nerdsforprez

Not sure if the builder is a member on here or not..... but if so, would love to see additional pics of this beast, video, or at least some additional information. As a builder of several large mobile and crawler cranes, I can really appreciate this build, even if the looks are little off. This may be the largest mobile crane out here (in Technic bricks). Those are PP puller tires, BTW...... Just thought I would share....found it on brickshelf http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=565012

I second all the praises for the steering. Brilliant. Also....love the choice of vehicle you produced. Frequent clamoring about so many vehicles built here out of Technic... but if there is such variety in the vehicles produced, then I don't mind. Wonderful job...... the Avtoros reminds me of the Ghe-o Rescue only bigger..... From the video it appears to climb just fine. Perhaps not 45 degrees, but close to it. Also, with relative ease. I would not be surprised if it can climb 45 degrees.

--- thanks for posting these pics. This helps a lot. Interesting development. In the US I was informed that after such changes sets would not be available until AUG - so I cancelled my order and bought one from someone else. I cannot believe my luck in that they did not ask for a dime more than they bought it for (300$), USD, and it was unopened and in perfect condition. But I am curious, earlier I mentioned that I received a credit via email from TLG for 25$, for the hassle (which I lost b/c I cancelled my order). DId anyone else receive such a coupon?

Hope we get to see your new Lego room/man-cave. Post pics when done. I have also hung sets, and found lots of luck with fishing line and just simply placing the line in the black pins between elements (liftarms, etc). If you place the line in the gaps on each end of the pins, wrap it around the pin once or twice and then connect it between liftarms, etc., you create a near flawless hold.

I will have more specific feedback after a video is posted...... But overall, this looks superb. Fantastic looks and functioning. Thank you for sharing.

As commented on MOCpages....... wonderful job. Love all the functions... video is great as well.

I just got an email from TLG. My order, which was placed like two weeks ago, will not come until Aug. They indeed state there is something wrong with the packaging. They stated they are throwing in a 25$ Lego credit though.....

GIven that you know the design is for 1500 RPM, I assume you have visited Alex's website? lpepower.com Most of the information you need is there. Here is the information from the inline three that you seen in my creations.http://www.lpepower.com/products/sys-inline-3-engine There really is no comparison. The torque is phenomenal and at 1500 RPMs..... well..... 5-10 faster than Lego engines make the mechanical power much higher. I think you will suffer from material error before you max out any of the LPE engines. I have never maxed out the power of my inline 3.... and the highest I have ran it is like maybe 80 psi. Every time i have ran it that high I have damaged elements. The reliability of my little engine is great. I have had mine now for at least 2, maybe three years...... and my latest post http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=131241&hl= when I pulled the motor out of my unimog and put it into a dragster it worked just fine (after like a year of no use) I lubricated it ... no problems.

Check this link out: http://www.moc-pages.com/folder.php/198856

I am going to practice what I preach here and challenge my own theory that 42056 is not out of line in terms of other large set's price. Weight of the Porsche's booklet is listed @ around 1350 grams. The Arocs, which has more or less the same amount of parts, is listed at 950 grams. that is 400 grams right there, and overall the differences of the total weight of the Arocs and Porsche is ~500 grams.... with at least (and likely more) 100 grams more dedicated to the inner boxes, specialized packaging, etc. So, (although this may have appeared to be common sense to many, I prefer numbers to intuition) we can probably accurately surmise that the additional cost is wrapped up in packaging and the booklet. So if your claim..... above... is accurate then yes, the pricing is off, because the costs associated with the packaging and booklet are well under those associated with the actual production of the ABS used in the model. The question remains however - how do you know this? I have no inside knowledge of the matter, you very well could be right. But what is your source? I can see the production of the book being just as expensive as the costs associated with the ABS. Perhaps not in terms of the actual paper, printing costs etc. but think of the costs associated with gathering all the guys together for their....hmm... "model shoots" This type of photography is entirely expensive. Moving equipment around, all the people's time that might have fairly expensive salaries to begin with, etc..... I don't think that the costs associated with the booklet are entirely quantifiable with simply considering paper, etc. -- Perhaps you and others don't value all these factors, and as I said initially I respect that... makes sense, but that does not mean a problem with the pricing structure of the model ---- just you don't value what the set has to offer. Completely different things here.

