nerdsforprez

I have also ordered the book and built the simple clock. What a treat! QUestion for you, does yours work well? Mine works for a few seconds, but then stops. Also, not sure i used the correct length for the pendulum. The book states the pendulum should be around 9.8 inches, but also shows it as 3 15L liftarms, which is more like 16 inches. How long is your pendulum? And did you use the exact weight recommended in the book?

I don't see how paying for something precludes the payee obtaining joy. This is a flaw with modern consumerism, and doesn't reflect the reality for all people. I enjoy paying for goods and services that carry good value. I enjoy paying a good tip at a good restaurant that I received good service. I recently made a purchase at our farmer's market this morning. I enjoyed giving the couple my money for the wonderful food they grow. I am interested in mutually beneficial things. I gain by the goods/services others provide, and they benefit from the money I give them. Mutual. Reciprocal. Obtaining stuff free is a flawed and even pathological social relationship. Even if initially enjoyed, eventually it will burn out. I am not sure why so many people cling to it. If one's joy is dependent on obtaining something while the other party receives nothing I recommend examining this relationship

This indeed is a great model. Is it still put together? Even if there there were pictures of is construction / deconstruction I am sure folks could re-engineer it. Do you have any more pics of its construction? If still put together, when/if you do take it apart, could you take some pics of it at its various stages? Great job btw....

thxs!

Okay,,, just seeing this thread. Few questions I have, and sorry about the noobishness. I haven't played the Lego points/insider game for a while. If there is a GWP that I like now, if I make two separate purchases will I get two GWP? Scenario - I plan on buying two Milky way sets, each over the threshold of obtaining the current GWP (books are my passion). So, if I make two separate purchases will I get two separate GWP sets?

So, another question for the group.... Wow... I have been out of the game for too long!! I see on the insider points page that there are all sorts of free gifts one can buy with their insider points. But the one I am looking at "World of Wonders" is out of stock. Anyone know if these come back in stock with time, like regular sets do?

The Milky Way set. I want to buy at least 2 and make a larger version. Perhaps even add another color. I also think there is some modifications that could improve it. While I love the darker blue at the bottom and off to the right, I think adding some above to the outer most ring would look great as well. Yea, I think you are right about the GWP. I just missed out on the P1 Logo GWP, which is a same. Not excited about the current GWP, so I will wait. I could have swore I saw a 3x points offer before, but don't quote me on it. Thxs for your response. Good point. Used to buy often, not so much anymore. But I'll look for the next GWP I like. Milky way set. Mentioned this already, but I want to buy two and create a larger, more detailed one

So it has been a long time since I have bought an actual set. Long time member, and I have built up quite a collection, and I mostly MOC. But there is a set I want to actually buy! So fairly excited. Reason for this post is that I don't know anymore the best time to buy. WHen 2x or 3x points are given, or when the best time for bonus sets is. Thoughts?

TY for the response. I deleted the whole app, then re-downloaded it. Ran the firmware update again and it worked. Thanks!

Hello Everyone - Looks like there is at least some chatter on this thread for troubleshooting BuWizz problems. I own BW 2.0 and it is telling me that I need a firmware update. When I press the red icon for "update firmware" nothing happens. 5th line down, right after "waiting for BuWizz 2 to restart... it just stays in "connecting..." mode. The BuWizz unit is just blinking red lights. ANy advice?

Yup. Agreed. But for paddle shifters, just based on basic hand ergonomics, I don't see any variability in how paddle shifters can even work, unless the "opposing implementations" mean they aren't even paddle shifters. I.e. like the center console shifter... But it does bring up a good question that I hadn't even considered for the Lego cars. Are these supposed to work like the real thing in that the shifting is pulling and not pushing? I dunno...

we are talking about paddle shifters. Not central shifter, which are very different. Just basic ergonomics don't really lend themselves to "pushing" the paddles, at least as I understand it. When one drives, palms are facing driver. Hand muscles are stronger, and more refined, when pulling fingers towards oneself as opposed to flaying them outwards. Of course I could push the shifters by reorienting the hands, like if you were pushing something aways from you, .... but obviously that does not work as it takes additional time to take hand off steering wheel, reorient, etc... As I mentioned, our family has both a crappy, old car (2011 hyundai sonata) and a modern sports car (2024 M2). Both are "pull" in terms of using paddle shifters...

