Saberwing40k

Eurobricks Counts
  • Content count

    1507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Saberwing40k

  • Rank
    Technic catch of the day

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Tabgha Lunar Base
  • Interests
    Lego, obviously. Giant Robots, Science Fiction, Catgirls.

Extra

  • Country
    Luna
  1. That's not a good thing...
  2. The CVT sounds like a good idea in theory, but I think in practice and in terms of realism you'd be better off using a definite 2 speed gearbox, as done by @Sariel in his Brickshelf gallery. Also, I think your gearbox is not actually a true CVT, but an implementation of an automatic gearbox. Again, it's a great theory, but I feel it adds needless complexity, and it ends up being more of complexity for the sake of complexity. But, if you really want 2 speeds, Sariel again has a much simpler automatic gearbox, or a much stronger remote operated one. By the way, I'm not trying to be down, but I've built stuff like this, and it sometimes doesn't work the way you want. Also, not having these mechanisms interconnected could be a problem in a skid steer vehicle.
  3. Maybe you could use them for some kind of KERS unit like on F1 cars.
  4. This review is excellent. The set, on the other hand, is poor. So much color barf, and so many missed chances to make it better.
  5. Put a roof on it. I've never really been into convertibles.
  6. I always thought embedding them was frowned upon, but linking was okay. @Jim, would you mind clearing this up?
  7. Whoops, I did not know that. I edited my previous statement to reflect this. Can you link to some other stuff he leaked in the past? We don't know if CM4SCI was banned for leaks or for something else, so I can't say. By the way, it is a little bit frowned upon to discuss why a member was banned, so tread carefully.
  8. I find this whole list to be turbo suspect. Unless Sir von Lego comes back and clarifies where he got this, I'm calling BS. I'm surprised nobody else has called it out as possibly being fabricated. This early, and from a relative unknown, I think everybody needs to take this with a grain of salt: Yup, that will do. Edit: As has been pointed out, Sir von Lego is actually a well known leaker that I was not aware of. I apologize to him for doubting it, but my point stands. Until we get an actual list, I have my doubts. Also, if he knows about this stuff, why don't we have a full set list? It would be pretty nice to have.
  9. I think Lego actually hyped up the set way too much, and to an audience that would know better. It looks nice, but I saw one in person, and I couldn't help but be underwhelmed. It looks nice, and that's about it. Also, @allanp, the gearbox is not that much different than one a fan would design, because in spite of it being in a set, it still needed modification to work properly. And, 42056 could have easily had more functions. But, at least int the case of rear wheel steering, Porsche nixed it, for some reason known only to their moronic lawyers and marketers. Then, the suspension is primitive and inaccurate, and you spend most of the build on bodywork. If Porsche had wanted a good looking model car, they should have just made it out of standard bricks. Technic is supposed to be about making a model that looks AND functions like the real thing, and Lego should have stuck to their guns with that. I just hope that 42056 does not set a precedent of sets that look good, but are overpriced and light on functions. In the end, I think the expectations weren't too high, because Lego encouraged that, and then there was hype backlash.
  10. Maybe, maybe not. I feel like 42053 had an awfully high part count given the functions. Also, if the above were true, 42070 would have more parts. I dunno, maybe the price point given to the designers is different from the one the marketers think they can sell it for. Or, maybe the designers phone it in to add parts to get a model to a particular price point, although lack of parts hasn't stopped Lego from putting things at different (higher) price points. Although, I feel like this thread has degenerated into pointless speculating, because Lego is doing things we don't like for reasons we don't understand. Some of us try to rationalize, some gripe, and I honestly kind of miss it. In years past, there wasn't this much griping, and I can't tell if it's because of lower quality, or higher expectations. But, honestly, looking at what Lego did last year, and this year, I think they really dropped the ball. I'm also majorly let down by the fact that there isn't any kind of 40th anniversary contest like the You Design It, We Make It contest, as this would have been the perfect opportunity.
