[Review|Rant|Mod|MOC|WIP] 42083 revisited

[Erik Leppen]

I can be critical about sets whose functionality doesn't meet their part-count, as people may remember when I redid 42064 to make it more to my own tastes. For the last winter holiday I bought 42083 as a gift for myself, which was on my wishlist for a few reasons:

• for the new pieces (dark-blue; dark-azure; gearbox pieces)
• to experience building a 1:8 car
• to mod it

I built it "vanilla" (i.e. without mods) and was aware of the problems from the reviews and the mods topic, but boy, does the set come with a slew of issues on its own. When the official model was built and I wanted to explain the functions to my father, the summary went like this:

• The front suspension sags, the rear suspension sags slightly and the car touches the ground
• Due to the slack in the drivetrain, the engine doesn't move if you roll only small distances. So I left it in reverse mode so the pistons actually move.
• The cool paddle shifter controls a really cool gearbox, but all you can see from it is some abstract elements moving through a 3x5 stud hole in the bottom
• The steering wheel is hard to reach
• You can raise the wing, but you have to stick a "key" randomly into the side. Basically it's easier to adjust the wing by hand.
• No, the engine cover doesn't open.

Basically, not a single function is without problems… Of course, there were things I noted myself too.

• I'm one of those rare people who consider 8448 to be better than 8880, and one of the reasons is 8448's modular build-up. It worked like a charm there, but in 42083, I found this whole "marriage" thing to be a huge deception. The actual moment takes maybe 20 seconds and isn't even very interesting. Yes, it's nifty, but after you have clicked the pins together, nothing is seen of all this, except a very heavy chassis that has quite some bend in the middle because of it. Also, and IMO more importantly: because the half-chassis only contains a half drivetrain, you can't test your model while building.
• That gearbox is cool, and it works well, but it looks like an incomprehensible mess of beams and gears. It doesn't have a nice layout that shows how it is built up. Beams everywhere are hiding important gears, so there's no angle to view it from that gives a good overview. The designer chose to have an opening in the middle bottom for the drive axle, so the gearbox is a separate module that could be nicely "laid" into the chassis. A design choice I don't really get: the module isn't even complete; more gears need to be added after putting it in place. What's the point then?
• The idea that I was having afterwards is that the whole construction is designed to be "easy to build", so that non-Lego-builders know which part goes where in which order. But this has come at the cost of understanding what's being built. (42082 seems to suffer from this too.) It's easy to build, sure, but it looks cluttered and the only way to build it, is mindlessly. You can't anticipate, or appreciate the modules, or whatever, because a submodule makes no sense by itself. The submodule at step 229 has one gear packed into a whole framework. Why the framework? It seems to be made foolproof, but it doesn't tell this. As a result, the design is hard to "read".
• Why all these beams everywhere? Does it really need 6 layers at each side below the front axle? And there are many more places where I really wondered why there's another layer of beams. I get that Technic is beam-based, but it certainly felt like overkill here. For fun, just check the first part of box 2 (steps 205 up to 230). I mean, did TLC have a backlog of 3x5 beams they needed to clear?
• Why did TLC want a closed, flat underside? It costs space, adds weight, adds uninteresting pieces, raises price, and worst: hides all the functionality. That's the problem with this huge gearbox and the "marriage" - if you're the one who built the model, you know it's there and you can enjoy that thought, but if you are just seeing the model, you can't see anything of its insides, and then it's just a 3600-piece static car. It can't be "explained". And then you wonder: what's the core principle of Technic? No father who bought and built this for himself can explain to their interested child how the car works, because the child can't see anything working.
• the huge distance needed to make the engine run through the gearbox is not because of the slack in gearbox elements, but because the whole gearbox is geared down and everyting runs so slowly. Then any slack really adds up.

