Jurss

42083 - Bugatti Chiron

Recommended Posts

Will only say this: black+blue was the proper color combo. As is, it doesn't even look good, for a set made first and foremost to look good. Maybe it looks better in person, but from everything available online so far the crane has more style than this supermegawhatevercar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This design will be shipping from the knockoffs within days of getting their hands on the first set, which, if they have a spy inside TLG (which is more than likely),  that was days ago.  Now TLG may hide behind reasons of IP security and not wanting to aid the competition by not posting them too soon, but I think it would be better PR to post them as soon as they are available in the real set.  Because the knockoffs CAN afford to send someone to a Lego Store and buy one, you know they have done so already. And they need to reverse engineer the new parts and build molds, so that will take some time, not much but still a factor. So dragging their heals on releasing instructions really is a way of limiting people building the set from parts and pushes them to purchasing it IMO. I just want to keep my instructions from getting dog-eared.

Share this post


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

Can we just say see the list now and talk about what we are doing to fix all these flaws (that “we” can?) because just constantly ratcheting “our” jaws on what is wrong will do nothing for “us”.

I can see a Pimp up my Bugatti coming! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Void_S I would wait a bit before sharing it publicly. The knockoff sets are still in pre-sale, why make their life any easier. You can probably share it with EB members you trust through more private channels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 896gerard said:

People, 

Can we stop moaning about the Chiron please? It happens to be good at looking good, which is exactly the only thing it was intended for. The extra price you pay is not for parts or for extra engineering, but for the extra good looking box, the presentation of and images on all the small boxes inside the box and the license Lego has to pay to use the Bugatti branded stickers.

Lol and even then they messed up the front half, as well as pancaked the whole car. The only nice thing about the model is the rear. I actually noticed something with the marketing photos Lego used. A lot of the photos were taken from a distance at a narrow side angle and zoomed in to make the wheels look bigger in comparison with the body, as well as making the set look more stocky like the real Chiron. In other photos it’s clear that Lego’s model is disproportionately wide, long and flat, nothing like the real thing. It happened with the Porsche too, and that really annoys me that they still don’t know how to capture subtle curvature in the models.

Also, if you’re right about the second bit which I’m willing to bet that you are, man does the premium packaging PISS me the f off. I want the set not the box. I don’t give a rat’s about having the wheels packaged in a line, or the parts boxes forming a pretty image. The only reason that’s a thing is because Lego realised they can charge extra for it. The only thing worth it is the instructions.

This sorta crap pisses me off because then Lego has the balls to charge $600AUD for a blue pancake that from what I’m hearing cuts quite a few corners.

I’m sorry that I’m so heated about this, but a $600 set really should be perfect, especially when it costs 50% more than a post-2015 flagship model that has more parts.

Edited by Bartybum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, vectormatic said:

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

I did mention the price/parts was a trivial comparison. 

Well as you said parts per comparison doesn't work too well either, given how much the larger Chiron is compared to any of the models you mentioned. Also, both the 42000 and 42039 are sparce as far as functions go. They don't even have trivial transmission systems....

but, the only "major" design flaw is the suspension, which I admit is very weird for a TLC release on this scale. But come on, this going to be a 2 minute fix for most of us here. The real problem would be for your average consumers, but I doubt they'll really notice it anyway. 

Bottom line is, this set is worth it to ME, because it's an excellent parts pack. I think design wise the best Lego set I've ever bought was the Arocs, that had some truly incredible features. But I buy most of my sets as parts packs. I put it together in about a day, admire it/loathe it for about a week, and off it goes into my collection waiting to be used in a MOC.

EDIT: Just read through a little bit of the mod thread, well it seems like the suspension isn't a trivial fix after all..well if thats the case, it reflects pretty poorly on TLG. Doesn't make a difference to me, but I understand why it would be off-putting to collectors :thumbup:

Edited by sm1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sm1995 said:

EDIT: Just read through a little bit of the mod thread, well it seems like the suspension isn't a trivial fix after all..well if thats the case, it reflects pretty poorly on TLG. Doesn't make a difference to me, but I understand why it would be off-putting to collectors :thumbup:

@DugaldIC posted a very simple fix using torsion bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, technic_addict said:

@DugaldIC posted a very simple fix using torsion bar.

