Hi, just wondering how many of you guys share my pain!

Sometimes I feel just a little frustrated at some of the parts designed by Lego. Take technic cv joints for instance. The ones from the 8880 are a great size for strength and giving large steering angles. There's also very little friction between the ball and the hub. However the friction between the trunion, wheel and the hub is vast and you can only use one type of wheel. The CV joints from the 8466 offroader can be used with many wheels and there's very little friction between the hub and the trunion, however the CV and hub is tiny so has a very small steering/suspention angle and the friction inside the socket is quite large. Nither of them allows you to create the proper steering linkage geometry like you would find in a real sports car. The three CV sockets from 8110 are too short to hold a wheel on and seem to be made from utterly butterly! So three different CV joints to choose from, all of them useless! Interestingly the CV joint fits perfectly into the dark grey wheel hub of the unimog. It clicks in nice and tight without any friction. However (besides the again tiny steering angle) this has problems too, it doesn't fit into anything that allows you to use the blasted CV joint with it. AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!

Another example would be the large three blade propeller. Probaly the most authentic looking propeller and yet, for some reason, you can't detatch the gear and beam from the back. Why didn't they just have an axle hole in there?!

So what are your frustrations?

Edited May 7, 201212 yr by allanp

More general, but mine would have to be the limited colors certain parts are available in and very limited quantities of others. That said, a suitable color replacement can usually be found in a neutral color.

Edited May 7, 201212 yr by Technic Gearhead

I have lots of frustrations, especially in regards to the LA's. LEGO could have simply made the slipping gear in the middle of the LA a little stronger, and thus make the whoel LA actually be able to lift more than a feather .

tim

I just crack open another beer and roll with the punches...

I just crack open another beer and roll with the punches...

For me just the same. Oooooo that beer tast very good

I can't build without it.. I also need to be watching something at the Same time... I have been on a King of Queens kick since my wife got me the box set for Valentine's day...

I can't build without it.. I also need to be watching something at the Same time... I have been on a King of Queens kick since my wife got me the box set for Valentine's day...

Your mine friend

I don't have a large collection of Technic parts. Not sure to see it as a frustration or an engineering challenge to make do with the limited resources.

My main frustration is gears and propellors.

•The Lego group only makes two props suitable for RC boats with one of them having a terrible axle hole!

•worm screw gears are not the right length! They are about 1/4 of a bushing too short, causeing them to slide.

•also, I understand Ur pain with the mini LA. Perhaps a solution to that is to put something hard or some glue on the inside of that clutch. I will experiment with that soon.

•why doesn't Lego make the same gear toothage as from the new 3L diff!!!

•the sides of the 8t gear slip into the small ridges of the pinhole!!!

Wait, what's wrong with the Unimog's cv-joints? I bought it a while ago but I never got to building it yet. Is there anything else I should know that is wrong with the Unimog (parts wise)?

I just crack open another beer and roll with the punches...

Right, because before I sat down to mess with the legos I didn't already have a beer in my hand.

hahahah i like what you guys just said :)

I also try not to get frustrated by the parts limitation.

From my not-so-vast experience in building, i can conclude that the most realistically-functioning models made out of LEGO don't always work the most efficient. So to me it's about finding the balance between realism and functionality ( and aesthetics of the whole construction of course)

So far the most annoying part for me has been the LA's. Horrible noises, jamming, large amounts of dust coming out of them!

So far the most annoying part for me has been the LA's. Horrible noises, jamming, large amounts of dust coming out of them!

I couldn't agree more! the LA's are usually the weakest link in my MOC's.

tim

Wait, what's wrong with the Unimog's cv-joints? I bought it a while ago but I never got to building it yet. Is there anything else I should know that is wrong with the Unimog (parts wise)?

The new female part (the dark bley part) is fairly useless if you want to use them for driving the wheels of a motorised vehicle. They are too soft and so the male part keeps popping out. It also have a very limited steering angle, so if the suspention travel is slightly large, there is no steering angle spare to actually steer the wheel.

I don't really get that frustrated with it, I just wonder why TLG made some fairly odd design choices.

Oh yeah and I also hate LAs, but I guess you knew that!

Edited May 9, 201212 yr by allanp

I couldn't agree more! the LA's are usually the weakest link in my MOC's.

tim

Are you sure it's just the LA'S?

Are you sure it's just the LA'S?

:laugh: :laugh: .

tim

@Burf2000 - no doubt about that, the LA's are crap in most cases. The clutches, dust, and weak lifting power, and I'm talking about the large ones. I have more dust all over my 8264 Hauler and 8052 Container Truck from hitting the end of the LA and the clutch in the LA grinding. You just can't tell when it is at the end stop or down all the way and I am betting these LA's wear out a lot faster than most models with LA's. And look at the 8295 Telehandler, horrible example of LA use, not only the hand cranking and cranking and cranking, but the extremely weak lifting power of the boom. Even with a torquier XL-motor does not help. TLG should have come up with a different plan or design of the LA when it kind of mostly left the pneumatics behind after the 8285 Tow Truck.

So far the most annoying part for me has been the LA's. Horrible noises, jamming, large amounts of dust coming out of them!

Actually I am kind of surprised in the case of the LA's issues that TLG hasn't taken notice and redesigned them...

Maybe because TLG was never planning LA as a heavy lifting device?

Hydraulic jacks (simulated with pneumatics and LA:S) are usually applied in a way, that they need to bear much more force than the required lifting force. It's easy to try out: lift something directly with an LA and through an arm.

