Jurss

42083 - Bugatti Chiron

Recommended Posts

I'm wondering how we did arrive at that every Lego set has to be perfect out of the box... this set got two major things wrong, the W16 engine does not use one crankshaft and the all wheel drive is missing.

Now that is a wonderful opportunity to enjoy Lego as it was meant to be, we can all go and figure out a solution... see you over in the MODs discussion :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am gonna BUY THE H*CK out of those strange new gearbocks bits

 

EDIT: I like how the "quantising" on the extension ring seems better because there are twice as many notches to lock onto now. Why they didn't make that happen with the super new blue freewheelin' double bevels will probably be an underwhelming answer to a hastily-worded future question.

Edited by Gnac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sm1995, I put adjustable suspension in my 8880 MOD, along with a bunch of other stuff like electric proportional power steering, working doors with latches, power electric drop top convertible roof, working brake lights, working fiber optic ignition with real timing, electric powered spoiler adjustment and all I did to fit all that into it was expand the wheel base 4 studs.  Now since it was a fictional car to begin with, I wasn’t violating the look of a real vehicle so I had quite the freedom that TLG designers doing real vehicles do not.  I also had a micro motor to work with, a very compact 9v battery box, and 2 very cumbersome to use studded motors of the day, older pneumatics, and very few studless elements to help out.  

After working with studless now for so long and while building my amusement ride, when I unearthed my 8880 from my east coast collection, I was actually amazed at how much room seemed unused inside it. It was practically cavernous compared to the density of my MOC.  The Chiron is just as dense and I think at these density levels, adding functions like I did to the 8880 are a way bigger challenge for the designers today than the 8880 was back then.  But the extra 20 years of development of the Technic system really shows between the two sets.

I would love to see how much someone would have to inflate the Chiron scale to get the same functionality shoe horned into it with today’s PF elements and pneumatics. The only function lost on my 8880 was HOG steering, but the electric power steering made that a moot point with the convertible top down :grin:

 

 

Share this post


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

I'm wondering how we did arrive at that every Lego set has to be perfect out of the box... this set got two major things wrong, the W16 engine does not use one crankshaft and the all wheel drive is missing.

Now that is a wonderful opportunity to enjoy Lego as it was meant to be, we can all go and figure out a solution... see you over in the MODs discussion :)

 

There is AWD and W16 simply not possible at this scale, especially in that small space. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sm1995 said:

I don't really get the backlash for this model. What more functions do you want from a supercar? Adjustable suspension is pretty much all I can think of but trust me, it's difficult to cram in adjustable suspension into a supercar due to dimensional constraints. It took me weeks to incorporate a reliable enough system into my McLaren MOC. 

The real irony is, 8880 is hailed as one of the greatest sets ever, when in reality it had the same functions as the Chiron, except for the RWS. 1343 pieces for $130 in 1994, which translates to $220 in 2018 after inflation adjustment; approx 6 bricks/$ vs 10 bricks/$ for the Chiron. Now I know this is a trivial comparison, but I just wanted to put it into perspective to those who see the past with rose tinted glasses. 

Bottom line is, it's not perfect. I don't think any lego set will ever be, but I think it's pretty damn awesome for what it is. TLG Supercars have always demanded a premium over the years, I'm not really surprised that this one does too. 

just my 2 cents.

 

The price comparison with 8880 is kind of moot, that set was studfull, the chiron is studless, and there is 24 years of inflation and changing markets and manufacturing tech between them, the price/part ratio should be viewed in comparison to contemporary sets.

