hjxbf

Yes, I happen to have access to TLG board decisions, lawyer letters and emails between the parties...? I could have spent an hour typing out several markers of why this can be perceived as a hostile takeover, I chose to post my own summary. The key point being that this transaction is definitely good from TLG's point of view, but is most likely to the disadvantage of the end user (us). You are at liberty to classify that as speculation, analysis, opinion or downright garbage ? The proof lies in the future. What will TLG do? 1) Will they develop Bricklink further, use the data within the platform to make available a greater variety of products and pieces, at an average lower cost and better availability, by e.g. actively tailoring their own production to alleviate scarcity in brick availability? This would be VERY good news for the end user, and increase TLG's revenue. 2) Or, will they impose limitations on how Bricklink is used, by restricting flexibility, availability etc. in order to steer demand towards the point of highest revenue. Such as disallow new sets to be resold while they are still in production, to curtail resellers buying bulk while discounted and then undercutting TLG's standard price later? Or disallow reselling exclusive pieces which they want us to buy an expensive set to obtain, such as Porsche rims, Powered Up components, rare colours, etc? This would be VERY bad for the end user, and increase TLG's revenue. Alternative 1 is nearly unprecedented in business, hence I find that very unlikely. Alternative 2 is very common, and is what I expect to happen. In which case it bears all marks of a hostile takeover. I would be delighted to be surprised in this matter!

You kind of get the feeling that this rather surprising ownership change wasn't entirely voluntary on the previous owners' part. TLG seems to have had their lawyers drum up a series of demands which the site has been presented with to comply with, or else be shut down. The "sale" being suggested as a remedying "Alternative B", which was the only way for the previous owners NOT to be bankrupted by legal trouble. Classic hostile takeover. Shame that one of the few remaining toy and game companies which used to care more about fun and innovation has done a Disney and gone down the corporate legal toilet. May actually well be a consequence of relying increasingly heavily on IP from such infested companies, which force their collaborators to adhere to the same standards as themselves... This might never have happened if TLG stuck with generic or own IP. Together with the price increases for sets, as well as quality issues being widespread, I find it increasingly difficult to be motivated to keep LEGO as a hobby, my primary one for 25 years.

Developer release apps.

I'd like to add to the praise of your elaborate written reviews, Jim. In addition to the impeccable photos, your writing has always been elaborate, and with a positive vibe (constructive criticism). I have never seen you bash a set without justification, and I think you always are as positive towards a set as the set itself can justify. Which for me sums up to an informative, honest and well-meant review, which I'd be sad to see disappear. I think that purely photography-focused reviews would be a drawback, as it offers less in comparison with a video review than the full package. Personally, I read your reviews, Brickset reviews and watch Sariel's, and enjoy them all very much (and I find they complement each other well). Usually, if the reviews show me an interesting model, and your review is generally positive, I end up being convinced to buy the set. (And have ended up with most medium and big sets since 42000..., 42077 and 42096 being notable omissions). Haven't gotten around to buying the latest wave yet, partly because I'm missing your reviews (and having to save up the dough first...), though you just convinced me to buy the Land Rover. Please keep up the excellent work! Btw, I cannot imagine review timing to be a factor in not receiving the sets anymore; Brickset are notoriously late with their Technic reviews, but they still keep getting them.

Great review as always! However, I was kind of hoping for a test of its driving capabilities (climbing, obstacles etc) as well, not because the real machine does it a lot, but because TLG included some slope climbing footage in their promo videos, but not enough to assess the set's performance.

Great guide! Was never able to unleash the potential of my SBricks, this helps me a bit further. Thanks!

4: 10 2: 6 1: 4 8: 3 7: 2 3: 1 Very cool contest to follow!

If the original set was commissioned by Vestas a Christmas gift for its employees, LEGO probably charged for the design at that time. Now that LEGO are profiting off of that, a modest "licence" fee per set could be a convenient way for Vestas and LEGO to even out the profit/costs between themselves. I doubt it has much to do with the brand itself.

