Model of a Spanish armoured personnel carrier. Features full independent suspension, 6×6 drive, 2-speed gearbox, remotely opener rear ramp, deployable tracked drone and lights.  

Datasheet:

Completion date: 14/08/2011
Power: electric (Power Functions)
Dimensions: length 56 studs / width 29 studs / height 24 studs
Weight: 2.306 kg
Suspension: full independent
Propulsion: 1 x PF XL geared 6.5:1 (low gear) / 2.3:1 (high gear)
Motors: 1 x PF XL, 3 x PF Medium, 2 x micromotor

BMR-2 is a modern Spanish armoured personnel carrier. It’s a fairly typical vehicle for its class and I have chosen it mainly for its short chassis with first and last axles steered. I was hoping it would work well in an outdoor Truck Trial race. Unfortunately, it turned out that this kind of a steering system won’t work for a vehicle of that size, weight and with these tires without differentials. I haven’t been able to build it on time and therefore I abandoned plans to try it in a race.

The model had a full independent suspension that used 8297′s set components. Axles #1 and #3 were steered through a common steering shaft, by a Medium motor geared down 9:1, with a safety clutch. All wheels were driven by a single PF XL motor through a remotely controlled 2-speed linear gearbox.

The chassis was entirely studless, with majority of internal components located above the middle axle. The body consisted mainly of plates supported by a frame of Technic bricks. This solution resulted  in an unusually low weight – something I was expecting and which prompted me to try using only one shock absorber per wheel. The suspension created this was was very soft, and even though it worked, the model displayed apparent tendency to ‘sit down’ on the third axle.

Close to the end of the building process I have realized that I can save up some internal space at the back of the model. It led me to realize an idea that followed me for a while (or was it planted?) – a small tracked drone deployed from inside. In a way, this was a MOC within a MOC, and thus: a MOCception The drone was extremely simple, built around two micromotors with chains instead tracks. The micromotors were powered and controlled by two long wires connected to a separate IR receiver inside the transporter.  The drone could be deployed once the rear ramp was opened and it could operate outside its carrier. It worked well, but due to its extremely low weight it was somewhat struggling against the wires. I have also integrated something like a simple passenger compartment into the upper hull’s surface, and it turned out to be perfectly fit for a single dwarf hamster.

Photos:

Video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Share/Bookmark

Model of an Italian WW2 military truck designed for Truck Trial races. Features 6×6 drive and full pendular suspension.

Datasheet:

Completion date: 06/08/2010
Power: electric (Power Functions)
Dimensions: length 53 studs / width 25 studs / height 33 studs
Weight: 2.166 kg
Suspension: pendular, stabilized with shock absorbers
Propulsion: 1 x PF XL motor geared down 8.337:1 (low gear) / 5:1 (high gear)
Top speed: uknown
Motors: 1 x PF XL, 2 x PF Medium

My first Truck Trial vehicle equipped with a gearbox. It caught my attention when I was looking for something more complicated after building several simple 4×4 vehicles. There were two main reasons that made me model this particular truck: its excellent approach and descent angles, and its pair of spare wheels. It was a rare solution, present in a number of WW2-era vehicles, to have a pair of spare wheels mounted on the sides of the chassis, relatively low, and with ability to rotate freely. It was helpful while climbing over obstacles, as these wheels had a good chance of preventing the chassis from getting stuck on the obstacle. For some reason, this solution apparently did not survive to this day.

Technically, the Fiat was supposed to continue and develop the solutions from my two previous Truck Trial vehicles – Hummer H1 and Jeep Wrangler Rubicon. It was built around a brand new studless chassis, unlike the two mentioned vehicles which had studfull chassis. It was also equipped with a simple linear 2-speed gearbox that was controlled remotely with an extra PF Medium motor, and it had unusual rear axle with 4 wheels. While the original vehicle has three regular axles, I decided to combine the two rear axles into a single pendular module that would have 4 wheels suspended on it. It has two advantages: firstly, while the module itself has a transverse pendular suspension, the wheels had a longitudinal one, so their flotation was better that it would be in case of two separate pendular axles. Secondly, a combined module needed much less space inside the chassis, thanks to which I was able to put the model’s battery behind it and the gearbox in front of it. Finally, the Fiat’s chassis used pendular axles mounted on the large Technic turntables, with both drive and steering transferred through the middle of these (drive transferred through a solid driveshaft and steering transferred by an empty differential sitting on it), which eliminated the problem of shock absorbers pressing on the driveshaft and thus creating a significant friction on it. Using the turntables resulted in slightly worse ground clearance, but has greatly improved the structural robustness.

