nerdsforprez

Just a joy to look at and study. Models like this will grab others by the bootstraps and elevate the mocing game for a long time to come. Great job.

I am in the same boat. I actually had two coming out after the dark ages periods. One in like 2004-5 where I didn't even get into Technic. But I had The Statue of Liberty (3450) SW Imperial Shuttle. Sold 'em later for really nothing. Had no idea there was an afult secondary market. Then nearly ten years later, discovered the adult market and MOC enthusiasts and now here I am. Glad things worked out for you. Hope to NOT hear a response from you for a while cuz you should be building the 42009! :grin:

Very much agree. Although this is not a post regarding investing.... it does deal with the OP's comment about potentially holding onto a set and then reselling. I would very much discourage this regarding anything Technic. Yes, there are some sets in the past that have made great gains (Tow truck, Excavator) - but the thing is they never match the gains of other more popular genres. I have invested in many sets. Technic, but mostly large creator buildings and SW UCS sets. Unimog, Towtruck, Excavator, none of these have matched the gains of those sets. IF.... you buy them with the intention to build but later decide to sell, that is another story and good on ya You will still make a good return. However, IMO, NEVER buy a Technic set with the premeditated intention of selling to fund your hobby. Not that you will loose money it is just that they don't do as well as other genres.....

Thanks for the comments. I am less concerned about boosting my views or likes as I am just a plain old interest into the social variables at play when posting Lego models. In addition, perhaps I will look into Flickr, although one downside is that, to my knowledge one cannot post videos and add tons of text. I don't just focus on pictures........ if you check out my mocpages you will see that each post is more like a story. I prefer to share MOCs this way, and read about MOCs this way from others. It is much more interesting to know how someone arrived at building a MOC than simply looking at pics of them IMO......

We get a lot of posts like this on the forum.... and they are good questions. But I would encourage people to stop thinking about sets as they are and start thinking about them about what they can become. Often this is not included in reviews and therefore involves some brain storming on your part. Most are adult builders on this site..... and although building a model is fun... modifying it or building your own MOC is the real treat. If you ask yourself What can I potentially do with this model? I think you will really help yourself out in your question. I agree with others.... 42009 is worth the build. You point out some flaws. Many of which are easily modifiable. Can't lift more than a feather? I agree..... little while ago i set out with fixing that. Really simply modifications..... adding a Y guy arrangement just like a real crane: some real pulleys (I did not buy those that you see below. These are available for sale however online @ shapeways.com link: http://www.shapeways.com/product/2LCEBFCDA/pulleywheel-without-crosshole?li=search-results-2&optionId=19923231 -- I just drilled a hole through Lego pulleys so it no longer had an axlehole) and now my version of 42009 lifts great (lots of other additions.... but you get the point) My point is that sooner or later, if you get back in the Lego game you will want to modify or MOC your sets. Every one of the flaws in the set you point out are fixable. Another case in point. When 42039 came out many people stated they hated it because it was so ugly. True as that may be I would argue that it has now become one of the most popular sets for B, C, D, whatever.... models because of what people saw as far as POTENTIAL for the set and later done. Again.... think of a set NOT as it is but what can BECOME.....

There is no way to label all the dots.... it would be too messy and..... well, that would mean that I really would have too much time on my hands Send me a PM and I can share it via email.

No problem whatsoever. I actually think I may have used some poor word choice. Especially if my thoughts came across as religious. Trust me..... I am likely the least religious person you will ever meet. And I agree.... not the place to discuss it on this forum. I will say this, however.... I use capital "N" for nature not because I endow it with some personal identity or form, but because, regardless of its origin or source, nature serves a great purpose for me. I find it amazing....and therefore it deserves my respect. Let me explain it this way...... (and hopefully you get my humor here and that I don't really take myself too serious) You have build a rendition of the BMW M4. I think that it is simply astounding. It captures my interest and I think it is a wonderful build in Lego Technic. If I were to describe model to someone... I may choose to capitalize whatever word I use to describe it. And I may choose to do this NOT because I am trying to say anything about its source or try to given some title of divinity or personal identity.... I only capitalize whatever word I use to describe it because it is something I respect. I don't care if it was built by something of intelligent design (which it was) or a bunch of monkeys sitting in a room for a million years building with Technic that by random chance happen to stumble across the exact configuration of Technic pieces to mimic your car. I don't care. I really don't. It is awesome ...... end of story, and IMO deserves respect and awe. That is how I feel about nature..... end of story. No intention or reference to a source whatsoever. Perhaps the phrase "imposition on us as humans" was too strong...... I simply wanted to allude to the fact that in nature there are limitations and those limitations are felt by us everyday and I think are reflected in many different ways.... including in the topic of discussion in this thread.

