Effe's MOC Corner

[efferman]

Before i going into the hooklift mechanism testbuild, aerodynamic covers between the axles or "naked"?

[1gor]

IMHO covers are better

[efferman]

thanks

 

edit:

Edited April 1, 2022 by efferman

[1gor]

I think it looks much better, and you can hide lots of things with that covers

[efferman]

19 minutes ago, 1gor said:

and you can hide lots of things with that covers

I guess it will be a more or less massive build behind the Cover. I need weight on the rear axle to avoid drifting.

[1gor]

typical problem with cab overs. The only thing heavier than the rest is battery box (only rechargeable is lighter on mass and also makes your wallet lighter) and battery box is not practical to be somewhere below...

[efferman]

22 hours ago, 1gor said:

The only thing heavier than the rest is battery box

Fortunately the Battery box and all electrics are fully behind the front Axle.

Hm, an US Trailer behind the FH looks a little bit weird.

[1gor]

1 hour ago, efferman said:

 

Hm, an US Trailer behind the FH looks a little bit weird.

 

Agree US prefer long nose trucks over cabovers....

[johnnym]

1 hour ago, efferman said:

Hm, an US Trailer behind the FH looks a little bit weird. 

Not too much, I think. And for US cabover trucks it would look similar, or?

Out of curiosity and as I'm not a professional, what makes a trailer a US trailer, i.e. what's the difference to a European one? Is it the point where they attach to the tractor truck?

[efferman]

26 minutes ago, johnnym said:

Is it the point where they attach to the tractor truck?

No, its the position of the axles. In the US the Trailers have the axles mostly fully in the back, in europe more in center.

[johnnym]

3 hours ago, efferman said:

No, its the position of the axles. In the US the Trailers have the axles mostly fully in the back, in europe more in center.

Aha, ok. Is this because of the turning radius?

[efferman]

1 hour ago, johnnym said:

Aha, ok. Is this because of the turning radius?

The more the axles are apart, the more load is allowed in the US. I guess this is to protect the roads and bridges. In europe the turning circle is more important.

[johnnym]

4 hours ago, efferman said:

The more the axles are apart, the more load is allowed in the US. I guess this is to protect the roads and bridges. In europe the turning circle is more important.

Thanks for the clarification, very enlightening. And sorry for my slow reaction, but we got visitors most of the day.

[Jurss]

12 hours ago, efferman said:

The more the axles are apart, the more load is allowed in the US.

Anyway, load is still calculated on axle, I think. Just that with longer base, then more load can be shifted to trucks rear wheels. And eurotrucks mostly have just one rear axle, and it looks like, that it could be also for better turning circle.

[Void_S]

There is one more point here, US trucks have around 50/50-equal weight distribution between the fifth wheel (read: truck's rear tandem axles) and trailer's tandem axles. Yes, they have equal 8-wheeled confuguration (2 axles * 2 wheel hubs * 2 tires-"doubles"), so it provides a better grip and traction for the truck. The best-optimal configuration for the given requirements.

Meanwhile EU trucks usually have only a single rear axle and three single-tired trailes (the axles are even closer to the center of the trailer), so the truck takes a less part of the whole load, while the bigger goes to the trailer. As a result, this combination has better maneurability (shorter truck, trailer and total wheelbases), better fuel economy (only a single axle to power and to carry when no trailer is attached). But it looses some traction and dynamic stability on highways.

I have heard about "hybrid" attemts to run US trucks + EU triailers or vice versa, and they completetelly worse than proper combinations:

1. US trucks use 12V electrical system, while EUs are 24V.
2. EU truck + US trailer will have to run half-empty, or get the truck's rear axle overloaded.
3. US truck + EU trailer, however, will have not so many disadvanages - only total length will be a limitation, if operated in EU region.

[johnnym]

Very interesting stuff, guys!

[efferman]

It seems i have reached a funny part count: 1111

[johnnym]

N I C E! The new mud guards really look better than the older version ones. And it's great how TECHNIC and System pieces merge into one another in this model. I really need to procure a few of these thin truck tyres.

[efferman]

Thanks!

Divided into Building steps and still 1111 Parts.

[efferman]

What do you think? Are 339 Steps to less for 1111 Parts?

[johnnym]

I'd say that depends: that is about a little more than 3 pieces per step, which sounds like not so many parts per step. But for my AMX 4 Turbo which has 702 parts I needed 231 steps so similarly about 3 pieces per step. If you don't want to press users to build the "same" sub-assembly also mirrored it's not so easy to save steps if you don't have many identical sub-models.

How do the new instructions compare to your existing ones for similar trucks? Maybe it's not so different from the average piece per step number?

[Jundis]

2 hours ago, efferman said:

What do you think? Are 339 Steps to less for 1111 Parts?

Seems fine to me.

I am not a big fan of covering up technic pieces with system bricks, but the clean look is really something to admire! :-)

[efferman]

34 minutes ago, johnnym said:

How do the new instructions compare to your existing ones for similar trucks?

my 42100 Backhoe had a little bit more than 4 pieces per step.

[johnnym]

34 minutes ago, efferman said:

my 42100 Backhoe had a little bit more than 4 pieces per step.

Even four pieces per step doesn't sound like much, right? But I imagine your instructions are dense compared to LEGO ones.

And how about your other trucks?

[efferman]

The Long haul with 1117 parts has 313 steps, so it should be comparable.