allanp

And later that day it set about destroying Bristol!

I think there are many different formulations and grades of ABS, all suitable for different things such as gears, pins, beams and so on. As well as nylon, some types pf delrin (spelling?) plastic could be useful. It machines great in my iModela! Need to buy some smaller tooling before I can make gears tho. The size of the teeth may also be an issue with fast spinning motors. They can be very noisey and inefficient. That's why they used to use belts and in the planetary gearing of the pf motors the teeth are much smaller. This is one reason why I think a separate pre-built reduction unit with the same gears as you would find inside the current motors would be a better option for ungeared motors than nylon or delrin gears.

That's right. The only problem I see is that you go from a 3:1 ratio all the way to a 1:3 ratio, so when motorised, either way you end up with a 1:3 up gearing in top gear, which is pretty high. However if you are modifying current gears then it's probably the simplest way to go. You could mod the 8t gear by drilling out the hole so it's round then superglueing it to a 16t cluch gear with the teeth removed or an extention piece with the end cut off.

Looks very useful

Nicjasno has done it for one of his gearboxes.

Sounds cool but I can't see the pictures. Once you have made a few more posts you will be able to post pictures. Do you have any pictures on brickshelf?

Or this:

Keep the mechanisms realistic and they will be simpler (and therefore cheaper) I think. They are designed in real life to be as simple and reliable as possible. Like what we've been saying with the gearbox. As it is they are more complex and harder for kids to understand than a real gearbox and don't work as well. And instead of all these multiplexing gearboxes just use pneumatics, they are authentic, simpler and easier for kids to understand and if you make them the right length (this is very important) their short comings, such as an apparent lack of control and booms falling too fast begin to dissappear. Pneumatics, gearboxes, wheels and ball joint connections all need a big overhaul, which will be expensive at first with all the new molds but they will pay off big time, sets will be mechanically simpler requiring less parts (so cheaper in the long run) but be more mechanically authentic, interesting, diverse, reliable, efficient and have more play value, and because of all that kids will love it even more and remember, non of this means they have to make the sets look any less attractive. In fact with big, powerful looking pneumatics with all their hoses, big, deep wheels and so on they would be more attractive and cooler looking in general. Imagine a huge one of these: built with these: Now imagine one built with wheels that actually look like the ones on the real JCB (with the black hub gear reduction, yellow rims and the destinctive tread pattern) and of course these: Now which one do you think would look more appealing to kids?

That's cos they haven't took my approach

Good point, they better get in a gearbox quick! Seriously tho, whilst the torque curve is fairly flat on an electric motor, their efficiency is far from flat. So whilst you can get away with only one gear to take you from 0 to top speed, it uses much more electricity than if you have a gearbox. This is why many car manufacturers who are developing electric cars are currently developing multispeed transmissions for their electric cars. as for the engine, they are not going to die out over night, and there is alot of research going on in bio fuels. I'm fairly sure they will be around in supercars at least for many decades so I wouldn't worry about it EDIT: Hey guys, anyone remember this recent post? Would this not satisfy those looking for more authenticity and everybody else?!

Well actually, it's designed to make the Lego group money . Which movie makes more money? Dora the explorer (enjoyed by children only) or toy story (designed mainly for children but also to have wider appeal), and which movie is the better movie for it?

Sure, technic has play value I don't deny that. I also think play value is very important. But let me ask you this, do you spend more time building technic or playing with it after it's built? For me building time outweighs playing time about 10 to 1. I just think play value is not it's strongest attribute and increased authenticity almost always leads to increased play value. The authentic functions of the unimog were fun to play with, the non authentic steering was not fun to play with. There are exceptions to every rule but that's mostly how it seems to me. Remember, from the horses mouth the 3 main goals of technic is authenticity, complexity and challenging building, which I think is as it should be. I would rather they pursue those three main goal before playability despite what playability technic has and because those three goals will automatically generate lots of playability anyway among other good things as well.

I agree with the steering being very bad and remember, the steering was one part which was not authentic .

