CM4Sci

Technic 2017 Set Discussion

Recommended Posts

*Coughs* Hi kid's,I somehow missed the entire discussion and release of  the 2017 line....upon seeing these photos of the winter sets I think I needn't of bothered joining the

discussion at this late stage. :cry_sad:                 

The tow truck sounds good but it does not live up too expectation once seen in the photos.I am disappointed too see that Lego have not used the new pneumatic

elements  again, *While making monkey face* I am sure Allanp is thrilled to see the continued use of those "grey mechanical alternatives". :laugh:

Of the entire 2017 line I think the small telehandler (42061),construction crew (42060),Container yard (42062) and the research boat (42064)  looks the most appealing and

they are already out,I say roll on 2018....

Edited by Alasdair Ryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nguyengiangoc said:

Or maybe we can just wait until 2018 when there are a successor for the Porsche and a non-RC flagship with a higher part count, a lower price, and a more functionally complex design. I don't know what you guys think but I've always thought that the successor of the Porsche will not be 1 year right behind it.

I'd be surprised if the new "proper" Technic supercar launches before the Porsche goes EOL. It's still selling like hotcakes, why potentially split the buyers into choosing one or the other when you can spread them out a bit more and tempt them into buying both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one don't believe that any complaints are unfair to Lego. When I complain, I am merely using my right as a consumer to give Lego feedback about their products. Now, granted there is some whining, but in this case, I find the complaints to be justified. There really wasn't much hype about 42070, and it's not just that it doesn't live up to the expectations of the fans. In my mind, 42070 doesn't live up to the other flagship sets. Lego has proven that they can do large, RC vehicles with correct suspension, fully RC functions, whether with individual motors, or a remote controlled gearbox,  or sets that are fantastically complex, but not RC. But no, it awkwardly splits the difference. What's the point of having an RC model if the function selector has to be worked manually? Why not make it a fully manual model with all the complexity that entails? Why can't it have good suspension like 8110, or 9398, or 42043? Why can't it have a remote control gearbox to switch functions like 8043? These are not inflated expectations, these are precedents set by Lego themselves. And, I don't think it's up to Lego's flagship standards. 42069 is not that good either. It's kind of like that red pickup truck 42029, and with roughly the same functions. Ironically, I think 42069, as it is a tracked vehicle, would work better as an RC set than 42070. If that were the case, then both sets would be much better. Than, 42070 could have the complexity a flagship deserves, and 42069 would be RC, and more fun to use, since it doesn't have to be that complex anyway.

As a closing though, where/what is 42067? If Lego canceled that set, why not just move all of the sets above it a number down? That would put minds at ease, and stuff. Or, maybe it's a super pack, of the sets needed to build the car chassis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Saberwing40k said:

As a closing though, where/what is 42067? If Lego canceled that set, why not just move all of the sets above it a number down? That would put minds at ease, and stuff. Or, maybe it's a super pack, of the sets needed to build the car chassis.

They may use a PDM system which is more trouble than it is worth to change all the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly dislike the Claas, BWE, Volvo Ew160, Arocs...

I love the 2 new pullbacks ( 42058, 42059), the jet (42066), the tracked racer (42065) the fire truck(42068), and 42070. 

The point is, one man's poison is another man's pleasure. So yes, I do think complaining is wrong as it's all subjective. This year is better than last year IMHO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that Lego does not want to cannibalise the sales of the great 2016 2H sets, that is why the 2017 2H are targetting a different younger audience. Time and sales figures will tell if this strategy works out. I'm pretty sure we will see the worthy successor of the Claas in 2018 2H. 

I do not think some discussion/criticism hurts. A forum with only fanboys would be rather boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jim said:

Amen brother. We have been getting new awesome parts, parts in new colors, new tires, etc, etc, etc. The only "mistake" TLG made is making 2016 freakishly awesome. That's hard to top. I must admit that I find the 2017 sets underwhelming myself, but that doesn't mean that I need to be negative over and over again. I agree that our stance towards TLG should definitely be more positive. 

