Ron Dayes

Really enjoying that there is others out there who took that approach - to be fair, your's are more realistic in a way - thats definately what they would have looked like with TLG's designer team back in a day. The Y-Wing really has those classic space vibes^^ I dont hand out files unless i build them myself to check if really possible and firm in structure - im somewhat a perfectionist and dont want to hand out problematic mocs. @MAVERICK26@jimmynick @JintaiZ@caiman0637 Thanks so much for the positive feedback guys. It made me do another one, this time the "hard to get right" A Wing^^ Lego has definately evolved through the great minds that came before us, so now we can even alter the past - at least imaginary and digitally Really, do you have pics of that? (odd request, but some actually fotographed their stuff back in a day, would be lovely to see!) Snot! - this is the way ;) All it would have needed is an uncommon out of the box thinking back in 1985... True, the SOT method is very nostalgic and practical for the designers and users alike. However, now going back in time - it didnt have to be that way afterall in most cases, like 50% of studs could have been reduced. On the other hand, would we have missed studs on top? would lego sets be hyper real by now if they had that mindset back in those days? On it btw, just posted another MOC ;) Many thanks - honestly i think the current Y-Wing Sets are pretty good, allthough they could be much better ofc using some "good ol' Snot" ;) Hold on - you wanted to start with "well actually"? What were your thoughts? - do you know something we dont about SW sets prior to 1999? prototype stuff :D? New MOC: A Wing 1986 alternate universe box art by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr

Okay i admit - that title is really misleading. There definately arent any SW sets made in 1985 or prior to that- or at least, none that i heard of last time i checked. BUT - why weren't there any? Were was Lego when the Deathstars fell? (pun intended) The whole world went nuts about Episode 4 and by 1985, most of the western worlds population had seen at least one of the movies, if not enjoyed the whole OT. Toy manufacturers (Kenner, etc) produced figurines and plastic spacecrafts in large bulks. There was TV adds, campaigns, ceral toys. It was literally impossible to escape the phenomenon. And TLG? - they went off and made classic space (which ofc, we love as much as Star Wars). While it is very intriguing to know what kept TLG from producing Star Wars sets after the motion picture releases, the sad truth is, it never happened until 1999. Or did it? in a parallel universe - an alternate reality? Welcome to my alternate reality! Where i travel back in time, to the 80ies, with todays knowledge to reproduce things that have never been. I dont do this just with SW, but afterall, i thought i'd share my rendition of vintage 1985 Star Wars sets here in this forum. Most MOCs contain 99% of elements released in the year or piror to that in the given context. Yet, since its an alternate reality - for the sake of great part design - i pretend some small elements from the 90ies existed even back in a day^^ Hope you enjoy! Feel free to check my flickr stream for alternate reality designs of other themes ;) Alternate Universe LEGO X Wing 1985 by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr y wing Box Art 1985 by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr X Wing 1985 by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr

Seems impossible - BUT - Yes, that was exactly the case. The site was down for over a month and on the 4th of June it simply ceased to exist. No warning to its active users - the site simply vanished. Sean Kenny never responded to any messages, not even to the ones from the official moderators who tried improving the website. Many proposals on buying the website in order to save it were made in the past, but for whatever reason, there was never a respone from its creator. Feel free to read the official Lego Car blog article about it (the one i linked above) - its worth to read the comment section aswell!

Thats actually incorrect. "TAN" number code 2 in the color palette was officially introduced in 1957 and the minifig came out 20 years later in 1978! They could have made tan minifigs, in fact, there is tan based figurines for the old town layouts. But they chose not to, to avoid the skin color political aspects at the time. It was stated in several interviews aswell. Yellow is a "happy" colour. As it was also used for the first castle instead of a militaristic grey... But knowing the rather limited color palette used in sets at that time, it might seem that they didnt have those colors - but in fact, they did have a huge array, just never used them because it was quite pricey and not reall necessary back in a day. But yeah, TLG doesnt need to change anything atm. agreed.

But dont expect him to reply. Before we left mocpages years ago, we tried to reach out to him to get any answer/statement on it whatsoever. Noone ever got through. If you wish to do it anyway, keep it brief and dont expect miracles. Perhaps once Mocshare is finished, it will restart a LEGO dedicated website in the style of mocpages again. thats actually quite a cool idea^^ That picture would have been lost forever by now if it wasnt for you saving it as a profile pic ;) indeed, actual maintenace for mocpages stopped years ago. I wonder who really did the server maitenance to get it back up again all those times it broke down the last 2 years or so.

