Subject:
|
Re: MTM-168
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build.mecha
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:12:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
932 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
Mark, this is gorgeous. Just gorgeous.
How is the rollability? How well do the legs
maintain their geometry in vehicle “form”?
best
LFB
|
They hold form exceptionally well. There’s lots of geometry play beyond what I
took pictures of. Mostly in the form of minor variations on track position.
That doubling up of ball socket joints make them very, very strong. The weakest
postions are when the legs are at they’re lowest and most extened spider form.
Then there is so much leverage on the joint they tend to fail, but not if you’re
gentle. But, that said, in tank form, since the tank treads are sitting mostly
flat, and thus not prone to tipping over, it’s uber stable.
Rollability is excellent, (on rough surfaces of course, smooth technic treads
often slide on smooth surfaces) if I do say so myself, with minor binding. What
I did was sandwich technic lift arms between wheels. (three different kinds)
Because the wheels sit on the outermost parts of the tracks, the tracks are less
prone to tilting, and thus binding. The tan 3x3 corner plates hold the two
technic beams together as well as creating an upper guide for the track. It all
worked out rather well.
Thanks for the post
Mark
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: MTM-168
|
| (...) Mark, this is gorgeous. Just gorgeous. How is the rollability? How well do the legs maintain their geometry in vehicle "form"? best LFB (19 years ago, 26-Oct-05, to lugnet.build.mecha, FTX)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
