Jump to content

rener

Eurobricks Citizen
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    199

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rener

  1. rener
    @paul_delahaye: thanks very much. They both look good next to each other, although 8462 has the more impressive forks!
  2. rener
    Me neither. I really doubt if the theory about the opposite idler gears is correct, and in practice I haven't seen any problem whatsoever, not in 8043 and not in 42009. No stress on the LA's and no visible difference in length, so I see no need for any MODs in this area. Looking forward to the extra boom extension MOD from Jurgen though...
  3. rener
    This one deserves to be compared to 42008. Functionality and size seem pretty much the same. Anyone got pics yet?
  4. rener
    I'm curious, maybe you could try it since you own the set! As it's either extending the boom + unwinding the cable, or retracting the boom + winding up the cable, I guess the L-motor should be able to handle this. EDIT: missed your last post, seems that there are some good reasons to keep the functions separate. But the possibility of moving boom and cable at the same time (or not) was IMO one of the most interesting features of 8421 (and 8053, for that matter).
  5. rener
    Maybe quite easy, but don't forget that every lever needs a separate axel, otherwise functions can't switch indepenently
  6. rener
    I really like the way the handles of 8848 (unimog "avant la lettre") operate the lifting of the bucket in front and tilting of the bed in the rear, both in unusual and (especially for that time) innovative ways.
  7. rener
    Very funny! Can't recall the last time I saw a crashing boom though... Oh wait, it was my 8421, which didn't even manage to stay up with an "untelescoped" boom...
  8. rener
    Trying to explain my thoughts as comprehensive as possible: if the gearing of the "boom extension" is connected to the winch, then it would really make no difference which function is selected, so you couldn't run the winch without running the boom extension. In 8421 the motor only drove the winch, with the option of adding the boom extension. In the configuration of 42009 this selection option is not possible, but an extra lever (as mentioned somewhere above) would solve this problem. My (humble) thoughts: one small disadvantage of 8421 was the inconsistency in functionality (motor, manual, pneumatic pump). And while pneumatics look more realistic, the functionality isn't. They work too shocking and too fast to make the boom lift look like the real thing. While the LA's always move smooth, precise and pretty fast (if I saw correctly in de video). On top of that, they add to functional consistency as I mentioned before, which I find somehow appealing. Don't get me wrong, 8421 is a fantastic set, but IMHO there are good chances it will be topped by 42009.
  9. rener
    Well, I think that LA's instead of pneumatics for lifting the boom makes a big difference in favour of 42009. If the L-motor gives enough power to lift, they might be the viagra 8421 lacked...
  10. rener
    As a matter of fact, in a bid to make some room for this year's treasures, I just got rid of my Unimog (hope I'm not swearing in church). More OT: One outstanding feature of 8421 was the ability to simultaneously extend/retract the boom en roll in/out the cable. I don't see this happening with the gearbox of 42009 as it has to serve more other functions. Or am I missing something??
  11. rener
    Could I see it correct that there is an 8t gear in red on the sliding axles of the outriggers? I suppose this would be a new sliding gear? That looks like a nice solution. I also noted a shaking blue pneumatic hose on 42008, indicating that there is a compressor? My wife and wallet won't be pleased...
  12. rener
    I did not question the "realness" of dampers as such, more the operation which is often located at a point very hard to reach for the driver who would like to open the door (i.e. on the roof in sets 8466 and 8297)...
  13. rener
    That is true, but the operation of the dampers is never very realistic and mostly not very technical either.
  14. rener
    DLuders: your prayers/demands have (at last) been heard: http://technic.lego....spx#42006_Group
  15. rener
    Sorry, couldn't help myself. I think you are completely right though...
  16. rener
    Not to mention that it's easy to mount a motor instead of the tail propellor, which really speeds up the main rotors. Integrating a battery box is more of a challenge (which I failed...).
  17. rener
    Very nice pics! I was wondering if there is a (working!) steering wheel present in the cockpit, or just HOG-steering?
  18. rener
    I like the power of the motor, and even the noise doesn't bother me too much (rather cool, really), but IMHO it's too big and too oddly formed to use it nice in most models. Also way too powerful for small functions like the one described above.
  19. rener
    That's really cool. I just built mine and am wondering if PF-motors (with RC) could be built in. Something to try out for next week!
  20. rener
    I just followed the instruction book. The model uses the big black 9V motor from 8421, which for a short while seemed to become the motor of choice for technic models. Until the wonderful PF arrived of course!
  21. rener
    That must have been a big accident, because the custom shock absorbers even made it to the box art. My guess would be that the just before release, some clever designer engineerd the new shock absorbers and there was no time (and money?) to change the pics...
  22. rener
    The rear wheels are connected to the 4-cylinder engine and of course it uses the differential, but it's the other function (moving forward/backward of the rear of the buggy) that is motorized. I probably only found out after I built it , because the functions are built really close together...
  23. rener
    You're welcome. Actually, I built the buggy twice. Once out of principle (I always build the alternate shortly after the main model) en the second time to motorize it, assuming that that the rear wheels would be connected. You can imagine my disappointment... :(
  24. rener
    Nice to see that this classic has been reviewed, very nice pics! Brings back very good memories. I remember the thrill when I got this set for my 8th birthday. And now, almost 30 years later, I finally "stole" it from my parents' house to rebuild. Still a classic, best seats ever!
  25. rener
    Well, IMHO there are many better buggies out there than 8284. It really only deserves to be an alternative model: it uses much less pieces than the tractor, no complex building techniques or gear systems and pretty ugle colour scheme. The only function which makes it stand out a bit is the way the rear wheels/engine can be moved forward/backward. This small function can be motorized with a big motor, but that really seems not to add to the value of the model.
×
×
  • Create New...