Model of a concept bike. Features full suspension, drive and lights but no steering.

Datasheet:

Completion date: 31/01/2010
Power: electric (Power Functions)
Dimensions:  length 44 studs / width 16 studs / height 16 studs
Weight: 0.73 kg
Suspension: full with shock absorbers, left and right wheels connected together
Motors: 1x PF Medium

I like unusual vehicles and I like bikes, so I got interested in Dodge’s crazy concept bike (4 wheels and a 500 HP engine) quite a time ago. I wanted to build smaller, not motorized version earlier, but I eventually focused on a medium-sized motorized model.

The goal was to make it driven remotely, with full suspension, and looking as accurate as possible. Steering turned out to be impossible – the real bike has left and right wheels suspended independently, and is steered by tilting left / right.  With the LEGO model, it became apparent that both front and rear suspension needs a solid axle connecting two wheels in order to maintain the proper stiffness. Since there was no place for another motor anyway, I decided to give up the steering completely.

The model was eventually not entirely accurate, but it maintained the size and the silhouette of the original vehicle.  All electric and almost all mechanic parts were covered up, the model was fitted with front and rear light and an integrated on/off switch. I liked its look and I consider it an interesting experiment, even though it was not so really  fun to drive only straight ahead

Photos:

Video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related posts:

1. Q Bike A monowheel-like vehicle, but with 5 wheels altogether. Datasheet:...
2. Diwheel Model of a very unusual type of bike, located...
3. SnowGroomer Inspired by PistenBully snowgroomers. Features full independent suspension, dual...

On January 28th, me and my fellow LUGPol member, have made our way into the Polish TV. And yes, we brought some bricks along.

At the end of January, the LUGPol community has been approached by one of the major regional Polish TV stations, TVN Warszawa, and asked for some members willing to take part in a short program on LEGO bricks. Two members agreed – me and a renown castle-builder, Paul Michalak, better known as Kris Kelvin. We were asked to bring some of our creations along, unfortunately we have only learned it a day earlier, so the only thing I could bring was the unfinished model of the T28 super heavy tank. And yes, I forgot to bring the PF remote along, so I could turn the model on, but nothing more

The whole program was broadcasted live and lasted for nearly 12 minutes. We managed not to pass out of stress, and to present our hobby to the public in a friendly manner. Below you can see the complete recording in two parts (I’m still restricted to 10 minutes per video length at YouTube, unfortunately). The recording is obviously in Polish, and there are no subtitles. I was trying to prepare some, but the amount of work required to translate 12 minutes of conversation and to embed it into the original video so that it stays synchronized proved to be devastating. It was not a really insightful conversation, as the editor had only brief idea of the AFOLs community, so you don’t lose much. Apart perhaps from a number of jokes, like e.g. when being asked about the costs of such a hobby, I answered that we’re both skinny for a reason

Videos:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

No related posts.

Small model of the iconic Peterbilt 359 truck, inspired by the HTC races organized by the DoubleBrick community. Features pendular rear suspension, openable bonnet, engine’s model and lights.

Datasheet:

Completion date: 14/01/2010
Power: electric (Power Functions)
Dimensions:  length 49 studs / width 13 studs / height 23 studs
Weight: 0.96 kg
Suspension: front: none / rear: pendular stabilized with rubber axle joiners
Motors: 1×71427, 2x PF Medium

This is a rare example of a construction inspired entirely by a competition specific for a given community. Namely, it was inspired by the Hard Truck Contest invented and successfully introduced by the DoubleBrick community. The exact description of the contest can be found via respective link, it suffices to say that the contest brings together small models of trucks (usually 14 studs wide), built with an accuracy and attention to details that make them a wonder to behold. I’ve spent some time watching the videos from the HTC races not to follow the course of the competition, but to simply enjoy the view of the beautiful models. I was hoping to get the builders from my country interested in similar races, and the best way to get their attention seemed to build a prototypical vehicle.

Having previously built model of the Kenworth W900, I have chosen another one of the most iconic American trucks, the legendary Peterbilt 359. When scaled accordingly to the size of the wheels used in HTC races, it turned out to be just 12 studs wide. The original HTC vehicles are 14 studs wide – I don’t know the reasons for which such a standard was accepted, perhaps it was simply more convenient or based on trucks with different wheels size, but I decided to take the challenge of building a 12 studs wide model. And it was quite a challenge – it was my goal to use identical wheels on all axles, which meant that I only had 6 studs of width available to make the front axle steered (original HTC trucks often use narrower front wheels).

As the idea of making the front axle suspended seemed mad, I focused on the rear axles’ suspension. Since the axles are based on the 5×7 open liftarm frames with differentials inside, it was natural to make them pendular. Concerned about the truck’s stability at high speeds, I have used rubber axle joiners as the suspension stabilizers – they were simply attached to the truck’s frame above the rear axles, and acted as shock absorbers whenever the suspension changed its angle. It should be noted that it’s an obvious solution to use some sort of a simple supporting structure between the frames of axle #2 and #3, but I wanted to model the original wheel span, and the model was simply too small to add an extra space for such a structure. It has slightly degraded its performance – the driveshaft connecting axles #2 and #3 is being pressed by the truck’s weight, and hence the truck is somewhat slowed down.

I have started to built this model with its both ends, separately with front and rear axles. It resulted in an uncommon frame design – the front half of the frame is purely brick-built, while the rear one is 100% liftarmic. Both halves are connected under the sleeper module, but the rear half lacks the stiffness typical for bricks.

The chassis design is pretty typical – both drive motors are located in front of the rear axles, and the steering motor is located behind the front one. Due to limited length of the chassis, I have used  a 71427 motor for steering. It’s located below, and partially inside the cabin, while the drive motors have been hidden under the mock-ups of the side fuel tanks. The final drivetrain’s gear ratio is 1:1.43.

Extra attention was given to the bonnet – I wanted it to be openable and to have a model of the engine underneath it, just like I’ve seen in the original HTC models, but I also wanted to take one more step and use PF lights in the headlights. It was eventually achieved by resizing the bonnet’s width from 7 to 6 studs. This is wrong in terms of the scale, but it makes the bonnet much more structurally solid.

I have deeply enjoyed building this model – perhaps partially because it took just roughly 4 days to complete. It was a valuable experience, showing that e.g. brick-built exterior may look pretty but is quite heavy – this is a really small model, but it weights almost 1 kg (just to give you a point of reference, 1 kg is a minimum required vehicle’s weight according to the rules of Polish Truck Trial). Still, it was reasonably fast and fun to play with, despite its pretty limited functionality.

