Sunday, January 10, 2010

A better image from the new 8043 Excavator

A French AFOL have just shown at SeTechnic forum, a new image from the new 8043 (Excavator) with much better definition.
It was taken from the 2010 Trade Catalog inner pages, in opposition to the former image taken from the end summary.

This is indeed a much clearer image, which allows to eliminate some doubts. But not that much...

  • The IR remotes are indeed the same as those already used before.
  • In my analysis the existence of three LBG Axle 3 sticks and one extra stick in red, is a good hint to support the 1+2x3 operation theory.
    To me the red stick looks perfect to command one motor that simultaneously switches a set of Driving Rings and thus changing between two sets of 3 functions at once (boom, dipper and bucket, or drivetrain and superstructure rotation).
    Also it seems to be written somewhere "remote controlled driving sharing and turning". Don't know exactly what does it means but it seems to support the same theory.
  • From the gears seen in the drivetrain, it is clear the tracks are motorized but still not clear if the remote makes the drive train to skid, for those still septic about this function.
  • Drivetrain uses some studed Technic parts which are always welcome these days. Also the sprocket large wheels seem now to be released in a new color (DBG or Black, despite I'm most in favor of the first option).
  • The superstructure and arm fairing uses a lot from the new panels in yellow, which is also a good source for the panels never released before in this color. These produce also some nice looking curves to this model main body.
  • At the rear-up, left side of the superstructure, we can easily distinguish the top from two PF IR-Receives as suggested before.

It is for the arm details, that things are not yet so clear...
  • We can't easily distinguish any axle routing to the Linear Actuator responsible for the bucket movement, which makes some still suggesting a combined dipper/bucket control.
    Personally I don't believe it to be the case, as it would be too much disappointing for such a flagship model.
  • The guy who provided the pictures, also tried to reproduce the Excavator arm from the new image, and came with one interesting question. See his reproduction from the pictures below.

    Either this is an incomplete and not a functional model, still to be changed, and the double Linear Actuators in the boom with a parallel synchronous setup simply can't work, or his interpretation from the image is not enough accurate which is to me the likely case.
    You may recall some possibilities for such parallel synchronous setup, from section 5.3 at the former Linear Actuators review (Part II) here at TBs , made from the Technic parts available at the time.
    One possible solution to the mystery, could be the usage of  new 20t bevel gears with clutch (87407)!?

One way or another, we're getting closer to solve the 8043 mysteries.

Thanks Anio, for letting me know about the news!


Fistach said...

He reproduced mechanism for two lower very well. The difference is that it uses new gears with round hole not axle hole.

Tristan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zimvaider said...

looks like a great set, I am looking forward to getting my hands on the box! I was just about to buy $80 worth of power functions, but I just realized I would be getting this set when it comes out... :)

Anonymous said...

But the gears are on worng places, the LA's contra each other. It could be just a building error? Or the left 20th gear is the new one without axle hole. See teh small 12 tooth gear behind the 20 tooth in right side? Guess i was right about functions :) Its a 3 way multiplexer with one motor used to switch between all 6 functions.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, it must be the new 20t simple bevel with clutch. Otherwise, the LA's just can't work !
Between the 2 LA's we can see many gears. So, the LA's may not be moved with to the axis which maintains them.

With the red lever, I also think there is a gearbox. But IMO, it is not 1+2x3.

I think :
-1 M to switch two functions (the gearbox)

-2 M to motorize the tracks
-2 M to move the arm, like 8294. Indeed, there is no axis that comes to the 4th LA, and this 4th LA really seems to be linked to the 3rd LA with thin liftarms.

-1 M to rotate the structure, all the time. Actually, it is unthinkable to can't move the structure when we are moving the arm

So, my theory is : 1+2x2+1.


Paul said...

Looks brilliant!! Can we get better photos of the new Offroad Mobile Crane now?

The Level said...

I like the 1+2x2+1 idea for the reason alway being able to rotate. But why wasting 2 LAs in this case?

The Level

Junkstyle Gio said...