Of course, you can rant, but it's of no value if you don't provide an alternative. Now, 42083 may already be the most-modded set ever, but while the many mods take on some of the major problems:

• sagging suspension
• lack of playability
• cluttered gearbox

they, IMO, leave some other major problems untouched:

• beam overload
• functions that can't be seen
• very heavy chassis with a weak-spot in the middle

So I wanted to do something else. Rather than try to improve the existing chassis, I ditched it completely and started over. Where I want to note that my version isn't necessarily "better". It's just a different approach. I started looking for a digital version of 42083 and found @jb70 's wonderful "Pimp up my Bugatti" on Rebrickable, https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-16181/jb70/42083-pimp-up-my-bugatti/#comments and took the .mpd as a base. I removed everything except the bodywork and went from there.

The first design principle to kill is that stupid "marriage". That'll save 500 parts and allows me to redesign the chassis as a whole. A draft:

Second is the front and rear axle. I used longer suspension arms and fixed them one stud lower so they are more horizontal, meaning the wheels don't move outward when the suspension is compressed.

Also, I use the spring's whole range, giving me much more power without reducing the travel. And of course, frictionless pins.

The lowered rear axle of the official set is neat, but I believe there's enough space to do it the normal way. The engine can always move a few studs to the front; there's plenty of unused space there. So the rear axle is similar (I like symmetry) but without balljoints.

As a bonus there is even a new function (in light-blue): a suspension height adjuster. Why not :)

Third: because the axles are fixed one stud lower, the diffs and therefore the whole drivetrain sits one stud lower. This is possible, because I also ditch the closed underside. This is Technic; functions should be visible, and the best place to see the functions of a car is the bottom.

Fourth, I know from the Mods topic that much work is done improving the gearbox. @Didumos69 showed it's possible to reduce the number of gear meshes and make it much more organized. Others have made other nice adjustments, such as a "gear block" that locks the high-low gearbox to only 2 positions, making another set of 3 gears useless and preventing switching from 8 to 1. With these in mind, I tried my own take on the gearbox and I think it's actually quite similar to existing mods. The first draft:

 

The wheels drive the lime axle via the 20t gear. The lower pair of rings then drive the light-yellow gears in 4 speeds. Via the yellow gear in the middle this goes to the dark-tan gears. The upper pair of rings then drive the green gears in 2 speeds, which then goes to the RND selector. This is the concept - switching the lime 16-20 pair and the green 8-24 pair is possible to ensure correct gear order.

I didn't like the dependency on a rubber band, so I tried a spring-based solution. (pictured is a draft that is replaced by a similar but different setup)

Fifth, I didn't like how the steering rack was in front of the front axle; so I moved it to the usual place. Later I noticed the reason it was in the front: the paddle shifter needs the space. So, that had to go... something I didn't want to do actually, and I don't think there will be a new shifter - shifting gears will be HOG only I'm afraid. That's the main loss of my version (so far).

Sixth; I know the complaints about the engine not being W16, so I tried an alternative, which seems to work well. The crankshaft is weaker but for a MOC this will do. I didn't mind the original engine, but I like my alternative engine as well, so it felt better to use it.

So all of this digital stuff was the week before last week. I spent the last week to convert the digital design to actual bricks, making more gradual improvements and starting to add body elements. Here's the progress so far:

(the suspension is at its highest here)

The roof, the engine cover, the rear and the front are separate modules.

From what remains, the axles can easily be taken off.

 

The first thing I built in real was the gearbox, and I noticed it worked nicely as a separate module and when designing a chassis around it I noticed it was relatively easy to keep them as separable modules. So I continued this idea and as a result, the whole gray central unit could be made as one huge module that is locked in between the main chassis beams. So let's call this my version of the "marriage". It's not the way the real Chiron does it, but it's a way that makes sense in this Lego model.

In the end, the core module is this thing:

This thing contains the entire gearbox, RND selector and gearshift HOG, so it can be tested. Also, the seats are changed a bit and are now slightly angled too. The two tan 20t gears sticking up are the HOGs for steering and gearshift. The HOG for gearshift rotates less than 360 degrees, so it can be modified into a gear indicator. This is an idea I took from @jb70 's .mpd file, but I don't know whose original idea it is.

