allanp

For the hub you could try these: http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2695 I know they are wider but then the hub is the widest part of the wheel. I think it would be fairly easy and more interesting to emulate the way in which the spokes are placed wider at the hub, either side of the hub and then come into the centre line of the wheel as it reaches the edge of the wheel if your spokes are long enough. As for the drop-outs, I would think that your forks would have to be about 3 beams thick in order to look in scale. This being the case you could have your three beams stacked up using the blue, 3-long friction pins, so the holes of the beams are facing each other, leaving the middle beam 2 holes shorter than the outer two, giving you your drop out. Then you can put bushings on the axles to make them fit better without moving around so much and either use those threaded axles mentioned earlier, using these http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/4185 as washers or a removeable pin through the bottom of the fork. I realise i'm probably talking on a bigger scale that what you intended (probably 1/2 or something) but I hope this helps. Would love to see it when it's finished.

I'm sorry but your nickname does kinda suggest you're a girl Guess that's what you get for calling Lego "legos"

It might be benificial to let us know what parts or sets you have.

Most likely it's those new gears that have a smooth hole rather than a "+" shaped hole. I can see one gear between the two LAs. I first thought there were three but the other two are just the "R" in preliminary. Can't see any drive to the LA operating the bucket. It's probably a fault in the picture, like the wrong kind of 20t thin bevel gear being used below the two LAs. Is it possible they would use an LA just for decoration? They should have used pneumatics anyway

Well it would appear that we mearly have different critirea on which we judge how good a set is. I'm more interesrted in the complexity, functionality, what parts it has and so on. Price is wholey dependent on the set and the amount of powerfunctions parts like motors and recievers a set has does not really interest me anywhere near as much as how functional or complex it is. The bulldozer was great for new parts (the powerfunctions/tracks) I grant you, having another look at it, yeah it is a good set. It's just sorley lacking in complexity, funtionality and ambition (that's the set itself, not the powerfunctions). However I do realise that most of the thought went into creating the powerfunctions parts leaving not much left over for the set itself so maybe I am being a bit harsh on it. As a platform for introducing powerfunctions it's great, as a flagship model, not so great. The 8258 is more expensive but I would say that 5p per brick is reasonable especially for what is IMHO a much better assortment of parts. Over double the amount of gears as the bulldozer, 7 of the new gear racks, those cool new H beams and so on. It has the same amount of motorised functions as the bulldozer (which I have had no issues with) and achives them in a much more interesting way via it's gearbox and it has the manual functions on top of all that, not instead of. But yeah, like I said, it would have been better had it used a motor compressor with pneumatics on the end of the stableizers and pneumatics moving the crane arm freeing up the two gearbox functions to motorize the boom extention and the winch. Then it's only a change of colour shceme away from being one of the best technic sets of all time IMHO! I'm gonna have to get round to modding my 8258 one day.

The 8275 didn't spoil me at all. Whilst I really like all the PF and the new tracks, the model itself was sooooo boring, all the functions were motorised because there were very few functions to motorise for a flagship. There was very little complexity in that model in my opinion. You would be better off just buying the PF parts from shop at home (I have a feeling this years excavator will be more of the same ). The 8258 on the otherhand is very complex and interesting and had non of the issues that some others seem to have had. Obviously it would have been better had it used a motor compressor with pneumatics on the end of the stableizers and pneumatics moving the crane arm freeing up the two gearbox functions to operate the boom extention and the winch, but it's still a great model in my opinion, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than the bulldozer

It's strange because I also think the parts assortment available today is better than in the "golden age" of technic, which many put at around 1988 to 1996. I personally don't mind having lots of specialist parts like wishbones and driving rings and so on, I really like those parts. I guess my main feeling is that the golden age of technic was when sets realised te full potential of their parts, because the designers had more time to design them that way. The design of sets like the 8480, 8880 and 8868 were brilliant when you consider the parts available back then. But now, even tho technic has sooooo much more potential now than ever for great sets and new parts, especially with various blogs saying what many fans of technic would like, it just goes unrealised for whatever reason. Don't get me wrong, technic is still, and always has been great, Legos flagship theme. The 8258 was the best set in many years in my opinion. But it's gonna take more than one good set to make me think there is a new "golden age" on the way.

I think the older sets were better considering the parts available back then, and also more challenging. Each year also seemed to bring more new innovations. However I don't think the designers are given as much time to design the sets and new parts as they used to get.

