allanp

I guess because the protruding teeth of the crown wheel in the original diff would have got in the way of sliding the two remaining gears into place. Just like a real diff

@Zblj You could use a 3M axle with 12t gears and it would still work very well. By using two drive gears instead of one the torque threshold is doubled. By adding the bosses to the driven bevel gears you have increased their strength as well as having a length of 1M (module or Lego unit) of axle held in the gear as opposed to only half an M of axle being held. In fact in the current diff the half M wide bevel gear is on the very end of the axle which has a radius on the end which reduces the half M axle holding to about only a quarter, then you also have the indent on the back of the bevel gear which reduces the holding to even less than that. So yeah, whilst my original version with the 20t bevels would be strongest, by using 12t bevels with thicker mid sections (two with + hole, two with O hole), and have it mated to a 36t double bevel gear for the outer crown wheel, then you will have a far better diff than the current one. Edit: If you wish to 3D print any technic part I would suggest you make holes smaller than the actual size then accurately drill them to size using a 4.8mm drill bit.

Use a servo?

Sorry no, this hub would need to be larger to accept these new 20t bevel gears with boss.

Anyone care to try to make this?

It makes sense that both gears work as they will both work in the same situations. To create a limited slip diff (using an illegal technique) you can mix both old and new to make the diff action very stiff.

I think even for a purist stickers are fine.

What about the old style 9v battery box?

Now THAT WOULD BE EPIC! I'de be the first in line to buy that and suggest it here if I thought it was possible to make pneumatic motors small and efficient enough to work in a lego set. Sadly I'm not sure that it is. Though I would love to see some planetary gear reduction drives made possible without using turn tables.

Could be wrong but it kinda looks like the 2005 mobile crane? EDIT: just found your other thread

Bulldozers don't always look that great in real life anyway, they aren't meant to, so I'm personally not bothered by it's poor looks. Still it looks to be very boring functionally.

YEY! An open invitation to annoy everyone some more (WARNING>>>>YOU'VE MOST LIKELY READ ALL THIS BEFORE!) TBH I've said my piece on this to to point where I'm starting to annoy myself but as you have twisted my arm I hate LAs. They are not life like, way too slow even for scale and require gear trains to power them which in many places is difficult of not impossible to reach. Sure they can be controlled more precisely but using a bit of skill you can control pneumatics precisely enough and the need for some skill makes it more fun to operate in my opinion. With an LA you just move a lever or twist a knob until it's where you want it (or get repetitive strain injury!) which is kinda dull. Real life machinery work via hydraulics which work on the exact same principal as pneumatics making them way more authentic. The numerous hoses required also make pneumatic models look more authentic. They can also be placed anywhere making models with pneumatics less likely to have non-functions where the control is right next to it. Everything can be powered, motorised and operated from a single point. When used in a model they are also much more powerful (tries to ignore those tiny pneumatics in 42008). In 42009 there was a massive gear train required to raise and lower the outriggers which used up most of the power leaving little if any to power to actually lower the feet to the point where it's hard to see them moving. Had they have been pneumatic the outriggers could have quickly and easily lifted the model off the ground. Now compare these two similarly sized back hoes. ​There is only 100 parts between them but these sets are miles apart. 8455 is considered to be a fantastic flagship with functionality that rivals if not surpasses any other flagship. It's numerous functions are also very powerful, authentic and fun to operate. Everything is operable and all from the cab. 8069 on the other hand, it is a great little toy but compared to 8455 it's nowhere. It isn't a flagship but it only has 100 less parts and represents 8 years of supposed progress over 8455. It's functions are a bore to operate, slow, not as powerful or as numerous and does not work or look as authentic. Many of the functions are operated via knobs mounted directly on the function itself. And now for the longer pneumatics bit that you guys so love to read! (Well I warned you). The reason 8455 wins is because it's pneumatic functions are so much better than those LA based functions of 8069. But 8455 being as great as it is, it's easy to forget that it's only a small model. The current cylinders were designed at a time when models did not exceed that part count. Now we are regularly at 2 or 3 times that part count. So to say pneumatic would not work on the boom of 42009, sure there is some truth to that HOWEVER to say they are therefore inferior to LAs in any way is a little unfair to them. In order to have a fair comparison when used on a large boom of a crane you would need to compare an LA against a pneumatic which is a suitable size for todays much bigger models. I could go on but I'm boring myself now. Just know that LAs suck, whilst in dire need of an overhaul, pneumatics are to Technic what flavour is to food!

