42111 - Fast & Furious car

[Kit Figsto]

I think it looks pretty decent given the limitations of the medium.  It's clearly recognizable, but I think the part that's throwing me off is the curviness between the hood/roofline and the body panels.  It seems like they could've either gone really boxy with this and it looks too awkward with the Technic parts, or curvy, like they did, and it's not totally accurate, but it's got a smoother appearance.  I do think making this in the same style as the Mustang pretty much alleviates that issue, since this generation of Chargers were fairly boxy, which can be captured in bricks without looking off.  I think that the Technic parts really work well for supercars, since they look very sleek and smooth, whereas the bodywork on older muscle cars tends to have more of that boxiness that you don't really see on cars today.  

That said, I definitely will consider buying this if it were to go on sale, because I think it'd make a nice display piece.  Do we know if this will be a LEGO direct exclusive, or will it show up at retailers as well?

Edited April 1, 2020 by Kit Figsto

[SNIPE]

13 hours ago, Gray Gear said:

I think we have long reached a point where people's MOCs have surpassed the official LEGO sets, and TLG's designers just cant keep up 

I would say official sets are closer than ever to professional MOCS and sometimes, as good as.

[Gray Gear]

5 minutes ago, SNIPE said:

I would say official sets are closer than ever to professional MOCS and sometimes, as good as.

I couldn't disagree more. MOC offroad trucks at least use shocks (blue disaster), MOC cranes still love the metal Hook,  and MOC cars have working suspension that can actually handle the cars weight (unlike Bugatti and Porsche). Also, almost everybody has been moving away from battery boxes and to alternatives like Buwizz. Buggy Motors are still the way to Go if you want big power, and I dont think Control+ will change that in the near Future. Just some examples that come to mind. There are just too many places where TLG is cutting corners to even compete.

[Mechbuilds]

Biggest issue for TLG is set cost. They still make building block toys for kids. So if they made high quality moc style sets that have stuff like buwizz ect, the sets would be around 600-1500 euros a pop. 
Instead they keep the part count low and use simpler electronics so the sets can endure kids throwing them into the walls and not damaging singular parts too hard. 

But back to the topic. 

Is there any reason WHY should i preorder the charger instead of waiting for them to come to retailers? In my country there isn't a massive lego fandom in stores and lego sets tend to sit for a while. 
So "not getting the set cause somebody else rushed in first" isn't the issue. If preordering would get me the set cheaper or before others get them in shops then i'd pull the trigger today. 
But if it's just a "The set costs the same at store anyways and you get the thing in mail around the time they appear in shops" then i'd rather wait and not pay for shipping. 

Edited April 1, 2020 by Mechbuilds

[jshuiting]

You do have to take in consideration that when TLG is designing a set they have to take way more things into consideration than the average MOC designer.
Especially price comes to mind, for example if you want to make the 42070 full RC it'll cost you +-50 more, a decent suspension +-20? And add a buwizz and you're spending another 129 euros.

I can see why they have to simplify sets sometimes, eventhough i do believe they could've included some of these features for the price they were selling it at initially..

But just to put things into perspective, a MOC like this one will cost you close to a 1000, and that's by ordering a mix of new and used parts from multiple shops to cut costs.
Eventhough the MOC is great, i can think of multiple reasons why Lego won't come up with a set like that, it's why we make MOC's in the first place.

Edit : Mechbuild hit the nail right on the head.

Edited April 1, 2020 by jshuiting

[Gray Gear]

I think you missed my point - they removed things like great motors, metal hooks and often skip suspension entirely, all things that have been more or less common a few years ago, with better prices than today. 

You are right about the Buwizz stuff tho.

Also, What the hell?! 

21 minutes ago, jshuiting said:

 a decent suspension +-20?

No. You might pay that, but that isn't what TLG is paying. I doubt 6 shocks and a few extra pieces would cost them more than  3 EUR. They produce in China like everyone else.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Gray Gear

[Mechbuilds]

1 hour ago, Gray Gear said:

I think you missed my point - they removed things like great motors, metal hooks and often skip suspension entirely, all things that have been more or less common a few years ago, with better prices than today. 

You are right about the Buwizz stuff tho.

Also, What the hell?! 

No. You might pay that, but that isn't what TLG is paying. I doubt 6 shocks and a few extra pieces would cost them more than  3 EUR. They produce in China like everyone else.

They remove great motors because when kids bang those cars into the walls or misuse the set, the motor will pretty much chew all the gears or destroy parts which TLG has to replace. (they have a broken part policy) Also less complicated builds without suspension are more durable when seriously played hard with.. TLG's sets need to pass a kids play test in order to make the set viable to sell.. 

Also sure the suspension parts cost lego 3 eur a piece sure.. BUT they have to play licensing fees so they can buy the right to make FnF themed cars. Also they need to pay the designer and pay the workers and still get a +50% profit out of the whole thing when they sell the product. Also the store selling the product ALSO needs to get a profit when they sell the set. So basically the parts and boxes cost less than a 1/3rd of the money is needed from a set.  

