Bublehead

I agree, the stacked frames make me wonder if this is just a solution that was looking for a problem, instead of a problem with a good solution? The gearbox for the turntable slew was a better piece of engineering. I enjoy the rigidity of frames, and they do solve a lot of structural integrity issues when used, but stacking three just to make a differential housing was like over-overkill.

Ok, been working on this thing this evening. My first impressions so far- Ok, the density of the model is pretty high, and there are some interesting build techniques but it did let me know one thing personally- my own skills as a designer/engineer are not shabby when I compare this model to my own MOCs. Now before people start ragging on me for this observation, let me just add, I am not tooting my own horn here, I only state this because I found a lot of similarities in the constructs of this model and how I design. The drive train to slew the turntable is a interesting built-up gear box that seems to be a mechcanincs 101 primer on how to minimize the number of journal bearings and still produce a high torque output to move the upper superstructure. I was faced with similar challenges and the solution was a built up gearbox nightmare similar to the one under the turntable. So far, I am enjoying the build, way better than the BWE and even better than the Chiron, which was an interesting model, but lacked a lot of functionality other than the shifter mechanism and gearbox. At least here we are faced with more power delivery/routing and it’s all mechanical not just threading 15 PF wires through the superstructure and plugging them into hubs or controllers.

@nerdsforprez, ok, then here is a little more to convince you... in my best Palpatine voice- “You want this, don’t you? Buy it! Take this model to the checkout line and buy it now and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!” I think this is a great parts pack, and a C model dream for the gifted designers amongst us. Black curved gear racks... what’s not to like to like there. Lots of red and black...red 3x11 panels that don’t cost a fortune. Some nice old school 16L Technic beams. The parts list is extensive. Can’t say how I like the build, I haven’t popped the seals yet, going to build it this weekend.

My wishlist is pretty short- make more medium sized high function count models. Like the cargo plane, or service truck, or heavy lift helicopter. Every set that has any decent functionality doesn’t have to be a 4000 piece monster that does no more than the models of the past have. For 4000 pieces a set should be able to build itself and take out the trash and wash the dishes.

@mortenm, why do heroin addicts buy the drugs that kill them? I buy the sets for the build and for the parts. For $300 I get 1.25 new models to build (yeah the B model is not their best effort) and I get black banana gears. Worth it? Eh...

Sorry @nerdsforprez, didn’t mean to waste your time. Why is RTC not worth $300? Well I paid $130 dollars for a 8880 new and at ~1343 pieces and got just as much joy and satisfaction back then as the RTC will give me now at $300. I think the part counts per set have risen, but functionality has not. For 4000 pieces, this thing should make me breakfast in the mornings. I just don’t think the ballooning of piece count and price has done anyone any favors except make us expect the next set to be even larger than the last. Being biggest does not make you especially any better. At 1600 pieces for $250, the 42030 was the pinnacle of what I was willing to part with for the playability of a great functioning set. Then the 42070 came along and made us rethink what we were willing to pay for what we get. Now we get a crane. Nothing really new, just bigger. 4000 pieces for $300, a bargain, right? In the past, with 4000 parts you could make 3 models at ~1300 pieces. Three 8880 for $300?, sign me up! One model of a crane for $300? Not that thrilled.

Brought this bad boy home tonight... haven’t gone through my ritual yet. Just been looking at the box. Not sure it was worth $299 US though. You start taking that $299 and spend it elsewhere in your head and suddenly all that cheddar sitting on your shelves jumps out at you and says things like “You could have bought a nice used car with all this money dude.” and “Really dude? A Housing complex for dust mites? What were you thinking?” So one has to savor the build ritual and drag it out as long as possible, because the wife gets a little edgy when you spend money at the rate I have been lately within the last year. I mean, I went from 5 UCS Star Wars sets in June of 2017 (I had given my older Lego to my brother, some $8000 to $10000 worth from 1977 to 2008 and that is an underestimate I am sure, since that is an original costs estimate based on buying it on sale and discounted usually and the fact I would buy multiple copies of flagship sets to build both A and B models and a third set to put in the parts bins.) to now I have over 50 models worth in the collection again after tracking down most of the flagship sets I had missed and buying everything Technic that comes across the local Craigslist.

