trekman

You also need to remember that with the exception of the special hubs on 8880, 8466 was the first set with steering "driven" wheels. Until recently these yellow hubs were like hen's teeth. I purchased my 8466 for the wheels, and also for the hubs/suspension. BTW I paid £10 for two power puller wheels a few years ago from Ebay. I don't see much point in purchasing a "mint" 8466 jeep and paying over the odds for it, if you are going to send it to the breakers yard. Incomplete sets sometimes come up and are a good purchase for breaking.

I picked up the NXT2 8547 set last Christmas. It was my first time dipping into it. The models on the software provided are easy to build and you will learn the basics of programming from them. There are a couple of websites out there which will give extra building models, using the pieces from the set, and also give you the downloadable program file. I learned more from them. The motors are bulky and are more difficult to integrate compared with xl or m motors. Nut they are very powerful, with programmable speed, ramping up or down, as well as having an integrated rotation sensor. It is better to buy the NXT as a set, as the separates can be very expensive. There are a good number of studless beams in the NXT 8547, but it is a little weak on the gears.

If you had been able to source the old style pole reverser switch (6551), and used a couple of adapter cables, you would have saved a bit of room. The old style pole reverser switch (of which I have six!, and only available in two technic sets,) allows a rotating axle to create a continous on-off sequence on the output. This was on feature sadly lacking in the new switch. It is a very impressive model. Well done!

I was brought up with traditional technic building with sets 8859 (Tractor)and 8865 (Test Car). (I'm a kid of the 70's) The basic principle of connecting a beam in a vertical plane was technic brick + 2 1x2 plates + technic brick. This was the main thing which I learned. It provided a "burstproofness" needed when running gear trains. Also there was no negligible diagonal "flex" on a structure, because it was built with brick. I do think that some of the newer studless models lack some of these qualities - there are minute gaps between the layers of studless beams, which will always cause some degree of flex. Purchasing 8275 (Bulldozer) some years ago was a completely new ballgame. The construction is now side to side, instead of vertically. This is very apparent in the build. Building a few large studless models does help one to understand some of the new technics, but it is a steep learning curve. In my experience of studless MOCs. The whole model has to be thought through before commencing to build, or else there is a serious stripping down to be done when adding extra pieces or features. With studded brick, you at least have somewhere else to connect to and brace with an additional plate. From a visual perspective. A model with a few studded beams carefully positioned is clearly indentifiable by the non-lego enthusiast as "Lego". There is no confusion with "Knex"

It is a nice model with functions nicely integrated. But could they not have added two bushes to the side of the fork, just between the two grey 90 connectors? It would have made the fork look a bit more complete. I suppose the designer has to keep the number of parts to a certain number.

I made a combine a couple of years ago, but choose to leave it open to show all the functionality. I gave it a couple of defining lines along the body just like the New Holland upon which it was based. I was quite pleased with my MOC, although mine was propelled by hand, as all controls were on the top.

I will be waiting until Christmas as well. It always means that you can do a build that is well informed of any gliches and improvements. Anticipation of a model is half the pleasure, building it is the other half.

I have been following this thread with much interest and have enjoyed the video. But does anyone think that the mini pump compressor is struggling to get over the "bottom dead centre" position? Look at 4.00 - 4.10 on the video. I usually offset my compressor driving axle so that there is no resistance at the top or bottom centre positions. On the whole I am very impressed with the model, and it is great to see that the crane jacks really do lock and bear the weight. A big improvement on my telehandler 8295.

Well done. The jet has nice lines. Interesting use of pieces. I like the variety, including the older toggle joint, which appears to be the toothless version. Looking forward to the video.

Sheepo, I must applaud you for your excellent model. It is brilliant to see such features working so well within the realms of lego Technic. I can fully understand the limits of its actual speed given its weight, and plastic gears! A well presented video and other information. Well done.

We have been using a variable transformer (from electrical hobby shop) which has been set to 9v on our power functions stuff. Bear in mind that we have been using 220V in Ireland. It appears that power has to go to the PF battery box socket (beside the switch). We were able to use a hacked older style 9v lead and an PF adapter lead to get the power to the battery box. You can just stack the other plugs and receivers on top of this first plug. I found that powering motors from the transformer, and ommiting the battery box, did not work. I hope that this helps.

If you use too many mini pumps without consuming the compressed air, then there will be an overload on the motor. I do see that in 8049 the instructions show a 24T clutch gear being used with the power functions kit to prevent an overload. Two pumps working together so that one is exhausting as the other is inhaling, provides an even balance on a motor, but can take up more room. The most mini pumps I have used in a model is four. However I have latterly found that it is better to have individual pumps feeding isolated functions, than to have all four pumps suppling air to a common storage tank. This is because in a common storage tank, the first action on a pneumatic cylinder can work well with plenty of pressure, but for the 2nd and 3rd action, then the supply is almost exhausted. I would think there will only be one mini pump in the unimog.

I had a good laugh when I saw it flopping on the video. But if you weren't as honest, and not submitted the video, I would have believed that it was a success. Does the linear action of the actuators qualify it for the Lego Competition? I it did, I would submit it. Brilliant work as ever.

