CM4Sci

Technic 2017 Set Discussion

Recommended Posts

I'm still confused about how the hybrid gearbox works. Is each function a product of combined switch settings or does each switch control three functions?

Edited by Bartybum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andy D Oh, I thought you meant some new part. I'd refer to it as the chassis, or the 8868 homage to avoid confusion.

 

@Bartybum I had some pictures of what I thought the gearbox might look like, at this post:

That has some better explanations, but to put it in brief, yes, each function is a product of a combined switch settings. For each motor, one lever controls the switch between driving and the crane functions. Then, the other lever controls which function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

Really? Name one advantage. If you're going to make a statement, be prepared to back it up.:classic:

Less weight.  It's a toy, it needs to be performant.  Because 42070 uses Claas tyres it's fricking huge, and it's only driven by one XL motor, so it's under-powered.  More weight is not desirable.  Another M motor and PF receiver = heavier.

'Less weight' could also explain the skeletal rear and anemic crane.  But I suspect they're more to do with part count and price.  

'Less weight' should also have caused that bonnet to be empty (no fake engine = less weight), but eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dokludi has posted this a few days ago on eurobricks in the technic, mindstorms& modelteam forum. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

@Andy D Oh, I thought you meant some new part. I'd refer to it as the chassis, or the 8868 homage to avoid

 

Whoops! Sorry any confusion I may have caused.  

No matter what the designation, I am still surprised there didn't seem to be a mention of it at the NY Toy Fair.

Andy D

Edited by Andy D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25.2.2017 at 2:05 PM, nguyengiangoc said:

The 42070 does push the state of art IMO. The hybrid gearbox represents the next step in the evolution of Technic models, because it has several advantages over the traditional 4-function gearbox, the multi-directional gear box, the RC motor setup, and even the 8043 gearbox.

I think there are Technic models which don't need to have full RC. A tow truck would be one example because the hook attaching thing is always manual work. On the other hand a 8043 like solution would also have worked: driving, steering and outriggers change to 3 functions of the crane. Of course you need way too much PF for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, allanp said:

2010 = 8043. Pretty much the same as 8258 with it's complex (good) but unrealistic (bad) mechanics, but with RC (for me bad) and no memorable new parts, a tentative TOCK! (ducks and runs for cover!!!)

Yeah... run far, very far! Seriously. I was with you up until this point and giving 2 "ticks" for 2015 and 2016 just adds to the insult of not giving it for 8043. It's one of the most snug build sets ever made, every inch used for driving its 6 RC functions and still looking aesthetically pleasing. It's right up there with the 8455.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bartybum said:

I'm still confused about how the hybrid gearbox works. Is each function a product of combined switch settings or does each switch control three functions?

I think thats good cause you can learn by building it. Which is rare nowdays but not so much more recently with technic models. So I'd prophesy learning how the gear box works.

Edited by SNIPE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, andythenorth said:

Less weight.  It's a toy, it needs to be performant.  Because 42070 uses Claas tyres it's fricking huge, and it's only driven by one XL motor, so it's under-powered.  More weight is not desirable.  Another M motor and PF receiver = heavier.

'Less weight' could also explain the skeletal rear and anemic crane.  But I suspect they're more to do with part count and price.  

'Less weight' should also have caused that bonnet to be empty (no fake engine = less weight), but eh.

I don't think so. Lego has released things with lackluster performance before, and if they truly wanted this thing to perform, they would have not hooked up the motor to that complex gearbox. Also, underpowered? I've seen plenty of large creations with only one XL motor used, and few of them seemed to be lacking power. Plus, in comparison to the rest of the model, an M motor and another receiver would be negligible extra weight. And, honestly, if Lego were really worried about weight, they would either have not made it RC, or had two drive motors, like 9398. 

Maybe we should ask Dokludi. He built a replica, with 6 correct tires, and if anybody would know about the set lacking power, it would be him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/02/2017 at 5:58 AM, Andy D said:

 

 

@Saberwing40k, this frame... Look at about 18 seconds in this video

 

Andy D

This thing reminds me on old 'buy three models and build a bigger car with it' when i was young , in 91 ... with all these new type of bricks.

Share this post


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

VERY dangorous for feet

If it ain't dangerous for your feet, it ain't LEGO. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that looks cute but i'm not angry at lego that actually looks good. This might lead to future creator and technic set resemblance. Even flagships

Edited by Kmuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

Well, here's something interesting! This particular Creator set from 2016 bears resemblance to a set I think we all know. Have LEGO run out of ideas or what?

Eh?  It's just a neat nod from one set to the other.  A hat tip.  My kids love this stuff.  But yeah, Lego is probably f*cked, let's all give up shall we?

Edited by andythenorth

Share this post


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

Eh?  It's just a neat nod from one set to the other.  A hat tip.  My kids love this stuff.  

Exactly! I love it too.

Share this post


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

Eh?  It's just a neat nod from one set to the other.  A hat tip.  My kids love this stuff.  But yeah, Lego is probably f*cked, let's all give up shall we?

:blush: Maybe I was a bit severe earlier. While this year probably isn't the strongest in Technic history, I in no way meant that LEGO is losing it. I just thought that the Ocean Explorer double act is a bit unoriginal. You have to admit they are a smidgen too similar, but that's probably me! :look:

5 hours ago, Kmuffin said:

that looks cute but i'm not angry at lego that actually looks good. This might lead to future creator and technic set resemblance. Even flagships

That does sound great! :sweet: There are loads of Creator sets that would look good in Technic. I'd like to see another Technic space shuttle, or a robot dog like the Creator models from this year.

4 hours ago, Jim said:

Exactly! I love it too.

Then that's all that's important. :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

You have to admit they are a smidgen too similar, but that's probably me! :look:

That's because they represent the same set/model/vehicle. Like the Mini and the mini...well uhh.... Mini.

They are supposed to look similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, andythenorth said:

I liked the nod from the tiny 9390 tow truck (2012) to the 8110 unimog (2011) as well :wink:  http://brickset.com/sets/9390-1/Mini-Tow-Truck

Don't forget the 8045, which is essentially a miniature version of 8295. Now that you mention it, one of the 2016 Creator sets features a telehandler with the same colour scheme.

Edited by Maaboo35

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.