That was the point I was trying to get to several pages ago...TLG burned all their powder in 2016 and set up 2017 for a let down.  They should have traded out one or two of the 2016 2H sets with one or two of 2017 2H sets.  Would have leveled out the expectations / let down issue going from 2016 to 2017.  In the bigger scheme of things, its not a big deal.  I just need to exercise self restraint and hold out on opening up my 42056 and 42053 sets until this summer so that I will have something new to build.  Longer term though, I would like to see some of these larger, AFOL sets have a formal option from LEGO on 31313 integration.  It seams that Mindstorms is off on its own little island once its released despite being mostly compatible with Technic...official support for PF would be nice though.  Mindstorms is fun to explore and tinker with but sometimes its nice to just check your brain at the door and follow some instructions which result in a cool creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WvG_853 said:

I do not think some discussion/criticism hurts. A forum with only fanboys would be rather boring.

I completely agree. Nothing wrong with criticism. But for me, critiscism means arguments to backup an opinion. Not just posting that something "sucks". 

At the moment I am not too fond of the Truck either, but what if you are a 10 year old kid and you get it for your birthday? You would be thrilled, right?! Besides that, a 6x6 Truck with big tyres is something totally different than yet another construction vehicle. So put things into perspective and appreciate what TLG is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, WvG_853 said:

I suspect that Lego does not want to cannibalise the sales of the great 2016 2H sets, that is why the 2017 2H are targetting a different younger audience.

That is a really good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as criticism is opinion based, not spoken like fact. I'm 50, not a 10 year-old, and I love this year's sets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And good for you, but you're saying that nobody can complain about these sets. Just as you have every right to like the sets you do, I have every right to dislike the sets I do, and discuss it on the forums. Also, who here as said their opinions as statements of fact? I'm not one of them.

 

Also, I don't think "But the kids will like it!" is any sort of justification for poor design. Putting more emphasis on playability, or other things, that's aiming at kids I can agree with. But if a set has compromised functionality, or slapped together design, there isn't an excuse for that. Also, why do people feel the need to defend Lego if somebody says "I don't like this." If I don't like a set, I won't pay my money for it, simple as that. It's not like Lego is a charity or anything. On the other hand, some people are a little bit out of touch with their expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HA!...the price of the Red #3 connectors are DROPPING!

http://www.ebay.ie/itm/262834722132?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

 

I really hope they release this part in Red as seen in the display model, but as others pointed out...the box art shows it as LBG, that part could be rather useful for modding and colour matching parts to parts etc.

14720.png

If anyone else spotted new parts or recolours...please post in the General Part Discussion thread.

Edited by Richard Dower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the parts will be red, as those are injection molded parts. Also, I've seen some high res photos via Barry Bosman's (aka Barman) Flickr stream. One of them is of the box for 42070, and in the center of the box is a small label that reads "Switch should be facing down", which indicates to me that the box art is still very much work in progress. 42069 is the same way, a part on the hood is yellow in the box art, but black on the model. Also, 42068 has some minor differences to 42051. In 42068, the seat are blue, instead of white, and the wheels have covers that 42051 lacks. Finally, I've noticed something very interesting about 42069. In a picture of it, I spy a U joint going to the front track. This means that it has actual four wheel drive, about time. So, is this set a sleeper hit, or still too simple? Unlike 42070, I think it's too early to tell.

Here are the pictures:

42070, and the lurking 42069:

32274670160_858d5c4e36.jpg42070-2 6x6 All Terrain Tow Truck by Barry Bosman, on Flickr

42070 box art:

31811097854_9dcda66f44.jpg42070-1 6x6 All Terrain Tow Truck by Barry Bosman, on Flickr

Bear has an eyepatch. :pir-sweet:

42069 box art:

32274670250_6556670e14.jpg42069-1 Extreme Adventure Vehicle by Barry Bosman, on Flickr

By the front left track, I spy the bottom of a shock absorber, meaning this model has both real and fake ones. Unlike 42038, it looks like the hubs will not be suited to mounting wheels, at least not right out of the box.