I agree with those of you balking at the price. But don't we forget a little too quickly? 9398 was $200 at retail, and people are forking out up to €130 for a BuWizz or SBrick, both which rely on a mobile device to operate. Granted, TLG would benefit from economy of scale, but I assume the electronics count for at least half the cost. I would love a proper remote, though...

Here's a thought: If there are turntables for both axles, could they be mechanically linked so that they always rotate in opposite directions? This would allow for distribution of deflection across both axles, while preventing the car from tipping on its side when having two pendular axles. The turntable's teeth facing inwards may be a hint?

Another suggestion may be to turn this into the completely opposite direction: Build a realistic and functionally accurate representation of any pre-1900 technical device. (may be clocks, steam trains, old machine tools, siege weaponry, etc). Consider setting part limits (e.g. minimum 1000 pieces) to stimulate interesting size and complexity. I reckon this might be a welcome relief from the "just another vehicle" builds?

A chassis size comparison between 8110 and 42082 would be great!

Original idea!

Considering PF is an integrated part of many Technic models (including official ones) which have nothing to do with robotics or Mindstorms, I hope the PF discussions stay here.

Please let us know how we can help! I'd love to see Technicopedia evolve further; it's a great site!

I have read the entire thread, and seen everybody's arguments. I thought the negative ones were a bit too based on augmented facts and bias. Hence why I chimed in ? I am not looking to change your opinion, just document that there are alternative views, and that the set is not universally disliked. Quite happy to move on as well?

When I last bought PF components from shop.lego.com, the price difference between the two motors was exactly 10€. I disagree with the comparison with the others sets in this wave; There are clearly compromises in each one of them with reference to their real life counterparts (wheel sizes, boom angles, lift heights etc.). I do not find 42080 any worse, my son identified immediately the two types of equipment the A and B models were supposed to be, from his limited reference to forestry videos on Youtube. I to agree that the colour scheme doesn't match any real world examples, but the shape and functions are unmistakeable. I don't find it fair to dismiss a model on colour choice alone.

The Volvo licence has been dirt cheap for every Volvo set so far. I'd argue it makes negligible difference. The part difference is approx. 100 pcs, equating about 10€. However, this is offset by the inclusion of an L rather than M motor. Which then boils down to looks. Which never influences price anyway, and which is subjective. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but your objective points don't support it, as far as I'm concerned ?

It's slightly more expensive than a motorized 42053 at retail, with similar pneumatics parts. Don't see the problem, particularly for those that don't have motors in their inventory already.

It is my eldest son's absolute favourite in the 2018 lineup, because of its theme, functions and playability. I'd say LEGO did pretty well...

What's with all the hating? I'm getting two ? Cheap access to motorized pneumatics, as well as A and B models that complement each other very well? Better than most 2018 sets if you ask me...

Thanks to having read this review, I spontaneously bought this as a present to my son when I stumbled across a sales campaign. Would never have considered it otherwise. Thanks!

Great and thorough review!

Hi! Welcome to the forums! I would use Bricklink. Here is the inventory for 8479: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=8479-1 If you select any of the parts, you will find online stores selling these exact parts. I used that with great success when refurbishing my own 8479, including buying new flex and power cables. The sensors can be checked like this: Load one of the models' compilation program, hook up the sensor and see/hear if the Code Pilot responds. All instructions and user guides are available here: http://lego.brickinstructions.com/m/lego_instructions/set/8479/Barcode_Truck Good Luck!

I have 8479, and specifically bought an extra motor to fill both slots when the set was new. Only the motor driving the arm can be hooked up to the Code Pilot; the drive motor needs a separate battery box. I originally used a long cable connected to the old 9V battery box (https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=5115-1&name=9V%20Battery%20Box&category=%5BService%20Packs%5D%5BTechnic%5D#T=S&O={"iconly":0}), but I am confident that it's possible to fit and use an IR receiver and a small battery box from PF. Having both motors in place and the Code Pilot turned on when driving, makes the rev sounds match the driving - it's a great experience!