Cumulonimbus

@Carsten Svendsen Your topic is a bit confusing to me. You seek advice about a color scheme of a certain builder but suggestions of Eurobrickers are not satisfying you, so it seems like you already know the correct answer. I'm not that familiar with Akiyukis work but based on the images you have shown, it seems rather random to me. Some functional areas like the "ball filling station" are highlighted in yellow, but on other mechanisms the yellow is used very limited. Two speculations from me: it might be that the ends of moving parts are highlighted for "safety", like you see on propellers. Or a more pragmatic reason might be that some parts are only available or cheaper in yellow since this is a very common Technic color. But the bottom line is this: If you really was to find out the reasoning behind the rules for color use in this work, I think you will need to contact the builder, only he knows for sure. But why copy an existing scheme, you could make your own. Your work might become recognizable and you can make up the rules. If it looks good, it is good.

As an Industrial designer myself (with an engineering degree), I feel addressed by your statement. Allow me this off-topic reply: I disagree that a "designer" just want to make it beautiful and an "engineer" wants to make it function. An industrial designer needs to make sure that his product functions in the first place as well and then face the added difficulty of making it appealing to a certain target audience. I see this as an increased level of difficulty and not a lesser achievement. Especially since "appealing" is such a difficult notion to approach scientifically, contrary for functionality. As in any product design process, this of course means compromises and a choice of priorities. You may have heard of "form follows function" which expresses a certain choice for the priority during the development of a product. Some products need to look stunning first (in order to sell well) and allow compromises in functionality, for example many consumer products. Other products, often B2B machines, are mainly focused on the functions (agricultural equipment for example) but even those need to "look good" to sell well. Additionally, don't forget the power of the customer (Bugatti in this case) in a design process. To me is is clear that under pressure of Bugatti the 42083 needed to look the part first and the functions came as a a close second, hence the compromises in the engine design and playability. In most Technic models so far, this was the other way around: functions first, then the looks. I think this is what Thomas Panke meant when stating that to him this set is not a Technic model, but a Creator/Model team model. I think the 42083 is a successfully designed product, with inherent compromises. Many AFOLs will have different priorities (realism, playability, RC, ...) and will MOD the set accordingly as already seen in the EB Bugatti MOD topic.

A bit late to the party, but I agree that the Chiron model is a worthy successor to the Porsche in the Technic "UCS" series. On several fronts, TLG has raised the bar again for these high-end sets. Still would have like to see a bit more/new functions, but hey, it's a car so I guess the options will always be limited. The brick build key with a function is a nice touch. I really like the new gearbox part. It's exactly what you need to build a realistic motorbike gearbox. I wouldn't be surprised we will see exactly that when a new Technic motorcycle set appears. On a similar note: I am disappointed in the disk brakes though: With the integration of the snap connector, the possibilities for other applications (for example in a motorbike) are very small BTW, the image of the complete model in the building instructions (see below) on the right doesn't do any favors for this model. This perspective really highlights the limitations of the current wheel hubs: the position of the pivot point required the clearance around the wheels to be relatively big to give the wheels room to move, hence the big wheel arch pieces. The result is that the wheels look too small from some points of view, something which was already apparent in the Porsche. I'm still on the fence about purchasing this set. I guess the upcoming review from @Jim or @Sariel could still convince me.

