Cumulonimbus

I was thinking about the question how easy it is to collect the necessary 10000 votes to be considered by TLG? I get the impression that Lego Ideas proposals are often "hi-jacked" by it's relevant fanbase. I see MOC's like the exosuit and that satellite-thingy from which I never would have suspected that they could be so popular. If it is all a marketing scheme, isn't it just a case of consciously targeting a specific fanbase with a Technic model? I suspect that this was the main reason why the Land Rover got the necessary votes in the first place: Not necessarily the complexity, but the fact it was recognisable and appealed to the considerable amount of Land Rover fans. In other words, by choosing a popular "thing" to build, making it recognisable and with a realistic part count, should be enough to win half of the race. Additionally, if this is repeated often enough, I think it is a matter of time until a Technic model appears at the other end of a reviewing process. It could be a challenge worth undertaking. PS: it occured to me that maybe TLG has a different policy for Technic models. The 41999 was a marketing success as well, but has it origins outside the Lego Ideas process. Maybe similar contests are in the pipeline?

Could it be that TLG itself doesn't really know what the goal is of Cuusoo and Lego Ideas? The fact that they keep it very open to any submissions without restrictions (style, theme, part count, PF use, etc) makes me think it is more or less an experiment to see where it might lead. If there isn't a clear plan or goal, then it shouldn't be a surprise that marketing motives are guiding the selection process.

I agree with you, in fact is was discussed in this topic: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=98984. On the other hand, I recently bought and build the 8880. I never owned this set and was excited about the trip down memory lane by building studfull for the first time in a very long time. However, I wasn't as impressed with the 8880 as I expected. I feel there could have been more attention to details at this scale (adjustable seat position, openable doors, better interior, engine details, ...). The construction itself somehow lacked ingeniuity, I can't exactly get my finger on why, but I think I might be spoiled by the great studless sets of the last decade. More to the point, for me personally, the real advantage of studless is the increase of functionality and complexity of small and medium scale sets. Combined with the increasing realism and attention to details in the looks of the models, partly thanks to the panels and flex axles, means that I really think this is the golden age of Technic. And I get the feeling that we will see a lot of great sets and MOCs.

Looks nice, but I wondered if you took the scale into account? The Unimog is a bit of an odd vehicle because it is very short for its height, so it tends to give a wrong impression about its size in images. I get the feeling that MOC add-ons and tools are often out of scale because of this effect. I might be wrong, but a trailer like you designed could be a lot longer in real life. If you google for Unimog with trailers, you see that standard trailers are often a lot longer than the Unimog. (for some reason I can't put images of good examples here right now) I don't know if your intention was to get the realism as high as possible (it is the driving force in my MOCs), I just wanted to share my point of view. Nevertheless, nice work!

Sounds great! Based on the interval between previous Technic bikes, I was expecting a new motorbike in 2015, so I'm curious to see what the designers came up with. I also like the sound of the tracked loader, I would like to see a tracked Bobcat-like vehicle. The endurance racer, rocket car, "hubarbeitsbühne" and arctic vehicle are very promising and could be very original vehicles that haven't been designed before by TLG. I will keep my fingers crossed that at least one of these sets have the new Tumbler tires, and I am wishing for nice color schemes and maybe new parts.

Yes, I agree, that is a clever mechanism. Does it also allow to tilt the container for dumping, without it touching the ground?

Motorbikes please. Or some interesting equipment on tracks like a new crawler crane, a bucket wheel excavator or a stone crusher (which could sort bricks according to size).

It is nice to read that there are very diverse opinions about this topic. I agree that PF and RC can add value and the 8258 and 8043 are prime examples where this is implemented in a very nice way. Seeing that PF and RC-like features can be found in the entire TLG portfolio, even Duplo, I suspect that this is indeed an indication of changing expectations from kids and/or parents. I know it is a bit off topic, but I wonder if this trend means that we could even expect RC City sets besides trains? People talked about the magic of bringing own creations to live. I can understand what they mean, but I would admire it more in City sets. Just image remotely driving your car through you own city. It would even be technically possible to automate part of you city, where a number of cars follow a magnetic field in the road. To bring the discussion back to the Technic topic: people discussed the size of Technic sets. I want to state that I don’t have anything against growing size of Technic sets. I just think that there might be an optimum where the number of functions, the scale and the required bricks are balanced. Again, this is probably a personal preference, but for me this optimum can be found in medium scaled sets like 42006 and 42024. Remember that the great thing about Lego is that everybody is completely free to modify stuff they don’t like. Build on!

