nerdsforprez

Especially love the belly shot...

Wow. Incredibly clever. Great job.

Above I mentioned I was "bored" with this topic. Well, I guess not completely b/c here I am posting again.... Not trying to be divisive, and certainly not trying to throw shade any which way... this is just an observation. But lately I am noticing a trend that I wonder shoots us in the foot as AFOLs of the Technic genre. This trend has once again been tickled by the new BMW motorcycle set, (42130) which some are already clamoring has problems with the gear shifting mechanism. But others have no problem with it. The observation goes something like this: Its clear that for folks on this forum we would prefer to see more complex, sophisticated and mechanically accurate builds. We are constantly complaining about the simplicity of sets emerging, especially those that are dubbed more for adults than kids, by what is printed on the box, price, etc. However, if a set comes out of the box and does not work absolutely perfectly, or requires a bit of deductive, or heaven-forbid even inductive reason to figure out, then we nail TLG for being sloppy, lazy, etc. Again, not saying anything is wrong with that... I get the reasoning of "a 2, 300 dollar set should come with all the tools needed to be working properly" - I do. That is a rationale argument. But I am wondering if it shoots ourselves in the foot a bit. Lemme explain by a little example. Its been a while ago, but for a sec I took a break from Lego and bought several of the Ugears models. https://ugears.us/ They are pure assembly models b/c they are made out of wood. Can't take apart and build something new. First one I did was the antique car. Took several tries to build and get working properly. You lubricate with wax, and need to sand pieces, etc. so it makes sense that there would be a little thinking and variability in the building process. At first I was mad. Frustrated. I viewed it as a flawed product that reflected poor marketing and production on the part of Ugears. But the more I thought about it, working with wood, etc. I though perhaps part of the experience is solving the problem. Not so much an error on the part of Ugears, but I recognized how complex and nuanced the task was. Once I saw the problem in this way, I set myself to work on it. And like I said, in a few tries I had the model working perfectly. Since then I have bought several more, and they all needed some deductive and even inducting problem solving to figure out. Lot of sanding, using wax, etc. But the process has been incredibly rewarding. And I know some have had similar experiences building others MOCs. I have built many where the instructions are just piecemeal, or not perfect. Alot of thinking goes into building a MOC like that. More truly building than just pure assembling. My point is if we complain too much that sets are too simple and inauthentic, but also complain if a mechanism doesn't work perfectly, every single time, with no application of our own problem solving devices, I can see TLG being confused.... and thinking "why would we create more complicated builds if you can't build the mechanisms that we already have in place?" Now.... word of caution... I get that stark design flaws are different and should not applied to the above. And such have found themselves into Lego models in the past and likely will continue to do so. But I do think there are situations where there is no stark design flaw, or perhaps no flaw but something could have been more efficiently built, and because it does not work right away we throw up our hands and say "design flaw!" and turn away. That really is a slippery slope... because its not just Lego models that could be built more efficiently... but news flash, virtually ALL builds that have ever been built can probably be built more efficiently. This is just my opinion and experience, but even official models should be viewed as "building" and not "assembly". To me at least, it entails some thinking on my part, beyond just the instructions. More than a simple "paint-by-numbers" sort of thing. Though it takes more time and energy, I find the process more rewarding. And I think building a Lego build, with 2-3,000 pieces, gearbox, etc. will ALWAYS at least have some element of "building" (i.e. thinking beyond mere following instructions) as opposed to mere assembly, and IMO that is a good thing.....

You know.... this makes me think....but of a response better suited for your "Technic is just for kids thread..." so I am posting there...

Not sure what you mean here. Anyone, no matter their experience level, can make errors, especially when they are rushed to meet some deadline. Which....and I'm not trying to throw shade Sariel's direction (I feel enough of that has been done already), he had admitted several times he needs to do for viewers. And builders errors don't have to be huge to gum up a lego transmission. Too much friction here, a pin sticking out a little too much there....and viola!!! You have problems in your gearbox....

Great corollary. I am sure the original engineers of the internet have similar grips about how their invention is turning out. At least insofar as social media is concerned. But that is not anything new. How the social mass violates and twists a novel, brilliant invention - I assume there is no shortage of examples here. We should take consolation in that we are not alone. One could probably make this type of argument with any intricate, beautiful invention that is turned over to the masses. It gets diluted if not outright violated. I don't make the comment out of disparagingly. It just is that way. When you think about it, it makes sense. Brilliant solutions, products, inventions, etc. are produced by the top tier of a general distribution, if not a whole different distribution than the average. Of course things don't make sense, or get twisted, etc (add your adjective) when applied to the masses (average).

I won't respond to everything here. First, though, perhaps we can't change a Lego set to EVERY whim we would like it to. But certainly can change it to many. There are never any absolutes (ooppss, I just used one) in any type of hobby. Car-making, RC vehicles, etc.... you can't make ANYTHING to match every whim. Didn't think that needed to be stated out loud. And all respect to @allanp - you make some really good points. But I guess I am kinda bored with the debate. All seems so subjective. These are all personal opinions and desires, and you can't objectify or litigate those. There are many who love everything you don't. I think @Thirdwiggsays it best. I think we are underestimating the last statement. Their target crowd is not folks here on the forum. Based on the product they are putting out, which is likely based on years, perhaps even decades of marketing research, is that the majority of buyers are looking for a shiny, good looking display set. That is it. Their products reflect that. Convergent validity. And I am fine with that.

Yes, I understand the color coding thing. Ease of building. That is why I also said: But about the color cost. Are you sure it doesn't cost TLG more? Paint costs money. And has been shown before, elements can actually have different weights based only on their color. Plus, a metallic shade seems to add something else. In all other aspects of manufacturing, paint varies in quality, and differs in mass, quality and cost. Yes, perhaps not basic black and LBG, but I am discussing the colors seen in the front shocks. If there truly is no additional costs, why not use these colors more? Can you imagine one of our UCS supercars in say this pearl metallic? I would gladly pay more for these colors.....