You could also try and use the toothed toggle joint, which were used in abundance in Technic sets in the early 80s. They are more plentiful and also can be adjusted to various angles as well as the 135 angle.

I could not find the previous post about this, but a big word of thanks to you for doing out the drum in the first place. I was not the initiator of the previous post, but had copied your design as a potential starting point for a future MOC. It was easy to copy, and it just so happened that I had the motorbike wheel for the drum's narrow end. I was running short on angled connectors and had to resort to using the old, but ever faithful toothed toggle joint. I tried to create the supporting roller on the rear of the drum, which engaged nicely in a groove of the bike rim. With a little big of gearing down and a worm drive gearbox, an acceptable drum speed was easily found. On the whole a fairly quick MOC Again full credit to you and to the forum here for a wealth of ideas and encouragement.

I have completed my mixer truck and I thought that you might want to have a look. The Youtube link is: I would like to acknowledge Eurobrick Members assistance in the design of the drum, as i found a link on the Technic forum to a picture of the drum which I used. The model worked out very well, and I added the conveyer like many of the trucks here in Ireland. Also check out Bricklink, when it goes public. Mixer truck at Brickshelf I would welcome questions, or comments. Mervyn

Recently I made a MOC Unimog vehicle. It had 4WD, 4 speed gearbox driven from 2 XL motors. I did have a few problems with the drivetrain so I removed the motors, making it easier for my seven year old son to play with it. It also has buggy motors for front and rear pto, a tipping body as well as front and rear linkage. HOG steering and a rotating beacon, using a micro motor. We were able to make a front road sweeper for the Unimog and a rear stoner conveyer - to be used with the tipping body. We have had great fun with our Unimog and there is so much room for expansion. i do hope that LEGO do a good job of theirs next year. Personally I am not always that keen on remote driving vehicles. Instead there is more to be gained in having realistic working features on a model, such as we have experienced.

Well done to Contech7 for the Trackinator. I was noticing that in steering, particularly on smooth surfaces, the middle set of tracks can almost push the vehicle in a straight direction whilst the front and rear tracks are at full lock. The middle tracks do not follow the correct "turning circle". Really the two middle tracks need to be running at slightly different speeds to each other in order to help turn the vehicle. But a very interesting vehicle. I wish I had as many tracks!

I agree with VMLN8R. I can see those 16T gears working their way out under load. You would also have room for a 5L studless beam across the three 16T gears which would minimise jumping teeth. It certainly will keep you busy for the next few weeks.

I was contacted by a man who offered purchase my JCB 456 Loader MOC. But he did not realise the effort involved with creating such a model. for a model to be sold, I think you need to have instructions etc, which I did not have. Also people can expect the reliability of official lego sets from a MOC. This is not always the case. My loader had pressure controlled compressors, and a lot of pnuematic circuits, and I knew how it all worked, so for me it was easy to repair, as I made it. Some one purchasing an MOC only buys a showpiece, but misses out on the fun. To me the best part of an MOC is the building and reworking of it. The using of it is when my son takes over.

I hope that Casper has a better vocabulary than just being "cool". It might be acceptable for a 11 year old, but even he/she will catch on to the number of times that Casper finishes a sentence with "cool". However I do hope that despite the personell changes, there will be no restrictions on the imaginative models that the Technic team come up with. The 8043 set, even with the flaws, was a masterpiece of engineering. For me it has helped broaden my mind on what can be achieved. I just hope things get better for 2011 and beyond....

My seven year old received a couple of technic sets as presents recently, namely 8262 quad bike and 8048 off road buggy. He has built the alternative model for the quad bike and plans to build the others. I had purchased a surplus set of Lego Technic 8062 Universal set with carry case and I gave it to my son just recently. I did not realise what a little gem this is! Technopedia sums it up very well. There is such a variety of models from one set with only 403 pieces. My son is presently building the grabber/loader. There is excellent functionality with a great selection of gears, worm gears, u-js and lift arms. If anything, it is a better transition into TECHNIC from CITY or CREATOR sets. Whilst the newer Technic studless sets are very nice in their appearance, I seriously doubt if they can match the variety of mechanical and engineering principles which are presented in 8062. Which leads me to ask "Where have all the universal sets gone". Surely a new generation of engineers would benefit from such reworked sets. Let me know what you think.

I bought the 8265 set at Christmas and had already purchased an extra motor so that I could fully motorise the model. I opted to used Sarafiel's LA steering mod instructions. However when I was building it and then tested it, I discovered that the drive arrangement from the XL motor to the rear differential did not work very well. It needed to be geared down a bit more. I then had to relocate the XL motor horizontally, and adjust the drive to the LA for the steering. To keep the correct appearance I ended up shortening the V6 engine to a V4, but everything else looked ok. i would say that Sarafiel is to be commended for the work he did in creating the instructions, which were a great help to me in the construction of the 8265. Just bear in mind that you will have to do some tweeking here and there. Despite 8265 not being a flagship set, it is one of the best sets for functionality and for parts that I have seen for a while.