Well, the RC thing was just an example but in the case of the crawler yeah, playability = RC. In the case of 8265 playbility = finger cramp In 8110 and 8880 playbility pretty much = operating the real thing, because they were authentic! But you are right, the build is a big part of the fun IF it is interesting. Maybe i've built too many sets but I have built so many function switching gearboxes that building the many many sets that use them feels like i'm building the same set over and over again, which leaves me with no desire to buy another such as 42009 and I have a hunch, next years skip lorry, which i'm guessing (but don't know for sure) is gonna be yet another multi-function gearbox which drives some LAs to move the functions. EDIT: Reading that back to myself, that sounded harsher than I intended, I don't mean it to sound that way, but I can't really think of a better way to put it

Playability was never technics strong point, never was and never will be. An RC car built out of Lego will never be able to compete with a "real" RC car. So IF technic is just another toy with playability > than everything else, then it's a pretty poor and very expensive toy, remember it's far from being the only toy out there of comparable size and so on. Happily, I don't want it to be just another toy with great playablity that can compete with it's competitors. I don't want the designers to every try to do that because they will fail completely and technic will lose it's edge, forcing them to compromise and not reach the potencial of what technic can do better than anything else which is building authentic, functional, scale replicas of real life mechanics and machinery which is itself inherently awesome! I am aware that the price should not be too high and that kids should be able to build it and it has to function well and reliably. Very well then, consider these gears: With these gears kids would be able to easily and intuatively build a working gearbox that is reliable, looks and works like the real thing and all with fewer parts than you currently have to use today. Motorisation would also be more reliable and more efficient as less power would be wasted driving the old style in-efficient gearbox making for better and more reliable play. Everything, including gearboxes, are designed to be cost effective, efficient, reliable, assembled by monkeys on a production line and so on, so by replicating what happens in real life as closely as possible you should be able to also achieve these things. It is no secret that I hold mechanicle authenticity as top priority for technic, but it's not for the sake of authenticity, it's because of all the benefits that comes with it, as well as the feeling of owning the real thing as opposed to owning just another toy version, which for me as a kid was a feeling that owning no other toy could compare to. Now compere these two sets: The mechanics of 8265 requires more parts, are far less reliable (remember the gears that kept falling off?) and playability sucks due to getting cramp in the fingers due to hours of knob twiddling. Motorisation made the reliability issue worse and the overall cost even greater with unrealisticly slow and not very powerful movements. 8459 on the otherhand was cheaper and has more lifelike mechanics which requires less parts, is simpler and easier for kids to understand, is more reliable and better to play with and more powerful right out the box without any need for motorisation. Adding a motor pump would only make it better. It even had a working steering wheel inside the cab. So TLG, how about some more realism please, and all the benefits to both you and me and all the new parts that comes with it!

Oh I see, that would indeed move the steering in line however, you are then left with the problem of having not enough length on the axle to mount the brakes and the wheels.

The CV joint is there because the UJ is not inline with the steering which causes the axle to bend and extend as you operate the steering. The CV joint allows this to happen. If you want to remove the CV joint you should modify it so that the UJ is in proper alignment with the steering, which may prove tricky. Thankyou

1) Never had a dark ages as such. For example I'de go out drinking at that tender age most people have a dark ages, then come back home...somehow... and, whilst pissed as two farts in the wind, build my new 8455 (ah, that was a good night/morning/whatever time it was!) 2) 23 years. 3) Haven't bought a technic set in a long time now that I think of it, they have all been more of the same old gearboxes and LAs, nothing new. I've been collecting technic for 23 years and never known it to be this stale and boring in general. Maybe it's already ended for me 4) Awesome new and/or improved parts in awesome new sets.

Please do not reveal the secrets. In my review I tried to keep the revealing of secrets to a minimum so that people would be encouraged to buy the instructions from him.

Mindstoms white is more of a very light bley.

No worries

Thanks for the info Paul_Delahaye. Did you see any interesting new parts at all?

Yeah, the colour isn't so nice, but you can still have ungeared motors and the same planetary gears used in the geared motors by having a separate planetay gear reduction preassembly, so when you put the two together it is basically the same as having a geared motor like we have now but the benefit is that you also have the option to have an ungeared motor as well as a planetary gear reduction preassembly that could be used anywhere in the geartrain and as many times as you like, so it would be much more versatile. I really think this is the best way forward.

Pneumatics ay? Now there's an idea! Best looking yes, I agree with that. I think the topic/OP was asking for functionally and mechanically realistic models, not just aesthetically or superficially realistic