Bartybum

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

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

Really splitting hairs here, everyone knows what people mean by C+

I think this is extremely unlikely, and it's more a case of them being constrained by having to develop a product instead of a MOC. It's a pretty safe bet that Technic builders are Technic fans as well, so they've probably seen so many interesting mechanisms and vehicle types that they'd love to try make.

Lmao anyone else getting an offer in the "frequently bought together" that includes the smaller brick built version, bundled together for LESS than the larger version alone?

I'm gonna buck the trend here and say mate, charge what you feel comfortable charging, your model looks awesome and making instructions takes time and effort. If I had the set I'd buy the instructions

Lmao, Lego is so doomed in the next 10-20 years. You just can't compete with China - it's crazy how much more is on offer with this set compared to the UCS cars...

...such as?

42100 had a pretty decent mix of speed and power though, even if not mechanically authentic