Technic 2019 Set Discussion

[Jim]

7 hours ago, keymaker said:

So there are a lot of leaks for lego city, star wars, ninjago etc. but practically nothing for technic family. Does the technic fan base is so small or just other lego "families" have better agents providing leaks?

Let’s stick to the 2019 set discussion and don’t turn this into a leak discussion topic please  

[Aleh]

Just now, Jim said:

Let’s stick to the 2019 set discussion and don’t turn this into a leak discussion topic please  

Have you noticed there are already 24 pages of discussions of nothing?  No any photo exists, so, nothing to discuss in a way of 2019 sets. Prices and titles do not worth 24 pages of discussion.

Just my POV. 

[Dylan M]

Because of the restrictions this Topic getting boring unlike the previous year!  ???

[zux]

Alright guys, I've missed the leaked pictures and I kind of unable to find them anywhere (Good job TLG!). Anyone mind to post pictures of real vehicles (or whatever was there) to understand the vibe of 2019H1 sets please?

[Johnny1360]

Yes an endless cascade of new members asking for leaked picture links or PMs is so much more exciting. 

[Saberwing40k]

2 hours ago, zux said:

Alright guys, I've missed the leaked pictures and I kind of unable to find them anywhere (Good job TLG!). Anyone mind to post pictures of real vehicles (or whatever was there) to understand the vibe of 2019H1 sets please?

That's the problem. The sets we had shown did NOT look like any real vehicles.

[Maaboo the Witch]

2 minutes ago, Saberwing40k said:

That's the problem. The sets we had shown did NOT look like any real vehicles.

No. That tracked loader looks like something for use on Mars. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by Maaboo35

[Ngoc Nguyen]

At least there will be the Porsche that looks like a real vehicle. 

[AVCampos]

Sets that don't look like real vehicles aren't necessarily bad: take, for example, the 8852, which is long overdue for a modern update.

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, AVCampos said:

Sets that don't look like real vehicles aren't necessarily bad: take, for example, the 8852, which is long overdue for a modern update.

No. Nothing tops 8446. Stand down. 

[coinoperator]

Just now, Maaboo35 said:

No. Nothing tops 8446. Stand down. 

Sure,

but now try to see this through the eyes of an 8 years old boy...
that's were this thing was ment for, not for afols

[Maaboo the Witch]

12 minutes ago, coinoperator said:

Sure,

but now try to see this through the eyes of an 8 years old boy...
that's were this thing was ment for, not for afols

I was 8 when 8446 was released in 1999, funnily enough.  I did want it, but I think Rock Raiders took over my priorities for that year...

[Saberwing40k]

6 hours ago, coinoperator said:

Sure,

but now try to see this through the eyes of an 8 years old boy...
that's were this thing was ment for, not for afols

This is not a valid argument. Especially when it comes to Lego. Only the best is good enough. While they do have misses, that is the goal they strive for. Also, it is totally possible to have a set that can appeal to both child and adult fans.

6 hours ago, AVCampos said:

Sets that don't look like real vehicles aren't necessarily bad: take, for example, the 8852, which is long overdue for a modern update.

I'd agree, but futuristic does not give a bad design a free pass either. 8244 for instance is futuristic set that does not hit the mark. Both sets we have seen just look terrible, with clunky, unfinished designs. But, I'm fairly certain that they will be redesigned, the pictures are super early.

[Bartybum]

7 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

No. That tracked loader looks like something for use on Mars. 

What? That tracked loader looked pretty standard to me?

To other peeps, we’ve only seen one fairly blurry photo of it, so we don’t know anything about the details of it or build quality, save for the fact that the loading arm is more of a claw iirc. So it’s a bit brash to come to any conclusions about the standard of the set based off the one photo. Relax my peeps. And remember what Jim stickied to the top, use your brains

Edited November 14, 2018 by Bartybum

[Maaboo the Witch]

9 hours ago, Bartybum said:

What? That tracked loader looked pretty standard to me?

To other peeps, we’ve only seen one fairly blurry photo of it, so we don’t know anything about the details of it or build quality, save for the fact that the loading arm is more of a claw iirc. So it’s a bit brash to come to any conclusions about the standard of the set based off the one photo. Relax my peeps. And remember what Jim stickied to the top, use your brains

There is no existing model of tracked loader upwards of compact models that uses triangular tracks. Large models use flat tracks.

[coinoperator]

9 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

WHAWHAWHAWHAW
True

 

[Bartybum]

7 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

There is no existing model of tracked loader upwards of compact models that uses triangular tracks. Large models use flat tracks.