Photos:

Video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related posts:

1. Racing Truck My first racing truck. Features full suspension, dual motor...
2. Racing Truck Turbo Another take on racing trucks. Features fully modular design,...
3. Kenworth Mammoet Model of the Kenworth W900 in a version customized...

New compressor design, using reciprocating motion instead of a rotary one. Smaller, stronger and more adjustable than traditional compressors, it can run up to 18 pumps.

I have presented some ideas for compressors earlier – they used at least two sets of alternatingly working pumps to keep the airflow fluent and the vibrations minimal. The problem, however, was that they all used a rotary motion to run the pumps, which made them large and structurally weak (e.g. because no central axle could be used to run the pumps, there had to be an empty space for the pumps to move). Both these problems increase rapidly with the growing number of pumps.

Having recently bought an extra supply of pumps, I was looking for a solution that would result in a compact and strong compressor. I have found it by replacing the traditional rotary motion by a reciprocating one. The compressor I’ve developed can use any even number of pumps between 2 and 18 (this limits results from the 12-studs long axle being the longest one we can use to put the pumps on), while being much smaller and stronger that the traditional ones. It can work with any motor, and has integrated gearing that can be adjusted to your needs by picking one of 4 available combinations. The only tradeoff is the fact that it generates more vibrations that the rotary compressors, but it still makes it a useful alternative. Even with 18 pumps, this compressor is only 14 studs long (not including the motor). The exemplary variant I’ve built for the video uses 8 pumps and its dimensions are just 9×6x7 studs (again, not including the motor).

You can find a complete instruction below, and the video is pretty explanatory. While many people tend to choose large compressor based on RC motors for large models, I dislike this solution because RC motors are noisy and difficult to use with the Power Functions system (they run at a current so high that it makes the battery boxes and batteries go off). Therefore for me, this solution will be a much better alternative in the future.

Photos:

Video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Related posts:

1. Compressors A number of solutions to create a compact, fluently...
2. Volvo EC290C Pneumatic excavator with a full remote control. Features internal...
3. Pneumatic autovalve A mechanism that blends an electric compressor with a...

Pneumatic excavator with a full remote control. Features internal compressor, 3-position motorized pneumatic valves, integrated manometer, infinite freedom of superstructure rotation, lights, flashing warning lights, custom stickers and simple suspension.

Datasheet:

Completion date: 09/01/2010
Power: electric (Power Functions) / pneumatic (fed from internal electric compressor)
Dimensions (with arm in the transport position):  length 72 studs / width 27 studs / height 56 studs
Weight: 2.77 kg
Suspension:  pendular bogies
Motors: 7 x PF Medium, 1 x 71427
Pneumatics: three circuits with motorized 3-position valves fed from internal 4-pump compressor; integrated manometer

The idea behind this model was simple: to build a fully pneumatically operated excavator with a full remote control. Such a mixture is unique – there are many pneumatic models of excavators, but nearly all of them are connected to an external controller, which houses all pneumatic valves and usually also the compressor. I thought it would be quite a challenge to make a similar model fully remote-controlled, and I was sure that a pneumatically operated arm would look more realistic that one operated by linear actuators (as demonstrated by my earlier Liebherr R996 excavator model).

I was looking for a classic tracked excavator, and – somewhat tired of Caterpillars and Liebherrs – I turned my interest to the Volvo machines. The EC290C excavator scaled down accordingly to the width of the tracks seemed a most proper vehicle to model.

When you think of a pneumatically operated excavator, it quickly becomes obvious that it needs a possibility to return the valves to the neutral position, or – more simply – to close them. With such a possibility all sections of the arms could be controlled independently (well, almost – they would still affect each other by changing the air pressure in the pneumatic system); without it every section would have to reach its extreme position to let another one operate. Therefore I was looking for a small, simple way of controlling the valves, and what I found was an invention of my fellow LUGPol member, Dmac. It’s a very simple solution, but a tricky one – it depends on the elasticity of specific liftarms in relation to the internal gearing of a PF Medium motor.

I have assumed that with all valves controlled in that manner and fed from an internal compressor whose speed I can control remotely, I will have a full control over the excavator’s movement with a satisfactory degree of accuracy.

The model uses an uncommon chassis. It is held together by a single transverse beam which houses two PF medium motors inside it, along with a reinforcing frame made of liftarms. Thus the beam appears small and almost completely smooth, with the motors completely enclosed. It puts quite an extreme load on the beam’s components, but it results in a realistic look, as the real machine also has a single transverse beam in the chassis, and its drive motors are not visible, housed in the superstructure.

Another important thing is that the original Volvo excavator has its drivetrain fully enclosed within the tracks , with no parts protruding out at all. To model it, I have used two long sections of LEGO Technic chain, each connecting one drive wheel to the motor and remaining within the tracks at all times. The colour of the chains matches the colour of the chassis bearing structure, which makes them almost impossible to spot. Together with the enclosed motors, it has lead some viewers to ask how exactly is the whole model driven.

The construction of the hull may seem simple, but it was challenging. First of all the hull is flat but large, and it sits asymmetrically on the turntable. To keep it structurally solid, a supporting frame was needed – it was built around the turntable and integrated into the hull’s floor, taking 1 stud of its height. To make things more complicated, I have decided to use the newer turntable variant because it matched my needs better, but its width was odd while the hull’s width according to the scale was even. To compensate for this difference, a half-stud wide liftarms were used in the frame to give it an even width. There is an additional structure integrated into the frame right above the turntable, which holds together the base of the arm and the base of the pneumatic cylinders that raise its first section, as well as the motor used to rotate the superstructure. Additionally, the compressor was attached to the frame – firstly to minimize its vibrations and secondly to compensate for its height.

The construction of the rest of the hull is pretty traditional – there is a rechargeable battery at the back, serving as a counterweight, and motorized valves on the sides. The right front part of the hull houses the flashing lights mechanism activated by a lever inside the operator’s cabin, which controls four warning lights: two at the rear end of the hull, one on cabin’s top and one on the arm’s side. The cabin has a full interior, despite the fact that it’s slightly smaller (mainly in length) that its real counterpart.