I personally don't like using torsion bars since by design it exerts unwanted shear stress on axles that could cause plastic deformation. I'll have to take a look when I get the model, but yeah thats one way to fix it :)

how viable would it be to move the bottom pivot of the strut closer to the wheels?

Edited by sm1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Because the knockoffs CAN afford to send someone to a Lego Store and buy one, you know they have done so already.

True, but having the Lego's instructions in .pdf facilitates greatly the production of the copycat manual.

All "fakes" are just pre-orders for now. Some people are probably very busy at replicating the new pieces. I don't know how long it will take them to produce the full set, but the longer the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BusterHaus said:

@Void_S I would wait a bit before sharing it publicly. The knockoff sets are still in pre-sale, why make their life any easier. You can probably share it with EB members you trust through more private channels. 

I thought so, but wanted to get rid of any doubts, so I'll put it on hold so far. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WvG_853 said:

I can see a Pimp up my Bugatti coming! :-)

ooh hope so. Just ordered the parts for pimp my Porsche , as that model as a whole bunch of amazing improvements, such as spring loaded doors, stiffer suspension, re worked gearing and removable body along with a handy HOG steering. I can wait to build my Bugatti 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, iv-tecman said:

ooh hope so. Just ordered the parts for pimp my Porsche , as that model as a whole bunch of amazing improvements, such as spring loaded doors, stiffer suspension, re worked gearing and removable body along with a handy HOG steering. I can wait to build my Bugatti 

yes, do so! The latest incarnation of @jb70 Pimp up my Porsche model is highly recommended - IMHO one of the best supercars out there... enjoy!

Share this post


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

I guess they want people to use the real instructions for now, and not the pdf’s which lets me keep the originals more pristine. Bad TLG... No need to keep them secret unless you are trying to get people to buy the set and not just build it from parts,

Or to make life less easy for copycat brands to... well... copycat the set.

Share this post


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

how viable would it be to move the bottom pivot of the strut closer to the wheels?

It would make things only worse. The shock would be mounted even closer to the bottom pivot. Changing the front to use 6L suspension arms would be a better approach (also suggested by @Erik Leppen in the MODs and Improvements thread). That allows for moving the pivot away from the wheel. The U-joints would have to be replaced with CV-joints.

EDIT: Explanation: Draw a line through the rotation point of the suspension arm to which the shock is mounted, orthogonal to the length of the shock. The distance between the rotation point and the shock defines the 'arm' and the longer the arm, the bigger the moment of force, the stronger the suspension.

suspensions.png

Edited by Didumos69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the Chiron has prompted many to say they'll buy the Porsche instead, buyers in the UK might be interested to know that it's available at Argos for £159.99.

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/6074315.htm?cmpid=APP003

Moderators please move this if, in your infinite wisdom, you think it belongs elsewhere.

Edited by grum64
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Didumos69 said:

It would make things only worse. The shock would be mounted even closer to the bottom pivot. Changing the front to use 6L suspension arms would be a better approach (also suggested by @Erik Leppen in the MODs and Improvements thread). That allows for moving the pivot away from the wheel. The U-joints would have to be replace with CV-joints.

I don’t think I was expressing myself right. If you move the bottom hinge of the strut (where it connects to the wishbone) closer to the wheels, the wheels will have less leverage (shorter moment arm) on the strut, would definitely make things better. Unless there’s something here I’m not seeing :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, sm1995 said:

I don’t think I was expressing myself right. If you move the bottom hinge of the strut (where it connects to the wishbone) closer to the wheels, the wheels will have less leverage (shorter moment arm) on the strut, would definitely make things better. Unless there’s something here I’m not seeing :wacko:

I think I understand correctly, but you're still mistaken. Yes the wheels will have less leverage, but the shocks would attach to the suspension arm at 1/3 of the overall suspension arm length, where it originally was 1/2 of the suspension arm length. So the moment of force invoked on the spring would increase by 50%.

