allanp

Wow! I can certainly attest to how......lets say fun......it is to work with carbon fiber. Doing small parts to a high level of dimensional accuracy like this is really not easy. It might even be harder doing it with carbon fiber sheets like this. Maybe you could try a pre stabilized cloth with a finer weave, maybe like this: https://www.easycomposites.co.uk/90g-profinish-plain-weave-1k-carbon-fibre-cloth They also sell it in a sleeve that can expand/contract to a range of different diameters: https://www.easycomposites.co.uk/40mm-carbon-fibre-braided-sleeve

Honestly I'm still hopeful for the future. Something tells me this is not the future of Technic but a (maybe necessary and temporary) setback.

We've already had that....twice.....and it's been too slow both times. Is anyone really surprised that using the same LAs and a gearbox and the same power motors would lead to something slow and weak? Cos I'm not. It's only surprising that Volvo would allow such a slow and weak model to represent their real life machines built for productivity!

There's an interview here from one of the people that worked on 8480 https://archive.org/details/LEGOTechnicClub-September1996-Miniland/mode/1up

Best subjectively (including nostalgia, childhood excitement and consideration of what came before it) or objectively (trying to ignore nostalgia, innovation and all that)? For example, I would subjectively rank the Bugatti Chiron higher that the Sian because the Bugatti had much more innovation, and personally I value innovation very highly. The Sian was kind of just a refinement of the Bugatti. However, objectively I'd rank the Sian higher than the Bugatti. While the Sian didn't represent the same leap forward in innovation, it was more refined and so objectively better. Subjectively: 1) 8880 (considering that the auto chassis before it was the test car which I loved, 8880 was a huuuuuuuuuuge, nearly incomprehensible leap forward at the time) 2) AROCS!!!! 3) 8868 4) 8480 space shuttle 5) Control center 2 Almost made the list 8455 Objectively: 1) AROCS!!! It really is objectively the best so far. Not content with having awesome pneumatics, it also had a host of other goodies such as two suspended and driven rear axles with dually tyres, two suspended and steered live axles at the front and a proper (not cam style) inline 6 engine at the front. There's still plenty of opportunities to make something better but as of 2025, the Arocs is still the king. 42100 would have been here or even the new Volvo demolition excavator if they was RC pneumatic with physical remote and not dependent on third party smart devices. 2) 8455. 7 powerful and authentic pneumatic functions all controlled from the cab (no twiddling knobs right next to the function here), steering and working engine. More functionality and authenticity than the vast majority of sets with a part count way under 1000 pieces. Who said studless sets necessarily need to have more pieces than studded sets? It's pure concentrated goodness! 3) This one is hard, 8880 or the McLaren P1. Really? Yes! The P1 is arguably the latest and most advanced supercar yet with 7 real speeds (as in not 4 speeds multiplied by another 4 speeds giving 16 speeds but 8 are the same as another 8 so it's like an 8 speed gearbox but not really by going through 2 gearboxes like the Bugatti/Sian/Ferrari) and the most sizes of clutch gear to date using new gearbox parts and all that good stuff. However the steering is still poor and the steering wheel still points straight forward instead of angling up towards the driver and despite being handed all these lovely new gearbox parts, the designer still made the gearbox still way more overly complicated and incomprehensible. A real gearbox usually only has two main shafts, get it right! 8880 on the other hand had much better feeling steering with it's steering arms having Ackermann geometry and better leverage as they are longer. Also, it's 4 position H shifter is still by far the best gear change mechanism, as opposed to the modern paddle shifters that feel like they're going to break and doesn't let you know what gear you're in. However, 8880 does only have 4 speeds, and only 1 size of clutch gear, and unrealistically it uses 2 shocks per wheel, and the wheel hubs have a ton of friction, and the old 14t bevel gears used to break. So, as this is the purely objective list (where I have chosen to ignore personal feelings of nostalgia, innovation compared to past sets and so on), I'm actually going to choose the P1 over 8880! But just like with the Arocs, there's still many ways to make something even better by quite a ways yet. 4) Another tricky one so again I'm going to cheat by picking 2 similarly themed sets. Control centre 2 and the barcode truck. Not every Technic set has to be mechanically authentic. They can also be programmable and all that good stuff. Both control center 2 and the barcode truck represents this done right! No need for any dependency on smart devices and all the negative aspects that come with them (such as kids spending too much time looking at screens, smart devices becoming obsolete long before any Lego set that depends on them should become obsolete and a billion other things). Both of these sets can also be considered universal sets, with each set having instructions for multiple models. 5) 8064 universal set. All previous picks have been flagships, but 8064 is the very essence of what a smaller Technic set should be. Being a small set, you don't expect too much authenticity. What you do get is a simple ungeared motor and battery box, a bunch of different gears and belt drives, a bunch of studded Technic parts that's easier than studless to MOC with and instructions to build 4 different models showcasing a nice variety of gear/belt driven mechanisms. With no internal gearing in the motor, nothing is done for you. You get to build every last mechanism and every last bit of gear reduction yourself. As a small, inexpensive and studded universal set, I can think of no better first Technic set.

