Recommended Posts

I am inclined to agree with @Cumulonimbus, to be honest. Whether I buy this, will depend on the new parts and motors and stuff, how much it will cost to get the parts I want another way, and whether that difference justifies getting the set instead (and get another 3800 parts I already own). I think the sweet spot for nice detailed sets lies around 8110 Unimog, 42054 Claas, 42043 Arocs. So about 2500 parts max. It all depends of course on how the space is used, but I'd say a set is too large if you can have the same functionality (for the same subject matter) in a smaller set. 8043 is a great example of how a modest-sized set can be a technical masterpiece and very functional and playable, and look good as well. As weight is proportional to size^3, let's say number of parts is proportional to size^2.5. A factor 1.5 increase in size will then yield a factor 1.5 ^ 2.5 = 2.75... so almost 3 times as many parts.

So maybe I should take on the challenge of building such a machine in a slightly smaller scale. E.g. using the 10-tooth sprockets, and using the normal LAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 8:24 AM, coinoperator said:

So it's a good idea to dust off our 42009's for the assembly:laugh:

Alas that set came out during my dark ages. I looked up the instructions and it appears to include a number of problematic parts, like 16l and 32l axles and 10 long gear racks (I only own 2) :sceptic:.

Though I guess I could see that as a challenge. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone forgot to pass the hose in the yellow pieces?

6 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

I am inclined to agree with @Cumulonimbus, to be honest. Whether I buy this, will depend on the new parts and motors and stuff, .. 

Thats my theory for not buying any set yet since the Arocs. I dont need so many extra pins, white beams, grey connectors, LAs,  and a colorful spectrum of curved panels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand the objections to them selling larger sets.  They also offer a wider range of sets than ever before.  If you don't like the big ones, buy the smaller ones!

On 4/16/2019 at 7:18 PM, pleegwat said:

Seems likely. The yellow 20t gear cannot be fixed from above, and there's quite some force on it.

Yes, I'm virtually certain the red 16t's are there to stabilize the tan 20t (which provides power to the turntable) against lateral movement and prevent gear skipping.  I can't say I'm a fan of this solution - it doesn't feel very LEGO!  But on the other hand, if it works...

On 4/16/2019 at 3:49 PM, Ivan_M said:

What I find rather strange is the construction of the front wheel holder - stack of three crossblocks attached by axle? to panel. This would be perfect place for new biscuit piece. Maybe this is still prelim build waiting for some parts?

Interesting observation! It would be cool if we got the biscuit in DBG in this set!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has been answered yet, but in the pictures I noticed a lot of yellow pin+pin hole pieces that are seemingly just "there". They don't seem to serve a purpose. There's several placed on the tracks and up the boom. Do any of you know what's the rationale behind putting on pin+pin hole pieces that don't seem to serve a purpose?

Edited by JLiu15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me one of the more interesting aspects of this set and nobody else seems to care or notice, is the ability to operate several different functions simultaneously. I can imagine what a difference that would make in many other creations. To me this will be a real game changer and the start of a new way of doing things.

It will be hard for me to justify buying such a large set as well, since I usually skip them but I would like to be an early adopter of the new smart hubs, which this set will have two of. I really do think this is going to open up huge possibilities for the future of Technic building. Of course I could be wrong, still to me this is the most exciting thing about this set. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing new about operating multiple functions simultaneously. 42030 comes to mind as well as plenty of MOCs; it can even be done with just one motor driving a series of two-way switches (and yes, one motor can indeed drive all those functions at the same time if the whole transmission is designed properly).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the method of doing so that is new and is what I am most looking forward to. 

Edit:  to be clear and I am not sure if this will be realized in this set but I imagine curling the bucket, raising the arm and turning the upper structure all at the same time would offer an aspect of realism that has rarely if ever been seen before in a moc. 

Edited by Johnny1360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think only the 42030 had all the functions simultaneously. In all the other sets there is a minimized number of motors and a lot of gearboxes, so you must operate one function per time.

