Erik Leppen

Now this is something to remember for math class :D

I like this. It looks very mobile crane-ish :P What I like most is how all wheels are steered and driven. I think that's what makes this stand from the rest. And also the building style of the whole thing looks a lot like that of official sets. Including the blue seats :D If there's a point of critique I think it's the fact that the outriggers, when retracted, almost touch the ground. However finding the right geometry for this is pretty difficult. All in all very well done :)

I'm a Technic builder and I usually build only larger sets (from about 750 pieces and up). I usually put the tyres on the wheels first, as this is usually boring. I usually hold the bags in front of a window after emptying them to make sure there's no parts left in the bags. Then I put the empty bags in the original box. I only throw away the box and bags after I have built allmodels, so that I'm sure I've got everything. I use 1 liter storage boxes. I open all bags, keeping the original bag assortment except for throwing a few bags together if there's not enought boxes. Large parts are separated. On a Power Functions set I make sure I have a working battery box before starting the build, and I test the PF components that come with the set so I'm sure they work. When building from digial instructions, I sit behind my computer with the keyboard moved away but the mouse within reach so I can select music while building. When building from paper, I usually sit in the living room because there's more daylight. I closely follow the steps and go at a slow pace. Sometimes when a new submodule is introduced, I play the game of guessing which parts are in that submodule and pick those parts apart, and then see how close I was. When a large module has a 2x I pick each of the piece callouts 2x and put away the second batch, so that when building the second copy this takes less searching. When deciding that the new parts go with the rest, I first sort them and look how many there are before actually putting them in their respective boxes. Sometimes I keep the set's part list at hand when doing this, so I have an idea what parts there are and what new possibilities these will give me. ...Sorry for talking so much :P P.s. I love Aanchir's method :D

Sometimes. But I rarely exactly duplicate the MLCAD plan in real life. I use MLCAD for generic planning, e.g. checking whether it will fit, what the dimensions will be and how the drive trains for all functions will flow approxaimately, but when I go to real bricks I usually start improvising again with the planning only in my head. I have sometimes printed MLCAD-images, but never for whole models. Only for complicated parts. By the way, maybe this could be a separate thread, it might not be fully on the topic of this thread.

Depends on the context. In an informal/casual setting (with friends, my parents, my brother) I use the Dutch equivalent of "legoing" all the time and use and conjugate it as a normal verb (I have Legoed etc.). My mother does the same with the Dutch equivalent of the fantasy word "keyboarding" (playing synthesizer). Also it's typical in Dutch to use "computering" as a verb meaning "using the computer" similarly to how "showering" means "using the shower" or "gaming" is "playing computer games". It simple: it's shorter, so it's more practical. :)

Notice how the four yellow sets designed by Markus have sections built with studded bricks, three of which having a lot of studs (8275, 8421, 8053) and these three seem to be the only sets having studs in abundance. Also all Markus's sets seem to have very few Technic panels, while e.g. Uwe's sets all have a lot of panels.

Interesting discussion :D Anyhow, I think that the person doing the building instructions is someone else than the person designing a model, so you can't go by the instructions to look for design patterns, you have to look into the set itself (I think). But said that, a contrast I thought was very striking is the difference between 8880 and 8448. I personally love the modular build of 8448 for example. One of the main disadvantages of building 8880 is that during the first 10 or so steps the suspension modules hang loosely from the rest, which mean they constantly move the wrong way whenever you pick up the model. When building 8421 I thought it was sometimes too repetitive because of the three identical steering units, two identical outriggers and sometimes other small modules that were needed four times. I haven't had this when building 8258, which has the same size. I like it when things are asymmetric, like in 8258's central gearbox or crane. This way you minimize the repetition. One set I really liked putting together was 8258 by the way, mainly the complex gear design but also attaching the rear module containig the motor and rear outriggers. I like ending up with a huge chunk of Lego, filled with gears and other functonality. That's what I liked about 8258. I didn't really like 8285 because there was a bit too much empty space for my liking, although it's a great looking model. One set I really liked was 8265. I feel nothing for front loaders but 8265 was a great looking set with much gears in a tight space. Also my most recent set, 8069 (the 2011 back hoe), is a bit of the same and I liked seeing how they did it. Question: are 8063 (snow sweeper), 8265 (wheel loader) and 8069 (back hoe) from the same designer? They each use small amounts of studded bricks at various places for finishing off certain parts. Exactly the same here (both statements). It's funny (and maybe a bit weird) that even when building MOCs and having to repeat a module (mirrored or not), I'm thinking in my head about how I would build it if I were to make instructions for this, almost "imagining the steps".

