42083 - Bugatti Chiron

[Jim]

42 minutes ago, Ivan_M said:

There is an interview with TLG designers and Bugatti representatives published at New Elementary:

That is the same interview as Sariel posted. We were all in the same room.

But I agree the answer is kinda funny.

[Musikfreak]

As far as I understood from the interviews so far Bugatti was really strong with their feedback. Which not just means that the Lego team got a lot but also that they had some details which where important to them and where Bugatti did not budge - so they probably argued and had to find new solutions. Most of these discussions seem to have been about the design so I can imagine that design was prioritised over functions when 2 possible solutions where available.

Additionally the Lego Team itself is mostly industry designers now, fewer people with engineering background. If you have two possible solutions I just think an engineer would try to fight for the technically superior solution wholeheartedly during internal milestones because it is close to his heart, while I'm not sure that is of the same priority towards someone with a designer background and or a higher board member. While I don't welcome this I think it could be part of the shift towards more "designed" looking models with partly compromised technical solutions.

[Vectormatic]

1 hour ago, Ivan_M said:

There is an interview with TLG designers and Bugatti representatives published at New Elementary:

http://www.newelementary.com/2018/06/press-conference-lego-bugatti-chiron.html#more

Some questions are from this topic I believe. the most hilarious is this one:

 

In the same vein, during the live reveal of the chiron, some lego bigwig said "Technic is about functionality", that had me nearly falling off my chair as well :P

[blondasek]

Ok, because I can't find an answer. Did anyone ask Designers about the front suspension? In any interview?

Edited June 8, 2018 by blondasek

[Jim]

Just now, blondasek said:

Ok, because I can't find an answer. Did anyone ask Designers about the front suspension? In any interview?

Nope, unfortunately not. I feel this is a missed opportunity. Wondered what they would have answered to that question.

[blondasek]

31 minutes ago, Jim said:

Nope, unfortunately not. I feel this is a missed opportunity. Wondered what they would have answered to that question.

Emm.. that's really bad, specially from Sariel's side, as he reviewed the model a few days before and he also saw the issue with suspension during the live building and shortly after presentation... Thank you Jim!

Edited June 8, 2018 by blondasek

[ibessonov]

Designers probably knew that they screwed up front suspension but didn't have time to fix it properly. Something tells me that model design was pretty much freezed in the middle of last year.

It's a delicate question and I kinda get why Sariel or other guys didn't ask why it happened. I mean, they know that it's a problem, we know that it's a problem, it's all obvious now.

[Kumbbl]

1 minute ago, ibessonov said:

Designers probably knew that they screwed up front suspension but didn't have time to fix it properly. Something tells me that model design was pretty much freezed in the middle of last year.

It's a delicate question and I kinda get why Sariel or other guys didn't ask why it happened. I mean, they know that it's a problem, we know that it's a problem, it's all obvious now.

strange argumentation... if they knew the problem then it would have been their job to fix it - and tell me not, that full time designers at TLG are not able to find a fix - @Didumos69 has postet a fix (even if unproven) after about a week after the release, just based onto pics.... how much better are the conditions for a TLG-designer?! - hey, we are not talking about a not perfectly closed gap in the bonnet but we are talking about the most basic function of this model (together with steering): If this function fails the model can more or less not be used - unless for being displayed but nothing else... This attitude to rush out the high prize model despite knowing serious faults does not match with the communicated quality standards of TLG - and an answer of AR in the interview like "Everything has to be right. It’s a Bugatti. Everything has to reach the top level, both when it comes to authenticity and functionality. Nothing is left to chance." is then just a joke, a bad joke....

[Cumulonimbus]

4 hours ago, Musikfreak said:

... Additionally the Lego Team itself is mostly industry designers now, fewer people with engineering background. If you have two possible solutions I just think an engineer would try to fight for the technically superior solution wholeheartedly during internal milestones because it is close to his heart, while I'm not sure that is of the same priority towards someone with a designer background and or a higher board member. While I don't welcome this I think it could be part of the shift towards more "designed" looking models with partly compromised technical solutions.

As an Industrial designer myself (with an engineering degree), I feel addressed by your statement. Allow me this off-topic reply: I disagree that a "designer" just want to make it beautiful and an "engineer" wants to make it function. An industrial designer needs to make sure that his product functions in the first place as well and then face the added difficulty of making it appealing to a certain target audience. I see this as an increased level of difficulty and not a lesser achievement. Especially since "appealing" is such a difficult notion to approach scientifically, contrary for functionality.

As in any product design process, this of course means compromises and a choice of priorities. You may have heard of "form follows function" which expresses a certain choice for the priority during the development of a product. Some products need to look stunning first (in order to sell well) and allow compromises in functionality, for example many consumer products. Other products, often B2B machines, are mainly focused on the functions (agricultural equipment for example) but even those need to "look good" to sell well.

Additionally, don't forget the power of the customer (Bugatti in this case) in a design process. To me is is clear that under pressure of Bugatti the 42083 needed to look the part first and the functions came as a a close second, hence the compromises in the engine design and playability. In most Technic models so far, this was the other way around: functions first, then the looks. I think this is what Thomas Panke meant when stating that to him this set is not a Technic model, but a Creator/Model team model.

I think the 42083 is a successfully designed product, with inherent compromises. Many AFOLs will have different priorities (realism, playability, RC, ...) and will MOD the set accordingly as already seen in the EB Bugatti MOD topic.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Cumulonimbus
typos

[Musikfreak]

@Cumulonimbus:

Thank you for your view on the topic. If it did sound like I meant an industrial designer will look at appearance first in general than I was misunderstood and have to apologize. I basically have to agree with what you said. I also think that for Bugatti it was very important to not dilute their brand DNA and that's why I believe the look in this particular product was of higher priority compared to other models during the development process.

