davidmull Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 This log loader is starting to grow on me but does anyone else think the crane looks like a bad design?it just looks old school,the crane on 8110 is very nice design ;) Quote
Pauger Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 This log loader is starting to grow on me but does anyone else think the crane looks like a bad design?it just looks old school,the crane on 8110 is very nice design ;) don't like the design of the crane though, some panels would be nice... 7 studs wide and 1 stud in height. I can't imagine how little time and care is spent on designing that part of the crane. Quote
Dutch_EE Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Redemption? Uwe designed 8258, one of the most complex sets of the last few years, and also this year's Supercar. The Tow Truck was quite simple in its design but I think that might have something to do with it being released prior to the PF system's introduction. I didn't know that he (co)designed 8258. The point I feel, is that the 8285 design didn't look fully finished. This does, or at least it looks more finished. I think it looks like the finishing standard the 8285 could have had, and the 8258 does have. Quote
andythenorth Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 to 2012 sets, especially the log loader. to single rear wheels though - lame. Quote
Anio Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 lame. Maybe. But it is very understandable. Adding wheels would increase the price (or at least the cost) without increasing the value of the model. Quote
fmmjqtft Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Here is an updated version and a sketch of the new turntable. ldr file 120 frame render A better render (of the previous version): New turntable: Quote
davidmull Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 That turntable looks a lot differant than other ideas people taught of,iv a feeling people will be dissapointed as there is no centre hole. Quote
Wiseman_2 Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Are you saying there were no complex designs before PF? Of course not. It's just that I think if it were released in the current PF era, it would probably have had a motor and then a gearbox to split the functions that motor operated. In the last few years the trend has been more towards increased complexity in the larger sets. Look at 8265. Not too long ago that could easily have been a flagship set. Quote
CP5670 Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 New turntable: I'm pretty sure there is no middle hole on either side of the turntable, which also suggests that the center of the turntable is hollow. As the TechnicBricks post said, a pin hole there would make this piece far more useful than an axle hole. Of course not. It's just that I think if it were released in the current PF era, it would probably have had a motor and then a gearbox to split the functions that motor operated. In the last few years the trend has been more towards increased complexity in the larger sets. Look at 8265. Not too long ago that could easily have been a flagship set. I think the frequency of the largest and most complex models has also gone up in the last few years. In the past, TLG typically released a very complex flagship model every other year, followed by a less complex but still substantial model the next year. This was also reflected in their prices. However, we're now getting both kinds of models every year. In general, TLG releases a lot more sets per year than they used to, across all themes. Quote
timslegos Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 New turntable: Hmm i really hope that there is a hole in the center, because without it the turntable is not very useful . Nice render though! tim Quote
Sokratesz Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 According to a little birdie, new pieces are mostly designed by request of the engineers that design new sets (at least that's the answer I got when inquiring about the possibilities for a PF-S motor). You would think that those people needed the axle hole as much as we do :) - Sok. Quote
Meatman Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 I accidentally posted this in the 2nd half 2012 thread. Over at technicbricks I read some speculation as to the letters on the license plate sticker on the front of the 9395 perhaps being a message to a certain builder who complained about the #44 toggle joints not being made in black for the extreme cruiser and this set actually has them in black. does anyone know if there is any truth to this? I have to admit, if this is true, it is quite hilarious. Quote
DLuders Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 The letters are "PB" (for the all-powerful Crowkillers, Paul Boratko)! Quote
Meatman Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 But did the designers seriously do that because of his displeasure with the toggle joints not being in black in the 8081 and they finally have made a return in the 9395? I know he had commented that it was important to him that they made a return. I also see that Jurgen's new yellow car uses them, so anyone that wants to build it would definitely need them unless they wanted to use light bluish gray. Quote
allanp Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Well if they make a set with longer pneumatics I wonder if it'll have AP on it Quote
davidmull Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Well if they make a set with longer pneumatics I wonder if it'll have AP on it Allen I don't think we will ever see longer pneumatics,u may give up at this stage Quote
Bricktrain Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Well if they make a set with longer pneumatics I wonder if it'll have AP on it that would depend on how much longer they made them, I would like some 30 studs long compressed, 55 extended, then they can put BT on them Quote
Moz Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Well if they make a set with longer pneumatics I wonder if it'll have AP on it Do you mean longer than the old single-acting ones, or just that long and double acting? Mind you, those were a little hard to find 10 years ago so I suspect they're almost imaginary now. They were also a little flimsy IIRC, you couldn't get as much force out of them without risking the pushrod bending. I wonder if that is why we haven't seen a replacement for them? If we did, and they were double acting, I think it'd be really handy if both pneumatic connectors were at the base. It'd make the mold a little more complex but the cylinders somewhat easier to build with IMO. Quote
allanp Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 Do you mean longer than the old single-acting ones, or just that long and double acting? Mind you, those were a little hard to find 10 years ago so I suspect they're almost imaginary now. They were also a little flimsy IIRC, you couldn't get as much force out of them without risking the pushrod bending. I wonder if that is why we haven't seen a replacement for them? If we did, and they were double acting, I think it'd be really handy if both pneumatic connectors were at the base. It'd make the mold a little more complex but the cylinders somewhat easier to build with IMO. I would say longer, a bit longer than LA's also. Right now they have a stroke of only 3 studs, which is tiny when you think about it. Speaking of the pneumatic ports, I don't know how easy this would be to mold, but it would be a nice added touch if the top port was angled 90 degrees to point down the length of the cylinder. These designs made by Barman on brickshelf are pretty much perfect: Allen I don't think we will ever see longer pneumatics,u may give up at this stage I'll do no such thing as give up, nevaaaaaaa! And sorry guys if i'm going off topic again Quote
timslegos Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 I think those models are to long for any practical use in anything but a large scale mobile crane. I think it would be better to have one that's only about 10 studs long and an extendable reach of 16 studs. That way the cylinders could be use for smaller projects. tim Quote
Milan Posted October 19, 2011 Posted October 19, 2011 I think those models are to long for any practical use in anything but a large scale mobile crane. I think it would be better to have one that's only about 10 studs long and an extendable reach of 16 studs. That way the cylinders could be use for smaller projects. tim Cylinders long as allanp showed are actually better for anything else, not for cranes. Huge weight of the crane boom would bounce and would easily compress cylinder, especially when lifting something. The one that you suggested are good for majority of construction equipment. Quote
timslegos Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 Cylinders long as allanp showed are actually better for anything else, not for cranes. Huge weight of the crane boom would bounce and would easily compress cylinder, especially when lifting something. You make a good point. What is the point of super long cylinders than? tim Quote
allanp Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 (edited) Well, with the same pressure acting on the same surface area, longer cylinders should not be any easier to compress or bounce than the regular ones. Plus, with the extra leverage advantage afforded by a longer stroke, heavy crane and excavator booms would be less bouncy, able to lift more weight and be even more controllable coming down. Also bear in mind that you would not have to use the full length of the cylinder meaning you could still use them for smaller applications. These would be ideal in addition to the ones we already have so that we have a choice of small, standard and XL cylinders. Edited October 20, 2011 by allanp Quote
olaf9198 Posted October 20, 2011 Posted October 20, 2011 mayby for this thing we could use the cilinders Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.