With these detailed pictures i do know fore sure: It's going to be an expensive august.
To me it looks like it's going to be all remotely steered. How, i don't know as i'm a builder not a designer.
Any other better resolutions pics available of the other 2h2010 models?

Conchas said...


that would be true if using standard 20t single bevel gears running over a common shaft.
And it would be a very basic error for a LEGO Designer, unless they would want to induce us in error from this early images in case they would leak.

Otherwise if new clutch 20t gears have been used, it just depends on the gear setup behind the LAs, which we can't actually see!


Think! ;) How would you link to LAs with liftarms and actuate them, when their mechanism is based on rotation.

To me is obvious there should be an shaft routed to the 4th LA, we still can't within this image quality and perspective.

Anonymous said...

@ Conchas : I know that. But actually, a tought that the 3rd LA would not be actuated (arm like 8294) !
In fact, it were used just like a liftarm. But they put a LA for the arm to look realistic (that's a strange idea, I know! ^^).

I can't see where a third axis can go trough the arm. That's why I've assumed there are only 2 axis.

Moreover, I thought that this theory matches well with the 1+2x2+1.



Conchas said...

But you just need two shafts through the arm to make all this thing run. Not three.

So I think there is space, in such large arm.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, 2, plus the 2 first LA's. :)


Conchas said...

But the the first two, don't need shaft routing through the arm.
And that's a big difference. :)

Anonymous said...


If the 4th LA was actuated by a shaft running through the arm, it would have to use a couple of U-joints connected directly to the LA bracket (there is no room for bevel gears here, due to the half beams inside the LA bracket). The angle is far too tight for U-joints to work anyway, so the 4th LA must be treated as a lever/beam, just like Anio suggested.

Furthermore, the 3x7 bent beam between the 1st and 2nd arm sections appears to be connected to the first section using a 'frictionless' pin and connected to the end of the LA bracket through a 5L beam.

This suggests that as the 3rd LA extends/retracts, the 3x7 beams push the 4th LA forwards/backwards, moving the bucket. This would be just like on 8294, where the bucket movements are not independent. :(

Anonymous said...

It looks more like a pair of 4L half beams connecting the 3x7 beam to the LA bracket (I said 5L before).

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you are probably right.

On the back of the arm, each axis may go trough the beam 5x7. So, the axis are next to each other. Thus, after that, they must be viewed in the center to go in the LA's. That may be very hard to do (unless there are several U-joints).

On the contrary, if the both axis are one above the other (no need to view them in the center), the main hinge can't work anymore (because of the 3 immobile points, one for each function).

PS : sorry for my gibberish ; my explanations are not so clear. :s


Anonymous said...

I just have read Daniel's message.
Maybe I was right ! ^^

Hard to say...


Conchas said...

Obviously this image is still not with the quality/detail level that would allow to clarify all these questions with certainty.
Thus we can mostly speculate.

Despite the still low quality, I'd risk to say I seem to see an U-joint attached to the 4th LA. The last generation of 3L U-joints support tighter angles, hence I still think it to be possible and it would make the model a lot more interesting.
In the end all the arm perspective looks a bit distorted, likely to enhance the arm over the remaining model, which would make things more difficult to see in a clear way.

However we must realize this is still not a definitive image. It may have incomplete details or things still changing or fine tunned in the workbench.

Anonymous said...

It certainly doesn't look like a final image; in fact, the end of the excavator's arm looks like it was designed in under 5 minuets - more like an experimental mindstorms project than an official Technic flagship.

Still, the 3x7 beam attached to the LA using a 'frictionless' axle pin suggests that this beam is going to move somehow, as the 3rd LA extends/retracts.

I hope that all 4 LAs are actuated using axles, instead of treating one as a beam.

Ryan said...

I think there are two DBG LA brackets on both sides of the beginning of the ar. One is clearly visible at the basis. One goes all the way to the LA moving the bucket. The other one goes to the middle LA.

