gate

At this point, it looks great! Having a turret in the center solves a lot of problems for a crane really, but kind of limits the length of arrow, interesting to see what you come up with here. Outriggers should work and do its function, that's only thing that matters imho. Horizontal, vertical, 2 or 1 stage outriggers is really not that important. The tires look awesome

I hope you smiled in a good way;) Realised that in my 2nd or 3rd full chassis rebuilding I've made the chassis sit 1 stud higher, this is where such extreme caster angle is from. The only bad thing I noticed about it, that is when you squeeze it to the full (both left and right shock absorbers) the axle has a moment where it jumps a little bit, on practice haven't loaded it to this point and don't think I actually could. What you mentioned is worth to try. Thanks for that channel tip, it's a good one. About the arches and 42 tractors on real patrol - not necessarily. The guy is likely to use 38 inch and it's clearly enough for flat surfaces with slight potholes. I was aiming for some slower and deeper offroad, closer to this one. Not tractors but they are 42 inch: Don't know if he has problems with wheels scratching the arches, but looks cool. Yes, true. The only thing I believe Patrols have unique is their front face. Building a 4th generation would be much easier I guess because of its squarelike shapes, but we don't go the easy ways.

On the blueprint the car is with 10 stud wheels, which are unimog ones. But I wanted to build vehicle with tractors, which lead to the suspension lift and inevitable wheel arches expansion. In fact when the shock absorbers are maximally squeezed the wheels are just about touching it. So they really couldn't be any other shape. Wheel base is exactly how it is on the blueprint - 29-30 studs in 1 to 10 scale, may be my photos aren't in the right angle, sorry for that. As for the doors and roof yes - completely agree with you, a minus, but the one I can live with since: About the 2 PF L:

I like building everything with claas tires. First of all I think - how would it look with them? The consequences models being really big.

Hello everyone, here again with a new MOC. Nissan Patrol GR II (Y61). (Updated - body lowered by 1 stud and some panels replaced by plates to reduce weight. Fifth generation of patrols before restyling is my favorite. A lot of experienced offroaders love it too, not without a reason. Update - outdoor trials video: This is a 3-door version which is much less common than 5. All the dimensions are strictly scaled 1:10. Taking into consideration that the real 42 inch tractor wheels definitely require suspension lift and are 106cm long. Also it is 3 doors and not 5 just because of the scale I've chosen. 5-doors would be something around 80 studs long, considering paneling and other stuff - that would be too heavy for an offroad vehicle. Dimensions: 45cm long x 18.5cm wide x 22.5cm height. Weight on the video: 1750g. I wanted to build a working vehicle, not just a standing brick, so I had to sacrifice some things to get it into optimal weight condition. The front is the visiting card for Patrols (imho). Think I caught the main features. All photos: https://bricksafe.com/pages/gate/gate-lego-technic/nissan-patrol-y61-suv The most effecient gear reduction was this one (no reduction from XLs to the transmission): In my previous MOC Ural 4320 I used a similar reduction, but 1:3 slower in the gearbox. It was really slow and couldn't compensate the speed with torque. Resulting - it could go from an obstacle steadily, but not climb it - if it was a large hill. Not only this one is faster, but has a shorter transmission, which is always good for models. No strain axle - steering ball joints is at it max bent position, giving a nice clearance. Always a minimal height limitation when using 9.5l shocks. I could cut off a stud here and there, but this position I liked most of all. The body is fully modular - axles, engine part, chassis and panels: Took it for a hard outdoor drive and of course made some pictures: Think I have failed this MOC, because: - I wanted both front and rear axle diff lock, but just couldn't find space in the front with winch on top (Update - actually not a problem at all. If it doesn't sit on its axles, it moves out of almost every situation (with winch 100%)). - This model literally wouldn't drive with many other gear setups (originally tried 2PF L and 20 beavel gears locked differential, but may be because of the weight, may be something else - couldn't make it cross obstacles without gear crack). - The weight is not distributed evenly between axles, with an overweight on the back. As you can see in the video I've taken some parts from its back to more or less stabilize it. - Design has some holes and is not so smooth - result of purpose of this vehicle - which is offroad. Many small detalization parts were falling off. So with quite a few rebuilds was getting rid of them up to this point. With 41999 for scale: Summing it up, I like it a lot. Really enjoying using it for direct purpose. It rolls over, crashes, but is extremely satisfying. Feel free to criticize.

Amazing job, props to you @Ivan_M for detalization and keeping the scale. I have to learn from you. And it's always nice to see more tracked vehicles! As for playability - it's fine if you ask me. Usually one doesn't play it 24/7, as many other construction machniery as well, but it looks really cool on the shelf.

Definitely BWE. Both a and b models are great and very playable. And it will give you the amount of parts enough for building anything. Suspension and wheels can be bought much cheaper with other sets. Imho, of course.

Wish you did the slowmo on the obstacles in the video. Other than that, great moc!

