Jump to content


8295 Telescopic Handler Review


50 replies to this topic

Poll: On a scale of 1 to 5 (49 member(s) have cast votes)

How do you rate this set?

  1. 1 - Poor (3 votes [6.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.12%

  2. 2 - Below Average (6 votes [12.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.24%

  3. 3 - Average (12 votes [24.49%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.49%

  4. 4 - Above Average (27 votes [55.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 55.10%

  5. 5 - Outstanding (1 votes [2.04%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.04%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 ZO6

ZO6

  • EB Adventurers Reviewer and now a Teacher


    Posts: 771
    Joined: 16-April 07
    Member: 1532
    Country: Canada

Posted 16 July 2009 - 10:30 PM

As I wait to acquire the newly released Technic sets, I thought I would do some quick reviews of a few slightly older sets.  First up...

Set Name: Telescopic Handler

Set Number: 8295

Year Released: 2008

Number of Pieces: 1182

Price: $109.99 CAD, $89.99 USD


First up is the box - it is quite large and features the back corners which must be torn to get in.
Posted Image

The back of the box shows how the model can have power functions added.  A picture of the alternate model is also displayed (Log Loader - the instructions can be found online).
Posted Image

The build is split up over three instruction manuals, each weighing in at about 75 pages.
Posted Image

Random shot from instructions.  They are well laid out and easy to follow so long as you are paying enough attention.  Colour separation is decent - there was only one point in which I accidentally used a pair of black beams in place of dark bley and did not catch my mistake until much later on.
Posted Image

At the end of the third manual are instructions as to adding power functions to the model.  I tried this out using the motor and battery box from 8292 Cherry Picker and found it worked fairly well.
Posted Image

The sticker sheet after it's contents have been applied.  They don't enhance the model greatly, but I figured I'd stick 'em on anyways.
Posted Image

The completed model.
Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

The exhaust is used to engage/disengage the stabilizers at the front.
Posted Image

The cab features a little seat, levers, a steering wheel, and an instrument panel (sticker)
Posted Image

It also includes the lever to switch between raising/lowering and extending/retracting the boom, as well as steering controls (via hand of god)
Posted Image

The 4-wheel steering tour...
Posted Image

Posted Image

The 4-wheel steering works not too badly, though it is perhaps a bit vague.  Thanks to this system though, the large vehicle can make relatively tight turns.

Posted Image

A small modular section which is the starting point to all the action in the model.  It can easily be removed and replaced with a motor.
Posted Image

The heart of the telescopic handler.  (note: the cab was removed to make photographing easier)
Posted Image

The source of sore fingers.  Cranking the beige gear sets things in motion.
Posted Image

By flipping the red lever on the side of the cab, the clutch mechanism can divert the cranking action of the beige gear at the back to either work it's way to the linear actuator thus raising or lowering the boom (green line), or to extending/retracting the boom (purple line)
Posted Image

Alternate angle.  Walk through of functions.  Green still for raising, purple for extending...
Posted Image

Posted Image

And voila!  Boom fully raised.
Posted Image

...continuing with the extension mechanism...
Posted Image

...still going... (note: the half pin is used to prevent the boom from retracting any further)
Posted Image

Posted Image

...finally the 8-tooth gear gets to work it's magic!  (note: the 1x2 slope is used to prevent the boom from extending further)
Posted Image

Fully extended
Posted Image

Raised and extended (measures approx. 18" (46cm) long and 19" (48cm) high.
Posted Image

Quick recap
Posted Image

The front forklift can be adjusted as well.  A cargo pallet is also included.
Posted Image

Ratings:

Build - 4/5  Nearly 1200 pieces means the telescopic handler will take many hours to build.  The model is quite large and therefore has a bit of flex to it - still feels quite solid though.  Decent selection of pieces and gears.  Includes 1 linear actuator.
Playability - 4.5/5  It's fun to drive this thing around and chase after house pets.  Thanks to the 4-wheel steering, this thing has some pretty fun handling characteristics.    When it's time to work the boom (raising/lowering, extending/retracting), front stabilizers can also be deployed.  These functions are addictive to use, though turning the gear to do so gets hard on the fingers - this is where the set loses marks.  Extending/retracting is relatively quick and painless, but raising/lowering is time consuming and requires significantly more effort.  Power functions can be added to the model.
Price - 4.5/5  $110 CAD/$90 USD for nearly 1200 pieces (though of course many of these are small pins etc).  IMO this set is very reasonably priced.  It is large and fairly impressive

