Gee's General Newbie Topic

[Gee]

Sadly some of these really big sets are a little out of my reach at the moment (anything over £100 is hard to justify to be honest), and the ones that are out of production fetch very strong money.

I reckon I'm going to buy the Monster Truck (42005). My thinking is that it's got some nice parts that I can use for MOCs that my old studded stuff doesn't have i.e. the new style chunky wheels, ball joints and connecting rods for the suspension and a good handful of lift arms. At £35 from the LEGO shop it seems reasonable (haven't looked elsewhere, but I shall, may be able to find a bargain).

Then hopefully into the New Year I may be able to afford a big set!

[NevynPA]

Welcome! You're not alone. I'm waiting for funds and Christmas to start working on expanding my studless collection myself.

[Gee]

It's all reliant on funds. Happily though I've got the Mrs brainwashed into thinking that LEGO is a good investment! Not only that, but I've got a Son who's fast approaching the age where he'll get into Technic (he already has a pile of old "normal" LEGO), so there's another excuse!

I ordered 42005, looking forward to it, but I'll restrain myself 'til Xmas so I've got something to open when the kids are throwing wrapping paper everywhere!

[Gee]

Since coming back to Technic after approaching 2 decades away, what strikes me is that people are more concerned with the models (both official and MOCs) looking like the real thing. I was never concerned about this myself and was more interested in the mechanics of it and the features of the set. The aesthetics was always more a System/Model Team kind of thing for me.

What's your thoughts?

In addition, I'm amazed at the lengths that people go to to replicate exact suspension and steering systems into models from their real life counter parts. I imagine that due to scale and material used a fair bit of it would be irrelevant. How important do you think it is that a 4x4 mirrors the real thing mechanically vs performs as a LEGO model.

[Jim]

I have merged your question with your own topic, so you can have your own general conversation here.

We like to keep the number of generic topics limited. Consider this your own topic and feel free to ask away!

I have changed the topic as well

When the time's right we can upgrade the title

Obviously, you can also use the Technic General Discussion Topic to ask generic questions.

[Gee]

Hahaha! Many thanks Jim!!!

I must admit, I was feeling like a bit of a twonk keep asking questions. I'm kinda aware that a lot of the guys on here are damn near pros and my newb questions may just be annoying the crap outta them!

Makes sense to have all my daft thoughts and ideas in one place!

[Jim]

No problem at all.

Asking questions isn't a bad thing. And I do think it's a valid question! But it's the kind of question you can easily post in the General Discussion topic.

Or in this topic of course

[Gee]

I was a bit wary of cramming up the general discussion topic with all my daft ramblings. It may get in the way of other people's stuff and I didn't want to take it over!

This is perfect though! Assuming anyone takes any notice! Haha!

[legolijntje]

Well, concerning looks vs functions, I always like: as many functions as possible while maintaining good looks. Of course, a very mechinal revolutionairy thing will be cool too, doesn't matter how it looks.

I think it's becuase most of the functions are already very common these days and most peopl would like to get an extra challenge, so people put all these common functions in a model while making it look as realistic as possible.

About the suspension, I think it's just for the sake of perfectness. And, it is fun to try out all kinds of different suspensions and see how they work. As you say, it doesn't really matter in some cases, although there are some types of suspension and some use cases where it really makes a difference which one you use.

[dhc6twinotter]

Since coming back to Technic after approaching 2 decades away, what strikes me is that people are more concerned with the models (both official and MOCs) looking like the real thing. I was never concerned about this myself and was more interested in the mechanics of it and the features of the set. The aesthetics was always more a System/Model Team kind of thing for me.

What's your thoughts?

I used to be the same way. Before my "dark ages", I never really cared if my models looked like any real thing. All I cared about was proper functions. I built trucks, forklifts, tractors etc that were, to be honest, quite ugly. They all had proper functions though! The only model I built that was based off of the real thing was an F14. It didn't look too bad, but the flight controls weren't accurate. However, once I got back into LEGO, I was much older and found myself trying to build more realistic things. Once I discovered bricklink and the ability to get whatever piece I needed, I realized I could build something as realistic as my skills, or lack thereof, would allow.

In addition, I'm amazed at the lengths that people go to to replicate exact suspension and steering systems into models from their real life counter parts. I imagine that due to scale and material used a fair bit of it would be irrelevant. How important do you think it is that a 4x4 mirrors the real thing mechanically vs performs as a LEGO model.

