42204 Fast & Furious Toyota Supra MK4

[mpj]

Why speed champions car are instantly recognizable even if they are more squared and half of the size?

[thekoRngear]

32 minutes ago, mpj said:

Why speed champions car are instantly recognizable even if they are more squared and half of the size?

probably

14 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

It's not that LEGO doesnt have talented designers, it's that they are bound by some strange internal rules that result in products like this. 

[gyenesvi]

2 hours ago, mpj said:

Why speed champions car are instantly recognizable even if they are more squared and half of the size?

The truth is that it is quite a bit easier to build nice looking things at smaller scales with system pieces, because often (at least roughly) the right curves exist and they can be joined together to form good looking surfaces without gaps. With technic parts it is much harder, because the parts are not optimized for surfaces, but rather mechanical stuff, and even if there are no big gaps, often there are lots of discontinuities where parts meet. For example the hood of this car (not counting the lights), or the doors, do not have gaps, but they are not a continuous surface either.

Btw, I can see why they introduced the 5L version of the small curved panel: it is much easier to mount it fixed than the 3L version with two extenders on the sides, as that would have only 1 pin/axle hole in the middle, while the 5L version has 3. That's a good move for making the panel system better.

[mpj]

7 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

The truth is that it is quite a bit easier to build nice looking things at smaller scales with system pieces, because often (at least roughly) the right curves exist and they can be joined together to form good looking surfaces without gaps. With technic parts it is much harder, because the parts are not optimized for surfaces, but rather mechanical stuff, and even if there are no big gaps, often there are lots of discontinuities where parts meet. For example the hood of this car (not counting the lights), or the doors, do not have gaps, but they are not a continuous surface either.

I understand your point of view.

I'm not against gaps and I don't think the gaps are the problem. I think it's more about harmony of the shapes. There are a lot of small panels, but they should be used wisely. Also flex axles can be used for the purpose, like in the sets of 20 years ago.

[Auroralampinen]

 

Here is first review and build video with english subtitles:) 

[Divitis]

On 12/2/2024 at 9:06 AM, gyenesvi said:

The truth is that it is quite a bit easier to build nice looking things at smaller scales with system pieces

Technic should be about the mechanisms. If you want to cover them so the model looks good use system pieces.

To me the current 'technic look' is a farce, a soulless crowd pleaser at best. Although some panel parts are admittedly useful as system can't replicate the curve.

[thekoRngear]

That 2L beam with cross axle right on the middle of it is something I never imagined to want it nor can I think it was ever discussed in Parts we would find useful thread. A bit controversial look. Let’s see how useful it is going to be!

[AVCampos]

4 hours ago, thekoRngear said:

A bit controversial look.

Well, it can join 32291, 32557 and 98989.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

I think this is one of the most unfortunate creations ever brought to life by TLG.

[Aurorasaurus]

2 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

I think this is one of the most unfortunate creations ever brought to life by TLG.

I'd argue that the old corvette is worse. But this is pretty bad. If I see it for cheap I might grab it for orange parts though.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

24 minutes ago, Aurorasaurus said:

I'd argue that the old corvette is worse.

I rated the Corvette higher because at least it comes with useful and rare parts in yellow, like mudguards, 1x2 x-o liftarms, Bionicle teeth, 1x1 spacer. This set doesnt bring anything new outside the 1x2 with axle in the middle, and that part's usefulness is rather questionable to me.

[Auroralampinen]

 

Here is overview of the sets 

[gyenesvi]

I like how the engine bay / steering is made. But the looks are quite lacking for me too, and I also don't see so much need for that new part. Sure it can be useful for something, but they could have used the budget for many more useful things as well. Btw, how is it used here? I could not catch that.

[Zerobricks]

15 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

I like how the engine bay / steering is made. But the looks are quite lacking for me too, and I also don't see so much need for that new part. Sure it can be useful for something, but they could have used the budget for many more useful things as well. Btw, how is it used here? I could not catch that.