Comparing parts/function also doesnt work 100% straight, considering we are talking a studfull, gappy unlicensed car vs a studless fully panneled set, but still, 2.5x the parts for a roughly equivalent featureset? Go look at 42000 or 42039, and im convinced an equivalent to 8880 (full susp, AWD, AWS, 4 speed and opening hood) can be done with less then 1600 parts

 

As for the "no set is perfect" argument, i agree, and modding potential is one thing i look for in big technic sets, but this being the technic equivalent of the UCS line up, the bar is raised, and where designflaws (like inadequate suspension) are a poor show on a $100-150 set, they are downright unacceptable on a set like this. There is a vast difference between leaving some thoughtfull gaps for AFOLs to fill in themselves, and churning out an unfinished design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure @efferman can whip up a W16 with custom elements to fit the Chiron so people can stop talking about it and all the friction, and three cranks and 3 24z gears meshing in tight ways. That the Bugatti people were blown away by the proper order of the pistons waving at us through the back window was why development on an actual single crank version was probably abandoned. Along with the cost of the molds and their development for the custom, possible one time use parts. I am sure that probably all the decisions made about this design were made at higher levels than the designers.  TLG- “They like the Motor, fix the tranny and wing it on the spoiler, we will do an errata page on the suspension because we moved the premier date up a month, oh and they said if you can do the doors with a sticker to make the C, they could live with that.”

Edited by Bublehead
Typo

Share this post


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

Just like the Porsche, in no time, with just a few modifications I am sure we will have an enviable set.  If nothing else an incredible parts pack for some cool MOCs that are bound to be released.    For those that followed the Porsche-hype train, the additional part packs that led the 42056 to respectability was very small.  Perhaps detractors might say, "well for XXX dollars it should come out perfect!" - again, I don't understand that logic.  "Perfect" right out of the box Lego set?  Almost sounds like an oxymoron.  Lego is soooo much more than just something to assemble.  Assembly versus building are two very important distinctions here.  Almost like buying a Jeep and leaving it stock for its whole lifespan.  Nearly no one does it.  And if one does..... most in the crawling community looks at them as if they are martians from outer space or something......

IMHO you are missing one important aspect: I'm quite sure that no one has expected a "perfect" (what is this?) set 42083 and at least for me some room for improvements is absolutely fine. And its not a discussion about "this or that feature is missing" or "this or that gap could have been better filled" and so on (these complaints are somehow exhausting i admit).... Nothing of them has any relevance for me: Every one can improve these "missing" things if he/she really needs them. And the price is steep but ok, it is as it is, buy it or pass it - your decision, very simple.

BUT: What i can expect from a 370€ TECHNIC model (in the sense, that technic is meant to be moved and not only to be displayed) is that the most basic functions needed for a car are at least designed so, that they work. And IMHO the most basic functions of a car are its suspension, if there is any build in (or with other word: the car MUST not scratch the ground floor) and a steering which can be steered also by hands older than 5 years: And in both respects the Chiron fails. These mediocre (crappy would be also an appropriate term) implementation of these most basic features of a supercar are MY only complaints but IMHO these are very justifiable complaints because these are product faults - at least if the model is meant to be more than a display model or parts pack: If it is only meant to be displayed than TLG should promote it exactly so and all is fine... If the real chiron would have a front-suspension that would not work than each buyer would park its new car direct before the Bugatti head quarter, throw his car key onto the desk and shout: "go away with this scrap and give me back my 2,5 million of bucks" - but probably most of Chiron buyers would not complain if there engine would contain 3 crankshafts as long as it produces enough horse power to drive faster than 400 km/h and have a roaring sound... i'm sure you get the analogy to the 42083 Chiron and which are justifiable complaints and which ones are just ranting...

just MY 2 ct

2 hours ago, vectormatic said:

There is a vast difference between leaving some thoughtfull gaps for AFOLs to fill in themselves, and churning out an unfinished design

very well spoken, i agree 100%...:thumbup:

Edited by Kumbbl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion is going on.

One must understand the constrains how LEGO must work, what solutions they must come up with to fulfill their standards. However this is the point, where I am starting to get picky too. Let me quote: "Only the best is good enough."

So, I do demand a LEGO model is being PERFECT out of the box - not as a scale model (stupid to claim this), but as a model with all of it's offered functions. W16 with 3 crankshaft? Come on, it is extravagant enough, I bet if Bugatti could build an engine in that way, they would do. But failing front suspension? Nothing to overlook here, not even for the cheapest LEGO set. Also the wobbly doors are on the fence for me...

