imajor

To be honest, I think it could have been much better. The turning radius of the vehicle is awfull.

How do you connect the two parts of the torque tube? Does it just click? How hard is it to separate them? Is it strong enough to keep the front and read suspensions attached to the main frame? Thanks for the pictures and answers!

To be honest, I'm disapointed too. The new parts seem to be quite special to this kind of model. I would be more happy with a model built only from old pieces. Not to mention that the portal axle part could be better, as others already mentioned.

I think so too. I'm just saying I would hate to see new parts introduced just for a specified model, but I'm sure that won't be the case.

I hope there won't be too much new pieces. I don't mind new pieces, but only if there is a good reason for them.

I think direct sunlight is very damaging to all kind of plastic.

I think it goes to the lego site if you already finished the survey. I guess they want everyone to do it only once.

I was looking for a site where people could exchange their moc building instructions for a long time, so I'm glad you are planning to do something like that. Are you also planning to accept building instructions from other people, to sell them with sharing? Similar to how apple and other companies are managing their appstores? Not that I have anything to share. Onr comment: for the PDF building instructions, the part list should be free, to let people check if they have parts before they buy something. One more thing: why is it technic only?

I don't think that would work, because each time you turn on the motor to get air pressure, the crane would start rotating around no?

I read somewhere that lego is checking the weight of each box before shipping, to make sure nothing is missing. So I don't think it is possible that a whole bag is missing from a box.

I think motorising the rear wheels without remote controlling is not a good idea. And I guess adding remote controllers to the set would increase its price even more. So for me, using the motor to these functions seems to be logical. Those who has remote controllers can try these modifications on their own.

I'm sure they used original rego parts when they created the photo for the box. I don't want to buy it of course, it wasn't so cheap, and the box was already opened and reclosed. I guess someone bought it, and brought back to the shop because of complaints.

A few days ago I explored interesting boxes in a toy shop near my house (in Hungary), which are obviously clones of the real lego technic. I guess these are illegal. Does anyone seen anything similar? I was trying to google for this company or whatever is produces these toys, but found nothing. If you zoom into the picture, you can clearly recogize the technic parts. http://www.regiojatek.hu/termek-07981-epitojatek_teherauto.html

One receiver can drive two motors, so two functions. If you want four functions, you need two receivers. One controller can be used with one receiver at a time, there is a small switch on the controller which let you control which receiver you want to operate. So if you have two receivers, then you can control them with one controller, by switching the channel (the way the buldozer did I think) or you can use two controllers, and then you can control all the functions at the same time (the way 8043 does). There are four available channels which can be used by the communication between the controllers and receivers, so you can have a maximum of four controllers and four receivers, i.e. eight independent functions in your model, if you want remote control.

Don't forget that it is not the only place where there is friction in that function, as it was stated for example here. But I don't understand why is it not working for some people, for me, it can do the switch smoothly even with all the 3 stud length friction.

I don't think that would work. The arm which is connected to the third axle on top of the turntable should be able to rotate around the whole turntable, and it can only do that if the arm completely surrounds the whole model.

I mentioned it earlier (here), but I still don't think it is a mistake. There is no chance that the designer didn't notice it. Maybe without this friction the switch is more likely to jump back to neutral?

Personally I think the answer to this is yes, absolutely. The accuracy of the LA's highly improved the playability for me.

There is a huge difference between "cars are boring" and "I find cars boring". You should definitely use the latter. If they were boring to everyone, do you think Lego would release any car sets?

How do you know which designer made what? Is there an official list somewhere?

Scroll up one page

I'm pretty sure that lego does a lot of research on how kids can build the stuff, and if they decided to create more detailed instructions, then I'm sure they had a good reason, probably some kids (maybe only 10%) had problems with building. I don't think that providing harder instructions would help too much with learning. If a kid is interested in mechanics, they will stop width the building between some steps, and study how the model works . If they are not interested, and just want a toy they can play with, then it doesn't matter if you give them harder instructions, they will just rush trough it. I don't think you can force them with hard instructions to like mechanics.

I think I read somewhere (cannot recall where) that there is a person in their team who is responsible for the building instructions. Can anyone comfirm that?

I think there is a typo in the link, it didn't work for me.

Another one is in the animation of the 8052, it seems that when the container is tilted (first phase, so not when it is detached), the rod below the container behaves like when it is detaching the contrainer. I don't have the set, so I'm not sure about it. Sorry for the bad english.