andythenorth

Tow truck is cool. My kids want it. If it's really €280, it's not happening, but let's wait for retail pricing? Purple thing is 'eh?'. Probably really fun to actually build and play, but the concept is definitely 'eh?'. Fire truck: being mean, it's 'pointless rescue truck' again from 2003, kind of a Technic low point http://brickset.com/sets/8454-1/Rescue-Truck 2017 is not a bumper Technic year, although I think the small sets are thoughtful and well designed and affordable (and my kids want them, so clearly appealing). Honest feeling? It's genuinely nice to have a break from compelling sets, there is already way too much Technic in this house. Sounds weird, but there it is. Red dog bone though I build a lot of red. Dog bone is nice to add. Can we have the other recent angle connectors in red too?

MB Zetros, with a wrecker body? Maybe a rotator? Zetros for reference (not a wrecker) Won't be this, but here's a 6x6 Unimog wrecker eh?

Yair, I only read the Technic forum mostly, but I'm pretty happy with the moderation there. In an internet bursting with crap, time and again I prefer the sites with moderation policies that are borderline harsh. Those who have a problem with it usually turn out to be those with not much to contribute (whiners, drama-whores, and spare wheels), and there are plenty of other places for them to go. That said, I wouldn't want to see moderators acting like kings and queens of the hill. Don't think it helps when it becomes all about who's got the biggest button. Shoot second not first etc. At least it's only plastic toys, and not Mumsnet eh? http://www.mumsnet.com/info/jobs-at-mumsnet#HeadComm Sites with many non-native-English speakers face an extra challenge. On the one hand, being accessible for contributors who are writing in a foreign language is important. On the other, I've been told by non-native-English speakers that very poor use of English (broken spelling, grammar) is even harder for them to follow. So eh. Anyway, happy plastic christmas to EB people.

Nah Nah, I'm not But I'm also not particularly concerned about burning out motors. As an adult with an income, M and XL motors are very cheap for me, and I have lots, and it's just a toy, so 'never do this' is not advice I would take. But perspectives vary: when I was a kid I had one 4.5v Lego motor and it was very very precious...and it eventually burnt out after years of abuse (questions like "what happens when you drive it with a 12v train controller?" - this is how you learn eh). I also learnt by experiment that 'my dad says x' is not a very successful argument, with either adults or kids, but eh we all have to learn by doing. I won't comment on whether this is a real problem for motors or not, other people have spoken on that.

Connecting two motors in a high precision or heavy duty industrial environment does seem to not be recommended, from what I could find on Google. As well as electrical problems and motor life problems, it seems that there can be problems with vibration and uneven gear wear if the motors are not precisely matched. But in a toy like Lego, I don't think attaching two motors to the same axle or gear train is a very likely problem for motor life Except if you do it wrong and reverse one motor against the direction of the other Or you run the motors continuously for hours or days at a time. A more likely problem with connecting two L or XL motors together is that they will easily twist axles or break gears. The differential tip is good, I have tried this before, and yes you do need a strong differential, it's very easy to smash the inner gears.

Micro is nice eh? Cab looks boss.

Happens for me in Chrome / OS X. Looks like javascript triggered by page unload or hooked to the thread navigation, but debugging JS isn't something I'm good at :)

I used the same brand, different pack. Works well. Couldn't find them on Amazon US though. https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Outlet/Bag-Refill-60-Marbles-14-19-colors/B013RLOEFK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478592776&sr=8-1&keywords=Quercetti+Marbles

Nicely played, going to see if my kids want to do this too.

Here you go, lift axle by moving the leaf spring pivot point. The video is for metal RC trucks, not Lego, but the basic mechanism is visible. There are also other lift axle videos on YT from RC and real trucks (Sisu have one showing a quite different mechanism with a vertical ram). If you have that already and just can't figure out a Lego implementation, the video at least shows someone else what's needed I hope This is a leaf spring version, independent per-axle. On a tandem drive truck, a walking beam bogie might be more what you want? That could be done by attaching the upper springs to a walking beam also, and changing the angle of the beam with a piston or actuator, or geared liftarm.

