Xfing

This is something I've been wondering about - seeing how the Lego Company seems to have developed a tendency to minimize the number of studded pieces in Technic sets as of late. I know and understand full well that the studless beam offers more versatility, compactness and freedom of spatial orientation, but there are cases where they could easily have been replaced with studded pieces in sets, yet they aren't. What could be the cause of this? That the studless beam is cheaper to produce because it takes less plastic? I personally was very happy with the ratio of say, 75% studless to 25% studded that was found in early 2000s models. Before the studless beam was developed, there had of course still been many other studless pieces - the various connectors, bent beams, triangle beams and elastic tubes and hoses were introduced way before that, in the late 90s. Later they became predominant, but recently the tubing and hoses are being phased out in favor of panels, as far as aesthetics go. But I think I really preferred constructions such as the 8448 - a sturdy, studded chassis and slick, studless bodywork. A good example of the stud-removal trend is the Mobile Crane - the first iteration (8421-1) used quite a number of studded pieces, while MK2 reduced their number to an absolute minimum, only when they were necessary. Was the functionality of MK2 superior to the original (apart from the fact that the set contained~800 more pieces)? Are LEGO's efforts of studful piece reduction founded, or are they merely arbitrary?

Just received the set, opening it now. Quite excited, the parts themselves look sweet :) EDIT: Ok, just finished the build. The process itself was quite pleasant and the set contained quite a few design solutions innovative for its time. I also liked a lot how the set is primarily studded, yet starts introducing many of the studless connectors we'd see in later sets. The first studless beams also start appearing, which gives the set a hybrid feel - something I like most in Lego Technic. I especially liked the interplay of the friction pins and plates with axle holes for the rear spoiler - the parts used to their fullest. The play value is pretty limited alright, but all the mechanisms work perfectly as they should, and the treads have no problem rolling, except maybe on ultra smooth surfaces (though the rubber has gotten a bit loose over the years, perhaps I should buy replacement treads?). I was quite happy with the build process itself, it was fun. Not a bad set overall, though I suppose most other are even better considering it's one of your least favorite sets around here.

Ok, thanks for your input, guys!

Alright... guess looks can be deceiving, haha. Anyway, I'm waiting for the delivery. What about the value of the parts themselves for rebuilding?

Here's the original thread, feel free to chime in if it's not against the necro policy :P I'm not very far into the list yet, but I'm hoping to get a bit ahead in the coming months! http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=92093

I'm acquiring this set right now as part of my Lego Technic "soul searching" journey whereby I purchase a ~250 pcs sized Technic set from every year up till now to observe how the designs have been changing and evolving over the years. I don't do so in order of course - whichever set catches my interest, I buy. So to all of you who own th 8414 Mountain Rambler - what are your impressions about this thing? Its strong and weak points, the fun factor and all?

Oh... sorry about that. could a mod please move the thread then?

When I was a kid, Slizers (Throwbots) were quite the big thing, immediately followed by RoboRiders and Bionicle, which would become the next big thing. I had all 6 RRs and all 6 of the original Toa, but from Slizers I only had Judge (Jet), most part of which I've already lost, but what remains used to serve me well for making robot MOCs. The Slizer series is THE precursor to what became the Toa, so I'm a bit interested about getting more sets and examining it in detail. What are your opinions about this line? Are the sets: - worth getting - adequately designed - have MOC potential - simply fun? Thanks in advance! :)

I don't really have many boxes, probably only one. I still have most of my Bionicle and RoboRiders cans, though. They take a crapload of space and are not very space-efficient as far as part storage is concerned - polybags are much better. But I'm still keeping them for some reason. RoboRiders lids were also useful since they could double as wheels for the combiner models. Fun stuff. I need to get back the parts I'm missing and rebuild my six RR's. I don't think boxes are particularly valuable overall, but I would definitely keep around boxes of large and iconic sets such as the widely loved Aquanaut Base, since those boxes tend to have gimmicks of their own.

Peeron actually also gives CMYK values for all those colors as well. I could redo the experiment using CMYK values. But I'd need a minute or three at home for that. Can't do it with MS Paint here at work, haha

It's really difficult to give the objectively best set ever. More so since most people will equate "best" to "I had the most fun and the fondest memories with it". Which you could very well have with the blocky, rudimentary Classic Space sets, which are light years behind current sets design-wise, but are still widely adored. But the truth is, Lego has been through a lot since those times. And I gotta say I quite like where they are now. I remember being a fan of the Aquazone series and overall everything from 1995-1998. These were the years when TLG went apeshit with introducing new specialized parts, which gave the sets a very distinct and memorable character. Yet this isn't to say they were well-designed. I like a lot what LEGO has done with 2013's 3 in 1 creator sets for example. Lots of parts, all of them small and multipurpose rather than, what do you call that?, <insert that tiresome argument> solutions. I'm sure that action sets from the 2000s and 2010 have developed similarly. I've seen some reviews of Chima sets and I gotta admit that they're head and shoulders above their 90s counterparts as far as design is concerned. But for some reason, with LEGO, design doesn't equate with "soul". It really boils down to how much fun you have with your LEGO and what stories you can tell using them.

