nerdsforprez

But what a MOC that would be! I thought as much. But the point stands. Creating a MOC is truly a long, lengthy process.

Take your own advice. I did not single anyone out whereas apparently you have. And just because the OP decided to respond maturely I am not sure this constitutes "getting the joke." BTW.. what exactly was the "joke". Calling the OP lazy (someone is a brand-new member), or an A#$? Or was it the cartoon, or... ??? Trying to find any possible angle where this could have been interpreted as comical. It truly is a strain. Rebranding your post as a "joke" is not fooling anyone.....

5+ years of full-time work, 40 hours a week? Almost no vacation? I don't know a single MOC that has taken that long....

Ignore some of the less tasteful comments/posts from others. If you truly are interested folks here can be a good resource. in short, there are folks I am sure you could find that would help you build a MOC design for a price. A popular builder on this site is @Jeroen Ottens's, and here is a link to his site. https://jeroenottens.com/ However, buyer beware, he charges tens of thousands of dollars (USD) for a MOC (that is not a critique, that is just the cost - very friendly guy) and I am sure you will be met with similar prices for qualified builders. Building a MOC another has designed, or designing it from scratch is a laborious and time-intensive process. I might suggest another direction if those costs do not fit your budget. Have you done your own research on MOCing? There are many, many designs and great builds already available online. Have you seen rebrickable.com? There is a healthy AFOL and MOCing community out there, I suggest you first start by doing a lot of research on your own which will help you formulate better informed, more specific questions which you can then put out to the community.

"Great minds think".... that is exactly how I cut mine...

Oh man. I really might be calling in sick when voting opens Voting for this contest is going to be very difficult. Another just fantastic submission.

Funny how fastidious folks are being for the weight plates of the set but everything else (looks and proportions wise) is crap and folks are okay with it Years ago when I did my rendition of a large Liebherr LR crane I used steel plates as the weight and old sleeper track plates from my childhood for the ballast set-up. I was so happy to find a use for the sleeper tracks. They were from my train sets as a kid in the 80's. The steel plates (I had to cut them) fit perfectly inside the two brackets on the sleeper plates for a snug fit and a 1x2 brick perfectly separated them vertically. They did not go anywhere.

Pareto distribution....

Lol....or simply a misspelling of "solved" especially since w is close to s on a standard keyboard

I believe that was wolved already was it not? I was under the impression that the extra length problem could not be overcome...

I think one of the most interesting things about it all is that HUGE Lego cranes have been around since at least the 1990's. Out of the old Technic Bricks, even before liftarms were a thing. Huge mobile, crawler, tower, etc. cranes. In fact, I thought they were somewhat dead. I guess because of their size and overall impressiveness, they can capture the interest of new generations. Because large Lego cranes have been around from the beginning, and other than the app and what it offers, this crane really does not offer something new. New elements I guess, but they don't offer something that couldn't be built in the past. Frame could be build out of liftarms or bricks. Slewing rings, even large, robust ones could be built. Old cranes were functional. Heck, even the counterweights could be reproduced either by battery boxes or boat weights. As a HUGE crane fan I was ready to buy this set. Even several. I love building cranes that much. But I haven't and I won't. I just don't see what it offers - given its price. You know... I have been thinking. In my efforts to boycott this set I may even break out my old MOC and rebuild and improve. It was an old rendition of LR Liebherr 1750. There was much that could be done to improve it. I didn't make instructions, but I have lots of photos and recall a good deal of details. I have some other projects going on right now, but I might just do it sometime.

River bed, yes. Carpet...no.

And neither can TLG. To continue your example, TLG sent us a crane for the 100 meter high job, but charged us as if they sent the 300 meter crane. I think everyone would agree that the complaints regarding proportions would not be as severe if the price was not so extreme. I think most folks understand that really, for these types of cranes (smaller crawler cranes with no option for jib attachments DO have a fixed arrangement) there is no limit to configurations. The complaints of configuration (i.e. size) come in the context of THE HIGHEST price for any Technic set, ever, by a mile. One cannot be separated from the other. TLG sending the small version while keeping the price sky-high (pun intended) is the very definition of trying to have their cake and eat it too. I hope this experiment fails (though it does not appear to be) so TLG's price expectations are lowered a bit.

Crimony. Well done. And for what it is worth, I like the engine the way it is....