The gearbox was made of a module attached to the PF XL motor, that was supposed to slide inside the chassis back and forth by a single stud, thus shifting the gear. By attaching the drive motor to it, I was able to eliminate a complex transmission system between the fixed motor and the sliding gearbox (this idea was first presented by  Emilus). The gearbox has a very sturdy structure and performed well during the initial test. Only double bevel gear wheels were used inside it, to minimize the problems with engaging/disengaging.

The model was equipped with a single body, which was completed just hours before the race. Despite appearing tall, the body has relatively low centre of gravity thanks to an openwork structure above the cabin and the cargo box. I didn’t have time to care about details such as doors, but at least I made the windshield able to be folded down, just like in the real truck. The cabin had a very basic interior and a simple inline piston engine driven from the driveshaft.

The truck’s performance in the race was arguable. On one hand it has shown good agility, surprising stability and I was able to drive it with great precision. On the other, it was pestered by constant problems with the gearbox, because the gears inside it started to slide along the axle under stress. I was able to temporarily fix it with tweezers until at some point the axle popped out of the drive motor and there was no way to put it back in without taking major portion of the body apart. It has forced me to give up and withdraw from the race.

At first I felt like fixing the gearbox would solve the model’s only problem, resulting in an excellent Truck Trial vehicle. Thus I was obviously planning to use it in the next race. Unfortunately, as I started to rework the gearbox, more problems occurred. The redesigned gearbox needed serious modifications of the chassis. Once the chassis was completed, the rear axle and the drivetrain started to fail. I have made several attempts at solving these problems, until I noticed that the knob wheels in the rear axle’s drivetrain are being worn down very quickly, most likely because of the resistance generated by four wheels. At this point I decided to give up on the truck, on assumption that combining two rear axles with large tires into a single module with drive transferred to by just a pair of knob wheels was a bad idea. The combined resistance of four wheels was simply too much for the knob wheels to handle.

The model became quite popular with the other Truck Trial contestants because of its unusual look and wheels set-up. It became known as “the revenge of Mussolini”, and my decision to give up on raised many protests.

Photos:

Video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Share/Bookmark

My first Truck Trial vehicle for 2010. Features 6×6 drive and full independent suspension.

Datasheet:

Completion date: 10/04/2010
Power: electric (Power Functions)
Dimensions: length 66 studs / width 25 studs / height 31 studs
Weight: 2.624 kg
Suspension: full independent with swinging half-axles
Motors: 1 x PF Medium, 2 x PF XL

My first 2010 Truck Trial vehicle had a rather difficult creating process. Even though I started to build it more than a month before the race, the final version was created under two weeks time. It was mainly because of the chassis, which wasn’t stiff enough to handle the torque of two PF XL motors, and got completely rebuilt three times.

The goal of the Tatra was to have a realistic suspension with swinging half-axles which are typical for all Tatra trucks. It was achieved by removing differentials and transferring the drive with the knob wheels. The modern Tatras have their half-axles offset a bit – this was not modelled in order to keep the steering system simple and sturdy.

The steering system was located entirely between axles 1 and 2 and consisted of two complex sliding beams with links. The beams were sliding in different directions for axle 1 and 2 and were controlled by a driveshaft whose direction of rotation was inverted in between these axles. Because of insufficient internal space both beams were given the same gear ratio, resulting in an identical steering lock of both axles.

The drivetrain was kept as simple as possible, and the main portion of it, including the drive motors, was located between axles 2 and 3. Both drive motors were located between two stringers of the vehicle’s frame, one behind the other, and were not connected directly but by a common driveshaft located beneath them. Since the space between axles 1 and 2 was occupied by the steering system, an extra driveshaft was needed to transfer the drive to axle 1. It was located above the axles, under the cabin, and it transferred the drive to a V12 piston engine located inside the cabin as well. Thus the transmission of the axle 1 was located in front of it and in order to prevent such a vital mechanism from damage, a cover made of liftarms was installed before the axle.

