Saberwing40k

I agree with this. My dad and I were talking about this last night. He was talking about the LoTR Rivendell set, and mentioning that it is $500, but has 5000 or so pieces AND lots of minifigs, AND is from a beloved movie series. The issue is not so much the overall price, but the lack of value. There are plenty of fans who will plonk down large sums of cash for a set (Hello, UCS Star Wars), but the value has to be there. If Lego were to reveal this set, and have it be a 7000 piece monster with amazing level of detail, I think a lot of complaints would go away. But as it stands, we are scratching our heads, and wondering what the €680 actually gets us.

Oh, okay. I get what you're saying.

Whoa whoa whoa, the price for 42146 went up again? To freaking 680 euro? Wow, if the rumors are true, and it indeed has gotten smaller, that makes it an even more poor value. Just for the sake of comparasion, right now I could get a 1:50 scale model of a Liebherr LR 1600 crawler crane for €100 LESS than the cost of 42146. And, that model includes everything, ballast carrier, derrick, luffing jib, everything. And, it's made completely out of diecast. Oh, and as a bonus, this is from the Mammoet web store, so it's a limited edition version in their iconic and slick black and red livery. 42100 was expensive, almost to the point of a diecast model as well, but it was a big, well detailed model AND included lots of electronics AND also was a 4000 piece set. How on earth do you justify a set with fewer parts costing 50% more? While that is true, if I wanted to get a bunch of pieces, why would I spend my money on a set with such terrible value? I could, for instance, but a lot of used parts off of Bricklink, or buy other sets that are better part packs. Also, I hate Hate HATE the expression "It is what it is". That basically amounts to saying, "yes, it's bad, but we're not going to try and fix it, and there's no way to fix it, so just suck it up." It is letting the world be a terrible place. But, I'm not going to rant too much about that.

I've been thinking, for a good long while, that the part count for this set makes no sense. Well, I think I figured out why. CranesEtc recently did a review of a 1:50 scale model of the Liebherr LR 11000, made by NZG. While this is not the exact same model as 42146, there is something on NZG's website that I found interesting. Apparently, their model is made out of 1557 parts. I refuse to believe that Lego could make a similar model from only 2800 parts. Like, even with all the big diecast parts, the NZG model is already at 1557. And, many of the parts of that model that are a single piece would have to be made out multiple parts in a Lego model. Plus, the last Liebherr model, 42100, had closer to 4000 pieces, and thus was actually a good value. This is what makes me think the part count is off.

I don't think so. You could argue that this would be Model Team, but I think this fits more under Special Themes than anything else.

Basically, yeah.

i was building something, and there are several parts I would find useful. Most prominent is a variant of 55615,LegoTechnic, Pin Connector Perpendicular 3 x 3 Bent with 4 Pins i think it would be great to have one that is 2x2 instead of 3x3.

Surprisingly enough, having a piston engine is not that weird in a spaceship. I heard of a design for an APU for a rocket that is an inline 6 cylinder engine. It uses hydrogen and oxygen that would otherwise be just boil off. It's made by Roush Racing, and is actually a really clever design to streamline systems in upper stages. Here's an article talking about it:https://jalopnik.com/a-nascar-team-is-building-the-first-internal-combustion-1783198912 Now, regarding the rules, what about having a spaceship with a deployable rover? Whether something like the real Lunar Lander where the rover has to really fold up to stow, or the Mars Mission 7692 MX-71 Recon Dropship, or any of a number of other space sets, I think it would be an interesting function. However, the emphasis should be on the spaceship aspect. As in, the rover should be less than half the size of the carrier ship. I don't agree with the rule about having no land mode. I think transforming spacecraft would make for an interesting function, but it becomes sticky really quick. Like, how do you delineate between a spaceship that has a land mode, and a flying space car? The Space Police set shown earlier in this thread definitely is just a flying car, as the flight form is clearly secondary. In the end, it may just be easier to exclude land modes entirely, otherwise this could degenerate into arguments pretty quickly. Come to think of it, what about legged vehicles? What about a spaceship that can turn into a legged mech/robot, Macross/Robotech style? Would that be allowed?

I'm not an expert, but I do know that transparent parts are made out of a different kind of plastic than the opaque ones. I think it's actually a kind of polycarbonate, versus ABS for the standard parts. Indeed, Lego actually has rules against using certain kinds of connections with transparent parts due to the amount of clutch power and friction the PC parts can have, especially against each other. As detailed in this presentation:http://bramlambrecht.com/tmp/jamieberard-brickstress-bf06.pdf So, your results fit with this. However, translucent plastic is more brittle than ABS, so that's something to consider. I know that some metallic Bionicle parts look and feel different than ABS parts, but I don't fully know what kind of plastic it is. It also seems to be a lot softer and bendier than ABS, but not rubber, or overtly flexible, like some spear elements. Pearl gold must also be a similar kind of plastic, but I can't name what it is.