Erik, that's a very interesting hypothesis: the larger a set becomes, the bigger the need/desire for PF. I'm in limbo about the growing set sizes: On one hand I love the fact that the boundaries of what is possible with standard bricks are shifting and the potential this creates. For example: I was completely overwhelmed by the 8258 when it launched. I learned a lot from building it, love the realistic proportions and functions and it is still one of my all-time favorites. At the same time, the mid-scale sets like 42006 and 42024 have triggered my imagination the most to create MODs and MOCs. They are more manageable during and after construction and the size limitation challenges my building abilities. The new tires as on the 42024 opened my eyes for the potential for trucks at this scale. I must say that I lost interest in some of the huge sets such as 8110 and 42030 much more quickly than medium or even small scale sets. An as mentioned, the number of functions doesn’t necessarily increase with increasing set size.

I'm a child of the 80's, so I don't mind pushing, pulling and turning myself. But it raises an interesting point: As an AFOL, my focus is on constructing and not on playing. I guess that the focus of the target user group (aka "kids") is more on the playing and animating the machines, where PF and RC possibly add play value.

Since I emerged from my dark ages, I noticed that there seems to be a trend of increasing use of Power Functions (PF) and Remote Controls (RC), in official sets and MOCs. Where adding a motor used to be optional, now there are more and more TLG models with integrated PF and RC. Even worse (in my eyes) is the fact that an official set can’t be a flagship model without any form of PF. When I see Technic MOCs in the various media, this phenomena is even more clearly visible. MOCs which get the most admiration from the community are packed full of motors, receivers, battery packs, lights, etc. The most common MOD of released sets is “RC-ing” the functions. New initiatives like the S-brick seem to confirm this trend. I observe this and I can’t understand what the fascination is, I have always had a preference for manual controls. This tend to lead to more fascinating mechanisms and make more compact models possible (just look at the amazing MINI-contest entries). In MOCs, it forces you to think about the user-friendliness of the controls and gives valuable feedback about the load on the drivetrain and the efficiency of a mechanism. I can understand adding one PF motor to avoid endless knob turning, although I found that adding a hand crank like on the 8288 Crawler crane improves this dramatically. But PF-ing all functions doesn’t necessarily makes it easier to control and takes away most of the feedback. With RC, I feel even more detached from the model and its functions. Additionally, I don’t like the noise the Lego motors make and I cringe every time a motor triggers the overload protection of a LA. When my 42030 and 8043 are switched off, the feel like dead weight and I notice a bigger threshold to take them from the shelve and play around with. All this has lead me to remove the PF and RC from a lot of my TLG sets to make the model manual: My 41999, 42025, 8070 have been de-PF-ed and became more interesting by it. In conclusion: in my opinion, PF and especially RC make a model slow, noisy, heavy, bulky and expensive. So my questions is simple: what is the fascination with motorizing a Technic model? Is it something younger generations want or demand, or is it a phenomenon driven by AFOLs? (PS: Don’t get me wrong, this is not a rant against PF and RC, I really can appreciate their value. But I do struggle to understand the fascination with motorizing everything.)

What about LDD files as deliverable? It is a very good way to judge the technical aspects of a MOC such as (illegal) shortcuts, part count, techniques used, functionality, mechanisms and even structural rigidity (for a trained eye). On the other hand, not all builders use LDD as a tool or have proficient skills. Additionally, judging +50 LDD files can be time-consuming.

