Bartybum

I 100% agree. The forum should also serve the needs of its community

To me the real contempt here is the act of reporting a thread about a well respected user's latest MOC, solely because he was tired of bootleggers stealing his instructions and him having no way to stop it, save for licensing it out to a clone brand. Moving it to this forum does nothing but stifle Technic discussion and annoy users who wanted to talk about this MOC. What slippery slope? The only reason it survived as long as it did was because it was designed by Bruno, who is well loved on EB. Damn, what an elitist view. Given the positive reception, surely it's obvious that the Technic community felt the need to discuss it too. I might have to if we're not allowed to discuss our veteran members' creations where they'd be able to receive the most reception. Such hard-line, black and white rules damage our community. They hide the positive reception that no doubt motivates Bruno to build more. I can understand EB Technic rules not allowing discussion of standard clone brand sets, but the forum REALLY needs to be more accommodating when it comes to special cases like this. @brunojj1 It'd be a huge shame if you left, your work really adds to the community

@Ngoc Nguyen Looks much more proportional, but I think you should reduce the max height of the bonnet by one stud

@brunojj1 I mean, it’s not us here saying what it is. CaDa’s official store literally says it’s a replica of the Ferrari 488 Pista.

It would be nothing short of rude to share, because the whole point of the contract that CaDa does with designers like Bruno and T-Lego is so that they get money for their works.

It’s a 488 Pista replica. I gotta say though, while I’m a big fan of the front, the back’s proportions look a bit bloated

Good god this is bloody well advanced. I'm amazed at the steering drivetrain reverser mechanism

It’s not a maybe, it’s 100% no chance whatsoever. A C+ hub alone costs more than €50, and TLG has completely abandoned PF by now.

No chance the Jeep will be motorised - it’s only €50. If it was, we’d expect to pay nearly twice that, if the bs TLG pulled with 42109 is any indication.

Because licensing sells. I’m expecting normal balloon tyres tbh

Doubt it - pretty sure they got a lawsuit from Boeing when they released 60021

Shame that the small excavator won't have pneumatics, would've been nice

This is amazing man, I’m tempted to get 42100 just to build this. I love the idlers

I just want small and medium sets with pneumatics

Nah hell no, there’s a dude here that cannibalises his Lego with robotics and custom mechanical parts to make really cool stuff. All flavours welcome as long as it’s majority Lego

That just adds another function to a set that already has 8 other functions. I could really only see another backhoe flagship as being pneumatic like 8455, but with a motorised compressor

I thought about it for a bit a while back, but if we want a full RC backhoe with CLAAS tyres, we need a new cable splitter for PU. At the CLAAS wheel scale you can have a minimum of five motors, one of which runs a gearbox alternating between drive/tipper and backhoe modes. And at that scale it'd be a challenge to fit two smart hubs, a gearbox and five motors that all route through the gearbox :S

Yeah because it looked and functioned like trash lmao. Something like these would've been much better received: Spider cranes can't be small sets if they have the large tread links

But 2-3 cars a year? That's just unrealistic and would be a waste of TLG's resources at that point...

Of course Boeing would C&D for that, the greedy c***s... Epitome of corporate dickwaddery

They'd be better suited to Speed Champions or Creator Expert imo. Technic should be functional, and the 42093 is anything but

Oh lol my bad

Surely only as a $10-20 set though, right? It's a very boring contraption

Ah I see, my bad

Not that they failed, but the first production run of LAs had a clutch that tripped too early. But "how do we fix the sets that are at the shops" is inherently at odds with recalling for military licensing concerns. In one case you seek to repair and get it back out, and in the latter you're only concerned with removing it from shelves.