Exactly. Yes.... you got it. Which makes complete sense. To me the interesting thing is that Nature has a way of imposing limits on things. In terms of Lego, the limitations of Lego production is not just a reflection of a money grubbing, complete business-ideology. I think the efforts of TLG to limit the molds they create is not JUST an attempt to maximize their bottom line. It is easy to point that finger. I think it resembles something more innate to Nature which is essentially, a competition of resources. Limiting the types of bricks in a set, but perhaps not so much the overall amount of bricks leads to the relationship that we see in the graphs I posted. Again I encourage people not to interpret this as a diabolical Lord Business-scheme concocted by TLG --- but simply a reflection of Nature's imposition on us as humans as she has a limited amount of resources and requires us to compete for those resources. For Technic sets..... redundancy is destined. Here is why. We tend to focus on overall elements in a set.... right? (especially with the omnipotent BWE to come out that nears 4,000 pieces!!) Kinda like any statistic or figure you have heard of the wonderment of the human brain. 100 BILLION neurons right? Astounding number. But..... whether talking about Technic sets or the human brain the individual elements that make up both (neurons versus Lego pieces) are only half the story. Think about all the connections! For Technic.... think of all the connections in a build of nearly 4,000 pieces! Those connections have one thing in common for Technic. Pins or axles. Something has to connect them. Because the amount of connections that exist between pieces increases exponentially as piece count increases, so will the elements used to connect Technic pieces. TLG group has a very limited number or connectors and pins (relatively speaking), so those pins, axles, etc. increase at an exponential rate relative to the overall size of a build. Redundancy..... defined. However, in becomes increasingly efficient in terms of a system that competes for resources. Just like the human brain. Each neuron has several dozen to several hundred connections to other neurons...... and there are only a few types of connections. Again..... redundancy. In fact.... redundancy epitomized. If you think that 100 BILLION is a difficult figure to wrap your head around..... try to think of that number where EACH individual figure is multiplied by a factor of either several dozen or several hundred. Funny.... I have lectured on this before. I have had those in the audience who pridefully claim they can wrap their head around 100 billion but never never have I had someone say they can wrap their head around the latter number in question. Funny how we can wrap our head around individual elements but not the relationship or connections they have with other elements......This astronomical number creates a degree of efficiency not paralleled in all the animal kingdom. Fun stuff to think about on a Tuesday afternoon.... (for some of us )

No, no..... please don't look at it this way. I am not trying to "flex" any muscles.... really I am not. I just think it is an interesting phenomena and like to try and find trends that play out in a little children's toy but that we also actually see in real life. Your comments are greatly appreciated and valuable.In fact, your insight of looking at it the problem from the viewpoint of a scientist, businessman, etc. is exactly on point. In fact, I mentioned in the article that the "efficiency" really is only defined by a business model (making of less molds etc.). Unlike things like biological organisms where redundancy equals to more efficient creatures I don't think you can make that same argument for Lego. If not thinking from a business perspective, what the heck does "efficient" mean for a Lego model? One that uses less battery power for PF components. Or less manual power to turn all functions? Again, I am just curious about others thoughts. And as mentioned int he article, I agree with you that I don't think you can use the data to judge on the worthiness of a MOC or whether or not to buy a set based on the data in the article. There are way too many other factors that likely play a much more significant part in making such decisions..... My wife would agree with you

Mind Blown.......