One thing I don't get:
2 motors are for the treads
1 for the arm
1 for switching between functions

these should be 4 functions: 3 for the arm, 1 for turning

how can one single driving ring switch between 4 functions?

Also the LA's look longer and thinner, especially the one for the bucket. Its shaft is not fully round but flattened

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one who don't like the bucket???

RjbsNXT said...

My question: Can anybody spot any motors in the chassis or is there a chance that the chassis is driven from the superstructure?

Anonymous said...

I've looked much more closely at the arm, and it appears that the 2nd section pivots on the end of the 3x7 beams. This means that there could be one U-joint directly attached to the LA bracket, then a 3L axle, then another U-joint at the end of the two 5L axles, bending exactly where the 2nd arm section pivots.

This is a very clever way of splitting the angle between two U-joints!

RjbsNXT said...

You could always make the next TECH Challenge to reverse engineer this model ;P

Conchas said...


We are almost trying to do it... :P

Conchas said...

BTW, if there are 4 motors reused for the 6 possible functions as it seems to be, I believe the model tracks are driven from the superstructure.

Then it would be another model with great complex functions! :)

Anonymous said...

The treads would have to be driven from the superstructure, otherwise we either get limited rotation (not cool) or they have devised a way to make a 360-degree rotating electrical connection as the IR receiver is in the superstructure (unlikely, but would be beyond cool).

But hot damn this thing is HUGE, the trackbase is something like 25x25 studs, and those 15L beams in the arm look so tiny, the arm must be like 50L+ long, even without the shovel.

In any case, this must be a mid-phase mock-up, there's no way those dual LA's can lower the shovel to ground level.

Conchas said...

"...there's no way those dual LA's can lower the shovel to ground level."

Well observed!

Al said...

If the forth LA is powered then this picture must be incorrect. I can clearly see where you would have the two u-joints and they just are NOT there.

Using highly sophisicated photo analysing software (ms paint 8^D) I can see the LAs are not any longer as some have wondered. Would actually kind of annoy me if they were after I rant about pneumatics needing to be twice as long as they are now LOL!

Sardo said...

Hi, if u look closely behind the 2 front la,s theres an axle leaving 1 bracket and on the right side u can just see the 20 tooth bevel gear used to drive trough the other bracket on the right side, so there are likely going two be 2 axles going into the mast,boom:)

arezey said...

Whee! that thing must contain like double the gears in 8258. Now I'm feeling like I should ditch getting several other sets and get this one no matter what - but I won't decide anything until I see the building instructions. Would be great if we got to see them now. :D

But already the vast amount of panels, seemingly insane amount of gears, four actuators and electronics electronics are quite a big reason to get this one - I'm one who buys sets mainly for parts but maybe this one would remain in one piece more than a week or so.

I'm around certain the twin linear actuators use 87407. Maybe LEGO produced one in tan.. ?

*swipes drool*

Anonymous said... a real excavator would the two vertical LA'S atain a lower horizontal level.i.e a longer& lower reach for the boom?? this possible with this new release,or is there a compromise for the sake of power through the 2 MAIN la's..apologies if i'm unclear,,thanx.A J.

Designer-Han said...

Most logical is that the 2nd arm section and the bucket is driven independently (both M-motor). Gearing will be done by using two times a (at both sides of the arm's rotating point) mounted 'Technic, Axle and Pin Connector Block 4 x 3 x 2 1/2' (partnr 61904) together with a Gear 20 Tooth Bevel with Clutch (set 8047).

Anonymous said...

You cannot tell how close the bucket is to ground level from this image!

This image makes the excavators arm look much shorter than it actually is. With a longer arm, the LAs don't need to retract as much to make the bucket touch the ground; you cannot tell how long the arm is from this image (it is very distorted), so you can't say how much the LAs need to retract in order for the bucket to touch ground level.

I am sure the bucket will be able to touch ground level - I have built the arm from what I can see here and the shape/proportions look very different.

Anonymous said...

I also found where two U-joints could go to power the 4th LA (using my reproduction of the arm), but I can't see anything on this 8043 image. I think the U-joints are missing from the image, as there are no signs of U-joints, axles or even pieces supporting axles/U-joints.