I think this set is a step into the right direction in comparison with the Porsche (this is not a compliment, that set should have been perfect on its own too!), BUT there are still akward issues, which disrespect TLG's own core value.

EDIT: For "leaving room for improvement on purpose" - as a designer / engineer, I would never dare even to think about, especially if I set myself to the peak of the industry.

Edited by agrof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As with the Porsche, issues could have been avoided by involving 1-2 two members of the AFOL community in critical pre-release testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are beating the dead horse here. Many of us demand that at least the functions that are include should work (they don't even have to be flawless), and others saying that it's part of the fun to make a model that's not working out of the box work. The last 5 pages is basically all about this.

A last though on the "part of the fun" argument: no, for me, it's not part of the fun to mod a set to make it work. And probably it' not fun for the kids nor the adult fans of cars. It's struggling enough to design a MOC, but it's a million times more rewarding too. With a set, I want casual fun. And I don't want to feel awkward when my friends want to see it and say "you bought that for 400? But ZOMG it's full of gaps*. What does it do? THAT? :look:".

*I don't think that's a problem, just the average non AFOL thinks so

I think the both sides are too passionate about this set. The side I'm in is passionately disappointed and feel than TLG missed an opportunity to make the absolutely best set ever made.

Edited by Lipko

Share this post


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

How big would a car have to be to be in scale with that engine?

I suppose this engine does not assumed to be installed in any existing lego car. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aleh said:

I suppose this engine does not assumed to be installed in any existing lego car. 

Engine scale isnt a real factor, i did the math once, and the 6 cilinder on the porsche would have a displacement of 1.6 litres instead of the actual 4.0 if taken as a 100% to scale engine.

1 hour ago, agrof said:

W16 with 3 crankshaft? Come on, it is extravagant enough, I bet if Bugatti could build an engine in that way, they would do. But failing front suspension? Nothing to overlook here, not even for the cheapest LEGO set. Also the wobbly doors are on the fence for me...

They could, but they wouldnt. multi-crank engines are possible in real life, but carry some serious disadvantages over single crank designs. multi-crank will be less compact (a big advantage of VAG VR/W engines) and have some serious friction/lubrication issues on the sprockets joining the cams, and no petrolhead is gonna go "woah, this engine has more crankshafts then the other one!!! that is soooo cool"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, vectormatic said:

no petrolhead is gonna go "woah, this engine has more crankshafts then the other one!!! that is soooo cool"

I mean they’ll do that for like ten seconds and then move on lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, vectormatic said:

They could, but they wouldnt. multi-crank engines are possible in real life, but carry some serious disadvantages over single crank designs. multi-crank will be less compact (a big advantage of VAG VR/W engines) and have some serious friction/lubrication issues on the sprockets joining the cams, and no petrolhead is gonna go "woah, this engine has more crankshafts then the other one!!! that is soooo cool"

A bit off-topic: are we really looking for "sense" at engineering counterpart of l'art pour l'art? Does it make sense to have 1500 HP on everyday conditions (which for the Chiron is designed too), or have such unique engineering solutions which pump up the bill to 2,4 million EUR? For me it is like finest watches - we did it because we could, not because it makes sense. So, in this spirit a 3 crank engine fits perfectly - whatever if it is only LEGO or real life.

You need to think abstract in case of LEGO and Bugatti, this creative freedom is OK for me, especially in this collaboration. Otherwise there will be always things to complain: missing cylinder head, valves, list goes to infinity, and you find yourself in an abyss, where joy is a vanishing memory only. :classic:

Edit - Still, the marvelous LEGO translation of the rear of the car + the innovative gearbox, in parallel with non working suspension just freezes my brain.
Edit 2 - Also let me be a bit cruel: who cares about the problems with 3 crankshafts in real life, if the car sits in the garage in the middle of the desert in 99,8% of it's lifetime? :tongue:

 

Edited by agrof
gramma' + content

Share this post


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

I think the both sides are too passionate about this set. The side I'm in is passionately disappointed and feel than TLG missed an opportunity to make the absolutely best set ever made.

