allanp

Yes I know exactly what you mean, the hips do move back up again slightly to account for the leg moving through it's arc. It would be good if you could account for that somehow, maybe make a more complex shaped cam somehow, or move the cam slightly off centre, or mount the cam on an arm and move the whole cam up and down via a simple crank, or have the cam follower (the piece that touches the cam) also move slightly as the leg goes through it's arc. Not sure if that's needed, but I think it would definitely be more stable and look much more like an AT-AT. For the rack and pinion, I'm thinking you would use it as the leg actuator (like the dump bed mechanism on the barcode truck from 1997), similar to a linear actuator but one that can move faster, but yes you could also use a linear actuator for this if you can get it to move fast enough. Then you use a gearbox to switch it's speed and direction. As you would need 4 gearboxes (one for each leg) you can simplify them by having two input shafts already spinning at a 3 to 1 ratio. Another idea for the hip joint rotation, if you don't want a visible actuator of ANY kind (to look more like the AT-AT) you could use turntables like they did on the UCS version and drive them via a worm gear from the gearboxes. Actually I think this would give you the best speed as a rack might be too fast and a linear actuator too slow. The pneumatic version might be simpler overall but be warned, getting the valves to move via the cams how you would want can be a bit finicky as the valves are quite stiff. You might want to use a second cam to move the valve the other way, however as the valve would stay in place at each side, you wouldn't need the cams to be any particular shape, so long as they move the valve at the right timing. Then to account for the leg sweep you can move the upper mounting point of the pneumatic up/down via a crank. If you do want to try it I would try to get those valves right first. As you have ordered the cams and shocks, would I be right in thinking you don't have that much Technic yet? Non of what I have said here is as easy to pull of as I have made it sound. But it sounds like a fantastic project to learn on and would be great if you can pull off. This will be a case of trial and error, breaking it up into smaller chunks and getting each part right, and also rigidity. You absolutely cannot make this too rigid. Any sloppyness or bending in the legs will undo all the work you have put into finely crafting each leg movement.

I think this will be tricky with only cranks and levers. If we look at each phase, the leg must lift up off the ground, move forwards and drop back down to the ground in 1/4 of a cycle, then slowly move back at a steady speed for the other 3/4 of the cycle. I think, to get that truly AT-AT motion, I'm thinking a cam arrangement might be a way to brute force the problem into submission. For example, maybe take three of https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=922&idColor=3&ccName=4500483#T=S&C=3&O={"color":3,"iconly":0} to make a 3/4 circle shaped cam that pushes the leg down to the ground. Have the cam hidden up in the body and directly above the leg for strength. The leg would be spring loaded to lift off the ground, this only needs to be strong enough to raise the leg. Then the cam pushes it down only having to be strong enough to overcome the spring that raises the leg. Then the weight of the model is on the perfectly circular part of the rotating cam. So this cam gives you a position in 1/4 of a cycle (leg up) while giving you another position in the other 3/4 (leg down). That would also be useful for the knee joint yes? You could use a tie rod to transfer the up/down motion of the hip to the bending motion of the knee, so down is knee straight and up is knee bent. Alternatively you could use another 3/4 cam in the leg if there's room for that, though you would also need to get a rotating shaft there also. So now you just need the motion that bends the hip, making the leg move backwards (when the foot is down) at 1/3 the speed it moves forwards (when the foot is up). This is tricky. It might be possible if you have the forwards and backwards motion of the leg actuated via a rack and pinion, where the pinion is driven by a two position gearbox. In one gear the pinion rotates one way, and in the other position it rotates the other way at 1/3 the speed. The gearbox would be shifted via the up/down motion of the leg also. So in essence, everything is timed from that one 3/4 circle cam at the top of each leg. However, there is a chance for the gearbox to skip and lose it's position as the gear changes won't be instant. To reduce that you can hear the gearbox such that it spins faster and gear down afterwards, and make it so that it tries to move the leg beyond it's mechanical limit but is protected by a clutch gear, thus should help ensure the leg moves back and forth through the full distance. You can also simplify the gearbox by having not one, but two counter rotating input shafts at a 1:3 ratio, so then it's just a case of engaging each pinion of each leg to the correct shaft at the correct time. Is all that clear as mud?! Of course there is a second option.... pneumatics. Instead of using the 3/4 cams to move the legs directly, you could use the cams to correctly time and control pneumatic valves in the correct sequence. One valve moves the leg up/down and also use the same valve to bend/straighten the knee. Remember, leg up = knee bent, leg down = knee straight. You could also use the same valve to move the leg back and forth but I'd use a second valve so I can restrict the leg speed moving back to 1/3 in some way. Just make sure you have a beefy enough air compressor to keep up.

