No the Claas and Extreme Adventure are not to scale, the Claas is too small comparable to the Extreme Adventure, I have both in my display cabinet - but they both look impressive.  The fact you can use the Claas wheels on the Extreme Adventure tells you much about the scale of the two models. 

1 hour ago, iv-tecman said:

The fact you can use the Claas wheels on the Extreme Adventure tells you much about the scale of the two models. 

Or you can use 42069 tracks on CLAAS:

 

56 minutes ago, M_longer said:

Or you can use 42069 tracks on CLAAS:

That is a new twist lol 

Edited September 8, 20177 yr by iv-tecman

2 hours ago, iv-tecman said:

That is a new twist lol 

Yeah, and due to its construction, they could be mounted seems to everywhere as replacement for 42000's / Claas wheel hubs, or Portal Hubs after a minor modification of kingpin mounting points. I really love these perfect tracks!
Did someone put them on 42070 already?  

3 hours ago, Void_S said:

Did someone put them on 42070 already?

Lol..  Probably you are the first to think about that 

 

Do all the Steering modes still work? And would it be possible, to add a drivetrain to the tracks? 

 

Edited September 8, 20177 yr by HDGamer2424

14 minutes ago, HDGamer2424 said:

Do all the Steering modes still work? And would it be possible, to add a drivetrain to the tracks? 

It could work, but requires rebuilding the chassis.

14 hours ago, M_longer said:

Or you can use 42069 tracks on CLAAS:

 

Anyone tried using 42069 tracks on 9398?

9 hours ago, BrickWild said:

Anyone tried using 42069 tracks on 9398?

I did, but only on LDD so far. The Crawler becomes narrower by 4 studs: -1 without Portal Hub at the each side and -1 at the each side due to the tracks (they are narrower that tires) and lower by 2 studs, so I suppose that it becomes less stable against the side-roll and has a smaller ground clearance. Moreover, it looks to cute and small against 42069  

Edited September 9, 20177 yr by Void_S
Cropped the image

1 hour ago, Void_S said:

The Crawler becomes narrower by 4 studs: -1 without Portal Hub at the each side and -1 at the each side due to the tracks (they are narrower that tires) and lower by 2 studs, so I suppose that it becomes less stable against the side-roll and has a smaller ground clearance.

And faster, without reduction in missing portal hubs.

5 hours ago, M_longer said:

And faster, without reduction in missing portal hubs.

Well, I don't think so... There is no portal hubs with 20/12T gears reduction (1.6667 ratio), yes, but in the same time the wheels size is smaller as well, and the ratio is even bigger: 94.8mm (Crawler tire) vs. 41mm (big tread sprocket) has 2.312 coefficient, so 9398 Crawler with 42069 tread attachments slower in ~1.387 times (2.312 / 1.6667).

13 hours ago, Void_S said:

Well, I don't think so... There is no portal hubs with 20/12T gears reduction (1.6667 ratio), yes, but in the same time the wheels size is smaller as well, and the ratio is even bigger: 94.8mm (Crawler tire) vs. 41mm (big tread sprocket) has 2.312 coefficient, so 9398 Crawler with 42069 tread attachments slower in ~1.387 times (2.312 / 1.6667).

Ah, right.

 The tracks on the Claas look really great despite the yellow sides (would look better with gray or red ones).

I assume they would look equally impressive on the 42029 Custom pickup to make it a trully custom custom pickup  

I think the 42069 track geometry is going to be the standard bogie geometry from now on.

2 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

I think the 42069 track geometry is going to be the standard bogie geometry from now on.

Why not? They are strong enough, has a good bogie feature with nice limiters and could be easily mounted without any stress for a drivetrain.

Yeah that's what I meant. It's perfect in every way.

Just tried to put the 42069 tracks on 42029. seems legit 

-image removed-

 

@Milan please excuse the previous image. This one is 800x450p

Edited September 11, 20177 yr by Qukie
Added correct size picture

@Qukie

Hi, please reupload your picture in allowed size. Thanks.

12 minutes ago, Milan said:

@Qukie

Hi, please reupload your picture in allowed size. Thanks.

Shouldn't you put a link to the removed picture instead of a message?

19 hours ago, Qukie said:

This one is 800x450p

Great, thanks!

17 hours ago, Kaanere said:

Shouldn't you put a link to the removed picture instead of a message?

No.

It is up to the members to post their pics in allowed size, sometimes we put a link to the pics, sometimes we ask a member to post a picture in allowed size.

On 9/6/2017 at 10:59 AM, karmajay said:

I saw 42066 at the local Lego store Friday and dang! I had no idea the set was so big! I'm not a fan of the short wings on the A model but maybe I'll purchase it for the B model.

Can't recall if I replied to this or not...I enjoy the B model much more than the A...the Private Jet model is much more interesting IMO.

A note about the 42070.  Despite the super high price and all the quirks about this model and coming from a standpoint regarding the lack of suspension, the designers could have used the 8435 4WD from 2004 type suspension that would have made it a bit more appealing, they could have used that model's independent front suspension w/ the shock absorbers and left the rear 2 axles with pendular type 'suspension'.  Just saying...obviously the other gripes and the huge price tag probably would still outweigh if there was even front suspension.  

Just looked at AustrianLegoFan's 42070 review, and I gotta say the RC functions are controlled in a way that makes no sense. The outriggers are unfolded by pressing up on the controller, and raised by pressing down. Ditto the crane, which follows the same pattern. Only the winch follows the logical pattern.

2 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

Just looked at AustrianLegoFan's 42070 review, and I gotta say the RC functions are controlled in a way that makes no sense. The outriggers are unfolded by pressing up on the controller, and raised by pressing down. Ditto the crane, which follows the same pattern. Only the winch follows the logical pattern.

Is this as Lego designed the model or, is it because the controllers have been reversed by the reviewer? 

6 hours ago, Boulderer said:

Is this as Lego designed the model or, is it because the controllers have been reversed by the reviewer? 

The latter obviously.

On 9/14/2017 at 7:45 PM, Aventador2004 said:

The latter obviously.

Having not seen the instructions for the model, I do not believe that the answer is so obvious.  So, I feel the question remains valid, especially given that the set has received so much criticism.

4 hours ago, Boulderer said:

Having not seen the instructions for the model, I do not believe that the answer is so obvious.  So, I feel the question remains valid, especially given that the set has received so much criticism.

Oh, was it not stated in the booklet?