So yeah parts are expensive when taking account what the full set needs to make and making more complex stuff with suspension or metal parts needing to be machined to certain tolerances so they work with lego will cost money. 
And if kids throw their sets into the walls and those expensive parts break then you are not making that much of a profit. 
TLG's whole motto is high quality products.. After all they're only building block toys for kids. 

[jshuiting]

9 minutes ago, Gray Gear said:

I think you missed my point - they removed things like great motors, metal hooks and often skip suspension entirely, all things that have been more or less common a few years ago, with better prices than today. 

You are right about the Buwizz stuff tho.

Also, What the hell?! 

No. You might pay that, but that isn't what TLG is paying. I doubt 6 shocks and a few extra pieces would cost them more than  3 EUR. They produce in China like everyone else.

With the suspension parts i obviously didn't mean just the 6 shocks, but all the other parts necesary to modify the chassis aswell, the 42070 would need allot of work as most people here would know.
That they dont cost 20 i can agree with.

I see what you mean though, thing however is TLG has to draw the line somewhere, if they have to design a simple buggy or a crane for kids to play with and it has to fulffill some set criteria like costs and size, they just can't go all out on it, compromises have to be made with every single set, that means even dropping suspension parts on a off-roader when they reach their limit.
Even the metal hook and buggy motors fall in this conundrum, because how fast do these motors really need to go if they're just played with by kids? And do we really need more expensive metal hooks if our toys are just that, toys?
Like where should they draw the line anyway? Do they really need to create motors that bend axles and eat liftarms for breakfast? Or have hooks that could potentially damage parts?

And at the end of the day we can act like there are millions of AFOL's and MOC'ers that Lego needs to cater to aswell, but judging by how many repeating members i see on rebrickable, eurobricks, youtube and many other places this is just a really densely packed, small niche group.
The biggest market and primary focus of TLG is and probably will always be making toys for kids, like the age recomendations say right on the box, we should be glad that companies like BuWizz fill this niche market.

Also i'm not buying the "lego used to be cheaper" part;

8207 - 86 parts - retails at 7,99 - adjusted for inflation 13,99
42101 - 117 parts - retails at 12,99

If anything sets are becoming quite allot cheaper.

And my apologies for going so off-topic, but this re-occuring blame on TLG for doing literally anything just irks me to no end.

[Gray Gear]

6 hours ago, jshuiting said:

If anything sets are becoming quite allot cheaper.

This is the most hillarios thing I have heared in a long time 

I am done, no more need to argue. It seems like TLG can do no wrong. I'll just leave you with this:

"Love the product, not the brand"

Edited April 2, 2020 by Gray Gear

[Vectormatic]

1 hour ago, Gray Gear said:

This is the most hillarios thing I have heared in a long time 

I am done, no more need to argue. It seems like TLG can do no wrong. I'll just leave you with this:

"Love the product, not the brand"

Not to add fuel to the fire any more then there already is, but there is validity to both sides. Per piece lego is probably ever cheaper then it ever was, and with decent sales available being able to buy a set like 42110 for €110, or 42082 for €150 is just absolutely mindblowing partcount wise, and the fact that we are getting all these huge sets is cool as well. two/three decades ago we got 1 set per year which would have been AFOL-worthy, these days its a lot more.

On the other side, that increased part count doesnt always actually add something of intrinsic value to the design, lego star wars is especially bad for this imho, we've seen the same space ship design being done again and again, but these days part counts are twice or thrice that of the early years, and while the 99-00 sets certainly could use a lot of improvement, comparing a set sold today with a 03-05 set, we get many more parts, and a much higher price, but not exactly a lot of added detail. So if we ignore part counts, we are now paying twice the price for a decent looking A-wing for instance.

 

I think us AFOLs need to keep remembering that we arent the target market for most of lego's product, it is primarily a kids toy, and especially when it comes to technic, i dont think we've seen anything like the modulars, which is a pure AFOL targetted lineup, we get the basic technic stuff targetted at kids/teenagers, and the UCS cars which are more targetted at car guys who are blown away by anything technic, which i think makes sense, seeing how in my experience, the technic theme is a relatively small part of AFOL-dom

 

Back to the product, ive been watching some roadkill episodes, and there is tons of cool stuff we can do with a charger, either inspired by that show, or by for instance the dukes of hazard, i think once you look past the F&F branding, and just take this set as a decent base model of a charger to modify and customise (which is what car culture is about most of the time anyway), it is a pretty cool starting point

[mahjqa]

1 hour ago, Gray Gear said:

Go fly a kite.

[tohan]

On 3/30/2020 at 11:02 PM, Michael217 said:

That's better! And in scale with the Mustang just right!

This could (and IMHO should) have been an amazing Creator Expert set that would have looked gorgeous next to the Mustang as you have pointed out.

Instead, yet another No B-Model Technic set... how sad. 

