Technic 2023 Set Discussion

[nerdsforprez]

2 hours ago, kbalage said:

I' fear that TLG's pricing strategy these days is based on the size of the final model, and not based on the parts included.

I have shown in the past, with data, for at least the models from around 2010-2016ish, that is it the weight of the set, not pieces or size, that accounts more for the price of Lego models than anything else.  The correlation coefficient is higher for weight vs. pieces and price, and the regression model is stronger for weight vs. piece count as well.  I have articulated this in several different threads.  Not sure why we persist with this antiquated idea that piece count should predict price better than anything else.  

Btw... this relationship existed for other Lego genres as well.  I didn't look across many, but this relationship existed in the SW genre (especially large, UCS sets) as well and other large, adult sets.

Yes, there is error in these models as well.  As overall set weight includes manuals, boxes, etc.  But, this error is present in all sets, and accounts for so little of the variance between set weight and price.  The remaining variance is probably accounted for like by license vs. no-license, and other nominal factors.  But weight, (i.e. cost of ABS) is the primary factor.  

I also have theory about how unique the sets' pieces are and that relationship with price.  In other words, sets with many unique parts (defined as pieces per lot) likely are more expensive than sets with little unique parts.  The rationale for this is because many vs. few molds are used, and we all know the cost of Lego producing, or at least using different  molds, versus using few molds.  Sets like Lego 21058 is very redundant.  Uses very few unique pieces (relative to other sets) (i.e. tons and tons of just a few bricks).    Such should be cheaper to produce for Lego than other sets with just a few pieces in every lot used in the set.  

If there is ANY rationale to the Liebherr's incredible price it should be in the weight.  I predict an incredibly high weight for the box.  At around 700$, this weight should be like and additional 1/3 to 1/2 of what the Liebherr excavator was.  Which would be incredible.  I am not saying that is what it WILL be.  I am saying that is what it SHOULD be if there is any rationale with Lego's pricing.  But.... things may be all out of whack given the rate of inflation in the last few years....

[allanp]

13 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

I have shown in the past, with data, for at least the models from around 2010-2016ish, that is it the weight of the set, not pieces or size, that accounts more for the price of Lego models than anything else.  The correlation coefficient is higher for weight vs. pieces and price, and the regression model is stronger for weight vs. piece count as well.  I have articulated this in several different threads.  Not sure why we persist with this antiquated idea that piece count should predict price better than anything else.  

Btw... this relationship existed for other Lego genres as well.  I didn't look across many, but this relationship existed in the SW genre (especially large, UCS sets) as well and other large, adult sets.

Yes, there is error in these models as well.  As overall set weight includes manuals, boxes, etc.  But, this error is present in all sets, and accounts for so little of the variance between set weight and price.  The remaining variance is probably accounted for like by license vs. no-license, and other nominal factors.  But weight, (i.e. cost of ABS) is the primary factor.  

I also have theory about how unique the sets' pieces are and that relationship with price.  In other words, sets with many unique parts (defined as pieces per lot) likely are more expensive than sets with little unique parts.  The rationale for this is because many vs. few molds are used, and we all know the cost of Lego producing, or at least using different  molds, versus using few molds.  Sets like Lego 21058 is very redundant.  Uses very few unique pieces (relative to other sets) (i.e. tons and tons of just a few bricks).    Such should be cheaper to produce for Lego than other sets with just a few pieces in every lot used in the set.  

If there is ANY rationale to the Liebherr's incredible price it should be in the weight.  I predict an incredibly high weight for the box.  At around 700$, this weight should be like and additional 1/3 to 1/2 of what the Liebherr excavator was.  Which would be incredible.  I am not saying that is what it WILL be.  I am saying that is what it SHOULD be if there is any rationale with Lego's pricing.  But.... things may be all out of whack given the rate of inflation in the last few years....

Well the old rumour was that it would have 1 kg of counterweight pieces. How much do the models say that will cost?!

[Cyber Master]

It's funny that apparently everyone 100% knows that the lr13000 is too expensive, but has not seen any data or pictures... (except the piece count).

I'm not trying to justifiy the price, but as long as no one knows wether there will be huge (heavy) parts or many new (special) molds, nobody can criticise the price...

...well in recent years the pricing on some sets they released was questionable, so i get the prejudice... but this one ain't shown itself yet.

[nerdsforprez]

1 hour ago, Cyber Master said:

It's funny that apparently everyone 100% knows that the lr13000 is too expensive, but has not seen any data or pictures... (except the piece count).

I'm not trying to justifiy the price, but as long as no one knows wether there will be huge (heavy) parts or many new (special) molds, nobody can criticise the price...