I somehow feel I am in both camps. With the Porsche I felt the urge, if not the Technic necessity, to make it work. It was the whole reason why I bought that model. I wanted to know the exact reaons behind the flaws. After that, I started working on my rugged supercar and it felt like a revelation. I had complete freedom to live up to my own standards. So I started to hate the Porsche. When I took it out of the cabinet to show it, the carefulness I had to abide, the sloppy panels, I really hated it. But over time I started realizing what a great learning experience the Porsche has been for me. Without that experience, I could not have made my rugged supercar. So the fact that it was flawed had its good side and its bad side. But now with the Bugatti, I somehow feel tired of fixing flaws. So I'm not buying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vectormatic Thanks foe the info!

Browsing the ebay I found there have been already chaneese copies of the Bugatti. How this is possible already???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no news for when it will reach me... Yeah suspension problem is problem with a model yes, but it's fixable in the build or modding process. But I do find it funny how these discussions go...

This year 42083: It costs too much! If only it had more functions it would be great and they used too many parts for no reason.

Last year 42070: It costs too much! they didn't use enough parts! Functions aren't anything special. 

Edited by Ascius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lipko said:

[...] from such designers (who get money and all the time in the world) [...]

 

OT, but I can't let this one go: it's very cavalier to speculate about others' working conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, suffocation said:

OT, but I can't let this one go: it's very cavalier to speculate about others' working conditions.

As far as I know, it's a fulltime job. It wasn't clear but I'm not really "blaming" the designer, but the end product a bit contradicts the fact that the model was designed for 2 years by people whose fulltime job is to design models (AFAIK Technic designers mostly work on Technic models and the number of designers is in the same range as the number of models per year). Maybe it's because of the endless meetings and emailings, maybe the working conditions are bad in Denmark, maybe the manager wants the things the way they are. BTW this team could design a proper Unimog, a proper Acors, proper Claas (just some recent sets).
If I'm wrong and designing models is just some part time job, then TLG should reconsider their HR policies and put some resources at Technic set design.

I know I'm not a cavalier, only some random dude who's being a bit upset (and has boring tasks in work now, so comments from work) because he feels that he could be there at the design team (because the team's designs are not a lot better than his own), yet he just gave up the whole thing because of time constrains.

Okay, rant over, I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I'm back on this topic. Had to run through 8 pages to know what's happening. Bought my Chiron at day one and don't regret it. Building experience was great and I loved numbered bags, but I constantly had the feeling that there are too many T and L shaped light grey beams, designer must be a big fan of those.

As someone mentioned here, the model looks a bit too wide, but only if you look from the top. Suspension issue is there and it's not that bad in my case.

Stepper mechanism is awesome, fixating axle in 90 degrees position with all that 24z gear contraption is pure genius in my opinion. Looking forward to reuse this thing in future MOCs.

Now what I'd like to discuss is gears that are not secured on 1 side. That's a questionable technique, I would say it's a "desperate" one when you try to save as much space as possible (like I did in my LaFerrary MOC), and it comes with a price (not that stable, works bad in one of directions because of axle stress). Is it appropriate to see this approach in official sets? Do you use it in your MOCs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to be very common in official sets, not so much now, but if there's no motor, and the gears are blocked from sliding off the end, I don't see it as much of an issue.

Share this post


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

IMHO you are missing one important aspect: I'm quite sure that no one has expected a "perfect" (what is this?) set 42083 and at least for me some room for improvements is absolutely fine. And its not a discussion about "this or that feature is missing" or "this or that gap could have been better filled" and so on (these complaints are somehow exhausting i admit).... Nothing of them has any relevance for me: Every one can improve these "missing" things if he/she really needs them. And the price is steep but ok, it is as it is, buy it or pass it - your decision, very simple.

