Just trying to get a feel for this…
That is awesome, I love this movie.
“No disassemble Johnny Five!”
I’m going to need one of these. There’s just no getting around it.
Its been three long days since someone asked when it will be ready, Do you think its safe to ask again yet??
That’s always what I think! I’m like “should I ask? or should I wait for someone else to try?”
You know what Robot Dudes like, He’ll come in here in them great big size 14 (UK size and thats big) boots of his(did you know they deliver them by river) and he’ll whup us into next week…
Whatha!.. LOL
I’m getting closer. I’m testing the chassis with different motors, to see what is optimum, and also increasing the width of the chassis, the wider it is the easier it will turn with a load in place. I have to find the balance between functionality and aestetics. I know it’s frustrating, but this is time consuming. We are so busy trying to keep up with demand for our products that this prototype construction and testing process is done at home after a full days work. 
I think you need a U.K. based branch…
Naw, Jim really needs somebody on the West Coast… 
8-Dale
Yep West Coast of England and that would be…
Nooooo, West Coast of the USA…
8-Dale
LMAO!
Speaking of motors and aesthetics, is there any way you can push the motors down inside the chassis? It looks like there is plenty of room for a ABB and SSC32 anyway. If you are widening the chassis, then it should make it even easier to get them down in there. It would also lower the CG a bit.
Also, while I have your attention… 
Can you explain your reasons for choosing triangular tracks vs the flat tank-style for this kit? Is it just aesthetics or some of the functional things that Paul mentioned?
Thank you, and I look forward to this kit being available.
My plan is to provide both flat and triangular tracked vehicles. I just decided to do this one first. The triangular configuration is used on the real Johnny 5 robot too. The advantages to this design is, because the motor is elevated, the width of the assembly is only as wide as the tracks below the motor. This provides more ground clearance, even though we aren’t necessarily taking advantage of it in this design. Lowering the motors would mean I start over completely in the design. Because I would need to either change the geometry, or change the number of links used. 
And the results of that could be castranomical!
R.D. at the beginning of this thread you show the unit made up as Johnny 5. Do you have that torso as a SolidWorks schematic so I can see which Erector Set parts you’ve used?
Starting over is not as easy as flipping a light switch. To me, the location of the motor is a personal preference thing. I personally don’t care where they are because the over all chassis has plenty of room that normally isn’t available with many of the other bot platforms. Rovers have the largest capacity in both space and weight bearing abilities.
Personally i like the motors where they are, it gives it a machine look to it. 8)
Me too, I once designed a triangular track bot and also put the motors outside mounted with motor mounts. It looked good, thats for sure.
I think there is more to it than that…
Murphy’s Law…
The more enclosed and inaccessible a component is, the more likely it is to fail…
Cool. It was just a thought… I don’t feel that strongly either way. I’m still going to buy it. The sooner the better! 
Edit: Actually, I’m just gonna design and fab my own tracked vehicle chassis with the available Lynxmotion parts. I still want to get my hands on that fancy rotating base though.