Overall -
4.5/5  I REALLY like the telescopic handler.  It may not be as technically/mechanically impressive or complex as some other models, but it's still got a lot going on.  A telescopic handler is not as easily recognizable as many other models featured in the Technic line and may perhaps be overlooked by many because of this.  This is a shame as I think this set is pretty nifty and encourage more people to check it out if possible.

Comments, questions, suggestions are more than welcome!  

Cheers!

Edited by WhiteFang, 20 July 2009 - 03:03 AM.
Poll is added


#2 Buttons

Buttons

    Posts: 554
    Joined: 09-October 08
    Member: 4104
    Country: England

Posted 16 July 2009 - 11:57 PM

I evrt informative and may I add comical review you have there. :)   :tongue:      .
Now that you've found it, it's gone
Now that you feel it, you don't
You've gone off the rails

#3 Sinner

Sinner

  • Mike's Magical Elf


    Posts: 19313
    Joined: 29-April 07
    Member: 1554
    Country: Australia

Posted 17 July 2009 - 12:59 AM

Thanks for doing this review! I own the set but want to recycle it so it was actually next on my list to review!  It's a great review too; I especially like how you've shown the transmission path for the functions.  :sweet:

As for the set, I'm undecided. It always seemed overpriced to me, but I got mine at a bit above half price! :wub: There's a lot I don't like about this model. For one, the steering is just plain odd. It's cool that it has four wheel steering, but due to the linkage via beams and ball-gears it feels that you are more requesting a steer rather than making it do so! The front and back are generally un-aligned because of this. I also didn't like the choice of using the stack as a stabiliser control stick. I don't mind it when it's used things like motor on/off or transmission, but as a hard link function I don't as it makes the model look silly when the stablisers are up.

Getting back on the positives, I love the look of this model, and it has a good part balance and I do recomend it.

(Sorry; I just hi-jacked your topic and semi-reviewed the set!  :blush: It's just you've done such a fine job I don't think I can better it so I'll review another set instead...)





Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Full details on the Siegfried About Me page!


#4 5150 Lego

5150 Lego

  • Has a ball of string and isn't afraid to use it


    Posts: 1862
    Joined: 22-December 05
    Member: 586
    Country: United States

Posted 17 July 2009 - 01:28 AM

View PostSiegfried, on Jul 17 2009, 01:59 AM, said:

For one, the steering is just plain odd. It's cool that it has four wheel steering, but due to the linkage via beams and ball-gears it feels that you are more requesting a steer rather than making it do so! The front and back are generally un-aligned because of this.

The steering actually works quite well, but you are correct that it isn't quite as smooth as two wheel steering, and due to the size of the model, as well as the weight, it can make it difficult to steering while the model is just sitting still.
Another problem with the steering is the beam that spans the underneath of the handler that connects the beacon on the cab, to the gears in the middle. Its very, very low and gets hung up on nearly everything. I couldn't even load mine on and of my trailers cause it would get hung up. I solved this by relocating the beam inside the chassis of the handler. It took some doing, but it wasn't to difficult.
Calm down... HAVE SOME DIP!

If at first you don't succeed,........ Then skydiving is not for you!

Check it out! www.emergencybricks.com

#5 Sinner

Sinner

  • Mike's Magical Elf


    Posts: 19313
    Joined: 29-April 07
    Member: 1554
    Country: Australia

Posted 17 July 2009 - 01:45 AM

View Post5150 Lego, on Jul 17 2009, 10:28 AM, said:

The steering actually works quite well, but you are correct that it isn't quite as smooth as two wheel steering, and due to the size of the model, as well as the weight, it can make it difficult to steering while the model is just sitting still.
8421 has six wheel steering and is a much heavier model, yet it's a smooth and light as a babys butt. I stand by my point.  :grin:

I'm considering modifying it so it has a more traditional steering sytem so I can work out why TLG didn't...





Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Full details on the Siegfried About Me page!


#6 Anio

Anio

  • I buy LEGO, then I just do something awesome with it.


    Posts: 1408
    Joined: 18-February 09
    Member: 5344
    Country: France

Posted 17 July 2009 - 11:20 AM

The 8295 has a very good inventory. That's all.

The model is not playable at all.
Steering and the mechanism with the linear actuator don't work well.
The mecanism for the outriggers is quite useless (definitely ugly).
8295 is among the worst sets that TLC released.  :sadnew:

And no comment about the colors. It looks like a Christmas tree (I don't know if this translation is right ; but in French, it is an expression we use ^^ ).


As a conclusion, I see that, ONCE AGAIN, models are simply over marked on Eurobricks. -_-'

#7 Sinner

Sinner

  • Mike's Magical Elf


    Posts: 19313
    Joined: 29-April 07
    Member: 1554
    Country: Australia

Posted 17 July 2009 - 11:52 AM

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 08:20 PM, said:

As a conclusion, I see that, ONCE AGAIN, models are simply over marked on Eurobricks. -_-'
Actually I think it's not a Eurobricks thing; it's simply that people buy sets because they want them, and thus rate them high!  :tongue: I do it all the time, but I do try to point out flaws at the same time so others can form their own opinion. As of late though I've got better at being objective; I was quite harsh in my last review as I gave 6/10. But I don't think I'd ever do a review of anything lower than 5 as if I thought it was that bad I wouldn't have it to review!

(Personally I'd give this set 7/10; I think it looks great and I liked the whole arm function.)





Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Full details on the Siegfried About Me page!


#8 Anio

Anio

  • I buy LEGO, then I just do something awesome with it.


    Posts: 1408
    Joined: 18-February 09
    Member: 5344
    Country: France

Posted 17 July 2009 - 12:50 PM

May be you are right.

But members have to be objective when they write a review. Otherwise, it is useless, and even deceptive for the one who wants to buy the set !!
Giving 4,5 to such a model is just nonsense !!
4,5 is a mark for awesome models, such as 8480, 8421, and probably 8258.

On my website, I did many reviews. And I think that I'm objective (I try to be, at least).
For example, #10143, #8289, #8274 or #8386 don't deserve more than 2/5, for several reasons.
And sometimes, B-model get 1/5 (8274-B, 8275-B, etc).

A review must be written to inform people in an objective way. Otherwise, it is useless.

Edited by Anio, 17 July 2009 - 12:56 PM.


#9 Cwetqo

Cwetqo

  • Didn't heed the Waarning


    Posts: 802
    Joined: 18-September 08
    Member: 3955
    Country: Slovenia

Posted 17 July 2009 - 02:08 PM

I have two of these: for original price (90€) it was no-go. For discounted price (59€) it was good buy and great parts pack. For current price (40€) it's very good buy.

As a set it's not so great. Ok, the boom mechanism and gearing is nice and it looks ok, but otherwise I was dissapointed during the assembly. Steering is made in a wierd way, the front stands are sluggish and your hand could fall of during all the rotation needed for operating the arm.

As a parts pack it's nothing special, but considering it's low price it's great. You get for medium large tyres, one linear actuator, one switching ring and a lot of studless beams, pins and other stuff.

#10 ZO6

ZO6

  • EB Adventurers Reviewer and now a Teacher


    Posts: 771
    Joined: 16-April 07
    Member: 1532
    Country: Canada

Posted 17 July 2009 - 04:10 PM

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 06:20 AM, said:

The model is not playable at all.
Steering and the mechanism with the linear actuator don't work well.

As a conclusion, I see that, ONCE AGAIN, models are simply over marked on Eurobricks. -_-'

View PostSiegfried, on Jul 17 2009, 06:52 AM, said:

Actually I think it's not a Eurobricks thing; it's simply that people buy sets because they want them, and thus rate them high!

