nerdsforprez

Agreed. Not to mention 42100 carries the Liebherr name. Which means that 42099 really is unique price-wise. So not only is there a premium for Control+ bur b/c of Control+ .....AND it was the first one out? (Just a guess)

Not to beat a dead horse but I do like this thread (of course I do, its mine ) and more importantly the input from others. I will try to update it from time to time when new sets present themselves. The weight for 42099 is finally out (at least on BL). A paltry (relatively) 2156 grams. So, not only is the PPP extremely high at 26 cents per piece the Price Per Gram is extremely high as well. Kinda wrecks the models we have derived so far. Comes in at twelve cents per gram. To put this in context, the next highest priced set of the last 6 years (w/o inflation, so actually the band is likely a little narrower) is 8043 at 8 cents per gram. 42030 is 7 cents per gram. So, with no cost being paid to a Brand or Trademark, I can only surmise that we really are paying for a premium for the new non-motorized parts and the development for the new Control+ system. I don't make this statement as an evaluation of any sort, rather just a descriptive one. One can easily argue that the development of such a new system is very expensive. I will be interested to see if 42100 shares this cost as well. If 42100 comes in at a much less PPG, only then will I really wonder what is up with the pricing of this set.

Ummm...did u see the 42083 thread?

I would not completely rule it out. Over the years we have learned that Technic sets, especially the large, over 2,000 piece sets have a lot of redundancy and inefficiency to their construction. I suspect this model will have much the same, especially in the chassis. I would not be surprised if someone is able to built it more efficiently, with a better use of parts. Perhaps even with more leftover original parts. Parts that could potentially be used for a second section. BTW.... am I really that daft? I am not seeing the second part of the boom which you speak of....

Anyone else find it interesting they chose to use an adult instead of child or teenager to model these official pictures? Can we safely assume sets such as these (with a ~500$ ) price tag are designed for adults and not kids/teens.

2 : 10 8 : 6 7: 4 1 : 3 3 : 2 4 : 1

Thank you for this clarification. So if this is the case, then really, all the times folks pointed out "wrong way" wasn't wrong at all? Correct? Since really, no one uses these tires on a Lego model for water dispersion - pretty much only for climbing.

Golly! I think this is excellent! Is this your first MOC submission? I love the compactness and scale. Not a huge fan of the front wheel arches, but that would be really my only critique. Gullwing doors are nice, they remind me of Crowkillers original cars. I love your solution for keeping the chassis narrow (read diff) - and the extending spoiler is a new thing for me. We see a lot of retractable spoilers (parallel to length) but not many extendable (perpendicular) to length. Is this a real function in actual cars?

Answered by PM

No prob Well somewhat. Variance is actually a GOOD thing when looking at the relationship between two variables. In terms of correlation between two things (variables), the more appropriate way to term their relationship is CO-variance. The amount of variance they share. If one variable has little variance, or both do, this can severely restrict a correlation. If both are highly variable, but they vary together - you can still get a high r squared value. In reality- that is really the only way to do so.

