10261 LEGO Creator Expert Roller Coaster

[fred67]

42 minutes ago, DragonKhan said:

I don't understand that fear. Lego is not going to price the next modular completely different than the previous ones. It'll be priced along the lines of all previous models. And if it is going to be an expensive 249, I will expect the size to be the same as for Assembly Square again.

I really don't understand the people that argue about the price not being worth the piece count to be honest. Specifically Lego fans I'd expect to know better than compare such vastly different sets with pieces that are vastly different in size and complexity. *shrug* 

It's not that the price per piece, or overall value of the set is not there - certainly you get a lot for the money.  At the much heralded $0.10/piece, this set would have cost even more, so we are actually beating that price point despite having all these new track segments, a bunch of minifigures, and have most of the parts obviously NOT cheese-slopes and 1x1 plates and tiles, unlike so many other sets.

The problem is that $380 for a single set prices it out of most people's reach.  A Tesla car might be worth $60k or more, but that doesn't mean I can't afford one.

So it's true that a lot of us complainers will spend a lot more than that on LEGO in a given year, but we'll end up with a whole bunch of sets, and not just this, and this is a great set - so we become disappointed we couldn't get it (the alternative is to be disappointed in missing out on several other sets) .  I'm not asking for tears ; I'll get over it and buy a Pirate Coaster or two . Just saying it's a disappointing price point.  A lot of people apparently have no problem spending this much on a single LEGO set, but there will be a lot of kids that won't be able to complete their Fairgrounds, too.

[DragonKhan]

25 minutes ago, Holodoc said:

...
Taj Mahal (10256) - 5923 parts - 329,99 € (same price but 1.799 parts more than RC)
Roller Coaster (10261) - 4.124 parts - 329,99 €
Big Ben (10253) - 4.163 parts - 219,99 € (39 bricks more than RC, but 110€ cheaper)
Assembly Square (10255) - 4.002 parts - 239,99 € (same subtheme [Creator Expert] just 122 bricks less than RC, but 90€ cheaper)

My conclusion: I am not going to buy it for the asked price. 25% off and I am in again. This is still 250€ and a lot of money for the pieces given (see above).

To be honest, I think it's a bit weird to complain about the price of a set that you don't intent on buying. Especially when so many people seem to be so excited about it. 

And I don't think your comparison is fair at all. Now I don't own the Big Ben or Taj Mahal, but I suspect that both those sets are, to a large part, made out of huge numbers of tiny pieces just like the Assembly Square. The roller coaster is the opposite to that! So where does your comparison match up?
It'd be MUCH more interesting to compare the sets by the gram/price ratio. In my opinion the price per gram of bricks would give a much more comprehensive price/value idea than the rather arbitrary price per brick.
Anyone know the weight of the coaster? 

That reminds me of a pretty good article from a while ago that touches on the "Lego is getting more and more expensive" subject. It might be old news to some of you Lego cracks, but it might be interesting to some:
http://www.realityprose.com/what-happened-with-lego/

 

18 minutes ago, fred67 said:

...
A lot of people apparently have no problem spending this much on a single LEGO set, but there will be a lot of kids that won't be able to complete their Fairgrounds, too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never got the feeling that the fairground sets were ever marketed at kids? I know I would've never gotten such expensive sets as a kid, and I'm sure that's still true for most families today.
The pirate coaster is what is marketed at kids ...
So, while I completely agree that this coaster set is super expensive (and I'll have to wait too I suspect, as hard as it will be), I still believe it's fair game. I always understood the large fairground models (except the mixer with the great play features) to be solely sets for AFOLs ...

Edited April 27, 2018 by DragonKhan

[allanp]

 

[fred67]

1 hour ago, DragonKhan said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I never got the feeling that the fairground sets were ever marketed at kids? I know I would've never gotten such expensive sets as a kid, and I'm sure that's still true for most families today.
The pirate coaster is what is marketed at kids ...
So, while I completely agree that this coaster set is super expensive (and I'll have to wait too I suspect, as hard as it will be), I still believe it's fair game. I always understood the large fairground models (except the mixer with the great play features) to be solely sets for AFOLs ...