I really dislike voiced reviews. My kids watch them on YouTube all the time for toy reviews, unboxing, game walkthroughs and such. Most presenters are annoying, just not engaging or pleasant to listen to. Some are really outstanding and funny and engaging, but even these get annoying when heard often. Also there's no way to skip around a voice review. Text panels or subtitles can be skimmed or jumped through much faster. My kids love them though.

I wondered the same. Later it becomes obvious. When the clutch is disengaged, the outriggers can be moved in and out freely. This is a good thing, as it means they can be used without the motor (dead batteries etc), so more playable. But they rely on the friction pin to keep them in, otherwise they would deploy whilst driving around Unrelated, but following from my mini-review above, the performance of the crane is night-and-day better when pumped manually with a single pneumatic spring pump. It's completely playable with manual pump. I also tried an airtank, but it just adds latency imho

Just built this with my kids (4 and 6). I've built most of the flagships from the last 10 years. The Arocs is very very good. It's densely packed with functions, and it looks great. Pros - looks great - full suspension, not too hard, not too soft, good range of movement - drivetrain and a full 6 cylinder fake engine - double rear tyres - unusual non-gear-rack steering mechanic, which gives reliable positive control and is and easy to use - lightweight strong tipping bed - outriggers and crane can be moved by hand (for example, when batteries are flat) - opening doors (this amazed my 4 year old more than any other feature) - cab looks much better in reality than photos (the doors look like a mess of beams in the product shots, total non-issue in reality) - nice modular build, and repeated patterns, at some points my kids were building a module each, and building the same sub-assemblies for front and rear chassis, interesting - good size, I don't like sets that are larger than this, too long to build, too much shelf-space needed Cons - crane arm is unplayable, the pneumatics are sluggish to lift, and drop like a stone. The bucket won't grasp a load. That's expected, the pipe runs are long, the pump is small. Every pneumatic knuckleboom crane has a similar issue. - dump bed tailgate doesn't latch effectively, and will open while driving the truck around Apart from the crane, it's hard to see how this could have been better. Comparisons - 8258 crane truck: spanks it, the 8258 had a strong crane, but slow and boring. The cab, engine, chassis are all much better on the Arocs. - Unimog: spanks it, Arocs controls are better, use of motorisation is better, Arocs looks better, and for my taste the Mog is too big (ymmv) - 8285 tow truck: this is a favourite set of mine, when it was released it raised the bar a long way for Technic. But the Arocs is in another league.

I have zero problems with colour vomit.

You could randomise using 3 tracks, stopped by default, then have the EV3 randomly choose which one to activate to move an into place obstacle?

Outstanding appearance Official set, I'd pay £45

This looks great I really like mid-scale models with a lot of directly controlled functions packed in (and not relying on a gearbox).

Real trucks with tandem rear axles have substantial tyre scrub when making sharp turns. There's also tyre lean (tendency to walk out of the vertical) and tyre deformation (tyre bulges to one side). With walking beam suspension there's also a tendency for the rear bogie to walk out from under the centre line of the chassis. With power puller wheels, they are ridged along the centre, this tends to accentuate tyre lean when turning. Depending on the construction of the axles and suspension this leads to axle deformation (bending in the horizontal plane), and/or body roll. Larks eh? If you're most interested in realism, have a dig around the websites for suspension vendors, and find the technical data (usually at the end of product PDF datasheets). For example, Hendrickson's USA site has some interesting stuff on it. http://www.hendrickson-intl.com/Truck

