brickphisto

No need to doubt or believe or whatsoever when there is evidence easily to be found on youtube. CaDA Pro M motor is about 1.7 times as fast as Lego M Motor; CaDA Pro L motor is about 1.85 times as fast as Lego L motor. Having tested the motors myself I can confirm these numbers.

Thank you very much for bumping up this very interesting thread. It is impressive to see how rather simple math can help you find and explain crazy looking perfect fits. Thanks also for the huge collection although I might never use any in my models.

I am not talking about protection by patent but protection by design. Lego has some parts which are protected for specific lengths only. Protection for the same elements but different lengths has long vanished (like some curved slopes and brackets). I think changing an element's length is even less innovative than introducing those flip flop beams but still you can get design protection. But I guess we should go back to topic again.

And I find it even harder to believe that Lego had those flip flop beams before and did not try to have them design protected. They tried for even more obvious parts which were within the system and which other companies had been using for years like the 1x5 plate. So your argument is pointless since you could use it for any possible part design. Personally I cannot care less about who designed which element before which competitor. But I do care for who creates the best models using a limited palette of parts. To me it seems Lego is being overtaken at the moment.

Well, that might be true for Technic parts especially for older sets like both of which you have built. I have built several CaDA sets so far and yes, I had some issues with clutch power for a few parts, too. But on the other hand CaDA's system parts are at least on par with Lego's. I built the Buckingham palace some weeks ago. The parts were perfect plus there were only two (out of 5000+) parts with obvious colour inconsistency. I cannot remember having built a Lego set with such high parts quality in the last 10 years or so. It seems CaDA have improved their parts quality and hopefully they will continue to do so.

Not even close to 10265 for me: printed rear lights and a-pillars instead of brick-built ones, boxy roof section and sideline between doors and rear end, boring colour-scheme... But I guess many aspects depend on personal preference.

Not bad, but compared to the 10265 Mustang it is at least one step backward. I own and love the Mustang. So no need to buy the Camaro.

I can assure that there is some kind of QC (at least for my models which are far less complex on the technical side). However the Lego designers' limitations seem to be a little stricter when it comes to illegal connections and also sturdiness. But to be fair even some of the recent Creator Expert and Speed Champions models lack some sturdiness.

No, it is a brand new windscreen: 14 studs at the bottom, 10 studs at the top, 6 studs (=5 bricks) high. A very useful part. I can imagine dozens of car models that could benefit from that windscreen.

@amorti Yes, you are right. Of course my MOC was not built to use those strong pro motors (but PF motors) and when the CaDA R&D team said the changes we made were sufficient I trusted them. It turned out they were not. But I can assure you there will be no problems with motorizing my next models since I designed them to be used with pro L-motors and tested again and again and again.

Apart from the flip flop beams and those liftarms with pins on both ends there are more unique CaDA parts that make a huge difference. The 1x8 mudguards and the trapezoid windscreen are so useful for (system) scale model guys like me. Unfortunately I could not use the windscreen for my first two sets but it will make my third and fourth (and maybe fifth?) project look much more realistic. I have no idea why TLG has not introduced a trapezoid windscreen or these 1x8 mudguards for their 16-wide models but I am very happy they are available from CaDA.

I have to admit I just compared the CaDA set to 42035 and forgot about the one from 42055. But then again how much different can models be based on the same original at the same scale replicating the same functions? Regarding the excavator I feel the same but I am sure things like that will not happen again.

The mining truck is very far away from being a copy. I have built both models and even if you have not you only need a closer look to notice that. The excavator is not an exact copy but very close indeed. Apart from that single CaDA set I do not know another one that might be "heavily inspired" by a Lego set. Funnily I was accused of copying Lego's 10295 Porsche 911 with my classic sportscar. That is quite bizarre since both models have nothing in common at all. My MOC which the CaDA set is based on had been finished about nine month before there were even rumors about a Lego 911. Still a very large online seller stopped selling my model until I supplied documents of proof that my model existed before images of the Lego model appeared. So for myself I am very cautious of accusing someone of copying or stealing designs.

I just finished the Lambo and you are spot on. Some techniques used here seem too "moccish" imho. I fear the designers are pushing the boat out a bit too far when sacrificing the stability for the looks. Still a great set and I really enjoyed the build

I am not an expert on legal issues but afaik parts like the one mentioned cannot be patented (anymore) but they can still have design protection. There are plenty of Lego parts which you would never expect to be protected anymore but which still are: 2x4 curved slope, 1x2 curved slope, almost all brackets, 1x1x1/2/3 brick with two studs just to mention a few. But I fear we are drifting off-topic...