Since the 4th of June 2020 (so 2 days ago from this post), the website "mocpages.com" no longer exist! Mocpages has - without any media news/final warning from its creator Sean Kenny - simply been deleted. The plug has been pulled and there are no hints on mocpages.com ever being restored again. If you search for it now, you wont even find the official link that lead to it. It is now listed on "crunshbase" as a website that (used to) run. Many users left mocpages a few years ago for flickr.com, yet for those who remained and still actively posted on this website this certainly is a shock i believe. If data wasnt backed up, pictures saved etc - it seems all that data is lost forever now. Immediately after its deletion, TLCB posted an article that really sums it up well. Its worth the read. I just want to spread those news here on this Forum so you people are aware that this former milestone for the AFOL community with fond memories of contests and discussions has silently passed away... Apparently most people didnt even notice (yet) since i didnt find a Post on any AFOL forum yet. Feel free to share your fond memories you've had on mocpages.com!

Whilst many good points were given in this discussion why not to compare a 700 part set to a 130 part set (or whatever), the true question is: What the hell are the TLG designers doing lately to dragon designs? I must agree with @Medzomorak, TLG really doesnt hit the nail in many modern dragon designs. The Harry Potter Dragon and recent Hogwarts Castle Basilisk (yes, not a dragon) are just plain awful. Yep, on the last one the part count was amazingly low - but why even try when its impossible to recreate it that small for them? Could have just used the classic snake in green (considering the micro size model), would have been better actually than that utter garbage they offered. That Horned Dragon - again - is just another example of them obviously not knowing how to recreate it with that part limitation. Looks like a bird went to the gym and never skipped leg day^^ Dont they look at source material? Or dont they care? It almost feels like they are too lazy to try, or dont have enough time at hand on designing it well. A good MOC takes time, we all know that. Maybe the sheer array of sets they have in each theme is just too much to manage in a short time. Who knows... But im hoping, a company that big, has at least one guy ONLY doing the dragon digitally and giving his/her heart and soul for this ONE Set. Otherwise it could really explain these poor offerings. Just knowing the parts availiable, and how decent some ninjago dragons look, i just refuse to believe thats all they could do. And since it was further up stated " the dragon probably wasnt the main focus in the set" - well, when there is a DRAGON in the set, make it the focus! Its a sales argument. In my honest opinion, TLG is missing out on quite a lot of basic moulds, to get a cool system dragon done easily. Just check some wedge parts on that chinese GoT thing. I wish TLG offered these. Would it hurt so bad to release a few more spike, scales, teeth, claws, wings elements? It seems they should...

I only agree that 8 wides is "okay" for SC product line since it definately shapes the car better with those huge wheel diameters they have been using. It looks more harmonic than a 6 wide with "hot wheels" type oversize wheels. Yet going from 6 to 8 wide it literally lost the connection to "Town" even further, since it really wont work well with modulars or even raod plates. They wont go well with 6 trains anymore either for quite obvious "real world realism" issues. SC were regularly used as display items, yet im sure many AFOLs wont agree on 8 wide meeting the same criteria. I mean, may the minifig be wide and small, but now it will appear even more tiny. By itself its a nice toy that you can go vroom vroom, screeeech with on a table, the 8 studs allow all detail, stability and play features any kid could ever want. So good choice TLG. It can also be a nice display item without any figs even. Yet for the tiny amount of AFOLs with a sense of height based scale, its -understandably- somewhat horrible. Offtopic thought: "When you put a minifigure inside, the only thing you're going to see is the head and the hands so I think that's a good point to prefer the 8 studs cars." Well, if its only the head (and hands) you see anyway, why even bother fitting a full minifig inside and risk having oversized cars in an AFOL layout then? You could save bricks, build smaller in the height based scale of 1/43, have cars that go well with Modulars, Buses, Trucks and Trains. Looks amazing. My 5 wide cars also show minifig heads inside, even 2 side by side - so i dont think that this argument really leads me to prefer 8 studs. Id only prefer 8 studs for playability tbh. And i think thats exactly the reason TLG chose to move on to 8 wide.

