Which do you think is the most complex/hardest Technic Set?

[Idris]

12 hours ago, brickless_kiwi said:

well if you think the 42070 is "king" you need to build a lot more sets..

Pull on your big boy pants and build some of the MOC's out there that are only available as .lxf's then you really have to use your brain..

I have my "big boy pants", brickless_kiwi, I built the Bugatti Chiron in 185 minutes non-stop with no problems. (I suggest you try that before talking about MOCs and "brains" .).

I love sets like 42070 because they are large, RC and multi-functional. I think that's why 42070 is a king. (Maybe not THE King, but is a King.)

And that's why I started this topic and what I come up with is mostly the Bugatti Chiron and the 8868.

As a 41 year-old CPA, I'll surely try to have some time (still being single has its good sides) to look at the MOCs as well, but now what I am looking for in this topic are sets, rather than MOCs.

Thank you for your contribution to my topic.

All the Best to NZ,

Idris

20 minutes ago, Johnny1360 said:

Ah this again, I still feel that none of the official sets are particularly difficult or hard for one who is able to follow instructions that is. If you want a real challenge MOC is where it's at. 

You're right Johnny1360, I am a "newbie" in this forum, but not in the world of LEGO Technic.

If you "follow the instructions" correctly, you can also build a spaceship. In my opinion, this does not mean that it is not hard or complex.

This topic is based on talking about the hardest, or let's say the most complex sets ever built by yourselves. MOCs are, in my opinion can be a part of a different topic.

As I wrote a little earlier, I built the Bugatti Chiron in less than 200 minutes, non-stop. Therefore, I am looking for challenges regarding LEGO Technic sets, in the light of your experiences.

Thank you for your contribution to my topic.

Best Regards,

Idris

[sirslayer]

Any sets with more then 2000+ pieces would be a bit more challenging!!

[MxWinters]

7 hours ago, Idris said:

That’s incredible news and I would be waiting for your MOC (did I say it right?).

I always appreciate people who “create”. That’s why I watched almost 30 LEGO Technic mod and moc videos on YouTube and I was thrilled.

I am a 41 years old CPA and I understood that I missed LEGO Technic, a lot..

Many many thanks for your contribution to my topic.

Best Regards,

Idris

I wouldn't consider my lorry to be a MOC as I have used designs by serveral different people inc Sariel and pipasseyoyo so to call my model a MOC I feel would be unfair to them. That's my personal opinion anyways.
30...is that it??? Only another 2000000 to go.... hehehe. In all seriousness though, YouTube is a great resource for researching LEGO models and getting ideas for your next creation. Just like any subject though, there are loads of good ideas but also alot of bad models and/or building principles. One needs to ignore the bad models and focus on the good ones.
Your welcome :D
 

6 hours ago, Johnny1360 said:

Ah this again, I still feel that none of the official sets are particularly difficult or hard for one who is able to follow instructions that is. If you want a real challenge MOC is where it's at. 

True, MOC's and/or non-LEGO creations is where the fun is. LEGO sets are more for display models or simply good parts packs.

[aeh5040]

I never really found any official sets hard to assemble.  (MOCing is a challenge - following instructions I mainly do for relaxation).

As others have said, there are many kinds of complexity, but 8043 is high on the list for complexity and intricacy of the mechanisms.

[suffocation]

Sheo's Mocs are pretty challenging, especially routing cables through his neutron-star density structures and with that nagging feeling that if you mess up one step you're in for a looong and agonising teardown.

[coinoperator]

8455 definitly

[Maaboo the Witch]

11 minutes ago, coinoperator said:

8455 definitly

I actually found 8459/64/39 harder, mainly because there's less space to work with.

[coinoperator]

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

8459/64/39

you're addicted to frontloaders

[Maaboo the Witch]

11 minutes ago, coinoperator said:

you're addicted to frontloaders

I only have 8439, but I thought I'd list the others for the sake of being thorough. 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

42055, because I've built it 3 times from scratch and still struggle to get it to work properly.

Same with 42009.

[Idris]

I see some LEGO Technic sets being "stunt racers", they are RC and of course with motors but even the new set can not really go straight, if not going backwards.

Well? Why?

Yes, in those sets, the line between a LEGO Technic set, being a "toy" or a clever set of assembly and patience becomes thick, but,

Why not make some of these "stunt racers" go incredibly fast with a coomplex differential system?

Again, if LEGO is paying millions for car/super car brands like Porsche and Bugatti, why is there not the RC XL motor or an even better "option", created by LEGO?