WARNING! WARNING! This is a long post. Read at your own expense. Grab popcorn, coffee,soda, whatever you need to stay awake. Take your time, several days if needed, to read the whole thing before responding. Also, couple of things that will help you as you read this post. First, APPL stands for Average Pieces Per Lot. If a set or MOC has 1000 pieces and 100 lots then there are on average, then... 10 pieces per lot. The data set I used for the following is something I compiled on my own. If there are any interested parties I have no problem sharing it. I apologize up front if I have misconstrued the data at all. I took the values of piece count and lot count from Bricklink. Also, from memory on some sets regarding piece count. Funny how some things just seem to stick with you. I recognize that there are many more sophisticated methods for examining the below: I chos I chose the below because of its simplicity, and thus maximizing the availability of others to join in the fun. This post has been percolating around in my mind for a while, ever since I read The Mathematics of Lego by Dr. Samuel Arbesman. http://www.wired.com...matics-of-lego/ Some of the ideas in this post were discussed in Dr. Arbesman in his article, but some are not. Some of the ideas are also borrowed from an article that Dr. Arbesman himself referenced; http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12381294 ; which is absolutely fascinating. Sometimes I wonder if we fully realize how far-reaching the influence of Lego really is. I think that it is fascinating that Lego sometimes acts as a microcosm for phenomena that occur in real life. Dr. Arbesman discusses the non-linear relationship between the total number of elements and total number of lots in a set. Obviously, there is a positive relationship; as the number of total elements increase so do the total number of lots (most of the time). However, this relationship is non-linear because the steepness of slope in this relationship is different for smaller sets compared to larger sets; which emulates real, true life-phenomena. Dr. Arbesman makes his statements based on a data set of all genres, or most all genres, of Lego. I re-examined not his data set, but my own, randomly pulling sets from a variety of genres, but mostly Technic, Star Wars, Town/City, and other general system sets. Although I saw the same relationship as Dr. Arbesman, any purported relationship really fell apart when dealing with very large sets, or sets with specific themes. Here are at least two reasons why (there are likely many more): (1) System sets, or sets like Creator sets, don't necessarily need to have a function. They are either purely artistic or meant to emulate something in real life, but minus the function. This can create problems when looking at the variables of interest in Dr. Arbesman's article. Best way to describe it is to provide examples. Case in point: Lego 3450. Statue of Liberty. 2882 pieces but only 49 lots. That is, on average, nearly 60 pieces per lot! I am sure there are many, many more examples (think of any mosaic project) but this is one that comes to mind. Sets like these will really mess with the data. Comparing sets that are too different from one another will lead to an apple and oranges comparison but not being aware of it. (2) Sets that offer lots of playability may not really be one set at all. Case in point, set 10188 is actually many different builds, right? To say the set has 3803 pieces, and 438 lots, divide the two and come up with an average piece per lot value would be incorrect, right? One would really have to deal with each little room as its own set in terms of lot and element count. Too complex though. It was not done in Dr. Arbesman's data, and therefore really skews the data. Sets also that have lots and lots of accessories (I will use 10188 again as an example) also will skew the data, because they artificially inflate the individual lots value. The accessories are not needed for the build, but included in the lot count. So, to rectify the two above issues, I thought it would be fun to examine total element count and lot count in ONLY Technic sets/MOCs. I think that doing so fixes the above problems, perhaps not totally but in my mind satisfactorily because: (1) Technic models add functionality, which by nature, maintains some sort uniformity in the sets of interest. We are not comparing sets that are so different as say, Lego 3450 and 10188. (2) Technic models don't artificially inflate individual lot values by adding lots of accessories, which a lot of sets in other genres do. As mentioned, for small sets this really is not an issue, because there are not many accessories to be had if the set itself is small. But for large sets, it is a real issue, and that is why the relationship between the two variables of interest pretty much dissolves when dealing with large sets. So, that is a long introduction to what this post is really about; but, there you have it. I wanted to examine the relationship between total number of Technic elements in Technic sets/MOCs and their relationship with individual lot counts. Below is a picture of a simple scatterplot of these two variables. The picture below that gives best of fit lines, with a logarithmic function barely beating out a standard function as the best line of fit for the model (R - squared values of .83 versus 90 respectively). (sorry for the bad pic quality - I upload from mocpages and they have always been behind the curve in terms of technology. If anyone needs clarification,I can try to answer any