I actually made this in 2007 but I never got to adding a topic to Eurobricks. There must be Technic builders around who could use this, other than just me. So what does this little program do? If you give it a gear ratio, like 1 : 1.4527, it tries to find a gear combination as close as possible to that. Unfortunately sometimes it generates a combination that is hardly usable (e.g. using a 14:36 combination) but you might find combinations you didn't think of. I made this for myself initially, for creating a realistic steering mechanism for multi-axle cranes. Here, the different axles need just the right speed ratio to look realistic and roll smoothly. But I bet people could use this for different purposes. And if not, it can also be just fun to play with (although there's not that much you can do). Note: it's finished. I'm not working on it anymore. I'm just putting it here so people can use it. Game page (use this to view screenshots or discussion) Download page (use this to download program) Oh, by the way. Don't set the amount of transfers to 4 and all gear types to Yes, or it will take ages. The program uses a brute force approach and isn't exactly fast... :P

Lego has gears with 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 36 and 40 teeth. Dividing out the common factor 4, this is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10. The prime factors available are 2, 3 and 5. As both 2 and 15 consists only of those prime factors, this is doable with simple gear reductions only. 2:15 is 2 : (3 x 5) so it can be either 2:3 times 1:5 or 1:3 times 2:5. 2:3 is 8 to 12 or 16 to 24, the last one is most practical. 1:3 is 8 to 24 1:5 is 8 to 40 2:5 is 8 to 20 or 16 to 40, the last one is most practical. As the distance between the centers of two gears is 1/16 times the sum of their teeth, the distances between the holes in these four setups is a multiple of 1/2 stud each, so these can easily be secured with bricks with holes in a horizontal setup. Edit: what I mean with the last remark is this:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Eurobricks already knows this...

I was thinking... * = Coincidence?

Let me take the freedom of hijacking this topic to propose another alternative model of this set: my own :P (image is link)

Yes, I think we are nerds. So what? You sound like "nerd" is something negative (and your "friends" probably mean it that way too). I don't think it is. It's just being good with your head. How's that negative? I think it's very positive. It's thanks to these exact same "nerds" that we actually have healthcare, to just name something. Tell them that next time they need medicine for anything. ;) Or better yet, don't bother wasting your time with them. If they fail to grasp the concept of being different and just doing what you like, don't make it your problem. Also, yes, we are strange. So what? The world world be pretty darn boring if we were all "normal", whatever that may mean. Edit: your friends must not have hobbies or they won't talk like that about yours...

As a mobile crane enthousiast, now THIS is something I can admire Looks like one of the best large mobile crane mocs ever. It looks like a great achievement. It seems to be all LEGO [edit]except string[/edit], even the cilinders that lift the boom. So it would be 100% replicable with existing LEGO parts. Also it's quite a feat that the outriggers seem to be able to lift the whole model. This model simply seems to have everything (except drive, but sacrificing this for suspensions and a lot of additional strength is, I think, a good decision). Great work!

Box says 2in1 = B-model. Edit: oops, has already been said.

Great use of the new panels (especially on the roof). Like the colors and overall looks :) Nice job on this :)

How do you know?

Two little words: Studless Technic

If we want recognizable, why not a garbage truck? Either with a system on the back to empty the garbage bins into the container, or a system like 8479 (Scanner Truck) primary model or 8868 secondary model. Of course this also has a tipping mechanism. maybe even the same mechanism as this years 8052 (Container Truck). Along with Power Functions driven drive train and steering you could have five functions, which seems reasonable for a flagship model, if everything would be remote controlled. -driving -steering -tipping -unloading -loading arm (either at the back or at the front). This could become an interesting model and something Technic doesn't see everyday, yet can still be recognizable :D

Given it's 40% cheaper (or so) this is no surprise. Also I don't like your shamelessly advertising your own model. It doesn't belong in this thread. Please make your own thread for that. I think the new back hoe is very interesting. I'll be the combo breaker, because I think it's more interesting than 8455 (but I'm not into pneumatics), because of all the gear driven functions which are usually quite hard to design.

Actually this seems like a valid explanation to me. Anyhow, I like how the new design is more consistent with the 20 tooth (double bevel) gear. What I don't like is how all my 16t gears are now actually deprecated. But if the part keeps to come up in quantities like in 8258 and 8043, that won't be a problem for very long.

Now this is not your everyday creation :D Love this thing :D But I'm VERY curious as to what's "under the skin" :)

Some nice out of the box thinking you've done here. I like it :D Don't know how you can actually use it, but I like the concept. Lol, so true

I like how the dog cabin has an odd stud width (5 studs) and i like the contrast of the boxy back of the truck with the streamlined front. Nice design.

8258 is the best parts pack in ages, and I thought it was a great build. I don't own a 8043 (yet) so I con't compare them very well. I just think 8258 is great and I think it is somewhat underrated. It has less Power functions elements but it has 500 more parts, so it depends on what you want to do. If you want a play set, pick 8043. If you want a parts pack with lots LOTS of basic parts, get 8258. If you want some of the new 2010 parts, get 8043. If you want a good looking model, pick any you like. If you want a large model, pick 8258. If you want a technically complex model, pick any you like.