nerdsforprez

. Agreed! I guess my comment was my own attempt to try to stop the incessant dribble about this set's price. I have commented on this before in this thread and guess I just need to stop. It is just disappointing that we, as an AFOL community ask for all these great features, and then when they potentially come, we complain about the price. *sigh* Lego is expensive guys and gals...... Lets accept it. Okay......soapbox over.....

Funny, years ago I did several regression analyses on price, weight, time, and other variables in Technic sets. In a nutshell, this is exactly what I discovered. There really is NOT, despite what the public feel is, any real price difference between sets if you look at it from a limited time perspective. Only when you compare huge time gaps, like late 80's/early nineties to like the late 2000's was there really any difference. And in reality the difference was not what people thought it was. People often look at price from a price per piece perspective. This is incorrect IMO. What my basic analyses found out is that there obviously was much more plastic (studded era, so makes sense) that went into each piece 20-30 years ago than today. Even the black pins were thicker and used more plastic. It was the difference in weight that accounted for the difference in price, not some nefarious scheme of TLG to simply charge more for some unknown, arbitrary reason.People are going to use the price of this set to justify their untested, biased, and likely inaccurate assumption that Lego is getting more and more expensive as time progresses. This simply has not been empirically demonstrated and I encourage people to NOT take this set as evidence to their untested belief. There are simply other factors at play. Price is money, and therefore certainly strikes a cord with most, and therefore IMO people need to be careful of the quick emotional belief as opposed to one that is more logical and tested.

Whatever the variant, I think that TLG often misuses these. Although Sariel looks like to be the primary source of information regarding the different clutch gear variants, I thought I remembered this same conversation on the 42042 thread. People were complaining how little it could lift when in reality it was not a fault in power or gearing but rather a fault of the slipper gear. If fact, on that thread i posted a quick video of how to remove the slipper gears in like ten minutes and replace them with regular 24T gears and my version lifted nearly 900 grams no problem. Slipper gears used in such applications... cranes, steering for trial trucks and crawlers severely limit the functionality of the model. If you are careful, a little stalling of the motor is not a bad thing. I get their use.... 8070 was a perfect example..... if not for the slipper gear then things would pop outta place... but things like cranes and crawler steering they should not be used.

To be sure. And thanks for the response. I also like building with PF functions.... as mentioned in the post.But..... so as to not derail the conversation, again this is not a discussion about building with PF or not. I get that building or creating with PF function is a blast to do. what is being discussed here is merely reproducing the work of others in full PF. Merely reproducing the work of others kinda eliminates the creating element and therefore the question remains of the utility of PF.... if it is not in the fun of driving the end result (subjective opinion) and not in the creating element (not creating original work) then where is it?

Correction: Guys...(and gals) take this discussion very serious --- :laugh:Thanks for the responses everyone. Looks like I am not alone in preferring PF-free supercars (when building others' work. When my own... I add 'em!)

It is exactly the point. From the original post...... "but I don't want to pay the $ for the PF functions to just have it sit around." Good response. This is kinda my approach as well I guess. MOCs that I will actually use the functions I will be putting in all motors etc. Cranes, excavators, etc. However, I don't see myself driving MOC cars around... so likely leave them all out. If I use 'em, I'll keep 'em. If I don't, then I will leave them out. I just wondered if others do the same.

Perhaps "clean" is not the best way to put it but I like the comparison. What I am talking about is MOC supercars that don't have PF motors etc. There have been a lot of great MOCs put out there lately, impossible to list everyone's, but perhaps some that are popular are @brunojj1's M1 and recent Laferrari hypercar, Madoca's ICARUS Supercar, the Koenigsegg one:1 by Pvdb. Many like to reproduce them. I have not built many MOCs by others, I mostly like to do my own stuff, but I have done Paul Boratko's Vampire GT and Sheepo's Mustang. These were both great builds and it was fun to learn some of the techniques used by some of the more popular builders. In fact this post was inspired by my latest desire to take a break from MOCing (after I wrap up all current projects) and build the four cars listed above. However, aside from the challenges of building MOCs with PF functions, I don't see the point of adding motors etc. The drivetrain, gearbox, etc. everything else - YES! But motors I struggle with. I play with RC quite a bit and I will therefore never drive a Lego car/truck/crawler for the fun of it. Never. LEGO PF cars, compared to driving RC it is like being given your favorite supercar to drive for an evening and then having to go back to your Hyundai Sonota the next morning (if this seems like an all-to-real scenario, trust you intuition when I say this is NOT recommended). Now, I understand that RC and Lego are entirely different things. and that Lego was not meant to be RC. Not raising that argument. What I am saying is that for me, once I have completed a MOC from someone else I like to display it... but I don't want to pay the $ for the PF functions to just have it sit around. I get why the builders build with all the pf motors and such. When I am MOCing, I do the same thing..... that is the fun of building it. But if I am just building a MOC supercar just for display, and I know I will likely never drive, and I am just reproducing the work of others, I am inclined to just build the model sans motors, battery boxes, etc. When building something that someone else has done I don't really get the joy of creating something b/c I am not creating it. I get the joy of trying to think like the great mind that produced whatever I am building. But if (and this is a personal "if") the only joy that comes from adding PF is the challenge, and you are only doing the work of others (therefore this "challenge" is kinda gone or at least grossly minimalized) what really is the purpose of adding all the motors? Anyone feel the same?

you jumped the gun! The new tires from the Claas Xerion will be out later this year. -- Kidding, this model looks great. Would love to see it with the new tires however. Also, the functioning sounds great, but like others have said, video would be great. I know it may sound tedious, but there really is only so much we, as an audience can enjoy, from pics only of a great Technic build such as this one.