Thumbs down. There are plenty of ground vehicles in Classic Space, like the Blacktron 6941 Battrax. i agree with avoiding cars, but I think ground vehicles should be allowed.

No limits, please. They can be good for some things, but I personally don't much care for size limits. Other limits, like excluding motors, are more interesting in my opinion.

This is my exact sentiment. If looks focused cars made out of Technic parts are that popular, just bring back Racers. I'm kind of sad that Lego is turning Technic into that. My dad thinks it's because they're running out of ideas for Technic, which I think is baloney. All in all, mighty disappointed.

Puffin? With the red beak, that's what it reminds me of.

That's exactly what the OP needs, a Microscout. It's even the right colors. Shipping from Germany to wherever might be a pain, though. Hope you guys can work something out.

I think you'd be best off getting a new one, or a dead one. There is a dead one on Bricklink right now for a whole dollar, and functioning ones are about 5 dollars. That would probably be the cheapest solution. Unless you have something to fix the buttons with on hand, any solution might be pricier than getting a whole new MicroScout. Also, I checked one of my MicroScouts, and the visible buttons are part of the circuit, with carbon pads on the bottoms. They are also one unitary piece. The odds of you finding a good replacement for this are slim to none, so you have only the option above, or maybe taking apart the unit, and figuring out how to make the button protrude above the shell again. But, given how the buttons work, I think the best solution is just to replace the unit. You can see what I mean with the buttons. Not my picture, but it gets the point across.

With all this talk about ratchet joints, it is kind of a shame that they did not do a version with liftarms, like a mini turntable, instead of pins. Having liftarm connections like the mini turntable would be far more durable, and much more scaleable, as you could slave them together to get stronger joints. Come to think of it, Lego should just make a pawl piece that meshes with standard gears, enabling you to use an gear you like in a ratcheting joint like this. Also, while we're at it, Lego should redesign all the wheel hubs to have a connection like the mini turntable, so they don't weeble wobble all over the place.

Hey @Jim, not that I'm planning a model that would fall into this, but does the 10,000 stud volume have to be in the form of a box, or can the box be a weird shape, as long as the total volume is 10,000 cubic studs or fewer? Like, a typical semi truck could fit in an L shaped box, would that be allowed? Or, does the box have to be a simple xL*xH*xD box with no cut outs? I ask this because it could make certain models easier while still fitting the rules. Like, somebody was wanting to build a dragline excavator, which has a long boom. It would be much easier to build if the volume of the model was only the space occupied by the model itself, and not any extra space in the bounding box.

Depending on the how "Small Scale" is defined, that sounds pretty interesting. Although, how does one define a "Construction Vehicle", exactly? That's something I'd be curious about.

This is my entry for the Festival of Mundanity, a contest put on by The Lego Car Blog and BrickNerd. To be honest, Technic builds are made for this contest. Up until recently, Technic had many sets that would be considered by many people to be mundane vehicles. Yes, there are flashy vehicles like race cars and dune buggys and stunt planes, but there were also plenty of backhoes and tractors and excavators. Now, it's mostly pullbacks and pretty shells with minimal substance, basically turning Technic into Racers. But, that's a rant for another day. Initially, I had wanted to build a truck with trailer, and include the scissor lift as part of a 3 vehicle ensemble, but ultimately I decided to stick with just the scissor lift, because my depression intervened I decided to make one good model versus try to do three. Plus, the scissor lift is plenty mundane on its own. To really double down on the mundanity, this lift is in the color scheme of the ubiquitous blue Genie scissor lifts. Scissor lifts are really not that glamorous, even among construction vehicles. Like, people don't really see them as cool, and only really buy models or build them out of Lego for diorama purposes. Thus, a perfect fit for this contest. Now, in spite of the apparent simplicity, this model is deceptively complicated. Getting the steering to work to achieve the right steering angle was kind of hard, and the lifting turned out to be shockingly difficult. The lift, at rest. The work deck can extend and retract, just like the real thing. It is locked in place by a spring loaded latch, which is weirdly one of the things I am most proud of. It's a simple, but elegant solution. Just pull the lever... ...And the platform slides right out. The extension locks in both positions. There is an opening door at the back, with a working latch, and a ladder leading up to the platform. The bottoms step of the ladder folds, this is not a feature on the real machine, but a concession to allow access to the steering knob. The ladder folded, revealing the steering knob. The steering was actually somewhat hard to do, it was quite difficult to get the extreme steering angle. Real scissor lifts can actually turn the front wheels almost 90 degrees, to allow for a really tight turning radius. This model can't quite do that, but it's nearly as far, and getting the chassis to be both narrow and flat was hard. Also visible is the reversing box, this is so that the steering knob rotates in the expected direction. Maximum steering angle. The model will actually turn around the inside rear tire, much like a real scissor lift. I actually have firsthand experience with this, I used to work for a certain orange hardware store, in the rental department. Our store had some larger equipment, including scissor lifts, and at times I had to park them. Figuring out how to turn was interesting. Maximum extension. Technically, the lift could go higher, but I could not actually figure out a solution that would work, so I went with the big linear actuator. I originally had a mini LA directly pulling the bottom of the scissor linkage, but that proved to be not up to the task, the clutch kept slipping. The lift has about 19 centimeters of travel, going from a deck height of 8 centimeters to a height of 27 centimeters at maximum extension. The deck is about 15 centimeters long, front to back between the guard rails, and can be extended to 21 centimeters. The lift function is controlled by the 12Z gear at the front. This is really the only good spot for it. I thought this would be better than having both knobs on the back, which would interfere with the rear ladder. In addition, the steering and lift would never be used together. Technically speaking, this is in scale with Technic figures, sort of . The most common kind of Genie scissor lifts are only 32 inches wide, while this model to scale would be more than twice as wide. However, large lifts like this do exist, so I think it still counts. One last glamor shot. Building in blue is hard. Also, the gray connectors at the corners are not random, those are actually tie off points, like real scissor lifts have. I am very happy with this model. It looks right, has pretty much all the functions of a real machine, and was actually finished on time. Just as an aside, this model was inspired by something I had to do at my rental job. Usually, our scissor lifts had to be delivered to job sites, so we had a guy from the vendor that maintained the large rental equipment come out and pick up the lift using a special trailer. The trailer in question was made by JLG, and had a deck that could be lowered to the ground so the scissor lift, with its low ground clearance, could be driven on. I had initially want to replicate the full setup, of the truck, with repair tools, the JLG Triple L trailer, and a scissor lift. I scrapped the trailer because the ramp I built was ultimately still too steep for my scissor lift model to drive on, and there was no way to change that, so the entry is just the lift itself. Later on, after I do some digital work, I might post some pictures of the innards of this thing, it is tightly packed. Thanks for looking.