YAY! After some negativity from myself towards this year's sets it's nice to feel a bit of positivity. I really like the new parts for the front axle. While they don't offer new functionality, they do allow for that functionality to be done on a much smaller scale. The drift function is a bit silly and unrealistic, but it's something a bit different, and it looks trivially easy to gear the front and rear axles to spin the same speed and connect the front and rear axles while it's not in drift mode to have proper 4 wheel drive. Just remove the clutch gears and connect the front and rear axles. And maybe repurpose the clutch gears (and maybe add a few more) to give it an actual gearbox. A 4 wheel drive, steering, fully suspended car with a transmission at this scale would be sweeeeeet! Still I really dislike those cam style engines. I'd rather they used the more mechanically authentic larger pistons even if there's less of them. Or better yet, make a 1 module long version of the more mechanically authentic engine, which would probably require a one piece crank shaft and connecting rods that clip onto it. Overall though, I like it.

That's a nice build. I like the clean design (minimal and careful parts used to fill many gaps) and I love how you did the removal body. Maybe more official sets should do that to avoid complaints of "you can't see the mechanics when it's finished". Only complaints (or should I say constructive criticisms!) are the stickers covering multiple parts (though that's easy to fix by running a sharp knife along the gaps) and the completely upright seats. I also have a personal disdain for those cam style engines. But overall it looks like a lot of effort went into the look of this car. Very well done

Yup. 8459 is better than both 8265 and 42209. Everything from the pneumatics and the little extra effort put into a working steering wheel that's slightly tilted towards the driver (something even the "UCS" 1:8 cars still can't do, apparently), to the overall clean design, shaping of the cab and lack of colour vomit. 42209 looks to be a fairly complex design for it's size but the final product just isn't anywhere near as appealing.

The problem is that 42042 had efficient rope winches, it didn't have to drive less efficient LAs through long and winding drive shafts and gear trains. I don't think one L motor would have the power to reliably power multiple function simultaneously with this system. It'll struggle to dig a bowl of cornflakes! If only there was a more efficient way to transfer energy to it's multiple functions!

There's multiple ways it could have been pneumatic. From a manually pumped model (would be way smaller though, and we've had a couple of those), to a single motor model with a mix of gearbox/pneumatic functions (like the Arocs). But surely it's time for something to beat the Arocs. How about they release a new, stackable valve with integrated micro servo (or a micro servo that can interface nicely with the existing valve) and a new more efficient compressor for more consistent speed and power and better control. Something similar in scale and ambition to 42100 but with RC pneumatics. It might benefit from an air tank but I think the ultimate is to have a beefy enough compressor to make air tanks redundant. It would be RC so that crowd it happy. It would be fast and powerful which would make everyone happy and it would be authentic making us happy. Everyone's a winner baby! Oh, and it would have a physical remote and a new buggy motor for the beefy compressor too .

The "dumb" hub itself doesn't need rechargeable capability. We would only need a rechargeable battery that fits in place of the 6 AA battery holder that's inside it.

Wouldn't that be nice . But seriously, why I feel particularly wound up by it is that it's yet another flagship excavator moved by LAs. Every single motorised flagship since the the introduction of C+, heck since the Arocs has been with LAs. We've never once gotten a RC pneumatic flagship. If they had alternated between the two systems, one year pneumatic, the next year LA, then it would have been fine. I feel like if they had known that every other year would see a pneumatic flagship, there would have been time and effort and waves of development making RC pneumatics work and it's awesome potential would have been clearer.

