allanp

The engine should work after book one. Just a few questions first to get the obvious stuff out the way. Is the 3 position switch the the centre console in drive, reverse or neutral? Are you turning all four wheels to test the engine or do you not yet have the wheels attached, and you are turning just one brake disk (which will just cause the opposite wheel/brake disk to turn backwards due to the differential and wont turn the engine)? Are you aware that due to the overly complex nature of the gearbox there is quite a lot of backlash in the system, which means that when the car is complete you have to roll it forward some distance before the engine starts turning? Did you test the gear shift mechanism to confirm that all 4 drive rings were being moved by the 2 orange cylindrical cam pieces (wave selectors) in the correct sequence? Do you have any gears left over/spare/unused?

Well I've had several wires from other sets go the same way, with the insulation rotting away leaving bare wires, so I don't think it's an issue with the set.

Yes, and if you do find any suitable wire that would be good to see.

Small, flat blade screwdrivers, life from those small jewellers sets work fairly well.

Could you do something like this? This would be just the central linkage that expands the outer segments (not shown) by about 2 studs in diameter.

I'm not sure I follow. If you plan to build the crane in red, well red housings are already available, so wouldn't it be good to also have them in yellow for any time in the future when you might need them in yellow?

I would think toy fair demos were more recent versions than the models used in the tiny blurred images, so there is still hope for the yellow Arocs housing camp!

We're not sure they are yellow though are we? Or will be in the final version.

Yeah, RC at this price point I fear would make it very basic.

This is very common. I had this happen to my 8475 RC reciever unit. It's all repaired now though.

Good spot! I know a while back I said they should do a defender, and now that they are, I feel a little ungrateful for not jumping for joy! But we really don't know much about TLGs execution of the idea. Will it be based on the boxey old iconic classic defender, used by the SAS with steel box section for bumpers, tackling mountains with pure mechanical might that could be repaired in the desert with nothing but basic tools and a welder with its live axles and beefy leaf springs, or will it be based on this new non iconic plastic electronic gizmo with its lower ground clearance and boring independent suspension that looks better suited for the local farm?! Or will there be a choice with the A model being the new and the B model being the icon? Will TLGs version be authentic with both main and transfer gearboxes, or will its authenticity be only skin deep? Do you mean the real one or the Lego one? I think the real one will come in 90, 110 and pickup version, with other versions on top of that from elemental to luxury. Yup. A luxury, plastic bumper sporting, independent suspension and infotainment center having defender! It's not like they already have the range rover or discovery . I wish them well but, with the classic defender being the thing JLR hangs it's rugged off road reputation on, turning it into a bloated namby pamby electronic gizmo probably isn't so great.... ...and on that bombshell....

These panels look very good. The skill of building within current Lego parts catalog is one thing, but the skill of creating your own parts should also be respected. It can be argued that there are different levels of Lego purism. In it's purist form I would define it as building using only components sold by Lego. But then there's also the question of is it something Lego themselves would do? This offers more freedom as Lego create and release new parts all the time, as well as releasing parts in new colours, chrome plating parts and creating new stickers. As Lego do this I think an argument can be made that creating new parts as you have done is also purism, just not in its most pure form. It's not an argument I myself would necessarily agree with, but Lego moccing purely for your own pleasure is about having fun, not competition, so who cares if I "approve". Talking of stickers, one method Lego often uses is to recolour panels with stickers.

Jim was born....at a very young age!

I think there is a couple issues with a high speed pneumatic motor which is then geared down. Firstly there is the air supply. These motors require vast volumes of air and Lego compressors are not up to it. Secondly they are very noisy, and in small Lego scale it would be like a dentist's drill, not very pleasant to play with. However, I do wonder if a low speed axial piston type motor is possible. Having 6 pistons in a 3 stud diameter barrel would be fairly compact and could also be used as a very compact 6 piston compressor when back driven by an electric motor. So it could work both as a motor and as a compressor. But I think the challenge to overcome with that one is internal friction. In real life, worm gears can indeed be back driven due to their smooth precision ground metal surfaces and literally being submerged in oil. Real life axial piston type motors and pumps also rely on highly polished precision metal surfaces and lots of lubrication. So while I think it's certainly possible for Lego to release something like that in miniature, weather or not it could be made to work reliably I really don't know. Perhaps if the ends of the pistons were fitted with tiny rollers made of the same plastic as the rollercoaster wheel. I think it could work, but now we are talking added complexity. This single motor/compressor would require a new rotating barrel, a new housing, a new housing end, a new swash plate, new piston, new piston roller, new seals, and if it can't be assembled by us it would require assembly at the factory. This would be an expensive part. So would you be willing to pay, let's say 75 euro for such a motor/compressor? Well of course I would, especially if you can adjust the angle of the swash plate, but that's just me!

