Jump to content

andythenorth

Eurobricks Counts
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,200

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by andythenorth

  1. andythenorth
    You are not alone.
  2. andythenorth
    Eh, yours doesn't, mine did Same fundamental issue - low stroke volume on the pump. Maybe shorter tube runs on 8868, and smaller, so less weight to move?
  3. andythenorth
    Technic models don't last.
  4. andythenorth
    That's a good idea...my Unimog is junked in a cupboard, might take it apart completely. Maybe make a pup-trailer?
  5. andythenorth
    [trimmed] Agreed, all valid possibilities. Other options: - pre-production pumps, tolerances imperfect (sticky seals)? - maybe the pneumatics are just slow? The pneumatic performance on 8110 was also very poor. A single cylinder small pump is inherently limited as a compressor: the total stroke volume is small, and relies on high speed to produce a decent operating pressure. Plenty of MOCs solve this with more pumps, bigger pumps, external air supplies, or using the air-tank as a time-limited supply of high-pressure air. It is harder to imagine those being used in an official set (the air-tank is an expensive part with minimal benefit, because once the tank is empty, there is a charging-cycle time during which the model is unplayable; this would push the box price up whilst damaging playability). FWIW, the classic, and much-loved Air Tech Claw Rig / Compressor Truck had an identical issue with low speed pneumatics, so it's not new
  6. andythenorth
    Nice B model find. So who will buy two sets and keep both assembled? The B model could lose the crane, gets you a few cylinders to play with?
  7. andythenorth
    Great design
  8. andythenorth
    I dunno, me playing armchair lawyer is dubious, but anyway. Copyright varies by jurisdiction, significantly in some cases. For the UK: - You'd have straightforward copyright on the content of the instructions, in printed, or digital form. It's a straighforward Literary or Artistic work, similar to any book or video or technical manual or software program, and if you can prove you're the author of the work, the copyright defaults to you (unless you explicitly assign it elsewhere, or its covered by a pre-existing contract such as employment, or work-for-hire). http://www.copyright...k_copyright_law - Protecting the copyright on the designs is more complex (and I'm less familiar with it). There appear to be rights, but you'd have to demonstrate that the design is unique, http://www.copyright...5_design_rights You wouldn't need to start a MOC-protection association. You could try something like the Copyright Service (I have no idea if they are good or bad). http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/ Be very aware though that services like that are private limited companies. They are not official government bodies or charities, and they have no statutory powers. Some of them may be bona-fide and dedicated to protecting authors. Some others act more like legalised mafias: they try to extort companies, charities, public organisations, freelancers etc by writing legally threatening letters to them and 'licensing' them to copy material. I have been on both sides of this, protecting work, and being threatened with (bogus) 'fees' for copying (we weren't, it was a scam).
  9. andythenorth
    Ok, we've had a wide range of AFOL opinions; today I tested the Nuremberg photos on my kids. Crawler Crane 3 year old: "I love it, can we get it" 5 year old: "It's really good, I like it, it can lift stuff and stuff like that. It has a grabber and some string and some tracks. It has motors and it's really really long. And it's blue." Arocs 3 year old: "I love it, it has a crane and wheels and a thing". 5 year old: "Not very good, the colours are all bleargh, I don't like them". So eh. These days I only buy the ones they like, I've got enough Technic sets slowly cracking in the loft, and too many unfinished MOCs.
  10. andythenorth
    Valve, probably the standard existing part, although eh, a new one would be nice too.
  11. andythenorth
    Sorry, I'm being a tool for posting this It's about 9x22 foot. And what did we build? Just a loop
  12. andythenorth
    Eh, it's a long jump from "andythenorth is recycling his" to "gevans12 is the only one that keeps his" You're probably not the only one. When I was a kid I used to keep them. For one thing they had pictures of the C/D/Z models on.
  13. andythenorth
    I can't wait to put it in the recycling (No, not sarcasm, means the build will be finished).
  14. andythenorth
    Eh, no, there's lack of cultural context here. If this discussion was to take place on mumsnet, it would be far from touchy-feely or sensitive; people proposing Lego for Men would rapidly get ripped apart with no mercy, and (to pre-empt a possible objection) it would be by women who do not self-identify as feminists (or any particular kind of 'ists'). And it's not (pre-empting other objections) because mumsnet posters are especially careful to be politically correct, nor do they especially hate men.