 

Actually, a theme like this is much like the Winter Village theme.  Unlike the city theme, where you pick and choose what you want, you get limited releases in the theme and make people want to collect them.  Maybe they counterbalance the fact that there's not really a lot of sets that can go with this theme, in the long run, by having limited releases that cost twice as much.  I don't really know, but I do know that the majority of kids I know would want this set when they walk into the LEGO Store and see it on display.

And nobody is saying it's not fair game; a lot of us like to think TLG is above it all, but they are a profit driven company, and they do what they think will make them the most money, and there's nothing unfair about it.  It's just, as I said, a lot of us are disappointed in the jump in set prices in the last few years - it started with sets like the Helicarrier, a $350 Ghost Busters set, now an $800 Millennium Falcon.  The architecture series used to be small $20 sets - the value may not have been great, but I could easily drop $20 now and again for a new set - and they were sets I could display in my office, but then those sets ballooned into really expensive ones and I just stopped buying Architecture sets.  

Again, it's not that the value isn't there, it's that it's very difficult for a lot of people to spend $300 or more for a single set; it is also cognitively difficult to buy a $280 modular when all the other modulars have been below $200.  The Ferris Wheel (I have) is a great, huge set - but it was still only around $200 - the coaster is nearly double.

 it's almost like a crack dealer - they get you hooked on a theme, then double the price.

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by fred67

[jlassen]

12 hours ago, turk187 said:

Now we have 3 coaster sets, Wayne manner (purple), Pirate coaster (gery), and this one (red). Am I missing any? I wish they had just picked one color and stuck with it. Would have made it easier to integrate sets. I wonder how many pirate coasters you'd have to buy to have the same number of track pieces.

Friends Roller coaster (41130).

is this one still in production?  I hope so... nice to have different colored track options. "friends light blue"

 

 

[Fuppylodders]

People's complaining of price purely because it is high, is ludicrous.

TLG  are branching out to many people.

Can't afford to spare the money for the large coaster set? Buy the pirate one. Its affordable, fun, not even basic-it has a good build and looks decent, yet provides enough there to keep the price down AND give you a very decent rollercoaster set.

 

So should I start complaining I'm disappointed with all the little sets below £50 because they're not what I want because I prefer the larger sets?

TLG provided you with a very good alternative. 

Why should people who can afford it potentially end up being secluded because there are people that can't afford the higher priced/larger items?! Too many feelings of self entitlement.

So, for those that can afford the $100 sets, what  about those on that can't? 

No one says you HAVE to have EVERY set they make.

If that's what you want, work harder, get a better job, push yourself, make sacrifices. Don't cry about TLG overpricing it when it's not even overpriced. 

[DragonKhan]

45 minutes ago, fred67 said:

...
 Maybe they counterbalance the fact that there's not really a lot of sets that can go with this theme, in the long run, by having limited releases that cost twice as much.  I don't really know, but I do know that the majority of kids I know would want this set when they walk into the LEGO Store and see it on display.

And nobody is saying it's not fair game; a lot of us like to think TLG is above it all, but they are a profit driven company, and they do what they think will make them the most money, and there's nothing unfair about it.  It's just, as I said, a lot of us are disappointed in the jump in set prices in the last few years 
...  

Again, it's not that the value isn't there, it's that it's very difficult for a lot of people to spend $300 or more for a single set; it is also cognitively difficult to buy a $280 modular when all the other modulars have been below $200.  The Ferris Wheel (I have) is a great, huge set - but it was still only around $200 - the coaster is nearly double.

 it's almost like a crack dealer - they get you hooked on a theme, then double the price.

 

Uhm, are you actually implying the coaster would be half the price if it wouldn't be a limited release "collectors item"? Are you joking? 
I'm really not seeing a significant jump in prices over the last few years like you are implying. The only thing I'm actually seeing is that Lego is releasing a few sets that are significantly bigger than previously. The reason for those is, I think, the growing number of AFOL. Not the kids. And it's still a very small number of sets that reach this size ...

