gyenesvi

Your question is pretty underspecified. What scale/size/form are we talking about? Car or truck? What purpose? On-road or off-road? Speed or power / good suspension? It all varies, and axles are really different. I think official 1:8 supercars are not a good starting point for that, they are too big to be motorized. I don't think you'll be able to buy such a thing directly, I mean just the axle. Your best bet is a 4x4 RC set I guess, and you can start modifying / reusing parts of that.

I like that idea, a set with a B model would indeed have a retro vibe (unfortunately on a sense). It could even be something licensed and related. For example, they could come out with a new portal hub that fits deeper rims and has better geometry than the old one, and they could make a Unimog with it with all kinds of implements, and a B model that's a trial Unimog for example. Maybe the Unimog is not the best example because there was already such a set (though that itself could be nostalgic), but you get the idea. Also, I like the idea of a set made of studful technic beams / parts, but something that never existed before. Another interesting concept could be a set that is studless technic on the inside with cool functions, but studful exterior with a really nice finish. I know it would be heavy and expensive, but just one set. Though I guess after that people would always expect models with nicer finish than all the holes on technic panels..

I get what you mean, and I'd also be okay with just some really innovative mechanics, but I guess the marketing department would disagree with us :) I doubt they'd make something for 50th anniversary that's not also large and cool looking (maybe even licensed) at the same time and hence would sell well. Maybe a long awaited JCB backhoe would be a great fit for the 50th..

Sure 853 is the most iconic from that lineup, but any modern version of a bare chassis would feel like a step back compared to the 1:8 supercars, so I don't see that happening. I'd be more happy with a good revision of the motor set 870 with proper remote control :) I think basically any big thing with sufficient details / innovation would do. I guess people would be more keen on the technical innovation than the actual surface material.

That 3L liftarm with axle hole in the middle is very useful indeed! Though often this can be used instead, but still I like a lot that they are bringing the liftarm out!

I see what you mean, sure definitely possible, for example something like a full roll cage, and winch at the front. Also, with a bunch of extra 2L reddish orange liftarms, the body curve above the rear fender can be made look smoother, like on the doors.

That Audi looks quite smooth with clean lines and little clutter. I like those fender pieces, looks like much easier to integrate with the rest of the body than Lego ones.

Very cool, I like that it has the manual and motorized options and the clip-on body. That's not an easy feat while keeping the body smooth and solid. The door mechanisms are nice too. Great work!

Does your design use external sensors? I suspect it does. For example the pin sorter machine seems to have a sensor at the base of the large rotating platform to sense its position right? That means the sensor measures the position of the end effector that you want to move / rotate. Sure, that way it is possible to move it precisely. But if you want to rely only on the position sensor inside the servo motors to figure out where your end effector is, like in the robot arm of @Sokolov Edward, it is much harder to position things precisely if there are gears / linkages involved after the servo arm. There's no way anything would work after a gear train of 34 gears. It would not even work really after 2 gears. I guess that's the key difference between the two approaches?

It's interesting to know that it would have been so easy to add separate flaps and ailerons, would have left less of a glaring hole in the back of the wing as well, but I guess they did not due it to simplify play, too many posable parts may get complicated as well maybe. A bigger pity is that it does not have a rudder on the tail, that's kind of a more well known piece even for kids. I guess it would have been difficult to solve it while having a good looking shape as well, but yet another example where a 6L beam would have simplified things :) Actually the 6L half beam exists in white..

Thank you! Actually I am trying to see if I could improve it with unlimited parts, and it's more difficult than I thought :) Thanks, funny enough, I am starting to see regular orange as a bit dull.. I like this color actually. Thanks! Thanks, glad you consider it a good one! You got me thinking about the possible improvements, but it does not seem easy to make fundamental changes with the parts available in this color.. some less significant beautification is possible though.