Wow, never thought so many would feel the same way. (TL;DR warning, lots of text ahead) I understand that temporary lapses in the building is normal and I have experienced those a few times as well. But this time, something has changed: First, I get the feeling that I have outgrown the possibilities of Lego. I’m a designer and product engineer by profession and have the experience that in another medium, like metal or wood the design freedom is so much larger because you’re not bound to size and shapes of Lego parts. Like most of you here, I used to see it as a challenge to translate a model into the Technic building system, but it becomes more and more frustrating that a function can’t be built in a good way because the bricks don’t allow it. In my MOCs I tend to be very ambitious and think a model should have the correct proportions of the real thing, realistic functions and be as structurally sound as possible. This often means very long building times and many iterations, often to a point where a good compromise seems impossible. At those moments I feel more and more restricted by the Lego building system. Secondly, as a creative person, I’m always looking for innovation and new solutions or products. Today, I get the feeling that everything has been done already at least once in Technic. Most real machines with interesting functions have been modelled countless times by either TLG or as MOCs. Increasing the scale doesn’t bring much advantages either. So I wonder why I should I start building another supercar, crane or front loader if I can simply buy a very similar model or instructions for it. So I ask myself, what is the point, the goal or the motivation to see a MOC through to the end? The motivation used to be playability: when I got a front loader set as a kid, I made a dump truck to play along with it, then added a trailer to transport it, etc. As said before, I rarely play anymore, nor do I have kids in my surroundings which do. When I grew older, collecting became the main drive: own an interesting representation of every real machine I find fascinating and learning something about it in the process. Once you own multiple versions of trucks, shovels, cranes and excavators, this goal is not longer there. A third thing is that I like to build useful stuff besides Lego, products which fulfil a function when they’re built. It gives me a lot of satisfaction to see a product which I thought of, being transformed to a real thing and seeing it being used. I know that a hobby should not meet the same constraints as a day-time job such a time, money and functionality. But I find it increasingly difficult motivate myself investing huge amounts of spare time into something that will just sit on a shelf when it is done. At the same time, it is hard to explain to the outside world why you took months worth’s of free time to build a toy car. I guess it is different if your models are good enough so sell instructions for or even the models themselves like some of the professional builders here. But to be honest to myself, I don’t think I will ever reach that level, at least not in Lego. On the topic of 3D printing, I have an Ultimaker 2+, which is a great FDM machine, but the tolerances are nowhere near the level of the real injection moulded parts. The Form2 (which uses a SLA process)at my work could deliver the required accuracy, but those parts are brittle and tend to shatter when stressed. This makes 3D printing not really suitable for Lego bricks ath the moment. Even the professional processes like the SLS-process Shapeways uses, has its limitations. So I guess the conclusion so far is that building in Lego lacks the satisfaction and fun for me to justify the required effort and time at the moment. We’ll see how this evolves, it might just be a quarter life crisis, I hear those are popular . For now, I’m not considering selling any Lego yet, but I might store my collection out of sight for a while. @nerdsforprez Thank you for the tip, I will check it out.

Hi guys, I like to share a personal dilemma with you: Lately I’m feeling increasingly “meh” about Lego Technic and I can’t put my finger on a reason. A few of the symptoms are: Fewer ideas for new MOCs WIP’s are grinding to a halt and gathering dust, even in the winter months. Related to this: I noticed that I'm missing the necessary patience to tackle a building problem. Reduced urge to participate in AFOL community activity. Both my rate of visits and topic activity have been decreasing for a while. Less excitement when new official sets are shown, I used to get all excited when seen first images of upcoming sets and started thinking about possible MODs to make it more personal or a little bit better. Not so much nowadays. I almost never admire my display anymore nor do I take models from their display and play with its functions. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not blaming this on anybody but me. I think new sets are still good and the community is still very active. So I think there is a personal reason behind it, but I can’t think of any. It is probable that creative energy is being directed to other projects like my 3D printer and Makerspace activity. But then again, I have always been busy with many activities besides Lego. Nor is it the financial resources which are the bottleneck. I don’t feel this is a problem per se, but I miss the excitement I use to have for sets, MODs and MOCs and I feel a bit sad if I consider a Lego-less future for me. Is this recognizable to anyone? Is my inner child simply done with “lego-ing”? Should I go with the flow or try to reignite the passion with a new Technic project?

That means it will be compatible with the current motorcycle rims as well, right?

I know, but something feels a bit off. Either the back should be larger or the cabine smaller to feel like a true heavy duty forklinft: For now, I looks more like the smaller version seen below, but then I would change the wheels to smaller ones as mentioned before:

It's a nice little model. The tyres might be a bit to big in relation to the rest of the body, Maybe it would look even better with dual 49.5 wheels of the front a single 49.5 wheels at the rear? I hope the forks lift high enough and the wheels have a sufficient steering angle for good playability.