Think about the Crawler, for example. Why does LEGO not produce a powered set for crawler but there are MOCs for it?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud people creating MOCs, giving extreme effort on modding the actual sets, and I applaud LEGO for giving way to modders, but,

In my opinion, if LEGO creates a powered and RC version of a set, I am sure the MOC experts would work for even better moddings.

For example, the 42070 has its flaws. Being a 6*6 Truck, the differential system is beautiful, but even the XL Motor, in my opinion, is not enough.

Also the "legs" of 42070 (simply put) create obstacles for a real off-road "experience", while the truck's system is capable.

If you take out the "side legs", the truck becomes a real off-roader. But there may be an option to raise the legs fully-up, for example.

The 42009 is a gorgeous giant, but it moves by hand. I think this is a real lack.

And the crane "ropes"... Why is it fabric? Why not, say a steel-based thread? I am sure the static engineers would make a system that would not break the teeth of the cogwheels, and make, for example 42009, able to lift approx. 25-30 kgs. or more.

Those above are only a few examples.

What do you kindly think?

Many thanks in advance,

Idris 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Idris

[Idris]

4 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

I only have 8439, but I thought I'd list the others for the sake of being thorough. 

[coinoperator]

8 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

42055, because (cut)

I found errors in the manual but that wasn't that difficult to solve...

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, coinoperator said:

I found errors in the manual but that wasn't that difficult to solve...

That was a stumbling block with 8455, I'll admit. Whoever drew up the manual didn't know where the hoses were going from one step to the next.  42070 was also a bit annoying on that front, what with pins going walkabout between steps and other screw-ups that @Sariel already pointed out.

Other than that, though, I'd say double or even triple-checking each step before moving on alleviates much of the supposed difficulty in a build.

[Erik Leppen]

Interestingly, 42070 got a lot of hate on the community, for various reasons:

• It has no suspension. Yes, it has pendular rear axles, but the front axle is fixed an there are no springs. So offroad capacity is actually quite limited. On uneven terrain, it happens a lot that one wheel is not touching the ground. And because of the differentials, if one wheel is off the ground, all the power goes to that wheel and the truck won't move.
• It looks ugly, so the first impressions were quite bad. And first impressions are hard to overcome...
• It makes little sense to have a RC model, with a manual switch for the functions.
• It was very expensive (very high price-per-piece ratio)

So it's not the most beloved set around here.

4 hours ago, Idris said:

And the crane "ropes"... Why is it fabric? Why not, say a steel-based thread? I am sure the static engineers would make a system that would not break the teeth of the cogwheels, and make, for example 42009, able to lift approx. 25-30 kgs. or more.

You can't compare a Lego set to a RC set, because a Lego set consists of generic-shaped plastic pieces. Believe me - the limit to the strength of a lego crane is NOT its string. It's the plastic pieces that can't handle forces like that. Try to lift 25 kg (which is a 7-year old child by the way) with a solid metal beam. The forces at play will become huge multiples of that. If you lift anything with a Lego crane, a multiple of that weight would go through the axle that holds the linear actuator that holds the boom up. All that force would sit on that axle, and the axle would simply break. If it were replaced by a steel axle, it would simply carve through the holes of the beam when rotating. If the beams would be metal as well, it's not really Lego anymore, it's Meccano, and of course, with 25kg on the hook, your 4kg crane simply falls over 

[Maaboo the Witch]

1 minute ago, Erik Leppen said:

Interestingly, 42070 got a lot of hate on the community, for various reasons:

• It has no suspension. Yes, it has pendular rear axles, but the front axle is fixed an there are no springs. So offroad capacity is actually quite limited. On uneven terrain, it happens a lot that one wheel is not touching the ground. And because of the differentials, if one wheel is off the ground, all the power goes to that wheel and the truck won't move.
• It looks ugly, so the first impressions were quite bad. And first impressions are hard to overcome...
• It makes little sense to have a RC model, with a manual switch for the functions.
• It was very expensive (very high price-per-piece ratio)

So it's not the most beloved set around here.

I'm not hating on 42070, mind. I actually think it's okay. Price aside (it'd be a ripoff if it was slashed by £100) it's a good representation of a tough, stripped-down off-road truck, and as a result some of the criticisms levelled at it, such as its utilitarian looks and the lack of rear bed, don't bother me. I even think the B-model is alright because it's so different. Shame about the suspension and function switching, though. Can't have everything. Or maybe you can... 

[Johnny1360]

5 hours ago, Idris said:

I see some LEGO Technic sets being "stunt racers", they are RC and of course with motors but even the new set can not really go straight, if not going backwards.

Well? Why?

