Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Maaboo35 said:

Haha, no.

Building techniques have surely improved over the years/decades... So from that point of view, older sets were worse INMHO (which does not necessarily mean they were bad).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end Lego works for whom have fun building what it gives to them, so we can judge because have seen too much other stuff but is our problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

Your constructive response kind of proves my point in many ways.. and you could say that (if thats the best response you have). Except mine is in response the dull pointless repetitive haters... (which is only minority of the this forum, its just a very loud minority that fill up threads with 30 pages of bitching) 

I'm not the instigator, therefore i'm slightly less guilty. Every time a set appears, what do you hear?! "oooo i hate c+", "ooo i could better", "ooo colour vomit"... Everything was better when everything was worse according the 'wise ones'. Well guess what?!!!! Technic was WORSE in the past... I've had technic since 1978, i know of what i speak. Todays technic is the stuff of wet dreams to the lego fans of the 70's, 80's and 90's. If this forum was a pub or a coffee shop, no one go in!!! 

Will i apologise for bitching about being sick of listening to meaning whiners?!! No will i hell. Am i wrong to defend TLG against this loud minority? No i'm not... I thought the 'F' in afol stood for Fans?!!! Ha!! :iamded_lol::ugh:

Well, most aren't saying that a 70's brick on wheels is better than a 3000 piece supercar... just some particular details are infuriating such as C+, colour vomit, etc. Even so, my first set (8281) still is much more functional and fun than most sets nowadays that sell for around the same price. Perhaps had I grown up on 10 types of bricks, a pair of axles and gears, my opinion would differ, and I'd be elated to get the latest smart thingy that you can point your camera at to see the internals (like the new Zetros app feature), but I did not. I'm neither a millionaire to pay thriple or quadruple a set's worth cuz of a logo and a license from some company I hold no interest in.

Since our views seem so different, you do you, and I'll do me. 

Edited by syclone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jundis said:

More functional vehicles and less show vehicles.

'nuff said.

Yup. If Lego wants to make cars with low amounts of functions, then they should bring back Racers, and put cars in that.

Some actual infuriating details include:

  • 42037. Just, all of it. Formula Off Roaders are very specific vehicles, which have V8 engines, live axles, and four wheel drive. Not four bangers, 2 wheel drive, and the same tired double wishbone suspension. They could have called it literally anything else, but no, marketing had to go with something the set is clearly not.
  • Car sets that do not have the drivetrain of the vehicle they are replicating. 42122, 42126, and 42056 are some egregious examples, being RWD models of vehicles that are 4WD. 42122 is double egregious because it lacks an entire drivetrain, and 42056 is triple egregious because of the flagship level price.
  • On that tangent, some sets have just stupid suspension choices. 42122 arguably fits here, but one could also argue that sprung suspension does not work as well with such a small model. 42099 is a much worse example, with the stupid pendular front axle, which is unrealistic and unattractive.
  • Sets that should use 9.5L shock absorbers, but don't. Why Lego? 42099 would have worked a lot better if you had used these long shocks. Did they lose the molds, or something? Why has Lego not used the very useful long shocks since 2012? These are sought after parts, but also obnoxiously expensive because they came out in only 2 sets more than 9 years ago. Lego, please bring these back. I may be a bit salty about the prices of 9.5L shocks on Bricklink.
  • 42066's wings.
  • Sets with ridiculously bulky axles. I'm looking at you, 42129.
  • 42129's grille. It looks bad, and nothing like either version of the real Zetros.
  • Hyperactive clutch gears
  • Lack of clutch gears where they are really needed.
  • 42055's conveyor belt has some small gaps that sometimes have parts fall in, causing jams and the machine to stop. These could have been easily designed out.
  • Manually controlled linear actuators. Not fun.
  • Tires are too wide/wrong tread.
  • Wheel design is badly compromised. Others have talked about this better.
  • The standard wheel hub design is also a needless compromise, and has flaws that should be addressed, like wobble and poor steering angle.

Plus almost every thing else already mentioned in this thread.

Oh, and Control+ is infuriating, but I don't think that's on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna actually do it properly as OP asked, since some people here are choosing to harp on about systemic issues like pin colours, choice of functions and the current state of the Technic theme, which straight up aren't the point of this topic.