The reproduction shown above is very accurate, but the bucket is in completely the wrong position (I mean the 3x5 beam replacing the bucket - when a bucket is placed here it is at the wrong angle). The position of the 3rd LA (the LA moving the second section) doesn't seem completely right either.

Ian said...

If the treads are both driven from up in the superstructure, the only way to do this would be in a similar way to the 8258 truck, right through the middle of the turntable. This would be bad. Not only due to strength, but one of the treads would react instantly, while the other would be delayed until the driving ring teeth aligned with each other (hope everyone understands what I'm saying!?!?)

Conchas said...


in fact the arm from many excavators, should well below the ground level.


that could be indeed an issue.
But LEGO is still a toy. :)

linear actuators said...

Looks great! thanks..

Darkdesigned said...

All this talk about the actual inner workings on this huge model has made me start thinking :)
How does it work ? Will it be fully operated ? I believe the answer is yes.

Try to follow me here. Im not that good in english but i'll give it a go.

This model has 4 motors, and 2 ir sensors.
Witch makes it possible to operate 6 different movements. How?

Take a look at the ir remote. 1 pin is in red. I believe that one is to operate the inner gear. Much like the crane on the 8258.

So with the Red pin pushed upwards you can:
1 motor: Tip the bucket both ways
1 motor: Tip the middle arm both ways
1 motor: Raise and lower the entire arm.

Then you push the red pin downwards and you then change the gear on all 3 motors on the same time.

Now you can:
1 motor: turn the structure 360.
2 motors: operate the tracks.

Now you have a fully remote lego excavator.

Does this make any sense? :)

Conchas said...

Yes, it does!

It is one of the options discussed in the comments above and also into a previous post about this same model.

Darkdesigned said...

Ah, sorry. Didnt see that mentioned...

Still there is another option when it comes to operating the tracks with only 1 engine.

You can fit 1 engine at the base and have it operate both tracks, back and forth. Then with a single stud up to the top structure with a gear "same prinsipal again as the 8285" you could make this gearing switch the rotation of one the tracks making the whole thing rotate. With this design you will only need 1 stud to go through the entire structure. But i guess it will make the excavator slow using only 1 medium motor to operate both tracks, and you loose the "both track control" option though...

This is probably easier to make, but i hope its not the case with this model...

Paul said...

I like DarkDesigned first idea, very good!!

One question though: Will the superstructure be able to turn 360 degrees? Unless there are two batteryboxes, the powercables would stop it from turn around and around?

Paul said...

Also, I think there may be a motor in the arm to help with the bucket.. It looks like you can see one, along with wiring, but maybe I am imaging things!!

Paul said...

Also... again!

At the bottom of the leaked image there is a shot of what looks like a Blue model with what looks like a tow hook and string. What could that be? A so far unleaked model?

Junkstyle Gio said...

@ paul:
That blue thing is the 8052 container Truck!

Anonymous said...

Between the 2 yellow 15L liftarms of the arm, there is a big space (3 studs wide).
Maybe Lego designers put a M motor there, for the bucket. That would make the rest of the arm much easier !


Conchas said...

But that would prevent that the same motor could be switched between two functions.

And must not forget, that apparently we have 4 motors for 6 functions.

Anonymous said...

Hum.. yeah, I forgot that ! :s


arezey said...

Who says the remote control's channel selector cannot be used..?

AVCampos said...

Seeing one remote lever in a different colour than the other three, my suspicion about one motor connected to three driving rings grows stronger and stronger!

Right now I don't have enough time to properly analyse the images, so so this is a quite long shot... but, to transmit movement to the bucket LA, what if LEGO resurrected the Technic Axle Flexible 26 with Axle 4 and Axle 2 on Ends, used on Znap sets? That would be a welcome return of a useful and underrated part.

Anonymous said...

Or they used multiple u juints like in the red excavator.

RjbsNXT said...

