1H2017 Technic video reviews by Sariel

[Appie]

Maybe I missed it in the review, is the IR receiver a V1 or V2? I don't expect a V2 since it isn't needed for this PF setup, but it would be nice to have a new source for V2's after the 9398.

[gerkenz]

Hi, I just build mine.

It is an easy build and it is really fun to drive! I recommend to get it for your kids or yourself. 79€ for a very cool track vehicle with PF is very nice.

Now it's time to add the S-Brick....

 

Edit: It seemed to be the V1 ir receiver, no V2 print.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by gerkenz

[zux]

1 hour ago, thatrabidhobo said:

While I used to agree with this sentiment for all 1H sets I've come to realize that simpler sets are needed for kids so they do not become frustrated and give up. 

My four year old, for example, does not have the ability to put more than a couple of technic pieces together because he doesn't yet have the dexterity. In a year he might be able to do a small set, but it was a bit of an eye opener to watch him struggle even though he understood the instructions and basic concepts well enough. 

That's the problem with modern Technic - it gets simplistic and much easier to assemble due to "poor kids". Everyone here grew up with much more complex builds and instructions, while we were kids as well.

Isn't 4 year old kid is "a bit" too young for Technic? I mean, he probably finished with Duplo not that long time and it is good time to start with some System/City stuff, which would help him getting to know new small pieces more. Technic sets are targeted to slightly older generation. 

[J_C]

11 minutes ago, zux said:

 it gets simplistic and much easier to assemble due to "poor kids". Everyone here grew up with much more complex builds and instructions, while we were kids as well.

Really?

Aside from "42065" discussion which I do not want to participate in, but just out of curiosity:

"which Technic set from 80s/90s is comparable in complexity to recent ones (Arocs, Class, BWE, Porsche, 8043, Unimog, 42042...any of those)?" I somehow can't remember anything. Even flagship sets back then were super simple to todays mid-range (e.g.8851 is simpler than 42053, 

Isn't little bit like those memories/nostalgia driven notions as "when I was a little boy, there used to be more snow during winter" (sure, because you were short as a boy)  

[Blakbird]

5 minutes ago, J_C said:

"which Technic set from 80s/90s is comparable in complexity to recent ones (Arocs, Class, BWE, Porsche, 8043, Unimog, 42042...any of those)?" I somehow can't remember anything. Even flagship sets back then were super simple to todays mid-range (e.g.8851 is simpler than 42053, 

8480 is at least as complex as anything made today.  So is 8485.  The real difference, though, is the instructions.  Older instructions were MUCH more complex in the number of parts added per step and even in general build techniques.  This means that the experience of building was more complex even if the models weren't.  The 8868 instructions book is just a little pamphlet and it has instructions for both models!

[zux]

3 minutes ago, J_C said:

Really?

Aside from "42065" discussion which I do not want to participate in, but just out of curiosity:

"which Technic set from 80s/90s is comparable in complexity to recent ones (Arocs, Class, BWE, Porsche, 8043, Unimog, 42042...any of those)?" I somehow can't remember anything. Even flagship sets back then were super simple to todays mid-range (e.g.8851 is simpler than 42053, 

Isn't little bit like those memories/nostalgia driven notions as "when I was a little boy, there used to be more snow during winter" (sure, because you were short as a boy)  

8880 is a good example. I had assembled it once already got to know modern Technic (never had it as a kid). The size of instruction booklet explains a lot - it contains multiple parts per step, several steps per page as well as B-model instructions. Basically more stuff squeezed in smaller space.

Modern sets, especially the ones you've mentioned, are quite advanced models, but even these contain many pages with just few parts added.

[J_C]

1 minute ago, Blakbird said:

8480 is at least as complex as anything made today.  So is 8485.  The real difference, though, is the instructions.  Older instructions were MUCH more complex in the number of parts added per step and even in general build techniques.  This means that the experience of building was more complex even if the models weren't.  The 8868 instructions book is just a little pamphlet and it has instructions for both models!

 

Just now, zux said:

8880 is a good example. I had assembled it once already got to know modern Technic (never had it as a kid). The size of instruction booklet explains a lot - it contains multiple parts per step, several steps per page as well as B-model instructions. Basically more stuff squeezed in smaller space.

Modern sets, especially the ones you've mentioned, are quite advanced models, but even these contain many pages with just few parts added.

I would agree on instructions. But it does not bother me. I just go through individual steps faster. Faster per step, with more steps. Experience is similar. I do not consider (and never did) instructions as some sort of code that needs to be cracked. Building according the instructions is easy. Do not kid ourselves.

My 7old daughter can build any of my Technic sets according to the instructions. When she is designing her own stuff, she struggles with Technic and only build simple stuff (gates for city, simple bridges for her city) and she sticks with Creator/city/friends system bricks. But with instructions, she can (and enjoys) Technic. Is that wrong?

But I find general building (when building according to imagination - now known as MOCing - this therm was not around in 80s  )harder and more brain engaging with studless system than old studded Technic. I think with studless you can do more, possibilities are wider, you can do more, build more complex stuff, be more compact etc, but it is not by any chance easier (and that is good! )

[Sariel]

To get back on topic: 42063 BMW R 1200 GS Adventure:

 

[N-4K0]

Interesting how the trans-clear bent panel isn't 100% trans-clear.

[Blakbird]

11 minutes ago, Error404 said:

Interesting how the trans-clear bent panel isn't 100% trans-clear.

I wonder if this is related to the type of plastic used.  Traditionally, trans-clear parts have been acrylic instead of ABS.  This is what makes them so much stiffer and harder to take apart (trans plates for instance).  However, for Technic parts it might not have been possible to use this material.  15L liftarms have come in clear before as well, and I don't recall them being totally clear like a regular clear part.  On the other hand, it might just be a function of the mold.  All of the panels have a slight texture and are not completely smooth.  If you were to simply use the same mold with clear resin, you'd get a slightly frosted part.

[SNIPE]

I think it is just trans-clear, but just has a grainy texture on the plastic, I've seen this before on lego system slopes some are smoooth some aren't

[N-4K0]

I see. Thanks for the information Blakbird.

I wonder if they'll introduce other panels in trans-clear at some point.

[agrof]

Great video, but I think the bottom line is a bit unfair. Knowing the complexity of the main features of these BMWs (cardan shaft with single arm on the rear + Telelever suspension on the front + boxer engine), it is impressive how the designers could translate them into LEGO. These could have been presented more in details, but of course if one is not involved with motorcycles in depth, these information is not evident. (No offense!) From me it deserves the 5 stars for creativity. Yepp, the look is questionable, but Modding is FUN!

Soft suspension also great for Off-road, so not an issue for me. The B model looks also very interesting.

Edited December 22, 2016 by agrof
added content

[schraubedrin]

The B-model instructions with sketches from the design process reminded me of the instructions of 8445

I would love for this concept to come alive again

[allanp]

Considering most vehicles with sprung suspension will compress their springs slightly under their own weight, soft suspension is accurate. Considering it has the flat twin engine, shaft drive, soft suspension and suspension setup of the real bike I think it deserves one or two more stars for authenticity. At least more than 42065, which was never meant to be authentic and as such has no engine, no transmission or gears of any kind (unless you count the ones inside the motors), no suspension, no steering wheel, no seat, no room for a scale driver, no wing mirrors, no disk brakes, no front axle, no rear axle, no drive shafts, no cup holders and doesn't look remotely like anything past or present other than a movie prop.

Edited December 23, 2016 by allanp

[Sariel]

Just one question: is 42065 a licensed model of a real vehicle?

[allanp]

No. Would a real life vehicle like this have an engine, transmission of any kind, suspension, steering wheel/levers, a drivers seat? Yes it would. Lacking such attributes or any real life vehicle to compare it's appearance, 42065 cannot be said to have any authenticity. But I am not knocking this set for it's lack of authenticity as it was clearly not designed to be authentic. A tracked vehicle like that, at that scale would probably NOT be a very good set if it WAS authentic because at this small scale you would just have the tracks driving a differential driving an engine, which would be boring. Although a suspension setup might make it a little more interesting. But anyway, authenticity was, probably quite rightly so in this rare case, not it's goal. It appears to have been designed to be a Technic RC PF set that is as accessible to the much younger, less advanced Technic builder as possible (by being simple and low cost) and it achieves that goal. 

[Andy D]

@SarielGreat video for the BMW 42063. I always enjoy your videos!

What is the B model. The instructions App says "BMW Motorrad". What is that?

Andy D

Edited December 23, 2016 by Andy D

[Ngoc Nguyen]

7 minutes ago, Andy D said:

The instructions App says "BMW Motorrad". What is that?

BMW Motorrad is the motorbike division in BMW.

[schraubedrin]

8 hours ago, Sariel said:

is 42065 a licensed model of a real vehicle?

If it was licensed, there would have been Pictures of the real vehicle on the box as with the Arocs, Volvo, BMW, ..
But i'd say it's clearly inspired by the Ripsaw

[allanp]

1 hour ago, schraubedrin said:

If it was licensed, there would have been Pictures of the real vehicle on the box as with the Arocs, Volvo, BMW, ..
But i'd say it's clearly inspired by the Ripsaw

He knows I

Sorry for some reason I cant edit the above post. It wont let me delete.  But yeah he knows its not a licenced set. He was making a point in reply to my comments.

Edited December 23, 2016 by allanp

[JJ2]

Great reviews Sariel, I think I like 42065 most though, its a hard choice between 42063 and 42065 but 42065 has such a good value.

[thatrabidhobo]

21 hours ago, zux said:

Isn't 4 year old kid is "a bit" too young for Technic? I mean, he probably finished with Duplo not that long time and it is good time to start with some System/City stuff, which would help him getting to know new small pieces more. Technic sets are targeted to slightly older generation. 

I don't want to derail the current discussion, but would like to still answer this question.

Yes, at 4 years and 9 months, he is too young, and is currently on System/City Legos. I just wanted to experiment to see what he could do with a very basic Technic set from 20 years ago. It was revealing to see the hand dexterity and fine motor skill gap that is between System and common Technic pieces, which is why I now appreciate the simpler 1H Technics has a attainable step in between System and the Technics that have more interesting mechanics. Currently I see 42065 as a great first or second Technic set to get him excited about all things mechanic.

 

Edited December 23, 2016 by thatrabidhobo

[Meatman]

I think the B-model of the BMW bike is more interesting than the A-model.

[rollermonkey]

Just finished watching the two new reviews, when YouTube offered up someone else's reviews of the last set (the ship)...

I clicked on them, and after 10 seconds decided I'll just wait for Sariel's review of that one, too. 

:)