Some small details that low-key infuriate me are:

  • The pointless steering limiter pins in the 42050 funny car (sure a real funny car can barely steer, but the model is nearly unplayable because of it)
  • The rear axle in the 42084 hook truck is too far back, and the 5L liftarm underneath the front axle looks ridiculous
  • The wings on the 42066 stunt plane oh my god
  • The crane in the 42043 Arocs can't hyper-extend to sit in the tray and not be comically tall
  • The boom in the 42080 rough terrain crane can't sit flat
  • The cabin in the 42108 mobile crane looks alien and plain wrong
  • The black 36z gear in the rear of the 42100 Liebherr could have so easily been replaced with a DBG round 4x4 brick - it even has the cross axle hole
  • The 42080 forest harvester doesn't have its cabin sitting over the chassis pivot point
  • The crane in the 42128 tow truck is too tall, and looks like it could have easily been lowered

Share this post


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

I

  • The 42080 forest harvester doesn't have its cabin sitting over the chassis pivot point

You could argue this back and forth. I'd say that the Ponsse Scorpion is probably closest, but even then, the cabin is still ahead of the chassis pivot, not above it. I think the real problem with 42080 is that the wheels and chassis are way too small in comparison to the cab and boom. Also, in 42080, the cab sits way too far forward, it should be farther back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saberwing40k said:

Also, in 42080, the cab sits way too far forward, it should be farther back.

Sorry yeah, this is rather what I meant. It looks so unlike any forest harvester that currently exists.

Share this post


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

Even so, my first set (8281) still is much more functional and fun than most sets nowadays that sell for around the same price.  

Do you mean than sets like 42102 or 42116? I think these are more functional than 8281…

I agree with TeamThrifty though. Not only do I wonder why people who post massive complaints over and over again don’t just quit Lego, also do they indeed seem to miss the point of the OP (‘details!’).

As an old fart, I can point at (somewhat) infuriating details in set 853, namely skidding rear wheels and absurd gear ratios. Which probably have contributed to the development of the differential and 16t gear in 8860.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned knob wheels earlier, so I'll clarify the set that has the worst use of them - 9395. They should be the last choice of part for an input shaft, and they make 9395's whopping two functions (bear in mind this thing was 2012's 1H flagship) unpleasant to operate. And then there's the setup in the B-model... shudder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alignment of the gear tooth pitch, to the central cross hole which means the steering wheel in the cabin is NEVER exactly straight ahead when the wheels are straight ahead. NRGH! On this basis alone I prefer fake steering wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Burko-uk said:

The alignment of the gear tooth pitch, to the central cross hole which means the steering wheel in the cabin is NEVER exactly straight ahead when the wheels are straight ahead. NRGH! On this basis alone I prefer fake steering wheels.

You can add one more gear and place the steering rack not behind but infront of the hubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gripe is the lack of a right hand worm gear for 1L & 2L worm gears.

Both current worm gears are left handed.

Currently building a “something” that would make the build much easier to achieve in the  restricted space available, this would avoid the need for extra gears to to get correct rotaion of a turntable or trip rotor..

Edited by Doug72
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burko-uk said:

The alignment of the gear tooth pitch, to the central cross hole which means the steering wheel in the cabin is NEVER exactly straight ahead when the wheels are straight ahead. NRGH! On this basis alone I prefer fake steering wheels.

I have actually been annoyed about a similar thing: if you want to create two "arms" connected directly by two meshed gears, they will never be at the same angle in relative to the centerline. Though I'm not sure if it's even possible to do with only a single kind of gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8/28/2021 at 10:17 PM, Saberwing40k said:

Yup. If Lego wants to make cars with low amounts of functions, then they should bring back Racers, and put cars in that.

Some actual infuriating details include:

  • 42037. Just, all of it. Formula Off Roaders are very specific vehicles, which have V8 engines, live axles, and four wheel drive. Not four bangers, 2 wheel drive, and the same tired double wishbone suspension. They could have called it literally anything else, but no, marketing had to go with something the set is clearly not.
  • Car sets that do not have the drivetrain of the vehicle they are replicating. 42122, 42126, and 42056 are some egregious examples, being RWD models of vehicles that are 4WD. 42122 is double egregious because it lacks an entire drivetrain, and 42056 is triple egregious because of the flagship level price.
  • On that tangent, some sets have just stupid suspension choices. 42122 arguably fits here, but one could also argue that sprung suspension does not work as well with such a small model. 42099 is a much worse example, with the stupid pendular front axle, which is unrealistic and unattractive.
  • Sets that should use 9.5L shock absorbers, but don't. Why Lego? 42099 would have worked a lot better if you had used these long shocks. Did they lose the molds, or something? Why has Lego not used the very useful long shocks since 2012? These are sought after parts, but also obnoxiously expensive because they came out in only 2 sets more than 9 years ago. Lego, please bring these back. I may be a bit salty about the prices of 9.5L shocks on Bricklink.
  • 42066's wings.
  • Sets with ridiculously bulky axles. I'm looking at you, 42129.
  • 42129's grille. It looks bad, and nothing like either version of the real Zetros.
  • Hyperactive clutch gears
  • Lack of clutch gears where they are really needed.
  • 42055's conveyor belt has some small gaps that sometimes have parts fall in, causing jams and the machine to stop. These could have been easily designed out.
  • Manually controlled linear actuators. Not fun.
  • Tires are too wide/wrong tread.
  • Wheel design is badly compromised. Others have talked about this better.
  • The standard wheel hub design is also a needless compromise, and has flaws that should be addressed, like wobble and poor steering angle.