And of course a lot of kids want the coaster set when they see it in a Lego store. Which kid wouldn't? The same with the Millennium Falcon and any other huge sets. That doesn't mean they'd get it. The fact that you won't find it in regular toy stores says enough about who this is marketed to in my opinion.

I completely understand that for many people (me included) spending more than 300eur on a Lego set is not an easy decision. I remember being a bit hesitant about the Assembly Square as well because of the high price. Despite knowing the value is about the same as with the other modulars.
I just think it's not fair to complain about it being to expensive when the price/value is actually still there (as you say yourself). I think it's especially unfair considering Lego does offer a much cheaper (and nicer, more playful looking) set with the pirate coaster. They are certainly aware that the big coaster is a bit beyond what is suitable for a kid price wise ...

[fred67]

It's all fair to complain a set is too expensive for most people - that doesn't mean anything except it's too expensive for most people, and that I don't like the trend towards these huge, really expensive sets, whether or not the "value" is there.  Like I said, a Tesla might be worth $60k or more - that doesn't mean I can afford one, or that I can't point out that, unless the price came down significantly, I would never buy one.

[Doom2099]

On 4/26/2018 at 11:27 PM, wooster said:

Notice the map on the bottom right-hand corner of the Rollercoaster.  It shows the Rollercoaster, Ferris Wheel, and Carousel.  It does not include the Mixer.  I have always felt the mixer seemed out of place with the Ferris Wheel and Carousel.  It feels more like a carnival ride than a permanent amusement park ride.  This map seems to confirm my speculation.  

Well, at least it justifies me not having bought the Mixer 

I totally agree!  After the Ferris Wheel, I always wondered about going back to the Mixer.  But now, it seems there's just 3!

Funny how this is unlike Modulars, where we had to wait for Jamie's video to confirm indisputably that Market Street is a modular.

[Aanchir]

32 minutes ago, jlassen said:

Friends Roller coaster (41130).

is this one still in production?  I hope so... nice to have different colored track options. "friends light blue"

It's Medium Azur, but that's an entirely different type of track (the small train tracks introduced for the minecart in The Temple of Doom).

1 hour ago, fred67 said:

 

Actually, a theme like this is much like the Winter Village theme.  Unlike the city theme, where you pick and choose what you want, you get limited releases in the theme and make people want to collect them.  Maybe they counterbalance the fact that there's not really a lot of sets that can go with this theme, in the long run, by having limited releases that cost twice as much.  I don't really know, but I do know that the majority of kids I know would want this set when they walk into the LEGO Store and see it on display.

And nobody is saying it's not fair game; a lot of us like to think TLG is above it all, but they are a profit driven company, and they do what they think will make them the most money, and there's nothing unfair about it.  It's just, as I said, a lot of us are disappointed in the jump in set prices in the last few years - it started with sets like the Helicarrier, a $350 Ghost Busters set, now an $800 Millennium Falcon.  The architecture series used to be small $20 sets - the value may not have been great, but I could easily drop $20 now and again for a new set - and they were sets I could display in my office, but then those sets ballooned into really expensive ones and I just stopped buying Architecture sets.  

Again, it's not that the value isn't there, it's that it's very difficult for a lot of people to spend $300 or more for a single set; it is also cognitively difficult to buy a $280 modular when all the other modulars have been below $200.  The Ferris Wheel (I have) is a great, huge set - but it was still only around $200 - the coaster is nearly double.

 it's almost like a crack dealer - they get you hooked on a theme, then double the price.

 

It's true, a lot of themes HAVE been experimenting with larger sets than usual. But I think treating this like LEGO trying to force long-time collectors into spending more and more exaggerates those collectors' importance among all potential buyers. Sets like the Ghostbusters Firehouse and Disney Castle were quite successful at appealing to people who might not have bought a LEGO set in years — they weren't depending strictly on established collectors who were trying to complete a collection.