Would be great to see it filmed at a high frame rate!

Well I can tell you the power loss of the 42009 outriggers going up and down.....all of it . Worm gears and lead screws are the most inefficient mechanisms made by Lego IMHO, closely followed by their current gearbox designs.

By not moving forward, do you mean that it will not move easily when you push it due to some mechanical resistance? Pictures would be very helpful.

It appears that you have placed a red cross block incorrectly. Picture You need to have the round hole on that shaft, not the + hole.

Looks great. May I suggest that you make the longer, thinner part fit quite snug inside the 16t gear so there isn't any slop? The reason for this is that it will need to be held concentric to the centre shaft as much as possible as you will have a loose fit between the 16t gear and the shaft and a second loose fit between the new inner and outer parts so that they can all rotate independently. Two loose fits will make the outer part pretty wobbly as it is but should still work ok I think.

Agreed. How's the 5 tall version coming?

Pick-ups can drive via a 5 speed transmission and many can change between 2 and 4 wheel drive via a second transfer gearbox. Many can also lock their diffs and have live axle suspension. Some also have winches. They can be mechanically quite interesting, like a land rover defender, so lets see what they do

Loose or tight, doesn't really matter as long as it's not so loose that there is unwanted movement and not so tight that it cannot move. There is quite a wide range in between which all bionicle ball joints fit into in my personal experience.

Third party? Nah, only Lego has the right standard at the right price!

You and me are definitely on the same page! These would surly need to be injection moulded. I think the hub could probably do with some tweaks. I can see the ball joints popping out (and the wheel falling off) because of the direction load is placed on them. But I love the direction you are going. Look forward to seeing more. I can also see it being used in a helicopter swash plate.

A larger cv joint like that used in 8880 (low friction, high torque capacity, large turning angle) combined with something like new style hub with the same play and as little friction as the newer smaller turn table would be very good. Combine that with this http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/radbot/custom-parts/new_diff_assembled.jpg and these http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/radbot/custom-parts/new_gears.jpg in a gorgeous white supercar and now you have a worthy successor to 8880.

I have no doubt that the designers are awesome builders. Not only that, they have massive resources at their disposal, such as the ability to create new pieces and release existing pieces in new colours. They are not limited to the current set of parts like we are. They also do it as their day job giving them much more time to build than we have. I realise that against them they have to consider things that we don't, like can it be built by a child (with one part per step I should hope so!), out of the box reliability (42009 outriggers?) and even a test in an oven I think. But still I expect a much higher level of awesomeness from them that what's possible from us MOCers. Like when 8880 was released there was no way MOcers at that time could have come close to building a supercar that good due to it's many new awesome parts. Imagine it's new years day 1994 and you were told that TLG are releasing a new car. Remember it was the test car that came just 6 years before it. But this new car will have 4 wheel drive, steering and suspension. It will have a 4 speed gearbox which uses much more life like clutch gears and a H pattern shifter as well as sleek lines and for the first time a v8. If all you had before that was the test car (which it was) then you'de be thinking wow, what a huge leap forward. There's no way I could build a supercar that good no matter how good I am, I can't wait till I get something that awesome! Then you see a picture and you are even more excited. Fast forward to now and we have "clues" that we will be getting an RC front end loader with LAs and 4 motors. Even with it's new bucket I'm just left thinking pfft, I could build a front end loader that good right now. Where's the leap forward? Like I said, I have no doubt that the designers are insanely good at what they do, and with the resources available to them it just seems that they are either held back by the higher ups or that their creativity and imaginations are indeed in limbo.

The drum and the live axle suspension is great