nerdsforprez

I am loving this competition already. This build looks very promising..... glad that you have entered. I will be following this build....

If a large six-bladed rotor, you may want to consider changing the name or something. Six bladed rotor would be something large like a Super Stallion or something. Anything but generic. In fact, I may side more toward your build..... Sup Stallions are among my favorite 'copters out there....

I'm so glad that you decided to enter! I recall quite a few posts on how Lego has been dull for you as of late, so happy that the bug has bit you again.....

Great idea for a contest. I have always felt that aircraft are underutilized in Technic. I am as excited, or even moreso, for this contest as I have been for any for quite some time. GL to all contestants....

This is exactly the direction I think Technic needs to go. Not necessarily moving completely from their bread & butter (cars, construction equipment, etc.) but something in addition to everything we are used to. I did the UT-60D a year or so ago with functioning retractable wings and opening bay door: and it was a blast. Didn't get much attention but it was different than I was accustomed to with official sets and even others MOCs. In your model I do like the looks and I think the size is spot on. I wish there were just a few more functions though. Landing gear would have been awesome. At a slightly larger scale I think pneumatic landing gear would be totally possible. In one of my first projects back from my Dark Ages I bought 7965 x2, increased the dimensions, and added pneumatic landing gear to it. Overall I think the project was a train wreck (I was new to the hobby) but the pneumatic landing gear totally worked. Disappeared when retracted and supported a near 4,000 piece set (non-Technic) when deployed. Overall, great Technic rendition of a favorite. I actually think a set like this would open some doors to others currently not into Technic.....

I try not to be too critical of these models. I mean, even flagships are still considered builds for adolescents. I still, despite what everyone thinks, don't think that even the large sets are primarily developed with adults in mind. So Ackerman steering, etc. just are not primary concerns. So, double-down that rational for the smaller sets. I mean, com'on, what is the age range for the set, 11-16, and we as adults, many of which have advanced degrees in engineering of some similar field, sit around and gripe about things on a set like this? Seems weird. I think @Paul Boratko said it best on the Porsche thread that if he were a kid he would be thrilled to get a set like this. Kids simply don't have the expectations adults do. That being said..... on topic but certainly not specific to this model.... can we get the 3L axle with stop (not stud) in another color other than brown? I mean, there is nothing, IMO, more of a buzz-kill to finally have TLG adopt alternative fake engine layouts but with BROWN cylinder heads. I get the yellow. They make things stand out.... but brown?

Feel free to PM me if interested. I am a clinical neuropsychologist and while I mainly work with adults I have done my share of working with adolescents and children. Good comments above, but to be more specific perhaps if you PM me let me know if the areas of difficulty are verbal or nonverbal. I would assume verbal, due to that is a main characteristic of anyone who falls on the spectrum, but, to borrow from old categorization, if he falls more in the Asperger's range then perhaps verbal abilities are fine. Hopefully the child has had some testing, and if nonverbal skills are within normal limits or above then Lego is perfect. Make sure that you really focus on his interests, regardless of the actual complexity of the model initially. Kids on the spectrum typically have very intense and specific interests, and if this child does focus on that for his first buy. For example, if he likes engines make sure the vehicle has a fake engine. If it is steering, motorization, etc. whatever it is. And trust me when I say that interest may be VERY specific.... there may even be a hyper focus on color, shape, type (racing vs. street) etc. Make sure this is a priority even if the actual model itself is simple and may not seem much like a learning tool. This approach can be like a foot-in-the-door technique, especially for children on the spectrum because once you get them hooked, because of their intense interests and ability to focus if you find that interest, you will be well on your way to later opening him up to more complicated, suitable for learning/cognitive exercise, models down the line.... Good Luck!

So I bought the Grand Prix. Having lots of fun building it. Here are a couple of thoughts: - The engine is spectacular. Nearly the size of Lego Technic engines (slightly bigger) it is even more intricate.... and it is made out of wood! I can't believe the 8 cylinder engine also comes with the 16 valves. Makes me think that it is about time for TLG to redo their molds for the engines of Technic models. I mean, if this Co. can make the 16 valves out of wood then I think it doable. The whole model is pretty intricate. Excellent quality. I will be posting a video with the whole drive train, steering and other functions once I am all done with it. One thing of notice however, is that on the website it recommends the ages to be 14 and above. This seems a little too broad, for the varying complexities of the models they offer is vast. But I will say this, I don't think that most 14 year old could EVER put this thing together. It is more than a follow-the-instructions assembly model like Lego is, there is some deciding and deductive reasoning that has to be involved as well. Don't even think about trying to build it without sandpaper, a utility knife, and a variety of other tools. Though I found the lazer-cut wood pieces pretty accurate, but they do need to be cut from their wood sheets which definitely introduces a safety concern. Lastly, just the motor skills needed to assemble this were far more than anything else I have done. I have built RC cars, 1000-dollar crane models, and nearly every Technic Flagship for the past 8 years, tons of MOCs, and this is by far the most complicated and difficult model I have put together. But very rewarding and fun.....