questions) So, we can therefore say that, although lot counts increase with set size, it is to a much lesser extent with larger sets than with smaller sets. Thismakes sense, especially if you read the article mentioned previously: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12381294As systems increase, so does their tendency to repeat themselves, or what can be referred to as "redundancy" in a model. Now, redundancy is usually abad word, but in this case, not really. Redundancy can add to efficiency; which is the very thing that I want to discuss. Cities with many, many gasstations (redundancy) lead to efficiency in traffic. In biology, systems (animals, plants, etc.) that have many, many cells (again, redundancy) areusually more efficient than smaller systems (think of the metabolic rate of an elephant versus a mouse; that is why their life spans are so ridiculouslydifferent). But what does all this mean for Lego sets? If you look at the graphs below, those models that fall above the curve have lower averagepiece per lot (APPL) values than their relative (the term relative is important here, because when using the curve we are comparing small sets tosmall sets, medium to medium, etc.) counterparts. Those that fall under the curve have higher APPL values. The further a dot is from the curve the moredistinguishing they are; either for having low or high APPL values. The question I would like to put forth to the forum is "What do these valuesmean in terms of the sets/MOCs we love so much?" Does a low AAPL value set mean that it uses more unique parts than one with a high AAPL? Is this somecrude measure of UNIQUENESS for our sets? Is a set that has an AAPL of 10 "uniquier" than one with say, a AAPL of 15? (assuming both were more or lessthe same size?). Or... do large APPL values simply mean that a set is more EFFICIENT in its use of parts than a set with a small APPL? I am NOTtrying to use these questions as a way to judge MOCs or sets, there are so many more variables that better depict elements of a quality in a MOC or setthan what I am discussing. I just think that it is an interesting idea, and would like to know more thoughts from others. Many may be thinking. What the heck is this guy talking about??? Perhaps a couple of examples will help. Below are circled two sets that are amongthe most beloved Technic sets; old or young (notice that I say "among" - I get that there is much subjectivity here). Notice how they are both wellbelow the curve, meaning they have a lot of redundancy, or repeating pieces in their build. These sets have very high APPL values relative to theirsize group. Can anyone guess which ones they are? If you guessed 8288 and 42009, both cranes, you guessed right (if you can guess what set is to the left of the 8288 set, GOLD STAR for you!). And they both scream redundancy in part usage right? In fact, that was one of the criticisms of 42009; lots and lots of pins. 8288 has lots and lots of liftarms for a set with only 800 parts. So, are these high APPL values reflective of redundancy or efficiency? Dr. Arbesman would argue both. As a system (or Lego set) gets bigger, it gets more redundant,and therefore more efficient (I get there are many definitions of "efficient" here; in this application we mean efficient from a productionstand-point, not a functionality standpoint. TLG loves sets like these if they sell. Not a lot of molds have to be used and/or created for a set withhigh APPL; and we all know that is really where TLG loses money. In the making of new molds). What do you think though? As I mentioned, I think itis no coincidence that two of the highest APPL values are also two Technic fan favorites; but this could also be to the fact that we all just lovecranes. That is why I am directly stating that I don't think that APPL values have really anything to do with popularity or skill in which they arebuilt, but I do think they are curious phenomena to discuss. So what about low APPL values? Remember we are talking about values relative to set size. An APPL of 8 for a set or MOC that is 3,000 pieces isentirely different from the same value for a set of say, only 300 pieces. Do low APPL values mean that a set is unique? Does it mean that elementsare used in a unique and creative way? Or something that I have not mentioned? Some examples of sets with low APPL values would be set the twosets circled below: Can anyone guess which two these are? Guess the first one (not gonna tell you) and the second (furthest to right) is the 8110 Unimog. Relatively a lot of lot counts for a limitednumber of pieces. What does this mean? Does this confirm or change anyone's previous perception of the Unimog (or the other set that I will notmention)? Lastly, keen viewers will notice that I have included sets that do not reflect any known official Lego sets. These are a variety of MOCs fromwell-known builders. I selected the sets in a somewhat random fashion, and with the help of rebrickable.com and some very kind and helpful, talentedbuilders (Thanks Sheepo and Crowkillers!)These MOCs from left to right are: 1 - Porsche 997 GT3 by Crowkillers 2 - Vampire GT (Black) by Crowkillers 3 - Black Muscle Car by Crowkillers 4 - Lambo Aventador LP 720-4 by Stefan Birkefeld 5 - Cadillac Eldorado by Martijn Nab 6 - Land Rover Defender by Sheepo 7 - Volkswagon Bus Type 1, Manual by Sheepo 8 - Mustang GT, Manual by Sheepo 9 - Volkswagon Bus Type 1, RC version by Sheepo 10 - Mustang GT, RC, by Sheepo 11 - Wing Body Truck by Madoca 12 - Terex RH400 Mining Excavator by Sheo 13 - Tractor Truck by Lucio Switch