Yes, in those sets, the line between a LEGO Technic set, being a "toy" or a clever set of assembly and patience becomes thick, but,

Why not make some of these "stunt racers" go incredibly fast with a coomplex differential system?

Again, if LEGO is paying millions for car/super car brands like Porsche and Bugatti, why is there not the RC XL motor or an even better "option", created by LEGO?

Think about the Crawler, for example. Why does LEGO not produce a powered set for crawler but there are MOCs for it?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud people creating MOCs, giving extreme effort on modding the actual sets, and I applaud LEGO for giving way to modders, but,

In my opinion, if LEGO creates a powered and RC version of a set, I am sure the MOC experts would work for even better moddings.

For example, the 42070 has its flaws. Being a 6*6 Truck, the differential system is beautiful, but even the XL Motor, in my opinion, is not enough.

Also the "legs" of 42070 (simply put) create obstacles for a real off-road "experience", while the truck's system is capable.

If you take out the "side legs", the truck becomes a real off-roader. But there may be an option to raise the legs fully-up, for example.

The 42009 is a gorgeous giant, but it moves by hand. I think this is a real lack.

And the crane "ropes"... Why is it fabric? Why not, say a steel-based thread? I am sure the static engineers would make a system that would not break the teeth of the cogwheels, and make, for example 42009, able to lift approx. 25-30 kgs. or more.

Those above are only a few examples.

What do you kindly think?

Many thanks in advance,

Idris 

Many of these features you long for would prove to be quite unsafe for children, cranes able to lift large loads could also strangle little Johnny, heavy fast moving vehicles could also break little Johnny's fingers, toes or even kill the cat. These are real dangers LEGO must take into consideration if they wish to remain in business for any length of time. 

That is the beauty MOCs though, we are free to be as unsafe as we choose. 

[suffocation]

1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

• It makes little sense to have a RC model, with a manual switch for the functions.

I've heard this quite often and it still mystifies me - why can't a model be driven around and then have other motorised functions activated by switches, and still be fun and make sense? From a builder's point of view, you get the best of both worlds: RC drive and steering are usually more challenging than their manual counterparts, whereas an efficient distribution gearbox is usually more challenging than the typical "one motor, one function" RC approach. Furthermore, a tow truck is going to need some manual assistance in any case, unless you can somehow magically RC the winch to safely hook the stranded vehicle.

[Idris]

53 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Interestingly, 42070 got a lot of hate on the community, for various reasons:

• It has no suspension. Yes, it has pendular rear axles, but the front axle is fixed an there are no springs. So offroad capacity is actually quite limited. On uneven terrain, it happens a lot that one wheel is not touching the ground. And because of the differentials, if one wheel is off the ground, all the power goes to that wheel and the truck won't move.
• It looks ugly, so the first impressions were quite bad. And first impressions are hard to overcome...
• It makes little sense to have a RC model, with a manual switch for the functions.
• It was very expensive (very high price-per-piece ratio)

So it's not the most beloved set around here.

You can't compare a Lego set to a RC set, because a Lego set consists of generic-shaped plastic pieces. Believe me - the limit to the strength of a lego crane is NOT its string. It's the plastic pieces that can't handle forces like that. Try to lift 25 kg (which is a 7-year old child by the way) with a solid metal beam. The forces at play will become huge multiples of that. If you lift anything with a Lego crane, a multiple of that weight would go through the axle that holds the linear actuator that holds the boom up. All that force would sit on that axle, and the axle would simply break. If it were replaced by a steel axle, it would simply carve through the holes of the beam when rotating. If the beams would be metal as well, it's not really Lego anymore, it's Meccano, and of course, with 25kg on the hook, your 4kg crane simply falls over 

Dear @Erik Leppen,

About the strings, you are absolutely right, that's why I am a Certified Public Accountant and can not calculate this much engineering.

About 42070, I first think that either I am stupid, or the installation manual is wrong or misleading, especially in the HEART of the truck. The red 16T cogwheel which should be in the middle (put to the XL motor shaft) is NOT seen in the manual. So, if you are not an experienced assembler, after assembling almost 65% of the truck, you see that the MAIN cogwheel is that red 16 tooth one and it is NOT installed! Because of that, simply, 42070 would not go back and forth and the 4-cylinder crank system would not work (obviously, because the main cogwheel to connect up to bottom would be MISSING).

Second, yes, there are no suspensions for the front axle. Therefore it is not AS off-road as it should be. Adding the middle supports, acting as obstacles while being off-road, the system fails.

Third, the rear and middle support "legs", are not synchronised. Sariel has found an incredibly simple solution to that, but that has it's flaws, as well. (It's not 100% fixed)

Fourth, well it may seem ugly to some, but it is a mean towing truck. It may be a little ugly. The unstable but cute Teddy Bear balances the ugliness a little , however the front hood is stupidly blue and blank. There could be at least some fancy sticker.