I think what Siegfried said sums things up nicely.  After doing some research, I thought that 8295 looked like an interesting model and wanted to pick one up for myself.  I only buy sets that appeal to me, I don't go around collecting everything.  I own relatively few Technic sets, 8295 is my largest and therefore is special to me.  When doing this review, I think I did a pretty thorough job of letting people know the functions of the set as well as what they are getting into.  I think the comments in the rating section, as well as throughout the rest of the review cover the flaws.  It's not all about the end ratings :wink:    

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

May be you are right.

But members have to be objective when they write a review. Otherwise, it is useless, and even deceptive for the one who wants to buy the set !!
Giving 4,5 to such a model is just nonsense !!
4,5 is a mark for awesome models, such as 8480, 8421, and probably 8258.

On my website, I did many reviews. And I think that I'm objective (I try to be, at least).
For example, #10143, #8289, #8274 or #8386 don't deserve more than 2/5, for several reasons.
And sometimes, B-model get 1/5 (8274-B, 8275-B, etc).

A review must be written to inform people in an objective way. Otherwise, it is useless.

...and luckily I did cover what needs to be known about this set.  :thumbup:   For me, knowing about the functions and seeing how they work is the most important aspect of Technic sets.  I plan on doing two more Technic reviews, both focusing on the model's functionality.  Feel free to disagree with my scores, but please don't make it sound like I have not done an informative review.  :tongue:

#11 Front

Front

  • Odonaman!


    Posts: 1341
    Joined: 26-March 08
    Member: 2934
    Country: Denmark

Posted 17 July 2009 - 04:50 PM

I think the review is excellent. I've played with the set and that just reinforced the expectations I've had to the set. It's a must buy for me, but I will try and wait for a possible price reduction. It's not like I need the set, still got Technic sets waiting to be built, and not enough room.

#12 Anio

Anio

  • I buy LEGO, then I just do something awesome with it.


    Posts: 1408
    Joined: 18-February 09
    Member: 5344
    Country: France

Posted 17 July 2009 - 05:03 PM

A review ? What for ?
Almost all the models on EB get 8/10, 9/10 or 10/10.

A mark is between 0 and 10.  So, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 (I don't think that a set can get 0) are possible marks. Why are they never used on EB ? (please, do not tell me that all the Lego sets are excellent  :hmpf: ).

Actually, many of the EB members don't seem to know what is the true purpose of a review. :/
The purpose of a review is not to write a text that TLC enjoy. Unless you get grant from the Company ? O_o

#13 CP5670

CP5670

  • In search of litmus paper


    Posts: 2479
    Joined: 02-February 08
    Member: 2646
    Country: United States

Posted 17 July 2009 - 05:34 PM

I agree with others that this is not a great set. Like most of last year's sets, it has a few major flaws and I didn't buy it. I don't mind the steering here so much as the fork mechanism. Placing the control knob right there does not make for a proper Technic function and is rather lame to see on a model this size. This is the same problem with 8258 this year, but that set has several other nice functions to make up for it.

Quote

Actually, many of the EB members don't seem to know what is the true purpose of a review. :/
The purpose of a review is not to write a text that TLC enjoy. Unless you get grant from the Company ? O_o

The reviews here are meant to be more informative than critical, and any scores are always going to be inflated because of the nature of the reviews. Just think about it. There are many sets out there that I don't like, but I generally won't buy such sets, and even if I do, I'm not going to review them. I only have time to review a small fraction of the sets I have, and I could instead be covering my favorite sets. Of course, when everyone thinks like this but has different preferences with sets, you are rarely going to see a score lower than 8/10. :tongue:

I think it would make sense to not have any numerical scores in reviews. I read reviews to get factual information about the model (which is certainly provided here), and then make my own judgments based on that.

#14 Anio

Anio

  • I buy LEGO, then I just do something awesome with it.


    Posts: 1408
    Joined: 18-February 09
    Member: 5344
    Country: France

Posted 17 July 2009 - 05:49 PM

View PostCP5670, on Jul 17 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

The reviews here are meant to be more informative than critical
IMO, on the contrary, a review must be critical. It is very important to say what is good on the set, and what is bad. And that for design, functions, and playability. When I read EB reviews, I could think that all the models are terrific, which absolutely wrong.