Well, if Satanic means "creative" and "promoting thinking out of the box", then LEGO sure as hell is Satanic. Priests don't really like when people think for themselves, ya know. That ruins their master plan. EDIT: Oh wow, he's Polish. Figures, oh how it does. Just the thing I would expect from my dear compatriots... Also, it seems to elude everyone's attention (probably deliberately) that the Scandinavian countries, Denmark included, are indeed the happiest places on the planet to live. And they're also near the end of the list of countries as far as religiosity is concerned. Hell, even Muslims in Sweden are so happy that they secularize rapidly. And everyone just gets along. No petty squabbles, no screwing around. I think I oughta move to Scandinavia someday.

Luckily I buy mine off Bricklink... had no idea you could pick bricks in stores, though. But maybe it's because I've never come across a LEGO brand shop here in Poland. LEGO sets are usually sold in toy shops/supermarkets, so it's real hard to find a place that endorses Pick-a-brick.

I remember that there was a website that gave RGB values for all the colors. If the scale was from 0 to 255, A perfect, 50% gray would be around 127/127/127, amirite? OldGrey is 161 165 162 while Bley is 163 162 164 DarkOldGrey is 109 110 108 while Dark Bley is 99 95 97 Funny how the differences seem really negligible, yet the outcome is distinguishable. From the numbers, though, one can see that the newer light grays are indeed closer to perfect neutrality than the old ones, while with the dark grays the situation is opposite. Kinda my sentiments too. EDIT: There's no use arguing, when there is a simple test we can perform. I have put together the grays with the old ones on the left and the new ones on the right, with perfectly neutral grays in the middle for comparison. It would seem that indeed, "Bley" is an almost perfect neutral gray, with only one variable slightly shifted. On the other hand, while Old Dark Gray was almost perfectly neutral as well, Dark Bley definitely leans towards purple (assuming that, since Red + Blue give Purple, and these colors are dominant over Green here). So, Old Gray and Dark Bley are the ones that are leaning. In case of Bley, it can be definitely seen that Lego was going towards a perfect gray. I can't say i have such an impression from Dark Bley, though.

Well, the old grays definitely have their charm. A lot of it in fact, especially in fantasy settings such as Castle. Actually they fit it much more than the new grays, I'd say. But I've grown very fond of the new grays, which I didn't expect would happen. I had thought I'd stand by the old colors stalwartly, while in fact it took only buying 3 newer sets to grow enamored with the new grays. They're for all intents and purposes simply better. I would like to expand my collection of Old Gray and Old Dark Gray pieces, though. I think buying the Aquazone set "Stingray Stormer" will help me with that somewhat.

I've gotten to observe the changes made to the gray color in detail, and my impression is: - Previously, I only had experience with OldGray and OldDkGray, so they seemed fine for what they were. OldGray seemed like perfectly neutral gray. But comparing it to BluishGray it seems that it's not in fact that the new color is bluish, but the old one is actually warm. Next to BluishGray blocks, the older ones look just that - old, almost rotten, as though aging had discolored them. Weird. - Same with the dark grays, only here the difference is even more apparent. But in this case I'd say that the old color was too warm to be neutral while the new one is too cold to be neutral, so they both miss the middle ground. What are your impressions? I know this topic's probably been talked to death by now, but it's still something I like discussing.

Nice review! If I'm not mistaken, this set if on my to-get list of Technic exploration over the years, so in time I should pick one up. Right now a 850 is headed my way, that ancient forklift! I wonder what kind of set that is.

Ok, the 1977 Forklift can be ticked off the list! Daamn, I'm so excited to be buying such an ancient set! I heard it's so old it even has a previous variety of the standard 2x4 brick, no longer produced! Sweeeeeet!