Um, no - the SC wheel type fits perfectly into 8 wide size/scale. Its actually way too huge for 6 wides if you do the math based on the real life counterparts. So 8 wide with these wheels, yes. But 8 wide with minifigs...hmm, not my cup of tea tbh.

what a pity, Speed Champions is even getting more way out of scale. A nice toy for kids, yet no relevance to a lot from the AFOL market now. Glad i build my own stuff and never sets, otherwise that would be very frustrating. 2019 definately ended the usual SC line. However, always a good place for new parts^^ Thats all i ever cared about in SC...

so whats the difference? And what in seven hells is that "system scale" supposed to be. There is no exact definition - shall it refer to minifig usage? what does the "system" stand for? There is no real "system scale", with bricks you can build in any scale! Large, mini, micro - whatever. There is so many shapes of bricks, you cant define them to a certain scale To be precise you should just call them the scales they are ( 1/10, 1/25 etc) Only exception: TLG made a few moulds for minifigs to be used with minifigs. Once you use these parts, you are automatically working with elements of the "minifig scale" they intended for us. (just look at the bicycle moulds etc) Minifig scale is officially a height based scale. You can alter it by making it width based, but then most parts TLG moulded for us dont make sense anymore, concerning the math behind it. If you stray away from math, and build using what you "think" is right, thats not "scaling" at all! Scaling is always based objects that exists and contain mathmatical data. If you build a fantasy spaceship from your own imagination, you set your own parameters. Thats a size you defined yourself. Now if i were to rebuild that spaceship half the size, then that would be a 1/2 scale of your object, which now exists for me to be scaled down using math. See the difference? What most Moccers do is build a car that fits minifigs, check a bit if it looks like its real life counterpart and call it minifig scale. Some say "a fig fits in" so its "minifig scale". But thats NOT how a scale works! A scale is a defined term - most Car mocs i see arent in scale at all to their real life counterparts. Thats why its better to call it "minifig sized", since its design originated from their own perception of an object. Its not a scale. Its a Term definition thing. People just tend to use the term "scale" wrong since it is commonly used amongst AFOLS (which doesnt justify its use btw!). Instead they should use "size" to describe their mocs.

Well, the Minifig actually fits in the system scale. Literally, the system scale IS the real minifig scale mathmatically speaking. People who build larger than that shouldnt use the word "minfig scale" to be honest. A proper term would be "minifig play size".... (since there is no real math behind it, scale = math). That term allows all those variations size wise, witdth wise etc.

Ok, this will be my last real effort to really explain what a Minifig scale is and how you do it! 1. What is a scale? (sorry, but some seem to not understand how a scale is defined) originates from the word "scala", used since ancient times, meaning: ladder/stairs, which were often mathmatically defined. So from "how many stairs", similar to other measurements units you could base a "scale" on how tall something is. Thats how the verb "to escalade" originated! Nowadays its one "height" divided by another "height" giving you a ratio. Thats it! Its not based on your own perception, playability, functionality, does it look realistic to me etc. - its based on math and math alone! You can actually base a scale on whatever you think is right, but read below why its usually height irl... 2 Why schould a scale always be HEIGHT based? Remember when you were a kid and measured your own body height like every week with a pencil on the door frame? Why is that? Well, humans self awareness and the perception of other individuals is based on height - because humans are naturally longer than they are wide/thick - so height is our dominant feature. You are rather afraid of a tall person as a kid, than a person same height but more pounds. Its somewhat a genetic instinct that we calculate our risks (=environment) by how tall the other or environment (mountain,...)is. It is our perception of our own height compared to an object that lets us define things after we experienced them: example: catching a fish, common instinct is how long it is, you measure = how does its height compare to my own, ok, that fish is small or huge! Statement! Weighing the fish is your second thought, cause it gives you a second info to add to the info you allready got by measuring it = completing your experience of what you caught). That also results to why a lot of things in the real world are primarily height based and then normed to a certain height, like the calculations of door frames, ceiling heights, tables etc..It simply is the way we understand the world, even if we dont really think about math or scaling at that moment, our brain automatically does it for us ;-) 3. How do you scale Lego with a Minifig? Since i mentioned that we experience the world by height, and that professional scaling in industry/construction is also focused on height (building a tower, first you estimate height, and after that comes the diameter analysis to support the structure) - it should be a natural thing to use height. Obviously. Now the issue: The Lego Minifig isnt naturally proportioned - bummer, no secret! So now we choose: Do you use the height of the minifig or its width?. If you want your minifig world to be as close to your own perception of the world, you definately use height! The only reason why somebody would choose width is to have great function and playability in their MOCs .But apart from that, the results are all unrealistic by our own perception. This literally leads to this discussion all the time, and then the term MINIFIG SCALE is used and debated!!! So there is actually 2 possible scales we can dwell on. But be honest to yourself - the WIDTH is a secondary instinct to humans. It just happens that when it comes to LEGO, we have been so focused over the years to fit a minifig inside a car, that we just assumed that its width is "OK" and the norm, even I as a kid didnt question this AT ALL. Yet, it results to a problem chain, that literally everything would need to be adjusted towards that. Everything starts to get huge, way too "tall" for the fig. Now if you are a "playsensitive" Afol, with functionality as a goal, this is definately an option. But lets look at what TLG actually intended to be Minifig scale, using standard parts they NORMED for us scale proof by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr aha, id say its very close to 1/43! Those moulds really define the scale, especially the door frame sizes and the bicycle mould! Further overview of both scales: no 5 /13 by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr

well, i was hoping you'd guide us there. I was expecting a Number/Number, just like 1/43 - i mean, a scale is just that. I do the searching myself then -.- I dont think a lot of people understand the scale discussion because most people dont know on what to base the scale. Im quite sure an action figure collector has no idea what "system scale" is when it comes to Lego System... Actually TLG themselves set the Minifigure and Town scale to a 1/50 intentionally (watching several interviews, also Legoland Allianz Arena). But because the minifig is slightly larger than 1/50, they tend to narrow it down in a range from 1/46 to 1/43 since 1978. If you take parts like window frames, door frames, lego bicycle mould, you land on 1/43.... Furthermore, 1/43 is a common scale in Toys also from other manufacturers (die cast etc). Makes quite a lot of sense...

@pooda@Aanchir Since i got tagged earlier in the discussion, i feel the need to join in, also to calm the heat a little. Thanks to @Aanchir long winded and detailed write up (which is perfectly fine, i also tend to wind up with long texts usually on EB!). Everyone is free to share his opinion in any form, may it be a long text or just a short statement. Further, thanks to naming also the Set numbers, I can only come to the conclusion that in the last decade TLG has had more Sets than classic town of certain type in: -Museums -Banks (actually, for quite some time TLG kept their products "money" and still "war free", the classic dollar bill being released in 1995, so why have banks?) -Shops -Bus Stations But to be fair, in all other categories, the current City Series isnt very far advanced in concerning -harbours -civilian buildings -Airports -Hospitals Now one could make a long list of modern and old sets and compare all of them with each other BUT. There is two important facts than can not be overlooked! TLG now is one of the greated Toy producers world wide! They now have the financial status to hit out a new set in each category every year due to the high sales, coming in from multiple product lines, like Star Wars, Ninjago, licensed Disney etc That wasnt the case before 2006! Before the 90ies even, there was no licensed themes! (I wouldnt count shell, maersk and others = promotional sets!) So, that meant, some Sets had to be a somewhat a hit, cause each Set needed to make income. Nowadays, they can make do with a few flops, they survive easily. Compare a Lego Section in a Toy store from 1989 to 2019 - Its more than double as many sets now availiable in total. Heck, there is a whole room full. That furthermore also explains, why some sets from the past werent just a "1 year set", but were actually produced for a couple of years or intended to be in stores for a couple of years. Therefore you cant really compare the amount of sets "today" (lets say 5 police stations in one decade) to the few police stations back before the milennia in 2 decades, if we are really honest! One example: 6380 Hospital from 1987 is also still a 90ies set, since i got if from a Store as late as 1997 - Even in 2006 there was a always a few 90ies sets availiable in stores. So a set was "longer" up to date at least store wise. Still they hit out new Sets each year in Classic Town, which seems even more impressive back then. Yet, considering the financial status Lego had back then, they made a Town Palette thats quite diverse. @Aanchir you also mention Sets containing "buildings" a lot, yet there is an even larger variety when it comes to VEHICLES since 1980. And thats the key point here. The old strategy from TLG = classic Town. From the Legoland / Town Series or even the Early "Soccer" Town subtheme, you were able to obtain Sets that ONLY cointain a vehicle and a minifig to add on to your city: -Highway Maintenance -Telekom Bike Race Transport - diverse Construction units, not a multi set, but literally "just a bulldozer". "just a "crane", just a "hauler". - about 6 different Bussses in 3 Colours with individual Soccer teams (I admit, thats a far stretch, but its still a Bus and Town related) - Civilian Cars in like one colour - The Lego Truck - shell gas truck - lots of 4x4 vehicles - just a few ambulance vehicles Hell, i have so many individual sets with "just" a vehicle at home, its crazy. The list goes on... The modern strategy of TLG is to have mainly "large sets", that contain like one or two vehicles next to a structure. Only Speed Champions allow you to buy a single Car unit. Its true, City now pretty much has as many sets, if not even more than back in the 80ies. BUT, if i just want to "add" to my city, a single Building, a single car, maybe 5 of them - now thats a lot harder these days. Speed champions are used for that, but thats not really City, its supercars, like the racing product line. It doenst even fit the scale dimensions like the good old Classic Town vehicles certainly did. You need to buy larger sets to complete the city, not a lot of individuality here. If a kid wanted to focus on construction only, you could buy him 10 bulldozers for a fair price.... Last example why i persoanlly think Town is still superior = how real it looks! Classic Fire Station 1981 Set 6382 vs Modern Fire Station from 2013 the first one looks like a real building you could see in your Suburb, the modern Set looks like the toy it is. It doesnt get better after 2013... Its a real shame they use these "blue" windows all the time since the 90ies. Gosh, the 80ies had such great trans clear parts...or are your windows at home blue? 90ies Police HQ vs 2011 Police HQ The first is allready "modern'ish", but most Police Stations are somewhat an experimental 70ies lots of glass building. Whilst the modern thing, i mean, does it look like a real building even? Is that a Prison Motel? Or take a look at this gem: Old, yes, but building wise, looks realsitic, doenst it? Your average 70ies Building 1976 Police HQ with modern techniques, part access i think TLG could pull of realistic looking buildings (much like the modulars, just less 1800s detail mania), but apparently for kids this stuff sells better as it is now. Yet, as an Afol, i cant stop scratching my head over this. To be fair, we can just build our own stuff. yet if an AFOL claims that the new Sets are super amazing, i can just say: look around irl...is that realistic? The only good thing the modern sets have is advanced play features, but thats the toy intention behind it. Back in a day, lego was a downsized realistic looking suburbian world in bright colours, now its like an "action" theme. Unrealistic looking, but maybe more fun to play with. Its a personal opinion after all, but the nostalgic vibe isnt just because we loved them when we were kids - they are also really appealing because they represent the real world a lot more "truthful".