Yeah but these are premium products at premium prices, not a cheap Chinese light switch you can control with your phone. I'm sure they took their profits into consideration when thinking about not including everything you need in the box and that's about it. Thanks to smart devices the world of a child today is so different and they can be exposed to so many dangers through owning a smart device, from thinking their lives are somehow inadequate compared to the highly edited highlights people present on facebook, to far far worse physical dangers, as well as being bullied if their parents aren't rich enough to buy a smart device for their child. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Lego was a way to bring things back from the virtual computer world and into a more important reality. So what do they go and do? Mess it all up in the name of even more profits. Now the child can't even play with the biggest and most badass Technic sets without being on a smart device. It's disgusting that Lego put profits above a child's mental and physical health. Oh but they do care, look, they put 4 small metal screws on the battery box to prevent swallowing a AA battery. How nice of them

On the grabber, look at the grey knob gear and it's alignment with the 4x2 green lift arm. Is it me or have they released a knob gear with a + hole that's 45 degrees out of phase? That would be useful.

Front and rear brakes, working clutch, more mechanically detailed engine with cam timing chain and double overhead cam shafts (the actual valves might be asking a bit much!), motorisation whilst mounted on a pedestal (so you can watch the gearbox spin the rear wheel faster and faster as you go up the gears), working rpm counters in a 2x2 round brick format, with one on the engine for a tachometer and one on the gearbox output for the Speedo (combined with the motorisation option that would look siiiiiick!). Oh yes, the 1:5 Technic bike in the year 2044 gonna be great! Oh wait, this is about the 2024 Kawasaki. Ahem. Yeah it looks good

Agreed, the red rings would be better in gold, and the blue gear and pins really stand out here in a set where the mechanics are meant to be more visible. I wonder if a black 20t double bevel can be used instead? The other seemingly random blue and white parts are also distracting. But that's really my only real complaint, they can be swapped out for more tasteful colours, otherwise it looks fantastic.

Very well done indeed, simple yet very impressive. I can only agree with what others have said. Also looks to be fun to play with. One motor pump might be too little to properly power two 2x11 cylinders but I doubt there's room in such an already compact build to add more pumps. Also agree that the rope mesh is a very nice detail, excellent work

The Kawasaki looks cool, but I'm mostly plesently surprised by the space sets! I wasn't expecting much, but they look like fun little play things, and they seem to be purposely compatible with the system space sets. Is this the first time sets from two entirely different themes have been designed to be directly compatible and played with together like this? The model of the Sun, Earth and Moon also looks great, I like vehicles but it's nice to get a non vehicle, and it's not covered in panels so you can see the natural beauty of the mechanics in motion. Great stuff! It's only a shame that they didn't recolour the gears and axles to look more pleasing to the eye, maybe like in a pearl gold and black colour scheme with some metallic gunmetal grey thrown in, but apart from that it looks better than expected.

TBH the poor feedback and lack of development makes me think PU may be retired soon, or at least drastically overhauled. We need physical remotes and not to have any dependency on third party smart devices, and you shouldn't need to know how to code in order to make your own MOCs. However, now that that ability is in Technic, the genie is out the bottle, and some might see it as regressive to remove that now. It's a tricky situation made of their own, it has to be said, admirable ambition, but not every experiment can be a success and I'm sure they'll learn from failed ones. There are solutions but nothing quick and easy. This is pure speculation but I think development on PU v1 has stopped while they work on a proper solution, but it could be a while yet.

Well let's be a bit fair to TLG. When they released the first 1:5 scale motorbike we pointed out our disappointment. But when they released the second one they appeared to listen. So maybe the same is true for the Merc? Also remember what Merc sets we've had in the past. The great unimog, the almighty Arocs, and the Zetros which is the only RC set to retain any semblance of mechanical interest and authenticity (although the Liebherr crane is also fairly authentic in its rigging). There's a chance for something good here, maybe the first F1 car with a gearbox (except for 8880 b model). F1 cars also have a 2 stage final drive with a fairly high gear ratio which, if replicated, would allow for a nice and fast spinning engine through the new low friction gearbox pieces.