Regarding both questions above, I think it is really up to the builder. I build mainly heavy machinery and aircraft, and I like the additional challenge of recreating a real object as closely as possible. Some people, particularly those who build truck trial vehicles, care more about performance than authenticity. Both ways are perfectly fine, and like I mentioned, it's really up to the builder how they want to execute a project.

In the end, it is really up to you how you want to build something. The forum has people of different ages, different skills, and different backgrounds, all of which contribute to each person having a unique build style. You can build something however you want, and that is the beauty of LEGO.

Edited December 13, 2013 by dhc6twinotter

[Gee]

Both of those make sense (most functions have been done and so that leaves aesthetics and also an older person desires something that looks nice also [my Son makes cars out of normal 2x4 LEGO bricks that look bugger all like anything on the road but he's over the moon with them]).

I think that whilst I am definitely a function over form person (in all things, not just LEGO), it will be nice to try and get a good shape to vehicles now that the body panels are available. My old studded sets do look very dated, but then again they are 20 odd years old!

Re suspension, an example that comes to mind is suspension caster. The Unimog has been criticised for having poorly designed suspension and steering. I think that the main points are that it has negative caster and the kingpin inclination is wrong (nicjasno's YT vid points it out well). Whilst this is undoubtedly true, a very very similar setup is used in a lot of the crawlers I see (negative caster) and it doesn't seem to have much of a detrimental effect.

Just thinking out loud here really.

You can build something however you want, and that is the beauty of LEGO.

Amen to that!

[Gee]

So today I cracked open my PF stuff and had a go at motorising 8865's B model.

It is very very crude and is nigh on unplayable, but it works after a fashion.

I ran into the following problems:

- The PF motors stuff is an uneven number of studs wide.

- It's hard to get the axles to line up with studded bricks. I seem always to be the thickness of a plate out or half a stud out.

- It's hard to get the gears to mesh correctly.

Seems that whilst studless is obviously compatible with studded (same axle hole spaces etc) they're also incompatible in ways. Is there any getting round this or is that the way LEGO designed it so that people have to move to studless?

[Alasdair Ryan]

You can off set parts by 1/2 of a stud by using 1/2 liftarms, there is also 5.5 long axles.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Alasdair Ryan

[Gee]

5.5 long axles?! It's all news to me. Where I come from the axles are only 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14!

By 1/2 width liftarms, do you mean "thin"?

[Junpei]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what Alasdair was saying. 5.5L axles are quite useful despite their odd length.

[Alasdair Ryan]

Yeb you got it.

[Milan]

5.5 long axles?! It's all news to me. Where I come from the axles are only 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14!

By 1/2 width liftarms, do you mean "thin"?

Dont forget 5, 7, 9, 16, 32. Not sure about the 14...

[Alasdair Ryan]

There is no 14 long axle,the next size up from 12 is 16 and then 32 is the longest.

[Gee]

Of course you are right, there's no 14.

Can't believe they make a 32 now, that's massive!

[legolijntje]

About the gear meshing problem, that's always frustating

Although, after a while, you will remember the most used combinations and positions, but this is one very useful tool. At the calculator you can calculate the gear ratios, at the coupler you can select the holes (make sure to choose liftarms or bricks) and it will show all possible combinations.

It's made by the Technic Guide book author btw

[Gee]

Thanks for the link man! Very very useful.

I'm sat at the moment with a pile of studded lego in front of me and an XL motor. All I want to do is get drive to the wheel, but can I figure it out? Can I buggery!

[Gee]

I managed to power the rear wheels. Considering I've not played with LEGO for 20 years and the PF stuff is totally new to me, I figure that's an achievement in itself! There's no steering yet though!

[Alasdair Ryan]

Seems I still have the knack of studded building...40 min's later.

[Hrafn]

About the gear meshing problem, that's always frustating

Although, after a while, you will remember the most used combinations and positions, but this is one very useful tool. At the calculator you can calculate the gear ratios, at the coupler you can select the holes (make sure to choose liftarms or bricks) and it will show all possible combinations.

It's made by the Technic Guide book author btw

I may be a math nerd here, but I always use the teeth-to-spacing rule. Two gears mesh perfectly at a distance (in mm) equal to the average of the number of teeth they have; and 1 stud = 8mm. So two 8t gears mesh at 8mm = 1 stud, a 16 and 8 mesh at 12mm = 1.5 studs, etc. I find it especially helpful when I'm meshing one of the spur gears (8t, 16t, 24t, 40t) with one of the double bevel gears (12t, 20t, 36t).

Once you get into mixing studless with studded (where a plate = 1/3 of 9.6mm = 3.2mm), though, it gets messy.

[vmln8r]

I'll just drop these here, in case you find them useful: