[VIDEO REVIEW] 42070-B: Research explorer vehicle

[suffocation]

Yup, easily the worst flagship set since 2004 and the B-model is even worse. Clap clap, TLG.

[Saberwing40k]

8 hours ago, rener said:

You seem to reject any argument which doesn't support your thoughts on 42070. I assume you built it yourself to solidify your opinion?

No, I was just rejecting your specific argument. You still didn't say how old your kids are, and I don't think kids can make an honest opinion on a set because they don't understand how pricing works, and can't compare it to other sets. If your kids, for instance, are 3 and 4, then their opinion doesn't matter, because they have not yet developed standards. So, no. I am not rejecting your opinion because it doesn't agree with mine, I'm rejecting your argument which is badly supported. Also, you somehow ignore several massive problems 42070 has while arguing it isn't that bad. If that was your opinion, I wouldn't have a problem with that, but you are presenting it as an argument. 

Also, I think we can formulate opinions of sets like this based on reviews. (That's why people like @Jim and @Sariel make them), but yes, I have built the set, in LDD, and it is still bad. So no, I don't disagree with your opinion, but you try to present an argument, and fail to do so in a logical manner, which is what I disagree with.

[Sariel]

4 hours ago, teflon said:

Well, I would not be to harsh on this model. Sure, I don't like it but I recognize some effort to go in some new direction. Larger, more wheels and larger price.

Please keep positive.

So a review always has to be positive? :) Sorry, but I don't think your arguments hold up:

- it's smaller than 42055 for example, and than a number of other existing sets. Hell, it's got less pieces but higher price than 42069.
- more wheels? 42043 has twice as many. Also, these aren't new wheels, we already got them from the much cheaper and much better Claas Xerion.
- yes, larger price is what we always expect from LEGO. Why make sets better or more complex when you can just raise the prices ;)
- I will be extra grateful for explaining how is leaving roughly 1/4 of the A-model's pieces completely unused related to effort and not laziness :)

Edited August 8, 2017 by Sariel

[rener]

1 hour ago, Saberwing40k said:

No, I was just rejecting your specific argument. You still didn't say how old your kids are, and I don't think kids can make an honest opinion on a set because they don't understand how pricing works, and can't compare it to other sets. If your kids, for instance, are 3 and 4, then their opinion doesn't matter, because they have not yet developed standards. So, no. I am not rejecting your opinion because it doesn't agree with mine, I'm rejecting your argument which is badly supported. 

Also, I think we can formulate opinions of sets like this based on reviews. (That's why people like @Jim and @Sariel make them), but yes, I have built the set, in LDD, and it is still bad. So no, I don't disagree with your opinion, but you try to present an argument, and fail to do so in a logical manner, which is what I disagree with.

I think you're misreading some matters, as I already mentioned the MSRP is outrageous by any standards. My opinion regarded playability, not pricing, which you totally ignore, just like the comparison with other big sets I mentioned. 

Furthermore I don't think I was really presenting an argument, just an observation which lead to an opinion about playability. Nothing illogical about that if you ask me, but feel free to present the opinion of a bunch of other kids who disagree. 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by rener

[Erik Leppen]

20 hours ago, rener said:

it looks big and mean like it should

Umm, no.

Technic set "should" not "look big and mean". That's not what Technic is for. The Technic slogan has long been "technik wie in Wirklichkeit" (roughly "techiques as in reality"). That's what Technic is for - for building things that can do things, modeled after some realistic or existing thing.

The main model of 42070 seems to do that pretty decently, with its 6 functions, but it's painfully missing decent suspension that shows how it's done "in reality" on off-road trucks. So 42070's A model I would rank as "OK-ish", at best. I has no redeeming qualities, it's stuck together with large parts and lots of empty space and unfinished things, the gearbox and, in fact the whole internal structure, looks like a mess (I don't mean the colors, I mean how everything is built up. It's beams running everywhere without a clear design method), and frankly 6 functions isn't very much for a €250+ set. By comparison, a set like 42008 (that seems to be disliked by some, I don't know why), is a technical marvel that has the same number of functions but with 1300 pieces for about €110, and it looks better (as much as you may hate the shaping, and there's certainly critique to be given, at least it looks finished from every angle).

If 42070 was made to "look big and mean" then by all means it seems to have succeeded, but if that was the goal, then why is it a Technic set?

[Jonfensu]

Thanks for the review and taking the time to make it... Personally I would not waste 2 building hours plus editing, rendering etc for such bad and ugly model

About the B-Model: It happens when

1.The set does not come with enough variety of pieces

2.The main model is unfinished

3.The set has an ulgy color combination.

I remember some interviews where the designers said they build the main model thinking to make a proper B Model, but seems like It is not the case - It comfirms the 0.6Kgs of unused parts -.

Talking about unused parts, most of them are big or long pieces - beams, liftarms, gear racks etc. - so the use of them is limited .... Simply the problem is: This set does not have enough versatile pieces! Just compare the inventory with the 42069´s.

Definetly is very strange to see how the quality of all 2017 models is so uneven and how the flagship is not on pair with other flagships ...... I am sill wondering how TLG aproved this model as the flagship of the 40th Technic Anniversary(!). The 40th Anniversary is something we should take in mind if we are going to judge the sets of this year. Ok, Lego is a toy and the main audience are kids, BUT if you are commemorating the 40th Anniver. Means you also are thinking in AFOLs, people who growed up with and collected a 8480, 8880, 8455, 8043, 8110.... So if you want to give some respect for the long-term fans, AFOLs, then, create and release something spectacular! And for the kids ,even a second hand 8043 is so much better in terms of playability

Oh well, atleast the 2H 2016 are still on sale

[M_longer]

7 hours ago, teflon said:

Perhaps Uwe's models are not perfect for MY taste but I do recognize his effort to search for some new milestones. 

He created 8258 AND 8285. And 8258 was a one of greatest Technic sets ever.

[rener]

2 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

Umm, no. 

(...)

If 42070 was made to "look big and mean" then by all means it seems to have succeeded, but if that was the goal, then why is it a Technic set?

You're right there. I should have used some more words to express that I don't really mind the rather unfinished look, and that I like most of the outside coloring and shaping.

Even my wife was impressed by the thing! (Not an "argument", I know...?)

I won't really argue about the design with you, since that's your forte (and totally not mine), but somehow it seems functional. Random as it may seem.

Regarding the B-model: probably the first one since 8275 which I won't bother building.

1 hour ago, Jonfensu said:

Definetly is very strange to see how the quality of all 2017 models is so uneven and how the flagship is not on pair with other flagships ...... I am sill wondering how TLG aproved this model as the flagship of the 40th Technic Anniversary(!). The 40th Anniversary is something we should take in mind if we are going to judge the sets of this year. Ok, Lego is a toy and the main audience are kids, BUT if you are commemorating the 40th Anniver. Means you also are thinking in AFOLs, people who growed up with and collected a 8480, 8880, 8455, 8043, 8110.... So if you want to give some respect for the long-term fans, AFOLs, then, create and release something spectacular! And for the kids ,even a second hand 8043 is so much better in terms of playability

One hypothesis/hope/longshot could be that something spectacular WAS being created, but passed a deadline. And that Uwe was asked to quickly design a set that could pass as flagship. 

Edited August 8, 2017 by rener

[MajklSpajkl]

9 hours ago, teflon said:

Well, I would not be to harsh on this model. Sure, I don't like it but I recognize some effort to go in some new direction. Larger, more wheels and larger price. I am sure Lego will learn from that. But I also think some less-that-perfect models are also necessary to explore some options. Perhaps Uwe's models are not perfect for MY taste but I do recognize his effort to search for some new milestones. 

