ness" to a set. For me the exception to the rule is 8880 which has seats I actually like a lot. A lot of seats in MOC supercars tend to follow the 9x5 liftarm + 6x4 liftarm method used in 8448 and 8466, a design I personally dislike for being too simple and not accurate. Thirdly, you can limit yourself to studless designs but these usually look quite "coarse". If you want more detail I think you would have to use non-Technic (studded) Lego parts as well. Anyhow. I like to experiment with seats in my own cars, partly because I dislike the "default" designs. If I may be so free to post some of my own designs (other than the ones Blakbird has noted, for which many thanks!): Here I used curved slopes and wings to create more curved looking base of the seat. Here I used 4x4 plates with studs on edge to create a smooth surface and used angle connectors to create an angled shape. For those who wonder, the chain below the base is connected to a worm gear that moves up and down the headrest. Here I use angle connectors #2 instead of the more usual round pin joiners (of which I simply don't have as many). My personal favorite, as you see completely studded and snotful design using dark red pieces from the 7784 UCS Batmobile to create curved shapes. I used black grill tiles with an orange plate underneath to simulate "heating". I used trans-red simply because I ran out of dark red. Here I used the curves of the old Technic panel fairing elements for the base. Another one I like a lot, using the almost useless yellow decorative elements from 8421 at the front, and the classic 4 x 3 wing piece (of which I only have one in yellow...) as a head rest.

Technic figures.

After having seen all entries I think I find this one the best of them all. It's an iconic building, captured very well in a small scale. That last fact makes it fit perfectly within the spirit of Architecture sets. I could see this as an actual set! Lovely parts usage, it even has Technic :D Great job!

2: 1 point 12: 1 point 26: 1 point 31: 1 point 32: 1 point 41: 1 point 45: 1 point

Count on this being 100% fake, for one simple reason: if it were real, then surely this wouldn't be published on APRIL FOOLS DAY. ;)

White is a rare color for Technic. And it has an unusual theme, in my opinion :)

This is a really intriguing story that - once again - shows that LEGO is so much more than a toy alone. Thank you for sharing this with us. Also I think that it is nearly impossible for us to imagine just how life looks when you can't do what most people can do. I hope you can find joy in not only building the sets, but discussing everything LEGO related here on the boards. I mean, it is one thing to enjoy something, it is a whole other thing to be able to discuss your passion with others. Just out of curiosity, not sure if I can even ask this, but do you think you will ever be building MOCs? PS of the Air Tech Claw Rig, be sure to check out the alternative model too. I think it's one of the best alternative models out there :)

It's scary how close this setup is to my own gearbox in one of my MOCs

Wait...exactly what does 8448 come short? I think it's a great set, especially the wing door version: it's modular, the suspension is much better than that of 8880 (8880's is way too stiff), the chassis is efficient, the gearbox is compact and has nice ratios, the body is nicely shaped and it looks like an actual sports car. OK, it's not a 4x4x4 and the studless body is less of an achievement than 8880's body, but exactly what is missing from 8448? @davidmull: then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

No I'm not joking.They're expensive because they're rare, and haven't been used in sets since 2001. If you count every set once, there're only six in the whole Lego history (of which two are printed). So even if you need four of them without the Power puller print, one way or another they have to come from 8466. That's why they're expensive. That said, I'm not a trucktrialer.

The 8466 tyres are rubbish. Yes, they're huge, but they're incomprehensibly heavy even for their size and because of that they will wobble on nearly every possible axle mount. To be honest I haven't used them for serious stuff in years. Right now I'm using one as a flywheel because of the weight, but as actual wheels they're practically unusable. I'd say don't spend your money on them and get 8110, for sure. The 8110 tyres are much lighter and can carry much more weight. Also the axle hubs in 8110 are nice for large trucks. Suspension of 8110 looks much more solid to me. Also don't forget that 8446 has 1100 parts while 8110 has 2000! That's almost twice as much! And 8110 includes pneumatics with compressor. As far as functionality, 8466 is, well... a car. So it has steering, suspension, an engine, a gearbox and cool wing doors with steps. 8110 has a steering, suspension, an engine, and an electrically driven rotating pneumatic crane with three degrees of freedom that can be mounted at the front or back, a winch that can be mounted at the other end. I know what makes the most interesting build :) Also 8466 has the rare metallic green while 8110 has orange. The metallic green color is cool, but obsolete. Orange is still in use. Take your pick. Edit: and last but not least, 8466 uses technology that is 11 years behind ;)

Now THIS looks interesting! And it looks very functional, which is a good thing. Nice how you got the outriggers to move sideways, then extend and deploy. That's an impressive feat. On the other hand, I can't help but think, this chassis must be flexible as hell, because studless usually is very bendable and this doesn't look strengthened enough to combat that. But oh well, you're clearly focusing on functionality, which is great!

I was just wondering, how do you all use CAD tools? Do you use them? And if so, what do you do in them, and what do you do without ("by hand")? Some examples: You can design everything up to the last brick in CAD and then literally rebuild your virtual model in real life You can plan the gear trains, and do the rest with real parts You can plan the frame and do the rest with real prats You can design small modules and use real parts to find out how to connect them You can have several design phases where you design in CAD, then build and then use your findings to enhance the CAD and rebuild, etc. until you are content. So, my question is, during which parts of the total process from an idea inside your head to a real-life model, do you use CAD tools to help you out? And how does that actually help making your models better? PS I'm not talking about creating instructions, I'm just talking about creating the MOCs themselves.

Please note that no reduction also means all the torque of the whole thing must go through that one axle. You might run the risk of damaging that axle. Better is to have a large reduction at the final step, because the faster the rotation of the driving axles, the less force is on them. A worm at the final step means a 1:56 reduction in one go, which is I think the best idea. And if one worm doesn't work, why not try two or even four? Let's see if I can come up with something... Edit: I accepted the challenge and tried to create a system with four worm gears. I hope you weren't looking for a compact solution, because this is quite a large block, but I'd be surprised if this fails. :) Drive the two downward axles in opposing directions (or flip one of the tan gears) and it should work. Although I didn't test with a motor, it feels sturdy when testing by hand. I used the 11 x 5 liftarms because these are easy to fix securely so they won't slip. The bottom half of the structure is only meant to fix those beams securely. On the other sides a 11 x 5 beam didn't fit because of the black beam running through, so I used 2 x 4 L-beams instead. All deeplinks: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Techniques/TurntableDriveIdea/turntabledrive2012_11.png http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Techniques/TurntableDriveIdea/turntabledrive2012_12.png http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Techniques/TurntableDriveIdea/turntabledrive2012_13.png http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Techniques/TurntableDriveIdea/turntabledrive2012_14.png http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Techniques/TurntableDriveIdea/turntabledrive2012_15.png http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Techniques/TurntableDriveIdea/turntabledrive2012_16.png http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Techniques/TurntableDriveIdea/turntabledrive2012_17.png http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Techniques/TurntableDriveIdea/turntabledrive2012_18.png http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Techniques/TurntableDriveIdea/turntabledrive2012_19.png A few renders have some parts removed to show the inside structure. I used a lot of colors to make it easier to distinguish parts. Notice that I created a studded sturcture to suport the turntable using the stud connections. This strengthens the connection.

If this is so, then why are these pictures even there? I believe there has to be a reason for all those leaking pictures. Maybe the want AFOLs to get to know them (might raise sales rather than lower), just not the general public (because then it may lower sales. AFOLs and the general public think differently).

I don't count on it. I see it as a simple way to make the instructions more easily readable. After all, the downloadable instructions are made for home-printing. So they need to be readable even with cheap printers.