aol000xw

My friends and family don't think I am a weirdo when I show them my Lego collection.

Breaking a coconut by material fatigue with a Lego contraption is something I did not expect to see.

It works nicely.

That is strange, I guess you can indeed copyright an arrangement of Lego pieces the same way you copyright an arrangement of notes on a score, it is a creative work. At least the RIAA makes its lawyers work hard based on that same idea.

I think a "supercar" is due for 2015 but I just don't expect for someone at TLG to grow a spine and make the company to bring us a worthy 8880 successor. Nothing in the likes of Efferman custom parts. Some nice models, but not great ones. A motorbike and a hauler, perhaps a combine. Something like 8455 but with an air tank if not PF would be very welcome.

Oh, come on! They trolling hard, aren't they?, So mean.

Good deal

Are you sure you want to get him on to this? You know... it is an addiction for the rest of his life

It sure looks solid and heavy duty, great job.

It looks awesome in that picture.

Sooo cute.

It is a shame that TLG made the wires part of the motors and to add insult to injury instead of a couple screws they use those terrible latches that prevent a safe servicing.

The gas is cold due to the fast expansion when it gets out of the can. Cold =/= moist. At most it could cause some condensation of the moisture already present in the air, but I don't see it possible at Lego scale. Also "Compressed air" if you are talking about those cans sold at hardware stores aren't "air" but other kinds of highly compressible gases and aren't safer than CO2.

Butane is way better at blowing the pipe

Good advice, you never know when you can meet a Darwin Award Nominee

I see that steel is an available material in Shapeways. Albeit way more expensive I wonder if some parts could be made with it for heavy duty models. For example some of the helicopter or even steering parts may be more useful in steel. Do you think that material could work?

There are smalls CO2 gas cylinders used in soldering. Those are 600gr (the CO2, not the cylinder) units. Cyclists carry around way smaller CO2 cylinders too. Fire extinguishers are sometimes CO2 cylinders, some aquarium stores have them too for plant growth, and beer pumps use small barrels. Some are refillable (think fire extinguisher size and up) There are many ways to acquire "cheap" pressurized CO2, but you may need a pressure reducer valve and those aren't cheap. All in all It may be a bit complex and expensive in the long run.

That cube has to slide as smooth as butter, the mechanical speed achieved is really impressive.

If I found that I limit suspension travel while keeping stiffness. Also suspension geometry can be designed to become progressively stiffer.

If anyone prints that in nylon send me a quote please

At least with this design the gears can't simply slide out of the axles like it can easily happen with the new diff.

Doing nothing, TLC is on track for that. Just kidding Please forgive my side, could not resist. We complain a lot, an was so an easy joke.... Every time I read "How I would run the Technic Theme." the temptation of making this thread was stronger and I am so weak...

Let me guess ¿not in yours? So when talking about complexity designing with PF in mind vs no PF your best argument is how easy some Lego models are powered with ONE M Motor? Isn't that a bit weak? One sounds a like a teeny weeny number when talking about complexity doesn't it? But I'll pretend you made a good point and argue that anecdotal samples are not relevant. To begin with usually official models are designed taking into account motorization so that work was already done. Furthermore you are talking about a few gears, not taking into account how hard can be to find the room to fit one or more motors and one or more battery boxes in most models. How challenging can be to make a proper supporting structure for the motors and delivering the right amount of torque. From my point of view your reasoning gets easily reduced to absurd. When I think on removing PF from Sheepo's Land rover I don't see complexity being magically added to it.. But I am an heretic, zealots of complexity may forgive me for my unholiness.

Take any given set of functions or any non PF design. That gives X complexity. Adding PF to that design just adds complexity. It simply makes no sense comparing different sets of functions to justify that PF is more or less complex.

I think any post which expresses a legi opinion deserves more, is a matter of respect.