Also one has to remember that the people here in the forum are the core enthusiasts of Lego Technic which will not represent the full audience TLG wants to address with this product. For the most people just the fact that springs are there will be marvellous.

Still, in the past the products where more engineering driven in my view, e.g. the box design with blueprints or very bare and exposed functions. Whether this is better or worse I don't know. I love the old and the new models for different reasons.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Musikfreak

[Void_S]

2 hours ago, Cumulonimbus said:

As in any product design process, this of course means compromises and a choice of priorities. You may have heard of "form follows function" which expresses a certain choice for the priority during the development of a product. Some products need to look stunning first (in order to sell well) and allow compromises in functionality, for example many consumer products. Other products, often B2B machines, are mainly focused on the functions (agricultural equipment for example) but even those need to "look good" to sell well.

Additionally, don't forget the power of the customer (Bugatti in this case) in a design process. To me is is clear that under pressure of Bugatti the 42083 needed to look the part first and the functions came as a a close second, hence the compromises in the engine design and playability. In most Technic models so far, this was the other way around: functions first, then the looks. I think this is what Thomas Panke meant when stating that to him this set is not a Technic model, but a Creator/Model team model.

I think the 42083 is a successfully designed product, with inherent compromises. Many AFOLs will have different priorities (realism, playability, RC, ...) and will MOD the set accordingly as already seen in the EB Bugatti MOD topic.

I do agree completely. I was very surprised by a great number of semi-illegal connections while was making an LDD version these days, and I just couldn't add some parts just because of some small bending of then (a very little, but enough to be discarded by LDD): liftarms at the bottom edge of the doors, 2x4 L-shape liftarms between the front arches and doors etc.

Now I see the obvious reason for that, nice touch 

[Jack Bloomer]

Are new transmission parts in LDD yet?

[ibessonov]

15 minutes ago, Jack Bloomer said:

Are new transmission parts in LDD yet?

No and it isn't known whether we'll get an update or not (LDD is officially cancelled).

[zux]

14 minutes ago, Jack Bloomer said:

Are new transmission parts in LDD yet?

LDD has been abandoned for quite a while. Last time I heard it getting new parts it was for either WeDo or Boost, but nothing else AFAIK. I wouldn't put much hopes into getting new parts. I suggest looking into alternatives (LDraw based).

[Void_S]

7 minutes ago, zux said:

LDD has been abandoned for quite a while. Last time I heard it getting new parts it was for either WeDo or Boost, but nothing else AFAIK.

It also got these Porshe wheel arches, Claas tires and wheel hubs and some new other parts.

[Didumos69]

7 minutes ago, Void_S said:

It also got these Porshe wheel arches, Claas tires and wheel hubs and some new other parts.

Also the Porsche rims and tires.

[agrof]

I just watched the build video from Brick Builder, and the assembly of the front looks strange for me:

 

@Somebody Who already built it: did he made a mistake, or are the sub assemblies of the front really, so poorly connected (1 pin for headlight, and panels below)? Can those parts move when You touch them? It seem very strange for me, as he attach the "eyebrows" everything seemingly wants to fall apart...

Edited June 8, 2018 by agrof

[ibessonov]

4 minutes ago, agrof said:

did he made a mistake

Yes he did, those subassemblies have to be connected with 3x5 panels from the inside.

[agrof]

Okay, I had hard time to believing this filmsyness to be authorized by TLG. Thanks!

EDIT: surprising, that he doesn't show the suspension as function... maybe we AFOLs here overrate it's significance. BTW, I found an interesting discussion vie Promobricks (in german):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=s3yUV5E5Vsg

 

Edited June 8, 2018 by agrof

[LegoHoops]

Interesting in the video when Bugatti bag is press into place, suspension does not return.

 

Bugatti is not available in New Zealand until August with a price of NZD $649.99!

So plenty of time to see the solutions to the bugs.

Edited June 8, 2018 by LegoHoops

[Rudivdk]

 

38 minutes ago, agrof said:

@Somebody Who already built it: did he made a mistake, or are the sub assemblies of the front really, so poorly connected (1 pin for headlight, and panels below)? Can those parts move when You touch them? It seem very strange for me, as he attach the "eyebrows" everything seemingly wants to fall apart...

I haven't built it yet, but watched a few speedbuild vids already. I stopped watching Brick Builder's vid after a few minutes, the build was so rushed and sloppy it hurts... many many small mistakes and misalignments all over the place...

[efferman]

doese i have built it wrong or are the gear ratios are not really different?

 

[Jeroen Ottens]

4 minutes ago, efferman said:

doese i have built it wrong or are the gear ratios are not really different?

 

Can it be that you are in Reverse?

[efferman]

Just now, Jeroen Ottens said:

Can it be that you are in Reverse?

More gears in backward than forward?

[Jeroen Ottens]

Just now, efferman said:

More gears in backward than forward?

When you are in reverse, it doesn't matter what you do with the paddleshifter. The first half of your video you are in reverse, so it always gives the same speed.

In the second half of your video you are in Drive, but there seems to be a lot of backlash in all these clutchgears, so it takes a lot of revolutions to engage again when you switch gears (a couple of times you already switch the to the next gear I think, before the one you selected was engaged.

Anyway, in the second half of the video you clearly see different output speeds for the different gears, so I don't really understand your question I guess