gyenesvi

Oh yes, because of the use of the CV joints you are able to place the gears (or the diff) one stud higher than if there was a straight axle, I missed that for the first sight! So GC is actually one stud more than I thought was possible. On the downside, that one stud extra on the top of the axle can also become problematic if there is lack of space in the chassis, for example if the steering motor was in the chassis not on the axle. It's a balance of many things, but it's good to see all these options :) That's an interesting solution that could work on a non-steered axle, I have run into that exact problem it is trying to solve before. I could give it a try that, I have some older gears..

I did not mean to save the CV joints that connect to the hubs (that's just a half, the other half is built into the hub), but was talking about the one that comes right after the diff. But I am guessing that you are not using a diff, that's why you can save even more GC in the middle. Mine too :) However, I have realized that it would be possible to build it with a straight axle (no CV joints after the diff, only the one at the hub). Just at the same time, this jeep topic popped up, with exactly such a build, I think it's also a really good solution:

I must agree that this is a really good one! I like how you did the front suspension, one of the best I have seen so far with leaf springs and integrating those portal hubs with acceptable ground clearance, furthermore the steering system is also pretty realistic! Furthermore, on the bodywork, this is one of the simplest and most well curved jeep fronts I have seen so far. Great job!

Thanks a lot, that looks pretty good, I have seen a similar solution previously here, but that used some weird half (or even quarter) stud offsets with a length difference between the upper and lower arm. As I see it, there is no tricky geometry here, just that the lower part of the hub is tilted inwards a bit, right? I think that's still acceptable, as when it moves up, it corrects the tilt. The only drawback of this (as well as mine above) is that it needs the CV joints for the drive from the diff to the wheels (as opposed to a straight flat axle), and I don't have enough of those, as I also want to use them for the drive going into the live axle from the body.. But maybe as @Danifill said, CV joints can also be used before the diff, as they don't take too much load yet. And I need to get some of those tires, they look way better than the tractor tires. They are ROCK CRUSHER X/T 1.9" TIRES from RC4WD right?

@keymaker that sounds interesting, are you maybe ready to share ideas just about the axle itself? I am just starting to work on the motorization of a model with live axles using those hubs, and am a bit stuck (the non-motorized model uses non-portal hubs so GC is okay). So far, my best solution to the ground clearance problem is building the A arms at an angle like this, something that I used in a previous model (that one had pendular axles, not real floating ones). Not sure this could be fit into the fire truck though, maybe it's too wide. @Danifill we can take this discussion offline if you are not interested, or we can stay here if you are, let us know.

This looks beautiful, very recognizable, technic panels work great for this kind of shape and luckily the color is also easy to get right :) I like your live axle suspension setups as well. @I_Igor I'm not sure 42099 hubs would clearly be easier to use. While you are right that the reduction is better, I find them hard to build into a steered live axle without loosing all the ground clearance (like the Zetros will have unfortunately). On the other hand, using the new CV-joints from 42099 instead of the U-joints could give you more strength in the drive-train I think.

Wow, what a pleasant surprise, that's looking pretty good so far. I didn't want to buy the buggy just for the tires, but this one looks like a perfect excuse :) The color scheme is cool as well, lots of parts in the same color. Curious about the functions and the actual suspension!

Great one, I like the chassis with that neat suspension linkage, and the bodywork is also really nice!

I was actually entertaining some similar conclusions. It may be that they are looking for a candidate who can design new stuff in ways they can't, it doesn't even matter if the candidate is not a great builder - they could teach him/her build more easily than teach him/her to design innovative stuff. Not suggesting anything like this happens actually, but it would make sense to me as a hiring objective. @1974 and @Toastie thanks for the insights on Danish living, that's a really interesting part of this discussion for me.

6 mini LAs + 3 pneumatic cylinders in a set sounds too good to be true :) From the images, I was guessing that the rear standers are operated by a lever mechanism with a worm-gear. Do you actually see the LAs there?