BUT: What i can expect from a 370€ TECHNIC model (in the sense, that technic is meant to be moved and not only to be displayed) is that the most basic functions needed for a car are at least designed so, that they work. And IMHO the most basic functions of a car are its suspension, if there is any build in (or with other word: the car MUST not scratch the ground floor) and a steering which can be steered also by hands older than 5 years: And in both respects the Chiron fails. These mediocre (crappy would be also an appropriate term) implementation of these most basic features of a supercar are MY only complaints but IMHO these are very justifiable complaints because these are product faults - at least if the model is meant to be more than a display model or parts pack: If it is only meant to be displayed than TLG should promote it exactly so and all is fine... If the real chiron would have a front-suspension that would not work than each buyer would park its new car direct before the Bugatti head quarter, throw his car key onto the desk and shout: "go away with this scrap and give me back my 2,5 million of bucks" - but probably most of Chiron buyers would not complain if there engine would contain 3 crankshafts as long as it produces enough horse power to drive faster than 400 km/h and have a roaring sound... i'm sure you get the analogy to the 42083 Chiron and which are justifiable complaints and which ones are just ranting...

just MY 2 ct

very well spoken, i agree 100%...:thumbup:

I think you make some very accurate points, and I am not a Lego Apologist... granted, most basic of functions should work out of the box - point well taken.

At the same time, in my mind, my main point stands.  Even if there are flaws in the set, the ire with such seems to depend on one central assumption - and that is that one will build the set, leave it for ages, and never touch it again. That is seeing something from a static perspective.  And I know some to that - which is fine, but odd for Lego IMO.  However, if one sees something, even with all its flaws, but sees what it potentially  can be that is another story.  I think discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the set from a dynamic perspective would be more inviting (at least for me).  Granted, this is exactly what the 42083 modification thread is all about.  

I still think the Jeep analogy is apt.  No one complains about stock Jeeps and their limitations/shortcomings because they know they will be gone and changed out for something better.  The soul is a great out-door vehicle is there - the appendages can all be changes/updated.  No one who is an avid out-door driver buys it to keep it stock.  Perhaps a better comparison would be RC buggy/trucks.  I have several.   I would not even be in the hobby of RC truck driving if I could not update my truck- ALOT.  My complaints with a set would actually be a truck that didn't need any modifications.  Sure I buy a model or two with some grave limitations.... and I believe I have some valid points/complaints to make of some trucks.  But..... the producers left them modifiable, and so I guess I don't understand the energy that goes in to the complaints.  I don't see the point because right from the get-go I expected to change things even before I buy a truck/buggy.  Driving alone gets too boring......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many apologetic here.

Price, design and functions are debatable and in the end a matter of choice but a functional flaw isn't. The suspension does not work period.

That is a flaw, in an halo product, sold in special boxes with glorified building instructions not like regular Technic was ever, one aggravated by the price tag if you will. Will they acknowledge there is a flaw in the design of the Chiron? Did I miss an apology for the flaw in the Porsche gearbox? I think I remember a "You are holding it wrong" kind of response.

At this point I can't think of bad QA, I think they simply don't care. It is so easy to make money on these sets that they don't need to care. They can throw anything at us, make a big thing of some marketing tactic  and call it a day.

Was it that hard to make the suspension work? Would any AFOL show a supercar here with that kind of suspension? It looks they put way more effort on the marketing side than they put on the Chiron.

I was 6 when I got my 8860, now I try to picture myself at 6 again, building the Chiron with great effort and almost can feel the sadness wondering what did I do wrong.Now show your shiny Chiron to someone not into Lego and rationalize, justify and explain why it behaves like a stone in a pond where it should be a working marvel of Technic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, aol000xw said:

The suspension does not work period.

Is that really so? Reading comments and watching video's it seems to be 50-50.

I got 3 groups of people so far:

- Works fine and dandy, car gets back up to normal resting position every time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwW7LuCv46w= at 10:15 in the video)                

- Works, but sags over time (DugaldIC iirc)

- Never worked despite being properly assembled

 

Now what's the trigger for group #2 and especially #3? No idea, but the fact that group #1 is a thing means to me that it isn't as black and white as for example the Porsche's gearbox, which didn't work for anybody.

Edited by Appie

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.