Of course, a lot is still to do. Most importantly, the doors. There is plenty of space to include a door open/close mechanism. Curious where this will take me.

[grego18f]

Wow, you just won my interest!

I share your thoughts about the issues the set has, especially for the weight. That's right it is a pity that we can't really see the mechanics on the official set. You have done a really good job (again) modifying this and adding new features. I look forward to seeing more in the future.

Just a question: do you know approximatively how many parts have been saved?

Good luck, you are on the right way!

Edited January 5, 2019 by grego18f
Spelling

[gvo25]

Normally I'm not really a car fanatic but your work makes me want to buy this set and change it into your version

[Didumos69]

Very interesting and some great achievements already. I like the symmetry between front and real axles. One question about the gearbox: What are the ratios of the 4-speed gearbox?

Edited January 5, 2019 by Didumos69

[BrickbyBrickTechnic]

I am so following this. Yours MODs are amazing despite only being drafts, and this was a really interesting read. Please update soon!

[Johnny1360]

Very well thought out and implemented plan, I like where this is going. I really like those axles and can't wait to try some of those ideas on a future moc. Appreciate what you have done here and look forward to seeing how it all turns out. 

[Boulderer]

Really great post. Enjoyed reading your thoughts and conclusions. I relate to your views on the the purpose of Technic and am looking forward to what you can achieve with this build. 

[Jurss]

Yes, I built chiron, and there where almost no emotions after that. I thing, building Porsche was some kind of excitement. Don't know what to do it with it - maybe sell ...

You have good wip going on.

[Attika]

Cool project, I understand the frustration that drove you to get on with this. I'm one of those who didn't even bother to buy this set due to the problems you've listed and because it is too blue for me.

Currently I'm working on a same size MOC and came across the same issue on spring strenght. I've been using one of my old developement from an unpublished MOC that was way lighter than this current one. Could not support the weight, so I redesigned it into a pushrod (like) setup. Took me about 5 hours to get it and that made me thinking if I could do it why TLG had to release the Chiron with the flawed design. Anyway, they know better.

About the ride height adjustment

First I appreciate it very much, however there is one thing I'd like to mention regarding this setup: If you are using one wormgear only then the angle of the two 24T gears will not be the same. There is a 7.5 (360/24/2) degree difference between the left and the right part due to the lack of symmetry of the wormger. It is minuscule, so I don't think it needs to be addressed as a problem. I was just gonna highlight the existance of this anomaly around the setup. I've been trying to use the same setup but with 8t gears around the wormgear and that resulted even bigger difference (22,5 degrees 360/8/2) what renered it useless for me at that time.

It's great to see you started from scratch. Patching up a flawed design always gonna be a patched up flawed design, glad you didn't choose that.

 

 

[suffocation]

Inspiring project, Erik

I also really enjoyed your write-up and agree with every point you made. I knew I wasn't going to buy the Chiron - not even at the usual 30% discount - when the instructions were uploaded and I saw this:

That's just begging for trouble. So I wasn't surprised when a slew of (mostly novice) users started reporting high friction in the rear axle. Lego's rationale was clearly "let's make a million submodules so it's easy but exciting to build" - fine and dandy, but they almost killed the model's functionality.

[SamuelYsc]

wow ! Very interesting and awesome!

I like the idea that both of the axle is adjustable suspension!

The original front axle is kind of messy and you have just simple it a lot!

I hope i can build it in my bugatti too !

 

And also may i ask for the 3d file of the axle setup? it is really interesting and useful design and i want to try to have some fun with it!