Merry Christmas All, and let's see what the next year brings! :)

Good to know, thanks :) Yes there are some areas that could be improved, but not big sacrifices, most of them on the inside, a few on the outside, like cosmetic ones. For example the axles could be built better with more parts, the set does not have 5x7 O frames for example, a pretty essential one for axles. So in the front I had to build a frame out of beams, which is harder to stabilize and comes out more bulky. Also, in the rear, some more 9L links would have been useful, and I would have rather built a diff locking rear axle frame out of 7L flip-flop beams than using the 11x7 frame. That would have left more room for spring placement for example. In general, I'd be curious if it would be possible to build a version of this with long springs, slightly more lifted and longer travel. Maybe some 24T and 8T gear could have simplified the gearbox, but at the same time the 24T needs more space, so bracing would have been more difficult. On the outside, the fender is a part that could be simplified / improved with more connectors (as I wrote above), especially reddish orange ones (the right angles exist in the color, so it would be doable), but also in case of the black version. Some more #1 connectors in orange could improve the looks of the rear side windows as well. And a longer (2x5) black winglet panel on the front of the roof. The area that I would like to definitely improve is behind the doors, where the last 2x3 orange panel is attached at the bottom. That does not look very nice, but improving that is difficult, because that panel has connection points in not so good places. The best solution I could do would require a corner pinhole with two axles in reddish orange, but that does not exist. Maybe the gap between the base of the hood and the bottom of the windshield could be filled with more orange beams.

Thanks, glad you like it so much, and that you appreciate the presentation as well :) I get what you mean about the looks, I also had that feeling when looking at my images. I guess it's mainly due to the color and the overall shape. Other alternate models are luckier in this respect. But indeed there's actually almost nothing in common with the G500. Thanks for appreciating the technical details! Glad you like it, thanks! Thanks for the kind words, glad to hear! Thanks a lot! Always good to hear when people say they'd buy the set to build an alternative :) Hope you'll find the instructions easy. Agree that someone without being predisposed to the original set's pictures would get easily that it's a Defender :) Glad you appreciate the details and the description. Well, those details are just my own experience / opinion, and I always try to get as realistic as possible within the bounds of the building system, and thought this time it could be improved, kind of low hanging fruit that Lego did not nail for some reason. Thanks for the nice words about my alternates and write-ups. Glad it compares well to the real-life counterpart and that the technical side is also interesting!

