nerdsforprez

Agreed, and I think many think this way as well. Errors are no biggie since they are easily fixable. But I am curious about what folks think this may say about the approach TLG takes to developing these cars. I am not so much concerned about the errors as I am about what I think it SAYS about the company. For me, and I get it this perhaps is reading too much into things, but I think it tells alot about their approach to building and selling these products. Money! Money! Money! It gives the appearance of being rushed, non-committal to quality control, and overall unconcerned about company reputation and consumer skill and/or awareness. Also, I really think the errors beg the question, what costs more, or takes more time for these UCS cars, the development (build complexity, quality control, etc.) or the marketing? Seriously, that is an honest question. It seems there is tons of resources dumped into marketing these cars... couldn't just a small fraction of the marketing budget be used for quality control? I don't get it. Personally, for me my opinion for TLG keeps falling and falling. I am unsure they continue the mantra of "only the best is good enough" - and at least for me the door opens further and further to competitors.

Thanks for the wonderful review! Really important to get a review from a regular Technic builder, because if not, you get something like this: where at minute 5:44 he says the working paddle shifters is the first time this has been offered in a Technic UCS car, and praises the "technics" of the set. Lol.... praises the the gearbox as well yet at the same time does not know it is built wrong. Despite our opinions of the car I believe TLG will keep putting out this boilerplate stuff. Recreational buyers just eat it up even though they have no idea what really is in it/or not. They just see the pretty and want it. This is a channel that has no shortage of subscribers and really I think it reflects what we are working with when it comes to the customer base for these UCS cars. I think our expectations for these sets are WAYYYYY too high....

But for most of us that are serious AFOLs, or MOC/MODers ourselves were we ever serious about just buying a set and letting it sit on a shelf anyways? I agree with both these comments if the set is viewed as a stagnant display set. Not even a building set period, rather more of an assembly piece. But if the set is viewed as a parts pack I am wondering if that changes the sets perceived value? I get it, some things are not easily digested with this POV, mainly the box (no value if I see the set as a parts pack) and the color vomit (again, horrible for parts pack b/c not easily integrated into other sets/MOCs). But, the rare pieces, panels, gears, shocks, etc. in my mind kinda makes up for it. Makes the set enticing. I suppose I could wait and buy these specialized parts when folks start to part out the set on BL, but then I will likely be paying even more, at least more per piece. If I want these parts, kinda tempted to get the set when it is on sale to enhance my ability to build other things ... no? Also, I do think it is fun to fix all of TLG mistakes. Not that I enjoy spending that time on like gearboxes or basic flaws in the set. Would be nice to just focus on IMPROVEMENTS instead of FIXES (which are entirely different things) but still. I guess that is the perspective I am looking at the set with. I have no interest in the set itself, but I do have interest in either building other things with the parts available or modifications that can be make to the set as it stands now...

Yup. Exactly. Which is pretty much what I said

Surprised, but perhaps I should not be, with all the errors in the instructions. @kbalage exposed them in one build. Really confused how TLG cannot get this right. Do they not have a team of builders who assemble the models prior to release to weed out these errors?

Not sure about this. Basic business sense 101 (which TLG definitely does have) would say to not lose your main customer base in the search of new customers. I am sure the majority of buys have built other Technic sets, though I agree they are likely not hard-core AFOLs. Probably just recreational builders who have some idea of elements palette but as you say, certainly not an exhaustive knowledge. Built a few, but not many, technic sets. Would not be surprised if many have one of the other UCS cars.

I know this has been, and will continue to be discussed ad nauseum, but what the color vomit does for me is actually decreases the building experience. I feel I am putting together a clown car, a child's toy, rather than an adult's premium set. Let me be confused, make a mistake or two... who care, I am supposed to be an adult. However, the new parts are cool. Happy to see the new suspension shocks in there. I know a lot were saying those shocks would be very difficult to implement in 1/8 scale cars. So kudos to TLG for doing that. I can replace the color vomit, or at least the majority of it, with parts from my collection, so that is something I can overlook. Still, for such an expensive set this means that I will actually even be adding to that cost, which is somewhat irksome. But, for the new parts, and that fact I think there will be some good B models that come from this, if not pimped up version opportunities, I may consider getting this one.

A lot of focus on the building experience, but relatively little comment on the playability experience. That is what I really enjoy about cranes. I really think they provide a superior playability experience opposed to most other models. Not all, but many. Also, folks should remember, that for what ever reason, Technic cranes have sold pretty well I think. I cannot speak for many other models, but I know folks seemed to really enjoy 42009 and 8288. 8288's resale, back in the day, was as high as any other Technic set out there (don't know what it is now). Very repetitive build, but it offered differing configurations and a lot of playability. Also, there may be another way to look, empirically, at how "boring" a build is. The ratio of pieces/lots at least gives you an idea how many pieces, on average, are in each lot. Sets whose average is high have tons of redundancy in them; i.e. replicated pieces. Sets where this value is low have much less. This works for the Technic line, not so much for others where you have tons of accessories, etc. that deflate this number when in reality it just represents different entities as opposed to variability in a single model. I don't have the figure right now, and not going to re-do the count, but I recall 8288's piece count/lots was really high.....