Well it had better be bloody complicated/technical/sophisticated for that price, i'm not gonna pay half that for a glorified motor back with a bunch of linear actuators thrown in.

I don't really see any hate for technic. Personnally I love it, to me it's legos flagship theme. If you want something that is gonna stimulate your mind whilst you enjoy it, technic is THE theme to do it in my opinion. I often wonder why, on brickset, you get a load of comments saying "i'm not interested in the new sets, but then I don't collect technic". Seems a bit retarded to me!

your models are indeed pretty good flagships, they are the most expensive of the year. 2008 was a strange year tho as the flagship was not the one with the most parts.

Yes it would, but that's no biggie! I think it would work very well, just like one used for steering an RC car. You could use it for that aswell and many other things.

You got a good point there! But then if somebody were to produce some longer pneumatics I would hope TBs reports it so I can buy all of them! Gotta love TechnicBRICKs!

Well a servo does automatically return to centre electronically, it does so when you set the "joy stick" on the remote to centre. Now that sounds really nice but yeah, waaaaaaay too expensive for TLG.

More specifically it's made to intergrate with lego technic. I'm a purist but not every AFOL is a purist. So as a product designed to intergrate with technic and with appeal to many AFOLs I think it's perfectly reasonable to post an article regaurding these parts. A mod even said "i'm not trying to sell you anything" So I guess it's a case of if you like em, use em, if you don't, don't. Now back to Blakbirds technical summery of the model:

You know, I never thought of it like that. I do like it when a set has lots of PF but it always seems to come at the cost of complexity. I guess it's too much to ask to have both cost wise Do you mean a servo like thing operating a standard valve or a complete motor valve unit? Either way would be great!

I saw this at the cinema recently. YEY!

Yes definately they are good already I like them alot. The valves are pretty much perfect as they are but I think there is still room for improvement when it comes to the motor pump. Afterall, only the best is good enough That's a great little dozer! Oh yes, that's one reason why I love it! I'de never wish to make it any easier, just more intuative like the new 5x7 and 5x11 beams do brilliantly. I agree. Technic should always be technic and not just some other electronic toy. They got the balance right with the 8480 space shuttle, 8868 air tech claw rig and 8258 crane truck. Not looking good for this years excavator, but we have yet to know for sure.

Oooooh lots of good comments there thankyou Mark That's a good idea I agree with you I completely agree. That is why I do not want an all-in-on motor-compressor thingy or anything like that. Just a pump that's more intuative when it comes to motorisation (like not having to account for that half-stud off set) and just as a bonus for AFOL's, and anybody with more than one pump, can be staggered in a more compact way like the pistons in a technic engine. Your compressor is great and very impressive, but just how big would an excavator be if it had to carry that inside of it! I agree, like I said I wouldn't want a pre-built motor-compessor unit anyway, it's boring having it done for you and kinda undermines what technic is about. Well using a non-lego, pre built all in one compressor thingy is just cheating . And again, how big would a model have to be to carry one of those inside it. Yeah but that is such an ugly and unrealistic solution. To build a backhoe or excavator of any decent scale you have to double up every one of them, which is just pants! In fact whenever I build a MOC I end up doubling up the cylinders. Thats one extra cylinder, two extention peices, a couple of axles, a couple of t-pieces, extra tubing and so on that's not really necessary. Why not just make some that are longer to begin with seeing as todays models are generally larger than they were when pneumatics were first introduced. Such a reversing valve (if I understand it's function correctly) would be great on a telescopic handler or a monster truck to switch between steering modes (4 wheel steer, crab and so on) but you're right, I don't think it would be that viable. I'm always up for new lift arms and cam pieces! Yes I could do those things. But then I'm a AFOL with money to spend on NXTs and the hundreds of parts needed to do one task. But if TLG wanted to add that kind of functionality to their products then a servo would be a simple, cost effective way of doing that IMHO.