? Is the P1 different than all other cars? I have an old hyundai sonota. Gears change by pulling. Gave that to my kid. Now I have one of the new M2s. Pull. "pushing" makes no sense. I believe it is pull. Actually... I am editing my response. For Lego, perhaps it is push.. but that is not how it is in real cars. In real cars, gears change by pulling on the paddle shifters...

Agreed. . One cannot litigate preferences. There is no fact here, only preferences and perspectives. Some may be more accepted by others, but hardly accepted as "fact"

This is awesome. Truly. If this were offered in book form, I can 100% guarantee I would be picking up a copy.

So now there are many modifications done by @M_longer for this set. I have purchased the instructions to all the modifications. I will also be fiddling with the cab, since I think it is horrible. Perhaps I will start a 60409 modification thread, it may be worth it. There are so many modifications already available, and it is not even available in the US yet. For those interested in the modifications by the OP, just a word of caution. There are many hard to find and expensive pieces. Like the boat weights of old for the luffing jib extension, or the new connector with 3L axle (only available in 60420) for the Y guy arrangement additions.

What a terrific model. TY for sharing. I also enjoyed the video and how you illustrated the functionality. Not only in nature, but also on the dyno-meter like contraption you made. Extremely well done. Wonder if the new G500 could ever become something like this. Also would be interested if the wheels from the G500 would fit on this. Prob. not on suspension low setting, but def. on high suspension mode.

lol...yes

Anyone know if there is a parts list for the Military Crane Truck by @efferman?

Interesting feedback. When you say functions are incredibly well done, did you play with the gearbox, suspension, etc. ?

There are many I could quote. But here is a recent one that just popped up on my feed. Fairly popular and reputable media oulet. Car and Driver. These folks know cars even, but they dont know Lego. "Lego set of our dreams" they call it. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a61572472/mclaren-p1-technic-lego-set-details/ yea...I don't think our gripes about these sets are shared by the general public.

Oh but you are. At least this is my argument. Brief illustration/hypothesis. Having a monochromatic gearbox may very well be the desire of a narrow segment of the market audience. I think this is exactly what TLG is trying to tell us. Of COURSE it looks clownish. No one is trying to argue otherwise. BUT, and this is a big but here, it is INCLUSIVE, meaning it will include folks that perhaps need it to be polychromatic. It includes older folks that are more visually impaired. Same applies with perhaps having a big clunky gearbox. Perhaps it more inclusive because, for although it still demands fine motor skills perhaps it is more inclusive in that it includes those who have aged who might have some limits in these areas. Limiting the color palette of the gearbox as well as reducing the size of the gearbox (and increasing fine motor skills) certainly narrows the market pool. And I do not think it is a false dichotomy. I think it is a real dichotomy dictated on market forces, which obviously we have no real knowledge about. But, I assure you, TLG does. They pine over their quarterly reports like the best MOCers pine over the details of their MOCs. They are making calls and decisions with huge impositions placed on them as dictated by the market. I don't know, but based on simple FB and Instagram and other media outlets reports of the model (not just the P1, but essentially all other UCS Technic cars), the reports rave about the model. And they are not paid by TLG. The chatter is always huge for these sets. Also, just look at the past models. How much data do we have here? When was 42056 introduced? 2016? 8 years of data and really TLG has not changed their approach on these cars. They have improved, but I would really like to hear an argument that could convince me their overall approach has changed. Big, paneled, clunky but popular supercar focused on looks that has thrown in a few functions here and there, but built in such a way that the functions are not the main show. That is their modus operandi. That means ITS WORKING - at least according to their goals. Which means the market for these cars is huge. They are wildly popular. yea... no need to take this approach. I didn't say the things I did to make a mockery of folks. I know you and others don't see themselves that way, and I know your not that way. But that doesn't dispel the notion that, and I think I am accurate here, most on this forum have some specialized training or experience in the realm of design or engineering, or some related field. Or, at the very least, years if not decades of experience with Technic. Which is a positive! Don't process it as an emotional thing. Just process it as a logical thing. Additional training or experience in any discipline typically means increased demands or expectations. Nothing to be ashamed over

But there is. Perhaps not dictated by the boundaries of what the Lego brick offers. I feel your argument is only hinged on this, one-sided. Perhaps there are NO reasons why they can't offer such a model. I don't know. I agree with @kbalagethere are limitations to what can be done with ABS. But I will leave this to much more experienced and talented builders than myself. The reason why may have nothing to do with what is possible with the Lego brick. It may simply be market forces. The market may simply say, sure, you can offer this type of product, but you will lose money on it because you are targeting too narrow of a market. Which is precisely my argument.