Edited January 6, 2019 by SamuelYsc
3d

[captainmib]

2 hours ago, suffocation said:

Inspiring project, Erik

I also really enjoyed your write-up and agree with every point you made. I knew I wasn't going to buy the Chiron - not even at the usual 30% discount - when the instructions were uploaded and I saw this:

[picture]

That's just begging for trouble. So I wasn't surprised when a slew of (mostly novice) users started reporting high friction in the rear axle. Lego's rationale was clearly "let's make a million submodules so it's easy but exciting to build" - fine and dandy, but they almost killed the model's functionality.

What do you mean? 

[BusterHaus]

Great write up Erik, and the fixes look good. I'm particularly fond of the way you broke up the modules - most of the cars I made followed the same method, because it allows testing and the examination of individual mechanisms. 

By the way, which program do you use for the digital build? 

[suffocation]

1 hour ago, captainmib said:

What do you mean? 

It's pretty obvious from the picture that the rear axle was designed so the average numbskull wouldn't struggle with the assemly. And as Erik pointed out, the rest of the build follows suit. So you end up with a poor design leading to a ton of added weight, slack and friction.

Edited January 6, 2019 by suffocation

[Jeroen Ottens]

Interesting read. It addresses the emotions I felt while building this model very eloquently. It is telling I guess that you are already the second person to step up and improve the structure of this model. I am very interested to see what you can come up with. The Chiron feels so overdesigned, you should be able to shave off a lot of parts (and weight).

[Erik Leppen]

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 4:55 PM, grego18f said:

Just a question: do you know approximatively how many parts have been saved?

The digital file I have is at 2600, but it's not complete. I expect to end up around 3200. Which is not that much less, but I feel the inventory would be slightly better balanced. Less pins, more axles, more half-width beams (oh, how I miss thos in sets).

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 8:40 PM, gvo25 said:

Normally I'm not really a car fanatic but your work makes me want to buy this set and change it into your version

Please note that I do use parts from my collection. Also dark-blue and dark-azure parts I bricklinked, or from 42064.

On ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 9:36 PM, Didumos69 said:

Very interesting and some great achievements already. I like the symmetry between front and real axles. One question about the gearbox: What are the ratios of the 4-speed gearbox?

• 1st and 2nd (and 3rd and 4th) are done by the different speeds of the first and second driving ring, which have a ratio of 4 : 5.
• 1st and 3rd (and 2nd and 4th) are opposite ends of the same driving ring, which is 3 : 5.

So the relative ratios must be 5 : 4 : 3 : x, where 3 : x equals 5 : 4, so x must be 12/5 = 2.4.

The relative ratios of the high-low is 3 : 1, so the relative speeds of all 8 gears is 15 : 12 : 9 : 7.2 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2.4

I have to say though it has a lot of friction at the low gears.

19 hours ago, BrickbyBrickTechnic said:

Please update soon!

 

I will; I spent about the whole day building today (last day of holiday), tomorrow at daylight I will post pictures of the front and doors. I made some changes there too. Door mechanism uses the old damped springs. I'm thinking of using a third damped spring for the engine cover, but not sure yet.

 

14 hours ago, Johnny1360 said:

Very well thought out and implemented plan, I like where this is going. I really like those axles and can't wait to try some of those ideas on a future moc.

My plan is to do instructions. But I know I say that for most of my models, and I have a little backlog of models I want to do instructions for...

14 hours ago, Boulderer said:

Really great post. Enjoyed reading your thoughts and conclusions. I relate to your views on the the purpose of Technic and am looking forward to what you can achieve with this build. 

What I am trying to achieve is a technical model that looks as good as the set :) I'm not really the person for realism, I prefer playability and "interestingness" of the functions :)

14 hours ago, Jurss said:

Yes, I built chiron, and there where almost no emotions after that. I thing, building Porsche was some kind of excitement. Don't know what to do it with it - maybe sell ...

You have good wip going on.

I skipped the Porsche, mainly because I didn't want the parts (I usually buy Technic sets for parts only). Maybe the excitement was because it was the first in the 1:8 car series? More novel? Also, from what I have seen in reviews, I thought the "marriage" of the Porsche was much more interesting and made more sense.

