Pauger

I'm guessing/hoping the unimog's motor has four different outputs: Compressor, winch, turntable and stabilizer. There's also three pneumatic switches lined up alongside each other, only two visible on the arm, but the arrows suggest the claw is also pneumaticly operated... This means six hoses through the turntable if we assume they have dual connection (usually a bit too much(?)). Anyways, it's an interesting model.

Inventory?

hmm...ok still don't get it though

8069 is without doubt not as good as 8455... but uglier? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Nothing except this: Yes, we do.

Looks to me like quite an odd part.

You should use the new smooth axle joiners inside the driving rings.

They (whoever is responisble) should have realized that the LA's were poorly made before it got crucial. After the problem was acknowledged they only used a month(?) to fix them, why didn't they before?

As Anio wrote; the true problem was the people who designed the original LA in 2007. 8043 just confirmed that to set the LA's in concrete wasn't a great idea. At least they've done something now...

I don't think this is possible with less than 3 motors.

The thing about 8421 that really does it for me is the three-section crane (even tho they could've made it longer) aswell as the overall build quality. Other than that it had a complete manual turntable, unrealistic stabilizers and bad aesthetics (way to short and fat, and quite ugly). Even though I don't have the 8053 and know that the stabilizers don't actually do any stabilizing, I would say that for the price - It is as good as 8421. Guess I'm quite alone on this opinion though

Should try buliding an aston martin rapide instead That car is just gorgeous

It is. A big one aswell.

I wonder what the 2nd half's flagship model will be... unless the supercar is the flagship. Hope not.

'Epic fail' is like 'lol'. Invented in the world of epic-lol-i-net, and usually not very true.

About the Backhoe: If you look at the back there is an UV joint leading to the lower LA. Behind the pole reverser (which controls the stabilizers), there seems to be another one for the second LA. As someone wrote these lead to the two knobs on the roof. This confirms that the digging arm is slewable, and if you see directly above them, there seems to be an 8 tooth gear underneath the triangle. Although you can't see a worm gear, I'm almost certain it is one and that it's connected to the black axle joiner behind the mudguard. If this is right it's brilliant use of small space, and unlike the 8455 - there's even a seat! btw, the front of the supercar is very 'aston martinish'

Retracted I guess. Suddenly looks a lot better at that picture :)

It does actually say 'four speed'. Which means that if there isn't a gearbox for the transmission - then they are lying. Yet, that's what I think they do.

http://www.bricklink.com/search.asp?q=8258

God that spoiler looks absolutely horribly, what were they thinking of? I guess the new LA's maybe will be used on the doors/hood.

Where is it from then?

I cant't really picture what you're thinking, the actuator seems to be fixed in both ends? Nice with an extracting landing gear on the helicopter btw :) Thanks

I'm almost certain you're wrong Blackbird. The excavator boom couldn't work like we see on the picture if they had been non-functional. Besides you can see that the LA's are extended differently, and that the LA-input is 3 studs wide - which is to make it fit with the bevel gears. In fact you can see that the front one is connected by a 12 and 20 tooth bevel. Though I must say it's impressive how they can make it so small. edit: bit late :P edit2: I'll eat my socks if I'm wrong

We all know that this set has a design flaw, and that it's going to be fixed. Actually I think it's the most playable set I've ever had, but then I did disemble it before I got any problems with the motors. Oh, right... I think I've gone slightly off topic Think of it as "bonus-functions". You don't have to use the winch and the crane extension if you don't want, it's just an extra if you need it :)

Is it just me or is people here very conservative? Pepople seem to base the quality of the sets on their nostalgic memories as kids rather than the actual quality, and whining about changes like studless building, LAs and 'too many small pieces'(wtf?). I agree that the change-over from studfull to studless did produce some rubbish sets and parts, especially the hoses and panels. But looking at for example the flagships from the two latest years; 8258 and 8043 (assuming the LA flaw will be fixed), I can't think of anything that is close to that good when it comes to building experience, complexity, functions and aestethics (Perhaps with the exceptition of 8480). Which to me is what technic is all about. This is in my opinion the closest TLC has ever been to perfection.