Ummm, I think we are getting our wires crossed a bit. Its not necessary to get too far in the woods with statistics here, but based on some of the things you mentioned, I can see there may be some misinterpretations. I think you are misinterpreting internal consistency. Data sets of an outcome variable don't have internal consistency. Internal consistency has to do with test or measurement construction, not outcome variables as nature provides. Low R-squared values are not desired outcomes. High are, but not low. Anyways, validity encompasses reliability. You cannot have a valid measure of something without it being reliable. However, the converse is not true. You can have a reliable measurement without it being valid. Ex: scale for weight cannot be a valid measurement of one’s weight without it being temporally stable (reliable). However, a scale can be very temporally stable (again, reliable) but off by ten or so pounds and therefore invalid. So, making a specification of temporal stability is redundant IMO. Stating accuracy of weight in accounting for cost implies temporal stability. That is the reason for my word usage. But either way, if it makes better sense to you to use something that indicates reliability over validity. Great. Whatever works Also, as far as the questions you pose in quotations - those are not my questions at all. They may be your interpretations. Fair enough - but they were not the questions I posted. Succinctly put; my question was: We have the cost of a set. Many folks think that PPP most accounts for this. That is not correct. PPG accounts for cost better. So, is it time to abandon the PPP? Based on the input from others. I don't think it is. Not because PPG doesn't outperform PPP is accounting for cost, because it does, just in that there are other reasons to use PPP for. If others want to branch out and examine the set of all possible variables that may account for set price - fair enough. That is great. But that is not my endeavor nor the reason for the post. As put out by another contributor to the thread, I think the idea works best by some "quick and dirty" measure for accounting for set cost. Nothing elaborate. I am a utilitarian at heart, therefore I focus on that which may actually be put to use, that which may be functional. No one is really going to use an elaborate formula to account for set cost. Something that accounts for 86% of set cost variance, especially that which can be done in just a few seconds, is pretty darn good. Something that accounts for like 94%, which can be done almost as quickly, IMO, is even better.

Not sure why. Consistency relates to reliability and that is not the discussion here. I think (hopefully) that this has all been about is validity, not reliability. Reliability has to do with the temporal stability of a measure, validity its diagnostic accuracy.

Both are appropriate, but PPG still outperforms in its relationship to price. Not prediction, but relationship. Graphs are fun and visually help with literacy, but overall numbers do not lie. Weight, compared to piece count, on average, better accounts for set price. In a sample of 50 sets over the last 6 years, it accounted for for over 11% more of the variance of cost than did piece count. Also, by adding more sets with a heavy load on PF elements, this discrepancy widens. As @kodlovag pointed out, there is also a restricted number of sets with high PF elements and piece count. What this means is when any new sets are added that fit these criteria, such as 42099 and 42100, this discrepancy will widen even further. When sets without PF elements are added, it narrows. Very fun stuff. Special thanks to @kodlovag for all his work. Regrading the log vs. linear interpretation, in laymans terms what this means is that PF elements (in amounts described by him) and other sets really are different animals altogether. Perhaps not appropriate to lump them together in a PPP camp when considering sets. One can really get in the weeds with all this. It is fun and academic, but really I wanted this post to be practical and I think we have some practical solutions or recommendations. We still get a large number of "what set should I buy" posts here typically from new users. While this is fine I guess I would provide some simple, but more objective guidelines. In summary: 1) Take care of your subjective needs and wants first. No one can dictate those for you. Desires/wants of helicopter versus supercar, truck and trailer versus farming equipment, etc. - no one is going to be able to take care of that for you. 2) get opinions from others in terms of building experience, etc. 3) take a good look at parts list, - obviously. 4) - when, and only when, you have really boiled sets to a few options, and you just want to make an economic decision (other factors are taken care of) - know that weight of a set more accurately accounts for price than does piece count. This is especially true for large, over 2,000 piece sets with many PF elements, but obviously true for ANY set with tons of PF stuff. 8043, 42099, 42030. Also understand because sets are including much more than standard ABS (wires, metal, etc) price prediction will be more variable and unpredictable. This also goes for snap-judgments on sets based on only PPP. Not only would I not recommend it, but especially on sets with high PF (or other systems, say Control+) elements AND high piece count. PPP is simply not going to be an accurate measure of anything valuable. COmparing a PPP value to say regular primarily ABS sets is like comparing apples and oranges. Lastly, I am very clear not to say this is a way to "determine the worth of a set" - you will get all kinds of subjective comments. Better put, I would say this whole post, of PPP versus PPG are only measures that account for the variance of a sets cost. Whether or not that constitutes as "value" or "worth" will be up to each and every reader. @kodlovag listed a very good one at the first of this thread, there are also many others.