Yes, Classic Town was better and more realistic Why? Just look at the amount of Jobs they portrayed back in those days. Anyone remember those Harbour Scenes, Cargo Ships etc? And everything came in colours and parts you could reuse easily for other builds. Also imo it was more Minifig scaled. Now everything is really bloated, huge and expensive. TLG releases a lot of parts, yet not many in the "standard" colours. A lot of vehicles included in sets dont look like real life counterparts or are super made up/dont exist. And do we really need a new Police station like every year? ugh... maybe kids need it these days like that - i mean they do the research. But as an Afol, Classic Town offered much more, diverse areas and fields of play...

Thanks, glad you took your time for the read through. Indeed, those are the options, yet option 3 seems to be very experimental. A train might need to be 12 wide then^^ But ey, its possible! If you do, please share a pic, im interested in a real life build! thanks man Yep. even in scale modelling, sometimes its a compromise! Its definately prefence what we chose :) Thanks for the car praise, indeed that train belongs to 99% to sergio, my add ons are really minor...indeed, he is one busy bee^^ thanks mate! Glad you read it, always good to hear that it doesnt hit dull ears ;) You are very welcome, thanks a lot (also for commenting on the original thread!)

many thanks, im glad you like it that much! For instructions or more info in case you need, check my flickr ;) How about a BUS? (Credit to Gabor for the front headlight idea) 1/43 Bus, cars and 4x4 by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr

But i think that is mainly because a real bricks castle needs a HUGE amount of bricks, even though they know it should be bigger, but dont have the money to do so...i mean, who really has? Ok? how about you enlighten us then.....what is sytem scale?