Issue resolved. The guy said he had to deplete the bags to remove the air, or else they wouldn't have fit into the box he sent the sets in. He couldn't explain the absence of those bricks, but he paid me back for them, so it's all cool I guess. Now I've requested a custom order for most of my missing bricks on Bricklink, hope they manage to procure the parts I need :)

Thanks for the suggestions! Since writing the OP, I've been working on my own list and got to 2003 so far. Would you please rate/suggest changes? Are some of the sets I've chosen bad for some reason and it would be best if I reconsidered? Here's what I've come up with. Bear in mind, I might get some other sets I particularly like too - these are just to see how Lego Technic evolved. Once I've got them all, I'll probably have quite a bit of parts too. 1977: 850 Fork Lift Truck 1978: 852 Helicopter 1979: 856 Bulldozer 1981: 8844 Helicopter 1982: 8090 Universal Set 1983: 8841 Dune Buggy 1984: 8050 Universal Motor Set 1985: 8843 Fork-Lift Truck 1986: 8055 Universal Motor Set 1987: 8852 Robot 1988: 8853 Excavator 1989: 8044 Universal Pneumatic Set 1990: 8064 Universal Motorized Building Set 1991: 8838 Shock Cycle 1992: 8837 Pneumatic Excavator 1993: 8857-2 Street Chopper 1994: 8829 Dune Blaster 1995: 8422 Circuit Shock Racer 1996: 8408 Desert Ranger 1997: 8414 Mountain Rambler 1998: 8248 Forklift 1999: 8445 Indy Storm 2000: 8279 4WD X-Track 2001: 8465 Extreme Offroader 2002: 8429 Helicopter 2003: 8453 Front End Loader 2004: 8433 Cool Movers 2005: 8415 Dump Truck 2006: 8283 Telehandler 2007: 8271 Wheel Loader 2008: 8291 Dirt Bike 2009: 8262 Quad Bike 2010: 8047 Compact Excavator 2011: 8068 Rescue Helicopter 2012: 9393 Tractor 2013: 42004 Mini Backhoe

Having only recently gotten out of my Dark Ages, I would like to observe how Lego Technic has changed over the years. I'm also a person of rather limited means so my monthly expenditures on Lego can be no higher than 20-30$ as of now, which translates to Technic sets around 200 pcs in size. Please rec me one set a year starting from say, 1987 or something (that makes 27 sets to 2013 inclusive), that you feel is a nice set and showcases the major staples of the Technic style of the time. If you feel that changes from year N to year N+1 in set design were not consequential, you can just rec me sets that in your opinion constituted a major paradigm shift in construction compared to what came before. I'll be very grateful for any suggestions.

Thanks for the heads up. I've already contacted the seller, but he's not been very responsive. Which is weird, since he's got plenty of good reps saying how friendly in contact he is. And what are those "customs", again? If you mean a post office, I'd have to track it down the place from which it was sent in Austria. And I've already disposed of the box. A minor inconvenience, because as you said, those parts are nothing special. I'll probably make this an opportunity to stock up on more missing parts that I've lost throughout the years. Too bad no one shop has them all, and I'd like to minimize the shipping costs :P

I've recently acquired a 31006 Highway Speedster off Bricklink. The guy said it was mint, but the box had gotten wet so he had to throw it away. The bags weren't supposed to even be opened. Weird thing is, all the bags from the set had been indeed opened, with a section torn off of each corner. It definitely couldn't have been made unintentionally or without human agency. Many pieces fell out and were flying freely around the box when I opened it (luckily the box itself was sealed well). I tried to build the car right away and got stuck at one point in the instruction - I found out I only had 2 rather than 8 white 3665 pieces! I was greatly disappointed, since this has completely prevented me from finishing the model. So I decided to check what else I might be missing - I've just finished checking the parts. It seems that with the exception of 2 dark bley 61252s all other pieces were present, along with a spare for each kind of the 1x1 tiles and cheese slope pieces present (basically all 1x1 blocks that are less than 1 stud in height). I have no idea who is to blame. Could the vendor have purposefully removed the bricks to spite me? Could the box have been checked at a border control or something? That shouldn't be an issue, since both Austria and Poland are in Schengen. This definitely isn't chance's doing, as the pieces missing are not random enough, there's an even number of each type missing and that's only 2 types for 8 missing bricks - the odds of that happening by chance are highly unlikely. What are your opinions on the cause of this?

Gosh dang it, the set I bought off bricklink lacks six of those white 1x2 inverted slopes! I'm so pissed right now, will have to pick those up from Bricklink again :<

This baby just arrived to me today off Bricklink along with the 31006! I had already bought the 31008 a while ago, now I got all three of these sister sets. I was pretty impresed with what you could do with the pieces from 31008 even without putting much thought into it. Having all three sets will definitely let me build something sick when I'm done with the official builds. Hell, Creator's altogether different from the Aquazone action sets that I've been collecting. The pieces are much, much more multipurpose and much more conducive to building in microscale.