Recommended Posts

 

2 hours ago, jorgeopesi said:

You are right at least the dozer is good as an ornament.

What are you talking about? This set has issues but none of them (save for the ripper) make it not work as a capable bulldozer.

Share this post


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

What are you talking about? This set has issues but none of them (save for the ripper) make it not work as a capable bulldozer.

What are you talking about?, what dozer is not a nice ornament?, all of them are beautiful and I like to have any on my desk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

Plus it has a better gearbox and it isn't reliant on an app.

Control + isn't yet born in 2017 era...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dylan M said:

Control + isn't yet born in 2017 era...

While not strictly related to 42070 but rather an extension of the set's underlying idea, you can easily build an efficient RC gearbox without Control+ or any other app. 8043 would be the most basic example, or this for something a li'l more complex.

Edited by suffocation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

And your point?

You can't compare them , they born on different ERA...

PF to PU(control +) 

Bcoz PF is obsolete already 

Share this post


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

So, how do we tilt the blade from side to side? I'm a little confused

you modify the set, it isnt an included function. There is a lot of work needed to make it happen, all the blade mounting points have to be able to rotate in another plane as well as the actuators operating individually. I have made some progress with this mod but am making many others as well so its all still a work in progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dylan M said:

You can't compare them , they born on different ERA...

PF to PU(control +) 

Bcoz PF is obsolete already 

They're both Technic sets. That's basis enough for comparison. And PF is far superior in terms of customisation and flexibility. Look at 8275 and compare it to... this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maaboo35 said:

They're both Technic sets. That's basis enough for comparison. And PF is far superior in terms of customisation and flexibility. Look at 8275 and compare it to... this.

No it's not. C+ is far superior in terms of customization and flexibility. PF is far superior in ease of use, both in construction and operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the change of the driving sprockets in contrast to the original: I think this surely has to do with the balance of the model. MK puts a lot of effort to get a really good steering in his models (42043, 42100, 42128 and now 42131). If the upper sprockets where driven, the whole model would be front-heavy. And maybe it would be too difficult to place the V12 engine in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, howitzer said:

No it's not. C+ is far superior in terms of customization and flexibility. PF is far superior in ease of use, both in construction and operation.

PF is a perfectly functional and innovative system that could be integrated in a multitude of setups such as mechanical attachments, transmissions, and pneumatic compressors. C+ is simply a gimmick designed to capitalize on screen time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

PF is a perfectly functional and innovative system that could be integrated in a multitude of setups such as mechanical attachments, transmissions, and pneumatic compressors. C+ is simply a gimmick designed to capitalize on screen time.

All of that is perfectly possible also with C+, in addition to programmability, sensor feedback, etc. It's true that C+/PU has its problems, but you don't have to go on to invent shortcomings that aren't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, howitzer said:

All of that is perfectly possible also with C+, in addition to programmability, sensor feedback, etc. It's true that C+/PU has its problems, but you don't have to go on to invent shortcomings that aren't there.

No, TLG has me covered there. The steering bug, for one.

Share this post


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

I miss bigger sets from other designers this year, for example what is with Uwe or Olav?

Olav's Facebook profile says he "worked" at TLG, so I'm not sure he's even there anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to know out of curiosity and to add to this slightly off-topic (yet worthy enough), why Markus Kossmann has to do the duties for two important sets for the same quarter for Lego Technic? Has there been a recent releases from Lego Technic Design team? Don't get me wrong, MK's designs are awesome, it is just that why the same man for more than one set within the same H2 period just wonders me...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

what is with Uwe or Olav?

Uwe appears in the designer interview for the McLaren, but so does Aurelien, so I don't really know who actually worked on that set. Maybe both of them did, but that is unusual because the McLaren is a small set. Olav seems to have left TLG, and his last set apparently is the 42097 Spider Crane. Maybe Uwe is working on the 2022 supercar...

1 hour ago, thekoRngear said:

why Markus Kossmann has to do the duties for two important sets for the same quarter for Lego Technic? Has there been a recent releases from Lego Technic Design team?

That is also really weird because one of the new Technic designer, Samuel Tacci, said in the live interview with Milan back in July that he didn't work on any set for the 2021 lineup.

Edited by Ngoc Nguyen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Olav seems to have left TLG, and his last set apparently is the 42097 Spider Crane.

I thought Alfred designed 42097.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be time for this thread to be closed as it's turned into a whinge-fest of 'it's too expensive because it's only got this many hubs/motors' - maybe 42100 was a bargain and now we are seeing the true price?, PF vs PU, designers who may or may not be working at TLG to name but a few.

I really hope that the designer of 42131 doesn't read some of what has been posted because it's been flying pretty close to 'character assassination' of him and those who work at TLG and made the decisions regarding 42131.  I wonder how some of you would stand up if the roles were reversed.

Constructive criticism I get but that's been few and far between in this thread....

 

Edited by kiwimtnbkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have good images of the new track link and linear actuator yet? I'm working on the 2021 update to my book, and I'd like to include those.

@Jim, do you think your review will have such images? 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kiwimtnbkr said:

I really hope that the designer of 42131 doesn't read some of what has been posted because it's been flying pretty close to 'character assassination' of him

While there are some small things, the strongest criticism here is due to factors that we generally assume are beyond Kossman's control. Can you elaborate on which points you think people are blaming him personally for?

Idk if anyone's mentioned/brought this up, but I'm happy to know that the rollers can in fact rotate and aren't fixed in place like some of us were worrying.

Edited by Bartybum

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.