42068:

32613407106_69ba110b95.jpg42068-2 Airport Rescue Vehicle by Barry Bosman, on Flickr

42068 box art:

31811098134_220ffe6afb.jpg42068-1 Airport Rescue Vehicle by Barry Bosman, on Flickr

There we go, keep a look out, there might be new pieces lurking.

Edit:

I just found some pics on Promobricks, of 42069 with the doors open. All I can say is, wow:

lego-technic-42069_2.jpg

I fully did not expect the doors to open in that manner, with the butterfly upper segment, and a drop down lower segment ala 8466. I also see the 3x5 curved panel, behind the door. I also see a shock absorber, although I am not certain what kind. I think with the rim parts on either side of the shock, Lego is trying to evoke remote reservoir shocks, which would make sense for a vehicle of this kind. There is also a mystery gear lever, although what this does is not immediately clear. It looks offset to one side, so is it a gearbox? I dunno, I really want to see in the back. Things still don't quite add up, with the functionality of this set, but it might be a supercar in disguise.

Edited by Saberwing40k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LXF said:

I wouldn't buy the car chassis as a set, it isn't really appealing. I think it's fine as a combination model. 

Agree...its very obvious the combo model does not use all the parts, it seems like a large amount would be left over if you bought all 3 sets. This is intended as an downloable gift, instructions for a combo model that mimicks a classic set. But it would be better just to part out or use your spare parts to built it rather then buying the three sets on question.

15 hours ago, Zero (Zblj) said:

That's one of the reasons I'm not really active as I use to be too... I for one like the truck, even though it only has pendular suspension in the back, it will be a great parts pack for offroading and its a spiritual ancestor of 9398.

9398 meets 8273....its DNA is more akin to 8273 19.png

On 1/2/2017 at 10:57 PM, deehtha said:

On the rear of 42069 between the two silver fake shocks, it looks like there is a yellow real shock. Is it a short one or a long one?

It looks like a short one, not the ones used in 9398.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richard Dower said:

42068 really is a beauty!...thanks for the pics!

Agreed. It looks fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that the curved-panel seats in 42068 are now blue instead of white. Bit of a shame; it would have been nice to have them in a newer colour. Doesn't really detract from the model, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much like the 8860 remake. I'm way too young to remember the original (I'm more of the 8880 generation), but I'd love to have a remake built and displayed for some time.

But --- do I understand correctly that the remake can't have a diff because it's not there on the parts list of the three sets? That's a shame :( It's one thing to have an unsynchronized gearbox (retro-Technicky), and another to have no diff. 

Maybe some modding will be in order. A better steering wheel could also help the looks. 

By the way, I think TLG could have planned the combo remake all along. When I built Ultralight Helicopter, I noticed it has two gears which are unnecessary, strictly speaking: one of the two 20t double-bevels and a 12t bevel. They are not used in the B model either. Could it be they are actually needed for the gearbox or something in the 8860 remake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to say this as my first post, but I'm a little bit puzzled about the amount of negativity towards the 42070. Am I the only person who is interested in how the >7 functions of the 42070 will be motorized with only two levers and 2 motors? If there is a driving and a working mode all outriggers have to be operated at the same time because the remaining 3 move the crane. Or each motor will have 4 functions so there is plenty of room to operate the outriggers individually. But no matter how they solve this problem I expect the most complex gearshift system after 8043. That's why I'm really excited to see how this will work out in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nguyengiangoc said:

To me 42068 will be fantastic if it has 2 panels to cover its top :<

Could be possible to try fill in the gaps up at the top. its very nicely paneled and filled in on all sides though.