Great Job! This is where it gets fun. Have you tried to do a trend analysis comparing a linear vs. logarithmic trend for the second graph? Your trend seems to perhaps better fit a logarithmic trend versus linear. Especially given that one yellow guy, between 3000-4000 grams, at about 125$ dollars USD. What set is that? Extremely heavy but cheap. Looks to be in the 2005-2007 time frame. Also, if your conclusion that larger sets get relatively cheaper, then yes, you are looking at a log. trend versus linear. If you do the same graph, but set a trend analysis you can both compare whether a regular linear versus log. would best fit the data, but you will also have a set, average line through the data points and you can then visually see (or even calculate) how much each data point (set) deviated from the central line. I agree it is fun to look at data this way. Couple of things. In the dorky trends I have examined in the past, your interpretation of sets being cheaper as they grow larger is correct. Check out this post I made years ago: I believe this is a function of what my piece versus lot count post above is all about. Larger sets, on average, have a larger ratio of overall parts to new parts than small sets. Think if it this way. In a set of, say, only 200 pieces most of them will be unique. Other than pins, there will not be many redundant parts. However, in really large Technic sets, the exact opposite occurs. There is tons of redundancy. Large Technic sets usually have hundreds of pins (which require little to no ABS - they are so light and small), and even other elements come in groups of 10's, 20's, etc. In fact, in larger sets, it is actually rare to find an element that is not duplicated at least once. So, TLG needs less molds, relatively speaking, for large sets versus small sets. Summarized, there are a lot less unique parts relative to overall piece count in large sets than small sets and that makes them cheaper to produce. I think it is really cool to have someone look at similar data, in a similar way you did years ago, and verify similar results. One last lesson, and I fully expect to get some blow-back from this, is that I know Technic fans gripe about the high prices in the last years of some of our large sets. Sets above 2000 pieces is now not all that big news whereas prior to 2012 it had never occurred. And folks are complaining about the prices. Well, I hate to break it to folks, but looks like TLG is pricing Technic sets on a logarithmic curve, meaning that the larger the set, the cheaper it is (relative to smaller sets). There is a hidden cost effectiveness in producing large sets, and they are passing the savings to us. Look at @kodlovag's last graph. If you draw a straight line through the red marks, as you approach 4 and 5,000 gram sets only the Porsche and Bugatti really fall in line. Many of the other sets fall below the line meaning they could actually be more expensive (course there are many that are more expensive as well.). Oh and I did find one error - though I didn't look for others. the BWE looks like an expensive set based on weight but somewhat a rock star at one 7 cents per piece for PPP. I think you have the weight wrong. It looks to be nearly 6000 grams, not 4,000. Crap.... I just realized that BL does have manual weights. So... theoretically it would be possible to factor out manual weight. I think they also have box weights for many sets. Crap... I can see myself going down a fox hole here.... We'll see. I have on a trip right now, but will be returning home soon. Not sure how much time I will have to look at this.....

