AVCampos

No, they do not slip.

Generally, it is best to make the most reduction as near the wheels as possible to avoid having the low speed/high strain on the rest of the drivetrain. But the Truck Trial specialists should be able to advise better.

Maybe if you replace the 12/20 reduction at the portal hubs to 8/24 you'll get the speed back to normal while maintaining the Ansmann tyres' grip.

Of the colour variations posted so far, my favourites are the blue and white one for the A-model (looks so different from usual Technic sets) and the red one for the B-model (reminds me of forest fire trucks). IMHO two is the maximum number of colours for the body to remain nice-looking.

Still, it's a lot more compact and controllable than current solutions that use regular motors.

My fear is that all that weight in the front and so little in the rear will make it topple easily when braking and/or going downhill. For example, Sariel's video of the modded Crawler going down stairs would certainly go a lot worse if he used the B-shell instead of the A-shell. [edit] And I agree that the rear looks simply awful.

Yes, at least Anio (French), Blakbird (American), Conchas (Portuguese), Jetro (Spanish) and Sariel (Polish). They received it from TLG to review it.

These two TechnicBRICKs articles should help you: http://technicbricks.blogspot.com/2009/02/tbs-techtips-20-limited-slip.html http://technicbricks.blogspot.com/2009/03/tbs-techtips-22-torsen-differential.html

He made lots of videos. But he has other obligations besides LEGO, so he will publish them when and if he can.

At the very least, you'd need to connect the servo to the switch via an 8T/16T reduction (or other gear train that yields 2:1) or a suitable linkage, to convert the servo's +-90º range into the switch's +-45º range. That way, you won't need an unreliable train controller.

I expect all 2012 sets to have the new molds; at least the 9390, 9396 and 9397 have them. Also, the 8070 I built, which was manufactured late last year, has the new molds.

That's not surprising even for the old receiver: I remember from numerous TechBall matches that the receivers work even when obstructed by parts of the models, or when the transmitters aren't directly pointing at them. At least as long as the batteries on the transmitter are well charged.

Wow, that cutaway image of the Crawler's chassis is... epic. And, Alasdair, you forgot a 2x4 electric plate there.

I don't doubt that there will be a new Mindstorms brick in the future, but I don't think its protocol, whatever it will be, will be Power Functions. The current NXT protocol uses 6 wires instead of the 4 in PF, and they are all needed.

With those wheels, does the suspension still work completely, or do the tyres rub against the mudguards when the Crawler is pressed down?

You can control PF motors from the NXT, but you won't have the servo feedback NXT motors have. To connect each motor, you have either the choice of getting a PF extension cable (to convert from PF to 9V) and an NXT convert cable (to convert from 9V to NXT), or take a PF wire and an NXT one, cut them, then splice together one connector of each type. Or you can get a HiTechnic IR Link for the NXT, and then control the PF motor with a separate battery box and PF IR receiver.

Without having it in my hands I can't be sure, but I suspect the problem will be more keeping the tires from rubbing against the mudguards/chassis than power.

Usually, the problem with too many motors draining power is that excessive current is requested from the batteries. Connecting battery boxes in series will increase the voltage, not the current. Therefore, you'll need to connect the battery boxes in parallel (which is already possible with some creative use of PF extension wires), not in series. However, all this is supposing you're connecting the motors directly to the battery boxes (or via a polarity switch), instead of via an IR receiver. In that case, the receiver is the bottleneck, because there's a limit on the current it can provide from the battery to the motors: according to the PF specs document, each receiver supplies enough current for 4 M-motors, 2 XL-motors or 2 M-motors and 1 XL-motor.

In the past, LEGO used strong, thick string, but recently, for some reason, we now only get the thin and fragile one. I miss the old one! There also used to exist an extra-thick string, used as a fire hose for the 8280 Fire Engine.

Congratulations to all participants, even those that didn't make the final 15! here is my vote: 6) 2 votes 8) 2 votes 15) 3 votes Heh, all these voting posts remind me of the Eurovision contest.

What Bigfoot is referring to is the Unimog's tendency to tilt to one side because of the weight of the battery box, not the asymmetry caused by the front Panhard rod. Still, regarding the rod, it is intentional, as is explained here.

That's a good theme for a guessing game! Something tells me this isn't Markus' field: IMO he's more into construction machinery. Uwe Wabra is more into trucks, so I'd guess this is a work by Lars Krogh Jensen (who, by the way, also designed the similar-in-spirit 8297).

As far as I can see, both have live axle suspensions; but the Unimog uses a Panhard rod on each axle, whereas the Crawler uses a 5-point linkage (not sure if this is its correct name).

Of course I can't speak for everyone, but I believe it is general consensus that the helicopter is great because it's been years since LEGO launched a large Technic helicopter, because it has lots of varied functions (probably including collective pitch control - previously a single set, launched on the year the Technic theme started, had it) with complicated mechanisms, and also a little because we know less about it than about the Crawler. As for it actually flying, check out RC helicopters on the web. You won't find anything on this size, with this price range, and with this simplicity (believe me, for all the complexity the LEGO helicopter might have, an RC heli on this size blows it out of the water). So, unfortunately we can completely dismiss the possibility of an all-LEGO truly flying helicopter. Coldly analysing the Crawler, it ends up as four wheels with two motors to move them and a third to steer them (or the other way around). Its value lies in the new motors, just like the 8275 Bulldozer 5 years ago.

Actually, we already have the E motor, which has less gear reduction than the M and XL motors, and is therefore faster than them.