Hi Guys! I'm happy to present you my (first) alternate model of the Mercedes G500 (set 42177) into a classic Defender 90! A classic Defender has been on my todo list for a long time, I have tried it with set 42110 as well, but certain details just did not work out (oversized fender pieces relative to wheels), but with the G500 set I finally went for it as the parts are quite okay for making the iconic details of this model. Due to the orange color, the model was heavily inspired by modern variants in classic shape, such as the Heritage version, which does exist in almost exactly this color. Let me take you through the design process as well, but to start off, here's a video to showcase all the features! Features 4-link live axle suspension on both axles all wheel drive with central and rear differential lock 3+R gearbox in an H pattern working inline 4 piston engine working steering wheel and HoG openable doors with functional locks, including the rear clean interior with seats and classic benches in the rear section numerous accessories such as roof rack, reflectors, toolbox, cans, ladder, spare wheel, snorkel, spade and axe Design process Bodywork As already usual for me with these kind of models, the design started with the bodywork to see whether it is possible to make a good looking model using the parts of the source set. This was done in Studio to be able to easily build in the air. Certain parts were key, such as the trapezoid panels to be able to make the hood (actually I already suspected this possibility when I heard about the G-class as it has a similar hood shape). Then I tried the front face / lights / grille. Luckily the source set has an unusually high number of 1x2 grille tiles, just enough to make the entire large grille (which had to become even width because of the 1x2 part). Also, enough clear parts to make the light cluster, even the luxury of choosing from 2x2 and 3x3 dishes, somehow the smaller ones looked better for me, but they are actually exchangeable. Next was the fenders. This was critical, since the Defender has a distinct shape of fenders, with angles / curved shape that are different from the 4x6 angled beam used in the G500, so using those parts was out of the question. Also, the set did not have enough 112.5 degree angled connectors, which would have been perfect for the job, so I had to resort to different technique to make the angle. Luckily, there were just enough black connectors in the set, which could be used with some tricky mounting points. Another key detail was the curved slope running through the sides; to see whether there's enough material for that and whether it can all be connected firmly to the rest of the body. Especially the door are was tricky, where I also had to pay attention to allow it to close easily. The new angled connectors also came in handy to add that small but important detail to the side windows, which is best seen on the rear view. So slowly the sides and front got together, and using the curved black panels, I just managed to put together a convincing roof shape too. Last I made the rear door/windows, where I also managed to model those little side windows while allowing the door to be openable. At first I did not want to bother with door locks, I did not find them very convincing on the A model, but then I saw that all alternate builds do it, so I thought I had to give it a try, and I am happy I did. I tried to make a more realistic and smooth mechanism than the A model, and I stumbled upon a simple way that opens by pushing the handle down. It works like a charm, and I managed to replicate it for the rear door too. Chassis, drivetrain, suspension Once the body was looking nice and the dimensions were known, I started thinking about the internals. First the suspension. The rear suspension was the part in the A model which was the most underwhelming for me. Even though there is a ton of space at this scale, the linkage geometry is just unrealistic; it even binds up if there is no weight on it because of too much constraints (triangulated upper links plus a Panhard rod constraining the axle at different heights is just physically impossible). The use of that new suspension arm feels out of place, a simple parallel 4-link with long 9L links and the Panhard rod could have been much simpler and realistic at the same time. Another thing I don't like there is the chassis rail geometry and the spring mounting. The chassis rails are unrealistically tall along with the springs which end up being in the middle of the trunk. Again, I was thinking, at this large scale, in a manual model, it should be possible to make something more realistic. So that's what I aimed for, if even with the part restrictions of the set. In a chassis with live axles squeezing in the 3x19 frame is a bit more difficult as longitudinal space is a luxury because the axles need more space, but it turned out to be just okay. So I aimed for a solid but slim / flat chassis railing that does not protrude into the bed area in the rear. As for the suspension linkage, I used the short ones on the front, and for the rear, I used longer ones to allow the lower ones to pass under the frame. I also moved the springs out to keep the bed clean. In this model I did not aim for long travel anyway, as I wanted to keep the body lowered on the wheels, to look more realistic, unlike the overly lifter G500. I mean it's nice to have that long travel, but when it comes at the cost of obscuring both the chassis / spring geometry and the fenders at the same time, then something does not feel right. I think the core of the problem is using these short springs all the time instead of bringing back longer softer ones. With these short ones it's not possible to build live axles with realistic geometry unless the spring ends up in the middle of the chassis / trunk, which is no good. Once the suspension geometry was sorted, I moved onto the drivetrain / gearbox. The most challenging part. To make something true to the real world model, I definitely wanted an H pattern gearbox with a reverse gear. On one hand the availability of the new 12T clutch gear in the set made this possible, as it allows to move one of the 4 gears out of the connected gear-train and reverse it without effecting the others. On the downside, the set is quite short on various gear sizes (no 24T and 8T gears typically used in 3+ speed gearboxes), so actually making the 3-speed part was more difficult, I had to use a longer train of gears which made things harder to route and brace, caused some weird friction issues as well, and also I used up most of the gears in the set. The inclusion of a central differential with lock also complicated things, so I just settled from a bottom operated lock, as in case of the rear axle anyways. Another difficulty with a 3+R gearbox in an H pattern is where to put the reverse gear. The problem with the more obvious / favorable 1-2-3-R positions is that the reverse gear gets opposite to the 3rd gear, which means it will naturally become similar speed as the 3rd gear, which is unrealistic. So I went with the R-1-2-3 pattern, which allows the reverse gear to be similar speed as the 1st gear which is realistic. On top of all, the HoG steering axle also had to pass through the chassis. Luckily, I could avoid routing it through the middle, colliding with the gearbox, rather on the side instead. This is because the steering is based on a linkage, as in case of real live axles, which is actuated from one side (where the steering wheel is) to the other. It turned out, that I had free space on the right side of the gearbox, which was lucky, because then I could put the steering wheel and the HoG routing to the right side, which is just a good match for the Defender being an English brand (interestingly, mirroring the gearbox would not work because then the H pattern would also get mirrored which would be unrealistic for the gear sequence). In the end I ran out of gears, so I had to use some tricky linkages to get the steering wheel move. I even had to resort to using the 20T clutch gear on a friction pin, which works okay when using the HoG and it moves the steering wheel in the cabin, but the steering wheel could not be used to steer the model (though can be fixed by swapping that green gear to a proper 20T one). An interesting thing about the build is that the actual gearbox submodule turned out the be a single piece dropped in between the chassis frames. Interior and accessories The final touches were the interior, and some extra accessories to make the model more interesting, less plain. As for the interior, besides the usual front seats, I definitely wanted to make sideways benches in the rear section. Luckily enough, there was enough DBG material to make these happen. As for the extras, an obvious one was the spare wheel and the roof rack, but I also added a ladder on the side, making sure that it (and the spare wheel) still allows the rear door to open. I also took some inspiration from the Icons Defender to mount some tools (spade and axe) to the hood, and add a toolbox and some cans on the top. Also a simple snorkel mountable to the A pillar. Here are some photos to showcase it in real life. More images are available on Bricksafe. Building instructions are available on Rebrickable. Let me know how you like it! Cheers, Viktor