I also like the steering mechanism, though I think they could easily mirror it to add a working steering wheel too.

[Auroralampinen]

9 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

I also like the steering mechanism, though I think they could easily mirror it to add a working steering wheel too.

But we had this solution before why we needed gearrack does lego now want desperately making their model mechanically complex than simple

[zoo]

21 hours ago, Divitis said:

Technic should be about the mechanisms. If you want to cover them so the model looks good use system pieces.

I strongly disagree. The Chiron is my least favourite out of the 1:8 cars precisely for the fact that it uses a lot of system elements in the bodywork.

Edited February 25 by zoo

[Divitis]

12 minutes ago, zoo said:

22 hours ago, Divitis said:

Technic should be about the mechanisms. If you want to cover them so the model looks good use system pieces.

I strongly disagree. The Chiron is my least favourite out of the 1:8 cars precisely for the fact that it uses a lot of system elements in the bodywork.

Fair enough. But do you make it a point of principle or it's the resulting aesthetic that doesn't work for you?

[Lyichir]

4 hours ago, Auroralampinen said:

But we had this solution before why we needed gearrack does lego now want desperately making their model mechanically complex than simple

A gear rack can sometimes be harder to align perfectly so that the wheels face forward with the steering wheel in a neutral position (e.g. being one or two gear teeth off from perfect alignment)—a solution like this aligns perfectly every time, which is probably preferable for a small set like this that's more for play than display.

[zoo]

21 hours ago, Divitis said:

Fair enough. But do you make it a point of principle or it's the resulting aesthetic that doesn't work for you?

I think it is mostly the mix of technic and system elements that I do not care for. I do not mind a few gaps here and there as long as the design in general feels coherent. I would like to think I have few if any points of principle when it comes to lego builds. You do you if you will. Just a matter of personal taste for me.

[AVCampos]

That's that. Some people like System to add details and fill gaps, other dislike it to get a pure technic model. As with many other design choices, whatever the LEGO designers do someone will be displeased.

[gyenesvi]

19 hours ago, zoo said:

I think it is mostly the mix of technic and system elements that I do not care for. I do not mind a few gaps here and there as long as the design in general feels coherent. I would like to think I have few if any points of principle when it comes to lego builds. You do you if you will. Just a matter of personal taste for me.

In general I like mixing system and technic parts, but I think there are good and bad ways of doing so, so I kind of get what you mean. When some system parts are thrown in in isolation just to fill some gaps, that does not work for me. But when a coherent system assembly is added to make for example a certain curvature/surface that is not possible with technic parts, I like that. But I guess it's the same with purely technic parts. There are part families that have different style than other, and when they are mixed, the end up being an incoherent/discontinuous surface. That's what does not work for me in general. So I think the problem is not what system the parts come from, but rather how they fit together.

[thekoRngear]

Not gunna lie, I liked the use of system bricks to have the dashboard built inside the car.

[Anio]

6 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

When some system parts are thrown in in isolation just to fill some gaps, that does not work for me.

Any example in recent sets ?

[gyenesvi]

3 hours ago, Anio said:

Any example in recent sets ?

As a quick example, in this set, there's a 1x2 slope under the door, that is kindkf disconnected from the piece behind it, and also leaves a lot of gap around the door. At the same time the curved assembly for the taillights blends in better for me.

Another could be the Koenigsegg set. Same situation, the slope under the door is even more disconnected from the part behind it. At the same time, the system assembly for the front of the roof looks nice for me.

[mpj]

5 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

As a quick example, in this set, there's a 1x2 slope under the door, that is kindkf disconnected from the piece behind it, and also leaves a lot of gap around the door. At the same time the curved assembly for the taillights blends in better for me.

Another could be the Koenigsegg set. Same situation, the slope under the door is even more disconnected from the part behind it. At the same time, the system assembly for the front of the roof looks nice for me.

I completely agree. I also don't like this kind of use because system parts are 8mm "thick", instead technic liftarms are a little thinner, so you see a micro non-complanarity on the surface and it looks "wrong".