I'm willing to go with Darkdesigned's idea about the motors.
Looking in the arm there is a huge amount of space sitting under the 3rd LA controlling the jib which suggests that an M motor will be placed in there before the finalized images are produced.

Something else nobody has pointed out is that there is a whitish piece of some sort beside the 8t gear on the turntable (seemingly another 8t gear, but why a different colour?)

I'm probably wrong about this, but I seem to see a 3L wide differential in the chassis - a insymmetrical solution to driving the chassis with 1 gear? (When the motor spins one direction, both tracks move forward, but when it revolve the other way, only 1 track moves back through means of a ratchet?) This would explain the unusual alignment of gears visible - the two 16t gears meeting in the middle.

Behind the LA's controlling the main boom, there are definitely 2 LA brackets with black axles protruding from them - unrouted axles?

Lastly, what is with the lights on the top of the IR receivers?

eMHa said...

A lot of things come to my mind for this excavator. But before analysing the image some thoughts about LEGO and their constructions:
* LEGO tries to make the maximum functions out of a minimum of pieces.
* As a general rule LEGO tries to use available pieces.

So this means for me we have 4 motors and 6 obvious functions. The solution with 1+2x3 is self-evident. In the older image there were speculations about a new remote, but as long as the existing ones can do it I think LEGO wouldn't make a new one.

With this I would assume all the PF in the superstructure and looking at the picture i would say: 4x PF M-Motors in parallel, on top right the battery box and left the receivers (as seen on the image). In the middle of the superstructure i suspect all the gearings, one motor controlling three driving rings. This could easily be made out of one worm screw ( and one one 24 tooth clutch ( An axle through the 24 tooth clutch on which are three transmission changeover catches ( This would be very compact!

The red lever on the second remote must be the switch to change functions. While it would be possible to use only one remote it would be very unconvenient to change the channel and the switch function, so I assume LEGO decided to use two remotes for this. In pf part summery I think you are almost equal to 8275, 4 M-motors plus two remotes against 2 XL-motors plus 2 M-motors plus one remote.

Speaking of the gearing it's most likely that two movements are send through the turntable, like in 8258 (so this isn't something new). Because the M motors have higher rpm (than e.g. the XL motors) it is likely that the gearing down would be in the drivetrain. So any idling in the gearing between superstructure and drivetrain wouldn't be that much. See also the image with gearing down in the drivetrain from 12 tooth bevel to 20 tooth bevel. The unsymetric build of the drivetrain is IMO the result of the two movements through the turntable.

So now goint to the beam. Using the 20 tooth bevel with clutch for the two LAs is clever, because the weight of the beam would slow down the axle which otherwise must rotate the gears. I suspect al lot of gearing behind of that because I assume the three movements for the LAs would come out on top of the superstructur after the gearbox, so the other three can come out in the bottom after the gearbox and have space (well perhaps not THAT much) to make the two movements through the turntable and one must go to rotate the superstructure.

The two movements fot the LA for the bucket and the middle go in in parallel but could be changed with universal joints to be on each other. I don't think (and see) that much gearing in the beam so I suspect, like in 8294, a lot of universal joints in the beam. But i also don't see an axle for the LA for the bucket. But this could also be that the picture is from a (uncompleted) prototype or some strange lighting avoids that we can see this!?

For me the result is not much mistery. But sure, I want this set when it comes out :-D

PS: Since the first post about this excavator I wanted to post my ideas how it is build, but my english isn't that good. So i hope you understand what i mean. I also started to build the section with the motors, but i only have two M motors and not that much pieces, so this looks very empty if i say imagine the other two motors there and there ;-)

Anonymous said...

About the two LAs moving the boom, as the reconstruction shows there is a piece in the center which prevents the axis from rotating, which can also be seen in the image when zooming in, so it has to be using the freely rotating gears.

Anonymous said...

I think the theory 1+2x3 is correct, because i don't think that LEGO creates another SET like #8294, where the showel can't be moved autonomously. I this cause, they wouldn't use a LA for the showel. And when you look at the other picture with bad resolution, you can see all functions on the right side of the box, and there is described with an arrow, that the showel can be moved.