As a clinical neuropsychologist I can say with some affirmation I do believe there are some legitimate geniuses on this site. At least in the non-verbal category. I would love to test several people on this site (no names) and I think the OP is one of them.

Simply astounding. Anyone who has tried to build large, lego cranes understands what an amazing build this is.....

Woah, woah - easy there. Actually, the post about the 1:1 Chiron didn't make the claim that it was all bricks. From memory only, I think it mentioned something like 90% or something. Not going to look it up, but the official post was more than transparent that the whole thing was not bricks....

Yea we all know why it is done. That was not the point of the post. Again, the point is it counters all the rationale of why it is okay (according to apologists). Why it is okay, according to them, is because it has a benefit (building ease) and no downfall. However, I am curious to see if it is still okay with folks even if there truly is a downfall (it does show through in some circumstances). I especially thought this example was relevant because the showing of color vomit is actually very obvious in the Chiron (not alot, but it is obvious) - AND from what is described by others as the most beneficial aspect of the model; i.e. its looks, and in the back (most appealing according to reviews) no less.....

Wasn't sure to put this response here, or on the more general "color vomit" thread... but I guess here is as good as any place. There has been a lot of complaining about color vomit, on this set and others, and the main justification is always "well you can't see it when it is covered by the exterior" - Well, what if this was not the case? Would it crush all color vomit apologists? I say this because in building 42083 I came across something that I am surprised no one has made comment on. I definitely constructed it correctly as can be shown here: The left side is LBG while right side is black. This is something that is NOT covered when completed.... This actually really bothers me. This is not shown only when spoiler is deployed, or at certain angles. Any direct shot at the back will show the asymmetric colored beams. The back is supposed to be the most beautiful part of the car. I actually stumbled upon this because I wanted to add a light kit to my 42083, but now i actually have the wind kinda taken from that sail, because one of the main points for doing that was to show the back; which now I don't really care to do. Some might think this is trivial, but this is the exact reason why color vomit is a bad idea. Additionally, I am usually somewhat an apologist for TLG; but this was an easy "miss" in the final approval of the model. This liftarm should have remained black.....

I'm a little surprised about some of these comments. The overall size parameters doesn't mean much in terms of piece count (comparing 42056 with 42082) when the density is so different. As mentioned by others, 42082 is very dense. I have 42056 and relative to both 42083 and 42082, it is not nearly as dense. And I have no problem with giving 42082 the title as the largest set. Do I think that they inflated the piece count for that title - yes. But that does not mean they did not for 42055 as well. I mean, I would actually argue that 42055 has more "fluff" parts than 42082. Necessary fluff yes - to complete the model, but still fluff. I mean, consider the "rocks" - 40 1x1 round bricks both in LBG and DBG - thats 80 pieces right there. Then also the larger rocks, 16 of the 2x2 round bricks both also in LBG and DBG - so, another 32 pieces. thats well over a hundred pieces right there. Others have mentioned the dumptruck which is no small thing. That is actually a whole other set within a set. I estimate like another 200-300 pieces there as well. Again, I think the "fluff" elements are necessary to complete the overall set.... and I would agree that perhaps 42082 has more unnecessary or obvious "fluff" elements. But I think it is also a practice they did for all previous sets that tried to vie for the "largest set" distinction prior to 42082 so I really don't have a problem with it.

1: 10 5: 6 10: 4 12: 3 2: 2 8: 1 Wow, one of my favorite contests ever. Great mechanisms involved in all these entries. Loved the use of all the Technic and Lego minifigures. Those who added carnival or park music to your entry kudos to you. And as aside, if anyone is interested I will be opening up a medical insurance Co. for Lego Technic and minifigures. Please send any potential clients my way.......after watching these videos looks like there are many......

I suspected there was another way to power the motors. Thank you for sharing. To me this is more an issue than the non-Lego chassis. I am sure I carry some responsibility for not finding the information for myself, but like I said, it was not obvious by the majority of the other videos out there. The narrative one walks away with from watching the official Lego videos on the build is that it is all powered by PF elements. Which it is not. Motors only. I wish they would have been more clear on this.......