Besides, I don't want to be pretentious, but I have been told many times that the reviews on my website are relevant (certainely because I'm critical).  :wink:

#15 5150 Lego

5150 Lego

  • Has a ball of string and isn't afraid to use it


    Posts: 1862
    Joined: 22-December 05
    Member: 586
    Country: United States

Posted 17 July 2009 - 09:49 PM

View PostSiegfried, on Jul 17 2009, 02:45 AM, said:

8421 has six wheel steering and is a much heavier model, yet it's a smooth and light as a babys butt. I stand by my point.  :grin:

I'm considering modifying it so it has a more traditional steering sytem so I can work out why TLG didn't...

8421 also had two of its tires stationary to help ease some of the weight. The tires it uses are also lighter as well as less contact patch to the ground and can support the weight better. And one of the bigger factors is the gear used to turn the wheels of 8421 is twice the circumference  of the beacon used on the handler. All aids in the steering effort. I won't argue that 4821 steering system is better. Cause your correct it is. But taking everything into consideration i think TLC did what they could with the handler (well not everything, cause as i said, i found a way to improve).


View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

The 8295 has a very good inventory. That's all.

The model is not playable at all.
Steering and the mechanism with the linear actuator don't work well.
The mecanism for the outriggers is quite useless (definitely ugly).
8295 is among the worst sets that TLC released.  :sadnew:

And no comment about the colors. It looks like a Christmas tree (I don't know if this translation is right ; but in French, it is an expression we use ^^ ).


As a conclusion, I see that, ONCE AGAIN, models are simply over marked on Eurobricks. -_-'

This is subjective. What you find useful or "playable" in a set, might be completely different than someone else. I found once you hooked up a Power functions motor to it, it was quite fun and is by no means one of the worst sets TLC has released. My biggest gripe was as CP5670 mentioned, the tilt mechanism for the forks. This was pretty lame for a model of this size. (though in TLC defence, i still haven't figured a better way to do this. Though i haven't taken much time to look into it either).

You have to take a review and look at it from your perspective and use the goods and bads as you see fit to what you expect in any given set. You can't knock someones positive review of a set cause it (the set)wasn't to your liking. That's not fair.
Calm down... HAVE SOME DIP!

If at first you don't succeed,........ Then skydiving is not for you!

Check it out! www.emergencybricks.com

#16 Anio

Anio

  • I buy LEGO, then I just do something awesome with it.


    Posts: 1408
    Joined: 18-February 09
    Member: 5344
    Country: France

Posted 17 July 2009 - 10:17 PM

Whatever you say, it is just impossible that the 8295 get 9/10 (4,5/5).
This very very good mark is only for awesome sets. And awesome sets are scarce (may be something like 7 or 8 models in the past 10 years). 8295 is not among these sets.


But well, well, well. Keep on posting your reviews. But do not forget to PM me when someone give 9/10 to the 8274 or the 8289.
It will be so hilarious, that I want to read it !  :tongue:


PS : I laughed a lot when I see the 9/10 for the snow groomer !  :laugh:

#17 5150 Lego

5150 Lego

  • Has a ball of string and isn't afraid to use it


    Posts: 1862
    Joined: 22-December 05
    Member: 586
    Country: United States

Posted 17 July 2009 - 10:45 PM

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

Whatever you say, it is just impossible that the 8295 get 9/10 (4,5/5).
This very very good mark is only for awesome sets. And awesome sets are scarce (may be something like 7 or 8 models in the past 10 years). 8295 is not among these sets.


But well, well, well. Keep on posting your reviews. But do not forget to PM me when someone give 9/10 to the 8274 or the 8289.
It will be so hilarious, that I want to read it !  :tongue:


PS : I laughed a lot when I see the 9/10 for the snow groomer !  :laugh:

What exactly do you not like about this that makes it no more usefull than just a parts pack? I agree that it not superb, but its really not bad either. At least not as bad as your making it out to be.
Calm down... HAVE SOME DIP!

If at first you don't succeed,........ Then skydiving is not for you!

Check it out! www.emergencybricks.com

#18 Anio

Anio

  • I buy LEGO, then I just do something awesome with it.