The arm is relatively narrow – only 4 studs wide. It was built by blending two structures: bearing frame made of liftarms which holds it together, and the outer ’skin’ made of bricks which makes it stiff and gives it a realistic look. All the mounting points for the pneumatic cylinders are attached to the frame: the cylinders were integrated with the frame right at the beginning, in order to work out their optimal positions. There are three sets of pneumatic cylinders on the arm, two consisting of two cylinders, and one consisting of four. All of them are connected to the pneumatic system inside the hull: a mixture of elastic & rigid hoses is used to connect the pneumatic system to the arm. It should be noted that the sets of two cylinders tend to rotate around their longitudinal axle; to prevent this, they are connected to the arm by two axles that slide through certain points of the arm’s structure as the cylinders extend or retract.

The model worked well, given its strongly experimental construction. It has a number of significant flaws, however, the most important being the compressor which worked too slow. It was discovered only at the end of the building process, when the arm gained more weight that it had when the compressor was initially configured. The use of the manometer has paid off – the tests have shown that the pneumatic system was prone to breach at certain pressure. The turntable was a bit unstable, but it didn’t break – despite the fact that it had no supporting rollers or structure of any kind, and that at least 80% of the model’s weight was located in the superstructure.  There is a point on the video when you can hear the turntable squeaking as the superstructure rotates. The final drawback was the use of the standard bucket – I was planning to have a detachable custom bucket and some add-on devices to replace it with, and I even placed an extra outlet of the Power Functions system in the arm to let some motorized devices be connected and controlled. It turned out, however, that both the bucket and one add-on device I have prepared (a demolition jackhammer) were too heavy for the arm (the custom bucket was almost 5 times heavier that the standard one).

I was satisfied with this model despite its flaws. I had little experience with large pneumatic remote-controlled models before, and this proved to be a good lesson – especially when it comes to configuring the compressor. Usually, pneumatic models of this size use large compressors driven by the RC motors, which can fill the whole airtank in a couple of seconds. I had just four pumps and a compressor running at roughly 100 RPM, and it had to fill a system including over 3.5 meter of elastic hose (not including the rigid sections) and 19 pneumatic T-pieces.  Still, I was glad to have an unique self-contained pneumatic model with a fully wireless control. I liked its look to – the decision to use dark grey where I could theoretically use black as well has definitely paid off.

Photos:

Video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Media reference:

TechnicBRICKs

Related posts:

1. Excavator My first excavator. Features chassis driven by the motors...
2. Liebherr R996 Model of one of the largest Liebherr excavators. Features...
3. SnowGroomer Inspired by PistenBully snowgroomers. Features full independent suspension, dual...

Roundup of another year of my building activity. Includes all constructions published during this time, as well as some general popularity statistics and some announcements.

2009 was a bit slow year. It resulted in 18 constructions, which pales to compare with the 34 built in 2008. There are two reasons for this: firstly, the level of the complexity of my constructions increases gradually, more and more attention is given to their aesthetics, their authenticity, as well as to the way they are published. Secondly, I have spent long time in late 2009 working on an enormous model of a bucket wheel excavator, which was over 2 meters long and 7 kilograms heavy when it failed ultimately. The time spent on this model was sufficient to complete 2 or 3 smaller constructions – but it was an instructive experience, so I don’t consider it entirely wasted.

2009 has also ended with an unfortunate accident with a model of the Volvo EC290C pneumatic excavator – it was going to be published on December 31st, but a breach in the pneumatic system occurred during the very final tests and now the publication has to be postponed until the model is partially taken apart, fixed, re-tested and put back together. You can follow the excavator’s building process at Facebook.

The 18 constructions are:

• Morgan
• Racing Truck Turbo
• SnowGroomer
• Liebherr R996 Litronic Excavator
• Tower Crane
• Hellbender
• Unimog U900
• Q Bike
• Crusader
• Caterpillar D9T Tracked Dozer
• Rumbler
• Kenworth Mammoet
• Vagabond HotRod
• Leclerc T6 Medium Battle Tank
• Le Tourneau L-2350 Wheeled Front End Loader
• Alvis Stalwart
• Chainsaw
• Scania Dump Truck

2009 is also my website’s  first year of existence. It turned out to be successful and popular way above what I could have expected, resulting in almost half a million visits, in numerous references from other websites, and undoubtedly in a growing number of people who watch my work on a regular basis. In fact, the growth of popularity was so unexpected that it forced me to move the website to another hosting provider in December 2009, thanks to which the website’s performance has improved significantly. I would like to thank all of you readers, and to present you with some numbers that may become an interesting point of reference at the end of 2010.

2009 in numbers:

• 18 constructions
• 99 posts
• over 1,250 comments
• 494,000 views
• 20,000 absolute unique visitors in the last quarter of 2009 according to Google Analytics

My work work is also popular at YouTube. Let’s sum it up:

• 110 videos
• almost 1,960,000 video views
• over 40,000 channel views
• 1,015 subscribers

2009 has resulted in something I didn’t think of when launching this website, that is in two tutorials on building. Both have turned out to be very helpful and popular, and the first one is going to be included in some future issue of the Hispabrick magazine. If I’ll have enough of spare time and topics to write on in 2010, more tutorials may follow.

Probably the nicest thing that happened to me in 2009 was the invitation to write for the official LEGO Technic designers’ blog. While I am no LEGO designer by any means, it was extremely rewarding to find myself as one of just three guest bloggers worldwide. So far it has no significant influence on my activity, but the very idea of inviting people from outside the company is something very nice, innovative and promising of the LEGO crew. Who knows what they may come up with next?

Finally, the Facebook page launched in half of December has managed to gather over 220 fans who are following my building process, presented on photos every few days. While this way of showing my work is new to me, it seems to meet everyone’s expectations so far.

I would like you to know that 2010 is going to be even more interesting. Not only my constructions are going to continue their tendency to become more complex and good-looking, but there are also models of some legendary vehicles coming, including a Truck Trial-capable Hummer H1 and the supercars line. Moreover, as I have mentioned some time ago, I have a few special projects which are highly experimental and therefore kept secret to keep you from disappointment in case of a failure. Two of these projects are very likely to come true in 2010: these are the A-10 Thunderbolt fighter (not a flying one) and the Batman’s Tumbler Batmobile. While both are very demanding of me and will not be completed in the nearest months, I hope you’re happy to know they are coming.

2010 will also certainly bring plenty of new, hopefully useful ideas. Two of these are coming very soon, one of them being a brand new compressor design, created specifically to provide high power in a limited space. I’m also going to experiment with the ideas of other builders, e.g. by integrating the automated CVT gearbox developed by ZBLJ into a subtractor in a model of the T28 Super Heavy Tank.