So back to the original question - on PPP, the Porsche is actually in line with other recent flagships? My initial assumption was that sticker price was simply applying segmentation pricing. My rationale was: 1. I've bought nearly every flagship for last 10 years or so, sometimes 2 or 3 copies (for B models or mods). I am lucky enough to be able to afford to do this, I buy for entertainment when building and for play value (including for my kids), but not to collect or display. 2. I would pay £160 for flagships like the Arocs or Volvo loader. I would not pay £160 for the Porsche. The Porsche is just a large sports / race car. There are more affordable large sports / race cars (less than £100). 3. I am a good example of one kind of adult Lego buyer. There will be other people like me. Those people are not going to buy the Porsche, not at £160, and certainly not at more than £160. But there are others, perhaps described as dedicated collectors. These people are willing to pay much more. 4. Therefore charge much more than £160 for the Porsche. Not just £180, or £200, but as high as possible. Only dedicated collectors will buy this set, so separate the dedicated collectors from as much of their money as possible. It's not cynical, it's simple segmentation pricing, based on the value a customer assigns to a unique item. But does that idea hold up if the PPP is within the 'standard' range? Unless the part count is padded out, or the building scale is determined by the PPP at that price point (both unlikely?). Perhaps depends on whether PPP-value or sticker price is the key influencer in mind of a purchaser, and obviously enough, different people are different. So eh. My 2p.

Ok cool thanks. And is there a rule of thumb that you always try to buy the sets with lowest PPP?

What I can't understand so far: is PPP about sticker price amortised over piece count, or is it used as a proxy for cost-of-goods to TLG? I am confused about how _some_ of you guys use it, sorry.

I don't. And I understand your concern being about price versus cost. Meanwhile though, please explain PPP a bit more to me, if you don't mind. As I understand it, it's the key metric for some AFOLs to determine the "actual" value of a set? From that perspective (value to AFOLs), how is PPP related to TLG's cost-of-goods or gross margin?

Eh? Can someone explain per-piece-pricing (PPP) to me? I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes Most of those referencing PPP seem like very grounded numerically-oriented people, with solid rational concerns. So I assume there's a standard formula for normalising PPP, accounting for at least: - size and weight of part - complexity of part to produce - construction utility of part (e.g. how many ways it can be connected, or special qualities such as rigidity or specific movement) - play value of part - emotional appeal of part - re-usability of part in wide range of MOCs (e.g. digger buckets have low re-usability) - resale value of part in secondary markets, including stock-turn rate to account for cost of capital tied up in inventory - depreciation rate of part For a rational discussion of the value of a Lego set using fundamental economic criteria, I think these factors are minimum requirements.

42039: £70 on discount in the UK. Large race car, 4 wheels, engine. Porsche: £249. Large race car, 4 wheels, engine. Nah, not going to buy the Porsche. Comparing 42039 and the Porsche will look like comparing apples and oranges to some of you, but to some people it is just a big box of plastic parts that makes a push-along Lego car. One of the people in the second group is very definitely my wife. I think the Porsche is aimed at a different kind of person to me. I hope it's a success for Lego Back to the point of the thread - the outlier is the sticker price. It may be an irrational viewpoint, but the sticker price is too big to swallow. The PPP may be statistically static, but the sticker price is what I pay at the checkout.

I like Construction Crew, it offers good insight into simple mechanisms. There are some basic mods that can be done, like rebuilding to a wheeled excavator, or giving the truck suspension. Or add the 42035 mining truck in as it's same scale (there are a few other recent cranes and diggers in that scale which are all nice compact models). For pure playability, I'd go for a secondhand 8069 backhoe loader (JCB). It's a lightweight set that is great to play with, and it's roughly in scale with the red pickup. My four year old really likes it. It's not the best for rebuilding (not many beams), but does have a good number of actuators. The orange arctic truck is also good fun, and contains track pieces for variety. More smaller sets is what I'd do, my kids are a bit younger, but they spend more time playing with the smaller stuff than the large. Several smaller sets also adds up to more of the interesting parts in total - wheels, suspension parts, steering etc.