[AVCampos]

12 hours ago, Mechbuilds said:

Biggest issue for TLG is set cost. They still make building block toys for kids. So if they made high quality moc style sets that have stuff like buwizz ect, the sets would be around 600-1500 euros a pop. 
Instead they keep the part count low and use simpler electronics so the sets can endure kids throwing them into the walls and not damaging singular parts too hard. 

Also, the models need to be simple enough for today's ADD-riddled kids to follow easily, and tough enough to support all kinds of abuse and be left potentially for years on a shelf exposed to the sun.

[agrof]

4 hours ago, mahjqa said:

https://youtu.be/ApjF2KFwzms

There is one problem with this comparison, and it was stated previously in other topics already: price per piece. You can not take it as a measure, You can mold 30 pins with the material and time of 1 3x11 panel (just figured out something, no need to hit me). Also, as models get bigger and bigger, You need more structural reinforcement - which means even more pins. Weight scaling per piece count comparison would be more interesting and more adequate.

Also it can be argued, if moving towards licensed sets and leaving off B-models is added value or not, this is getting more personal, but TLG as company will go for what can be sold for majority.

ON TOPIC: what do you think, 62,4 wheels would fit into the Charger, to get a more classy look?

[Bartybum]

31 minutes ago, agrof said:

ON TOPIC: what do you think, 62,4 wheels would fit into the Charger, to get a more classy look?

I don't think they'll work. The current wheels are big enough as is. I think the Mustang wheels might look better

[jshuiting]

1 hour ago, agrof said:

ON TOPIC: what do you think, 62,4 wheels would fit into the Charger, to get a more classy look?

That's what i was thinking aswell, seems like the mayor issue with the Charger's current rims is that they're too wide.
The Mustang's rims would look better but i think those are a too small, the rear suspension is already very close to the ground judging by the promotional shots.

Edited April 2, 2020 by jshuiting

[agrof]

I think too, that the Mustang wheels will be too small (56 mm vs 49,5 mm), and indeed, the rear axle will hit the ground.

Edit: 62,4 could work and I think it looks good too - but there is 1 stud offset due to the thinner wheel.

Thanks @Void_S for the .io file!

Edited April 2, 2020 by agrof
added pic

[JGW3000]

Older cas from the 60's and 70's usually had thinner tires (and hubs) than we do now. That said, these old muscle cars are usually outfitted with wider tracks for better performance - go to any 'classic' car show. I think LEGO made the correct choice here, regardless of what may be in the movies or as OEM equipment on the real vehicle. My expectation for a modified muscle car would be to have wide tires, as they give the model a more aggressive stance.

Edited April 2, 2020 by JGW3000

[1gor]

About tire dilemma; real tires on those cars had 650mm diameter and are up to 2000mm wide (cars not tires ) so you could calculate proper diameter, but even then some cars had 700-750mm rear tires (diameter) like Dodge Challenger from 1970 etc, so IMHO every tire 56mm or bigger (or wider) you put on it; it will be ok, if not original then it is custom and it's also cool.

[Vectormatic]

those 49.5x20 tyres might be a good match for the fronts for a proper modded high power muscle case look, tyre wise. But the wheels probably wont look right i think, with the low profile rubber around the rear ones

[Collibosher]

11 hours ago, JGW3000 said:

Older cas from the 60's and 70's usually had thinner tires (and hubs) than we do now. That said, these old muscle cars are usually outfitted with wider tracks for better performance - go to any 'classic' car show. I think LEGO made the correct choice here, regardless of what may be in the movies or as OEM equipment on the real vehicle.

Give me one example of a modified muscle car that has as even remotely as wide front wheels as this one. Difficult to even think any modern car with front wheels so wide. One of those wheels makes 1/5th of the whole track width of the car there. Even this "thing" has more narrower tires;

My expectation for a modified muscle car would be to have wide tires, as they give the model a more aggressive stance.

It actually does the opposite here. If the track width was wider too, then it would look more aggressive, but now those huge goofy wheels are squeezed inside the "original" fenders and it makes the whole car look "wobbly".

[1gor]

This "thing" is cool, but true every time front is narrower (and smaller)

[Vectormatic]

42 minutes ago, I_Igor said:

This "thing" is cool, but true every time front is narrower (and smaller)

That is entirely true, but expecting that kind of realism from a lego set is setting yourself up for failure. The 911 GT3RS has different sized of tire front and back (325/30R21 vs 265/35R20, so even different wheel diameters), same for the Chiron (355/25R21 vs 285/30R20), and those are the most complex and detailed cars we've seen from lego, yet dont get properly dimensioned tyres, why would a €99 be any better?

[1gor]

@vectormatic I agree with you. My comment goes mainly to discussion about 62.4 tires; IMHO what ever modified option people make on charger it would be cool in my eyes; that was my point. Sorry for (eventual) misunderstanding

[Bartybum]

In any case, it’ll be hella cool to try mod it into a battlecar