Plus almost every thing else already mentioned in this thread.

Oh, and Control+ is infuriating, but I don't think that's on topic.

The 42056 was based on a RWD car. However, the real car had multilink rear suspension which was failed to replicate.

On 8/28/2021 at 1:45 PM, TeamThrifty said:

Your constructive response kind of proves my point in many ways.. and you could say that (if thats the best response you have). Except mine is in response the dull pointless repetitive haters... (which is only minority of the this forum, its just a very loud minority that fill up threads with 30 pages of bitching) 

I'm not the instigator, therefore i'm slightly less guilty. Every time a set appears, what do you hear?! "oooo i hate c+", "ooo i could better", "ooo colour vomit"... Everything was better when everything was worse according the 'wise ones'. Well guess what?!!!! Technic was WORSE in the past... I've had technic since 1978, i know of what i speak. Todays technic is the stuff of wet dreams to the lego fans of the 70's, 80's and 90's. If this forum was a pub or a coffee shop, no one go in!!! 

Will i apologise for bitching about being sick of listening to meaning whiners?!! No will i hell. Am i wrong to defend TLG against this loud minority? No i'm not... I thought the 'F' in afol stood for Fans?!!! Ha!! :iamded_lol::ugh:

And you, sir, have lost the privilege to post on this thread.

42070 fits the bill of my question in every conceivable way.

Edited by SirSpoony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SirSpoony said:

42070 in every conceivable way.

I really think 42070 gets beat up way more than it deserves.

On 8/29/2021 at 8:46 AM, Saberwing40k said:

I think the real problem with 42080 is that the wheels and chassis are way too small in comparison to the cab and boom. Also, in 42080, the cab sits way too far forward, it should be farther back.

Yeah, that irritates me as well. I think TLG were a bit too concerned about infringing certain design copyrights and made a set that couldn't possibly do that; however, the end result just looks wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maaboo35 said:

I really think 42070 gets beat up way more than it deserves.

Yeah, that irritates me as well. I think TLG were a bit too concerned about infringing certain design copyrights and made a set that couldn't possibly do that; however, the end result just looks wrong.

Yeah, I agree that we give it too much slack, when the only thing it ever did wrong was have shitty unsprung perpendicular suspension, exposed pins, hypersensitive clutch gears that kicked in whenever encountering a slope greater than 7 degrees, all wheel axles being open and having differentials between each of them, and a crane that tended to rip out the central frame of the model when lifting heavy weights, but apart from that, yeah, I agree with you on that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SirSpoony said:

Yeah, I agree that we give it too much slack, when the only thing it ever did wrong was have shitty unsprung perpendicular suspension, exposed pins, hypersensitive clutch gears that kicked in whenever encountering a slope greater than 7 degrees, all wheel axles being open and having differentials between each of them, and a crane that tended to rip out the central frame of the model when lifting heavy weights, but apart from that, yeah, I agree with you on that.

You have to admit that it can kick the shit out of a flat carpet.

Share this post


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

You have to admit that it can kick the shit out of a flat carpet.

And is unbeatable on a dry wooden floor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When reading through the topic I was already thinking about 42070 and its lack of proper suspension in particular. But also its teeny crane comes to mind.

But I think my biggest disappointment, I dont know if it's really a "detail" but it was surely infuriating, is 42110, the olive green Defender, and the fact that it simply doesn't work. The whole chassis is basically one function, and it just doesn't run. Meaning that you buy a 2500 piece Technic set, and then when someone comes along and says, "so, being Technic and all, what does it do" the answer is basically, well, it's supposed to let the engine run sliiightly faster or slower depending on this lever here you can hardly access and then have the tableroom to roll 70 cm before seeing any movement in the engine at all, and then switch again and roll another meter to see any change. Now that's the theory. The practice is that whenever you do that, most of what you hear is clicking. So I set it to neutral so that at least it can be rolled around to play with the steering and suspension. I'd say this is a great example of how not to make a Technic set. Fortunately, I knew about the issues before I bought it and I bought it mostly for the parts, but it was still an even bigger disappointment than I expected. Luckily enough the suspension and steering worked rather well and it looked cool, so at least it left somewhat of a positive impression, but imagine what could have been done with all that chassis space instead.

Another really bad detail is the front outriggers of 42108. Manually, no gear system whatsoever. Really, Lego?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 42070 just came up, I guess another irksome detail worth mentioning is false advertising. 42070 was advertised as a tow truck - but it's not a tow truck. Oh, and it was overpriced :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Aleh said:

Lack of wheels and tyres choise. No galore.

Can I borrow your time machine? You seem to be transmitting from the past.

Edited by Maaboo35

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.