Attempt of clear explanation (I'm not good at that...)

LA:s have to be either very slow (need a lot of turns to move linearly) but strong, or quick (need fewer turns to move linearly) but weak if the input tourque is given.

And torque is given , because:

The max torque Lego can handle is not only constrained by the LA:s but by other elements too, especially universal joints. You can't have an LA that can handle big torque, because other part in the drive-chain will fail ("weakest link in a chain").

TLG had to choose between slow but strong, and quick but weak. They have chosen the quick but weak for a good reason I guess, they must have taken the revolution of their motors into account, as well as the User Experience in manual models. Imagine a strong LA which you have to turn a thousand times to move a few centimetres.

Sorry, the post is a bit messy, i hope it made sense.

To put it simply: if LA:s were stronger (the internal clutch would be stronger), something else would break inside the model; or the LA:s should have been designed to be slow as hell, and that would be the cause of whining.

Pneumatics is a totally different system with it's issues. I don't think hydraulics will ever be in Lego, maybe only for über-experts.

Use more LA:s if you find it weak. And/Or shorter booms, and/or smaller operating angle of the boom. Engineering is about compromise.

Edited May 10, 201212 yr by Lipko

Hydraulic jacks (simulated with pneumatics and LA:S) are usually applied in a way, that they need to bear much more force than the required lifting force. It's easy to try out: lift something directly with an LA and through an arm.

...

Pneumatics is a totally different system with it's issues. I don't think hydraulics will ever be in Lego, maybe only for über-experts.

Use more LA:s if you find it weak. And/Or shorter booms, and/or smaller operating angle of the boom. Engineering is about compromise.

I tested LAs, gearing up a pair 36:12 from an XL motor and they could lift my forearm easily enough. Just have to use them within the designed torque range and avoid the mess of excavator set design with reversed gearing! Same as motors really - add more in parallel for beefier drive.

Pneumatics can be made to stop in the middle or wherever you like, so the end-to-end limit on operation no longer applies. Video here. Compressing enough air is another matter - 4x PF M-motors were barely sufficient to drive a 16-cylinder compressor! I'm trying it with 4x 5292 motors but that needs a big power supply. I had hoped it would fit in a train!

Mark

@Omikron-

Well they really didn't a great job of introduction in 2008. The 8294 Excavator worked nearly flawlessly while motorized as did the 8265 Front-End Loader, motorized as well, the sheer amount of hand-turning for 1 function is almost crazy, but the 8295 was a complete other story, its design was great in terms of aesthetics and function (except for maybe the hand-cranked tilt of the forks), but raising the boom with one LA even while motorized was a struggle, it really should have had 2 LA's, one on either side of the boom to give it enough lifting power. Whoever designed that model was good I'll admit, but when testing it they should have noticed how hard the motor struggled with just one LA, and its a very large boom, almost on the sizing of the 8421 Mobile Crane's boom, and while that worked flawlessly with pneumatics, it was a bit less realistic as you had to keep pumping, what happened to the blue air tanks after the Front-End Loader and 8462 Tow Truck? Another big downfall to the 8421, while on everybody's wanted and admired list, was that boom slowly sank after a few hours. To keep it up I had to cut some small rigid Lego 'sticks', like the ones used on the 8273's front cab, I believe they were blue in color, my 8421 is apart right now, and I cut them to prop and hold in place against the top of the lower pneumatic cylinder and to the top of where it would stay in place, LA's would have been better on that, but I believe they still would have had issues in lifting the boom, however I often wonder if the motor pack used back then was stronger and torquier, the black motors that came in the 8287 Motor Set until PF came along. I know I read a thread somewhere a while ago about somebody modding it with LA's, but its probably way down the thread list.

Maybe because TLG was never planning LA as a heavy lifting device?

I think people expect or demand too much from LA's

Look at my TSTTS submarine - the yellow arm is adducted by 1 LA, and this arm is pretty heavy.

I prefer to see LA as "proof of concept with bonuses" but not as heavy lifter.

I like LAs. My backhoe never had very many issues with them, even though the excavator arm was pretty heavy. Every now and then, the LA clutch on the dipper stick would click, but not all the time. I've been impressed with the LAs thus far.

I do wish LEGO would make longer pneumatic cylinders.

Agreed there, the 8069 Backhoe Loader used the mini LA's with no problems whatsoever even though its size to my surprise when I built it last January was on par with eclectic 8455 Backhoe Loader. Another example of a truly realistic backhoe loader(the 8455), but with its flaws. It desperately needed an air tank because of its plethora of functions but no room to install one that I could find, constantly pumping those two pumps in the cab area was a pain, but it was a beautiful design indeed, another flaw was you couldn't keep the backhoe arm upright, it would sink the pneumatic piston holding up the arm after it sat overnight, another short sticker from one of my parted 8273's to hold up the piston, but in this model it didn't work too well, I tried many different things, but nothing held it in place to keep it upright, there was no support for it 'anchor' to, but then again I'm not a real good modder either... I also agree it would be nice to see longer rams in pneumatic cylinders for higher or longer extension.

I like LAs. My backhoe never had very many issues with them, even though the excavator arm was pretty heavy. Every now and then, the LA clutch on the dipper stick would click, but not all the time. I've been impressed with the LAs thus far.

I do wish LEGO would make longer pneumatic cylinders.

Edited May 11, 201212 yr by TechnicFreak