They are interesting cases. Time will tell, but I agree with all you mentioned. Folks need to account for all these things when considering the price. Interesting note, despite all the complaints about the Bugatti, it was reasonably priced (as defined by BOTH PPP and PPG). However, the Porsche was a little extreme on both PPP and PPG. Both had quite a few unique pieces, had to deal with licensing, etc. However, the Porsche was a foray into the new, whereas the Bugatti was only following tracks. I wonder if the extra two cents (ish) per piece AND gram (weight) were due to the point number five you make. Development. Though the Bugatti also had development of course, perhaps the Porsche had more, because it was starting a whole new line (UCS Technic)? All this is just speculation of course, but interesting in terms of your points. No one is arguing for a "purely economic" anything. Your words, not mine. In fact, I like how other's word the measurement (below). It really is just a "quick-and-dirty" way of looking at things - but even though it is quick and dirty I really need to emphasize something. One does not need to be statistically sophisticated to understand this point. And that is, even in the messy data (with like 8043, etc.) weight accounted for 94% of the variability of a sets cost. That is AMAZING. It really is. So even though there are issues like licensing, etc. only 6% of a sets price is left explained by factors other than weight. Perhaps not "pure" or "perfect" - but pretty darn close. A whole 12% is left unexplained (which is still really small) when we use piece count. However, I do really like your second point. I hadn't thought of that. Admittedly, that is somewhat a subjective interpretation of value that I had hoped to avoid, but it does provide a great explanation of why PPP continues to be useful. Something PPG does not capture. Thank you for sharing. From the gut-reactions at least on this side of the forum (I don't visit other places very often) I actually do think that folks base opinions of sets off of PPP. Perhaps it is some of our younger members, but this type of stuff comes up all the time. In fact, and this is only pulling from memory, admittedly I did not go back to check all this, but every year the Technic flagship models come out and the costs keep hiking on up I see PPP all over the place. Sure, it is easier to obtain than PPG, but not by much. Quick search on BL yields a sets weight. But I do agree with your other point. The whole PPG would be better if it only included ABS (and things like motors, etc.) but not manual, etc. However, I really don't think it matters much. Again, anything explaining 94% of ANYTHING is quite remarkable. Like it or not, both PPP and PPG show excellent relationships with a set's price. It is just that PPG is better, and seems to take into account at least some degree size or weight of the elements, not just individual elements themselves, and I don't think it is that hard to get. Not as easy as PPP. But both take at least a little work because there are very few than can do that form of mental arithmetic in their heads. Interesting. Yes, I would like to know how this plays out in other genres. I do remember in the old data set I looked at I did look at Star Wars models. Lots of ABS in the large UCS SW ships - I remember like the Super Star Destroyer and Imperial Star Destroyer were relatively heavy because of all the large plates (i.e. heavy - lots of ABS) and when considering PPG over PPP it really improved the model.

Many applications for these, but one of the first that comes to mind are mobile cranes - parts for lifting the boom. This was one of the complaints i had for 42009, was that the angle for lifting the boom was only like 45-50 degrees. Maximal lifting stability occurs at more like 80 degree or so. This part will make that more easily achievable.