That's better .

Yup, I mentioned that in the other topic

The bending is mostly to do with where it is connected at the middle. The support tie thingies need to attach at the end of the boom, not in the middle. The booms work by transferring the weight down to the base by compressing only, not by being so rigid that they can hold up the weight like a lever.

Nicely done

I dunno, I've seen a few clone branded 1:8 cars like this and they look very boring, nothing but bodywork and a couple of very weak motors. Better to leave that sort of thing to the proper RC companies such as Tamiya, Traxxas or Arrma. I really don't mind technic being RC but I hate it when the RC is used as a replacement for the far more interesting and realistic mechanical novelties of a model, such as with the majority or control+ sets. I liked the Zetros because it still has much of that mechanical novelty, and RC is there to compliment it rather than to replace it.

Your tracks are placed too high. Look at page 96, found it at 7:55 in this video: The top beam of the yellow 3x19 yellow frame on the track segment should be aligned to the bottom beam of the yellow 3x19 frame of the central turntable structure.

Variety is the spice of life. I like @kbalage spoken word reviews so I can focus my eyes on the set instead of the words at the bottom of the screen, but I also like listening to some nice music while watching a review which is only really doable with subtitles. But this needn't be the end for Sariels reviews, he may still buy the occasional set if it's something he wants to buy for himself, and there's nothing stopping him from reviewing the set. I also liked his reviews of older classics like 8868, so he could always do those as well. It would be kinda funny if TLG said to us "you think our products are expensive but we think they are good value" then when it came to sending review copies they were like "Aw hell naw, they're way too expensive for that!"

Maybe it's a view count thing? Pure speculation, but Sariels review of 42160 got 26k views, while @kbalage got 230K for the same set. It is a shame though, the youtube algorithm can make and then break you through no fault or lack of effort on your part. And while it is nice to get free sets, if I think of my hourly rate at work, and multiply that by the hours it takes to film and edit a review, the cost of the set doesn't cover that, so it really isn't for free. I didn't agree with his scoring system or many of his opinions but I still enjoyed watching his, and any video review of a new set as it lets me see it in action, and it's mechanical realism, and make up my own mind. Personally I think his choice of music wasn't bad either.

I've been looking forward to seeing this video, nice work. Nice to see a MOC with some of the new gearbox parts, glad they are working well for you

@Lego Tom It certainly looks better, however I think you need to move the attachment point from the middle of the main boom to the top to stop it bending.

I have had the feeling for a few years that the technic team want to give us cool stuff, with the pneumatic tow truck, John Deere skidder, Airbus helicopter and the great new parts like the planetary reduction hubs, Yamaha gearbox parts, new stronger diffs, larger CV joints etc. When they say that the issues (such as CONtrol minus and colour vomit) are coming from higher up the chain, I tend to believe them. I really do, more than ever, find the whole powered up/CONtrol minus thing to be the biggest problem. Yes, there are too many cars, but we are still getting some of the cool sets as well so what's a few extra sets that don't interest me? But with all these sets that require a smart phone, it's starting to really piss me off if I allow myself to actually think about it. Firstly, Lego charges a premium for their products but leaving out AT MINIMUM the physical controller, but preferably one that you can program the set on the device itself, and expecting you to add to the already expensive but incomplete set with your own smart device to just to make it a complete product is cheap and nasty. The original control center sets and the code pilot came with everything you needed out of the box. They might have needed batteries, but control center 2 even came with a wall plug so you didn't even need batteries with that set. Everything you needed to play with and program your models was in the box, and Technic isn't meant to be mindstorms. I believe it is absolutely possible to do that with control+, which I have detailed in my "lets fix powered up" thread and even gave an example of how you could program the CAT bulldozer from scratch on the large remote itself without a smart phone. Secondly, smart devices go out of date and become obsolete very quickly, with support being stopped and so on. Will the very expensive control+ sets be like the old dacta sets and mindstorms sets, which, for someone who doesn't have massive computer knowledge, are now a right pain in the megablocks to get working now without (or even with) third party fan community support and virtual machines and so on. Will expensive control+ sets become useless landfill in 10 or 15 years due to their cheap and nasty strategy while my old control center sets are still going strong? And finally, Lego as a brand is always going on and on about quality, "only the best is good enough" and child safety. While taking the cheap and nasty approach of not having everything come in the box and being reliant on a device that will be obsolete in a few short years definitely does not meet the standard of "only the best is good enough" heirloom quality that they were known for (and still charge for), child safety is also out the window as far as I'm concerned. Children are already under immense mental stress and social pressure from being hooked to their smart devices which they really don't need. "Oh you don't have a smart phone, you must be poor!". Then when they do force their parents to get them one, they are bombarded with edited highlights the lives of everyone else on the planet, making their own lives and outward appearance and wealth feel inadequate in comparison. Not to mention the online dangers they can be exposed to, dangers that make me sick to think about. As adults we can mostly see it for what it is but children are not mentally mature enough to cope. With all the mental health issues, and WORSE that this causes among children, what should Lego do? You know, that well loved childrens brand that stood for heirloom quality and child safety? Ah yes, lets release a bunch of products that they can only have and play with if they have a bloody smart device, as if all children have one and if they don't have one, they should and are missing out. What a joke. It is truly disgusting. But it's okay because that's just the way of the world right? Who cares if we just add to the misery instead of actually trying to make it better. And the higher ups are making their money and fattening their bonuses for making ever more profits so we should all just be happy little sheep about it right? Bollocks!