What is the 2010 going to be like? I can certainly say that all my videos will be kept in the YouTube’s HQ standard (including the ones from the Truck Trial races), and that I will seek to make them more enjoyable, e.g. by avoiding long, boring parts and showing models’ working internal mechanics whenever possible. The Facebook page is most likely going to be regularly used to show the building process of my future constructions, but there are no promises as this activity puts extra effort & extra pressure on me. If the Brickshelf continues to fail in 2010, I’m prepared to host all the pictures of my constructions entirely on my own – in worst case it will take just a couple of days to make this website and my work completely Brickshelf-independent. Finally, while I was actually out of Truck Trial racing in 2009, I’m going to get back to it effectively in 2010 starting with the aforementioned Hummer H1 model.

I would like to say that I honestly regret building that slow. However, with a hindsight it appears to be beneficial for my constructions – more and more new unprecedented LEGO pieces is released, more new ideas is exchanged in the builders’ community, and generally more possibilities open up as they wait to be built. I think it is fair to say that some things should not be built too hastily. With this said, I hope you will enjoy my work in 2010.

No related posts.

This tutorial covers the rules of choosing a a scale and calculating dimensions for a LEGO model of a wheeled or tracked vehicle, as well as some general tips on modeling.

My first tutorial (on Technic gears) has turned out to be very popular and useful. Many comments from builders who found it helpful have convinced me to continue with tutorials – this time I’m going to explain how to make a proper model of a wheeled or tracked vehicle.

Please note that I don’t consider myself a very good model-builder. I often have to look for a compromise between the look and the functionality of a model, and my attention to details is usually insufficient. There are builders willing to spend months on getting all dimensions & proportions right, while I am ready to slightly compromise the accuracy of a model for the sake of its functionality or integrity. A good example is my Abrams M1A2 model whose road wheels were too small (3 studs in diameter instead of 4), because there were no larger LEGO wheels available and scaling the model accordingly to the 3-studs ones would result in a much smaller model with severely limited functionality. However, none of my models can be even remotely compared to the work of e.g. ZED or Arvo brothers.

Anyway, this tutorial explains all the rules needed to build a proper model, and how much attention is paid to the details is up to a particular builder. The rules of scaling remain the same for the best and the average model-builders. Please note that this tutorial assumes that you are going to build a motorized model with Power Functions elements, but if you just skip that part, it is just as useful for static models.

1. Choosing a vehicle to be modelled

Contrary to a popular impression, LEGO model-builders usually seek to build their models as small as possible. This is because large size of a model results in many problems that are absent or insignificant with small models – such as the weight, mobility and the structural integrity (LEGO bricks become quite elastic under several kilograms of load), as well as e.g. distortion of the tires. This is a good direction, especially for inexperienced builders, and therefore this tutorial aims at building on as-big-as-needed scale, not on an as-big-as-possible one.

When choosing a vehicle to be modeled, you should focus on two crucial factors: its width and the size of the largest element you want to integrate into it.

There is almost always a technical limit to the model’s minimal width, and this limit is usually set by the axles. In case of the steered axle you should expect its structure to be at least 6 studs wide (a narrower steered axle is possible but very hard to build), and then add the width of the wheels. So if you’re going to use a 2-studs wide wheels, then your minimal width is 10 studs, if you’re going to use 3-studs wide wheels then it’s 12 studs, and so on. A driven, not-steered axle is sometimes even more demanding: it usually requires at least 2 studs for the structure (e.g. for two 1-stud wide stringers of the chassis), 3 or 4 studs for the differential, and then there is the width of the wheels, which in case of e.g. trucks often includes 4 wheels rather than 2. It is possible to skip the use of a differential (small & light models don’t really need it except for a better manoeuvrability) but it will still take at least 1 stud to transfer the drive to the axle.

Consider this example: the rear axles of my Kenworth Mammoet model use 4 wheels per axle, just like in the real truck. It results in more than half of the model’s width being taken by the wheels:

We will expand the topic of the minimal width in section 2, for now it is important to discard vehicles that are unusually long and narrow, as well as the ones that have extremely tight space between their right & left wheels.

The largest element you want to integrate into a model is usually the most important factor. If we omit the multipart custom mechanisms, whose shape and size can be usually somewhat adjusted, what we are left with are large single-piece elements. In case of the models using Power Functions it’s usually at least one battery box and at least one IR receiver, in case of the models using pneumatics it can be an airtank too. The traditional PF battery box is 4 x 11 x 7 studs large and requires some extra space on the top for the plugs and for the access to the on/off switch – it means that our model has to be larger than these minimal dimensions. For instance if you want your model to have sides built with bricks, with the battery box fully enclosed within because e.g. its color doesn’t match, then one of your model’s dimensions can’t be smaller than 13 studs. The newer PF rechargeable battery, on the other hand, is 4×5×8 studs large with the same extra space needed on the top. Since the battery has smooth sides and is easily integrated into bricks-based constructions, it is possible to integrate it into an e.g. just 4 studs wide model.

The PF battery box vs the PF rechargeable battery – the newer, the smaller:

The important thing is to estimate if it’s possible to integrate the large elements into a model and where. If your model is going to be narrow, or run and turn at high speed, you should also seek to integrate all the heavy elements into its lower part, because e.g. a battery box integrated into the roof would be fatal for its stability. The trick is basically to look for parts of the vehicle that offer plenty of internal space, because we usually want to keep all the mechanical/electrical elements inside. For instance if you’re going to build a model of a truck, and you want it to have a cabin with an interior plus a model of the engine under the bonnet, then you can only integrate large elements into lower parts of its chassis. This is very likely to be insufficient, and therefore you should look for trucks with some extra modules behind the cabin, which are very convenient for housing e.g. battery boxes and IR receivers.

Here are two versions of the same Peterbilt truck: the upper one offers very limited internal space and can be motorized only in a large scale, with the battery/battery box housed inside the cabin. The lower one comes with a large sleeper module and a longer chassis – even with a small model it’s possible to house all the large elements inside this module and preserve space for the cabin interior.

Side view of one of the trucks built for Hard Truck Contest reveals the traditional battery box housed inside the sleeper module (visible through the side window). Note the small size of this fully mobile model in comparison to the size of the battery box.

Situation with other types of vehicles is similar, but less obvious. When building a typical car with some space preserved for the interior, we are usually forced to place some elements in front of it and behind it. For instance we can place the steering motor in the front part of the chassis (usually the most convenient location), with drive motor and battery box located behind passengers’ seats. It’s not a bad idea to pay attention to the location of the original engine while choosing a car. It’s actually quite important for e.g. sport cars with large engines, because the ones with engine in front will always provide plenty of space in front part of the chassis while the ones with the engine in the center/back will have more internal space behind the cabin.