In a lot of cases, the LEGO Group's foray into higher-priced sets is just them getting comfortable with the fact that it's actually possible. They are a very cautious company, especially in the wake of their major restructuring in the early 2000s after nearly going bankrupt. But after you've gotten comfortable swimming in the shallow end you're going to have more courage to gradually practice swimming in deeper water. The relative lack of such high-priced sets back in the day wasn't out of a sense of generosity to consumers or anything like that — it was that the LEGO Group didn't have the confidence that they could make and sell sets bigger than what they had! But now that they know sets like this sell just fine and don't overextend their manufacturing capacity, they're willing to let their designers explore that space instead of constraining them to sets that hit lower price points.

I also think it's a bit disingenuous to say this trend of sets started with sets like the Helicarrier, or to even count the new Millennium Falcon as an example of this trend without acknowledging the previous version way back in 2007. That set was at the $500 price point, which is more like $600 in today's money. Between that and the Helicarrier, LEGO launched a $400 Death Star, a $300 Taj Mahal, a $400 Super Star Destroyer, a $320 Sydney Opera House, and a $300 Sandcrawler. So while it wasn't a steady trend of higher and higher prices each year, the LEGO Group had been testing their upper limits with regard to price point for many years before that. Just not so much outside the already proven Creator Expert and Star Wars categories

Obviously, the LEGO Group knows that buyers aren't going to be able to drop this much money on a set on impulse. But they are satisfied to know that enough buyers will be able to get these sets for making and selling them to be a worthwhile investment, and that they have plenty of other sets out there for people who can't fit a $380 set into their budget.

[paul_delahaye]

I'm stll hoping we might get a designer video of this set.

 

But anyway, I wonder if it will be Lego exclusive or whether this will find it's way down to the big retailers like Smyths Toys?  I live in hope to get 20% discount if it does.

 

 

[Praetorian_Guard]

3 minutes ago, paul_delahaye said:

I'm stll hoping we might get a designer video of this set.

We´ll get a Designer Video for sure. It´s only a question of time, when the video will be revealed.

[FLP]

I was bored and tried to construct the LEGO Roller Coaster in OpenRCT2. 

The result is, that no one would go on the ride, because the intensity rating is too high. With banked turns, the g-forces would be lower. 

 

[fred67]

42 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

I also think it's a bit disingenuous to say this trend of sets started with sets like the Helicarrier, or to even count the new Millennium Falcon as an example of this trend without acknowledging the previous version way back in 2007. That set was at the $500 price point, which is more like $600 in today's money. Between that and the Helicarrier, LEGO launched a $400 Death Star, a $300 Taj Mahal, a $400 Super Star Destroyer, a $320 Sydney Opera House, and a $300 Sandcrawler. So while it wasn't a steady trend of higher and higher prices each year, the LEGO Group had been testing their upper limits with regard to price point for many years before that. Just not so much outside the already proven Creator Expert and Star Wars categories

Obviously, the LEGO Group knows that buyers aren't going to be able to drop this much money on a set on impulse. But they are satisfied to know that enough buyers will be able to get these sets for making and selling them to be a worthwhile investment, and that they have plenty of other sets out there for people who can't fit a $380 set into their budget.

Oh... I wasn't trying to be disingenuous; I know there were sets before that, but now it seems like multiple sets every year instead of one set every two or three years.  It's their prerogative - I never said otherwise.  On that note, anyone who wants to continue responding can feel free, and I'm happy to discuss LEGO profits and profit margins, and their ever increasing set costs in an age where most incomes are flat; but this thread is not the place.

[DragonKhan]

Well, of course the ride can't be translated 1:1 in the real world (or simulating a real world like in RCT). Friction can't be scaled, so making a realistic coaster model is as good as impossible.
Banked turns would look much better, but wouldn't be possible with this new system (fixed axes in the carts). But I'm sure Lego people are g-force proof and can take the lateral g-forces. 
I have to say though, I love your idea of recreating the ride in RCT! 

[fred67]

What do you mean by "fixed axes in the carts?"  If the width of the track was consistent, I don't see why cars wouldn't be able to bank.  What am I missing?

