nerdsforprez

One of the cleaner cranes i have seen. Well done.

I just finished building 42096. Took me an insane 8 hours to build. 4 hours to build the thing and another 4 to add the stickers.

I see it very differently. The fake engine block molds for the piston-size elements is a mold that we have seen unchanged for like 20, 25 years? They only allow for engines to be built at a gargantuan scale and frankly I am getting bored of the same elements. I love these new smaller engines. Allows for smaller scaled builds with still some fake-engine details. About the build. Exceptional job. I see you took it apart. No!!!! Did you make a video before doing so? I see that you are a new member. If no video, in the future consider this - a video on this wonderful build would really bring additional attention to it. POSITIVE attention We would have loved to see the functions.

Lot of great opinions, and like I mentioned in the original post, there really are no right or wrong answers because of the subjective nature of the question. Indeed, most of the ambiguity of the question has nothing to do really with whether 42100 was a toy or not, but rather, what is the definition of a toy in the first place. Obviously, a rough division that I won't go into further would be Childs Toy vs. Adult Toy. But now I want to focus on the comment made by @BusterHaus. The example above is very applicable. Lego is certainly taking a new path, at least IMO and targeting the adult population more with sets like 42100. If this is the case, would it be beneficial to perhaps create different divisions of the Technic line? One for child/teens and one for adults? This avoids the tedious task of needing to define toys by price, because as mentioned above, price is irrelevant. But it is only irrelevant insofar as we are talking about a children's toy versus toys for adults. Because price IS relevant if we are only talking about a child's toy. $500 is a hard defining point for a child's toy. Of course there are the rich folks that can afford it, but they are at the tail ends of the distribution and have little to do with mass, public and aggregated opinion. And before you argue against this consider the following: I went back through the Porsche, Bugatti and 42100 threads and some iteration of the same comment popped up over and over and over. "too much for a toy" was the common chorus and built into our collective unconscious decision processes for Lego. But when I present the question in this thread a lot of tough guys (me included ) wanna say something like "price is irrelevant here". So there is a disparity. There is a disparity because as far as Lego goes we are grouping small $20 dollar at barely 100 piece sets with behemoths like 42100. Does this make sense? Like the Hyundai example above, because their history had given them a name (cheap, affordable but crappy cars) they saw it difficult to cleave themselves from this name and reputation but still desired to go into a new realm. Luxury cars. In order to do that they saw the need to create a new division - essentially trying to tell buyers they can be both cheap but crappy car manufacturers AND expensive, performance-focused car manufacturers. Does the Technic line need to follow suite? I don't think that UCS line is trying to do this, I don't see it as the same thing but could it be? $500 is ALOT for a Lego set.... but really only if your comparing it to all Lego set possibilities because it falls on the VERY expensive tail end of the distribution. BUT.. if we compare apples to apples, perhaps only sets more geared towards adults, say the new MF, 42083, 42056, Lego EV3 and others suddenly price really only becomes AVERAGE. Not even nearly the most expensive in the line. Does this affect our decision process? Do we wince less at the sticker price? If so, I highly encourage TLG to think of this direction.....

Precisely. But, if we keep using some form of the statement "$$$ is too much for a toy" we are not being true to your statement above. We get it when applied to boats, RC cars, or motorbikes but as long as we keep using some iteration of the above complaint then somewhere in our collective unconscious as Lego hobby enthusiasts we are defining "toy" as children's toy, not an adult toy. Therefore, that is why I perhaps recommend the delineation and I think TLG may want to as well.

So the title pretty much says it all. I am making this thread because although this might be a good discussion for the actual 42100 thread, at the same time it may distract from it. Additionally, there are other examples i want to bring in other than just 42100. Many of us, myself included, have a problem with 42100's price and built into our complaints is the model's definition. That it is a toy. Who spend this much $$ on a toy? But is it really? Obviously, just because something is made by a toy company does not mean that by default it is itself a toy. Hopefully no one would make that argument on the life-sized Bugatti. Made by a toy company - yes. Made out of toy parts - yes, but a toy? Naw. Why? Because its size? Because how much it costs? Because its complexity and needed brain power to build? Perhaps all three? Another example would be any number of MOCs made by AFOLs. Made by a toy Co.? - No. But made out of toy parts - yes. Are they toys? Who knows? Or do we? Consider a few scenarios: 1) - Simple MOC, built by AFOL. Again - simple. These are my own opinions, but I would venture to say yes, toy. Because it is a simple build, likely to be replicated or assembled by a child. If this is true, then rule out the criterion of having to be made by a toy Co. to make something a toy b/c in this scenario, the build is not. 2) Complex MOC "......". COmplex and unlikely to be built by teen or child. I would venture to say, no, not a toy. Therefore complexity needs to be a criterion. Right? To be ruled out as a toy. 3) Cost. If something is $1000, no matter how simple or difficult - is it a toy? I guess there are those very wealthy parents who can afford such gifts for kids. I remember years ago K'NEX put out a $1000 grandfather clock and a family I know bought their 12 year old one. So, I supposed in such case things can be still considered a toy, but honestly, I have a more difficult time with that one. Perhaps it is more like an investment? Don't take any of this too seriously, I really just am posting this to generate discussion. I really don't have any firm opinion either way. And of course, the above is not even discussing what we mean by "toy". In the English language, there are certainly many more uses for the word toy than just applied to children. Grown men call their trucks, boats, etc. their "toys." My wife calls my RC cars, some of which are well over $1000 my toys. And even my wife's friend calls her pool boy her "boy ....." well, you get the picture and as you can see the definition does get a little murky. But the point I am trying to make is that I think folks are still applying the title of "toy" uniformly and I am not sure it fits anymore. New benchmarks are really, really being set here. Began long time ago when TLG began selling sets with thousands of pieces, typically in the adult genre (UCS Star Wars) for hundreds of dollars. But lately? A UCS MF for $800 USD? And now a Technic set, with 7 motors, a new electronics system, new actuators, etc.? If I think something no longer is a child's toy, because of size, expense, and complexity - well then this set seems to check all the boxes (well, complexity still remains to be seen). What are your thoughts? And would it ever be appropriate for TLG to think of opening a new sector of build aims solely at adults? Right now in the genre of Technic there are sets that take all of 15 minutes with barely over 100 pieces and can be assembled by fetuses as soon as their umbilical cords are cut at one end of the spectrum all the way to now a 7 motor, 4000 piece, etc. behemoth that you need to take out a second mortgage at the other end of the spectrum. Does this seem odd to anyone?