Oh, right, since you are using only one U-joint on the incoming axle (not two corresponding to the two ends of the link), it's also restricting the movement, and I guess the other key to make it sufficient is that the ball joint is exactly below the axle that drives the wheel, so the whole rear axle does not want to fall too much in either direction in the first place, it is kind of balanced by itself, nice trick. Though I guess this construction would be a bit weak for hard off-roading with larger forces hitting the rear axle.. But really nice for this model!

Really nice choice of model and implementation, I am also planning to use a different version of Ford F150/250 in another project. I like the suspension, especially the rear, really tight one. One thing I don't understand though: are there more links to hold the rear axle in place? I can only see two lower ones, there should one or two more somewhere, right?

Ohh.. I wanted to build the same machine as a B model from this set, but didn't have time to start working on it so far.. Too many ideas for other sets and not enough free time. Curious how it progresses, it already seems different from what I had been thinking about.

Getting curious what that reply was! Would you share it in a few words? I did not read Sariel's post.. I did entertain the thought of applying (mainly for fun, but did not in the end for the reasons @allanp listed, and also did not find Billund too much of an interesting place to live) and did some search on the designer salaries. What I found on Glassdoor was about half of what you asked for (about 60k per year), which I thought was kind of low for a western European country, although not sure how representative their sample is, and if I remember correctly that's an average salary, not a senior one, which was about 80k per year, still not that high for an engineer salary at a large company.

I agree with you on this one, but maybe it’s better to discuss it in the contest topic. Back to the backhoe :) It’s making really great progress, eager to see how it looks with the missing parts!

Looking really good so far!

These were the ones at a roughly appropriate scale that I found 6 of (I only have modern sets with large wheels). But I also think they could be good if the interpretation of the model is a moon buggy. I agree though that it's not the best if I want to represent the original faithfully. Thanks for the support, although I am a bit torn about the interpretation of the competition's essence :) On one hand staying as close to the original would encourage mainly replacement of studful beams to studless ones and staying with the original wheels, on the other hand rebuilding it with modern techniques would encourage a larger departure.. But I think a bit larger departure while keeping the overall looks sounds a bit more interesting and challenging. I'll see how it goes.

That's looking pretty good to me, nice solutions!

Thanks, good to know, seems like the similar ones I have are one size bigger than these..

It’s pretty cool that such a small build has so many functions! I especially like the steering solution, but the rear suspension is also nice.

That is a very nice choice of model if you have the parts in the right colors, and all those wheels in the right sizes. I have the same dilemma, and leaning the same way as you. Btw, do those small wheels have modern equivalents at all, or in that case, would you use the original ones?

Sure it's fun, but unfortunately, I don't have a pullback motor..

As many people started rebuilding their childhood favorites and first sets, I also felt like joining in, especially as I had previously thought of rebuilding my ever first technic set, albeit on a much larger scale. Nevertheless, after a quick inventory check, I realized I just have enough free parts in the right color to build 8830 with a bit of up-scaling (somewhere between 1.5x and 2x). Interestingly, the set has two names in many places (Bricklink for example): Rally Car and Moon Buggy. Actually I prefer the moon buggy, so I go with that, especially because I have 6 wheels from the Mindstorms set that look like moon buggy wheels to me :) The Rally car interpretation would require something like Jeep wheels, which I don't have, but if I win that, I'll try a wheel swap :D As the set does not have any functions besides steering, it would be pretty boring to replicate it as is, so I am adding some obvious functions to make it more interesting. - pendular suspension on the first and last axle, with a bogie setup that averages the middle axle (and hence the body) between the extremes - keep HoG steering + make the steering wheel at the front functional - a small fake engine driven by the middle axle with differential - maybe an upwards opening version of the front frame as if it was a cabin door Here is my current progress, the pendular suspension, the HoG steering and the drive from the middle axle is already functional:

Good one, nice clean bodywork, smooth lines!

I have made a video of my models showcasing their features, along with a bit of historical footage that I found about the real cars. Video added to the description.