Hello train fans! Over the years im continously focused on getting Cars into a correct minfig scale and i think i might have found a solution - or at least a new approach! I allready shared it over at Town forum and flickr, yet since TRAIN is somewhat part of town and usually more layout and scale focused, i think it could be of great interest here, even more than in town maybe! I guarantee its worth to read through all my pictures in this thread (or even better with optional zoom on flickr) If you dont have time to read through my historic analysis of scaling here is basically what i did (but its more understandable in my write up on flickr, lots of pictures in great quality!): I set the scale for minfigs to be 1/43, based on many calculation and historic moulds from TLG. It works well with 8 wide trains, and even 6 and 7 wide trains benefit more from my 5 wide scale than any Speed Champion or City vehicle whatsoever. 6 wide trucks are perfectly in scale! Now thats a huge plus.... The only downside: You cant fit figs inside the car, at least not all of it. BUT i managed to integrate the minifigs heads + wigs into the design, so they look like they are sitting 1+1 next to each other: "Easy" 1/43 Porsche (with instructions in other pic) by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr easy mercedes 1/43 by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr many new techniques, ways of buildings - i urge you to read my write up (again^^) no 7 /13 by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr easy mercedes instruction by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr I also frequently post instructions to each of them in my TOWN thread or over at flickr easy bmw E30 M3 by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr old meets new by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr and finally the crossover of TOWN and TRAINS. (the train/wagon is not my model, sergio posted it here on the forum not long ago) I think it looks great, there is a lot of detail in the cars, even minifig heads (2 of them per car with wigs) "seem" like they are inside, scale is working out. No large and tall cars, ideal for train layouts. car transport by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr no 9 /13 by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr So what do you think? I know its a bit "controversial" to not fit a full minifigure inside, but during my analysis i realized, that a correct minifig scale makes it impossible to fit full minifigs in cars and have correct proportions at the same time. Its literally what lego did during the minifig invention. No figs in cars, yet with trains back in a day it looked very on point. This is just an "update" to the old TLG approach, using the newest parts and more techniques for greater detail. Its very fun to build as you can see in the instructions on my flickr pics. It also decreases the issue of 6 wide cars and 6 wide trains scale paradox. I think its great for builders, who take a lot of time with scaling their train locos, cabs etc and want everything else scaled accordingly in a full layout... cheers!

thats very excellent, perfectly scaled - and many thanks for the file, i allready used it for my car and scaling ideas. Hope you like it ( i did a few minor changes so the cars are presented a bit better and not get blocked by the fencing in the render) Hope you like it :) car transport by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr

New vehicle ideas, fitting them into the train theme... i think its a perfect fit, even for small 6 wide trains! What do you think? car transport by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr

It looks great and thats an excellent front technique, very inspirational! Also enjoying that spoiler part usage ;) Despite that there is allready an Audi SC officially made by TLG, im quite sure this will get a great amount of supporters - which it truly deserves! :)

"if you cant fit the minfigure in the car it ain't a car?" Thats a very vague and somewhat untrue statement, dont you think? So the Tiny Turbo or "disney cars" series arent cars? A large creator car fits a minfig, if not 50 of them if its the technic porsche - so that is definately a car, right? " you basically have to go microfigure scale to ge a car..." - hey man, you are almost correct. But truth be told, a car in a scale that doesnt fit minfigs inside, IS the official minifig scale! 1/42 to 1/50 is the scale range, pinpointed at 1/43 by my calculations. Even TLG confirmed it. A car is as tall as a figs shoulders, correct obversvation again! Pls give this Scale analysis i did a go, im quite sure it shows the issue in every detail Now i think you meant " a car that doesnt fit a minfig isnt a minfig scale car!", right? Well, no, its still in scale - fitting a fig is a play feature, totally unecessary for the scale itself. Actually, if you read my write up (better quality on flickr), TLG really struggled with that issue. They chose to improve Play feature and gave up on the scaling idea to some extend. Saying that the minfig is fat, very true in any height they have. But that its short? Originally, no - everything in LEGO (building windows, doors, motorcycle moulds...) is calculated by height, ~ 180 cm real life, north european male = denmark, 1978, where lego is from... You can re-interpret your figs scale relation, say its short. But that is not what TLG thought it to be. It will only lead to sacrifcing a correct scale for play value. You can do that, but saying "that is minifig scale" or "if it fits in, its automatically minifig scale" is simply wrong, mathmatically speaking. There is a scale for minfigs, it just so happens that its not very "toy" friendly when it come to cars, because there are no small parts small enough to get detail AND playability working together, also the minifig is missing critical joints that would help solve the issue ...

I dare say that 6484 was the best vehicle ever, considering it had electric functions, not just a motor, but THE micro 2x2 motor (only came in 10 sets) and an electric light system with interchangable light bulbs in many colours. Furthermore it still looks great and detailed, allthough its a typical 90ies easy build up. Accesorries are abundant in this set, which was a great play feature. I switched out the F1 car for my new 1/47 classic Town scale BMW, since im currently merging new scaling ideas with the original approaches of minifig scale from TLG's early sets... I dont think the modern CITY series haulers are en pair, feature and design wise... considering this was 1995! old meets new by Ron Dayes, auf Flickr