dulcaoin

The bottom portion of this chart shows what are officially called v-belts. The sizes are officially: ø15 (white only), ø24 (white, grey, clear red, red) [I haven't noticed a difference between the reds in my collection of v-belts, though], ø26 (blue, green), ø28 (white), and ø33 (yellow)

The "simple photos of partially opened modules" were posted quite extensively by Nathanaël over 3 years ago when I took on the job of creating the BI. They're still around and available. All parties interested in this model should take a look. There are alts shown with a gull-wing door option, and then a slight redesign of modules for a 4x4.

You mention some of the qualities I would use to make my point as well. Also, the huge bloat in building instructions; extra steps taken to show every minute detail so that a younger builder will have less trouble building. Many early reviews of the BI expressed some dismay that we not return to a more traditional approach, where the expertise of the builder is presumed, and many more parts are added in a step "by sight", rather than in small increments during a sub-assembly with multiple pose adjustments (as we HAVE done, per modern TLG BI standards). I only brought it up as a precursor to mention the "88448" moniker as a point of interest. :-) I don't mind, in fact I think that was considered at one point, until I realized that (if I'm remembering correctly), the first BI that Nathanaël released was called NK01.

You honor me with such talk! I have heard very impressive things about your work as well, I appreciate your interest. To me, this project is many powerful things at once. - It represents the best of what a Super Car from TLG should be, in my (perhaps not-so) humble opinion; much better than what we are offered through 8070, for instance. - It represents some of the first fan-created BI that ranks with what TLG does officially (I did a contract job for the 2010 Ambassador model for LEGOLAND California based on my work here). - It represents what can be done with the tools that James Jessiman inspired; showing that we can use free tools to perform advanced rendering without needing (all of) the advanced and expensive tools used at TLG (I did use Adobe InDesign for final steps, same as TLG). So there are many "firsts" here at one. I have been very fascinated by the level of interest in this project, both from supporters and those with questions and even some doubts. I am very pleased to read such passion from TECHNIC fans, which for me in the U.S. seem to be a bit of a dying breed, unfortunately. From that perspective, it represents that interest in the TECHNIC line is still strong, even as the offerings from the LEGO Group, including within our favorite theme, seem to become less and less technical to reach a wider audience. I noticed tonight the label "NK01" on the video. In case anyone is curious, the "internal" numbering I chose for this work was 88448 :-) I removed that value from the BI just before we submitted a copy to TLG to make sure we would not run afoul of any of their legal requirements. I thought using a number like that would have been asking too much. As it was, we passed with only minimal changes necessary to our disclaimer and some of the "About the model" text that appears on the back page of the BI. And one last anecdote about the visual language of BI; I remember having the hardest time putting "CLICK" into the instructions. To me, it breaks the rules of the language that has been so carefully built over the years. But it IS the way it's done officially, and enough models have now shown that use that it is now standard (and, indeed, I looked up EVERY instance while I was considering the question :-D). So it can be said that I felt pretty strongly about the approach we were taking. I hope I've been able to make our approach better understood. Many of the questions that have come up over the BI were debated (sometimes quite hotly) between Nathanaël and myself until we could reach an agreement. Please be assured, we considered nearly every aspect of the instructions very carefully. :) I am. I wonder if we have met IRL? I've been to the last two BrickCon's, just in your back yard. :) I'm happy you are pleased with the work. I had both a lot of fun and a lot of exhaustion doing them. -- joshua

TLG style instructions are what people know, and what work for people. Part of the motivation for this project was showing that we could create instructions "as good as the real thing" using LCAD style tools (LeoCAD, LDView, etc.) and -- slightly -- enhanced LDRAW parts. Another was that I had the opportunity to learn from an insider the right way to do BI; the TLG way. Now, 3.5 years later, I'm not absolutely CERTAIN I would have done it the same way, but I was in it for the learning experience, to make BI that a 12 year old could follow, as with any official BI. When I started the project, a BI dev position was open in Billund, but I was never called back on my application. This was a way for me to learn the job without actually hiring into it. This is probably a good thing, I'm a Software Engineer first, and a graphic designer much further down the list ;-). If one follows the instructions, he'll realize that I took the existing visual language of TLG BI and modified it in subtle ways that I think clarify the process (such as warning you at the head of a sub-assembly that you're building two at once, rather than at the end). I leave the other gems to be found by the observant builder. In short, TLG has spent years developing a visual language that is known the world over. I saw (and see) no good reason to show up on scene and decide that I want to suddenly create my own, wildly different, language to compete.