Conchas

12) Diver & Surfer Entry (Build by squiz) 14) Cowboy & Pharaoh Entry (Build by csiquet) 2) Robot & Weightlifter Entry (Build by Dan Church)

I also believe the mini-LAs are functional.

Every part/color combination is a new element. More elements in production, mean higher costs, so it is natural that TLG tries to keep under control the number of different elements in the production pipe. This however does not seem to be consistent with what we can observe from other themes. Not too far in time, I'll organize a set questions about the 8043 in a different way than usual. Then you will have the opportunity to put the question, to those who can provide an answer.

Just comparing with the best of the best! Being a smaller set, guess we are limited to the "Technic Digger Bucket 8x10" from the current parts assortment, thus giving a backhoe in the scale of 8271 or 8283. We all now that TLG has not been very prone to design new sized buckets/shovels... It might be really interesting though!

The renders are indeed superb! As usual Eric. The motor lays in fact at the position you represented. It must because it must get in and out, as the motor position is interchangeable in this model. Simply one of my favorite Technic models ever! It offers great levels of playability and fun.

So a second report sent... It may take sometime for them to react. This people also needs to work! Either we have some youngsters trying their chance, or someone trying to make pure damage to the contest. A shame that can only contribute to prevent other further initiatives like this!... It is not the first time I think about it, but this just makes me wonder again about how sure TLG can be, that contestants really have the age they claim to be. So anyone can be submitting pictures from his models (or from someone else...), declaring an age he had just years ago...

Ok, I've just reported it to the Technic designers team directly. Thanks!

Exactly!... It doesn't mean the motors are not part of the equation, but for now the culprit must be somewhere else.

After having involved 8 motors in my early experiments, I decided to try another couple of new motors which were still sealed in their original bags. And imagine what I observed... they behaved exactly as the other ones!... WEIRD!!

Mainly the first, but I wouldn't exclude the second either. I wouldn't blame the designer, but definitely it seems something was under look during the tests or not taken to the required extent, which BTW was not that big. These kind of models are getting such complexity that they might require also engineers to test them (Mechanical and Electrical). Not just designers and kids. Many of us have asking for bigger and more complex models, but this turns to be a very good demonstration that we are on the border of what should be possible to build with LEGO in terms of viable commercial sets. If we like more functions, more complex and bigger models, what they could be???

Hypothetical major or even moderate modifications like introduction of 1 or 2 XL motors, would also imply the production of new boxes making those already produced useless. It could even propagate to bags with parts already packed, if it can't be solved by adding just a few extra parts... In that case, those already packed will hardly be reused, as you would need to manually separate everything.

More gearing won't solve the problem with the customer expectations. You may eventually save the motor (if gearing down is taken to the required extent), but then the lifting time will increase again considerably. An it won't be in favor of playability neither be acceptable.

Definitely the addition of an XL-motor, assuming we will rest with 4 motors and a (2x3+1) configuration, would require a lot of changes. Namely because the motor lifting the boom is shared with one of the tracks and they shouldn't go unbalanced. Only the addition of a XL-motor itself, in the construction available, would require significant changes due to the limited space and connections available. Guess that before releasing the model, TLG designers have developed multiple solutions before chossing the final one. It is not unexpectable that some of the involved XL-motor(s). If it would be the case, that could help to have an alternative official solution quite faster. Hopefully... Time will tell us.

I've told that I'd do some tests here, and I did a lot. Just took me some more time to finalize them, than I was expecting. I do not want to enter into much details now, because I think LEGO should announce their official conclusions first. However among some faulty motors, I've notice an increased deterioration of motors performance with continued utilization. The only advice I can give you now, is that if you experience problems lifting the boom, try to use a different motor in that place. However be always careful. Never allow the motor to stall! Since the Excavator has multiple DOF it is too easy to get the Boom motor stalled, while some other function (Dipper, or Shovel) is still running. Also notice that due to the mechanical construction and forces involved, the internal clutch from the LAs never gets triggered, so the stress under stall conditions is always applied over the M-motor which will likely trigger the internal thermistor. I've done all my measurements with the Excavator powered by a Train Speed Regulator (4548) to have constant 9V supply. To clarify the suggestion given here, I call your attention that the connection requires a custom power cable or some similar artifact, since the PF converter cables route the GND/9V into C1/C2 PF lead, which won't power the PF Receivers. PS: @tomacwhite It is not necessarily a case to ask for a refund. The parts are still worthwhile.