Here 7 motors and 7 functions, somebody will not be happy, but most of the mocs are done like this because they are way more playable like the real machines!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mpj said:

Yes, I think only the 42030 had all the functions simultaneously. In all the other sets there is a minimized number of motors and a lot of gearboxes, so you must operate one function per time.

Here 7 motors and 7 functions, somebody will not be happy, but most of the mocs are done like this because they are way more playable like the real machines!

You are right but in my case for example the main goal is to have fun during the building process and using a motor per function is too bored and easy for me. A interesting question would be, when you have fun with Lego, during the building, playing when is assembled or watching it in your collection?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

You are right but in my case for example the main goal is to have fun during the building process and using a motor per function is too bored and easy for me. A interesting question would be, when you have fun with Lego, during the building, playing when is assembled or watching it in your collection?' 

True.

Looking from the final Customer POV, you can expect both of these two aspects. A great build and great fun to play with.

It's a matter of balance between one and the other aspect. (making bigger models with more parts is probably a way to solve the 'building pleasure aspect, just because the building process is longer)

Looking from (some of us) POV, witch is most designer/engineer POV, it is clear that a build with finest mecha is better than simples motors put together with a LA.

Our POV and expectations, our choices we have to make in our MOC, are  IMHO way simplier than what TLG designers have to do.

So just get what they gave us and have fun!

Share this post


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

Yes, I think only the 42030 had all the functions simultaneously. In all the other sets there is a minimized number of motors and a lot of gearboxes, so you must operate one function per time.

That's nowhere near true.  E.g. the first technic set with power functions, 8275, had four motors operating four functions (all remotely).  8043 had 4 remotely operated motors for 6 functions, with 3 usable at the same time.  Going back much further, 8480 and 8082 had two motors. Etc.

The new motors seem to be expensive compared with PF, so I suspect we will continue to see plenty of sets with fewer motors and gearboxes.

 

Edited by aeh5040

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, aeh5040 said:

I'm not sure I understand the objections to them selling larger sets.  They also offer a wider range of sets than ever before.  If you don't like the big ones, buy the smaller ones! ...

You are absolutely right about the smaller sets. I really liked the 42092 Rescue Helicopter which is just a gem with its scale and functions. It is great to look at and I image very fun to play with, all for a very reasonable price.

The point i was trying to make is that in my (maybe old fashioned) view, big sets come with big expectations. Recent big sets increasingly fall short of my expectations. An example with the risk of going offtopic: In my opinion the 42082 really should have had a pendular axle and two stage stabilizers for its size. I’m not against big sets per se, but I believe a set should only be as big as required for the functions it will have. In the examples @Erik Leppen mentioned, this used to be the case, but now it isn’t anymore. Part of the problem of building big is that due to the limitation of plastic parts, the bigger a Technic set becomes, the bigger and beefier the structure must be to keep things rigid enough. This leaves proportionally less room for functions.

At a functional level, I honestly don’t really see the need to create all those big sets: Models of machines which are huge in real life don’t have to lead to huge sets automatically: the fantastic 8288 Crawler crane was a model of a huge machine, but was a small scale model with limited part count. Similarly, licensed models don’t necessarily need to be big neither. The 42053 Volvo and the recent 42093 Corvette were pleasant surprises which demonstrated that a licensed model can be a good small or medium set. At a commercial level though, this might be very different story: As long as big sets sell well, they will be made by TLG.

To bring this rant back ontopic: In my eyes, the 42100 is targeted at AFOLs and being one, I feel like I should want this set more than I actually am (first world problems). I understand the 42100 seems to be perfect storm of new RC hardware, a licensed model and the choice for a huge part count. The consequence is an astronomic price, but the value (to me) is not equally high.

One last point: Of course I like a big flagship each year. Those were the sets I coveted as a kid in the 80s and 90s and worked hard for to earn a 8862 Backhoe for example. I don’t know much about the current generation of kids, but I guess the 42100 will be completely out of reach of almost all of the current 8 to 14-year olds, which I find a pity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, steph77 said:

Looking from the final Customer POV, you can expect both of these two aspects. A great build and great fun to play with.