    Posts: 1408
    Joined: 18-February 09
    Member: 5344
    Country: France

Posted 17 July 2009 - 11:29 PM

I explain with few words  :sweet:  :
-colors : too much different colors. it is striking. and the chassis is not yellow enough.
-linear actuator is missused. the tan 20t is too hard to turn
-the steering is too hard too, and not so efficient (with 20t/12t, it would have work better, thanks to the reduction)
-the outriggers : mecanism is just stupid. -_- And when outrigger are up, the chimney is not right ; it is ugly)
-the design of the chassis is very bad and don't enable to put a decent mechanism for the outriggers.


Besides, I had a discussion with Nathanaël Kuipers a few months ago, a very famous former Lego designer (you know him, isn't it ?). We talked about several Lego things. And for 8295, even if he is not the designer of this model, he exactly said : "I didn't have a good experience when I build this model".

Full interview in French there : http://www.setechnic...m/topic641.html and on the next page.

#19 Blakbird

Blakbird

  • Technic Angel of Retribution


    Posts: 2513
    Joined: 09-November 07
    Member: 2164
    Country: USA

Posted 17 July 2009 - 11:58 PM

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 02:17 PM, said:

PS : I laughed a lot when I see the 9/10 for the snow groomer !  :laugh:

Well, I wrote the snow groomer review.  I have every single Technic set ever made, so it would seem like a pretty good set of experience to draw from.  In my opinion, this set is a 9/10, that's why I wrote it.  Obviously not everyone will agree.  That's why there are a lot of other details in the review for the reader to make their own choice.  Not everyone likes the same things.  For instance, some people rate sets highly when they come with a lot of minifigs or a wide variety.  I, on the other hand, couldn't care less about minifigs so these mean nothing to me.  What I am looking for in a Technic set is functionality and originality.  I felt the snow groomer had lots of both for its size.  That's the other important point.  You can't compare the snow groomer to the 8275 bulldozer.  They are totally different sizes and price points.  My rating is intended to indicate that, if you wanted a set this size, this would be a good one to get.

To each his own.
Blakbird
Technicopedia

#20 Anio

Anio

  • I buy LEGO, then I just do something awesome with it.


    Posts: 1408
    Joined: 18-February 09
    Member: 5344
    Country: France

Posted 18 July 2009 - 12:14 AM

View PostBlakbird, on Jul 18 2009, 01:58 AM, said:

Well, I wrote the snow groomer review.  I have every single Technic set ever made, so it would seem like a pretty good set of experience to draw from.  In my opinion, this set is a 9/10, that's why I wrote it.  Obviously not everyone will agree.  That's why there are a lot of other details in the review for the reader to make their own choice.  Not everyone likes the same things.  For instance, some people rate sets highly when they come with a lot of minifigs or a wide variety.  I, on the other hand, couldn't care less about minifigs so these mean nothing to me.  What I am looking for in a Technic set is functionality and originality.  I felt the snow groomer had lots of both for its size.  That's the other important point.  You can't compare the snow groomer to the 8275 bulldozer.  They are totally different sizes and price points.  My rating is intended to indicate that, if you wanted a set this size, this would be a good one to get.

To each his own.
The 8263 is a 590 part set. And you gave 9/10. Well.

Now, let's find a set which is as big as this snow groomer.
Hum... I'm thinking.

The 8459 ! It is a 582 part set. This model is absolutely perfect. All the functions are perfect. And the design too. And that's the reason why it has been produced while several years (from 97 to 2004, trough 3 refs).
So, this set can get 9/10 (I'm not sure for 10/10, it is may be not perfect enough ^^)

Now I ask you :
Does your snow groomer deserve 9/10 compared to the 8439 ?
And so, if you still give 9/10 to the 8263, which mark get the 8439 ? 13/10 ? 14/10 ?

That's to say that like many models on EB, your 8263 is amply over marked with 9/10.

Edited by Anio, 18 July 2009 - 12:15 AM.