I agree. Volvo uses the color orange to highlight the parts on the outside of a machine which are intended to interact with users. Steps, guide rails and handles on real machines are orange nowadays, and this idea is used in this futuristic vehicle as well. By that logic, the two orange connectors are supposed to be handles to be pulled by an operator to open a part of the rear compartment. maybe for recharging/refueling, engine maintenance, programming, ... I finally figured out what bugged me about this machine. It is the fact that it lacks a sense of scale to me. In models of a real machine, the size of the cabine gives you an idea of its size in relation to the human scale. Since this hasn't got a cabine for obvious reasons, it is much more difficult to figure out how big this vehicle is supposed to be "in real life". Based on height of the first step in relation to the ground and the spacing between the handles and height of those handles in relation to the tyre, I feel it's smaller than you might imagine, more likely to be the size of a L60H than a L350H.

Is that the mechanism for a roll-on container truck? Nice idea of decoupling the extension from the tilting mechanism. Curious to see the result of this project. Will it be Arocs scale or smaller?

Nice picture, but I'm confused by the model. I still don't understand what the back of the vehicle is supposed to be. It look like a recipient or even a grade to sort bricks? At first I thought the bucket could tilt backwards to store bricks in the back temporary, but now I don't think the arm can tilt far enough and the back part is too small in relation to the bucket. Funny that this model of an autonomous vehicle is hand controlled.

I'm with you. I really like the fact it is big scale rough terrain crane, such a model has been on my MOC list for years. For me, it has a 8854 vibe to it, a model which I drooled over as a kid. Including the house modules and the spreader plates are a really nice touch and the first time any significant load was part of a Technic set as AFAIK. But on the other hand, the scale in relation to its features is a bit surprising. I wonder what mechanisms are on the inside, but it might feel empty inside. When I was thinking about building a MOC rough terrain crane, I was building prototypes on 49,5 or 62,4 tires, but never considered the 94,3 wheels because I didn't need the interior space. I think the BWE rings (possibly with new bearings) might be the element which dictated the scale. This size has some potential though. I forgot what features were in the description, but I'm hoping for four wheel drive and steering and suspension on at least one axle. The clearance between the wheels and the fenders don't suggest any suspension I'm afraid. I'm also not convinced by the stacked panels on its right side, it looks messy.

Thank you for your nuanced opinion. I wasn't talking about money, but about value which is a completely different concept. I consider myself lucky that the money asked for this set is not an issue, the value it will deliver potentially is. I won't give a lecture here about cost-value-price, but I will say that for that price I expect a certain value in the form of features, looks, parts and desirability. My concern is that the little information we have so far give me the feeling that the value of the set will not be high enough to justify the price.

Forgive my gloomy state of mind at the moment, but I must confess that the upcoming Bugatti leaves me feeling a bit "meh" for a number of reasons: 1. Price: The Porsche was almost too expensive to buy for me and this set will cost even more. So I fear that even with discounts at my regular shops, it will remain out of reach for many potential customers. 2. Complexity: The Porsche left out some features of the real car (like 4 wheel steering, door locks, ...) that could have made the set more interesting mechanically. These weren't really that difficult to incorporate into the design and would have added to the "UCS status" of the set. The paddle shifting gearbox was really cool, but after building the Porsche, I felt that the earlier supercars like the 8860 and the 8880 had more varied mechanisms, like adjustable seats, pop-up headlights, rear wheel steering, etc. I really hope that the rumours of a brake system in the Chiron set turn out to be true, otherwise I think the Bugatti will struggle to be mechanically more interesting than its predecessor, let alone the legendary Technic supercars of yesteryear. Simply chucking a huge number of cylinder parts in a car is not enough to make it a "UCS technic set". 3. Looks: Converting the organic curves of a real car in a Technic model will always be challenging, but the proportions and looks of the Porsche felt a little off to me. The nose was too long, the roof a bit too low or flat, the wheels a tad too small (or the wheel wells to big), etc. I think that the Chiron will be even more difficult to accurately translate into a Technic model, without looking too bulky or square. 4. Hype: The long build-up of the hype and secrecy will inevitable lead to inflated expectations and disappointed members of the community. Maybe the fact that the Porsche was showed of as a camouflaged "concept car", prepared us better for what was to come and tempered the expectations. 5. Model: The Bugatti Chiron just isn't my cup of tea. I know this must be like swearing in the automotive church, but I like cars which are more innovative, clever in their construction, better looking or more down to earth. The Chiron is a big heavy engine on wheels, with huge amounts of auxiliary systems just to keep the engine working. It is not as pretty as a Laferrari, high tech as a GT-R, subtle as a Lotus, innovative as the hybride supercars or real world as a Golf GTI. I like building stuff I see around me and a Chiron just isn't one of those machines. I would love to be proven wrong though, I guess we'll see in a month's time.