May I ask why that matters in any way?

[Maaboo the Witch]

7 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

May I ask why that matters in any way?

Authenticity. If this were an out-and-out futuristic model, then fine. But from the detailing and style this is supposed to be a modern-day vehicle. It should look like one.

[Bartybum]

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

Authenticity. If this were an out-and-out futuristic model, then fine. But from the detailing and style this is supposed to be a modern-day vehicle. It should look like one.

And yet the first thing I thought when I saw the leak was that it looks like a modern-day vehicle. You're just being pedantic about a triangle. There's a level of creative freedom that can be allowed in a Lego set design, especially one that doesn't compromise anything

Edited November 14, 2018 by Bartybum

[Maaboo the Witch]

2 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

And yet the first thing I thought when I saw the leak was that it looks like a modern-day vehicle. You're just being pedantic about a triangle. There's a level of creative freedom that can be allowed in a Lego set design, especially one that doesn't compromise anything

See: 8043 B-model. Accurate. Authentic. And that was a B-model. 42094 is an A-model and TLG should have had more to work with. Not to mention it looks hideously impractical. The access steps to the cab are nine feet off the ground!

[Bartybum]

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

See: 8043 B-model. Accurate. Authentic. And that was a B-model. 42094 is an A-model and TLG should have had more to work with. Not to mention it looks hideously impractical. The access steps to the cab are nine feet off the ground!

Yeesh why the italics, we’re talking about toys here not fine dining.

8043-B doesn’t have doors, nor does it have a realistic looking engine grille, yet you’re not lambasting it for those slip ups. So authentic  I’d even go as far as to say that the length and bulk of the front arm make it look unrealistic and goofy, but I won’t, because it’s just not that important.

Again, you’re being way overly pedantic. It’s a toy - it’s allowed to slightly vary from the norm in the name of creative freedom. If you don’t like how it looks, that’s fine, but I think it’s unfair to hammer on about authenticity in a model that’s clearly been designed to suit a modern and even slightly futuristic era. I’m sure they very well know the triangular tracks don’t show up on larger tracked loaders, but they’ve decided to include them because they arguably make the model more futuristic.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Bartybum

[Maaboo the Witch]

17 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Yeesh why the italics, we’re talking about toys here not fine dining.

8043-B doesn’t have doors, nor does it have a realistic looking engine grille, yet you’re not lambasting it for those slip ups. So authentic 

Again, you’re being way overly pedantic. It’s a toy - it’s allowed to slightly vary from the norm in the name of creative freedom. If you don’t like how it looks, that’s fine, but I think it’s unfair to hammer on about authenticity in a model that’s clearly been designed to suit a modern and even slightly futuristic era.

Again, 8043 B-model! And doors are a vague concept in Technic at best, even in sets at 42094's scale. The A-model doesn't have doors either, so that point isn't too stable.

Anyway, I don't think we're getting anywhere with this. 42094 is a construction/engineering/forestry vehicle of reasonable size in a 1H lineup, which is rare these days, so that means I'll probably get it anyway. There are things about it that I'm not keen on at this stage, like the utterly inaccurate tracks and somewhat weedy grabber, and I will continue to point them out if anyone wants to debate them. The body is more or less correct, at least at the angle given on the box, so there is that.

[Johnny1360]

3 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

There is no existing model of tracked loader upwards of compact models that uses triangular tracks. Large models use flat tracks.

Interesting point as many large bulldozers use the triangle configuration, why I'm not sure, although I suspect it maybe to get the final drive up out of the mud, to reduce wear and tear and offer better traction. Again unsure what the reason is but it is possible those conditions don't exist for a loader, or possibly in the future loaders will be done like that as well. I guess it could have to do with center of gravity, weight distribution or something of that nature, making the machine a more efficient digger. 

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, Johnny1360 said:

Interesting point as many large bulldozers use the triangle configuration, why I'm not sure, although I suspect it maybe to get the final drive up out of the mud, to reduce wear and tear and offer better traction. Again unsure what the reason is but it is possible those conditions don't exist for a loader, or possibly in the future loaders will be done like that as well. I guess it could have to do with center of gravity, weight distribution or something of that nature, making the machine a more efficient digger. 

The triangle tracks on 42094 look very cumbersome and not very well integrated, and they make the profile of the loader rather tall for little return in terms of stability. This thing would topple backwards if going up a hill. Dozer tracks may use a triangular setup, but the triangle itself is built low.

[Johnny1360]

Yes I can see where a higher center of gravity could be disastrous for a loader but would benefit a dozer.