A big thank you to those who awarded me some points so far, but my entry is really lagging behind. Time for some shameless advertising: I have designed a compact, structurally sound airplane with attention to proportions and its design. The mechanism is childproof as you can only land when the rotors are in the correct position and the landing gear locks automatically to withstand any landing forces. If you have the iconic 42025 at home, you simply must have this little gem parked next to it. It has been build on the same scale and really put emphasis on the size of the 42025. In short: vote 35! Thank you in advance.

After careful consideration I decided to reward my points to my personal top 5 entries. In the order of entry number these are: 3: 5 22: 4 31: 6 38: 2 52: 3

Thank you for all the nice comments. I'm very curious to see how it will do in the voting. Seeing the competition, I will need all the points I can get.

I was wondering, since this contest is so successful (even my personal shortlist has 10 entries), and the total number of voting points is increased to 20, would it be an idea to extent the possible prices as well? For example the top 5 could win something? Or would this conflict with your idea of standardizing the contests?

Jim, thank you for making this contest possible. I noticed that the voting topic opening post mentions the Triple contest a couple of times, including the link to the topic. Is this done on purpose? (if so, I don't quite understand why).

You will need a dice with 57 sides

Since so many people are not sure which entries will get their vote, I wonder wether it would be a good idea to come up with a list of "requirements". For example: originality of model choice, creative part use, appeal of the color scheme, how close it comes to an official TLG set, presentation, etc. This short list could give voters a bit more support to compare entries. Just an idea...

I love this competition, I am amazed by the creativity and diversity of the builders here. I would never have thought that 200 Technic bricks (including those sneeky friction pins) would still allow for so many different points of view, some builders even had enough with 100 parts. During my build, it was intimidating so see what my model was up against and was struggling to choose a strategy: maximize cuteness, functions or oddness? It is the first time I participate is such an contest and I must say that it is a very educational process. On one hand you have to come up with a model that stands out from the other entries in some way or another. On the other hand, the limited part count forces you to reconsider each part you add. I found myself going back an forth between creating an iteration to improve a function for example without caring too much about the part count and a subsequent rebuild where I tried to eliminate parts. I truly think my MOC-ing skills have improved due to this process. For example: in one iteration I went from 266 to 204 parts just by combining structural elements and critically review all pins, connectors and axles used. If there ever was an illustration for the saying "Less is more", this should be it. Wonder what a 100-piece limit would result in ... To all co-contestants: Thank you for sharing your creativity and good luck!

And it has been officially entered in the competition ...

35. Tilt Rotor Aircraft Model name: Tilt Rotor Aircraft Part count: 200 Functions: Tilting rotors, operated by lever Retractable landing gear, linked to rotor tilting, self-locking Free spinning rotors Manual rear hatch Promotional image: Parts overview: Link to the WIP topic for more information: http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=98244

Thanks for the tip, I'll see what I can do.

Thank you for the comments, @Zblj: Cool, it would nice to compare them after this competition. I had a version with working ailerons and elevator at roughly the same scale, but the part count was way over budget. Additionally, my previous MINI had ton of functions, but the looks lacked the "gimme-factor". With this build I invested quite a lot of parts in the looks, in the hope it would convince a kid (or a voter). This is how it looks so far: Part count is 206, so still some work to do. It really feels solid and swooshable. The "landing-lever" is under the wing, right where your thumb is while holding it, so a smooth transition between the flight modes while playing is possible with a flick of the thumb. The mechanism has no gears so it is nice and smooth, and when the wheels are down, the mechanism self-locks to prevent the landing gear form collapsing under load. Inside, it looks something like this:

I wasn't happy with the way my MINI airplane was turning out, so I decided to start over. I wanted to build something which was a bit more unusual. While searching for something to build, I came across the Bell XV-15, an experimental tilt rotor aircraft, which combines the advantages of a winged aircraft with those of a helicopter. More info about the real thing can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XV-15 This is the progress so far: - Tilting rotors, controlled by turning knob (not yet visible on the photo's below) - Automatic retracting landing gear, linked to the tilting mechanism - Free spining rotors - Opening rear hatch, manually operated - Part count: 181, but need some part for the control mechanism once I found a suitable spot. - Bonus: very swoosable I'm not satisfied with the cockpit section yet and as said, the controls are not completed at this point. What do you think?