nerdsforprez

I don't want this thread to turn political. I state this upfront. Pls refrain from any political rhetoric to keep the Moderators at bay. But I find it funny that CNN decided to use a pic of LEGO sets in their article on inflation and Trump tariff policies. https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/12/economy/us-cpi-consumer-inflation-july It used to be the front page pic on the site. (cnn.com). No longer is but it is used for the page above.

G87. Brooklyn grey metallic.

Very good point. That is likely it.

The M2 is my daily driver. I love the car. Therefore, I love this build. Lol. No seriously, great job on a fabulous car.

Here is an interesting observation I discovered. In building set 10360, there are four of these elements used to connect the engines to the wings. in white. Have of the element is coming off the wing and half it attached to the engine. Because they are all in white, as are the engines, they match the engine (in color) but not the wings, which are LBG. I have the element in LBG. I thought I would simply separate the element, and combine it with a LBG half. Separating went fine. No breaking or weakening the element. But when I combined the two (one half white, one half LBG) there was noticeable flex in the joint (hinge). It was no longer firm like it was before. I switched the elements back. LBG with LBG and white with white. No flex. So, I correctly conclude that no damage to the elements occurred. Thoughts? Was this simply due to the paint density differences?

Watched the whole build from the beginning. I have always enjoyed your builds. This one is no different. Well done.

Admittedly I am not up to snuff in the Lego world as I used to be. I watched Racing Brick's video on it where he explains the function well. I would argue that the clutch is simply doing what is supposed to and not directly involved in a "function" - but the most I think about it is kinds a gray area, because it can also be argued it is doing the exact same thing in the SCA set. I do wonder if there is a difference between a function vs. a mechanism. I might be tempted to say that the clutch is indeed involved in the "function" of the F&F build, but not part of the mechanism. Whereas the clutch in the SCA model certainly is.... But again, perhaps I am splitting hairs...

Sounds good! Excited to also see an update from your idea. I think my next project will build a similar clock as the one I just posted. However, I want to use better power sources. From the clock that I just built, it is around 2 meters off the ground, only giving me around 7-8 minutes before the power source runs out (weight hits the ground). I know in some of your creations you use a motor for a self-winding mechanism. I will have to look into that. Do you have instructions, or any form of tutorial that you used for the self-winding mechanism you used in your contemporary "Modern-Style Lego Clock" video?

So about two weeks ago I bought set 10360. Just finished building it. Wonderful set. As others have mentioned, it has some great Technic mechanics much like the Concord set. I know RacingBricks' video of this set briefly describes the landing gear, and shows it being built as he goes through the build, I don't think the video shows the mechanism when the build is complete. I have also watched several other YT videos showing the function, but not sure it is explained completely. Overall, I believe it is an underappreciated function and one of the very few times a clutch element isn't only added for safety purposes, but also is added to complete a function itself. Because the range of motion of the front landing gear vs. the read bogies is different, and the function is carried out on the same axle a clutch not only engages the first part of the function but when the front gear is fully retracted/deployed the clutch allows for the rear landing gear to continue being retracted/deployed. Such a simple mechanism, but for me, surprisingly fun to build and observe. Are there any other official Lego sets that use clutches in this same fashion?

OMG... David.... I had the same idea! A few pages back I commented that I bought your book and had been studying your creations. I actually reached out through PM and you responded quickly to some of my questions. TY so much! This is a great idea. I will be keeping tabs on it. I also have created my own "cliff-side" Lego clock. All out of Lego, even the pendulum weight is Lego (boat weight). Also has 24 hour solar clock and 30 day lunar clock built it. I will take a better video later at some point, but here is a quick YT short. To make more sense of the build it is also useful to see the larger build I completed just over a year ago. Non-technic... but useful for context in understanding this build.

It has been a long time since I posted anything.... I have degenerated into a "lurker." Took a view this morning holding out for some positive news. While I agree the set may have some upsides, the price is indefensible, and that is someone who defended Lego Technic pricing from 2010-2020. Just can't do it anymore. The Technic genre has lost me. Too much redundancy, boring sets.... too high of prices. On to other genres I go....

Beautiful. I love build that focus on the idea of parsimony. Efficient, beautiful use of parts. Thxs for sharing...

Oh goodness. I also didn't know there was such a thing. What a treat of a build! Hard to find such a unique build nowadays. I will be following this. Great job so far.

Thxs for the response. I am in the US so we don't get all the deals you guys do on amazon in Europe. But, that being said, I really don't mind buying from Lego.com or stores. I like the points program and I always get several little goodie sets along with it. I know alot of folks like the discounted approach, but the GWP on a 200 plus set usually end up worth 25-30 bucks and the points add a few more.