...well in recent years the pricing on some sets they released was questionable, so i get the prejudice... but this one ain't shown itself yet.

Everyone has been clear that we are speculating here.  I have qualified my statements several times with "I am keeping an open mind and won't make up my mind on this set until we have firm data."   The two are not mutually exclusive.  One can speculate, with the known data that we do have, yet at the same time be open to changing their stance if new data appears that would justify such a change....

2 hours ago, allanp said:

Well the old rumour was that it would have 1 kg of counterweight pieces. How much do the models say that will cost?!

I think that would be really unfortunate.  I would rather use my own weights, metal, coins, whatever around the house at NP extra cost to me than Lego official weights.  This is exactly why I am no purist.  Large MOC cranes have been around for decades with folks using their own weights.  Hell, I have cut steel for my own weights, used fishing weights, coins, etc. for my own weights.  You can even build what look like real crane weights out of Lego, fill them with whatever... and it all looks Lego.  

 

It does make me curious.... would Lego outsource metal from some other company if they were to use metal weights in this set?  How do folks think they approached the metal hook from long ago.  It could certainly account for the price increase.... but at least IMO, still not justify it.   

[johnnytifosi]

5 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

I have shown in the past, with data, for at least the models from around 2010-2016ish, that is it the weight of the set, not pieces or size, that accounts more for the price of Lego models than anything else.  The correlation coefficient is higher for weight vs. pieces and price, and the regression model is stronger for weight vs. piece count as well.  I have articulated this in several different threads.  Not sure why we persist with this antiquated idea that piece count should predict price better than anything else.   

Thank you. I think everyone should focus on the price to weight ratio of the sets and not the piece count, and so should the reviewers too. Lego set piece counts have been hugely inflated the past few years to justify price hikes, but it's mostly because of tiny pieces (see pins for Lego technic or 1x1 tiles for System sets for example). To justify such a price hike over the all-around superior 42100, the new Liebherr set should be mostly made out of 1x16 Technic bricks :P

Edited March 12, 2023 by johnnytifosi

[kbalage]

5 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

I have shown in the past, with data, for at least the models from around 2010-2016ish, that is it the weight of the set, not pieces or size, that accounts more for the price of Lego models than anything else.  The correlation coefficient is higher for weight vs. pieces and price, and the regression model is stronger for weight vs. piece count as well.  I have articulated this in several different threads.  Not sure why we persist with this antiquated idea that piece count should predict price better than anything else.  

I didn't say pricing was actually based on the price/piece ratio, I said I think it has more to do with the size of the model, and how TLG categorizes it based on that. Weight can be an indicator too, although by comparing a few car sets I found no evidence of the price/weight ratio being more precise across the range than the piece count or the volume of the sets. As an example, the 42127 Batmobile has 1360 pieces for 100 EUR with a weight of 982g, if I compare it to the 42125 Ferrari set with 1684 pieces, it weights 1313g and has a price tag of 200 EUR, none of the comparable ratios make much sense.

For me it easier to say TLG came up with a 200 EUR price tag for the 1:10 cars, and a 100-140 EUR range for the ~1:13 vehicles. This does not add much to the (theoretical) pricing of the Liebherr crane, but might help to understand why a set can be very expensive if the end result looks big. 

[nerdsforprez]

29 minutes ago, kbalage said:

I didn't say pricing was actually based on the price/piece ratio, I said I think it has more to do with the size of the model, and how TLG categorizes it based on that. Weight can be an indicator too, although by comparing a few car sets I found no evidence of the price/weight ratio being more precise across the range than the piece count or the volume of the sets. As an example, the 42127 Batmobile has 1360 pieces for 100 EUR with a weight of 982g, if I compare it to the 42125 Ferrari set with 1684 pieces, it weights 1313g and has a price tag of 200 EUR, none of the comparable ratios make much sense.

For me it easier to say TLG came up with a 200 EUR price tag for the 1:10 cars, and a 100-140 EUR range for the ~1:13 vehicles. This does not add much to the (theoretical) pricing of the Liebherr crane, but might help to understand why a set can be very expensive if the end result looks big. 

With all due respect, you won't get to the truth looking at it that way.  You could not have picked two more diverse (in terms of pricing) models in your example; truly, two models at the opposite ends of the spectrum.  42127 was an exceptionally great deal and 42125 was an exceptionally horrible deal (in terms of price).  The truth resides in looking what is in between those two extremes.  