Well, Markus has said he would like to remake the space shuttle. And the space sets releasing next year only makes it more likely, that is, if they based on real designs/concepts from NASA. If they are purely fictional then that makes a space shuttle less likely IMHO. But as the subject of a space shuttle comes up quite often (perhaps almost as much as a JCB 3CX or 4CX), what would this new Technic space shuttle be like? Apart from being fully covered in panels and stud less, what would it have over 8480 to make it worthwhile? For me, hopefully it would be fully motorized but not app controlled. The Canadarm would have the same functions as 8480 but with the addition of an elbow joint and a grabber to be able to grab and let go of the satellite (4 functions total for the arm), and placed to the side of the shuttle bay like the real one (not in the middle like 8480) to allow more room for the slightly bigger and more complex satellite. Whilst I usually complain about unrealistic mechanisms, the space shuttle is an exception (they couldn't really make a real working rocket!), so it could have a multifunction gearbox to honor the original, plus a new micromotor to unfold the satellite solar panels, which this time would be made of multiple panels that fold out in a cool way to make them much bigger. The roof of the cockpit could be removed to allow access to the Canadarm twin control levers placed at the rear of the cockpit. Similar to the two direction controls of the 42042 crane, the two control levers would have direction control, however, each lever also has two functions, as they could move forwards/backwards but also left/right, allowing two direction control of all four functions of the Canadarm simultaneously from one motor. Yes it would be very complex and in a very tight space, but that was what the 8480 was all about! There would be other levers to control the motorized bay doors and also now motorized landing gear (also a bit unrealistic as I believe the shuttle never had powered retraction of the landing gear, only powered deployment). The landing gear would also have working suspension and bay doors. Finally, the control surfaces on the wings and tail fin would be controlled by a correctly positioned control in he front of the cockpit.

A combine would be really cool, a farming sort of, unofficial subtheme would be great with a bunch of sets released in the same scale (like the 1:10 cars but as farming machinery differs in size there would be many different sized models but all in the same scale). Not sure they would make a combine a flagship, but certainly the one below the flagship, hopefully with all the internal belt work and rotating drums. Could have a basic battery box and motor, and drive would be motorised but geared to be quite slow so you can manually steering it via HoG.

@shampo0o Unfortunately it is kinda normal for these gearboxes. Too complicated with too many gears on too many axles. Thankfully the new Yamaha motorcycle has some new gearbox parts which are much more true to life and have much less friction, we are hoping these will be used, with a few more gear sizes, in the next supercar. In your case however, I think all you could do is try a bit of lubricant, if you don't mind the pieces getting slippery and caked in dust as it sticks to the lubricant!

I like it! I like how it looks heavy when it moves, like it's got a lot of momentum like a real tank, but it still moves at a decent speed seemingly quite easily.