Please keep positive. In worst case, if you don't like the 42070, you will get to keep your 250€ or spend it on something else (I've done that already, I own two Saturn V :-))

Are you joking my friend? Cause that's what this set is - a joke! What milestones, what new options?! Yes options to save some greens :-)

@Sariel: I actually heard Arnold saying the "ugly MF" the moment I saw your FB post of the video :-) Can't beat that quote :-)

[teflon]

@Sariel I do agree with your findings (disclaimer: I haven't seen the set and I will probably pass it). I also don't like the pricing but I guess that's the way things are' going. The porsche is expensive as hell but it's selling like mad. At least in Europe. So basically we allowed TLG to charge us a lot for the biggest sets. I don't like it. However I do recognise your effort to put TLG in the right track. Keep positive was regarding the quality of discussion, but I guess the heat wave spoiled it a bit.

@MajklSpajkl Not kidding. My last 6-wheel truck was 8462 Super Tow Truck from 1998. If you think 42070 is ugly, try that one. And yes, I still have some dark turquise pieces hidden somewhere. Trust me, my friend, you haven't seen sh*t :-)

[Sariel]

I wouldn't be so quick to compare Porsche with the 42070. They're both big, but Porsche recreates an existing car from a famous brand and comes with a premium quality box and instructions book. 42070 is just a large truck with some flashy colors. It's not going to appeal to car enthusiasts, Porsche freaks etc.

[teflon]

Sure. I understand the differences. But you could also said that 42070 has some features over the Porsche (at least two more tires). And we can go back and forth on comparison.

But my point is that there cannot be just above average models. And I guess 42070 is unfortunately like this. TLG this time has tried big and mean machine, which seems to be admired by only a few. But I do think they will learn from this. C'mon, this is the same guy(s) who gave us 8258.

Edited August 8, 2017 by teflon

[Lipko]

5 hours ago, teflon said:

Sure. I understand the differences. But you could also said that 42070 has some features over the Porsche (at least two more tires). And we can go back and forth on comparison.

But my point is that there cannot be just above average models. And I guess 42070 is unfortunately like this. TLG this time has tried big and mean machine, which seems to be admired by only a few. But I do think they will learn from this. C'mon, this is the same guy(s) who gave us 8258.

Than maybe some freshening would me necessary in the designer staff.

Anyway, this set looks so bad and expensive that maybe it was designed to make the Porsche look like a bargain. The B-model looks like it was designed by a rookie.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Lipko

[Erik Leppen]

I'm not so sure the designer himself is to blame. We know Uwe can design great models, so my feeling is there has to have been some kind of external constraint he had to follow. That new color, with its very limited range of parts, may be one of them. (Remember that 8258 and 8285 use colors that had almost all pieces available)

[teflon]

Please also note that TLG has moved on from family run business to a global corporation. Due to increase in TLG size, there is a lot more people involved with the decision making. And I guess TLG also wanted to check, what they can get away with it.

Therefore I would like to thank Sariel and others for your critical but constructive approach to support TLG from steering away too much. Therefore even 42070 B in its terribleness could be useful (just not for playing). And also TLG does listen to us so I am sure they will not repeat the same mistake. They'll do another one:-)

But again, sometimes I get overoptimistic. 

[AOW]

On 8/8/2017 at 9:51 PM, M_longer said:

He created 8258 AND 8285. And 8258 was a one of greatest Technic sets ever.

Exactly and this is something that I do not understand how come such a great designer has made such a bad set and worst that Lego has actually release it into production. While the A model can be let say a good play for kids, then the B one oh.. come one that is I believe one of the worst models made for quite a long time.... 

I really do not understand what was the key idea behind this set what were the principals that took it into productions. We know that they have made a f.up with the Porsche and was criticize here a lot, and then further discussion with Lego was for bitten  (Sariel's trip to Lego for an interview)  - I wonder how they will justify this one.... 

[Ivan_M]

B-models are designed by other designers than main model, I would say some rookie did this and I suspect Samuel Tacchi might be the one. Take a look at interview on brickset: https://brickset.com/article/29340/interview-with-technic-designers

This line exactly:

Brickset: Are there any vehicles which you would like to build but have not been able to so far?

Samuel: We are definitely always looking for new challenges every year and constantly trying push the boundaries, either by improving on vehicles we have done before or seeking out new ones.