aol000xw

Hello I was trying things out and got a problem with steering. Before I try to rebuild it I want to be sure of what I am doing wrong and what I should try. So think of a 9398 where the big ball joints are used for 4WD instead of steering. Then for the steering on each live axle I needed 1 CV joint and 1 universal joint (to link both steerings). The problem is that the steering has some very noticeable play to it due to the joints. Note that instead of rack and pinion the steering is based on a comb wheel with a ball joint and track rod, and its range is 45º rotation of the axle on either side. So it is a very sensitive setup. I still have to add some ¿geardown? between the comb axle and the CV joint so those 45º become 90º (so I can safely use the servo motor) that might halve the play from the joints on the wheels but add some from the gears. Currently without making it entirely different I can only think of not linking both steering units (for using a single servo) and instead using an M motor with some gear reduction on each live axle both on the same channel of the IR receiver and getting rid of the joints alltogether. Any advice? I like the idea of the M Motors as in the end it will simplify things. Any drawbacks? Mockup of the steering used.

In the end it becomes cheaper to switch to PF unless you want some features that current PF can't offer. 5292 is a good example; studless mounting points, performance beyond current PF options and easily converted to PF with a single cable. Other motors require studs and some even require one of those "electric" plates to mount the adapter to PF (can't be attached directly), so it is very cumbersome.

Nicely working shocks! That model is huge and looks heavy, Do you remember the weight with batteries? did you lubricate the shocks to speed them up?

Did you look for nicjasnos' "lpepower episode" on youtube? That may give you some ideas,

At this point I am not sure your RCX will ever work, fate is against you! Just get the new mindstorms and put an end to this oddyssey

Hello I was watching Jm1971' s http://www.flickr.co...N08/9644835806/ from the Rock Crawler course thread and I noticed that albeit the crawler can adapt it's geometry to terrain the suspension does not seem to work at all. I got the feeling that Lego models seldom achieve right suspended weight/shock hardness balance, 8110 and 9398 feel more like tumbler dolls on wheels than proper suspension designs. A model shouldn't have full extended shocks when static right? Also I was wondering if anyone tried ever to use those damped shocks as suspension shocks. I know they are too damped and slow, just wondered if a crawler type (read: slow) can use them. I am not sure there is any benefit at all as in my experience only at speed dampening and shock speed make a difference, be it due to terrain, breaking behaviour etc. At crawler speed it looks just a matter of geometry and making ground contact and sometimes Lego shocks feel like all or nothing. I am curious about it anyways. Usually the videos I see when running over a small bump, the full model tilts instead of the shock compressing/extending at least partially to adapt to it. I reckon a really heavy model could work properly. I wish a slow mo video showing a lego suspension working properly. Anyone taking the callenge? Regulable shocks (precompression nut) even if not damped would help a lot with suspensions I guess.

Nice pyramid! Those with hard floors may need a piece of carpet for their course or it will slide.

Please excuse me if I don't express correctly or I am plainly wrong on any of my statements, my technical knoweladge on the matter is pretty low. From what I know a proper non Lego typical gearbox consists of two shafts, one with "fixed" cogs and a second one with floating ones where the gear selectors engage on the different cogs. So for 5 gear ratios at least 5 Lego cog sizes that can float/engage on one shaft and stay fixed on the other are needed right? All that while keeping the same distance between both shafts. The standard 16 cogs are 2 studs apart and so are 12/20 and 8/24 right? 8:24 / 12:20 / 16:16 / 20:12 / 24:8 If this is the thing I can figure how to mod everything but the 8 cog. I am missing anything or it is extremly hard to achieve this?

Ok, who is 3d printing those then?

About the new style diffs with that litle box in the middle. Under certain circunstances the small cogs easily fall at high speed. I understand the little box is there to keep them aligned but I wonder if cutting the small box and using slighly longer axles with a bush will accomplish the same while making it harder for the cogs to fall.

In the end the problem is stagnation of Lego supercar design. 8880/8448 each has its own strengths, but discussing them is moot point, as both are 20th century designs of more than a decade ago. Studless is a big improvement and the new panels help a lot in design but since 1999 I can't find any real improvement in suspenssion, steering, gearboxes or modularity. The current Lego fad is multiplexing motors. A cost effective way of implementing automated functionality with PF while adding aparent complexity, And having in mind the real market target for Lego it makes sense. But take 42009 as an example, compare with 8421. Seriously, adding wheels or making more of them to steer isn't that amazing. An electrovalve for pneumatics IS an improvement, replacing pneumatics with LA isn't. Yeah there are other improvements,.but like 8880 and 8448 with every step forward there is one step backwards. When can't expect Lego is going to completely change this baheviour as it does not make sense from a bussiness perspective, however as SW UCS sets, there is a smaller market for highly complex well designed Technic models. I hope that Lego realizes that. They don't need one of those every 6 months, but there is an unexploited market. For me 42009 is nice, but I am not sure is something I want to pay 200€ for. I don't think adding a specialized part every year, really adding new mechanical possibilities is asking too much. There is a long list of designs in these forums...

Well their previous aproaches to Lambo where less than stellar even for a creator series.

For number 2 that Torsen I see every now and then here. But modding parts... I feel unholy about it

Has anyone tried 3d printing custom parts like cogs or a differential?

Well I hope for a 2h 2014 supercar, there is so much potential with a few new parts...But not red, yellow or black. I think that an awesome looking model departing of the tired Ferrari may indeed be a good seller. Btw what about the future? I mean electric cars will come to stay sooner or later. That makes somehow less complex models, not a working engine for show anymore, hell some don't even need a gearbox, so where is going TLG to focus when designing a supercar if they don't really care about suspenssions or steering...

I don't think SW UCS models are designed for children. Playability, functionality, fidelity... I think it's safe to ask for an AFOL model every now and then that puts engineering above everything else, and still focus on playability for the 95% of the sets. Also good enginnering does no deter from playability, bad engineering can.

Perhaps it is important to remember bad design too as it is related to this. 8110 steering is awful up to the point of beign unusable.

Sad. I got two, but i am up for the "one per vip card" limit, then they need to check household too, so multiple vip cards can't be used. Edit: Also why not limit them to S@H?

I think people like them because are good for high torque and then you brace them anyways so no bushings required.

This is Technic after all not just cars and heavy machinery. What about static pieces of machinery, like detailed working cross sections of diferent kinds of engines, clocks, a cylinder press, GBC modules that teach mecanical principles, etc. So there is room for improvement, but for the mechanical systems like specific suspession setups, I agree with Nazgarot, that's what MOCs are for. That being said I paid more than 400€ for my SW UCS Millenium Falcon, so... A Technic epic model every ¿two, three? years hitting the 400€+ euro mark with AFOLs in mind may be a good idea. I would like to see some of these in such a model: * RC alike tyres * RF, not IR remotes. Standard parts in Lego casings would be a plus.. Partnership with Futaba or whatever. * High rpm motors * Attachable reduction gear boxes to use those high rpm motors in smaller models. * Toothed belts. Some really exclusive Technic parts that help building components that are hard, bulky or innefficient if built with current Lego * flywheel * cvt * Torsen diff * PF pneumatic Valve * Pneumatic brake calipers * Adjustable shocks (like in RC models) I got my money ready...

Yes, all the cables from my RCX 1.0 and RCX 2.0 were stored together. There were different levels of degradation, some just had a strange touch while others had parts where the copper was exposed and the plastic insulation was laying there in small crumbs. Everything was in a typical plastic sorting box, closed and in a closet. All the rubberbads were ok however.

The chassis is a couple studs too long and a lot to be done... or scraped, It is a silly idea, but somehow love it A work in progress... http://youtu.be/SdUwsmFWDMY

I don't know what happened to the cables. I got way older rubber parts in mint condition. I guess those cables where biodegradable or something.

4 medium motors in the excavator, a couple Large in the Crawler, one XL on that red truck... I always wondered where the small one was. There is no point on calling something medium if there is not a small one right?

Love it