Yikes! Sounds like a very rash conclusion - especially because there may be some lack of fact-checking on your end. Don't kill the messenger here. I really am just reporting data. The figure of 5007 came from Bricklink. This was about 1.5 weeks ago. Now it is listed as actually 5020 grams. Sources are likely to differ a bit..... so don't be surprised if there are small differences. If it is really more like 4.8 Kg - then I stand corrected. But BL arguably is a fairly good source of information. Can I ask where exactly your figure of 4800 grams is coming from? I assume from Jim's review? If you would read carefully, Jim even comments that this is an approximation. Be careful to not fall victim to your own accusation of "building statistics"

Not to beat a dead horse, but I am going to bring this subject up again. The initial intent of this post was to demonstrate that the pricing of the Porsche, while perhaps its absolute price is high, its relative price is not out of line with other large Technic sets. It did so by using data (price per piece) with certain strengths and weaknesses. Now that the set has been officially released we have another piece of data. Overall weight. Now…. I will obviously get a lot of flack from others for using this metric to measure LEGO value for an obvious reason: overall weight is going to include the weight of booklets, packaging, etc. Got it. Fully aware of this. Naysayers who use this point against the data I present below please be aware I am fully conscious and aware of this fact. Truth is, however, overall weight might be one of the best metrics we have in trying to determine what the price of a LEGO set will be based on limited data. I personally have looked quite a bit at the relationship between number of bricks and the cost of LEGO sets versus the weight of a set and its price. The latter beats the former across various time periods (1990s versus 2000s, 2000s versus post-2010, etc.) and different LEGO genres (City, Technic, Star Wars, etc.). It is a way to measure how much LEGO one is receiving. LEGO is not completely synonymous with ABS. Believe it or not, the packaging etc. is all part of a set and therefore needs to be factored in. Perfect metric? Absolutely not. A good one, debatable, but perhaps one of the better ones we have. Technic set 42056 weighs in a whooping 5007 grams. Perhaps it has fewer pieces than the AROCS, and NO PF (motors etc. weight a lot) but it is certainly meatier (or at least the whole package) (about 500 grams meatier). So where does it lie on the continuum of weight and price? Right where it should. Below is a graph that shows where it lies in comparison with the sets that I presented at the beginning of this thread: The Porsche set is the dot that lies right at the very top, far right, the 300 mark (USD, vertical plane). What we really are really looking for here is the amount of space that the dot is from the straight line. This is the amount that the set deviates from all the other sets in terms of its price relative to its weight. The line is where, on average, a set’s price should be relative to its weight. If it is above the line it is more expensive than other sets and if it is below…. well you get it. As can be seen, there are several sets that sit higher than the line, even higher than the Porsche set does (Volvo Loader, 8043, 9398, and new heavy lift helicopter). What this means is that they are priced higher than 42056 relative to their weight. All in all this is limited data, I know. It is also nothing overly sophisticated….actually very basic. Done simply in Microsoft Excel. But what it demonstrates is that we now have another data point in which the pricing of the Porsche set at least appears to fall in line with other large Technic sets. Sure, perhaps you are paying for something that you feel is not worth it (the booklet and packaging) and I totally respect that. But the argument that one is getting less for one’s money is not objectively supported. Subjectively – perhaps… because what one is “getting” varies from person to person. Some value packaging and a booklet, some do not. Some still value the set (the actual ABS pieces) itself despite its flaws, and some do not. But all that is a debate on the relative value of the material. In terms of ACTUAL material (ABS and packaging, booklet, etc.), the Porsche set appears in line with other large Technic sets.

Not sure the Porsche pricing is higher than "normal" - check out the pricing and availability thread As for the comments on the Gizmodo page.... there really does seem to be differences between Technic builders and more regular "system" builders. At face value one seems to be concerned with function and the other with artistic appearance. Fortunately, LEGO encompasses both. Unfortunate for them, however, they don't seem to realize it.....

Every once in a while something special comes around. IMO, this is one of those things.....

Agreed.... also, with all the improvements I think are being made I think this is an excellent set to purchase. Perhaps it has its many shortcomings..... but it sure is turning out to be a fun project to modify and alter.....

So I have been following this for a while, here are a few observations regarding friction. Although it sounds like a lot of the friction issues have been worked out with Blakbird's fix and others..... I see a couple things that can add very minute, but still important, unnecessary places of friction...... on step 111 I think the use of the 3L connector is unnecessary. It rubs against the the two points circled. Anywhere axles are flush against connectors you will have additional friction. why not increase the length of the of the axle that joins all parts, gears, etc. and use a 7 instead of 4L axle? For bracing, perhaps one 1/2 bush can be use to make sure there is no movement. But the 3L connector to ensure no movement is overkill.... and likely causes too much friction. In the same step....(111) it appears that the toggle joint pin connector (white arrow): has only one point of connection (other than the gears). I am not sure.... but this seems insufficient. Under torque, could not this piece turn slightly to increase friction in the mechanism? I would like to try it out myself, but out away from any LEGO at the moment. It appears it could easily be braced with a perpendicular connector: ---- this may require the liftarm that accompanies that space (13L; light bluish gray) be changed from 13 to 11.... but I don't think that will cause really any problems. Not sure if it would be that much of an improvement but it just seems that the toggle joint pin connector is too poorly braced. Lastly.....again with the 3L connectors. Great part... to be sure, but IMO too often used in this set and add to the friction in the gears unnecessarily. on step 269.... these are three points of contact that do not have to be there. I get that you dont want the gears sliding around, but each of the following gears are either backed or have out in front a bush so I don''t see them going anywhere (and two of the three are axles with pins... they are not going anywhere). Why not change the axles from 4L (w/pin), 3L, 4L (with pin) to 5L (w/pin), 4L, 5L (w/pin) respectively followed by a 2L connector (they would not touch the 13L gray liftarms.

also.... I don't want to distract from the real intent of this post which I am following with much interest....but I will quickly add this..... I think that so much of the time those that follow threads like this and perhaps technic-heads in general we focus so much on correct engineering, physics, etc. that we forget about the science of materials. I went to school with a metallurgist and when I initially met him I was like.... oh yea, I guess there is a whole science dedicated to the study of metals, alloys and similar compounds. That makes sense. Engineering, physics and the like aside, we can never really reproduce anything even remotely close to the real thing because we are working with entirely different materials.....