Agreed. This system. The benefits of this system (which I do as well) is that you can pretty much see what you need, and panels are large enough that for the most part, they cannot hid from you if all combined together in one tote. You can just look through the transparent plastic and then fish out what you need.

lol... although perhaps true, that is not how AFOLs roll on this site....

uh oh... what did I miss? Who released this?

Thank you. This is what I needed.

So weird question to be sure, but can anyone who has 10212 the greatest width when the wings are retracting/deploying? I know the width when they are in their up or down position, but because of their angle I know the width increases at some certain point. I have a spot on a wall in my Lego room that I would like to put it, with the wings still operational, but I need to know if it will actually then they are retracting/deploying. Thanks in advance!

Goodness. These builds are terrifically built. Wonderful details and the mechanics look spot on. Solution for the A pillar is so clever... Thank you for sharing.

Very cool. Great job @jb70. Not so much my cup-o-tea, but it is a cool project.

I think we land people on the sun before this discussion keeps popping up over and over and over.............. and over again.

They cant. Or won't. Not entirely clear.

Thanks. I will wait the allotted time to see if it gives me that option. Exactly, this is what I found as well. This is why I posted what I did last night. I do not think it is possible. Think its time for me to learn and move on. But TY for the response...

Im not totally sure what you mean. It is calling the account a school account, not really a brand account. But it is being held to the same restrictions, i.e. I cannot change the affiliate email address. But, I did add my new account as the "manager" - it allowed me to do that, and now when I log on with my new gmail account it allows me to access my channel's content. But still cannot move it to my knowledge. And if I cannot move it - still afraid it might be deleted. If I can be changed from manager to "owner" I am sure I can change the affiliate email address from a @***.edu account to a @gmail account. But not seeing that option at the moment...

Any luck? I have been searching all day. I can open a new channel, under my current "account" but it is still under the same gmail account. Which does not make sense because when I follow the instructions from Jim's posting it says a new google accoutn will be created. Why this is a problem is because it is the original gmail account that will be deleted by my school and all the content, and therefore the channels, even if I create multiple channels and move my content from one channel to the other. Welp! I am sad to report that my channel will likely disappear. I cannot spend any more time on this and because it is a school account it looks like it cannot be moved. It was a very small channel. Nothing big. But I had fun. Still will build, but I cannot see me really trying to build a channel ever again...

Thank you all for the information. I will look into all these options. @Jim - I used the link you provided with success for moving all playlists. I will look into the rest about transferring to new brand account. Yes, TY for this. If you find the instructions please let me know. I will look as well. What @Jimsent seems to have them as well, but it appears as though this will take some time. I will have to work on things later, but for now this is all very helpful.

Hey everyone - long-time user and I have a bit of a conundrum here so thought I would just reach out to the community for help. Jim, if you feel this better fits somewhere else feel free to move it. I would like to reach the most users on here if possible. Problem - when I created my youtube channel I did so with my university email at the time, which then created a google account with that email. However, I have been alerted that the university will be discontinuing its relationship with gmail by the end of this month. I have moved all my data, so that is not a problem. But my channel, all my playlists, videos, subscribers, etc. are all linked to that email. I am afraid that once that account is expired, I will lose my channel as well. The easy fix would be to change the email address the channel is affiliated with. But, because it is a university account, it is not allowing me to do that. I have tried to reach out to the YT community, with no luck. Wondering if anyone has any ideas or knows someone in the YT community that could help? Again, the issue is the primary email address I used to create my channel will be discontinued by the end of the month. I guess my questions are two-fold. (1) If the email and its affiliated gmail account is expired, does this mean that I will lose my channel? If I lose my channel does that mean all my videos get taken down from YT? and (2) if so is there a way to move all my content to a new gmail account so that I don't lose everything. Any help would be greatly appreciated. It is a small channel and therefore not super important, but it does involve my work in this hobby for the past 8 years and I would really hate to lose it. Not to mention all my music and other playlists....

I agree, probably won't make much difference but I would say that in 1/8 cars there is already quite a bit of load on the drive train. Especially in TLG official UCS car drivetrains, because they have like a billion gears. *break* Great experiment and interesting results.

Dr. is a very broad title nowadays. Even when restricted to the field of medicine. But if you are indeed a plastic surgeon, then the rename is awesome! GL on the thesis... The little dozer is a great build. This contest is coming along very nicely!