A caveat prior to reading this: The below is not an argument for value of a set. That is highly subjective – I get that. So, please no rants on the subjectivity or personal nature of set’s value. If you are willing to buy a helicopter set, at any cost, because you love helicopters - that is terrific, but doesn’t have anything to do with this post. If you are willing to buy a set because it has 6 Claas tires and you value them above all else, regardless of the economic value – great, terrific, but again, it doesn’t have anything to do with this post. I preface the below because I don’t want this post to morph into some debate on who values what. We have plenty of those discussions. So, please actually read the below. If there is a post about the subjective elements of value, I will kindly refer you to read this portion of the thread. Okay – with that out of the way, here we go! I have alluded to this in the past, and I did some real simple analyses on this stuff years ago, but I did not feel like digging through my hard drive to find the files and I know the work I have done in the past did not cover anything past 2014. I felt like once again examining the issue of Price-Per-Piece (PPP) as it relates to a measure of monetary value for Lego Technic Sets, but with all new data beginning with sets after 2014. I have not added other Lego genres in the data set, so I do not know if the following also holds for other genres. Issue-at-hand is PPP. It is tempting to use this as a metric for the value of a set. Easy-peasy right? Simply divide the cost of a set by how many pieces it has and you get a price-per-piece value. The cheaper every Lego element is, the better the value of the set, at least from a strictly economic standpoint – Right? This comes with obvious flaws. The most obvious, is that the economic value in a set is not dictated by pieces, but actual LEGO. It is not difficult to understand that a set may have few pieces, but if those pieces are large and cost TLG a lot of ABS or difficulty in production/assembly, then they will be expensive. A set with tons of panels will be relatively expensive because panels, typically, are heavy (relatively speaking) because they contain a lot of product (ABS). With this understanding I propose that PPP is an outdated metric and I would encourage discontinuing using it as an idea of the value of a set from a strictly economic standpoint (NOT counting subjective factors). I don’t make this recommendation because it is meaningless. On the contrary. In the information I share, the amount of pieces in a set and its price are HEAVILY correlated. So, obviously it contains some value. I only discourage its use because there is an equally simple, yet fairly more effective way of measuring the economic value of a set. And that is measuring the Price-Per-Gram (PPG). Take the cost of a set and divide it by its weight (I obtain my values from Bricklink but there are other sources). In this case I think grams is the easiest way to get this, giving us the PPG measure. Let’s look at why I make this proposal. In a data set starting with 2014, I randomly selected two sets from each year group from the following size categorizations: Large sets (over 2,000 pieces) Medium sets (1,000-2,000 pieces) and Small to Medium sets (under 1,000 pieces) And simply looked at their correlations between price and piece count versus weight. If I do that we get a correlation of 96% between set cost and number of pieces and a correlation of 99% between set cost and the weight of a set. Without getting too technical (there are some young readers and I want them to grasp this) that means that number of pieces roughly accounts for 92% of the cost of a set and the weight accounts for roughly 96% of the cost. That is AMAZING. Despite our complaints that means that Lego sets (at least Technic sets) are reliably priced (on average) and things like license from like Porsche or Volvo means very little when pricing sets. This should be great news for any Technic fan. It also means that using weight or number of pieces are nearly identical ways of measuring the economic value of a set (even though using weight still beats piece count. It explains 4% more of price than does piece count). However, there is one caveat. I left some information out. I excluded all sets with an abnormally high PPP. Anything over 13 cents a piece (examples are 42030, 42070, etc). Believe it or not, according to the range of sets I sampled described above, there were relatively few. But I left this information out for a simple reason and that is sets with an abnormally high PPP usually have large or heavy pieces in them. Obviously, if set has a great PPP, but contains like 50% pins (small, light, relatively little ABS) then this is important to know when comparing to a set with like panels, 15L liftarms, motors, battery boxes, etc. When adding sets with an over 13 cents a piece value, the numbers change from the above. For piece count, the number of explained price drops to 86%. If we use weight, we still explain 94% of a set’s price. The difference here changes from 4% difference (above, with NO abnormal PPP sets) to a difference of 8% when abnormal PPP are included. To further drive this point across, if we reach back to 2010 (admittedly, I don’t like to do this because going back that far inflation begins to eat at our results) we find the famous but economically infamous 8043. Tons of motors, tons of actuators, etc. … tons of non-traditional Technic elements. Still LEGO just not in its traditional form. Adding just this one set further separates the delta value of explained variance of piece count versus weight in relation to Lego costs by another three percent (11% difference). This sounds like a very small number but when it can add several percentage points to a data set of nearly 50 samples, well it really drives the point home. I write all this at a time when 42099 and 42100 are coming out. 42099 numbers are already released. At only 958 pieces but 250 USD, that is like an atrocious 26 cents per piece value. However, the central point of this post is that if that is the metric one is using to decide or emotionally respond to 42099 then they are cheating themselves. PPG is not perfect, and when adding abnormal sets (as defined by many non-traditional Technic elements, i.e. motors, LAs, etc.) it is equally important to recognize that its correlation to price also goes down. JUST NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PIECE COUNT AND PRICE DOES WHEN ADDING THESE ABNORMAL SETS. So by no means is it perfect but PPG easily beats PPP when discussing their relationships with set cost. I have 42099 values for cost and piece count. If I add it to the data set our correlation drops drastically. 9% to be exact. From 86% to just 77%. Weight for the set is not out yet (or at least I have not found it) but I suspect the relationship between cost and weight will drop as well, just not to the extent of cost and piece count because motors, large, heavy elements, etc. will be taken into consideration. I suspect 42100 will further this theme. Fun thing to examine. Eager to hear other’s opinions but please try and stay on topic. The above is certainly not a perfect formula but it is better that what people use right now. And yes, I get that using a set’s weight contains non-ABS parts. Manual, packaging, etc. I would argue it is all LEGO, I mean TLG produces it right? But, I don’t want to get into that because it does not matter. The relationship is improved by using weight versus piece count – you really can’t argue with that.