I believe you are proving my point. The points you make about accurate mechanisms (angled steering wheel, layout of the gearbox) I do not think are known by the general public. They reflect an understanding that comes from training, experience, and years of building with Lego. To the untrained or casual consumer, the steering probably works fine. Clutch gears on one shaft and opposing gears on another? Brilliant! But not an understanding, and therefore a preference, by probably 80 or more percent of the market audience. Again, I feel you are proving my point by demonstrating the preferences stated reflect training and experience in the field, likely not held by most of the market audience. Therefore, this is not a false dichotomy. I would argue it is not really a dichotomy at all, because again, we are discussing nuances here, not a hard black and white distinction. Does it have steering? Yes. Does it have a gearbox? Yes. Suspension, other functions, etc. yes yes and yes. Those are examples of a hard dichotomy. A "false dichotomy" would be between looks vs. functions... period. Meaning choosing looks and having NO functions, or vice versa. I believe your gripe is not that there is no steering, or no functions, it is that they are not good enough.... i.e. where they fall on the continuum of good functions is not acceptable to you. This is not a false dichotomy rather is it simply a failure of meeting the expectations of the tail end of the distribution (to the right). In simple terms, it is simply a failure to meet the standards of those highly knowledgeable and skilled, which, btw exists like in every hobby. Do you think RC enthusiasts, who have been in the hobby for decades, buy an RC model and leave it at that? No... they chop it up, mix it up, modify it, etc. because it does not fit their wants. They exist in the top (to the right) of that market distribution (in terms of knowledge, etc.) and the manufacturer, in their efforts to sell to the masses, simply is not going to create a model specifically for them. What about someone who rock crawls? Jeeps, trucks, etc. with decades of experience. Here in the US, even off-road enthusiasts in the market for say a Ford Raptor (which... Ford here is actually trying to target the top of the distribution) - you think they buy a Raptor and leave it alone? I have tons of buddies who do this, go on rallies myself, etc. and I can tell you folks do not. They buy, chop it up, modify, etc. Ford, despite their best attempts to produce such a niche product can't fit everyone's needs. It is a different world when you are trying to meet the desires of the top ten percent of a marketing distribution. Which I argue most members here on EB (at least the Technic sub forum) are. And I feel the animus many feel reflects being in this "different world" better than any overt shortcomings from TLG. I am no Lego apologist. I just think that sometimes, we as AFOLs need a little paradigm shift. TLG is no R&D arm of BMW, Audi, or other high-end engineering or mechanics companies/firm. They are a toy company. Selling toys. Yes, their market may be adults nowadays for certain products, but they are still toys. In the words of @kbalage they are "abstractions" of real machines or concepts, not miniature versions of them, made from entirely different material. There is a difference, and I think we would be well to remember that. That does not mean improvements cannot be made. I would LOVE no color-coded elements in the chassis design of these cars. I have griped about that for years. I know I am building a toy, but when I see clown-colored chassis I am continuously reminded of that which gives me a negative building experience. But I know TLG knows of this complaint, and continues to produce clownish-colored chassis, so I know I am the outlier and I will likely not get what I want. Given the trade-off that I have already discussed... I am fine with that... You speak aspirationally but not logically. "They don't have to be" is entirely correct when viewed in the abstract. What is possible, which entails pushing boundaries, limits, etc. When viewed this way, as mentioned, you are correct. But this is the perspective to take as if one were working at like the R&D arm of some huge engineering firm where their mission goals were to do the impossible. I think your error is understanding what TLG is. While correct in some contexts, given the context TLG finds itself in, I fear your perceptive would bankrupt TLG. They are not after "what is possible." They are after what is sellable. The only boundaries they are concerned about is pushing market shares higher. And that is the best news for us as AFOLs. By doing so they create a massive, massive market, third-party companies, accessories, etc. so that serious MOCers can do the REAL building. Serious MOCers can REALLY engage their creative core. If they did not, I do not think we would have the creative outlet we now have..