@Timoonn, the whole purpose of PUp is to consolidate all the motorized functions of all Lego products with a one size fits most solution that allows them to capitalize (literally) on the economies of scale. Our dreams and wishes take back seats to profitability and long term company survival, and that helps the the sole supplier of my favorite hobby, building with Lego. If PUp turns out to be inedible and we all spit it back up, I am sure they will have the next attempt waiting in the wings like fresh red meat to throw to the wolves. We either have to be even more vocal about our displeasure (if it turns out rancid) or with our pocket books by not buying PUp sets, or we do like we usually do. Which for a majority of us is we will pony up the hard earned dinaro at the beginning just to get our hands on it for our own test drive. Couple that with a really cool Flagship set to showcase the new PUp system, and we soon forget all about NOT purchasing the new platform. And once you have been infected, the damage is done, you capitulate, make up good reasons to move to the new system, drink the koolaid, deliver the party line that 1+1=3, Coke is better than Pepsi, cats and dogs are living together, society as we know it collapses, Anarchy reins, and the toilet overflows. For the most part, we will grumble, we will gripe, we will open our wallets, we will hang our heads in defeat, and we will walk out of the Lego Store with a big yellow bag, a wallet that is $400 bucks lighter, a little pep in our step, and if we don’t pop the seals on the box before we drive home, we will think of nothing but that all the way back home. And then we will go through our ritual as we dim the lights and get ready for our ABS plastic high mass. The caressing of the box, turning to look at all sides, the little pop of each seal, the careful dump as we try and catch the instructions and stickers before they get creased. The rustling of the bags as we lay them out in numbered order and straighten them till they lay flat. The slow perusing of the instructions, and the contemplative stare at the sticker sheet. Then the violent ripping open and dumping the parts out on the table and sorting through the parts, looking for the ones you don’t have, or ones in colors that you have never owned before. Looking at each new element, be it a plastic gear, a motor, or battery box and controller. Immediately putting the tires on the rims and fiddling with any new part to see how it interacts with other pieces. Yes, we will forget all about NOT purchasing the new PUp platform....

Well that was an as expected “nothing burger” response with major implications and I do not like where this is going either. So we will be stuck with Boost hubs and powered up hubs that can be networked together to control multiple motors with one input. So get ready all you MOCers out there, no more 14 motors, three servos, and the kitchen sink models without having to shoe-horn in multiple hubs into your models, plus having to turn the hubs on and link them to same networks... this all gets pretty “common denominator” in their own models recently. Limited number of motorized functions individually controlled by IR channels, and single motor, multiple functions via gearbox selector designs. So the orange rotary catch of the Bugatti is going to figure prominently in future solutions since the number of and control of motors will be limited, the ability to switch the drivetrain between a single motor and multiple mechanical outputs seems to be the direction TLG is taking Technic. So a complex Technic model could have 4 individually controlled motors/channels on a Boost hub, and then add more PU hubs to add more motors for more functions. So now we get onboard networking that replaces large runs of PF extension wires from centralized IR receivers but at the cost of the space of a PU hub, and any model using the Boost hub has to engineer around the location of the motorized shafts always being in the same orientation with respect to hub geometry. This all seems to support the majority of PF models we have seen recently where its single motor, mechanically switched drivetrains is the new normal fall back design. And again, most of this just boils PU down the the lowest common denominator used by all platforms, edutainment (Boost), Trains, System (Tumbler), and the yet to be seen application to Technic. And the lowest denominator is met via the Boost hub, with the PU hub giving us multiple motors from a single control output via networking. I think we should push back, but I am hoping the educational community will be the loudest squeaky wheel to push back, especially since there is no cross over adapters mentioned yet and the amount of preexisting educational PF already in the classroom is quite large. There will be a lot of teachers screaming bloody murder if they have to budget purchasing all new classroom equipment just to keep pace with TLG’s offerings. I’m not happy, Bob. -Not- -Happy-

I think this kind of ties into why TLG supplies spare parts in the set for the smallest (therefore equating to easiest to loose) pieces. The cost of the extra parts are outweighed by the increase in customer satisfaction (or actually lack of disappointment) a customer would experience by completing the model without having to interact with TLG’s customer service department. The savings is two fold, there is the savings on time and materials for the CS representative who doesn’t have to field the complaint, get the missing part, and ship it to the customer, plus the less physical and harder to determine actual value of “customer satisfaction” of completing the model without any hassle. Somebody in TLG has gone through these calculations and made a business decision based on the benefits v.s. costs. So figuring out things like how do we reduce other set costs but not noticeably affecting the customers desire to purchase have to be considered, I just don’t know what the granularity is of these calculations. I would think they would be as high as the automotive industry where cost savings of fractions of cents per part is a very big deal. When you use 1000 screws per vehicle to assemble it, and you make 100,000 vehicles a year, that’s 10,000,0000 screws and if you can save a penny per screw on costs, that’s a savings of a million bucks a year. Now We have all heard that TLG is the largest maker of tires (tyres) in the world so I’m figuring their numbers are in the automotive ranges and they DO care about every little part in every set. No decision is a small one in their world. When they worry about millimeters of thickness of a part just because it MIGHT break when taking it apart, the cost of changing the mold, the increase in plastic per part, etc.. all of these factors are thought about during the development of new parts. Would make sense they are tracking every element of a set during development, and even revisiting older elements when they are up for use in a new model. I am sure the pains that @nerdsforprez went through to look at slicing and dicing TLG data is only a small exercise in the way they actually slice and dice their own data. And if TLG is not doing this, one would wonder why not?