Dodge Viper (engine in front) and Pagani Zonda (central engine), two supercars of similar size. Note the difference in their general proportions.

There is a number of tricks that allow to integrate multiple PF elements into a limited space – this subject will be focused on in section 5. The particular case of tracked vehicles will be focused on in section 4.

2. Choosing the scale for a model

There are two possible cases here: usually our choice of scale is limited by the size of LEGO wheels we have at our disposal, but sometimes a fixed scale is required, e.g. when we’re building a vehicle for a competition whose rules determine the scale (for instance the Polish Truck Trial rules require all the vehicles to be at 13:1 scale). In the latter case we don’t have to choose a scale – it is already determined. In the first case we have to decide which wheels to use. When it comes to the scale, the only thing that matters is the diameter of the wheels (together with tires, obviously) – it will be explained further in the section 3. Therefore it doesn’t matter whether you’re going to use wheels with sport tires (flat profile) or cross-country tires (round profile), simply pick the ones you like, with the size in mind. You should, however, pay attention to one situation: if you’re going to use tires with a round profile located under mudguards or largely enclosed within vehicle’s body, they are going to appear smaller. This is caused by the optical appearance of the tires and can be prevented by using wheels larger by 10-20% that the size imposed by the scale.

3. Calculating the dimensions

At this point we are going to need a blueprint of the vehicle of our choice. Blueprints of popular and not-so-very-new vehicles can be easily found on specialized websites, the best of them being probably Blueprints.com, and of course the Google Image Search. It’s not a bad idea to look for it at places where many LEGO models are published (e.g. Brickshelf), as numerous model-builders (including me) have a nice habit of publishing their models along with some reference materials. When it comes to the construction equipment, the respective blueprints can be easily found via the websites of all the major manufacturers such as Caterpillar, JCB, Komatsu, Liebherr, Volvo etc. If you browse through their products catalogs every machine has usually a downloadable PDF brochure attached and all the dimensions are included in it. Hint: construction equipment often comes with multiple configurations of e.g. the bucket, and hence the bucket is not shown on the blueprint. If you look through the brochure closely, there are usually dimension tables that list size of every bucket variant available.

A typical blueprint from a manufacturer-provided product brochure. It’s impossible to tell the bucket’s width from the blueprint, but a dimension table included in this brochure lists width of every bucket variant available for this machine.

The perfect blueprint should:

• be large
• be clean
• include at least three views of the vehicle (side and front/rear view are usually crucial)
• not be distorted (by e.g. central perspective)
• consist of outlines only (blueprints are needed for dimensions only, if you want to check colors, markings etc., then it’s better to rely on photos)

Two blueprints of the same tank: the upper one is bad (and small – this is its full size), the bottom one is excellent. Note how the clutter on the upper blueprint’s turret makes it difficult to determine the exact size & shape of the turret.

What if our long and laborious search returns no blueprints at all? In this case we can try to rely on photos, but this is a very inconvenient solution and should be avoided if possible. The Google Image Search is helpful here too, but there are many websites with galleries – e.g. a very substantial source of the cars’ photos is provided by the NetCarShow.

When looking for optimum photos, we should think of them blueprint-wise. That is, we should look for the photos that show the vehicle from definite angles (side, front, top etc.) and are as little distorted as possible (photos taken from partial angles such as front & side are always very distorted). The photos should be obviously large, clean, unobstructed and preferably bright.

On the top: three photos that are useless for calculating dimensions (taken from partial angles, obstructed etc.). On the bottom: three photos that are very useful.

If you have a hard time finding some usable blueprints or photos, try looking for 3D models – popular vehicles often have an abundance of 3D renderings available. Note this rendering of a 3D model of the Peterbilt 359 truck – even though distorted by a substantial central perspective, it is still useful for calculating dimensions.

Important: a proper blueprint should show all the views of the vehicle in exactly the same size (note the blueprint for the Ford Mustang below – the size is clearly maintained). If you are forced to compose your own blueprint using photos, try to make sure that all the views show the vehicle in the same size. If this is not possible, you will have to calculate dimensions for each view separately.

With the blueprint / set of photos at hand, we now need to take some measurements. This can be done in two ways: analogue (print it out, take ruler, calulate) or digital (open the file in some editing program, take measurements, write them down somewhere). Personally, I’m a big fan of the analogue way – not only does it make me computer-independent and lets me put the blueprint on the pinboard above my workshop, but it also lets me conveniently write the dimensions directly on the blueprint, along with some notes if necessary.

Now, as mentioned in the section 2, there are two possible cases: the scale is already determined and known, or the scale is correspondent to the size of the LEGO wheels we’re going to use.

In the first case we know the scale and it goes like something:1, for instance 13:1. It means that our model needs to be 13 times smaller than the original vehicle. In order to calculate the model’s dimensions we need at least one dimension of the original vehicle. Blueprints usually come with no dimensions (with the usual exception of those of the manufacturer-provided blueprints for the construction equipment), so we need to find some dimension somewhere else. Wikipedia is quite a good place to search in, as it often provides the general dimensions of the specific versions of a given vehicle. The dimensions we’re most likely to find are the length and width, and those are very useful, while dimensions such as wheel span or wheelbase are not. I recommend looking for the general length, because it’s the largest dimension and it provides the best accuracy for our calculation.

Let’s assume we have our blueprint printed out already, and we know the length of the original vehicle. We’re going to use a ruler and a calculator, and to do some maths (I know, I hate it too). Let’s say that our original vehicle is 6 meters long and we want to model it in the 13:1 scale. We proceed as follows (black marks the general steps, gray marks the result for our exemplary blueprint):

1. Convert the original vehicle’s dimension to the smallest convenient unit, usually milimeters: 6000 mm
2. Measure the corresponding dimension on the blueprint: let’s assume our printed vehicle is 200 mm long
3. Divide the original dimension by the bluerint’s dimension – the resulting number will be referred to as printout ratio: 6000/200 = 30, so our printout ratio is 30

Now we can calculate any dimension of the model, let’s assume we want to calculate its width:

