torso

I can't find a really good explanation either, but it seems like there is a single hydraulic piston inside the boom that can only extend a single section at a time. Every section is locked in place except the one that is currently extending/retracting. And threads are usually referred to as "steel wires" in these applications.

The Bricklink sellers might have bought the sets on a sale, which means it would be possible for them to be competitive with regular priced sets. It's also possible that the markup on specific pieces is uneven. A few popular pieces might have a big margin, while uninteresting ones could be sold at a loss. Also try to factor in shipping costs in this equation. There will never be a simple answer to your question.

I thought of that, but didn't really consider a train layout to be a stationary machine. I was looking for something with interesting mechanics that would be appropriate for this technic section. Seems like the servo is only useful when mechanics don't really matter. Now I'm suddenly tempted to come up with builds that use the servo as a challenge for myself.

Isn't the thread thing how this works in real cranes? To me it's the gears that are wrong, as that ought to use hydraulics instead. To me it's technic if it works, and the thread thing is a beautifully simple solution. Feels like you think technic is about solving everything with gears. That said, it's wonderful that you're exploring alternative solutions. If you can lift more weight (in some cases) by not extending the third boom, that would be an improvement. I'll be interested in how well you will be able to keep the performance and aesthetics of the original boom.

I considered getting a 42030 to get more technic parts and an XL motor. Because of the inclusion of the servo (and also because it's very yellow) I have decided not to buy one. It may be useful in vehicles, but is there any use for a servo in a stationary machine?

I think there is a place for both. It depends on the model. A big model isn't necessarily better than a small model, and a model with PF isn't automatically better than a model without it. They should be judged on originality and elegance. If you should use PF comes down to what you're trying to achieve. Not using PF places a restriction on what you can build, which will force you to come up with an alternative solution. If everyone seems to be doing something one way, try doing the opposite and you may be the pioneer in unexplored territory. Restrictions come in many forms: maximum part count, alternative model for specific set, seed part, build on a theme, etc. My local LUG ran a competition last winter where you had to build something on a baseplate, but no higher than one brick tall. I thought "let's use technic", and ended up building a GBC module (http://torso.me/btgbc). I would never have built it without that restriction, but it was unexpected and was well received. And no, it didn't use PF (but only because it was impossible). My current project also has a restriction that happens to exclude PF. But after that I want to explore the area of machines driven by a single motor, which should provide some interesting challenges. Mindstorms is cheating and RC is just a play feature anyway . I don't want to belittle the effort of people building RC cars or construction equipment, even if doesn't happen to be that interesting to me. Diversity is great, and it's what keeps me looking at other people's creations.

A vote for "other" from me. Cars and trucks have been built already. I'd like to see (and build) something new.

Would it work to add a disclaimer that your work is in no way affiliated with TLC?

I kind of feel burnt out from the project I'm working on. Just returned to it after taking a break from it. Last Saturday I did some good progress. Then I realized I missed a detailed that meant I had to discard the entire days work. Other days I've spent hours looking at it without making any progress at all. Never worked on a project this mentally draining before (Lego or otherwise). Working on other (smaller) Lego projects haven't been a problem, so it's not Lego burn out per se. It's just a really difficult project. Hopefully it will be worth it in the end; haven't seen anyone do anything similar to it. But sometimes I feel like I should work on a simple project instead, like a GBC module or something...

The gears ran freely, as I thought there were enough uncontrolled variables involved already. This was really just a quick test to see if there would be any obvious difference or some unexpected phenomenon. At least it made me stop worrying about gear combinations (worm gear still untested), and devote my attention to gear bracing instead.

It was a studded build and the problem was that the axle coming out of the motor that got pinched. Just pressing down on the structure made a difference that only just big enough to measure measure. (Numbers come out at 0.5%, but I doubt that it is especially accurate.) The time when the misalignment was bad enough to be audible the loss was about 10%. I didn't actually notice it until I had written the numbers down and saw that it didn't make sense. With more experience with Lego motors I would probably have noticed it right away.

I like measuring, as it makes it easier to develop a feeling for how things work. So, I hooked up a couple of gears to a medium motor and measured the speed with a bike tachometer. It was far from an ideal setup, and someone with more knowledge about mechanical things might point out some errors I'm not even aware of. (I'm a software guy after all ) The result is that I couldn't measure any difference between the gear combinations. Small changes in how well the pieces were put together did make a measurable difference though.

That seems to be the popular misconception. Here is a better explanation: http://www.allstar.f.../airflylvl3.htm

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one avoiding black because it's hard to see. Mixing colours is distracting, so I try to only use LBG as far as possible. Right now I'm considering whether it is worth replacing the blue 3L friction pins with black ones, to reduce the number of colours. Not sure if it's worth the cost, or if it makes it easier to confuse them with the 2L pins. As for the finished model, I will have to rebuild in proper colours. Haven't gotten that far yet though.

I liked the universal sets as a kid. One set taught gears, another pneumatics, and a third used flex cables. They seemed focused on mechanisms, in contrast to the current sets that seem focused on being vehicles (which is boring). There are still a few years left until the children are old enough for technic, but I currently find the products at Lego Education more compelling than the regular sets.

http://www.brickset....ail/?Set=9656-1

I disassembled the Tower Bridge into 3x2 L containers filled to slightly overflowing, and a small bag for the windows.

I remember those instructions, and how difficult it was to remove the black pins. Always just used an axle to remove them, and I still don't see much reason to build the T shape. I've been swearing a lot about the pins in axle connectors in official sets lately, so I will definitely try the blowtorch method. Thank you for showing that page to me again; I forgot that method, as I never needed it then.

Aren't flagship-like models with extra everything what people are building all the time anyway? If there are no limits, I think a "MOC of the year" award would be better. The point of having limits is to boost creativity, and hopefully provide a different kind of challenge each time. The flagship contest sounds to me like working under similar circumstances as Lego designers: make something with great play value without exceeding the budget. Limiting both number of parts and PF elements creates a challenge to do more with less. A contest for building a karakuri doll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakuri_ningyō could benefit from a limit of using a single motor (PF or pullback is your choice). The challenge is to create complex movements from a single motor. (But there is no reason to limit the number of bricks.) A battle mech contest wouldn't really benefit from limiting neither parts nor PF. The challenge is to create something that looks/behaves intimidating. The small build should be easy for anyone to enter. I don't think the big build should be limited for this reason.

I guess you really like animals... Weight limit is possible and easy to check when building. But it's still difficult to verify, and a lot of people don't have a good scale. Size limit would have to specify whether it is allowed for the model to extend beyond the limit when in use. For some competitions (especially the flagship one) it might be good to limit the number of PF elements, rather than just saying allowed/disallowed. Just throwing my half-baked ideas out there...

I agree with the monorail looking very impressive, but not being very fun to play with. I see the same with my niece who always wants to have it built when she visits (I keep it partially disassembled), but she doesn't play with it for very long. Instead she plays with some cars or spaceships. The monorail will be kept for nostalgia, but I have no desire for Lego to put it back in production. I full-heartedly support brick-built monorails though. This is what Lego is for, not big single purpose parts.

I have been considering ending my dark age for a while. This week I got myself a 42009 Mobile Crane as an introduction to (and starting a collection of) modern Technic. One thing I noticed was the orientation of the bushings, which is different from what I remember from my old sets (late eighties/early nineties). Whenever there was a choice, the round end of the bushing would go against the side with rotation. The end with the four teeth would go against the side where rotation was impossible/unwanted. That made me assume the round end has less friction. The 42009 instructions doesn't seem to care at all about this. The substeps sometimes inconsistent, showing a different orientation from the main steps. Did the old Technic teach me something that didn't matter? Have the Lego designers just gone lazy? Isn't the bushing asymmetric for a reason?