Prediction models only work when using large sample sizes; not two polar opposites end of a continuum.  Also, you have to look at variability; meaning, your model has to include small sets as well as large sets.  Correlation and regression coefficients exist because they look at overlapping variability; which obviously assumes there is variability in the first place in the items you are interested in (in this case set cost and weight or piece count). 

[howitzer]

7 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

I have shown in the past, with data, for at least the models from around 2010-2016ish, that is it the weight of the set, not pieces or size, that accounts more for the price of Lego models than anything else.  The correlation coefficient is higher for weight vs. pieces and price, and the regression model is stronger for weight vs. piece count as well.  I have articulated this in several different threads.  Not sure why we persist with this antiquated idea that piece count should predict price better than anything else.  

Part count is a piece of information we know though (assuming the info is correct) unlike its weight, so it's impossible to make any judgement based on weight right now. When the weight will become public information I'm sure there'll be a lot more other information also available, so at that point both part count and weight will become more or less irrelevant in terms of judging the set.

[kbalage]

48 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

With all due respect, you won't get to the truth looking at it that way.  You could not have picked two more diverse (in terms of pricing) models in your example; truly, two models at the opposite ends of the spectrum.  42127 was an exceptionally great deal and 42125 was an exceptionally horrible deal (in terms of price).  The truth resides in looking what is in between those two extremes.  

I intentionally picked these two from my (rather low number of) car samples to show their huge difference. Still, these are Technic cars for a similar audience, so the comparison makes sense from the customers' perspective. If you expand your model to a larger number of sets with more diversity and variation you might get an average for the price/weight ratio, but you might get that as well for any other arbitrary pairs of proportions.

[nerdsforprez]

15 hours ago, kbalage said:

I intentionally picked these two from my (rather low number of) car samples to show their huge difference. Still, these are Technic cars for a similar audience, so the comparison makes sense from the customers' perspective.

I think we are speaking different languages here so after these last  comments I think I will just leave it at that.  But again, to find the true of something you very well don't cater to public opinion.  You use science and mathematic modeling.  It may make sense from a customer's perspective, but that is because in this context, we mean the customer is biased and does not reflect reality.  That is like trying to find a reality of a sport in the perspectives of two sport fans of a different team; in no way would we expect such fans' perspectives to represent reality.   Neither do the typical AFOLs perspectives.  

15 hours ago, kbalage said:

If you expand your model to a larger number of sets with more diversity and variation you might get an average for the price/weight ratio,

 

No, if you expand your model to a larger number of sets with more variation you WILL get an average for price/weight ratio.  It won't be a perfect average (unless you sample all possibilities), but its not like increasing the number of sets in a data set arbitrarily gets closer to the actual population average.   You will get closer.  There are even mathematical thermos that explain this relationship.   See my comment below.  

 

15 hours ago, kbalage said:

but you might get that as well for any other arbitrary pairs of proportions.

Statistically this is not likely.  Can it happen?  Sure, but it is not likely.   Averages or median representations of any given entity are found in large samples, where there is an inverse relationship between sampling error and size of the sample.  The larger the sample size, the smaller the sampling error.  

[MarkyMark42]

For any cricket fans out there, if you can work out the maths required for revised targets after rain delays, you can work out the maths for the Lego pricing system :)

To state the obvious though, piece count + weight + royalties + unique parts + packaging + inflation + shipping (did I miss anything?) = Price

Not that I care for the crane, I am interested to see the contents as to what justifies the cost as it will probably be a precursor to future sets that I will be interested in

[pleegwat]

On 3/12/2023 at 12:59 PM, nerdsforprez said:

But weight, (i.e. cost of ABS) is the primary factor.

I'm not so sure this is the case, however other costs (moulding, storage) likely correlate to the size and/or weight of the piece, and the size of the piece itself also correlates to the weight of the piece.

Shipping costs also tend to be significant, and the shipping cost of a boxed lego set depends on its size and weight. Those two correlate, and in the case of lego probably weight dominates anyway.

[weavil]

Cost of sets has been talked about so many times on this site. People miss the main reasons for the cost of sets.

1. Is the set officially licensed?

2. Does the set have large and/or difficult to produce part; and how many.

3. Does the have any electronic components (i.e lights, sounds, control +....)

 

Other factors are acceptable as a consumer are the cost of the raw materials and costs to ship final products. 

So using $/part as a metric does not work, because they could just drop 100 1x1's in sets to make $/part look the same as a cheaper set. So there might be a justification for the Liebherr crane's price and delay as it could have new parts that had production problems with. We don't know yet and probably won't for at least two more months.

Because for all we know they could have a new control+ box with 6 outputs, longer beams, new motors, and another turntable.

