CrankyCraig

Who knows, indeed. Recently, many of us more interested in the development of technical functions in models have been somewhat underwhelmed with the unveiling of car after car, and find it difficult to comprehend how or why our beloved non-car technical marvels from the past are seemingly ignored updates in favour of them. Most of these decisions will, without doubt, be made based on the balance sheet, and analysing this information for each past set would likely help us to understand so many of Lego's decisions made both historically, and going forward. My interest in this information is so great, that I'm prepared to offer anyone that has access to it one of my male ovoidal reproductive glands in exchange for it. If interested please message me, and let's get this ball rolling.

Love it, great job. I too have fond memories of this set, and began doing exactly as you have by re-building it with modern bricks. I didn't get far into it before realising just how much has changed since then, and shortly after confined it to the realm of future projects. Great to finally see a modernised version of it, although one concession I wouldn't be able to make if I were to re-build it are those iconic wheels/tyres. With those and the tubing, it'll begin to look a lot less clean, and even closer to the model we remember.

5:10 9:6 7:4 17:3 26:2 4:1 Shortlisted more than a dozen designs that I really liked. Incredibly difficult to settle on a favourite 6 - there's a bunch of others I could happily substitute in. Well done to everyone that entered.

Don't want to start a new topic to ask this, but does anyone know what's going on with the 'Hall of Fame'? I thought of it as a catalogue of the best and brightest the Eurobricks community has to offer, but there's not been any additions to it for some time, despite some great MOC's being created. Is it no longer being updated?

You might reasonably expect there to be some sort of connection tool to attach 2 or more complex angles at specified points such as that of suspension, but unfortunately (and to my surprise) there isn't. I asked the same question a while back of the members here, in the software section and also a couple of professionals, and received the same answer from each - there's no way to do it beyond trial/error. Sorry. Not the answer you wanted, I know.

You're right, the absence of a B-model is a loss there's no doubt, I'm simply proposing that the loss of them may not be entirely negative, and could in fact create an opportunity for something even better, particularly in the case of the bigger sets. There are some great examples of B-models over the years, 42078 being one of those particular examples, but for every good one, there's at least two like this: From an aesthetic perspective, the designer may well have done an incredible job with what they had, but what they had wasn't enough, and I believe it shows. Sections look really good, but it seems reasonable to assume this same designer could have created something much, much better had they not been heavily restricted by parts, and I wouldn't imagine the design time varies greatly between these 2 approaches. If you disagree with this being the 'essence of Lego', then what do you propose it to be as an alternative? Again, I think people are aware by now that Lego can be built into other things, and I don't think the inclusion of a B-model necessarily facilitates that creativity in a meaningful way. I can (and do) obviously build great A/B-models, but I wouldn't be able to build a C-Model half as good as the one above, despite witnessing it as entirely possible through the posts of the talented people here.

But as I stated previously, perhaps we'll now see more of these becoming A-models, such as 42030 B-model and 42114. Time will tell. I quite agree, building a B-model requires no more creativity of the builder than the A-model. Sure, it demonstrates that something else can be built that may be radically different from the A-model, but I think Lego has been around long enough that most people know that. A better exploration of creativity may be discovered by building an entirely different official A-model set with the pieces from a set, and finding solutions for the pieces missing. They're all free to download, after all. The world has changed a lot since Lego Technic's inception, and most in the developed world are privileged enough to enjoy a higher standard of living since then, with more disposable income to lavish on extravagances such as these. It would be interesting to know (but not likely we ever will) not only how many are building the B-models, but how many are purchasing additional sets to do so.

As stated above, 42082 is a technically impressive and huge set. Though quite different, I also really like 42099 for the RC fun it offers, but if re-building is a greater priority then there isn't as much potential with it's limited parts. ...And then there's the Lambourghini 42115 Lots of good options out there.

Or she could have been operating it. ...I'll show myself out.

That's a heck of a recipe! 4 buggy motors! I'd love to see it in action

While the addition of a B-model has influenced some of my past purchases, I'm not greatly sorry to see Lego moving away from them, unpopular as that opinion may be. I want each and every Technic model released to be the absolute best it can be, and when building a B-model I can't help but imagine how much better it might have been had the parts palette not been restricted to that of the A-model. It seems possible to me that dropping B-models entirely could mean, for example, that we get more A-models released per year. Or perhaps the time saved could be utilised by optimising each A-model, to give us an improved standard of A-model, with greater features & functions. It would also stop serving as a barrier to releasing similar A-models - 42078 B-model may have been great, but because of it we're unlikely to get what would have likely been an even better A-model any time soon.

It depends entirely on your particular persuasion. It's true that they aren't typically as interactive as the more conventional products we see from LT, but they feature some of the most technically marvellous function produced with Lego. Just about anything Akiyuki does blows my mind, and a great deal of others. I think pv-productions that Agrof mentioned have developed a particularly interesting niche. By virtue of the fact that they base them on a single kit, they're very easily accessible to a great number of people. I'd love to know the uptake numbers on the instructions they produce. Lego idea's is a reasonable idea poorly executed. If they want to assess a model's potential popularity they should create a system allowing people to express support for it in an unburdened way. Forcing supporters to navigate to a place they wouldn't otherwise venture and create a login for the purposes of assigning support to a project that, irrespective of whether it achieves it's target, probably won't be developed further, severely biases and restricts their audience. Platforms such as Youtube or social media websites (shudder) are far better structured for both generating and assessing consumer interests of a population beyond the hardcore Lego enthusiasts. Personally, I find Lego Idea's so depressing I won't go near it. It showcases so many truly wonderful creations, each desperately seeking the modicum of recognition of their brilliance that 's offered, and for the overwhelming majority, not finding it. It's like 'Lego's Got Talent'. /rant

Agreed. That's partly why I was hoping the prop sticker represented more than just rotation, because that particular function doesn't need to run in reverse. I'm deliberately not examining the prop construction too closely and keeping my fingers crossed.

Even better!

@ Sariel. FWIW I found the brutal honesty in your original comment both comical and refreshing, but I can also understand how others may have perceived it differently. I've lost count of the amount of times my child proudly presented paint splatter on a piece of paper (as I'm sure your's will soon enough) and I've not even known what it was supposed to represent. What I really wanted to say was 'WTF is this %$*#. Stop wasting my time, kid'. Occasionally, I managed to say something more positive. That response isn't entirely without merit, but if you're hoping to successfully develop the child's interest in painting and build self-esteem, certain responses are more useful than others. By sacrificing just a little of the honesty in favour of diplomacy, it's possible to still deliver an opinion in a way that encourages them to improve, and doesn't elicit a negative emotional response at the mere sight of a paintbrush. If only I'd realised this sooner, my child may still be interested in painting. Of course, most of us(?) aren't children here, but the same basic principle applies to encouragement and development whether you're dealing with a child or with adults. You're like the Michelangelo or Leonardo Da Vince of the Technic medium (the artists, not the green-shelled variety) , and although most of us will never be able to create the amazing things you can, the entire community benefits from your shared wisdom and knowledge, and to not have that would be a tremendous loss.