1. Measure the width on the blueprint: let’s assume it’s 80 mm
2. Multiply the blueprint’s dimension by the printout ratio: 80 * 30 = 2400
3. Divide the result by the scale (the first number of something:1): 2400 / 13 = approx. 184.615
4. Divide the result by 8 to get the dimension in studs (because we operate on milimeters and 1 stud is equal to 8 mm): 184.615 / 8 = approx. 23,077
5. Round the result (on assumption that the smallest size unit we can model in a typical LEGO construction is half of the stud) : 23,077 = 23 studs

We can get any final dimension by repeating the steps 1-5. As you can see this is not so scary (yet). If you’re perverted enough to actually enjoy the maths, you will probably enjoy putting the steps 1-5 into a single mathematical formula:

blueprint’s dimension (mm) * printout ratio / scale / 8 = model’s dimension (studs)

E.g. 80 mm * 30 / 13 / 8 = 23,077 studs

If you’re not operating on the metric system, you can convert your measurements to milimeters using one of many converters, or simply use the imperial version of the aforementioned formula:

blueprint’s dimension (inches) * printout ratio / scale / 0.31496 = model’s dimension (studs)

E.g. 3.1496 inches * 30 / 13 / 0.31496 = 23,077 studs

The second case is easier. All we need is the diameter of the LEGO wheel we want to use (together with the tire, measured in studs) and the blueprint. Let’s assume our wheel has a diameter equal to 8 studs. We proceed as follows (black marks the general steps, gray marks the result for our exemplary blueprint):

1. Measure the diameter of a wheel on the blueprint: let’s assume it’s 50 mm
2. Divide the diameter of our LEGO wheel by the diameter of the wheel on the blueprint – the resulting number will be referred to as scale ratio: 8 / 50 = 0.16, so our scale ratio is 0.16
3. The scale ratio simply shows how many studs in our model is equal to 1 mm on the blueprint, therefore we can now calculate any dimension by simply measuring it on the blueprint and multiplying it by the scale ratio: e.g. if our vehicle is 200 mm long on the blueprint, it will be 32 studs (200 * 0.16) long in the LEGO version
4. Again, the resulting numbers (scale ratio and final dimensions) should be rounded to reasonable values.

And again, the maths-loving perverts will enjoy putting steps 1-3 into a single formula:

(LEGO wheel’s diameter / diameter of a wheel on the blueprint) * blueprint’s dimension = model’s dimension (studs)

This time the formula is units-independent. Consider two examples: we will calculate the same dimension (e.g. 100mm which is equal to 3.937 inches) with the same blueprint’s wheel’s diameter (e.g. 50 mm which is equal to 1.968 inches) for a LEGO wheel that has 8 studs in diameter using metric and imperial system separately:

Metric: (8 / 50) * 100 = 16 studs
Imperial: (8 / 1.968) * 3.937 = 16.004 studs (the .004 studs results from rounding the dimensions in inches and should be ignored)

This is it. You should now be able to calculate all required dimensions, regardless of the case and units system, using just a calculator and a measuring tool. For some extra tips on scaling please refer to the section 5.

4. Tracked vehicles

Tracked vehicles are an exceptional case when there is no determined scale and you are seeking to set one. This is because of three reasons:

• the size of the road / tension wheels doesn’t impact the general proportions of the model as much as it does with wheeled vehicles
• the width of both old & new tracks is fixed (although it can be modified to a certain degree; more on this in the section 5)
• the minimal width of a tracked model is usually larger than in case of the wheeled vehicles

First, let’s clarify the wheels’ issue. It’s kind of ironic, but a typical tracked vehicle can have up to 4 types of wheels:

• road wheels (wheels that the vehicle basically stands on; they are separated from the ground only by the tracks, usually have suspension and are not driven)
• tension wheels (the first and last wheels that extend the tracks to their maximum length; they are usually located above the ground and have no suspension, but in some set-ups they act as the first & last road wheels too)
• drive wheels (all the wheels that the drive is directly transferred to; usually the last or the first pair of the tension wheels act as drive wheels, but sometimes a single wheel can act as a tension, drive & road wheel at the same time)
• return rollers (the usually small wheels that support the upper section of the track and keep it from hanging down; they are never driven, they are almost never suspended, and many tracked vehicles don’t use them at all)

Let’s consider a LEGO model of a tank to see the importance of these factors. We obviously want our tank to be able to turn as well as to drive straight, so we have to use more than a single motor to drive it (we can use a subtractor too, but it does almost no difference in terms of width. Since tanks tend to have relatively wide hulls, and we want the drivetrain to use as little space as possible, the best solution is to locate the motors transversely, back-to-back, so that their output axles can go straight into the drive wheels (but there can be some gears in between too). In case of the PF motors which are 6 studs long (both Medium and XL ones) it means that the space inside the hull has to be at least 12 studs wide, plus 2 more studs for the sides of the hull, plus the width of two, sometimes more tracks (2×3 studs for older tracks and 2×5 studs for the newer ones), and eventually plus the width of the side skirts, if present. If we want to build a large model of a modern tank, we will need to use the newer tracks (the older ones look bad with large models) and most likely include the side skirts. Which means: 12 studs (internal hull space) + 2 studs (two sides of the hull) + 10 studs (2 sets of newer tracks) + 1 or 2 studs (depending on how thick we want the side skirts to be) = 25 or 26 studs. Therefore we can safely assume that a large model with newer tracks has to be at least 24 studs wide, not including the side skirts. This is exactly the assumption that determined the scale of my recent tank models, e.g. the Abrams M1A2 and the Leclerc T6. At this scale the newer tracks are usually just as wide as needed, at least for modern tanks, while the diameter of the road wheels should be usually between 3 or 4 studs according to the scale, and even making it 3 studs instead of 4 in my Abrams model still resulted in a successful construction. Which means that out of the three factors mentioned at the beginning of this section, the most important one is usually the minimum width that complies with technical requirements, and the least important one is usually the size of the road wheels.

Side view of my Abrams M1A2 model, with road wheels 25% smaller than they should be.

Things get a bit different with some other types of the tracked vehicles. The category of construction equipment is particularly filled with diverse tracked vehicles. For instance the tracked bulldozers often have narrow hull – sometimes constituting to less than half of the vehicle’s total width. To build a motorized model of such a machine with the older tracks would be nearly impossible, and to build it with the newer tracks would require placing the drive motors side-to-side. In case of PF Medium motors (in most cases well fit to drive a model of this size) it means 6 studs of minimum internal hull width. I went even further with my Caterpillar D9T model – it had small openings in the sides of the hull, so that the motors would fit into a 6-studs wide hull with just 4 studs of internal width. It was somewhat extreme approach, but again proved successful – and in this model the width of the tracks and the road wheels’ diameter have been crucial to determining the scale.