Thank you both for the responses. One thing I don't think has been mentioned yet is that how many other sets do folks anticipate these parts being in? What is their potential? For the hubs it may be tempting to think that crawlers, because of their need for strength, high RPM prior to hubs with reduction later on, really may be one of the few applications but I doubt it. The reason why is that based on what others think I may just wait until future releases when the same parts might be released but without the Control+ parts that increase the price. Hard to tell what contributes to the price hike more, the Control+ or the new elements. Likely a combination of both but one has to assume, because of the cost of developing the motors, app, etc. it is driven up more by control+. If this is the case then perhaps a set without C+ gives us the elements we want without the exorbitant price? Certainly this is only speculation. Also, I guess as a counterargument it would not make much sense to include such beefy parts without motors, etc. to drive them.

This is key and something that, at least of those I have seen, all current reviews miss. THis may be one of the greatest benefits from the new hubs. Virtually all Lego builds have this jerky movement but if the new hubs limit or stop this, .... THAT is a huge improvement. How do you search for them? I am on the site and I can't find them. ALso, when I do search for something it says it is searching through 1415 elements, which is certainly not even close to all Lego elements. Am I doing something wrong?

Lol.....so true!!! That brings back a tactile memory. Just to think, there is a generation of kids/adolescents that will have same memory when they are in their 40s, 50s, etc. They will look back on the old BB box and their sore fingers, but with nostalgia....just like i do with the toys of the 80s.

What a great model, thank you for sharing. I am not sure what I enjoy more, the model itself or the story behind it. Not knowing much of the background, what has been told by others who know you well is enough to put a smile on my face. I am so impressed with folks that build for the shear enjoyment of it, or to produce something they feel proud of, rather than the sensationalism of attention in a click-happy world. Patience often is coupled with negative emotion, but in your case, all this patience paid off. I am very impressed with this build. Profile looks incredibly low to the ground. Especially the second picture. Incredibly sleek. I don't know if I missed information on the rims.... I assume they are a 3D print? can you provide some details? I as well as others am not sure about the red and orange, but at this time that is my only bit of critique. Can't wait for a video to see it in action. Im afraid I will need a video to truly understand the suspension.

Not sure how beneficial it is to make global recommendations on personal taste. I, on the other hand, love the looks of the model. It doesn't fit the model in name or performance, but I do like the look. Very much resembles a crawler in real life. High to non-existent front wheel wells, shortened front end.... etc. The real problem, IMO, is that of identity for this model. It is called an extreme off-roader, which makes some sense because it is obviously geared for speed and not real crawling. However, it is not that the looks aren't BAD.... it is that they don't match the identity of the model. If looks and identity are matched, then it should be geared slower and given the name of a crawler, not just extreme off-road whatever. Then name, performance (more or less), AND looks would all match.

Don't comment much on MOCs but I absolutely love this one. The performance is out of this world for such a large build. I know L motors are fairly powerful, but really, it seems you are drawing every ounce of power out of this build you possibly can. Also love the looks, the color combination is terrific. Usually I vie for third party tires in and off-road build, but the CLAAS tires look and perform great. *Sigh* been more or less away from the hobby for more a year now..... can't wait to get back. This will be one of the first builds I try once I am back.....

certainly climbs a lot better but I hear lots of clicking gears!

I never knew this individual but I did know his builds. Based on the responses from others, he was an incredible person. Sad to lose him as we need as many of those we can get. Best wishes and condolences to his family and friends.