  15. andythenorth
    Eh, why not try this discussion on mumsnet? Maybe EB and Mumsnet could co-host a debate?
  16. andythenorth
    Eh, "we had too much money, too much equipment, and little by little, we went insane". http://en.wikipedia....ural_references In the 80s we were kids without disposable incomes. One large technic set in a year was a special gift. Technic was for building with; there was no question of leaving anything assembled more than a few weeks. Last week's great MOC was this week's essential parts for something new. I could say a lot more on this, but I'd probably end up falling off my soapbox: official sets are much bigger and more complex, there's a lot more sense of work put into the build, and eh, who'd want to repeat these long, often boring builds? we have Bricklink, so parts are cheap and endless, no need to break up existing models to create something new there is a collector mentality to some AFOLs that sees no value in rebuilding, this attitude is very visible in some online Lego communities, especially in any discussion about new sets (there are also acres of internet devoted to MOCs of course) the idea of displaying Lego has transformed rapidly from being socially weird to being acceptable
  17. andythenorth
    Eh, small things, but the doors probably open on this thing? Look at how they're mounted at the front, there's a natural hinge point in the design. And the rear cab is strong enough not to need fixed doors for rigidity (there's loads of bracing in the rear cab for the steering, battery box etc). EDIT: oops, the cab tilts, my idea is probably wrong. (images here if you want to look) http://www.technicbr...-nuremberg.html Also I'm going to get off the fence: the cab is ugly imo. Relative to other large trucks (8285, 8258, 8109), the mix of liftarms on the doors looks a mess. Taken as a whole though the set is definitely not ugly
  18. andythenorth
    I'd sell them super-quick, loads of mine have cracked parts. If everyone sells, the market price will collapse, so you want to get in early. Also you could get hit by a bus tomorrow, then you'd never get your money back.
  19. andythenorth
    Without sarcasm (what is sarcasm anyway? I never understand what it is, I just say what I'm thinking, sometimes I even think before typing, which probably makes me weird, but eh): The 42009 (crane) B model (container loader) is great. It's ugly as anything, but really playable. My kids had zero interest in building the A model, because "it's just another crane". The 8043 (excavator) B model (track loader) is outstanding, as good as any A model. I did buy another 8043 set to have both, and I did find that kind of weird, but worth it. It is easy to look at the box and maybe wonder what the ugly B model is for, and why is it ugly, and are Lego just making the set marketable so that parents can be reassured that it's not "£170 and you can only build one thing with it?". But I've been trying more B models from sets of all sizes, and some are really well crafted, they look good and they're fun to play. And some are interesting models of things that would never be marketable for a flagship. They're not universally good, I'm not naming some I didn't like because, eh, this is off-topic enough, and we're always about 3 posts away from this thread crashing in flames. But I do reckon that B models deserve a look. And I am intrigued what the crawler crane and Arocs B models will be.
  20. andythenorth
    I know, this puzzles me too. I am sure that all the AFOLs would be super happy at the absence of a B model. It is just offensive that TLG expect them to dismantle their priceless collectable A model, and rebuild it to something that is only B grade. The clue is in the name by the way: "B". Also parents, when buying the set for their kids, they don't want to look at the box and be confused by seeing another model. Imagine! Some of them might think there are two models in the box. That must be a big problem for Lego customer service! You don't need a chart, just look at the threads here, there is literally *no-one* asking what the B model will be. Nobody, quite literally nobody, cares. Also there should be more swearing at EBs, there's not enough of it.
  21. andythenorth
    It is actually a scientific fact that all women only like Pink or Purple.
  22. andythenorth
    http://www.technicbr...15-technis.html £170 sterling - I guess there will be market variations and a straight currency conversion might be a bit off?
  23. andythenorth
    Because they'd get absolutely destroyed in social media, correctly so. TLG has enough gender-specific trouble with Friends.
  24. andythenorth
    Yup, but my kids still love to push it along tracks, rather than streets
  25. andythenorth
    I have heard that there is a PF unicorn and a PF rainbow. There was going to be a PF unikitty, but the part was too unreliable for mass production.
×
×
  • Create New...