6 minutes ago, Sazan said:

Sorry to say this as my first post, but I'm a little bit puzzled about the amount of negativity towards the 42070. Am I the only person who is interested in how the >7 functions of the 42070 will be motorized with only two levers and 2 motors? If there is a driving and a working mode all outriggers have to be operated at the same time because the remaining 3 move the crane. Or each motor will have 4 functions so there is plenty of room to operate the outriggers individually. But no matter how they solve this problem I expect the most complex gearshift system after 8043. That's why I'm really excited to see how this will work out in the end.

I wonder how the medium motor steers the vehicle?....why not use a servo motor?

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

I see that the curved-panel seats in 42068 are now blue instead of white. Bit of a shame; it would have been nice to have them in a newer colour. Doesn't really detract from the model, though.

I wonder also if you can add power functions to this?....its a €90 set and they usually are designed around adding a power functions set to motorise its functions,

Edited by Richard Dower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Targi said:

I very much like the 8860 remake. I'm way too young to remember the original (I'm more of the 8880 generation), but I'd love to have a remake built and displayed for some time.

But --- do I understand correctly that the remake can't have a diff because it's not there on the parts list of the three sets? That's a shame :( It's one thing to have an unsynchronized gearbox (retro-Technicky), and another to have no diff. 

Maybe some modding will be in order. A better steering wheel could also help the looks. 

By the way, I think TLG could have planned the combo remake all along. When I built Ultralight Helicopter, I noticed it has two gears which are unnecessary, strictly speaking: one of the two 20t double-bevels and a 12t bevel. They are not used in the B model either. Could it be they are actually needed for the gearbox or something in the 8860 remake?

Yup, looks like no-diff, which does take away from the "display a bunch of various real car features" idea of the old 8860, not having a diff in a car that size really sucks...

As for the gears in 42057, i agree on the small 12T, but the second 20T on the bottom does add to the ease of operating the engine/rotors

 

I was thinking by the way, something like the car chassis could make for a cool "carrozeria" contest, have each builder start out with the same base chassis/driveline/seats, and see who can build the most interesting body around it. Sadly though the chassis doesnt seem to offer a lot of connection points for bodywork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Richard Dower said:

I wonder how the medium motor steers the vehicle?....why not use a servo motor?

It might be too expensive. Remember that the servo motor retails for a lot more than the cheapest motor, the M-motor. It will be interesting to see.

 

I recall Remote-Controlled VOLVO L350F Wheel Loader was critizised for the jerky steering caused by the servo motor operating such a heavy model. The difference here, though, is that the Volvo has articulated steering, which furthers that kind of behaviour when turning using the non-servo "aware" standard remote.

 

EDIT

I see the spinoff thread got locked down. My comment would have been that the firetruck comparison is really showing for how long LEGO has come since the "dark ages" of early 2000' technic sets.

Edited by Lasse D
Added edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Richard Dower said:

I wonder how the medium motor steers the vehicle?....why not use a servo motor?

M motor -> worm gear -> 24z clutch gear -> 12z bevel gear -> gear rack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

I see that the curved-panel seats in 42068 are now blue instead of white. Bit of a shame; it would have been nice to have them in a newer colour. Doesn't really detract from the model, though.

The search ship 42064 has 6 of those panels in white :wink:

 

2 hours ago, Sazan said:

Sorry to say this as my first post, but I'm a little bit puzzled about the amount of negativity towards the 42070. Am I the only person who is interested in how the >7 functions of the 42070 will be motorized with only two levers and 2 motors? If there is a driving and a working mode all outriggers have to be operated at the same time because the remaining 3 move the crane. Or each motor will have 4 functions so there is plenty of room to operate the outriggers individually. But no matter how they solve this problem I expect the most complex gearshift system after 8043. That's why I'm really excited to see how this will work out in the end.

You are not the only one and definitely the way how the designer achieved that,  will be a big plus on the building experience. The only thing that worries me, is the friction caused by many gears.

____

The 42069 is growing on me. If this set combines some of the best features of 8297 and 8466, definitely will be one of the most interesting technic set. The problem is the color scheme as 42070 :sadnew:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.