allanp

Thankyou for the kind of mature responce I would expect of a so called "A"FOL community . Responces to critisisms along the lines of "bigger does not always mean better, it could just mean more expensive" and "it looks like a MOC for valid reasons given" with "you're in the minority (of a few dozen posters that's hardley representative of 100'000s of AFOLs) so go away!" and "oooh no, a critisism, i'll just say it's nonsense without giving any reason and run away!" were.......hilarious, no offence guys .

Oh well, looks like I won't be spending any more money on technic this year afterall. Anyone can use a record number of parts at a higher cost to the customer to create unrealistic mechanisms. This is why they look like noobish MOCs to me. And why is everyone so pre-occupied with the size of the crane anyway? "ooooooh it's so long!" (EDIT: didn't mean it to sound like that guys! ) but so what?! The helicopter from 8277 was probably the largest helicopter they ever made and also the most crap!

From how little friction some of the new gears have on their axles (like the 20t bevel gear) I would not be surprised if they just used a normal gear to do the outriggers, it's easy enough to do already. I would expect the slewing function to have some kind of gearing this time round at least to counteract the torque of any drive shafts going through the turn table. And if the red lever by the wheels is a mini gearbox to control the two functions of the outriggers then, due to it's neutral position, there is no need for any of the four functions of the main gearbox to also be the outriggers, leaving one space left for slewing. I am very happy to see that non of the functions appear to be operated from a knob connected right next to the function itself as it adds some sense of realism and complexity to the model. But I'm not 100% sold on it just yet. I'm not sure I need to spend £150 on yet another set that has little more of interest than being slightly bigger and having a gearbox that is mainly just lots of 16t gears. It was spectacular the first time in 8480 but after about 20 more sets of this i'll need to see more pics first, maybe it offers something more but for now I don't see it. As for the rescue truck it does somewhow look better now. Maybe it's just at a different angle but there seems to be less red in it which would be an improvement I think. I don't have the old picture to hand right now to compare but i'm very happy to see that the pneumatic logo is still on the box. This is one I certainly will be getting.

8459 is awesome, IMHO by far the best front end loader they ever made.

For it to stay in sync you would need a mechanism that, if the car is at full lock and you change the steering mode, the rear wheels would have to go to steer the opposite way without turning the steering wheel. So far non of the solutions suggested solves that problem. But of the ones suggested I think mine and effermans are the most useful to you. Mine has the benefit of giving you a different gear ratio (like you asked for) whilst effermans has the advantage of more compactness (also like you asked for). In order to keep the wheels sycronised a slightly complex linkage system would be required and i'm not sure it would fit without substancial modification.

Nope!

It is a crash gearbox, similar to the ones used before 8880. Imagine that in both positions the input shaft is turning clockwise. In position 1 the input shaft is in it's forward position. The 16t gear that is on the input shaft is meshed with the 16t gear of the output shaft. So when the input turns clockwise, the output shaft turns counter-clockwise at the same speed. In this position the other gears turn but are not used. They are only used in position 2. In position 2 the input shaft is in it's back position. It is now no longer meshed with the 16t gear on the output shaft. It is meshed instead with the 20t tan gear. So when the input shaft turns clockwise the 20t tan gear turns counter clockwise at a slightly slower speed. This then turns the next 16t gear which is meshed with the other 20t tan gear on the output shaft. This will then turn the output shaft clockwise at a slower speed and same direction as the input shaft.

Agreed! Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

You could try this: In position 1 the output turns the opposite direction as the input at a 1:1 ratio. In position 2 the output turns the same direction at a ratio of 1:1.5625 reduction. I guess you would want to reverse the direction of the output to work as you want it with 8880.

By PF i'm just gonna assume you mean anything electrical, as the PF name has only been used for the past 5 or 6 years. But oh, there's a few. 8455 obviously! 42000 is probably the best of the very recent non PF sets. Then there is the older ones like 8880, 8856 and so on and so on. In fact those are some of the best ever, motors or no motors. BTW, everytime I see the avatar of dhc6twinotter I always get very hungry very quickly!

a 24t syncromesh gear would be awesome, but seeing as you do not need the clutch function then cutting down parts might be a bit drastic. Could you not use 16t gears? Would a 24t white clutch gear give too much resistance to do the same? How about a wholly different method of using one motor to select between three functions? with the one below you could do away with the nxt and use a servo motor if you have one.

Congratulations

That might have had something to do with it!

Prepare to laugh your a**es off at my very first and worst ever MOC, built when I was very young! It didn't handle too great!

MOC: awesome Video: awesome Presintation and animation: awesome Bass player: not so much

There are far better internal motors they could use however there are cost limits. There are motors that have far more efficiency, delivering more torque, more speed with less power consumption. However they are expensive, they probably haven't even looked at them due to their cost. The buggy motor is perfect, lots of power, lots of speed and well within the limits of what plastic Lego technic pieces can handle reliably. Still hoping they release one in a PF format. The one downside of the buggy motor is it's awkward "L" shape.

Likely more than one i'de say. I just hope they don't take critisisms personally. I know i've made a few terrible MOCs! . In fact, I wonder if a thread called "what's your worst MOCs" would be fun. Tho I'de also be interested in seeing the first childhood MOCs of some of the greats.

I bet 99.999% of muslims are saying the same things we are. The daily fail never gave a sh%t about anything or anyone or the damage they cause just as long as they sell a few papers.

Ha, I would love it if the designers at TLG were having a good laugh it this thread and yelling at each other "oooooooh, another thumbs down for your model hahaha!"

Better motors?

For some reason I can't explain, the barcode truck never gave me the same kind of WOW factor as the flagships of previous years. Tho I have grown to appreciate it more over the years. It has some really cool gear trains (two of my favorites!), the way it used a gear rack to lift the bed is much better to me than an LA (still not authentic but the gearing down required was cool) and it made very nice use of the much missed flex system. To be honest I think I was just spoilt by the complexity of the 8480 space shuttle, the stunning good looks of the 8880 Daytona VX4 supercar (to give it it's full english name) and the authentic awesomeness of the 8868 air tech claw rig.

That's CAD circa 1995, with parts from 1997 I have the 8257 cyberslam set and the mechanisms are quite fun actually. With no real life counterpart I can't really say it's not realistic either, tho it's more of a play toy that an authentic model but I guess that's all it was intended to be. For what it is, it's ok. Not a good technic model by any means, but a fun little toy. I kinda think bionicle and roboriders and such don't really count. Their focus is not compareable with that of a normal technic set. I know they sometimes came under the technic name but to me, saying a bionicle is a bad technic set is like eating an onion and saying this orange tastes horrible.

I forgot about the 8053 B-model, haven't built it yet but it looks awesome!

Oh yeah, haha, I used to imagine the driver of 8466 having to jump on the roof to open the door and lower the step to help him get up there in the first place then being trapped inside forever more

Oh, I spotted it alright, there are just no words right now to describe it, no words!