Regards the rechargeable battery box, is it possible they are using the existing "dumb" battery box with a rechargeable battery inserted into it instead of the existing 6 AA battery holder? Hydraulics and pneumatics work on the same principles while LAs are entirely different. Stranger things have happened. I don't think the integrated hub is replacing the 4 port hub. The integrated hub could continue in a long line of app controlled 1/10 scale cars. Something else would be needed to replace the 4 port hub.

Different people have different, often overlapping and often opposed complaints, and they are often more complex than it may seem. I didn't mind the inclusion of remote control as an extra touch of playability. What I never liked is that RC was always (except for the zetros and liebherr crane) used as a replacement for any semblance of life like mechanics as opposed to being a neat addition to the life like mechanics. RC, when not dependent on using your smart device is cool, but mechanics should come first in a Technic set. Technic can do mechanics better than any other (if we ignore $3,000+ fully metal real hydraulic RC excavators and such), but it when it comes to RC, where there are alternatives with insanely powerful brushless motors, metal gears and ball bearings, it's vastly out classed and over priced. Technic being just another RC toy is weak, weaker still if it's smart device dependent. But Technic being an authentic mechanical masterclass is awesome. Technic being an authentic mechanical masterclass that's also RC without being dependent on a smart device seems sadly to be an impossibility. So now we have this Volvo excavator. Losing smart device dependency is good, I do like that. Losing RC altogether is not the same thing, but not the worst thing that could happen considering they can only very rarely have both RC and semi reasonably authentic mechanics in the same model for whatever reason. Having a "dumb" power source that doesn't require a smart device is good. When it comes to complexity, if it had complexity that is authentic and somewhat resembles the complexity of the real thing, that would be awesome. But instead we have the kind of complexity that doesn't do as much to serve the models authenticity. Real excavators don't have multifunction gearboxes or screw style actuators. This would be fine if it was a space shuttle, where it would be unreasonable to expect a working rocket engine, but when it's an excavator? It brings to mind why so many still love 8880. Why does it have a V8 engine (a first for 8880) or 4 speed gearbox (another first) with drive rings engaging in clutch gears (another first) or 4 wheel drive (another first in a car) or 4 wheel steering (another first) if it doesn't actually move under it's own power? If the wheels can turn freely, it can still be pushed along the floor and move around realistically right? So why does it need an engine or gearbox or differentials or drive shafts or any of that mechanical innovation? It has them because a real car has them. That's the only reason they are there, to serve the authenticity of it. Moving realistically (though I suspect this excavator will move far too slowly even for scale speed) isn't enough in a good flagship. If we compare the functions and mechanics of this Volvo excavator to somewhat similar sets like the airbus helicopter and unreleased osprey (both having "dumb" battery boxes, a single motor and multifunction gearbox), the 140 euro osprey compares about the same and the 210 euro airbus helicopter had more innovation in terms of mechanical authenticity. 42042 is also similar with a 4 function bi-directional gearbox. So that's about where an excavator with this level of functions and mechanics should be for me, a 150-200 euro non flagship. Oh boy, this post sounds harsh. I'm sorry about that. I did tone it down but what can I say, this is how I see it. We've had a strong feeling that control+ and the majority of it's components has been quietly shelved (with the exception of the all in one hub based cars) due to their absence this year and last year also. We do get the L motor in the Volvo excavator and there is a control+ train coming this summer, but this could be clearing old stock of parts, or it could be because developing what might be the next system of electronics will likely take longer than a year.

This is just sad. Every mechanism is either not authentic (LA arm movements) or it's missing entirely (track drives and slewing). The hammer function is a hand cranked knob and it's right next to the function. 8110 did working PTOs decades ago. It's only complexity doesn't come from any real world mechanic but instead a multifunction gearbox that you would not find in real world equipment. It's like they took a typically inauthentic C+ set and just removed the C+. They could have done much better and see no excuses why they didn't. They could have made an almighty Arocs killer, instead they made something far too similar to two previous unrealistic linear actuator driven flagship excavators (8043 and 42100), and yet after years of time and opportunity to release better parts, it ended up being no better than either one.