[DragonKhan]

32 minutes ago, fred67 said:

What do you mean by "fixed axes in the carts?"  If the width of the track was consistent, I don't see why cars wouldn't be able to bank.  What am I missing?

This is going quite into details, so be warned. :P
In order to go into a banked turn, the track has to twist in 3 dimensions instead of 2 like on flat turns (horizontal turn) or drops/hill (vertical turn). A fixed axis can't manage such a "space curve" (technical term, google it) well without jaming. It also gets much worse when a cart hast two axes which can't twist relative to each other, which is the case here.
A banked turn can still be somewhat managed if the bank is introduced before the track actually turns, but you need quite a bit of space for that to minimize the jamming since the axes can't twist relative to each other. And on a model coaster where the train has hardly any mass, even the slightest imperfection will make the train jam.
This is also the reason we won't be seeing any kind of inversion in the new system from Lego. 

Pretty much all modern roller coasters have individual wheel assemblies instead (you can still find fixed axes on some very old wooden coaster). Those can "steer" with the track, making even the wildest maneuvers possible. On the scale of Lego that, of course, is not viable. To counter the problematic friction you'd want to keep the wheels as large as possible, but realistic wheel assemblies would be incredibly tiny.
As far as I know the only somewhat realistic roller coaster model is the O-scale Inverted coaster from Coasterdynamix (where a single train has 42 wheels!).

Stupid natural laws and their inability to be scaled for models! 

That all makes me think now ...
A Lego coaster cart has two axes, right? Could removing an axis from the trailing carts (leading cart needs two axes) improve the friction and jamming problem somewhat? Basically making a modern articulated roller coaster train. Has anyone tried that already?

Edited April 27, 2018 by DragonKhan

[allanp]

If fixed axles was a concern then surely the carts wouldn't go round corners?! I suspect a main reason for not banking the corners is because Lego would need to release yet more new complex coaster track pieces, namely ones to go from level track to banked track for both left and right turns (yes you do need both so you can go from banked back to level again) and I guess they can only produce so many new moulds for parts of this size and complexity at a time. Maybe we will get those parts in future. Of course half loop and half corkscrew pieces would also be great. I do think that Lego could make a nice profit by selling those parts as extension packs, without the need to include them in a rollercoaster. This way people who can't afford the whole thing could buy the bits to make their own dream coaster like they would in rollercoaster Tycoon. I suspect that over time people doing that would end up buying more from Lego than they would have buying the full coaster set, and even if they don't, at least they would be buying something from Lego, and these track pieces would be in a $25 expansion pack, so they would sell lots of them, so economy of scales works more in their favour, and people go Lego coaster crazy building massive coasters which other people see, drawing more people to the hobby, and Lego releases more track pieces, and different train types like nemesis under the track style, spinning wildmouse and wing coasters, and it becomes its own thing like the train line. But one step at a time! Can you tell I'm excited for the new coaster?! 

[Fuppylodders]

28 minutes ago, fred67 said:

What do you mean by "fixed axes in the carts?"  If the width of the track was consistent, I don't see why cars wouldn't be able to bank.  What am I missing?

To exaggerate it so it's easier to explain, imagine for a right banking track, the left side rises while the right side drops. This forces one side of the cart wheels to angle upwards at the same time the right side wanting to angle downwards, then while going round a corner too. 

I do wonder if there is enough 'play' in the wheels and the side drooping guides for it to be possible though, something I'm looking forward to experimenting with...