The Claas didn’t do it for me either... until I built it. It was a very satisfying build for some reason, even better than the BWE. Porsche is one to get on sale. I’ve been fortunate enough to get all mine either second hand or misb on Craigslist. I got my first BWE for $199 at TRUs, but got a second one for $146 on CL. My Porsche was $200 used, and I got an Arocs for $136 from TRUs (RIP) when the web site erroneously had the Claas tractor sale price listed for the Arocs. The store honored its own website price, however begrudgingly. Your idea of one a month for $150 is a good price point, and as others pointed out, doubling up a month goes a long way towards bigger sets.

Take it from a guy who used string to lift heavy things on his amusement ride, string is the bomb. Take a look at the Twirl & Hurl ride on my Flickr page. (Link in signature)

Big part of the smell is the switch to lead free solder and less caustic flux, and switching from solvent based board cleaners to more environmentally friendly ones. The board cleaners don’t remove as much flux residue which leaves the boards smelling more like hot solder and flux, the two main components in “magic smoke” when components fry themselves. At least this has been my observation in the electronics manufacturing sector of aircraft lighting, when I worked as a lighting engineer at Grimes Aerospace in Urbana, Ohio for 12 years. Same smell is in TV remotes these days as well.

This ride is the best place to pick up spare change as it is flung from the pockets of the riders. At the county fair, the kids would stand around underneath the ride and wait for the quarters and dimes and nickels to start falling like rain. Unscrupulous carny ride operators soon figured out that if they roped the area off underneath for “safety of bystanders” they could make a little extra bank, and so no more free cotton candy money

Other than being a device for the sole purpose of turning ones stomach inside out, does anyone know if the real ride coordinates the movement between gimbals to limit g-forces on the riders? I myself would not trust a carny worker to maintain a machine that requires synchronization to limit the forces on the riders. As for your implementation so far, I have said a quick prayer for your Technic guys... Like one false move and you loose an arm.... but maybe that’s all part of the show? looks like it’s going to be a Tourbillon Battle Royale for this contest. Maybe we need to judge on rider g-forces experienced?

One quick question, any room for a pullback in there?

Where is the fake W16 engine with working pistons? nice mini model by the way.

Yeah, I forgot 42042, it didn’t come up in BL under Construction sub genre.

I think the fact that it was “time for a crane” for the kids in the current demographic pipeline is why we see a big, high part count, but not a very different functional model. How many kids have been waiting for a crane? If they were 10 years old and saw the Mk II, they waited 5 years for their chance to build this one. That puts them in the sweet 15 year old demographic now and they are ready. You’ve already lost the kids who were 13+ when the last crane came out. Another year and you loose even more.

I would expect the transparent cylinder to be different, since it is not ABS but poly carbonate.

I paid $350 plus tax, total $377

I am enjoying the entries so far. Unfortunately my work schedule and real life are not going to give me the time to compete in this one. My last ride took 8 months to design, engineer, and build, so doing it again in 3 months just isn’t going to happen. Good luck to everyone. Can’t wait to see the final designs.

Check my revised post

Look up the amusement ride called Super Star, but the Roundup ride does not go inverted.

I don’t think we will ever see TLG limited by size due to strength of ABS. If they continue with the trend of 5x7 frames and Znaps-like weldments then we will continue to see big BWE-sized models. They can always engineer something bigger than the market will bear. As for my own MOCs, I have been asked why make it so big, and my answer is because I could. I have no limits on creation that TLG has like ROI, Market saturation, brand competition, production costs, tooling, labor, packaging, graphics, artwork, focus groups, social network presence, community outreach, advertising, promotion, media contacts, etc... etc... There is an upper limit because of the above factors that TLG must navigate to stay competitive and stay in business. So the trend towards bigger models will not be sustainable in the long run. They will absolutely have to focus on the flotsam and jetsam of the smaller models to keep the theme alive. Parents buy toys incrementally as funds (dispensable income) allow. It’s way more likely a parent will buy 3 to 5 small models a year for a child than these massive Christmas or birthday present worthy flagships.