#21 CP5670

CP5670

  • In search of litmus paper


    Posts: 2479
    Joined: 02-February 08
    Member: 2646
    Country: United States

Posted 18 July 2009 - 12:45 AM

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

IMO, on the contrary, a review must be critical. It is very important to say what is good on the set, and what is bad. And that for design, functions, and playability. When I read EB reviews, I could think that all the models are terrific, which absolutely wrong.

Not necessarily. A review can simply be a factual survey of the set. What is good or bad about a set is ultimately subjective, and a review is always going to be influenced by the writer's opinion. There are certainly people who consider anything Lego to be great, at least good enough to be worth buying.

I agree with you that the numerical scores around here are inflated to the point that they are useless, but as I said earlier, it won't work any other way unless EB pays people to write reviews full-time. :tongue: In any case, most reviews here do point out flaws in the sets. The significance of those flaws is a matter of opinion and is for the readers to decide.

Quote

My biggest gripe was as CP5670 mentioned, the tilt mechanism for the forks. This was pretty lame for a model of this size. (though in TLC defence, i still haven't figured a better way to do this. Though i haven't taken much time to look into it either).

It should be doable but would be a little tricky, mainly due to the fact that the boom extends. I have a few solutions in mind but can't explain them easily without pictures. :tongue:

#22 5150 Lego

5150 Lego

  • Has a ball of string and isn't afraid to use it


    Posts: 1862
    Joined: 22-December 05
    Member: 586
    Country: United States

Posted 18 July 2009 - 01:35 AM

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

I explain with few words  :sweet:  :
-colors : too much different colors. it is striking. and the chassis is not yellow enough.

IN your opinion. This does not constitute a bad set.

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

-linear actuator is missused. the tan 20t is too hard to turn

How is it misused? Functions like this are what LA are used for. I will agree that it is hard to turn, but that also is a result of having a LA. Very set I've seen that uses LA's are a tad hard on the fingers to turn. Sure the gear reduction could have been lower, but then it would have taken twice as long to fully crank the arm up.

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

-the steering is too hard too, and not so efficient (with 20t/12t, it would have work better, thanks to the reduction)

I won't argue with you there. There is room for improvement on the steering.

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

-the outriggers : mecanism is just stupid. -_- And when outrigger are up, the chimney is not right ; it is ugly)

I've found that the lever mechanism is clever. While i would have preferred the stack to be vertical when outriggers ar up, its a minor detail that can be lived with, or even fixed.


View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

-the design of the chassis is very bad and don't enable to put a decent mechanism for the outriggers.

Again, your opinion. The chassis accommodates all the necessary functions that a real telehandler has. So i can't agree with you on that.  

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

Besides, I had a discussion with Nathanaël Kuipers a few months ago, a very famous former Lego designer (you know him, isn't it ?). We talked about several Lego things. And for 8295, even if he is not the designer of this model, he exactly said : "I didn't have a good experience when I build this model".

While i respect his thoughts on the matter given his old position at TLC, his overall opinion doesn't mean anything to me. I don't, and will not let someone else influence my thoughts on a given subject. I will analyze the data myself, and figure  out whether the subject matter (In this case 8294) and decide myself if this set appeals to me. If you don't like it, fine. No ones forcing you. But you can't knock someone else's review/thoughts just cause there not the same as yours. Not cool.


View PostBlakbird, on Jul 17 2009, 11:58 PM, said:

Well, I wrote the snow groomer review.  I have every single Technic set ever made, so it would seem like a pretty good set of experience to draw from.  In my opinion, this set is a 9/10, that's why I wrote it.  Obviously not everyone will agree.  That's why there are a lot of other details in the review for the reader to make their own choice.  Not everyone likes the same things.  For instance, some people rate sets highly when they come with a lot of minifigs or a wide variety.  I, on the other hand, couldn't care less about minifigs so these mean nothing to me.  What I am looking for in a Technic set is functionality and originality.  I felt the snow groomer had lots of both for its size.  That's the other important point.  You can't compare the snow groomer to the 8275 bulldozer.  They are totally different sizes and price points.  My rating is intended to indicate that, if you wanted a set this size, this would be a good one to get.

To each his own.

Agreed. Well said Blakbird.