Caterpillar D9T model with just 6-studs wide hull. Some viewers are still surprised that it housed 5 motors, a regular battery box and two IR receivers. It had more functions than the legendary LEGO 8275 bulldozer, while being roughly 50% smaller.

There are many other types of tracked vehicles that we will not consider here – for instance the crawler cranes, the tracked excavators, tractors and loaders – and each of these types has its own specific proportions. While the three aforementioned factors remain essential to determining the model’s scale, their individual importance should be considered separately for each type of the vehicle.

5. Tips & tricks

• Including the specificity of the LEGO bricks into the scaling process

LEGO bricks are very universal and provide great possibilities to explore, but they have their limitations too. For instance some details have to be discarded as to small, because it’s difficult to model something smaller than a single stud. Some model-builders cross this border quite successfully, but it usually requires truly masterful skills. LEGO bricks are also generally inaccurate when it comes to modeling some round and oval and irregular shapes. Many builders tend to approximate the challenging shapes with available LEGO bricks rather than try to model them with a perfect accuracy. A number of issues with possible solutions is listed below.

The steered wheels in LEGO models rarely have realistic steering geometry. In the real world the steered wheels usually rotate around a vertical axis that goes through their center. In the LEGO world this is possible almost exclusively with the wheels & suspension components from the 8448 set, so most of the wheels usually rotate around the axle located at their side. It means that they need more space to rotate than the real wheels, and thus their mudguards have to be more spacious than their real counterparts. Note the front mudguards of my Tow Truck built around steered & suspended wheels: even though their shape was carefully modeled with multiple small pieces, they are still much larger and more massive than the mudguards of the real trucks.

This beautiful, small model of the Ford GT by a renown model-builder Firas uses custom stickers to separate the white stripes in half, because there are no LEGO parts thin enough. Note the extremely tight mudguards, only present in models that have no steering system nor suspension.

The round shapes of the body of one of my hotrods have been only conventionally marked with flexible axles. Even though this technique has been sanctioned by some of the official LEGO sets, it remains controversial among the model-builders’ community.

Many of the existing LEGO wheels have different diameter-to-width ratio than the real wheels; namely, they tend to be wider. It is particularly troublesome for small models and results in some uneasy concessions. This is why these models of trucks built for the Hard Truck Contest held in Russia have two wheels on rear axles while the real trucks have four.

• Modifying the width of the tracks

The standard LEGO tracks, both older & newer ones, are compliant with many other LEGO parts. Both types can have additional parts added outside to appear wider and larger. The older, 3-studs wide tracks work best with thin plates, while the newer, 5-studs wide tracks work best with Technic bricks.

This acclaimed tractor built by Noddy uses 1×4s plates to make the older tracks slightly wider and more massive. Note that the size of the tracks’ treads allows to add plates on every second tread only.

Close view of my Snowgroomer shows the newer tracks with 1×8s Technic bricks attached to every tread. It results in a very strong and robust set-up.

• Adapting shape of PF elements to save space

Some PF elements come in shapes that can be often adapted as parts of the model. For instance the round shape of the PF motors makes them adaptable as side fuel tanks is some vehicles (especially trucks), while the new rechargeable battery can be easily integrated into some brick-built elements where its shape doesn’t stand out. Moreover, almost all the PF elements share a common, simple color theme which can be used to make them match the rest of the model.

My Scania dump truck model was driven by two PF XL motors. Having a very limited amount of space to use, I decided to locate these motor in such a manner that they resembled side fuel tanks.

The same  Scania model had a PF rechargeable battery located between the seats inside the cabin and fully integrated into the cabin interior, with a matching color theme used.

My PF Forklift was intended to have a naked, raw Technic look, but the use of a matching color theme and putting the PF elements in carefully considered places made them look like integral parts of the model.

• Using optical tricks

This is actually much simpler than it sounds. There are few simple rules: for instance dark colors make models appear more massive. Dark colors also come in handy in those parts of the model where some gaps are difficult to avoid: using black parts in such a place makes the gaps almost invisible. Sometimes you have to choose whether to make a certain part of the model larger or smaller than the scale implies; when doing so, try to estimate what impression will a viewer get from both versions, and pick the more desired one. Example: I have built two models of similar tanks at a similar scale, and with both tanks the diameter of the main gun’s barrel implied by the scale was 1.5 stud. It’s difficult to make a long, smooth-looking object 1.5 stud thick, so I made the barrel slightly thinner in one tank, and slightly thicker in another. Many people complained about the thinner barrel, but no one complained about the thicker one – this is because it made a threatening impression on the viewers, and this is the kind of impression that is generally expected from tanks.

Sometimes a simple trick can make a big difference. My Crusader, a simple half-track truck, was so small that its motors and its battery box could be only located inside its cargo case. When I tried to cover these elements up with some plates, it didn’t look like a cargo case at all – in fact, it looked pretty weird. Eventually I left them uncovered on a purpose, so that they would look like an actual cargo being transported by the model, and it had a much better effect.

• Knowing what to sacrifice

This is probably the most crucial skill when it comes to really challenging or feature-packed models. In most cases there are two aspects of a model that have to be balanced: its aesthetics and functionality. Some models are built only for one of these two aspect and ignore the other, but the real art of model-building is to blend these two aspects together seamlessly. Some models, however, require the builder to sacrifice some of one aspect for the sake of another because of e.g. the scale chosen or some technical limitations. The final choice of what is the most important in a given model is up to you, and here are some examples.

My first own model, the LiebherrT282B, didn’t look pretty but had a long list of features including a full suspension, 4×4 drive, rear differential lock and even a manual gearbox. To include all of it into a relatively small construction, I decided to make a somewhat funny compromise: the battery box was located inside the cargo case. The case looked fine from the outside and still could be pneumatically elevated, but it was useless because its inside was shallow and had a central opening to fit the battery box in.

The first model I’ve ever built, the Mark I tank, was based on a static model created by pepik. It was extremely small and literally built around a battery box. There was no place for any substantial gear reduction, so the model worked fine except it ran at incredible speed. It looked well and maintained the proper proportions, but its functionality was more suited for a F1 car than for a tank.

My model of the Liebherr R996 Litronic excavator was small, had no motors in the chassis and half of the hull’s inside taken by a battery box. Still, I managed to fit 6 motors in it by placing 3 of them inside its arm. It degraded the look of the arm, but at this scale I could have a bad-looking arm or a completely static arm. Moreover, since the model used linear actuators instead of pneumatics, it has severely simplified the transmission system in the arm.