I am impressed with these builds for several reasons. And by "these builds" I mean this one and others such as @eric trax's recent Doosan submission, where Technic or functional elements, electronics, etc. create the chassis and backbone of the build but the exterior and design elements are mostly done with regular System bricks. Both this submission and Eric's Doosan model have great functionality, great as any Technic set or MOC. But the looks are on an entirely different level. They make differentiating between the real thing versus Lego model really difficult at times. The use of system bricks is impressive for so many reasons. But one often not mentioned in the sense of mastery, organization, and knowledge of bricks that is needed for these builds rather than that of just Technic elements. It really is a huge undertaking. For me, I prefer to just build with Technic. This is for several reasons, but one of those reasons is that I find it hard enough to organize, master, and become acquainted with JUST Technic elements let alone learning, using, organizing etc. regular system bricks. Especially in recent years with all the evolution of Technic, it is hard to keep up with all the changes. I can't imagine keeping up with Technic elements, organizing them, learning how to use them, etc. and also system bricks, at least not to the degree these builds (and others) appear to have attained. Although many of my builds have also included both, I find these types of builds much more difficult and time consuming compared to builds that just use one system. Great work both of you... fun to see.

This could lead to some interesting color combinations. Perhaps even some cool color transparent or other elements. If TLG continues this trend this could lead to some neat developments. There can be some interesting elements in space exploration vehicles.

Actually, I cannot understand why one would. One can make an argument for leaving outliers out of a data set if the outliers appear to change the real story of what the data is trying to tell you. But, at least in Technic, pins are often THE story and are hardly an outliers as they are the most common piece in every single set. 1x1 parts - perhaps, but again, that would only make sense, IMO, if they were used very rarely in a set. Yes, you are right. I knew there were problems with TLG coding, so I didn't bother looking at a small sample. Whatever the errors are, they are not meaningful enough to not infer the whole ascending year = ascending set number finding...

I make a topic on it many years ago. I briefly looked at it. Looks like several of the links are broken, I'll try to look at fixing them. Take a look at the pubmed article (ncbi article) its fascinating. This will all be incomplete without the data, but it will give you a starting point if you are interested.

Great job presenting this data, but wouldn't it be better if we placed in all in temporal order (by year)? That way would really help determine any possible increase over time. I want to things that beginning with set 42000 there is a linear progression with set number and time of release but there is not. Folks should also really consider that one cannot compare really small sets with large one in price per gram relationships. The reason for this is the relationship is not linear. It is logarithmic with the curve flattening out as piece count or weight exceeds a certain amount. I have shown this in the past (like nearly ten years ago) but I believe this is because larger sets typically have more redundancy in them (repeated parts such as pins in Technic, regular bricks in other sets) and therefore, at least if you operationalize the term "efficient" with less redundancy large sets are more efficient than smaller sets changing the curvilinear relationship between cost and weight for large sets versus the same relationship for small sets.

Ya think (for those who don't know @Aleh check out signature block)!!!?? Joking aside... I would love to see what you could come up with for this set... You are referring to the chart in the Brickarchitect article right?

Do we have a weight for them yet? A FAIR price would likely be around the 5x11vprice since they may approximate that weight. However, I am sure TLG may add some sort of premium to the price because they're new molds... Oh wow....we said nearly the same thing...at the same time!!

You all knew it was only a matter of time, right? So many MODs and improvements I am sure. This set will be an absolute case study in the ongoing debate of what really constitutes a Modifying a set versus Creating a whole new one. Eager to hear what folks have planned. I have my own thoughts, but in all honesty, any attempts for me to modify this set heavily depend on the frame prices once they are released on Bricks and Pieces...

Sure, its your opinion, and I agree SNOT can be used, and is used, often perhaps in excess or times where it actually looks out of place. I guess I just see the statement of "just to show-off" as more of a judgment than even an opinion, and I question how someone could arrive at that conclusion with no other information, given one typically does not know the person of the build, reason for the build, etc... But I do agree what not all situations require SNOT technique and it can be awkwardly utilized in certain situations.

I need to visit this topic more often. Some good stuff! Not sure what you mean by this comment. I mean, how do you even know it is done to "just show off?" Sounds like a judgment on your part, one that is entirely subjective.

Which is the exact reason, as specified, for my comments about @Unbrickme's post. I won't derail the conversation anymore, but this is really the essence of why I posted to begin with. There is no evidence this is occurring. This perfectly summarizes my thoughts on the model. Great example of some crawler crane. Just not the model it claims to be. This is akin to 42009 claiming to be a Liebherr LTM 11200.9 or something. It just isn't so. And the price doesn't match what you get out of it. Change the name, lower the price, and you have a fun, possibly even instructive set here....