View PostAnio, on Jul 18 2009, 12:14 AM, said:

The 8263 is a 590 part set. And you gave 9/10. Well.

Now, let's find a set which is as big as this snow groomer.
Hum... I'm thinking.

The 8459 ! It is a 582 part set. This model is absolutely perfect. All the functions are perfect. And the design too. And that's the reason why it has been produced while several years (from 97 to 2004, trough 3 refs).
So, this set can get 9/10 (I'm not sure for 10/10, it is may be not perfect enough ^^)

Now I ask you :
Does your snow groomer deserve 9/10 compared to the 8439 ?
And so, if you still give 9/10 to the 8263, which mark get the 8439 ? 13/10 ? 14/10 ?

That's to say that like many models on EB, your 8263 is amply over marked with 9/10.

You should look at the model/set and see what functions it has compared to the real one its based on and see how it compares. IN this case, the snow groomer has a front shovel that tilts up and down, side to side. (swivels) and has a mechanism in the rear that lowers up and down to compact the snow. TLC's set does exactly this. In terms of relism, the overall design is very similar to what you would find at a ski lodge getting the mountains ready for winter skiers. Same could be said for 8459. Great design, functions exactly like a real loader. So i could both model receiving  high scores. Is it perfect? Nope. But does it deserve the low score that you claim it does?Again, thats subjective.
Calm down... HAVE SOME DIP!

If at first you don't succeed,........ Then skydiving is not for you!

Check it out! www.emergencybricks.com

#23 CloneCommanderDelta7

CloneCommanderDelta7

    Posts: 582
    Joined: 20-December 08
    Member: 4742
    Country: Australia

Posted 18 July 2009 - 03:36 AM

Wow, you seem to make me want to go out now and buy the set myself.  Good Review, you've highlighted the good functions and sleek lines of the set.
"Fly for the Empire"
"Build it Right, Make it Bite"

Still Mutilating Clones or making them better.  I dunno maybe you should ask them yourself?

Links - YouTube - Brickshelf - Flickr
"If you have a PS3 and an account, then PM me & maybe I'll add you to my friends list!!!"

A very mean-looking CRF250R '10.  

#24 Blakbird

Blakbird

  • Technic Angel of Retribution


    Posts: 2513
    Joined: 09-November 07
    Member: 2164
    Country: USA

Posted 18 July 2009 - 05:32 AM

View PostAnio, on Jul 17 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

Now I ask you :
Does your snow groomer deserve 9/10 compared to the 8439 ?
And so, if you still give 9/10 to the 8263, which mark get the 8439 ? 13/10 ? 14/10 ?

I'd probably give 8439 a 10.   I stand by my rating of the snow groomer.  I've seen LOTS of front end loaders, this is the first LEGO snow groomer.  It gets points just for that.

Really, I don't see how you can argue with someone's rating.  It's an opinion.  You can't tell someone their opinion is not valid.  You simply have a different opinion.  Maybe I just really like snow groomers, I don't know.  Make your own decision.

The same thing happens with movie critics.  There are certain critics whom, if they give a movie a bad review, I am guaranteed to like it.  Other critics are the opposite.  People like different things.  I think the snow groomer is fantastic.

Also note that there is no fixed definition of scale.  A rating of 9 does not necessarily mean it is rated against every set ever.  Maybe just against this year's sets.  In my case, it was meant to represent how happy I am with my purchase.

In any case, I think we've spent enough bandwidth discussing an opinion.  It is what it is.
Blakbird
Technicopedia

#25 Anio

Anio

  • I buy LEGO, then I just do something awesome with it.


    Posts: 1408
    Joined: 18-February 09
    Member: 5344
    Country: France

Posted 18 July 2009 - 08:45 AM

View PostCP5670, on Jul 18 2009, 02:45 AM, said:

Not necessarily. A review can simply be a factual survey of the set.
Yeah, I totally agree with this. A review can be informative (even if a critical one is better  :tongue: )
But if you do such a review, please, do not give a stupid mark in the end of the review...  :sceptic:

Because if there are marks, the review is no more informative, but critical.

Edited by Anio, 18 July 2009 - 02:24 PM.




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users