By bringing the hinged point closer to the wheels and the point where the spring is mounted, you're in fact creating a more effective lever to compress the spring. Imagine the hinged point would move so much it would almost coincide with the point where the spring invokes force: The wheel would be practically free to move, almost without compressing the spring at all.

hinged-beam_1_orig.jpg

Edited by Didumos69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Didumos69 said:

I think I understand correctly, but you're still mistaken. Yes the wheels will have less leverage, but the shocks would attach to the suspension arm at 1/3 of the overall suspension arm length, where it originally was 1/2 of the suspension arm length. So the moment of force invoked on the spring would increase by 50%.

By bringing the hinged point closer to the wheels and the point where the spring is mounted, you're in fact creating a more effective lever to compress the spring. Imagine the hinged point would move so much it would almost coincide with the point where the spring invokes force: The wheel would be practically free to move, almost without compressing the spring at all.

hinged-beam_1_orig.jpg

Hi, I’m sorry but I’m still not on the same page. I think we may have different definitions of what hinge means. By moving your spring closer to the wheels, the spring force will invoke a higher clockwise moment about your wishbone pivot point. Also a higher overall spring force as well now due to your point of application taking a longer arc length. (Fs=kx)

Heres a little back of the napkin scenario I did to illustrate what I mean. Not really sure what I’m missing here....

also CCW on the picture should be CW (clockwise)

https://imgur.com/a/2m88re0

Share this post


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

yes, do so! The latest incarnation of @jb70 Pimp up my Porsche model is highly recommended - IMHO one of the best supercars out there... enjoy!

Yes, I am looking forward to the build, the additional parts were not too much extra cost, I have no problem waiting to see what modders do with the Bugatti 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, sm1995 said:

Hi, I’m sorry but I’m still not on the same page. I think we may have different definitions of what hinge means. By moving your spring closer to the wheels, the spring force will invoke a higher clockwise moment about your wishbone pivot point. Also a higher overall spring force as well now due to your point of application taking a longer arc length. (Fs=kx)

Heres a little back of the napkin scenario I did to illustrate what I mean. Not really sure what I’m missing here....

also CCW on the picture should be CW (clockwise)

https://imgur.com/a/2m88re0

Aha, so you're talking about moving the point where the springs attach to the bottom suspension arm towards the wheel. But how? I don't see any options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, sm1995 said:

Nice old-school calculation, like it! :sweet:

Meanwhile, discussing about forces is just one thing to consider, but You also need to offset the upper pivot point - otherwise You flatten the geometry, thus reduce the base clearance of the suspension. So might win on spring force, but loose on suspension travel + ride height.

Share this post


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

Nice old-school calculation, like it! :sweet:

Meanwhile, discussing about forces is just one thing to consider, but You also need to offset the upper pivot point - otherwise You flatten the geometry, thus reduce the base clearance of the suspension. So might win on spring force, but loose on suspension travel + ride height.

Right. However, moving the spring towards the wheel is still highly hypothetical. You can't drop the thin levers tying together the wishbones and you can't move the springs away from the drive axis either.

There is only one option, which is using 6L suspension arms. The max clearance will slightly decrease, but I reckon you gain more clearance from the stiffer setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Didumos69 said:

There is only one option, which is using 6L suspension arms.

Or, now I come to think of it, custom 7L suspension arms, for example by extending the 6L arms with thin 3L or 4L liftarms. But I don't know how strong that would be. But then you could increase the 2/4 distance ratio not to 3/5 but to 4/6.

But I have no idea what could be in the way of moving the mounting points for the suspension arms inwards.

5 hours ago, Didumos69 said:

That allows for moving the pivot away from the wheel.

[image]

If I would have known that this image would get quoted so many times, I'd have taken some more time to make a better image :laugh: Also, please note that the perpendicular-idea is not exact, because the perpendicular distance changes as the angle between the parts changes. (As a rule of thumb, compressing the spring should ideally not decrease the length of the red arrow.)

Edited by Erik Leppen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand you guys are excited about the set, but does it really need at least 4 separate topics?

 

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.