Close. Not attached to the wheels but the rear dff... so not the engine either. That's why the speed of the engine is opposite what you expect given the gear (8th gear engine moves slowest). I agree it would be better if it was connected with the engine.

Thanks! Hopefully it also met the needs of the OP

Not really sure what you are asking but it is very easy to attach a motor at the back. Simply remove the exhausts. Here I have attached a L PF motor, and you can see the engine go through all gears.

I hear you on the pneumatic hosing..... but it is pneumatic hosing after all. Meaning, think of it like a parts pack. I feel I can always use more hosing, is not like the extra pieces for just aesthetics are some common, boring system piece or something. Its like the luggage bag on the Bugatti. Bugs me we have a bag, yet at the same time, it comes with string element with studs on the end, which is rare and I feel, a great piece. Plus, an extra came with the set - so, ultimately when I viewed it this way I was okay with it.

Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Then, any number of gear combinations can go inside for the planetary gear system inside the hub

m.youtube.com/watch?v=L1nLamamzAc Pause at 30 second mark and also check out http://www.moc-pages.com/moc.php/422162 I think i put some stills on my page.

agreed. Honestly though, since purchasing 2.2. tires I always use them now. Bigger is so much better. I don't know the hype for all the 1.9 sizes. Yes, they have more compatibility options than the 2.2, but the 2.2 have at least one all Lego option which allows for a planetary gear system right in the hub. One day I should consider making a video comparing my 1.9 tires to my 2.2; the 2.2 tires win everytime.....

I would not worry about this much if you are a life-long fan. I have learned alot from Technic giants such as @Sariel, but one of the more important things I have learned is the benefit of being in the hobby for decades, not just because of the additional experience it gives, but ones knowledge and possessions of historic pieces. I think this is another thing that @Sarielis a master at, and often he can come up with solutions others cant not because of the shear number of Lego that he has, but the variety and breadth of Lego he has or has knowledge of. Given that, I think old pieces are always useful. Even if they seem outdated. And i think the electronics are very robust. I have lamented many times not buying the RC motors cuz i worry about degradation; but plenty of folks still use them with incredibly positive results . I wish I had pulled the trigger on RC motors years ago.

Just woke up to this beast of a post and Woah! Two comments: - I know I have made this comment before, and perhaps there is a better place to make it, but I think it fits here b/c it drives home my point. What good it the "hot topic" distinction on this forum to distinguish popular topics from trivial ones if the criteria is set so high that even a thread that gets a comment every five minutes (as of this writing, this thread has been alive for 2 hours with 25 comments)? I can't remember the last "hot topic" distinction. The only ones really I remember are the initial posting of 42083 and 42056. I know there have been more than that, but perhaps lowering the criteria for such topics would be beneficial so posts like this get the attention they deserve. Or do away with the function altogether. - Now for the set. 450 euros. So like 500 US bucks give or take. I am not going to complain of the price; AFOLs have been complaining of not having premium sets for years; tbu looks like it may meet that criteria. Therefore, it is going to come at a premium price. Still no more expensive that an appropriate adult-type RC vehicle. My only comment of the price is I am eager to know what TLG is thinking. Lately they really have been challenging the price quota for Technic; and I thought perhaps after 42083 was kinda the ceiling we would see for quite some time. But noooo.... they killed that price point here. Demolished it. Didn't just raise it 20-40-50 bucks. At least a whole 150? (still don't know the amount in USD). This is incredibly brave. Or perhaps just informative. I think it is the latter. Meaning: Lego Technic is doing really well as a brand, even if the direction it is turning is not what folks on this site have wanted to see. I surmise other large, expensive sets are selling like hotcakes; and IMO, this is the evidence. So gripe all you want on the price; but an increase of nearly 50% in price from the previously most expensive set IMO suggests that the price point of large flagships isn't going down anytime soon.