I think to answer your questions I would say the perfect all rounder would be to take an L motor and remove the internal gearing. This would also likely mean you have an output axle instead of an axle hole. I want lots of mechanical output power but I want it in the form of high RPMS rather than torque. 42055 is a good example of the XL motor having too much torque to be useful in most cases. An M motor can make two white clutch gears slip when geared the same as the XL motor in 42055 so why use an XL motor? It forces the designer of 42055 to have these long axles be driven very slowly with lots of torque, which causes axles to twist which contributes a lot to it's jerky stop-start motion. Better to have the same mechanical output power delivered as high RPMS rather than torque so we can have more flexibility in designing our drive trains. A long thin shaft spinning much much faster but with less torque won't twist as much but will be able to deliver the same amount of mechanical power. You just put the majority of the gearing down at the point where it is needed, in the case of 42055 this would be after any long axles, not before, which having all this gearing inside the current PF motors forces you to do. Really the best thing would be to take a current PF L motor a split it in two, so you have a completely ungeared motor with output axle, and a separate planetary gear reduction unit with input and output axle holes, that can be placed anywhere in the drive train as many or as few times as the designer wants. This would be the ultimate in terms of flexibility.

Ooooooh now this is VERY interesting. I have said in the past that the "UCS" technic sets shouldn't be limited to just supercars, but should be able to include any iconic car made in a 1:8 scale. And a Landover or Dodge ram would both be great examples. But to be in the same scale as the Porsche and Bugatti a Landover would be bigger I guess, and at 180 euros, I am sceptical that it would be part of the UCS series. So I am very curious to see where this rumour of a Land rover will lead. Can't wait to find out more about this one . @aol000xw I also am running out of space before money so I'm forced to be more selective. I do really want a Landrover and any good new parts and realistic drive train will make it an instant buy for me.

Ignore this post!

The cage that keeps the rollers evenly spaced apart rotates, so it can't be directly fixed to the stationary lower half. But it also only rotates at half the speed of the rotating superstructure, so it can't be directly connected to that either. So in 42082 the cage isn't directly connected to either side of the bearing, it just kinda "floats" sandwiched between the two.

How about this bricklink store which sells plated Lego pieces. You can search the store by colour and they appear to have some copper plated parts like bricks and bars that may be good for ingots and wire. https://store.bricklink.com/Aurimax#/shop?o={"sort":4,"pgSize":100,"itemType":"P","colorID":84,"showHomeItems":0} There are some excellent scale modellers that often use custom chrome plated parts for their builds at display shows.

Steering, YAY!!! A lot of people have said that these creator expert vehicles are basically model team, but I never quite felt it. This is the first creator expert vehicle that reaches that model team bar for me.

As we now have the BWE ring gears to make large slew rings I would be surprised if they released a new turntable for this set. But if they were to make one I suppose it would be designed to rotate freely while being under forces trying to pull it apart, as seen in 42082s turntable. The slew rings take all the weight but it's still up to the turntable to hold the two halves together. But is such a turntable needed? I think the current one is pretty smooth and strong, and 42082s jerky slewing wasn't down to the turntable IMHO.

I was very hopeful for this when first hearing about a new excavator and knowing they had released those new valves with the axle holes but alas, it's not to be this time. Who knows, maybe that was their original goal as it does seem logical. It would be awesome to finally get RC pneumatics and cylinders in those lengths, and to finally have an RC model that's actually mechanically authentic for once. And the hoses were used in earlier pneumatic prototypes but they couldn't get it quite right so they switched to LAs but left the hoses because they looked good. That's pure speculation though.

Not that I can remember. In past years TLG managed to get the sets to Jim and Sariel in enough time for them to have their reviews ready and available a month before the sets release, and decades before that we got full colour catalogues showcasing the entire year with lovingly crafted imagery. But the last few years haven't worked out that way. So who knows! On the one hand it's a real shame. As a community we have less food for thoughtful discussion and our first impressions are based on leaked grainy images. Darn those counterfeit fakers, they can take their product and wipe their megablocks with it......ehem. But on the bright side, eurobricks members have told us about some very exciting things, like the new SUV planetary reduction hubs. It's enough to create suspense but not enough to spoil that suspense by giving away too much, like with clear pictures or videos of the new parts. But suspense can soon turn to being tired of waiting until the final product have a much harder task to make it worth while. If only there was a selected panel of trusted fans that could be given more of a glimpse

Yeah. A subtractor is usually controlled via an up/down stick and a left/right stick where as 42100 appears to be driven from two up/down "sticks". I also don't think the real liebherr r9800 would be driven by a subtractor.

Sintered powder metal gears might be worth the added expense as it will be under more torque, and therefore more stress than the planetary set inside PF motors. Bearings might also be needed due to lateral side loading of the wheels forcing the gears to unmesh and jam. The 1:4 reduction also makes sense, as when the sun and planet gears are of equal size, and when the sun is the input and the planet carrier is the output, you get a 1:4 gear reduction. If however the outer ring gear is the output you get a 1:3 reduction and a reversal of output rotation relative to the input rotation. In real life it's often (if not always) the planet carrier that's the output.