Although the set, IMO does not have the functions we want I kinda feel that is up to us. I think a set should come with all the functions I want about the same way I think a real competition car, or expensive RC truck should come with all the functions I want. In that THEY AREN'T. They come "stock" for a reason and it is up to the owner to update it according to their whim (s). But these pieces. Right here. Lego might get me to buy the set if not just for these pieces right here. They look premium. For one, the color, at least of the front shocks. Beautiful. My dream Lego Technic set would come all in such colors, at least for the chassis, engine, etc. They give the build a "real" feel to them, almost as if one is working with metal. I don't care if it makes the build hard. Can you imagine building an engine with these as your colors? Or at least somewhere in this palette? Not pure chrome (too bright for me) but the duller, still metallic look of these? And the rear shock looks more realistic to me as well. Less-toy like. And the brake disk. @sariel's review mentioned that it looks like it may have been cast separately. Don't care if it actually was or not (probably not) but just the look of it is premium. Well done Lego! Anyone have any info regarding is it expensive for TLG to do elements in these colors? Why not more of this stuff? I would gladly pay double the price for a set that did away with color coding, did engine and chassis elements in such colors, to enhance the "real" feel of things. I hope to god that some day we get engine elements (new ones, not the old) in similar colors. Wonderful review. I especially like the pictures with the body panels removed. I like to see the innards. I did this with the Chiron and also Landrover and it looks shnazzy........

Yes. It is. Per @Sariel's review.. COVID I think folks. He has been using them now for a while....

Yes. And in @Sariel's review he states it is the hardest spring to date...

Those shock absorbers.....

Yup.....

In @Milan we trust ...

Got it. Well it looks great. WHat about the red and green lines at the bottom, if they are not for lights, are they wires to something else?

Great job! Agree with the rest. Eyebrows are cherry on top!

No takers? Okay, just wondering if anyone can give any feedback in terms of if there are any extremely odd or expensive pieces? I get flex cables, and the "gate" grill pieces may be, but other than that I am not seeing anything too bad. I should have all the other pieces needed for this build. I suppose I will have to build black or one of the other more generic color combos.

Lol.... I like how you worded this. I believe this is a new line of UCS Technic styled MCs. Perhaps even rolling out every other year, like the UCS cars, just on an alternating cycle. At least that is how I believe it has been pitched at this time....

So I am about to order this car here in the US. Excited, even though it may take 8-10 months given all the shipping problems right now. I think it would be the absolute best to actually have a rendition of this in Lego. I have seen @Lox Lego's version, and no shade being thrown to it, it is a TERRIFIC build, but I do think this version captures the car's essence better. I would like to build it. Few questions. I think the best way is to buy the instructions through rebrickable. It gets @brunojj1 a small fee for his hard work and makes sure credit gets correctly appointed. Am I correct on this or is there somewhere else I should be buying the instructions? Unfortunately, the color which I am ordering the car is in their selenite gray magno. I've done the research, but there are plenty of parts in this build, at least the body work, that are not available in DBG which is the closest to the gray magno. If I could build the car in the color which I am buying it in, that would be the best, but looks like it is not possible. If I am wrong feel free to correct me. I don't like to talk about copy-cat brands, but are their brands that offer a better array of these pieces in a DBG than Lego? There are now nearly an infinite amount of copy-cat brands out there, all with varying levels of quality to legit competitors to absolute trash. No way to keep tabs on all of them. Anyone know of pieces out there that would work in this color for this build? I see the black version built and posted above, as well as several other colors, are there any AFOLs out there that have build this wonderful car in other colors not shown in this thread? Lot of questions, and trust me I am also doing some work in researching, etc. I don't think my first option is a possibility (this car, in something like a DBG) but thought I would just reach out to the group.

Oh awesome!!

Sounds good to me. For what it is worth it looks like my comments about scale were the ones that were waaaaaay off After @GerritvdG's photo he/she posted, I did some digging. I probably should have done this before even commenting. Quite amazing the differences of different vantage points of pictures taken. From one angle, the ship appears very short and stout. From another, long and thin. Either way, I learned a lesson regarding these ships. Either way, they are fantastic builds and I do love that they are unique. We don't get a ton of large ship builds here. Perhaps the fact that such large builds are rare (of ships nonetheless) lead to my error in interpreting their scale.

Class act response right there. Honestly, disappointing response. Not that it disagrees with my observation, but that it is vindictive and salty. Disappointing also because I fear you really did not read all my responses. If you did you would find two things: (1) About the scale, I was wrong. Plain and simple. This was proved to me by a photo posted by @GerritvdGand me doing some more research. I admitted for large ships as these, a single pic from a certain vantage point can distort things. Which is something I learned. Not something to really rack someone over the coals over. I learned something new - which is actually a good thing. (2) *sigh* this is something I already mentioned but I am afraid you did not bother to read. I did not have a problem with your post. Nor do I with other posts similar to it. Lots of pics without context. Again. NO PROBLEM with it. However, in the context of many, many other posts being completely shut down for posting the exact same way I was just wondering about the disparity. Which is still an observation that is on point. I will end with I think your submissions really are terrific. Previously I also said positive things about them (see comments above, unedited) but it appears there was so much top-down processing going on here that you ignored that fact. I could have worded my nit-picking observations better, which I will do in the future. Perhaps some introspection on my own is something that is warranted, as I did not mean to offend at all, but apparently I have done just that.

Agreed. And I don't care much for any of these sets but as a positive I am very happy with the new elements, and newerish elements but in new colors. All for Technic branching out its element palette....