11 hours ago, Attika said:

[snip]Took me about 5 hours to get [a pushrod setup for the front suspension] and that made me thinking if I could do it why TLG had to release the Chiron with the flawed design.

[snip]

About the ride height adjustment

First I appreciate it very much, however there is one thing I'd like to mention regarding this setup: If you are using one wormgear only then the angle of the two 24T gears will not be the same. There is a 7.5 (360/24/2) degree difference between the left and the right part due to the lack of symmetry of the wormger. It is minuscule, so I don't think it needs to be addressed as a problem. I was just gonna highlight the existance of this anomaly around the setup. [snip]

You'r completely right on both these points (I shortened the quote a bit). The 7.5 degree offset is only noticable because you can see the 1x2 beams are not perfectly symmetric, but the difference is so tiny I just neglected it. But technically you're correct - it's there.

As for the set - I think most of the problems are a matter of taste, except the front suspension which I consider the only real, actual, unmistabable design fault. All the rest is defendable, and even makes sense from the "ease of build" perspective.

11 hours ago, suffocation said:

Inspiring project, Erik

I also really enjoyed your write-up and agree with every point you made. I knew I wasn't going to buy the Chiron - not even at the usual 30% discount - when the instructions were uploaded and I saw this:

[picture of the rear axle]

That's just begging for trouble. So I wasn't surprised when a slew of (mostly novice) users started reporting high friction in the rear axle. Lego's rationale was clearly "let's make a million submodules so it's easy but exciting to build" - fine and dandy, but they almost killed the model's functionality.

I was also puzzled why they seemed to go to large ends to maximize friction there; but one thing that I haven't even mentioned here is that this setup puts unnecessary stress on that tan 4L axle and black 1x2 beam that holds the lower end of the springs.

8 hours ago, SamuelYsc said:

wow ! Very interesting and awesome!

I like the idea that both of the axle is adjustable suspension!

The original front axle is kind of messy and you have just simple it a lot!

I hope i can build it in my bugatti too !

 

And also may i ask for the 3d file of the axle setup? it is really interesting and useful design and i want to try to have some fun with it!

I should find an easy place where I can upload non-image files. Not sure if brickshelf allows .mpd. Does this image help?

 

By the way, maybe I should just mention the Brickshelf folder, because I don't post all pictures I upload there. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=576408

7 hours ago, BusterHaus said:

Great write up Erik, and the fixes look good. I'm particularly fond of the way you broke up the modules - most of the cars I made followed the same method, because it allows testing and the examination of individual mechanisms. 

By the way, which program do you use for the digital build? 

I use old and trusty MLCad. Simply because it's what I'm used to. I use LDView as the viewer/renderer. And yes - this separation of modules was actually an accident, but I find it works well and even with the doors and such in place, the whole thing is still modular.

6 hours ago, suffocation said:

It's pretty obvious from the picture that the rear axle was designed so the average numbskull wouldn't struggle with the assemly. And as Erik pointed out, the rest of the build follows suit. So you end up with a poor design leading to a ton of added weight, slack and friction.

Which probably all fits into a wider trend in society of customers expecting gratification, instead of challenge. Thgis explains a lot of trends in Lego sets, so let's not delve into that here, because I think you could write whole books about this. 

6 hours ago, Jeroen Ottens said:

Interesting read. It addresses the emotions I felt while building this model very eloquently. It is telling I guess that you are already the second person to step up and improve the structure of this model. I am very interested to see what you can come up with. The Chiron feels so overdesigned, you should be able to shave off a lot of parts (and weight).

I think you mean @NKubate being the first, with his redesigns on page 16 of the Mods and improvements thread? 

He shows that even if you keep the existing separation in a front and a rear section, it's possible to greatly reduce the clutter.