 

Just my two cents.

[AVCampos]

49 minutes ago, weavil said:

for all we know they could have a new control+ box with 6 outputs

That could make sense: reuse the discontinued SPIKE hub's platform and make it cheaper (but bigger) by having it use AAs instead of a proprietary rechargeable Li-Ion.

[msk6003]

45 minutes ago, AVCampos said:

That could make sense: reuse the discontinued SPIKE hub's platform and make it cheaper (but bigger) by having it use AAs instead of a proprietary rechargeable Li-Ion.

Only RI is discontinued. Spike is still alive in education.

[Jurss]

The truth is - our whining here won't change anything regarding price (most probably). Want this thing to build - look for discounts, used one, buy parts missing from P&B, or search for a way to earn more.

And we have this topic

@Jim could move something there

[allanp]

@Jurss I'm not sure it's all whining, we are trying to figure out why the set is so expensive without knowing enough about the set to do that, so basically were all just chatting! But let's not stop lest this place die if inactivity! 

But you are right in that it most likely won't change the price, only a significant drop on sales will do that. But Technic is a unique theme in many ways, what fans want from a 700 euro Technic set will be very different to what fans want from a 700 euro star wars set, and maybe there is some use to us saying what that is. They certainly don't have to obey our every wish but that doesn't mean they are not listening.

[Mikdun]

18 hours ago, MarkyMark42 said:

Not that I care for the crane, I am interested to see the contents as to what justifies the cost as it will probably be a precursor to future sets that I will be interested in

Same here.

This set is discussed so long, it gets interesting what will finally be shown.

[keymaker]

1 hour ago, Jurss said:

Want this thing to build - look for discounts, used one, buy parts missing from P&B, or search for a way to earn more.

I think it is not a problem to be able to pay for it. It is a matter of respecting the money. So far I am not able to imagine factors which will justify such price. I can buy it, no problem, but I most probably won't because it will be most probably a rip off as hell. Having money doesn't mean I supposed to mindlessly throwing it left and right.

Edited March 14, 2023 by keymaker

[Gimmick]

19 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

I think we are speaking different languages here so after these last  comments I think I will just leave it at that.  But again, to find the true of something you very well don't cater to public opinion.  You use science and mathematic modeling.

We should train a ML network with lego sets xD

My 'realistic-not-to-optmistic' expectations:

10221 Super Star Destroyer has ~3100 pieces and some big plates. Release was 2014, price ~400 €. -> 9 years later, new specialized big parts -> 450-500 € +no new electronics. After Cat and Volvo and because gearboxes do not work well under high torque, there will not be a function gearbox again, I guess -> 2 Hubs. 500 € + two hubs and maybe 6 motors -> 650 €. And the app will contain some fancy trigonometry calibration and calculation so you can use "kinematic" controls like for the 42100.

End of Nostradamus-Mode. I'm sure I got it all wrong ;-)

The unusual ppp of the this set makes speculating realy fun :D

[Jurss]

1 hour ago, keymaker said:

I think it is not a problem to be able to pay for it. It is a matter of respecting the money.

It is bussiness. We, mocers, AFOLs, are not target audience (as we can build better :) ) of those sets. target audience are mostly some new customers with money, who want some good looking thing on their shelf.

Me too bought millenium flacon on overall hype, when I was not so much in to this thing. Most regreted set. The same with cat d11. I didn't bought it, I was builidg with parts I have and some missing bought. I'm happy, that I didn't bought it, I really got bored building it. It was huge and good looking, and that's all. Recently built 8096, some parts replaced with more recent. I really enjoied it, and for me seems almost best technic set I've ever built.

[weavil]

3 hours ago, Jurss said:

It is bussiness. We, mocers, AFOLs, are not target audience (as we can build better :) ) of those sets. target audience are mostly some new customers with money, who want some good looking thing on their shelf.

And we have a winner! They seen those people snatch up sets like free candy when released collector type Ideas sets years ago. They seen a brand new demographic, now they are running it into the ground. Now we are sore about it because we there are too many licensed sets that cost more then they should. (Except for this year. what have been released are good sets at a good price, so far.)

[BucketWheelExcavator]

When can we expect either leaked details or official images for an August release date?

[Maaboo the Witch]

4 minutes ago, BucketWheelExcavator said:

When can we expect either leaked details or official images for an August release date?

When they show up.

[suffocation]

I suppose there's a chance we'll get a boatload of the new 3x19 frames (going for over €3 each on PaB), kinda like we did with the 5x7 frames in 42055. That could partly explain the extortionate price.