The body of the truck was rather simple, with the cabin built almost exclusively with the new Technic panels to reduce its weight. The cargo case was simple and shallow, and there was a transportation handle built into vehicle’s frame behind the cabin – a solution I’ve used in some of my earlier Truck Trial vehicles, and which proved very useful as every Truck Trial race involves a lot of carrying the vehicles around. The cabin had a safety cage built on it, which was meant to give it extra stiffness and a more Tatra-like look, as the real Tatras participating Truck Trial races are always equipped with distinctive external safety cages.

The Tatra suffered from the same thing that most of my earlier Truck Trial vehicles did – insufficient amount of testing. The problem with this kind of vehicles is that they can be only fully tested once finished, because test are most revealing at full vehicle’s weight. As you can guess this implies that a finished vehicle has to be taken back apart if it fails tests, and to avoid this arduous procedure it is a common practice to test just the chassis alone with extra load on it simulating the anticipated body’s weight. It doesn’t always work as it’s difficult to precisely anticipate the final weight of the body if it wasn’t built yet, and it’s almost impossible to simulate its exact weight distribution. I have to admit that being short on time, I have only given a minimal amount of testing to the final version of the Tatra – this was also because I was afraid of damaging it right before the race.

During the race, the model experienced two problems – the first was a failing transmission to the front axle, which snapped. There were also minor problems with axle 3, which meant that only the middle axle worked at full efficiency, and it didn’t really help while climbing obstacles. The reason was a faulty construction of the chassis – the suspension itself worked fine, all the snapping occurred in the transmission system inside the chassis. The second problem was sideways stability. While building this model, I have given a lot of attention to make sure its weight distribution prevents it from falling forwards or backwards – and I succeeded. The sideways stability, on the other hand, proved much below what could be expected. It seems that the problem was not related with this particular vehicle but with this type of suspension in general, as exemplified by another Tatra model, the T813 built by Lomero and used in the same race. His Tatra had the same suspension type while keeping a considerably lower silhouette which suggested a better stability. Surprisingly, it kept tumbling over a couple of times per each section of the race. It convinced me that it’s practically impossible to model the Tatras’ suspension system in such a way that the resulting model is stable.

Finally, the model’s drivetrain was pretty much obsolete in terms of the rules used in Polish Truck Trial. The rules take power-to-weight ratio of each individual vehicle into account in order to prevent builders from winning by simply adding more drive motors. Each vehicle is given its own points conversion rate based on its power-to-weight ratio, which basically means that you can win with a vehicle that can race despite having a very low power-to-weight ratio (resulting in high points conversion rate) or with a vehicle that has a high power-to-weight ratio but is very fast and can complete the race in short time. Tatra was neither of these cases – it had a relatively high power-to-weight ratio because of two PF XL motors, while not being really fast. The current tendency among the top Truck Trial builders is to use complex gearboxes with 3 or even 4 gears available. Thus even a truck which is much heavier than Tatra can be driven by a single PF XL motor whose gear ratio is changed as needed by the means of the remotely controlled gearbox. This results in a models that are slow but still capable, while having an extremely high points conversion rate. Two good examples of such trucks are Emilus’ GINAFs and Atr’s Volvo – both being large, heavy, and driven by a single motor.

Upon observing the race, I’ve decided to abandon the Tatra project. While the transmission problems could be solved given a sufficient amount of testing, the suspension system would still not provide satisfying stability. With the next race being only two weeks away, I decided that I would focus on building a new, small, lightweight and efficient vehicle rather than fixing Tatra. This is also the reason not to document the Tatra’s technical solutions – I think it’s better to build something more successful and then document it once it’s solutions are proven in a race. Right not I have a complete front suspension of my next Truck Trial vehicle, which looks very promising, and if it succeeds in the race, I intend to publish a complete instruction for it.