So I have watched several videos, and read pretty much (I may have missed a comment or two) all the posts here and still have a few questions. Overall, I love it and am in awe with the overall project. Not a critical piece here, but they mention it is powered by PF - got it. Some two thousand motors (large). However, no one ever mentioned if they used the Lego battery packs to power the motors. If they did, I would be truly surprised. I would think there would be some form of limit, just like we see trying to have Lego fly, that limitations Lego because the elements themselves. Lego will never fly because to come up with sufficient power to power a flying Lego model would only increase the weight to a degree that would prohibit its flying. More motors = more weight; too much that would preclude flying. Using PF battery packs to drive an actual vehicle, seems to me anyways, the same would apply. To power over two thousand PF motors (large) you would need like a thousand battery packs (AA battery box), which according to Philo's page would be at least 500 lbs itself. Over one million bricks (they can get quite heavy!), 500 lbs of Lego battery, a metal chassis, and over two thousand PF motors (again, another like 250-300 lbs) seems like a lot more in weight than they are actually quoting. I get L motors powered the car, but I want to know their power source. Also, would like to know if they built in steering. Highly doubt it, or why not show it in the video? (hopefully there is not some video out there showing it turning :) But as I said before; overall, fantastic job!

Two pages in less than 24 hours and not a "hot" topic? What exactly is the criteria for "hot" topic? Seems to me it might be a little too conservative.

I very much agree. I mean, one does not have to be rude, but simply posting what could be improved is not a bad thing. And if one posts that something could be improved, this should also not be interpreted as an automatic "i hate your MOC." That is not what a recommendation means. Not at all. It simply means that some one sees something that can be improved.

This has nothing to do with my opinion. Respectfully, I am not sure I see the logic at all here. My comment had nothing to do with the quality of builder's either of these folks are and I have no idea about what "hearts about technics" even means......

Couple of comments about etiquette, since this is what this post appears to be about, rather than the crane MOC in question per se, though it does involve many quotes and responses from others. I will not pull in the quotes from every since response (though I will bring in some), that would be a dissertation, but rest assured, the below references are accurate. Also, I have no affiliation nor ties with @Sariel, so please consider this before any criticism of "defending" him. I try to be as objective as I can, and here is simply my perception of what I read in the post in question. In summary, I think it is very important to be aware of the trajectory of responses that led to the outcome. No one has made comment to this, and I think it helps add clarification to the very nature of the argument. For what it is worth, this is a community, and in any community you have to be aware of the members at play. Whether you like this or not this is the reality; and often age and maturity helps bring forth this awareness. That being said, there is the trajectory of responses that led to the fracas. This all began because of @M_longer's response here: It really would look better built in smaller scale, because now it looks like few pieces mixed together. You have big off road chassis, tiny outriggers suitable for cherry picker and thin boom, that does not match the scale of the model. Actually, it looks like some russian crane trucks or specialized oilfield machinery: Now, @M_longer has been criticized in the past for being too harsh, but from my point of view, he has made great strides forward in this. Several past posts have even been quite complimentary and when advice is offered it seems to be with less acrimony. The above is no different. Very harmless, appropriate, and accurate IMO. Next, @Aventador2004 came back with: It doesn't have to look good to work. I see nothing wrong with something like this. A freestyle build based on something else. Nothing wrong with this either, however, it does appear blatantly like a "cover-up" (i.e. trying to back-track by calling it a freestyle build when the initial builder obviously was not free-styling) and as though he is defending the original OP. In fact, @M_longer then returns exactly that. He states that as a free-style the model is great (literally says "great" and "powerful"). The rest of his response is only defending the idea of calling something what it actually is. As a freestyle model it looks great, powerfull. But as you can see it was named Liebherr LTM 1060? Does it look like this? The post then compares the two images we are all now aware of. I will not repost. And @Aventador2004 then comes back with Quite similar actually, it has the body lines, capability, and all the functions. Now, this is where it all falls apart for me. Up to this point, things were pretty copacetic. The MOC in question, compared to its real-life thing are not even close. Objectively depicted by image overlays later in the post. What accounts for the disparity? I don't think we have an organic problem of vision, therefore the only reason I can see for the response by @Aventador2004 is that there is a lot of top-down processing going on here (if not familiar - look it up). @Sariel notices this, and posts: Respectfully, you're starting to bend the fabric of reality here. This is a LEGO model that looks quite similar to a Liebherr crane: I am not sure how this could have been more delicately put. To claim that the two pics are "bending reality" seems to me, entirely accurate. In fact, the picture overlays demonstrate this to a degree where I think Sariel's comments can be taken literally. To bend reality in such a matter one has to look elsewhere why this might be the case. Like I said, aside from an organic visual problem, the only thing I can see that might account for this bending reality is some bias lens that the poster (@aventador2004) is seeing through. Begs the question of what this might be. After this, things disintegrate. It involves what appears to be a young (if not underage) but otherwise fantastic and contributing member of the community trying to take on, verbally in argument, one of the most seasoned and talented builders out there. Sparks are likely to fly here. This is not news nor should we be shocked by this. As mentioned, nothing is inherently wrong with this, and to this point things were more or less copacetic. So we then are left to see how things play out. And, at least to me, the first logic and posting etiquette that begins to fade is not by @Sariel , but @Aventador2004 . A couple posts later he comments that he did not want to argue about the topic (when by all accounts he appears the instigator), calls Sariel's past comments "harsh" (I see no harshness in his comments to this point) and then he begins to throw barbs at others that haven't even joined in the conversation yet. Stating "At least this OP did not claim to Have a Game Changing Moc" really shows the true motivation behind @Aventador2004. This is a cloaked insult, and readers need to be aware of this. Comes not from wanting to contribute something meaningful, but because of hurt feelings. It is drudging up a past that has long been at rest. This horse was dead a long time ago, and he chooses to dig it up and kick it again. This is where @Aventador2004's comments lose me. Fingers are being pointed at sariel but it is the former who first turns to name-calling. Which, by the way, then the original OP, who has been quiet through this whole ordeal then chimes in, and also joins in the insults (i.e. " May be no one should be making any MOCs, except you as well?") I will stop here. My point is the trajectory of the posts in question tell a lot of the story that people are missing. I am not sure the comments by @Aventador2004 are as benign and innocent as people are perceiving. Etiquette begins to fade here and true colors are beginning to merge. This has been a theme in the past, and I know this will be unpopular to state, but I am going to anyways. There appears to a lack of logic here to critiquing Sariel's initial comments, and it eerily smells like jealousy. As we look forward to the future of postings, and their etiquette - @Aventador2004 was certainly correct about one thing. In a future post he states if we are to keep the hobby alive and not make it into "Only the fittest survive". We need to encourage some builders onward. This does mean holding our tongue once in a while, or just not posting. If you dont like it, don't comment. Simple. Eloquently put. Solid, and mature. Bravo. Words and maturity are spot on, as well as the rationale. Despite this, it is also incomplete. If I were to be so bold, I would take these exact words and extend them to offering something like: We also need to be aware of over-sensitivity from young builders and new or inexperienced builders need to be open and receptive to feedback from others. EVEN IF IT IS UNCOMFORTABLE. Lastly, young builders need to be aware that their MOCs are not likely to be as popular as those more experienced, and this needs to be accepted. The power of online posting lies with the OP; and awareness of the above is paramount to have a positive experience. We cannot go too far to bend reality to make life and her experience more comfortable for others. Because, in the end, I am not sure this really helps them. Perhaps in the short run, but not the long run. "Encouraging some builders onward" is not just defined as being nice or massaging feelings; but being accurate as well. From the perspective of this lone member, that is exactly how I perceived @M_longer's and @Sariel's comments to be. Why? Discussion is good here. Perhaps there is a learning point - perhaps not in the direction you want but a learning point nonetheless. Listen, this sounds harsh, but I truly mean it from a supportive role. You mention, again, that you wanted a "calm" conversation or something like it. However, it was you that first turned to insults. To play the good guy here is not your best card. Perhaps there is learning here - like I said, just not in the direction you want it. I for one would really like it if this thread stays alive. I would like this conversation to continue. Erik - I am not sure I see Sariel not being nice at all. Perhaps defensive, but not unkind. But I think defensiveness is perhaps appropriate. I can own up to it, I feel a little as well. I think we have a right to stick up for the very nature of this forum, and as I see it, Sariel's concern of being too accepting, or unwilling to call a spade a spade is a real concern here. IMO, it really applied to the post in question.