Sorry for my bad English :)

Anonymous said...

No, that is not a good reason : on the box of the 8294 we also have 3 arrows whereas there is only two functions (eg :

Besides, IMO, it is an heresy if we have to change the channel each time we want to rotate. O_o
Such mechanisms would mean that we have to change 4 times the channel to make a whole maneuver... :-S


Anonymous said...

Well, there would not be so much fun in the model if it was perfect imo. We gotta have something to upgrade and add right? Looks like a great model. I´m buying one for sure! With a few extra motors and receivers added this thing will be the greatest.

BB155 said...

I am not convinced the bucket....

Darkdesigned said...

If my previously posted theory is correct, then you will be able to turn the superstructure 360 because all the motors are placed in the superstructure and not in the base.
And regarding the battery pack.
Looking at the picture you can clearly see a grey curved plate located all the way back to the right on the superstructure This to me looks just like the batterypack.
Its located right next to the IR sensors.

Conchas said...

Right, I also agree it looks to be the PF Battery Box.

Anonymous said...

are avery bady blind!!!!!
cant you see the therd IR Receiver???
a Tip: it is upp side douwn.....

Conchas said...

I see! :-/

But it can be also something else.
With two IR remotes in the image, it is hard to believe they've added a third receiver (meaning also 6 motors) and that you need to be switching channel at one of them.
At the minimum it would be weird...

Anonymous said...

it is up side douwn under 2 IR Reciver!!!!
Tray to si it

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but more like wires to me... The curve is too big.

Conchas said...

Yes I saw what you mean, but still think it might be something else.

Doesn't make much sense. But we never know...

Anonymous said...

It can not be an IR receiver : if it is up side down it will not work well. The IR receivers have to be on the top of the model. :o

As Jernej said, it may be a wire.


Anonymous said...

Perhaps it can be "The new IR Reciver"

Darkdesigned said...

I agree. Thats not an IR Reciever.
It does not make any sense having a third reciever.
Its really hard to tell from the picture but it could just be a part of the exterior panels on the back of the model.

It would be interesting though to see some ideas on how you would make this model work with 3 IR sensors, 4 motors and 2 controllers. I for shure dont..
In fact.. It will make the model even harder to operate with a 3'rd one :)

Each IR sensor has 2 connectors.
2 IR sensors can connect 4 motors.
So why a 3'rd ?...

Feel free to shoot me down...

Anonymous said...

I have hearin that thay ar employ the new power founktion motor to the new excawator

Anonymous said...

on the bad picture on the excawator the ir reciver loks it is for big to bi two sensor. so it most be tree sensor. or it is a new type off sensor.

Darkdesigned said...

New motor?
That would explain the strange looking grey/black part at the base of the backend on the arm.

But again this raises more questions than answers...
That would make the inner gearing on this model even more complicated. Im not even gonna

Al said...

Ah, could it be a servo used to switch the gearbox functions? If so then I might start to get a bit interested in this model!

Conchas said...

Don't believe so, once based on a bang-bang remote, this is perfectly feasible with an M-motor and a 24t clutch.
In fact I think the integration of servo would be more complex than this.

Anonymous said...

Darkdesigned, could the mystery black/grey part be something as simple as an U-joint inside a LA-bracket and an axle sticking out of it?

Al said...

I don't think it is a servo but it would have been nice.

Thinking about it, a servo would automatically return to centre so probably not a good idea to use one to switch functions 8^/

Anonymous said...

Near i se the bad picture about hauve the excavator work a got a ide. they are onle to use one motor to the track. on the pictur the excavator only go forvard and back. and one motor to swingin the mean body around. becous a proper excavator thay are using the dipper to help to change the direction on the track. and then one motor to the mean beam. and the last motor to the dipper and the outer arm. and i don´t think they are to use a complex gearing system. beakous the exavator not are so big so it can´t complex gearingh system. it´s only 1.5x biger then 8294 excavator.