I hope this tutorial was helpful to you. As mentioned at the beginning, there are dozens of model-builders much better than I am, so while the rules explained in this tutorial remain more or less universal, feel encouraged to seek inspiration in the work of other builders. If you have suggestions, corrections etc., please include them in comments.

No related posts.

When I decided to continue blogging for another year, I also decided to make this blog more interesting and to pay more attention to readers’ needs. Many of you have often asked what am I building at the moment, and only recently it occurred to me that this exactly where Facebook can help. With a Facebook page I can provide frequent updates on the building process and more, without cluttering my actual blog, and it can be done with all the useful functionalities like comments and new post notifications. Moreover, at some point I have been suggested to launch a forum for my blog, and while I don’t think that my blog is popular enough to run its own forum, this is where Facebook steps in with its discussion boards.

My Facebook page has been launched today with some info on my current project, the Volvo excavator (including current photos). More is to come,  and I hope that this is going to meet your needs.

Visit my Facebook page »

No related posts.

The recently launched poll has shown your great interest in some large models of the famous supercars. Now here’s a list of the models you’re likely to see here in 2010.

There are several areas of building with LEGO Technic bricks that I haven’t ventured into yet, mainly because of the permanent shortage of time. These areas include walking machines or models of planes, but it was only recently that I realized that I have never built an actual supercar. I own two Lego supercars, the legendary 8880 and the breakthrough 8448, the latter still being my personal landmark of a modern Technic supercar. So, with the 8448 in mind, I have added few new models to my future projects list. These were models of supercars I found particularly interesting or spectacular or significant. The first one of these, the Lamborghini Reventon, is already under construction and if things go well it can end up with as many as 14 motors plus two cooperative gearboxes. Nevertheless there are plenty of supercars to choose from, and I thought it would be wrong to make choices based only on my personal taste – hence the mentioned poll.

Below you will find a list of all the supercars I’d like to build in future, based largely on the poll’s results. There’s a good chance of seeing at least half of these models in 2010, as I have many other projects waiting and I think it would be boring to build supercars one by one.  Not to mention the complexity level, at which I expect every model to take at least whole month to build.

Before we take a look at particular cars, let’s mention some things that I want to be common to all the models. All of them are supposed to be fitted with a full suspension,  obviously, though the size of the models allows to try out some highly experimental solutions, so there will probably be a good dose of diversity. All the models should have realistic drivetrains, that is AWD or RWD according to how the real car is driven. All the models should be fitted with lights, openable doors and bonnets, various types of gearboxes and realistic models of engines. By realistic I mean models that show the exact location and type of the engine, not necessarily its accurate size or look, especially that I want to use exposed moving pistons in all of them. It means that I’m going to use standard LEGO solutions for piston engines but the models may still be complicated, to mention only the Veyron’s unique W16 engine. Most of the models, especially the large ones, will have bodies made in 8448’s style – that is built with flexible axles and panels (including the new 2009 generation panels) – but one of my goals is to try fully brick-built bodies too (e. g. with the Ford GT40). Finally all of the models will use wheels from the 8458 or 8448 set, and I favor the first ones as they appear more realistic and less toy-like in my opinion. Both types of wheels have the same size, and hence the basic dimensions of the models are already calculated and listed below.

The list starts with the models that are most likely to be built. The first two cars are already on my future projects list, while the remaining ones are sorted accordingly to the poll’s results. It means that I’m very likely to build Veyron, but not really sure about the Zonda. I want to experiment with the technical innards of every model, and to focus on different aspects of each of them (e.g. some cars can be built for multiple realistic functions and the others for high performance). Therefore some of these projects may fail and be dropped, but I believe it to be a proper approach, an approach that won’t let me build the same car with just slightly changed body again and again.

Ford GT40: RWD, V8 engine, length 62 studs, width 28 studs, wheelbase 35 studs. A legendary car created solely to beat Ferraris – and the one that did it. It’s relatively small and very low, which makes it an excellent candidate for a speed records-breaking model.

Koenigsegg CCR: RWD, V8 engine, length 60 studs, width 30 studs, wheelbase 40 studs. I’ve built a Swedish tank, so why not a Swedish supercar? Its small size makes it good for a brick-built model, while its large wheelbase provides space for a sophisticated drivetrain.

Bugatti Veyron 16.4: AWD, W16 engine, length 61 studs, width 27 studs, wheelbase 38 studs. An unquestionable winner of the poll and the current legend of speed. A small model whose bodywork will certainly be a challenge. You can see a remarkable example of an 8448-styled Veyron here.

Dodge Viper SRT10: RWD, V10 engine, length 68 studs, width 29 studs, wheelbase 39 studs. The very essence of an American supercar. Perfect candidate to use the 8448’s wheels and the one model that will be probably most similar to the original 8448. An interesting yet not motorized version has already been shown here.

McLaren F1 GTR: RWD, V12 engine, length 73 studs, width 31 studs, wheelbase 40 studs. Racing version of another legend of the motorization. Large, low model with an impressive wheelbase.

Ferrari Enzo FXX: RWD, V12 engine, length 67 studs, width 28 studs, wheelbase 37 studs. The best of the best. The most powerful Ferrari ever built, in a version so extreme that it’s illegal to be driven on the streets. Also the one with quite a challenging bodywork.

Chevrolet Corvette C6: RWD, V8 engine, length 63 studs, width 32 studs, wheelbase 39 studs. Another American legend, with a potential to be a lighter version of the Veyron’s model, thanks to favorable dimensions and simpler bodywork.

Pagani Zonda F: RWD, V12 engine, length 61 studs, width 30 studs, wheelbase 38 studs. One of the rarest and most extreme supercars on Earth. Interesting bodywork and a promising wheelbase. A beautiful, yet not motorized model of this car has been already built by Eric Leppen. If any of the aforementioned projects fails, Zonda will most likely take its place.

Hope it makes 2010 worth waiting for!

No related posts.

It’s been nearly a year since I started this blog already. During this time it has become much more popular than I anticipated. In fact, it has become so popular that I have no other choice but to move it to another server. The bad news is that all comments and polls will be locked starting December 8th until the migration is completed (not later than December 11th). The good news is that after the migration you may experience better performance of the blog as well as of its newsletter module, and – last but not least – that the blog will continue its existence in 2010

Thanks to all you readers, I hope you will enjoy this blog no less in 2010. There sure are many more interesting constructions coming for you to enjoy

No related posts.