Bartybum

Quite interesting, although watching him build it makes me probably less upset about missing out on it because of the $380AUD pricetag (christ...). The NASA Shuttle Carrier surpassed the Concorde as my favourite Lego building experience, and I don't think this one would have done the same, as impressive as it looks. The 747 build blew my mind.

I guess it's a neat build. But like... it's just a car. That's it. Sure it's got a couple of bells and whistles, but like... meh? We already get too many cars in Technic, why would we want them elsewhere? There's nothing spiritually creative about it. I think that the only way for the Bricklink Designer Program to yield a Technic set as a winner is to have something that's thematically captivating with some mass appeal. Kinetic sculptures, a GBC, clockwork devices, moving animal sculptures (SO many you could do), a steampunk vehicle, a loom, you name it. Look at someone like Alexandre Rossier's YouTube channel, or some of Nico71's non-vehicle builds. Remember the Sisyphus MOC, or anything else made by JK Brickworks? I think those are potentially winning ideas, not a car. Technic has the disadvantage of being a physically larger medium than System. Because of this it doesn't lend itself towards detail, so for the same size a Technic set just tends to be ugly, so it needs to be tarted up a little with system pieces to make itself visually interesting. But once it comes together it REALLY comes together. Below are some Technic build concepts (some of the aesthetics could be improved) that I think could have a better chance. Noting that the pneumatic ones (assuming pneumatics aren't allowed) would need a different power source, like a pullback motor or hand crank. In my mind that pendulum clock has what it needs to be a Technic BDP winner:

Just have a locking tab

For a drivetrain with as little intertia as this one, I can assure you that it will make little difference. The props will still stop spinning almost immediately. The combined friction in the drivetrain (axles, bushes, 90 degree bevels) is going to be much greater than the friction in the 20z/16z pair.

Eh, doubt it. There's probably significant enough clearance between gear teeth that it fits comfortably

When it comes to the boom and jib I agree, but the superstructure and tracks are very poorly recreated.

Oh lmao turns out all I had to do was Google Image search CaDA JCB Excavator to see it... it's so different to what I remember, I could have sworn it was a more orange-yellow, but maybe that was just the lighting

How apt that they're all the same car

Did they cancel a large RC excavator? I feel like I saw pics of something a year and a half ago but nothing since

Sure, but in the case of a gearbox that's played with top-down, it's more compact when the levers all share the same axle. The only advantage the cross axle hole has over a pin hole is to rotate the lever via the axle. While this could sometimes be useful, it's redundant since you already have the cross axle hole at the tip

Mmm I see... A sticker would've worked there methinks

That front bumper snoot is hilarious, also no idea what's going on behind the left door

Unless the B-model is a time machine

Hahahah am I going insane or is that Marjorie Taylor Greene in the middle? Not making any political judgements here but that would be hilarious if it was her

"No we can't add this feature to the crane/bulldozer/excavator/blahblah, the real one doesn't have it" It's such a godawful constraint.

Maybe not 2017 specifically, but around the years 2016-2018 there is definitely a change in the feel of the theme that I can't quite put. Around then I remember noticing more and more sets that I either didn't like the look of, or thought were kinda just lacking in execution

It's practically guaranteed that they read this forum, but it's only going to be one of many sources of feedback they have. I'm also not sure they put much stock in our opinions here to be honest. We're quite a small pool - there's very few of us in this forum that regularly leave comments

I'd assume to charge the battery

It's great to have you back :) I love how you used piston connecting rods as links for the pendular suspension, very creative part usage

Is industrial SLS tech at the stage that cleanup is automated yet?

Uh oh... looking forward to it

Mmmm I love it. Despite not being crammed full with panels and aesthetic pieces it somehow still ends up looking fantastic, AND is super dense with functions! I wish TLG made sets with this approach :(

Seems to be SLS printed, yeah. It's such an aberration for Lego to use 3D printing imo. The whole point of Lego is to use standard parts in creative ways. SLS parts are a leap beyond that, and they're so damn ugly and don't fit within the dimensions of the building system. Like if I saw those parts I'd never guess that they're supposed to be Lego

I'll finish my bit off here by saying that yes, you're technically correct in that it's called PU, but that's not the point. The point is that it doesn't matter whether we refer to it as C+ or PU, because we all understand what people mean when they refer to either.

My friend these are plastic toys, it really doesn't matter as much as you think it does. People have been using the terms C+ and PU in this forum pretty interchangeably ever since it first released