Love the minimalist design. Performance is superb.

Kinda hard for me to decide where the share this. I primarily work with Technic for building MOCs, but occasionally I build with system bricks so I will take a more general approach and post it here. I won't post too many details here.... because I have already done a full write-up about the topic of discussion here: http://www.moc-pages.com/moc.php/422976 Essentially, many of us love to share our MOCs on social media sites. There are many. I use Mocpages. Love or hate it (and there are many reasons to hate it), that is what I use. Not going to discuss the pros and cons here. But, I think it is fun to examine the "liveliness of a MOC" by the views it gets through time. Not "likes" - but views. "likes" die off to nearly nothing over time, even for the most popular MOCs, and not even available on many sites (brickshelf, etc.). But views give us much to look at, even if a MOC is very old (posted a long time ago). So, I examined my MOC submissions this way. I looked at the relationship between time and views for my mocs. Kinda fun, I recommend others do the same. I know there are many more sophisticated models and procedures to look at this relationship, but I focused on simplicity to maximize the availability of such an examination to many people. Fun to see what our most "lively" (aka... IMO best) builds are..... Dang it.... just realized there is a specific area for "multimedia" and this section deals with primarily "media" as in video games. If there is an administrator that sees this post, feel free to move it to a more appropriate forum area.

Very good point but I am wondering if those "non drivetrain features" have anything to do with the infamy of the 8070 in the first place (as can be seen from recent posts, people really didn't like the 8070 that much). I am not sure of the hate of the 8070, but if it had to do with that is one of the reasons why people didn't like it in the first place then "non drivetrain features" is a reason for TLG to NOT add such features in the new Porsche and not to add them.......

Given what we have just seen with the 2H 2016 sets.... I think we can take off "some big, bad, huge set" off our list. I think TLG delivered on that front. To be clear, I don't think we can want, or guess about bigger size at least. Sizes of Technic sets really have been exploding lately. 2011 - set a new benchmark with 8110 (just over 2,000 pieces). Then 42009 in like 2013 or so with just over 2600 pieces. Then the AROCS, just over 2700 pieces in 2015, and now two sets likely over 3,000 pieces! 2000 pieces is such old news that the THIRD largest set in the 2H 2016 line up is nearly that large. I don't see a set surpassing the new BWE @ nearly 4,000 pieces. Especially although the overall reaction is positive to these large sets.... that are many, many, people that despite clamoring for larger sets are now complaining that they are too expensive. I agree with others who are guessing for either some new piece or system (rc, PF, whatever). To dazzle Technic fans TLG already delivered with huge sets, so now IMO they will have to dazzle us with something else.....

Good info. So, from the larger tire diameter I think we can safety say this is much much larger and more densely built than the 8070 ( we already knew that). This was all obvious but IMO, it points to an overall piece count more around 3000 or 3500 than 2000-2500 pieces.

Having played quite a but with different scaling of models..... I can tell you when you increase scale from like 1:12 to 1:8 you can easily double the piece count. I mentioned this when Sheepo announced he was going to begin beuilding in smaller scale. I know the scales mentioned aren't exactly the scales of the Porsche and 8070, but you get the idea. I don't know the exact size of the tires and rims, but I think they are the same as taken from 42000. these are the same tires Sheepo used in his mustang (which had 3500-4000 pieces -- depending on which model you build). Using tires as an idea of the scale of a model, I think it is more than safe to say is is more of a Sheepo mustang type scale, and very likely 3000-3500 pieces. Looks pretty packed as a model, so that is another factor. It all this is accurate, we will have TWO models that surpass the largest Technic set to date.... the AROCS....

Knives work.... problems are that they can mark up or even cut into this bricks. If there is like a very very strong connection you have to drive the knife far in, and that increases the likelihood of damage. This tool, the spark plug gapper, I can wedge all the way between bricks without haring them. I used to used a knife or two if needed, but discovered that this way was much better.

I love your work. For some reason I love large builds. Keep it up..... I will keeps tabs on this project......

Here is another tool I just discovered. Not sharp like a knife, no danger of damaging bricks (if used properly), but is great for separating Technic pieces with lots of pins and therefore a very rigid connections. I can hear nay-sayers saying just use your hands...... but the problem with that with very strong connections is when the pins finally do give, you run the risk of ripping other things apart. The force you use to separate things will keep going and could damage other stuff. However, using just a quick and subtle twist of my wrist I can separate these strong connections without damaging other connections.......

I am not sure so much speculation should be dedicated towards this set. Yes - lots of pieces. Yes, lots of pins, axles, etc..... BUT ... twice as many track links as we have EVER seen in any set as well. Twice as much as the recent crawler crane. Lots of plastic there. Lots of liftarms..... a whole lot. Lots of plastic there too...... Lots of buckets..... again... plastic. So.... this could be a fairly expensive set. Just the fact there are lots of pins and stuff should not discount the fact that there are lots of other pieces that could yield a big price tag

by far the most common pieces are still gonna be pins and perhaps 3L axles.....

Taken from Jeremy McCreary on Mocpages.... http://www.moc-pages.com/moc.php/406630Here is my position on the Lego budget.... Honey...... I gotta ask.... what about all those shoes?

First MOC I wanna see from this set is some huge redneck muddin' machine or something like that......

Honestly, I don't think I have a choice Funny, I remember feeling the same way about the Arocs. Biggest Technic set ever? I have to get it.....even if I hate the set! I have to get it for the historical significance. For some reason, ever since I came back into the game I have felt compelled to get the biggest Technic sets available. *sigh* this one will be no different. Regardless of my feelings about the set. So..... Lego..... here is my wallet.....