allanp

With 8880 came those now very common gear selector rings and that whole method of being able to engauge/disengauge drive to an axle. 8480 took that idea and used it to control 4 functions from one motor. That was 18 and 16 years ago respectively. There has been no improvement on that since, there are more instances where a gearbox is used to change function than it is used to change gear ratios and it is now the former type of gearbox that is getting boring. It is also unlifelike, I have not seen a gearbox used for that in real life (except a power take off). 8880 and 8480 were the innovative designs, 8043 and 8070 is the lazy lack of progress since then. Who really would prefere a motorised door to an actual working gearbox anyway? Not me! Imagine if they kept on improving things at the same rate, the gearboxes today would have been much better and more realistic, using up very little power from the motor yet able to take alot more torque we would be seeing RC cars with working 7 speed sequencial gearboxes by now, that's what i'm looking to, kids would go nuts for it, not motorised fracking DOOOOOOOOOOORS!!

8258 has a more interesting gearbox and larger, more realitic looking out riggers. It has a v8 instead of an inline 4 and is generally alot bigger and more impressive looking. It also has a telescopic boom section, although it's worked by a control knob that is right next to it so that's hardly a technical function. It also has 4 wheel steering, is alot heavier and built stronger with 8 of those 5x7 and 3 of those 5x11 frames. It's also more densly packed with gears and mechanisms with very few empty spaces.

Really? Have you asked most kids (there are about half a billion of them) wheather they prefer a working gearbox to a working door? I know which one i'de choose and which one I was more interested in as a kid and it wasn't the frackin door! Then I think you want a Ferrari racer set, not a technic set. Besides whilst many would agree with you about the look of 8880, many would disagree, and at the time it was released i'm pretty sure everyone would have disagreed with you.

I think that the parts selection has deffinately improved since the "golden age" of technic (1988-1996) but, excluding some notable exceptions like 8110, the sets have not. The space shuttle was probably the best space shuttle that could be built using the parts available at the time and piece count, but modern sets often don't reach the potential of the parts they can be built from today. This is not a fault of the designers, I believe they used to have more time to design and perfect each set. Now TLG seems to pride itself on reducing the time from initial concept to actual release. This is not good for sets. In my mind 8880 is the best technic car ever made, but it's 18 years old now, has there been a car released since with 18 years worth of improvements on 8880? When I consider the difference between the very first auto chassis and 8880 (a 17 year gap at most) I think certainly not.

If you can power them, I think you wold be better using 4 buggy motors. They produce about the same mechnicle power as XL motors when geared down to the same speed, but you can also have your gearbox just after the motors, before that gearing down so you can transmit more power though the gearbox by having it spin much faster with the gearing down you need after the gearbox. With that you can use many of the more conventional 4 speed gearboxes already used in many MOCs.

Whoops, I meant to say that I would NOT use an airtank with only one pump

Personally I would use an airtank with only one motor pump.

In case of the lubricant washing away, it was suggest in the other topic I linked to that you could use silicon oil, so it would be self lubricating without corroding the seals. As of pumps, it was also shown in the topic I linked to that you can use the new pumps and how to retrieve the water from the valves to create a kinda closed circuit. As I am trying to not hijack threads (taking them too far off topic) I should kindly ask that any more posts on this subject be made in that topic, and please read all of it first

It's similar to the unimog, it uses the same ball joint with the UJ going through it. However this crawler does not use a panhard rod to keep the axle moving side to side like the unimog does. It uses two rods per axle running either side of the ball joint to prevent the side to side movement.

OK, I wasn't sure about people selling one-off phsical models that they brought from you, but I am sure about this, and it pi**es me off! Can this topic get front paged please? Would be nice to get eurobricks wide support and awareness of these thieves.

There is a topic around here on using water/fluid. http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=51439 Seems it is possible and some people have done it, but the idea needs more refining to make it more practicle. When I start MOCing again tho one of the things on my to build list is a hydraulic excavator.

Isn't the boom on this crane heavier and longer than the boom on the 8043 excavator, ya know, the one LAs had trouble lifting? Seriously tho the pneumatics would benifit from adding the hoses to the other ends of the cylinders and the other end of the valve to restrict the airflow a little more. But this is deffinately a case where longer pneumatics would have helped alot.

What's a grab bag? They sound fantastic!

Nice!

Welcome to Eurobricks Andrea I don't think that will be allowed. SR3D shows how something is intended to work, but it does not show if it actually will work. Only a real life model could show that. I appriciate that, whilst video footage is not a requirement (unless I missed something), a CAD drawing is effectively the same as a still photo in showing the judges weather or not something works in real life. Of course we must trust that the builder is honest and that the model does what they say it can, however not even the builder can know for sure that their model will work unless they build it.

YEY!

looks like two parts of the mold did not properly mate together.

I think the current XL motor already has way too much torque. We need one that's really fast but not much torque, like the motors from the control centre sets 8049 and 8485 but with a bit more power for the sake of prgress!

Looking great so far, glad to have helped on such a beauty! You may have to reposision one of the crank pieces the small cylinders are connected onto to get it to work better. Can't wait to see it in action.

Love this set!

Oh I see, well try not to strain the UJs too much

Yes but do you have any gear reduction? You are supposed to have a 1:4 gear reduction.

Are you sure, looks like the turntables are the wrong way round

Looks great so far! It's hard to see in the pics, have you included the planetary gear reduction in the turntables/wheel hubs?

The hoses would look much better if they were organised a little neater and kept close to the beams instead of being allowed to go all over the place