They should work. In my experience, and i have many pairs of 1.9 in. Tires, they fit the 56mm rims well. See also sevenstuds.com for more info.

I am going to go all political here. Smack me for being all Millennial-like. But if TLG can support "cop and robber themes" why can't they support military themes? I mean, if their argument is that they will never depict, or support something as horrendous as war is not the archetypal theme of "cops and robbers" warlike? If creating a toy that resembles the theme is viewed as "support" then I guess TLG is cool with supporting 1) stealing, 2) trying to get away with it and 3) ruthless attempts to rid injustice that likely will end in violence of some sort. Often even death. I'm not acting all Millennial-like cause I have a true problem with all this rather just a justification of if they can allow and even glorify the "cop and robber" theme then why not allow the military theme? ** rant over** New rant here: Please LEGO, rid us of the brown color in the 3L axle with stop. I do not believe there has ever been a good justification for the color. And to place it on top of a blue, white and police-colored vehicle?

This will be my last post on these models.... as mentioned earlier I was still working on one. I promise I am also still building Lego.... in fact I hope to have a project done soon. Previously I did a video of the very-detailed engine for this model. Here is a video showing the features and the drive train. Ultimately, very fun to build, but also very complicated and had a lot of unnecessary friction in it. A lot of surface-to-surface contact for the gears and many cog gears with sharp edges used. Not something you want for a smooth-flowing drive train. But ultimately these are products I would recommend. I actually see them much like Lego Technic and here is the reason. Like Lego Technic for most (not all) adult fans, stock sets aren't much of anything (IMO). Not only are they for assembly, but also for improvement and MOCing. I think my review of the Grand Prix car above is like 42056. Its not really functional right out of the box! It is not simply an "assembly" build.... but more of an assembly-test-modify build. Much more sanding and adapting pieces than the instructions would let on. 42056 was kinda the same, assemble-test-modify build. In that, there is a lot of enjoyment. If you are simply looking for an assemble, watch it work, and leave it kinda thing then I would say this set is not for you. I also think the Company might be understanding this. I just bought the jewelry box for my daughter and we will assemble it together. But it came with sand paper where my Grand Prix did not. Lastly, the wood is easily stained or painted (good thing). So, one can really modify these sets to their liking. If you last all the way to the end of the video, you will see I stained the exhaust pipes - and I like the look. Might take the model apart and do the same with other parts as well.

Yup, I agree as well. In the past, I have built and mainly focused on large, 5,000 plus piece MOCs, but they are incredibly time-consuming and a huge responsibility. I can also appreciate smaller builds and have been appreciating the smaller builds more as of late. That is not to say that large builds certainly don't have a huge place in my heart. Like it or not, large builds are just very cool IMO and I think there is always a large consenting voice on this. Large builds usually get quite a bit of attention.

I actually don't mind the outriggers at all. They may be a little large, but as mentioned by the OP, they likely need to be for such a large model. We have a lot of the large, wheeled telescopic crane MOCs, but there is not such a strong history of rough terrain cranes, especially very large ones, so I also think this is somewhat untapped territory, and this needs to be considered when judging this build. Do keep at it, personally, I think it is coming along quite nicely.

Woah! I really like the color combo on this version. Especially with the lights! Very nice....

No offense, but for video 1, I don't see much of a review. I see a lot of video footage, but no review. Review indicates at least some discussion of the build; some comparative analysis. Also, why show off an uncompleted build? You obviously forgot a 1x2 black beam in the left front.

Sorry if i missed this in the review, but is it common for a medium/large set to come with no numbered bags or designation in the instructions?

I am bumping my own topic. Inspired by @Erik Leppen's most recent post about the upgrades he is planning for 42083 I wanted to look at the APPL value for the set (again, Average Pieces Per Lot - the idea being the higher the APPL value the more redundant the pieces. Example - Lego 8288 had 800 pieces but only in 79 lots. An exceptionally high APPL value for a set of 800 pieces). The value was actually not that bad. Just over 11 - which, as an absolute value is high but relative to a set with nearly 4000 pieces it is not high at all. Therefore, not that redundant. But I thought better of it and I realized that with the increased focus on color vomit in sets nowadays I think this renders my data and whole theory useless. Color vomiting dilutes the relationship between piece and lot count because color variation, especially compared to like pre-2015 when there was not so much color variation/vomit, will artificially inflate the denominator in my formula. Essentially, this counts different colored pieces as unique when they are not; i.e.e functionally the same. So sadly, I don't think the Bugatti's value of just over 11 counts much here. If I thought there was more value to this project I might do a recount but count similar pieces just in different colors as the same (like a 1x5 lift-arm for example in different colors) but then I would have to re-do my whole data for comparative purposes - which I don't think is worth it

Hmm.... that is a good point. I would not doubt if that is it. Although...it is not shrinkwrap, but that could still be a valid reason...