Not totally broken, but at least it is sub-performant. As result it was not suitable for the function and I had to exchange it with one of the other motors. Hopefully it didn't end driving the boom... Something that I'll check also later. ...Meanwhile my wife arranged for a dinner outside, so lets see if can still do it today.

David sent me a mail that raised my attention to this topic, so I'd like to make a few comments. At this point I'm still not convinced this is a topic for Costumer Service or even requiring the Technic Designers attention. It looks we are simply at the limits of what can be built with ABS elements and driven by 11N.cm 9V motors. I might test again my Excavator this night, when getting back at home. When I first built it for the review at TBs it worked smoothly, despite it became more than evident that the boom raises quite slowly. I was not surprised as the torque is quite high for a M-motor. Furthermore it has so many gearing in front of it... As I've always tested my 8043 with rechargeable batteries, I imagined it would perform better with fresh Alkalines. Will test it now with the 9V regulator to see whether it improves or not. As for the Linear Actuators and the ABS wearing into dust, I don't think it applies in this case with ease. As you may see here, The LA internals are made of a metallic screw spinning inside a Teflon white part. These should not wear that easy. The screw is also quite short to minimize friction. Linear Actuators are not supplied with any kind of lubricant, and I won't recommend to lubricate yours either. Eventual small misalignments of the LAs as discussed previously, should not increase stress noticeably also. Whether the excavator arm is fully open or retracted will certainly also make some difference, as the torque or force over the boom LAs, should change noticeably. So IMO it is expectable the boom to raise slowly, which shouldn't be much different from a real excavator. However if some are experiencing extreme issues like those reported by tomacwhite, it would be interesting to see them documented into a video, just to see how different they are from others experience. Also I have the idea that with Alkaline or Rechargeable batteries, this model drains batteries quite fast. So the performance should decrease also fast. When playing with mine, I had always to frequently replace the batteries (rechargeable ones) by another fully charged set. Another thing that came to my mind is a problem I also experienced when building my model and which I've described here. I had plenty of problems with the switching mechanism, till I found that it was probably related with an under-rated M-motor supplied with my unit. Replaced it and finally everything went fine. Wonder if this couldn't be also the problem of tomacwhite ??? As I said before, later today I'll try some different power sources and do some voltage and current measurements to see if I could get into some further conclusions.

Guess you was thinking about this video from Sariel, Jetro.

The model looks from Crowkillers (Gallardo), but doesn't seem he is the one selling it. It looks plagiarism! At another Crowkillers Lamborghini original (Murcielago), only two front panels needed to be painted in yellow at the time. The same ones used in this Gallardo. But meanwhile the such parts have been released in some of the 2H Technic sets.

Brilliant work! Playability looks great. Congratulations

Great review Eric!! And of course great video from Paul either! Like that you have added such amount of pictures. This set is really terrific! I'm in love with it!!

When studless was introduced, the models look quite empty and at the time I preferred the studded models. With the release of new Technic studeless parts (namely frames and connectors), the building techniques have evolved a lot and so also TLG designers. Nowadays we don't see these "empty" models anymore and constructions are a lot more stiff and sturdy. Actually my preference goes for the studless without any doubt.

Hi Anio, It looks now you are the one being misleaded. :) If you look at the slopes alignment, you will see that the liftarms are indeed the thick versions.

Back and forth mails, made me think twice if there are really new beams in there.

Yes, right! I've been measuring more carefully and also concluded for 9L and 15L thin beams.

If I'm not doing wrong calculations/measurements we going to get 11L and 19L.