Okay.... I responded before I watched the video. I watched the video and am now correcting my sin of responding too early. The video is priceless. This is one of my favorite pics of all time in the Lego genre: "To tell the truth my favorite theme isn't Technic...." :laugh: :laugh: Well done @Desert752. Great builder and also a great sense of humor.....Perhaps you shold have snuggled up a little closer to those "friends" of yours..... And just so no one else repeats my sin.... WATCH THE VIDEO!!

Agreed. A BOM would be nice at this point, because apparently instructions are being made. I guess until one is available we can at least spitball and pick up what we see in the pics and renders......

Okay @desert752...... we have all been complaining about the lack of color variety...too much red in technic models but this is ridiculous...... Kidding..... I like it. Too much fun. fun to mix things up once in a while

Ditto to what has already been said. Also...i am no pro... But I have built things in large scale. If you are building in such a scale, software programs cannot tell you how the model will function of hold up under extreme weight, so if building something large by software, you will have to keep that in mind

completely agree. If fact, I think TLG should contact some medical or research group to conduct such a study.....i think they would find just that. And that would be great news for them. Funny... But elsewhere that I have posted this(mocpages) I have had some very funny/insightful requests. What would light up if one were to step on a Lego??? Lol.....i think that would be great. Or what about the addiction center of our brain. Shouldn't that light up as well?? Yes! Perhaps I will do a series of brains with all this happening. Any other requests??

Holy cow Blakbird..... too bad BL doesn't reward points or something. I swear you would have collected enough to buy a country or something......

Wow... this rendition of the Grove crane is incredible. Do you have more pictures? Also, the videos that are posted don't show the model in action much. Any more video?

I say "might" because our interpretation of PET scans, and any functional imaging is so hypothetical at this point. Even though there are certain areas of the brain that are responsible for certain things..... the overall amount of what those areas are vary from person to person. In addition, I think that most would think that building Lego is mostly a right-brained activity. Artistic, holistic, full of visuo-spatial reasoning and activity. However, I think building Lego (especially Technic) is also very logistic, sequential, and verbal, and therefore I believe the left hemisphere would be used quite a bit as well (and therefore that is why I show so much activity in the left hemisphere..... PET images, in interpretation, just like everything else in the brain, are reversed. Left is the right and vice versa).

Who would have thought that Technic could be so much fun to look at. Functional, yes..... but eye candy? You wouldn't have thought that was possible with Technic years ago. However, you have changed all that. Function and beauty. Thank you for changing the whole playing field........ btw..... my only recommendation is to not start a post with the lyric of a Brittany Spears song...... :laugh: -- kidding

Thanks for posting this. I am very interested. I will be buying, no doubt about it.

Hey All, Lego really is so diverse. From artistic to technical, right-brained to left-brained, there is something for all of us. Artsy..... yet numerical and mathematic at the same time. As a practicing neuropsychologist, this is of incredible interest to me. Here is a LDD rendition of what the brain might look like when building with Lego if scanned with a PET scanner. Youtube video is much more accurate.....in that it produces more of a video-like rendering of the brain than a static picture. More information at: http://mocpages.com/moc.php/427329

Congratulations Edwin! Having done some large projects myself, I assume you might be a tad bit happy that this beast is done. I swear the progression of large projects is like .... fun, fun, exciting, fun.... to GET THIS THING OFF MY TABLE! :laugh: Job well done. This is stupendous, I especially love the propellers.Great job on the details and overall gestalt of the model.

I have built several projects with Lego and RC. You will hear some flak from others because of the lack of sense combining the two..... and I have to agree with them on that point because they really are not that compatible. Except for one factor.... and that it is just (IMO, and probably yours as well ) darn fun. You creation looks fun.... and bold. A brushless motor? Good idea to go with something fairly slow.... even though you found a way past Lego limitations on propellers I would have thought a brushless system would ruin the whole drive train. Did you use lubrication? That will help a little with the excessive wear. Although your build looks fun to drive your model 2.0 will be best served looking at how the hull can reduce the drag. Your design looks like there is lots of it and improved hull design will probably really release its speed. Fun post..... thanks for sharing.

Big help thanks!

Hey All, Beginner question alert: How do I get the orientation of my project so that the vertical sides are a true vertical and the horizontal a true horizontal? I try to hit the side keys and it always overshoots.... so the vertical and horizontal sides are always at an angle. I try from a variety of different zoom degrees and it doesn't change anything.

Gotcha. Youre right that often the wheels are the hardest part in scaling..... I was just wondering b/c usually in smaller models there is much more variety in Lego wheels so it is not so much an issue as in the larger models. But, either way your MOC looks great. Well done

This car looks great! But I have to be honest, not sure I can see it all that well. I think you used some sort of filter on the photos, that while give the photos perhaps an artsy feel, I can't really see your model all that well. The video helps a little but not a lot b/c the model is always moving. I suggest removing whatever filter you used, or if none, just better pictures. Your model is great.... show it off! No need for any filters or anything in the photos......