Brickend

Instantly recognizable and very good looking on the wide tires! Only comment would be that I think the rear tires should sit fully behind the cab, not slightly under it.

I don't have anything to add, other than to say thanks for taking the time to share progress; I'm following this thread with interest .

I can't help but think that some of the approaches used on supercar 8070 would have generated a more pleasing result. Mattel's version of this batmobile is also far more of a rugged space framed bruiser, rather than a highly raked streetcar....time will tell whose approach is closest. https://gizmodo.com/take-the-batmans-new-batmobile-for-a-ride-with-this-obs-1847863709

I also have to agree about the side. The F1 is not a super low car, but here it is almost touching the ground, with the sills visually sitting lower than the front and rear bumpers. In reality the ducts emanating from behind the front wheels blend gracefully into the rear flank before the rear wheel, rather than going up and over it - have you considered using plates to capture this more subtlety than is possible with a full stud?

Having just seen the new trailer, I can only hope that the ride height on this is adjustable in some way.

This has a really cool thunderbirds type vibe! The proportions and structure need some work but definitely keep going. The original concept is by Darek Zabrocki - I don't want to post a direct link in just in case, but google that name there's quite a bit of info on it. As you can see below, someone has had a go at modelling it in 3d - something is still slightly 'off' with the proportions for me, which just goes to show how difficult recreation is, even without the constraints of bricks.

That's a lovely looking tractor, and well done for getting so much realistic function into such a narrow chassis. The rear mudguards are genius!

Just watched Sariel's video and was really surprised at how high the front and rear idlers have been mounted - I assume this is because it otherwise has difficulty turning? Also a shame to see 6 bogies instead of 8 at this scale / cost.

Seeing as you have a huge amount of space at the rear, between the rearmost axle, I'm not sure why you've decided to package the motors side by side? Visually, I also think a couple of studs more wheelbase would help with proportions.

Some of these comments about the competition being a popularity contest don't come over at all well. I think directing reflective criticism at one's own builds is much more productive than trying to find fault in other's. Then there is cause and effect. A member may be popular because they produce high quality builds; ergo their build is going to be popular due to the inherent quality. I also don't think you can ever assume a correlation between a post's view count and quality.

Really like it; instantly recognisable and with every part seemingly having a reason (functional and structural) to be there. With the new Zetros tires, this MOC is making me think of a smaller version (FW or Panther)!

Thanks for all of the effort that went into this! I'm extremely proud to be a runner up and totally agree with the scoring; as Jim knows, I had my own queries over whether the original front end loader was already a bit too studless, so I'm glad that the more studded sets won through!

I'm sure a lot of people appreciated the effort to goes into creating presentations but I'd also imagine there were quite a few who perhaps felt a tiny bit mislead by the title and the relative quantity of EV3 needed, which in itself massively narrows the audience? What it does demonstrate to me is that a really good fairground ride truck could be built out of 42128.

Really enjoyed the contest and looking at all the entries. Has been fascinating to look back at the 'old' way of building and wondering how the techniques used by Lego back in the day would be judged today - the difference in robustness is really stark. It's also been good to see a lot of MOCs of a generally lower part count and budget - I would think that nearly all could possibly be made for around 100 euros each, which is rare to see!

11: 10 1: 6 4: 4 27: 3 25: 2 18: 1

Thanks for the useful feedback - you have a good eye for the slope; I didn't think it looked quite right, and after checking, it's a stud out - that's the problem with getting too close to one's own creations! Having played around with it, unfortunately there's no quick fix without ditching the air tank or moving the pump, which is heavily integrated into the chassis. 27 S or 34 R?

In the end, I went for completely stock functions and submitted the entry with the more contemporary balloon tires, as I had to concede that these were perhaps the closest in appearance. But for the sake of nostalgia and interest, I thought I'd post the other options at the bottom. Will also be trying the Zetros tires when they arrive. After looking at the later front end loader sets, I also decided to "contemporarise" the model as much as possible as creating compromises just to reproduce a studded detail seemed a bit pointless, such as using grey liftarms next to air tank to mimic / continue the grey from the valves instead of just panelling it. I also tidied up the rear bumpers, steps and cabin roof.

37. Pneumatic Front-End Loader Original set: 8459/8439/8464 Discussion topic: Here

Really useful to see well matched photos side by side. I've been thinking about the proportions and this kind of confirms my thoughts that the lower bodywork is too tall - top of rear wheel arch to waistline is 3 and a bit bricks on the original; on the new version this height is 6 stacked liftarms which is almost the equivalent of 5 bricks tall - note also that the rear bumper is level with wheel centre on the original. If there was any way to remove an entire stack (or almost 2) of red liftarms, my view is that this would greatly help the proportions.

This is a problem for me, because in the rules: Whilst I really like what is emerging here, I have to say it feels like a response to a different interpretation of the rules as I understand them. If the brief was to take an existing set and make it as functionally amazing as possible this would surely be a contender, but in my view at least, adding more functions isn't what the current competition is about.

I think you've done the right thing. Although the set was released in 1994, it looks more like a car from the eighties, so 4 speeds isn't ridiculously out of place anyway.

It may just be my screen, but I think the white balance on the camera is out? The yellows are a bit murky? I quite like the newer wheels, looks a bit like a 2022 F1 car. I'm less sure about the gap in the side pod panels, but this is where varying opinions on the rules come in. To me the modern panel's vertical gap breaks up the car's lines too abruptly, which is something IMO that a modern studless designer would try to avoid, especially given the wider choice of attachment points. But I also appreciate the rules regarding closeness to the original so I'm not sure if there is a right answer!

Fascinating to see the different interpretations of the brief within the various 8880 entries - this one is perhaps furthest from replicating the original in appearance but closest in terms of how I'd imagine a contemporary studless set to be designed. The judging for this contest is going to be extremely difficult!

This is really coming together!

@Samolot I've just asked the question about wheels on the information topic as I too was undecided about original vs. contemporary: hopefully Jim's response gives you some useful guidance