Again, helpful to read entire post. OP already mentioned he will not be using tracks shown

No gripe here about no transmission. Its something different. 8070 got alot of flak, but i liked the diversity. Love this car for the diversity as well. Adjusting shocks is just awesome.

I also think that it is imporant to remeber that the relationship between piece count and scale are not linear. Difference between, say, 1/10 scale vs versus 1/8 scale is approximately double the piece count. Take for example paul b's vampire gt versus sheepos mustang (which really other than the transmission, was not a dense build). Approx 1700 pieces versus 4000 respectively.

Not a waste of my time at all. I am in the market for this set, but on the fence right now. I want to get as many opinions as I can. I likely will eventually succumb. I generally don't care about the static nature of a set. It could be the crappiest design ever made. But if there are many parts I want, or combined with the actual model a cool B model, or even C, or I envision other cool MOCs others will come up with using primarily the set in question then I will typically get the set. In a nutshell, I try to envision the future of a set, not what it is at the time of purchasing it. Case in point is both 42056 and 083. At least on this site (not general public) - I don't think either was a smashing hit. However, others have created awesome builds primarily using the colors/pieces from the sets, certainly the tires for a wheelbase, and the "pimp your ***" version of both models has been super fun. I purchased both, and have not regretted the decision. However, if it were not for all the modifications, other MOCs, etc. I would have been very disappointed. In other words, if Lego were not Lego, and only models. Disappointment. But because they are Lego. No disappointment. I get this is somewhat a circular argument here.... technically, every set can become a parts pack for some cool build. But I guess that is how I see Lego, period. An object of circularity, if nothing more.