I think "overdesigned" is the perfect word. I think part of the reason I felt this way is that this is the largest set I ever built by quite a margin - previous largest was I think Unimog or Claas, and this Chiron is 1500 parts more, so I think I totally wasn't used to the increased size of some newer sets, and was surprised by how the build went on and on and on... About reducing the part count - I'm not even very good at doing a lot with few parts, I think someone could take my design and shave of another 200 parts without much trouble. I'm not after the lowest part count; I just want a Technic-spirited model of what the set "could be".

I'm not even sure what I should do with all these pins. I have too many pins for my needs :D

Thanks to all who replied for the support! The next update will have front and doors; and after that, the pace will slow down a bit, as holiday is  soft-of over :)

[Anio]

On 1/5/2019 at 3:29 PM, Erik Leppen said:

I found this whole "marriage" thing to be a huge deception. The actual moment takes maybe 20 seconds and isn't even very interesting. Yes, it's nifty, but after you have clicked the pins together, nothing is seen of all this

Finally someone to point out that this reproduction of the marriage on the Lego model is trully overated and pointless.

Regarding the suspensions, they may work better than 42083 (could they work worse ? O_o), but I think the way you built them is inacurate.

[Jurss]

7 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

but I feel the inventory would be slightly better balanced

Except, You are using some pretty rare parts, f.i. that liftarm/connector in gray in first picture of frame, which has 2x3 pin connectors, and lot of axle holes. I can even find it now in catalog somehow. 

[JonathanM]

1 hour ago, Jurss said:

Except, You are using some pretty rare parts, f.i. that liftarm/connector in gray in first picture of frame, which has 2x3 pin connectors, and lot of axle holes. I can even find it now in catalog somehow. 

It's a bionicle torso. Quite a handy part to have around: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=50904

[Jurss]

Thank You @JonathanM , I searched at Technic parts.

[Kumbbl]

Eric, very interesting reading material... i fully agree with you concerning the "over-designed" bugatti... but i'm quite sure there are some constraints for the TLG designers imposed by Bugatti... i'm very sure that your suspension geometry would have been never rubberstamped by Bugatti because the real suspension layout is completely different... same for the closed underbottom...

Nevertheless eager awaiting further progress and maybe BI for "your" incarnation of the Chiron !

[Cumulonimbus]

@Erik Leppen Nice write-up, I can relate to many points you mention.

Personally, I appreciate effort that was put in the set design to replicate the marriage process of the real Chiron. In the real machine this connection is also made permanent by joining the necessary structural, mechanical and visual interfaces and is not really visible anymore in the finished car.  You’re right though that the compromises like the heavy chassis and slip gearbox functions are a rather high price to pay for this feature. To me, this is another sign of the priority choices in this set: marketing value over functionality, hinting that another audience was targeted besides the Technic fan.

Overall, the build process of the standard set was rather enjoyable for me, based on the number of oh-s and ah-s I muttered while building it (gearbox, spoiler mechanism, rear axle build and interior come to mind). But I can’t help the feeling I was expecting more exciting, elegant and/or novel building techniques, or new functions on a Technic set of this size (and price).

You hinted at it in your “rant”, but I like to point out that in my opinion, large official sets like the Bugatti have an educational task as well. It should showcase evolutions in the studless building system which allow more complex, realistic or better looking models. This knowledge is the basis for anyone building Technic MOCs to keep learning how to build modular or create rigid structures for example. Here, the 42083 tends to fall short again. The differences between it and the 42056 are not big enough to be the next step in the evolution as an apex predator Technic set.

On the note of educational value: as you said, Technic models can also be seen a gateway to the world of engineering: simplifying and explaining complex systems and principles as gearboxes, suspension geometry, self-locking mechanisms etc. You are very right that a model should be “readable” to achieve this. I agree that this set feels cluttered inside by seemingly superfluous part use. I also lost the overview of what part of the car I was building and how a function is integrated in the whole vehicle. The easy to read design (and color use!) of earlier sets like the 8258 really helped me understand the possibilities and limitations of studless Technic era and are still the gold standard for me.