Actually I think that's a nice idea, except it would not have the letters, not even a surface for custom stickers.

But you should be replacing the tiles with a technic equivalent :D

The Zetros is 15 studs wide as well. Yeah, those long arms do help I guess :)

That's a neat model, and interesting driveline, I like your solution for the power to the swingarms problem using the CV joint. Are the axles 15 wide in total? Also, you crammed a lot in there with all the steered axles and the working steering wheel and fake engine! Is the single servo powerful enough to steer all axles when on obstacles? That will be a serious contender for the truck trial :)

I don't understand how this would make an Animal Contest more possible. I'd think if some people throw in their animal ideas here then there would be less participation in a future animal contest.

No it's not able to do that.

While I like the idea of a typewriter itself, I also feel that there's too little originality in it since the core mechanism would just be copied I guess, and the cover is not so essential to technic.

@Jim I find it a bit weird that all moving things are disallowed except animals. Also, it seems from the general discussion thread that many people like the idea of the animal contest. So I'd say why not keep the animals for the animal contest and just say that in this contest all things that can move themselves are disallowed? So a robot arm would be allowed, but a walking mechanism would not. Would that make sense?

Well, this is what happens when they let a skilled designer go all in :) Amazing blend of technic and system, very functional and beautifully built model. Congratulations @eric trax! I wonder how much it weighs due to all the system pieces, more specifically, how much the system cover adds compared to if it was covered just with technic panels. The side plates/tiles don't seem to be that thick, but there are quite a few DBG walls under to green paneling, that may be adding a bit more weight.

On one hand, I agree that a generic non-vehicle contest is too wide as a topic, with incomparable entries, maybe building techniques and execution could be judged, but that feels a less meaningful criteria alone. Just for fun everyone can just build without a contest as well :) It's like organizing a sports contest without specifying the sport and the course to compete on. One could choose running or biking or swimming, plus one can choose their distance as well. And then we give points to how well they performed in their own sport. Quite a meaningful contest, no? On the other hand I'd be okay with leaving the animal contest for later because I probably won't be able to participate now, and I'd definitely like to participate in the animal contest :) And that's a complex enough topic to deserve exploration. Those are pretty good examples, exactly what I have been thinking of!