I've seen it done both ways. Some cranes use solid pendant bars, while others use steel cables. I'm not entirely clear on if one is better than the other, or if one works better under some circumstances. One thing I have noticed is that often times it is so called duty cycle cranes like the Liebherr HS 855 tend to have wire rope pendants, but not all machines of this type do. Duty Cycle cranes are often used as draglines, or with various types of foundation equipment, so that might explain why those sometimes have wire rope pendants.

So, what is happening here? If you are raising the arm, and keeping it posed in the extended position for extended lengths of time, it will droop and not stay up. This is a problem with all pneumatic cylinders, they will bleed down if not pressurized.

Nondescript? Crappy? No no no. This is a Fleetwood Cadillac, top of the line. Nobody bought this car who didn't want it. It was never a driving appliance. While it is not that exciting, this isn't a mundane vehicle. Also, as for the blog post, this vehicle had a 260hp V8. That is not low power. And, because it is a V8, even if it makes relatively low power, it does so smoothly, which is what you want in a luxury cruiser like this. Also, at the time, this was the longest production car made in the US. You could also option a 7000 pound towing package, which is also quite unusual. I'm sorry, but you're a bit mistaken. Also, this is not a common vehicle. I was not able to find numbers for this specific trim, but the total production of this generation (4 model years.) of Cadillac Fleetwoods was 90,535. In 1994 alone, Toyota sold more than 11 million Corolloas. That same year, only 27,473 Cadillac Fleetwoods were sold. It certainly is not a very usual vehicle to see in Technic, though. It's really rare to see an American luxury sedan built like this.

Why would you use these cylinders? They're the least common and most expensive type, and the stroke to bore ratio is entirely wrong. The older standard length cylinders are a lot more correct. I don't think I have seen a steam engine, or indeed any engine, with the bore to stroke ratio of the 1x11 cylinders. Those should really be reserved for pneumatic functions, and not pneumatic engines. Also, I think you should actually use bigger wheels to take full advantage of the available stroke of the the pneumatic cylinders. Ideally, the crank would match the stroke of the cylinders exactly.

I agree. This seems to be a Town model more than anything. The fact that it is minifigure scale and not a real vehicle seals the deal. Now, I'm not a moderator, but this forum is for: Models that are primarily Technic, or a large amount of Technic functions even if the shell is system. Realistic large scale models, like Model Team. Even if it is not a real vehicle, it can still fit. Scale models of real vehicles, even at minifig scale. Hey @Jim do you think we could have a pinned topic to help posters figure out which forum they should be posting in? Because I see a lot of weird edge cases and things that might be confusing. A flow chart might be helpful. But, debate about correct forum aside, this is a cute lil monster. I dig the angry eyes.

i generally don't find them to be that bad. It can be kind of annoying, but I'm pretty sure it's needed because of how the motor is sized. This makes absolutely no sense. Just leave a stud between the M motors. Boom, instant odd spacing. Plus, you have room for a driveshaft to go between them. I think this is a flimsy at best reason for the shape of the motors. Wait, are we talking about the PF L motors, or the Control Minus ones? Because the newer motors make not a whole lot of sense.