I like your modular approach as it offers many advantages: It makes sub-assemblies more manageable during the build, less prone to building errors and the inevitable errors are easier to reach and correct, all making the building process more enjoyable. Additionally, modules are more easily swappable with modified versions as well as allowing them to be easily copied and becoming the basis for a MOC, again fulfilling its educational task as mentioned before.

I will follow this topic, I like your point of view on this model. Adding some features and transparency in its inner workings seem like a good idea. Not sure though about using the more rare parts in you MOD/MOC.

Good luck

[Vectormatic]

6 hours ago, Kumbbl said:

 but i'm quite sure there are some constraints for the TLG designers imposed by Bugatti... i'm very sure that your suspension geometry would have been never rubberstamped by Bugatti because the real suspension layout is completely different... same for the closed underbottom...

I very much doubt that, at least when it comes to the suspension. Both porsches so far have incredibly inaccurate suspension (the 911 has mcpherson struts in the front for instance), and at the chiron launch, the bugatti reps were actually surprised the pistons moved in the model. There are also a TON of other inaccuracies (i think the chiron actually has height adjustable suspension in real life), and all lego really knows how to do is double wishbone suspension anyway, when it comes to cars.

Im sure the only way Bugatti was involved in terms of approval was the general look of the thing, and they probably had some discussions beforehand concerning pricing/size to make sure it matches the "premium" feel of the brand, technical details are way too much in depth for these kinds of deals.

[NKubate]

Nice work, Erik! Not sure if I should continue my project now, seeing this...

Although I do agree with quite a few of the points you raise, I think we should accept that the focus of the Technic formula has been shifting over the years. It's pretty clear that closing up the body with more aesthetic details gets more attention nowadays, whether we like it or not. But apparently most people buying Technic models these days do, and it would be silly of TLG not to satisfy the largest install base. It might have to do with a general trend that I have noticed in which we rather seem to consume and use engineered products, instead of wanting to know how they actually work.

However having said this, I can much relate to your critique regarding the beam overload, the part inefficiency in general and a dissatisfying result, although I do not think it is as bad as we might think. We should always remember that we do not know the initial requirements that the designers had to work with, which makes it hard to pass judgement. Furthermore design is all about making compromises, in which you simply cannot please all. Nonetheless IMHO the model could certainly have provided a much more satisfying experience, both from a mechanical point of view and from a building perspective.

Looking forward to seeing further progression!

[Erik Leppen]

17 hours ago, Anio said:

Regarding the suspensions, they may work better than 42083, but I think the way you built them is inacurate.

True. It's probably not realistic. I'm not really the person to care much about realism. So you could raise this point for most of my builds :) As long as it does what one would expect a car to do, I don't really mind how it does it. After all, is rack-and-pinion steering still accurate? I believe that in many modern cars, there's not even any mechanical link between the steering wheel and the wheels anymore. It's all electronic now.

13 hours ago, Jurss said:

Except, You are using some pretty rare parts, f.i. that liftarm/connector in gray in first picture of frame, which has 2x3 pin connectors, and lot of axle holes. I can even find it now in catalog somehow. 

Yeah, after you someone else mentions the same part. Maybe I should change that section a bit. It's an old Bionicle part, #50904, and it's actually one of my favorite Technic parts, since the time I bricklinked 8 of them. It's sort of a frame avant la lettre :)

9 hours ago, Kumbbl said:

Eric, very interesting reading material... i fully agree with you concerning the "over-designed" bugatti... but i'm quite sure there are some constraints for the TLG designers imposed by Bugatti... i'm very sure that your suspension geometry would have been never rubberstamped by Bugatti because the real suspension layout is completely different... same for the closed underbottom...

Nevertheless eager awaiting further progress and maybe BI for "your" incarnation of the Chiron !