Not in real life, but I used the LXF-file of effermans wide body mod to make this image: http://i68.tinypic.com/sbn2x4.jpg It just doesn't look right to me, the original wheels look much better, even if they are single rear tires. EDIT: It seems that images aren't loaded automatically for me, I keep seeing only the links, any ideas how to fix this?

Great models, nice work! I love the clean lines at this scale. We need more small and midscale Technic MOCs and sets.

Hi Kees, Welcome to the forum, but I have two remarks about your post: First of all, the common language here is English to make topics accessible to all our members. It's not a problem if your language skills are not great, we can understand in most cases. It is possible to message a Dutch member directly in Dutch, but if I remember correctly, this feature is not yet avaible for new members until you have a certain amount of posts. Second, it's not really clear to me what you are looking for. Are you looking for the LDD file of the standard 42054 set, instructions of a specific MOC you have seen somewhere (if so, which one?) or are you looking for help making your own MOC? Please clarify your question and I'm sure we can help you. Good luck and kind regards

A model of a "functioning" engine block and corresponding gearbox was on my MOC to do list for years and I have made a couple of mock-ups and rough models. There were a couple of problems I couldn't find a good solution for: The size of the cylinders and modeling the combustion chambers using Technic bricks, using standard springs for closing the valves, keeping friction low enough, etc. In the end, I abandoned the project and opted for a 3D-printed model (not my design): Which can be found on Thingiverse.

Hi Grum, good to hear from you again! The other week you crossed my mind and I wondered about a next update. Sorry to hear about the limitations you have at the moment, but I know you just won't give up. Have you considered building digitally to complement the real world building? Lego Digital Designer (LDD) is relatively easy to learn and might keep you building while real bricks are out of reach. You could add to our archive of digital models of official Lego sets, or even venture in the world of MOCs. All the best and happy building.

See my post in the 2018 discussion:

Just a heads-up for anyone in Europe considering to buy sets in the USA and shipping them to a country in the European Union: In theory is it compulsory to pay import taxes on anything imported from outside the EU, even if the items are second hand. You can choose to ignore this and hope your shipment will not picked out for a check. But in my experience, the chances that customs will check you shipment and tax it are high. Additionally, this check will lead to extra fees. I have experienced this firsthand and had to pay these taxes and fees cash when the shipment was delivered at my door. The total amount of extra costs can make you sweet deal taste sour.

I agree. It could be a cool vehicle, but since you can't actually drill in your table top, I wonder about the functionality and playability.

Based on the information available at the moment I feel that the set might be rather empty inside. It sure looks impressive, but its functions might not live up to the expectations based on the size and part count. I once worked on a MOC of a similar Grove crane with the same functions, but it was based on 62,4 tires and there was plenty of space inside for the functions at this scale. I'm a supporter of the philosophy that a set/MOC should only be as big as necessary for its functions. Building something big for sake of being big has never excited me. On the other hand, if the 42082 turns out to have 4 wheel drive and/or 4 wheel steering, it could be alright. I'm also a bit surprised that the outriggers don't use the Arocs/Anthem gear racks, maybe they are too small for this large scale?

I could be wrong, but doesn't it look like there is difference in width between the front and rear tires?

Nice find! It clearly shows the W-shaped engine and I think a sequential gearbox like the 42056 has been confirmed: The part which is being picked up by the hand is similar to the mechanism in the Porsche. The springs seem to be attached to the chassis directly, so ride height adjustment is not likely.