It really is about realism. Many of these really don't make a different regarding driving the models. Lego PF is too slow to really make most models (not all) need these mechanical advantages, but it is still fun to try and mimic such real-life applications. The Porsche, technically, doesn't even drive as is out of the box. As for the concern this might be a growing obsession..... well, welcome to the club

Fun to sit back with coffee and finally get around to reading this thread. This is really turning out to be one beautiful machine, just like we all knew it would. Just added to the "follow this" thread list

Thanks to everyone who is adding to this thread. My model is ordered and I will just play the waiting game until it arrives. In mid summer, likely about the time that my model arrives, I have to travel for work and will not be home or in my Lego lair for several months. This set will hopefully give me some outlet as I am away however. I plan on building a true "ultimate" set.... with all the upgrades that are on this thread and several of my own. I am already lamenting the fact that I have used most of my black 3l pins. I have thought, so many times while building, "leave these alone, I can use them elsewhere" but am sad to report I never heeded those thoughts. Although I still have many, I have nowhere near the amount I once had.

The shot of the sealed 8480 is enough, IMO, for this post to remain here in this subforum...... Thanks for sharing, I also would have never seen it without this post.....

You are a better man than me. I don't think I could have resisted the urge to jump right into the pool of blue bricks. Neither do I think I could have resisted the urge to grab handfuls of stuff wherever I went.......

Valuable post and valuable discussion. Here are my thoughts: If the adding of third party elements is to enhance Lego performance and simply increase the amount of customization allowed in LEGO then I am all for it. That is fun and simply because LEGO has limited parts does not mean that builders have to limits themselves as they build. I have mentioned this before..... personally, I like to build and create things. LEGO simply appears to be the best (IMO) medium for me to achieve that on the scale, budget, and time that I have. If I find other mediums that are better or offer more variety, they I use them. I engage in RC building, model building, and other hobbies as well. But don't engage in any quite as much as I do with LEGO. It simply, for me, is the best medium to accomplish what I want to do. I have already tinkered with several projects similar to the one above Tons of fun. Here is the caveat though..... if one is doing such building to replace the fun or performance of RC then I think this is a bad move. If I recall correctly, someone on the Porsche thread mentioned they were going to throw a brushless system in the Porsche. Blakbird kindly requested pics of all the melted ABS :laugh: - and I could not agree more. LEGO plus third party parts will never reach the realm of RC racing/rock crawling. Attempts to match such performance will simply require too much third party to be used that the build no longer is LEGO and the builder may as well turn to RCing. That is what happened to my RC version of Sheepos mustang. Once it got going fast at all the back end bounced all around The videos I made didn't even reach the limit of the motor. The LEGO shocks were simply not strong enough to manage all the weight. I would have had to redo the whole suspension to reach the limits of the motor. That being said.... I find no problem wanting to enhance the performance of LEGO MOCs, PF is simply too limiting. But do it for the fun of building, not to try and match the performance of RC.

:laugh: In that extreme I fully agree. But extreme examples rarely apply very well to real world examples. Nobody discussing norwegian dialect here...... I think the moderators try, and do a reasonably good job, of promoting free speech or at least opinion. But in an extreme, absolute interpretation of the phrase, obviously there is not a complete freedom to say whatever you want. I think to state that this is a forum with a certain prerogative (LEGO) goes without saying.

I agree with you for the most part DrJB. Always super important to respect others and their decisions. Especially on a worldwide forum where we get such diverse backgrounds, cultures, etc...I will say this, however. Value, worth, etc. may ultimately be subjective, but that does not mean they can't be measured objectively. You may not agree with how the measurements go, but there are ways to measure such things that were once considered completely subjective. The OPs experience is completely theirs, I get it, but objectively, at least number-wise their experience is a complete anomaly and they should be aware of this. To come to a forum regarding Lego and post something in favor of these cheap knock-offs is well....hmm... I will just say there needs to be the awareness of the likely replies. I may have complete freedom to go on some forum regarding Ferraris and say how equal in value a Ford Focus is but if I am not aware of the likely result well then that is on me....... If I retort "hey, it is my money and I have freedom of speech I can do what I want!" ... that is fine. But the obvious and likely response will be "fine..... you are free to say and do as you please. And so are we. And this is what we have to say about your comment. You are a #@*&%#*