Photos:

Videos:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Share/Bookmark

My fourth Trial Truck vehicle. Features 6×6 drive, two axles with different steering lock, full independent suspension and front winch with a quick release lever. The first vehicle powered by the Lego 8878 battery in Polish Truck Trial.

Datasheet:

Completion date: 05/09/2009
Power: electric (Power Functions)
Dimensions:  length 53 studs / width 27 studs / height 24 studs
Weight: 1.875 kg
Suspension:  full independent
Motors: 1x PF Medium, 1x PF XL

My another attempt to create a successful Truck Trial vehicle. Having my previous experiences with Unimog U900 and Star 266 in mind, I focused on a vehicle that would be small, light, low and simple. I have chosen to model the Alvis Stalwart truck because it was one of the shortest off-road vehicles with three axles. I liked the idea of having six wheels so close to each other, because if offered good traction and good weight distribution.

The chassis was complex but compact, built almost exclusively with liftarms. It consisted of two steered axles both of which were copies of the module I have used in the front axle of my earlier Hellbender model. The third axle was not steered. The intervals between all three axles were identical, which meant that the second axle was supposed to have 50% of the first axle’s steering lock.

The problem was that two aforementioned modules  were located in ‘mirrored’ positions in order to simplify the drivetrain. Therefore the steering driveshaft had to have its direction of rotation reverted between the modules. It was achieved with a simple setup of small bevel gears, but it also created a significant backlash. Initially there was 16-teeth gear in the first axle’s rack & pinion mechanism, and an 8-teeth gear in the second axle’s one. In theory it provided the desired difference in steering locks of two axles, but in practice that difference was heavily degraded by the backlash. I have solved it eventually replacing the 16-teeth gear in the front axle with a 12-teeth one. Coupled with the backlash, it created just about the perfect steering lock difference.

The drivetrain was somewhat complex, with two separate driveshafts for the third axle and for the two first ones. The model was driven by a single PF XL motor located just above the third axle, and the 8878 battery was located at the very rear end of the chassis – together with the PF XL motor it counterbalanced the weight of the cabin.  I expected the front winch to be a very important part of the vehicle – it was driven by the drive motor through a driving ring with a quick release lever. When the lever was engaged, the winch was driven accordingly to the direction of vehicle’s movement. When the lever was disengaged, the winch was disconnected from the motor and the string could be quickly extended by hand. There was a number of pulleys used inside the chassis to reduce the friction of the string, and the entire winch was enclosed within model’s frame. The winch proved so powerful and robust that when forced to stop, the string split before there was any mechanical damage.

The model was a bit heavier than expected, but it had a very good weight distribution and the suspension worked flawlessly with its weight. It was also quite manoeuvrable and very, very stable. I expected the low ground clearance to be a problem, but it was helped by the bottom of vehicle which was covered by a protective layer of smooth liftarms, so that the model could slide over obstacles to some extent. The main problem of the vehicle was failing drivetrain plus non-lockable differentials. A lot of slip situations occured, and the drivetrain would snap when a really high torque was needed. It could have been helped by the use of the winch, but it worked way below the vehicle’s travelling speed, which proved fatal – the winch was simply to slow to take the load off the wheels. It would work much better if the release mechanism disengaged wheels from the drivetrain as the winch was engaged.

The model has lost its first and only race, but in some aspects it performed much better than any of my previous trucks – it remained stable at all times, it did not suffer any damage despite the use of many delicate parts such as CV joints or universal joints, and it did not formally malfunction – it simply suffered from the drivetrain being unable to handle high torque. It was also acclaimed by other Truck Trial builders for capturing the original vehicle’s look, which kind of surprised me. Moreover, the experimental use of the 8878 battery turned out to be a success – the model’s performance was not degraded, while its weight with a traditional battery box would exceed 2 kilograms.

Photos:

Video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Media reference:

Mao de ABS (Spanish only)

Share/Bookmark

Fictional 6×6 IFV. Features all wheel drive, full independent suspension, illuminated piston engine, deployable side cannons, and tank-like turret with ability to shoot projectiles.