I made it longer than the original since I wanted to place the XLs right above the differentials, servo was placed right next to the XL on the same level so there was no need to use steering links and the weight was somehow redistibuted. And right next to it there was the perfect spot for PF L powering outriggers right in the middle of 5x7 frames. Which could have been easily placed in the back, but that would require extending the crane again. Another spot was on the right side (symmetrical to the train BB position) but I quickly refused to place it there since the outrigger driving line was heavily extended, it was somewhat close to 60 studs equivalent in axles not counting the gears. Of course that position was no good too because outriggers on the right and the left sides of the crane would start desynchronizing after 1-2 uses just because right gears were closer than the left ones. So the logical choice was to put it in the center to avoid all that - if I didn't want to shovel through half of the chassis, which I didn't wanted. I could have also used say 2 motors but the above mentioned central position was so ideal it seemed to me, just couldn't have done it the other way. Just when you try something and it doesn't work and then here it is, ideal option in almost every way. It should be also mentioned here, that outriggers were kind of a problem to me, since I didn't plan them in the construction of chassis at the beginning, my big mistake which led to the outriggers as you see them. As it was clear how long the crane would be, it was no small model and it wasn't planned to be so I just decided to see how it evolves from there. And that's how.

Just the differential reduction + 1:3 in portal hubs. In the video I used fast mode. On ludicrous it sometimes starts to move in small spikes and that does not look natural. Fast was optimal. Got a bunch of ideas for v2 already, will definitely try to do that.

All said and done, I think it is more than reasonable to rename the MOC. Thanks for the comparisons @Cumulonimbus, I appreciate it a lot. Then again I said from the beginning, when this topic was [WIP] - it was a free build. I admit though that I misnamed it. To be honest I didn't thought this well through. And lately was just focusing on finishing the MOC design- and function-wise of how I see it. EB won't let a single detail slip away

Thanks everyone for your opinions, really interesting to read. I feel the support, even though it is hidden sometimes: This discussion reminds me of how people debate over TLG sets, which makes me proud a little that I could bring it to the surface.

The firstborn reason to post your models on EB is to get critics, if you are thinking that you would only get praises is wrong for many reasons. And therefore I am more than happy to discuss, but getting messages like "If I were you I would start making another MOC beacuse this one has too much flaws" - how to react to them? The forum has it's rules, but it's not forbidden to stand your ground, is it not? P.s. I could have never expected that such discussion would be caused by the few words describing the name of the MOC

Who said that criticism is not allowed? I am more than happy to read what you've said. This means I made you act, in a weird way of course and p.s. I am subscribed to you @Sariel and really respect your opinion, builds, videos and everything you do to promote Lego into masses (no joking). But to see how you aggro people on the forum makes me sad.

That was a bit harsh from my side, yes. But I won't edit or delete it before mods make me, because that's what I think. Sariel is right in many points, I could have chosed many names and not specific one. Yet again: This is no scale modeling forum, so I think it was reasonable.

True, at that point I didn't fully realise that, but now I don't regret at all. The model just can't afford the front suspension. With shock absorbers it would try rolling a little bit, but now also a good support for outriggers. It is a matter I've been thinking about, but really when that the arrow lifted - the bend was real, so I decided not to add extra weight and focused on functionality. This is the exact picture I've been basing the general looks at, but it was clearly said from the beginning "LIEBHERR LTM 1060-3.1 Mobile Crane or something close to it" as well as the phrase that I wouldn't copy all of the mechanisms. Interestingly enough I did just remove it yday when added more photos. The picture you linked @Sariel - it is mostly system paneling which I dislike. I did add some here and there but adding much more is even more weight, so sorry to dissapoint you. May be no one should be making any MOCs, except you as well? Does it really matter all that much how it is named, the guys here are absolutely right - I did have some custom stickers and I wanted to make a huge functional crane. What's so bad that if you think of a crane and LIEBHERR brand comes along? Identification is good. It is Lego Technic after all - the flight of mind and fantasy. I didn't try to copy all of the existing cranes on purpose, yes many of the things here are improvised, but they work, do they not? That's what is most important in Technic I believe.

So it is done. The final video: Also updated the main post.

Don't know about others, but it looks complete to me. Nice capacity, but I bet the 2nd stage almost not moves when you load 0,5kgs+. But that doesn't mean it's bad. Lego cranes require a lot of innovative solutions (just like the custom gear worm actuators), so well done!

This is a prototype for now, pretty sure that I'll have to use a custom one. Nothing like a smell of a failure to come in the morning Thanks for the math and advices! The problem here is that the boom is too long and heavy of course. Oh, I will fail a lot here for sure. Gearing down might just not help. Did read it, but thanks anyway!

Soo, yes I was wrong. The superstructure even without full paneling and the actual weight looks like this: It's pain I know. Although found some ways of making the turntable through 1 pin long x wide support bulldozer wheels, but when you have BWE and 42082 - not a big deal. Not it looks smooth and strong: Decided to use strings for now:

I noticed that coupling 2 l motors (on example of Madoca's Baja Trophy Truck) on low rpm gives a slight chewing effect on gears until you give it full power or close. As well as be careful with pairing XLs. Without gear reduction they tend to bend everything in its way.

Yeah, they look awesome in black, thanks TLG/

As we continue, the prototype superstructure looks like this: Don't rush saying that it is very unreliable. I want to try making the rotation without the BWE's yellow turn ring as it seems an easy solution, check later if I am wrong. The 3 studs height wheels really help stabilize the construction, may be I will add more. Going to reinforce it as well. The first stage of the boom looks like this: Really like 5x7 frames, what can I say. Stay tuned, more info to come.

Very interesting build and read, thank you. Really like your custom actuator

At this point is no longer possible, I would finish it anyway. All of the "problems" are mentioned beacuse it's a WIP topic now and are pretty much solvable one way or another. I could have just skipped the detailing and you probably wouldn't even know about them. MOCs are all about finding an idea and following it, is it not?