[DragonKhan]

12 minutes ago, allanp said:

If fixed axles was a concern then surely the carts wouldn't go round corners?! I suspect a main reason for not banking the corners is because Lego would need to release yet more new complex coaster track pieces, namely ones to go from level track to banked track for both left and right turns (yes you do need both so you can go from banked back to level again) and I guess they can only produce so many new moulds for parts of this size and complexity at a time. Maybe we will get those parts in future. Of course half loop and half corkscrew pieces would also be great. I do think that Lego could make a nice profit by selling those parts as extension packs, without the need to include them in a rollercoaster. This way people who can't afford the whole thing could buy the bits to make their own dream coaster like they would in rollercoaster Tycoon. I suspect that over time people doing that would end up buying more from Lego than they would have buying the full coaster set, and even if they don't, at least they would be buying something from Lego, and these track pieces would be in a $25 expansion pack, so they would sell lots of them, so economy of scales works more in their favour, and people go Lego coaster crazy building massive coasters which other people see, drawing more people to the hobby, and Lego releases more track pieces, and different train types like nemesis under the track style, spinning wildmouse and wing coasters, and it becomes its own thing like the train line. But one step at a time! Can you tell I'm excited for the new coaster?! 

I can tell. And I can tell you loved playing Roller Coaster Tycoon. 
But I'm sorry to burst your bubble. As I explained (and Fuppylodders explained well again), it's simply not possible. I wish it would be ...
There's a reason roller coaster models are rather rare. They are quite the nightmare to get to work right. I've had my fair share of experience. 
When it comes to different train types, I'm hoping that the AFOL community will come up with some creative ideas. Spinning and wing coasters should be possible. Inverted coasters like Nemesis less so (no wheels on the underside of the cart as far as I know?).
 

Oh and another thing I forgot ...

44 minutes ago, fred67 said:

What do you mean by "fixed axes in the carts?"  If the width of the track was consistent, I don't see why cars wouldn't be able to bank.  What am I missing?

If you actually use modern wheel assemblies, the consistent width of the track actually would be an issue. The track has to narrow slightly in the turns then.
Yup, roller coasters are quite the science! 

Edited April 27, 2018 by DragonKhan

[allanp]

Yes I did, and still do love rollercoaster Tycoon  . Also visited Alton Towers yesterday (Wicker Man is the best for all those reading in the UK) so seeing this reveal when I got home was the best timing ever! I really like the fact they went for the solid RTC style track pieces as opposed to the flexible type seen in other coaster models. Only thing I don't like is they they seem to want to keep all the stud connections at the ends of the track parallel to the ground. Why? If they kept them inline with whatever direction the end of the track was pointing in I feel you would have more freedom to design more things. For instance you wouldn't need a straight incline piece, just a regular straight could be used for the lift hill. Using two curvy downy pieces together would give you a vertical drop and so on.

[DragonKhan]

Flexible track would create many more possibilities, but it would be a nightmare to make work nicely, especially in the hands of kids. It would just cause a tremendous amount of frustration. It was quite clear to me that if Lego would come out with a roller coaster, the track will be rigid. It makes the system "playable".

The reason they have the studs right side up all the time is geometry an simplicity.
And if you look at one of the alternative builds from the pirate coaster you can see that you actually can use the tracks "off-slope". So it seems Lego was thinking along and you can use straight track pieces for the lift with some smart SNOT building. Pretty awesome if you'd ask me. 

I'm not seeing how two curves could create a vertical drop though. You do realize that the carts "wrap around" the track to ensure it won't derail?

[SollX]

2 hours ago, FLP said:

I was bored and tried to construct the LEGO Roller Coaster in OpenRCT2. 

The result is, that no one would go on the ride, because the intensity rating is too high. With banked turns, the g-forces would be lower. 

 

NICE! great idea

though..i think it would be more like this...

quite a low intensity rating... booring :P

(the 1st and 2nd drop are 1,5 m lower then they should be just to make it look better)

 

Edited April 27, 2018 by SollX

[Hoth Rebel]

I would be cool if someone made those entrance / exit buildings in Lego that would somehow fit in the set. 

[DragonKhan]

No hard feelings, but I think the version of FLP is actually more accurate. The steep slope clearly works better.  
(you can't compare the ratings in RCT though, since different styles of coasters get rated differently, even with the exactly same layout)
 

7 minutes ago, Kevii23 said:

I would be cool if someone made those entrance / exit buildings in Lego that would somehow fit in the set. 

You, Sir, just gave me a tremendous idea! It will be done! 

Edited April 27, 2018 by DragonKhan