Fifth, the doors are stupidly clumsy. Sariel had two solutions to that but LEGO? For God's sake, this is a huge Technic set! How can they not think about it?

Sixth, almost NO spare parts remain. 6-7? That's it. Yes, the overall pieces are not that much but, that is cruel.

Seventh, also, I looked EVERYWHERE but, two pieces seem REALLY missing. They do not exist in the bags. Did you encounter that? The part code is: 6089119. There HAS to be 11 pieces, instead of 9. Correct me if I am wrong.

Eighth, the B model looks (in my opinion) better and it has better off-road capabilities but many functions lack.

Ninth, the crane part, is almost non-functional. Many parts could have been put there and the truck would become much more functional and classy.

Tenth: I don't know, if you find any, you find the tenth part. Price? Manual switches? 

But, you know what? I still like the 42070...

Crazy me!

Best Regards,

Idris

[Johnny1360]

I too like 42070 and would love to have one, I just simply cannot bring myself to pay so much for it though.

[Idris]

16 minutes ago, suffocation said:

I've heard this quite often and it still mystifies me - why can't a model be driven around and then have other motorised functions activated by switches, and still be fun and make sense? From a builder's point of view, you get the best of both worlds: RC drive and steering are usually more challenging than their manual counterparts, whereas an efficient distribution gearbox is usually more challenging than the typical "one motor, one function" RC approach. Furthermore, a tow truck is going to need some manual assistance in any case, unless you can somehow magically RC the winch to safely hook the stranded vehicle.

I agree.

The main concept of a tow truck is that when it arrives at the towing area, it fixes itself and the crane works. After the work is done, the supports are retracted, the crane retracted and the truck continues on it's way. Therefore, logically, a manual switch is also used on a tow truck. (You can't move the truck when it's fixed to the ground, can you?).

Just now, Johnny1360 said:

I too like 42070 and would love to have one, I just simply cannot bring myself to pay so much for it though.

Dear Johnny,

As I also like the 42070, I think it has to be "fixed". Not only by modding but with a special work by LEGO. And yes, it is expensive but it is huge and most functional.

[Idris]

39 minutes ago, Johnny1360 said:

Many of these features you long for would prove to be quite unsafe for children, cranes able to lift large loads could also strangle little Johnny, heavy fast moving vehicles could also break little Johnny's fingers, toes or even kill the cat. These are real dangers LEGO must take into consideration if they wish to remain in business for any length of time. 

That is the beauty MOCs though, we are free to be as unsafe as we choose. 

 @Johnny1360, I would hate to see if anything happens to little Johnny but, LEGO Technic sets are not meant for little Johnny. I mean they have:

* Choking hazards,

* Strangling hazards,

* Crash hazards etc.

However:

* Pills or drugs are also are not meant for kids,

* Kids must not operate drones or likewise machinery, or let's summarize,

* Let alone LEGO Technic sets, kids are not allowed to do many things.

Even 42070 would create hazards for little Johnny.

LEGO can only WARN parents about these.

In that way, even the Hogwarts Castle set could be dangerous for little Johnny. (Think about the spires for example.)

What I mean is that, LEGO already produces many models which are dangerous for children below some specific age.

If LEGO would try to care for babies, say 10-months old, then there would be no LEGO Technic even LEGO stickers at all. (Babies can lick the adhesive of these stickers!)

Therefore as a 40+ year old person with lots of nephews and other kin, I would only suggest you keep little Johnny away from these "machines". As I am sure you do.

But in my opinion, this would not be a reason for LEGO to limit it's RC models' speed to, say 5km/h.

All the Best to little Johnny and your family.

Regards,

Idris

 

[Johnny1360]

None the less I will bet you dollars to donuts safety is a major concern of LEGO and plays a large part of why we don't see sets that do many of those things you would like to see. 

[Erik Leppen]

11 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

I'm not hating on 42070, mind. I actually think it's okay.

I'm not saying you did. I was merely re-iterating some things that have been said around the time the set was announced/released which Idris may not be aware of, but that explains why he got some comments on that. I was merely explaining :)

Except the price, I think it's a decent build as well. Not perfect, but pretty OK.

[doug72]

The hardest set for me was the lego 8275 Motorised Bulldozer as  a Christmas gift from my family.

It was my first ever Technic set build and having no previous experience of building Lego it was a challenge

This kick started me to take up a hobby of Technic builds as an AFOL with a short excursion into Lego trains while grand children were younger.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Doug72