Darkdesigned said...

Hey, Anonymous.

I really cant say what that part is. To me it does not look like a simple U-Joint, but then again I could be wrong. We need a better picture to determine that.

But i disagree with the statement that this model will operate with only 1 m-motor for the tracks.
Take a look at all the gearing at the base... totally wasted if it only uses 1 engine.
And a huge disapointment to the fans. No, this modell will use 2 motors for the tracks. Im even willing to put some money on that :)

I have buildt a model of the base "as best i can from the pictures". I used gears similar to the crane on the 8258 to make the tracks move and it works perfectly. So now i have 2 independent working tracks from 2 separate m-motors. And 1 axel going into the base.

We need some more pictures of this excavator for shure :)

PeolesDru said...

I agree the four motors must be in the superstructure and that they employ one of the motors to switch the function of the other three simultaneously, I guess by moving three dog gears back and forth. It does mean that one tread is driven by a shaft through the center of the rotation swivel and the other must be driven through a ring gear. One side-effect of this would be if you rotated the turret continuously, the treads would move.

Anonymous said...

that will i se. 4 M motor and 2 IR sensor and one batery box in a smal kontpartment. and a gear box system vid a braiking system to the cabin svinging system. in the mean body. i dint fink so.....

eMHa said...

I began to build the superstructure with one battery box, 2 IR recievers and 4 motors, inkluding one motor to switch the gearbox (see also ). It IS possible within the space in the superstructure!

Anonymous said...

You have vrong... becaous den you ned a breaking system to the mean body ven you svitts aut the gear. then the mean body turn around near the excavator stand in rake. special when you have a load in the bucket...... that taking for mash space

eMHa said...

I don't understand what you mean with "breaking system"?
Did you mean the drive train has to be stopped when doing something different, e.g. moving the boom? If so, perhaps there's some worm gear on the way to the threads?
Speaking of worm gears, they could safe a lot of space on the way to the threads.

PeolesDru said...

He's talking (I think) about the thing swiveling unintentionally when you switch to the arm functions. That's easily remedied by having a wormgear in the swivel drivetrain.

tawny said...

I cant wait for this model. I have an opinion on the way the bucket is driven. I haven't been through all the posts because I am in work and dont have the time. The linear actuator controlling the bucket does not look like a linear actuator. It is smaller and maybe it is operated by another means, say a flex system or sealed pneumatic system?
Any thoughts?

Conchas said...

Good thoughts, but extremely unlikely. :/

eMHa said...

My opionen about how the power functions are placed.

Anonymous said...

I have read a article last year. about a new gear switch sytem and it shall introduce in this year. it is a heavy heavy dirty version of the old system. it cant taiking mor strain. and it is easy to switch gear. i believe it shall introduce it to the Excavator and Container Truck and Mobile Crane.

Al said...


Ah now that is interesting, could in fact lead to something else I have been hoping for. These are pictures I posted in about 2007 I think (which is why in one pic there is a crown differencial gear as one was not available at the time for the newer style bevel gears)

Speaking of the new differential gear, I wonder if those lobes in the end will be the basis for the possible new interface, allowing diff-locking.

Can you tell me where you saw this article?

roamingstudio said...

Dont ask why - but I strongly suspect there is likely to be a small micro-motor which attaches into the bucket LA. The back of the bucket LA is rectangular; and there appears to be a cable in the superstructure.

Certainly PF has this possability... And a PF motor XL, M and ???
And a small clutch motor would probably be needed.

Speculation? Yes; but actually I dreamed of this model with a small grey micro-motor long before I saw the teasers.

Al said...

@roaming studio

Sorry but I really don't see anything of the kind in the picture. However if the 4th LA is driven, the drive is missing from the picture, so who knows.

Anonymous said...

3(drive,superstrocture rotation)
+3(arm functions)right?
so 3m*2=3+3
the 4th motor suich the function of the other 3 motors

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

© 2007-2014 TechnicBRICKs



You can visit the official LEGO® website at