Datasheet:

Completion date: 31/05/2009
Power: electric (Power Functions)
Dimensions:  length 61 studs / width 28 studs / height 30 studs
Weight: 2.78 kg
Suspension:  full independent
Motors: 2 x PF XL, 4 x PF Medium, 1 x 71427

The initial inspiration for this vehicle was GoW’s Laverne APC. I did not regard its construction as realistic, so I’ve made many changes, including different axles setup.

There was a number of experimental features built into this construction. Among others, I wanted to see how a full independent suspension performs in a 6×6 vehicle with considerable weight. It turned out that only one steered axle in such a vehicle is a bad solution, because the wheels on the rear axles bend while turning. The axles #2 and #3 use 3 studs wide differential bracings I have developed some time ago, and they worked flawlessly. Axle #1 on the other hand is exactly the same module that has been used in my Hellbender model.

Another important feature is the turret. It’s ugly and large (which makes it look like the turrets of self-propelled howitzers) but it houses a firing mechanism developed by Duku and used previously in my Tripod Gun. The mechanism was initially supposed to shoot projectiles through the barrel, but the prototypical barrel made of 1×3 liftarms had so large internal friction that the projectiles couldn’t even exit it. Hence the barrel is non-functional, and the projectiles are being fired from above it. The entire mechanism along with the barrel can be elevated by a linear actuator, but since there is little place under the turret, the elevation is only by few degrees. It shows that if I want to use such a turret in a model of a tank, it needs to be partially ‘submerged’ into the hull to reduce its height.

There are two additional small turrets on the front part of the hull, which rotate accordingly to the front wheels’ angle. However, the synchronization with the steering mechanism is poor.

Finally, there are two deployable side cannons. The initial idea was to use links and a complex setup of several independently moved parts to make the cannons emerge from inside the hull. As the hull’s construction progressed, the available space was becoming more and more limited, so the cannons have eventually ended up in simple casings deployed like a drawbridge. This is a very simple solution, and both casings are moved by a single string and internal winch. In order to solve the problem of string’s backlash, the string was not fixed to the winch drum – instead, it goes through it. Thus the backlash is distributed evenly on both sides of the winch and reduced whenever the string is pulled up.

Personally, I regard this construction a complete aesthetical failure. Still, it featured a couple of new solutions, it was my first vehicle able to shoot and the first wheeled vehicle that used the Power Functions speed control feature.

Photos:

Video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Share/Bookmark

My second trial truck. Features a truss frame, 6×6 drive, full pendular suspension, front winch and R6 piston engine.

Datasheet:

Completion date: first half of 2008
Power: electric (Power Functions)
Dimensions: length 64 studs / width 24 studs / height 34 studs
Weight: 2.44 kg
Suspension: full pendular, front module with shock absorbers
Motors: 1 x PF XL, 2 x PF Medium

My second complete Truck Trial vehicle, model of a Polish military off-road truck. It has been built over a span of several months, with some test-driving inbetween, but eventually the tests turned out to be insufficient, as the truck’s drivetrain severely malfunctioned at its first and only Truck Trial race. The model was high and not stable enough, which resulted in two accidents of falling off a steep slope. The second accident left the truck completely destroyed, as it tumbled down a long slope.

Despite the failing drivetrain, the model had a number of interesting features. It looked much better than my previous one, thanks to a full-brick cabin and more attention to the details. The whole structure was kept together by an experimental frame made of two liftarmic truss stringers. I considered it stronger and lighter than a traditional solution involving several layers of bricks. It seems to be true, as the frame survived even the fatal crash that destroyed the truck, and protected all electric elements enclosed in it from any damage.

Another noteable feature was the front winch, driven by a PF Medium motor. While typical winches in TrTr models need disconnecting the drive motor from the drivetrain (often the same motor drives the vehicle or the winch via a distribution gearbox), Star’s winch was designed to work together with it. In order to achieve that, the winch’s gear ratio has been carefully calculated so that it would pull the vehicle at the exact speed of its normal drive. It turned out to work as planned, and pulled the truck up a sandy slope, when its tires’ grip was insufficient to climb on its own. This solution, however, could be problematic should the drivetrain be unable to work, because the winch was too weak to pull the stopped vehicle.

I intended to re-build the model after its fatal crash, but I became absorbed in other project, and eventually gave that one up.

Photos:

Videos:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Share/Bookmark