True. We as AFOLs don't have to minimize the number of lots, we aren't restricted to parts currently in production, we aren't restricted from using rare parts, illegal constructions, things that are difficult to build, weak connections, and in the case of 42083 there isn't a million-dollar car company looking over our shoulders with even more wishes and demands. :) So yeah, we can do stuff TLC can't. I'm aware of that.

Maybe this build can be seen as a hint to TLC that maybe their restrictions are becoming so tight that they hinder their theme's core values...

5 hours ago, Cumulonimbus said:

@Erik Leppen Nice write-up, I can relate to many points you mention.

Personally, I appreciate effort that was put in the set design to replicate the marriage process of the real Chiron. In the real machine this connection is also made permanent by joining the necessary structural, mechanical and visual interfaces and is not really visible anymore in the finished car.  You’re right though that the compromises like the heavy chassis and slip gearbox functions are a rather high price to pay for this feature. To me, this is another sign of the priority choices in this set: marketing value over functionality, hinting that another audience was targeted besides the Technic fan.

Overall, the build process of the standard set was rather enjoyable for me, based on the number of oh-s and ah-s I muttered while building it (gearbox, spoiler mechanism, rear axle build and interior come to mind). But I can’t help the feeling I was expecting more exciting, elegant and/or novel building techniques, or new functions on a Technic set of this size (and price).

Oh, I sure had a great time when building the set. The gearbox is defintely cool, I love the shifter, the rear wing linkage is ingenious and I really like the seats and the fact you can lift it by the roof. But I also had head-shakes at times. And yes, I think it's made for non-Lego-fans too.

Also I agree that 8258 is one of the best sets. I'm also starting to appreciate 42070 more and more, with its 6 motorized functions in 1800 parts. (I haven't built it though.)

5 hours ago, Cumulonimbus said:

I will follow this topic, I like your point of view on this model. Adding some features and transparency in its inner workings seem like a good idea. Not sure though about using the more rare parts in you MOD/MOC. 

Since 2 people mention this now, I think I'll change the part with the Bionicle piece. It's a structural - not functional - area anyway. But apart from that I don't think I use many weird pieces. I don't know how rare the 24-tooth crown gear is becoming though. But for parts unique to the Chiron, I don't use larger quantities than in the set. But I may use one or two panels or other blue parts from 42070, 42077 or 42064.

But I'd like to have access to the full breath of the parts bank that Technic offers :)

 

1 hour ago, NKubate said:

Although I do agree with quite a few of the points you raise, I think we should accept that the focus of the Technic formula has been shifting over the years. It's pretty clear that closing up the body with more aesthetic details gets more attention nowadays, whether we like it or not. But apparently most people buying Technic models these days do, and it would be silly of TLG not to satisfy the largest install base. It might have to do with a general trend that I have noticed in which we rather seem to consume and use engineered products, instead of wanting to know how they actually work.

However having said this, I can much relate to your critique regarding the beam overload, the part inefficiency in general and a dissatisfying result, although I do not think it is as bad as we might think. We should always remember that we do not know the initial requirements that the designers had to work with, which makes it hard to pass judgement. Furthermore design is all about making compromises, in which you simply cannot please all. Nonetheless IMHO the model could certainly have provided a much more satisfying experience, both from a mechanical point of view and from a building perspective.

Oh, I don't really mind closing up the bodywork with more details. I love the bodywork on 42083. My complaint was about closing up all the rest too. (Yes, I understand that the real car probably has a closed aerodynamic underside as well). And my complaint was about the functions not working as well as I think they could. And yes, I don't think it's fair to say the TLC designers had it all wrong. I'm sure they know what they're doing, and if it's this vs. a neglected and dwindling-away Technic theme, I'd choose this any day. But we as AFOLs, a minority subgroup of the customer base, can still have our own fun with it, and we like to tinker with stuff. :)

I am also making compromises and I don't want to pass off my version as "better" - merely as "better in certain aspects", simply because I make other choices than TLC designers, because I am not influenced by marketing-based arguments. But it's worse in other aspects - I had to remove the shifter for example.