I've probably said some of this before but here it all is all in one place. Pneumatics, as they are, are brilliant. It's great to see them return in 2010. However, it appears it's return is limited to only one model. I guess TLG are testing the waters to see if todays 10-13 year olds like them. Now personally I think they will very much so (at least I really hope so!) but then there is always room for improvement no matter how good something is. So, to further increase the appeal of pneumatics, hear are my suggestions for what is basically an overhaul of the great selection of pneumatic parts already available. Motor pump: Great part but not without it's flaws. For instance, you have to off-set one end half a hole or place it at an angle to make use of the full stroke. Making a compressor out of more than one is also very difficult to make compact enough to fit into a medium sized MOC whilst having them maintain efficiencey and constant flow by offsetting thier working cycles. So what if we were to have something like these three engine parts... http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2850 http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2851 http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2852 ...in a complete assembly with a closed top containing valve and outlet, a little ridge around the bottom to stop the piston coming out and appropiately sealed piston. now i'm not sure but I would guess the surface area of the piston is roughly double that of the piston inside the current pump. This dimention could be tweaked to give double (or slighly more) surface area of the one in the current pump. This means that with a stroke of only one stud (like you get in the current standard technic engine), you achieve the same capacity (or slightly more) as the current motor pump. However the main gain is that it it could be motorised in a much more intuative way, and you could have many of them, for example in a very compact V4 configuration giving as much power as 4 motor pumps! It would also look way cool, like an engine with the pneumatic tubing looking like exhaust ports or HT leads. Pneumatic cylinder: Again, a great part, but it's just too darn short for most applications. I mean just look at em, they even look stubby! TLG never intended LA's to be a substitute for pneumatics and I certainly don't consider them as such, but the LA's aren't really long enought either IMHO. Ideally the pneumatic cylinder would come in a range of lengths from a 2 stud stroke to something completely insane like a 32 stud stroke (imagine the possibilities in forklifts and telescopic booms and such!) but if I could only have one length of pneumatic cylinder then I would go for one with a stroke exactly twice (that's 2 times ) the length of the standard pneumatic cylinder. To me this is a natural progression as todays summer sets are generally much larger than the sets of the time when pneumatics were first released. I realise they would require more air to operate because of their greater internal volume, but that is a teeny weeny price to pay Valves: There has been talk amongst technic fans, expressing a wish for a PF valve. Whilst this would be sweeeeeeet my prefered alternative to this would be a servo motor with which you could operate the current valve. Servo motors, even small ones, are easily powerful enough to operate a valve and precise enough to even give you propertional control. The reason I personally prefere this option over a PF valve is because you can use it for many other things too like steering, point control, remote controlled gear boxes and so on. Regaurding the valve itself, whilst a much smaller dead zone and less stiction would be nice, i'm not quite sure how this would affect proper sealing of the valve over a long period of time. So whilst I would like these improvements, I would not like it if it lessens the reliablilty of the valve. Power steering (eg in a live axle with no mechanical feedback linkage): Whilst this could be done by a servo motor a pneumatic solution would also be nice as it would add more realism to models of construction machinery and monster trucks and such with their hydraulic steering (not the same I know). I'm not sure what would be required for that yet to make it compact and neat enought for say, a back hoe, it's just a thought. All this is entirly possible (not sure about the last one) and at low enough cost (not sure about the last two!) to be feasable I think. What do you think? Any comments and other ideas are obviously more than welcome

I got the 8258 crane truck and had it built in time for christmas dinner! It's awesome easily the best set of 2009. It's got sooooo many gears and drivetrains and such. Now I wish to mod it. 1) remove linear actuators and replace with pneumatics 2) use the two now unused gearbox outputs to drive a compressor and drive train to the rear wheels 3) replace manual stablelizer sections with pneumatics 4) add a third gear selector in crane body to drive the winch and power the telescopic boom This should be fun!

The only issue I had with mine was a 16t gear kept popping off when motorised. Everytime this happened I had to re-align the two LA's. If this is the problem you are having then it is a common design flaw. I have also encountered one LA that was quite hard to operate, i've not heard of any others suffering this problem so I guess it's VERY rare but could this be the cause of your problem? If not then it's probably a build issue. I'm sure you checked all this before posting but can all the gears and axles turn freely? Is everything (not just the LA's) lined up correctly? Is there any binding? Is the driving ring moving the full distance? (you should hear 4 clicks from one side to the other).

Not really interested in any of these new sets. It's just yet more of the same PF items, linear actuators and re-hashes from the looks of things. Seems the tradition of a half decent flagship one year followed by a bland set the next year lives on, so I can't say i'm dissappointed, I expected this. Oh well, maybe 2011 will bring something good.

Ok well what kind of lego movie do you want to make? stop motion? minifig scale? What's the setting? is it in space? What camera, lighting, work areas, computer software do you currently have to make a lego movie? What's your budget?

Well i'm all for the developement of new PF parts To be honest i'de MUCH rather have longer pneumatics with an on board compressor than remote controlled thereby not requiring any new PF parts. But anyway proper flagships only come every two years and 2010 is not one of those years so I guess it's to be expected.