Not to mention when you are just building the official sets you really aren't a builder. Not a creator. You are just an assembler. They are different. Assembling something gets boring over time. It could be the most complicated machine in the world and it would still get boring over time.

I find all the comments about money somewhat amusing. We just had another thread talk about paid vs. unpaid instructions from AFOLs, and it was obvious there folks were reluctant to pay AFOLs for instructions created. Pay even a fraction of what Lego sets costs (I get it is for pieces only) . Again, they complained about $$. Hobbies cost money folks. And I dare say Lego is one of the cheaper options for adults. Sure, there are cheaper ones. I hunt for fossils along with building. Costs me pretty much nothing other than gas and other travel expenses. But there are much, much more expensive options. Seems to me that part of the issue, is us. We should, along with all our skepticism towards TLG, look internally. Here is an idea. If you don't like official sets, and you don't feel you have the time, talent or abilities to build amazing builds then go to rebrickable and find a MOC from an AFOL to build. Sure, you have to build up an inventory of parts... and yes, that still costs money, but serious AFOLs often already have a good parts selection. I find it somewhat contradictory that many complain about the costs of sets, but you can get the instructions for much better builds on RB for 15-20 bucks USD (I get it not a direct comparison b/c one must have the collection) and people then complain about the instructions not being free. Amazing to me. Are we as AFOLs too cheap? Not a popular take... but I'm afraid it must be asked.

Very cool crane and idea. I think the "mini" title fits perfectly. Even though it is >1000 pieces it is mini to scale of the actual beast. I have several builds on my to-do list right now but I wouldn't be surprised if I return to this and build it sometime!

If this is the case, which I and many others agree with, then the more appropriate question to this thread would be "What is happening to the Technic audience" rather than "what is happening to Technic" Just like the fan of any sport or hobby, we tend to think our needs and desires is what the team or company is targeting. When in fact, it is not. We are small fish in a large pond, and I think that most who gripe about Technic trends forget that....

Agree with everything you said before, however, this is the point that I see things differently than others it appears. The Technic team is putting in A work IMO. Here is why. They understand the assignment. The assignment is to sell sets. Not to produce the most mechanically sophisticated sets. Most are confusing this distinction. That is why we have all these complaints. I don't care for the sets at all. I like the parts. If I want a mechanically sophisticated or accurate builds then I build them. And that is not some weird flex or something. I am one of the LEAST talented or knowledgeable builders on here. But honestly, even I understand this distinction. We get pages and pages of complaints on sets that are like <500 pieces, where the advertisements are done with 14 year olds, and we here as adults are on this site griping about them? I dont mean to be insensitive, I get there was once a heyday where more sophisticated sets were built, but com'on, this simply does not make sense to me. Agreed. Many of the new elements are for show. Not necessarily for mechanical or technical aspects of a build. But wouldn't you agree some are? The new flip flop beams open an explosion of possibilities alone. Almost like a punctuated equilibrium model. This piece alone could afford a re-do of many sets in completely different ways. Last few years we have seen an explosion of transmission parts as well. So many opportunities. Also the swashplate from the Airbus H175 set. It is not 100% accurate, granted, but such an interesting element(s) that I don't even think the AFOL community has fully tapped into yet.

Lego sets are becoming worse, but Lego is pumping more and more novel elements out. And the crappy sets are selling better than ever allowing us as AFOLs to have collections tens of thousands of elements large. Upshot, sets are becoming worse while MOCing opportunities are improving. If you build to have shelf queens, then yea, the hobby is degrading. If you are building to actually build and not just assemble then the hobby is on the up and up. Honestly, I don't get why everyone is so upset.

Don't mean to be the jerk here but why create a post for this? Anyone who answers is just going to go and do what the OP should be doing. Open your preferred web browser and research.

Yea, mine was also needing more weight than the ~336 grams recommended in the book. But if you replace the 16T gear with a 24T gear you get the added torque and therefore can keep the weight ~ 300 grams. I found this to be the best solution. Less weight and stress on the overall clock mechanisms. WHen I did this the whole thing ran just fine...

TY for the reply. I tinkered with it all last night. I finally found that changing the gear that holds the chain from a 16T gear to a 24T gear, thus increasing the torque, I could decrease the weight a bit. Placed less strain on everything. Worked perfectly. Ran it for a whole hour not with a single stop. Works great now. Eager to play with things more and try some of your other mechanisms out.