  11. Since it's been revived, I found some pictures of a 5 axle tower crane that failed in an epic manner. Bad proportions, not enough room in the superstructure, critical structural flaws, and not enough parts.Oh, and so much color barf.
  12. Oh right. Also, why are almost all of the 2017 sets only showing up in the US in August? Do Americans really not buy Technic?
  13. My reaction to the prices of some of the sets on Lego.com: And some of this. Oh boy, where do we start? Oh, that's right. 42070 is $290 for a set with two motors. 42065 is a full $100, and 42066 is $160. Are you forking kidding me?!? All of these sets are insanely overpriced, for no readily apparent reason. Let's talk numbers. 42070 has 1862 parts, and so as a set without PF, it should cost about $180. Now, let's add in the Lego.com price of all the PF elements. x1 IR receiver= $14.99 x1 M motor= $7.49 x1 XL motor= $9.99 x1 Remote= $9.49 x1 AA battery box= $6.99 Total = $48.95 So, add $48.95 to $180, and we get 228.95, which we can round up to $230. So, even if it cost Lego retail prices to include PF elements in the set, which it does not, this set should be $60 cheaper. But, it's not. So, what does the extra $60 get you? Absolutely nothing. No license, a poor looking model with low functionality, parts needlessly in a new color, and no new parts. What the hell? For the extra $60, they could have included 2 more motors to make a true RC set, or 600 more parts to make it look better, but no, let's jack up our price for no real reason. This also costs $40 more then the last PF full RC flagship,42030, again for no reason. 42070 is not licensed, not fully motorized, and does not have a large, single use new mold part. 42065 is almost as bad, it has 370 parts, and so as a set without PF, it would be in the $30 range. Now, let's do the same thing we did with 42070, and add the prices of the PF elements. x1 IR receiver= $14.99 x2 M Motor= $7.49 each, or $14.98 for both. x1 Remote= $9.49 x1 AA battery box= $6.99 Total = $46.45 Now, add $46.45 to $30, and you get $76.45. So, Lego adds $25 to the set for no actual reason. The consumer gains nothing for the added cost. No lights, no gears, no new parts. Again, what the hell? For the extra $25 dollars, they could have easily included more parts to make this model more technical. I argue against this model, because who is it marketed towards? It has nothing on a $20 RC car, and has no real b model, and is a poor source of parts, so it is bad as a first PF set ,too expensive for the young builders who would be most interested in it, and not interesting for collectors. Finally, we come to 42066, which has 1151 pieces, so as a set without PF, it should cost about $110. Now, the cost of a PF battery box and singular M motor should only add $14 to the price, but no, instead of costing $120-$125 dollars, the set is $40 more than what it should be, for a plane that does not do plane functions, and has no wings. And, this is especially egregious because of the fact that sets in the past that have been one motor PF sets have been only a bit more expensive, or the same price as their non PF brethren. Al;so, 42025, from only a couple of years ago, had more functions, and had almost all control surfaces. 42066 omitting them is like a truck having no steering. I am more baffled than enraged by this pricing strategy, because we have plenty of sets, like 42069, that cost less. 42069 had 2382 parts, but only costs $180, making its price per part only 7 cents rather than the normal ten. If Lego can do it for that set, why not do it for PF sets as well? Lego jacking up the prices while giving consumers nothing in return is a bad thing, and I think we should complain, or not buy. I for one am doing that, as well as writing them a letter. Also, I do NOT want to hear the tired "It's the price of doing business" argument being dragged out. That is not a legitimate argument. The ideal business model from that standpoint would be to give customers nothing, and charge them lots of money. And I think Lego is above that. Also, the market doesn't work like that. People will only buy your products if they think it is worth it, and needlessly jacking up the price is a good way to drive away customers. If you disagree with my reasoning, fine, but bring out an actual counterargument if you do so. I, meanwhile, will be writing Lego a nice letter expressing my disappointment. Also, why did Lego skip 42067? Skipped numbers annoy me so much.
  14. Regarding your issue with turning radius, could you remove the virtual pivot steering? I'm not sure if you gain anything from having it.
  15. Got to say, this is a brilliant wee beasty and I wish the actual set was half as good as this.