It's a matter of balance between one and the other aspect. (making bigger models with more parts is probably a way to solve the 'building pleasure aspect, just because the building process is longer)

Longer isn't the same as better.

The building process of the Chiron was longer than any set I built before, but it was also worse than any set I built before.

Share this post


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

They’re orange in the picture on this page, but you can see the reason for the yellow pin-with-hole pieces here. https://engineerfeed.com/liebherr-9800-mining-excavator/

The pieces of this machine weigh hundreds of tons, and the orange/yellow hooks are for lifting each piece into place with cranes. 

So simply they are for onsite assembly. 

The LEGO implementation of them however would jump out of place instantly.

Share this post


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

You are right but in my case for example the main goal is to have fun during the building process and using a motor per function is too bored and easy for me. A interesting question would be, when you have fun with Lego, during the building, playing when is assembled or watching it in your collection?'

 

37 minutes ago, aeh5040 said:

That's nowhere near true.  E.g. the first technic set with power functions, 8275, had four motors operating four functions (all remotely).  8043 had 4 remotely operated motors for 6 functions, with 3 usable at the same time.  Going back much further, 8480 and 8082 had two motors. Etc.

The new motors seem to be expensive compared with PF, so I suspect we will continue to see plenty of sets with fewer motors and gearboxes.

 

 

I think we all have our own feelings and thoughts.

I forgot about old sets with many motors – in general I think there was a tendency to reduce costs and insert only 1 or 2 motors per set.

The 8043 is absolutely unplayable in my opinion. When you operate an excavator you must move the arm and turret in the same time, and switch the gearbox every time you need to rotate the turret is not a good thing. The building was very enjoyable and the engineering inside the model is at a very high level. But playability is simply unacceptable for me. And that’s the reason there was the “ultimate 8043 mod” with 6 motors.

 

I must confess that I build mocs just to re-create real machines and functions as more accurately as possible, but at the end I play with them… 10 minutes in a year! :head_back:

Share this post


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

You are right but in my case for example the main goal is to have fun during the building process and using a motor per function is too bored and easy for me. A interesting question would be, when you have fun with Lego, during the building, playing when is assembled or watching it in your collection?'

We should build efficient models it terms of price/quality ratio. This is how it works in a real life when an engineer has to make a choice how to low cost and keep quality of the final product.

P.S. After all, this is how natural selection works!

Edited by Yevhen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mpj said:

I must confess that I build mocs just to re-create real machines and functions as more accurately as possible, but at the end I play with them… 10 minutes in a year! :head_back:

So I build as complex as I can to play the same time  as you, Lego is for all tastes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Yevhen said:

We should build efficient models it terms of price/quality ratio. This is how it works in a real life when an engineer has to make a choice how to low cost and keep quality of the final product.

It's Lego, not an actually useful product (you won't be able to actually excavate with a Lego excavator no matter how efficient it is). So it's much more like art than pure machine design with very different goals and quality metrics. Building experience is one of these metrics which don't apply to real machines at all.

To the play value topic (my personal opinion): if I play with my own design for only 10 minutes a year, than something is wrong with the functions or the whole model.

Edited by Lipko

Share this post


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

It's Lego, not an actually useful product (you won't be able to actually excavate with a Lego excavator no matter how efficient it is). So it's much more like art than pure machine design with very different goals and quality metrics. Building experience is one of these metrics which don't apply to real machines at all.

Do you set up 5 legs, when it's enough to set up 4 or even 3 legs to support a table?

Edited by Yevhen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Longer isn't the same as better.

Pfffff
Like 10261 where you are hours bored on building the pillars with pain in your fingers.

Share this post


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

Pfffff
Like 10261 where you are hours bored on building the pillars with pain in your fingers.

They should have used multiples of this part:-  LEGO Support 2 x 2 x 11 Solid Pillar Base (75347)

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.