Cumulonimbus

I agree the title is a bit misleading and smells like click-bait. The focus of the article is not the renting scheme, but the search for solutions to achieve less environmental impact which TLG find important enough to invest millions of moneys in. So it actually says that they're not renting bricks yet. TLG is considering many ideas to reduce their footprint on this world and according to them, renting could be an option if the technical issues could be solved. That said, I still think it is important for us AFOLs, as part of their consumer market, to give constructive feedback when those ideas are hoisted up that flagpole. This gives TLG some early warning about how those ideas will be received by the general public and just maybe adapt the ideas to our input. As long those comments are a bit more constructive than "renting bricks is stupid".

The short answer: no they do not. The long answer: a biobased plastic is not a synonym for a biodegradable plastic. The "sugar cane" bricks where all the fuss is about in several topics here are not actual sugar bricks. They are made from a very normal, non-biodegradable thermoplastic called Poly ethylene (PE). The difference is that the ethylene part is not derived form oil but from for an alcohol distilled from the sugar cane. These bricks will wear and tear just as quickly whether they are oil based or biobased. The difficulty TLG has is that PE is not as rigid and hard wearing as ABS (a styrene based plastic), which is why so far they are only used for the plant bricks. Finding a bio based version of ABS is a big challenge which has not been solved yet. Even a plastic which is sold as a biodegrade plastic, like PLA (which TLG does not use) only degrades in very specific conditions like a high temperature and with the addition of certain enzymes. These parts do not simply dissolve when left in your garden.

I don't think they are talking about the bricks themselves, but more the waste and emissions produced during the manufacturing process. Oil based raw materials, world wide logistical chains and the plastic waste during the injection molding process are the mayor contributions to the environmental impact . As stated in the article: " Lego reportedly emits around a million tons of carbon dioxide each year, with about three-quarters coming from raw materials that go into factories." This explains their research into alternative material sources but the rent-a-brick idea still does not make sense because it doesn't improve any of those contributions. In fact I'm willing to bet that on the whole, the impact will be even worse because they will introduce even more logistics and potentially add a cleaning step. Replacing the plastic bags for packaging could probably help, but other "solutions" should be considered very carefully. There are many examples where a well intended change in a product or service resulted in an even worse environmental impact that before. That is why a tool called LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) is used to get an overview of all the contributions before and after a proposed change. Often the outcome is very surprising: a plastic product can be the most sustainable choice if for example the life span is very long (as with LEGO bricks). Recycling products also require big industrial processes which use power, water and chemicals. Even biodegrading has its issues: it produces methane if done incorrectly, a gas which has 20 times the impact on the greenhouse effect that CO2. In short: Truely improving the environmental impact of a product is a complicated question. Renting out brick is just marketing babble. Maybe I phrased it wrong, but I meant that I don't think TLG customers have any wishes or needs to rent bricks instead of buying them. The renting scheme is only good for creating a certain company image. Lately TLG apparently has received a label of being a polluting company (thanks to Greenpeace) and now is desparate to do damage control. The point I'm trying to make above is that plastic is not evil per se, it greatly depends on the application. And I think that LEGO bricks is one of those cases where it is and will continue to be a good idea to make them from ABS.

I get that TLG is looking for new ideas and business models, but I don't see any advantages at the moment. From a customer point of view, renting schemes make sense for items which are subject to short time use, quickly changing fashion, a lot of wear during use,and/or come with tax related advantages. Arguably, none of these are really applicable to LEGO sets. Additionally, this poses so many practical questions: How will everybody in the supply chain keep track of all those tiny parts? Will they take the rental effect into account (“Don’t be gentle, it’s a rental”)? Will parts be cleaned somewhere in the chain? Will a customer get the choice between receiving a brand new set or a (heavily) used version? Will you need to disassemble the set into parts when handing them in and if so, who will check is has been done correctly and all parts are functioning? Will they differentiate between slight variations in parts? Will parts need to be marked or can anybody swap their own used parts with better parts from a rented sets, etc … It sounds like they are aware of these issues, but I really hope somebody at TLG does a proper Life Cycle Analysis of these ideas, because I think the solutions for the logistical challenges will probably offset any sustainability gain. They are trying to solve a perceived marketing issue, not a customer need with this scheme.

@nicjasno I agree, U-joints are great for giving a driveshaft a degree of freedom to follow the movement of a structure like in a car suspension or even to follow a permanent inconvenient angle like in an excavator arm. But using a pair to solve an alignment issue in a drive train is poor design and prone to errors as shown again here.

So the front and rear sections couldn't make their marriage work and got a divorce? A more serious point: At first I find those crashes of LEGO sets a bit pointless, but then I wondered if ADAC uses these tests to validate their simulation software? In other words, they model all the parts with their material properties and degrees of freedom then simulate the crash (as shown in the video) and finally compare the results of the virtual crash to those of the real crash. So the simulation software might get better at predicting crashes of cars, toys and real ones. EDIT: I took some time to read this article about the crash and if i understand the google generated translation correctly, it was indeed one of the goals to see how accurate they could simulate a crash between two vehicles made with unfamiliar materials and structures. It appears that they got pretty close, take a look at the following comparison between an image of the real crash (left) and the simulation (right):

No disrespect to the "source", but I find this very hard to believe. It is a relatively unknown car from a not-so-recent movie, which is not really good looking (in my opinion). But we have seen Technic sets from the tuning scene before, so you can't completely rule it out:

Ah, you're right, the upper wishbones are not attached in this display. There must indeed be mounting points on the body, I think you can just make them out in this image: BTW: the netcarshow.com website has a ton of nice Defender reference images including the chassis picture above and some designer sketches. Those are always nice to see and would have a nice addition to the set instructions booklet.

Nice photo, is this technically a multi-link suspension or a true double wishbone setup? It still confuses me that LR has chosen to mount the upper wishbone not directly to the body or chassis but via the stanchion. I can't think of any advantage other than the reduction of the amount of mounting points in the monocoque structure. Also, look at that heafty torsion tube, I guess it is needed to keep the car level at high speed, an illustration of its ambitions. BTW, is that an active torsion tube? It looks like a big motor wrapped around the torsion spring, could a be just a damper though. Last thing that surprises me is the towing eye mounted to the sub-frame, I would expect his mount to the body/chassis.

I don't get what all the fuss is about: there will be a lot of different engines for the new Defender, some inline engines (4 or 6) and some V-configurations. Some Diesel engines, some petrol, a "mild hybrid" and there a rumors about a full electric version eventually. Not all engines will be available in all countries though, due to complex legislative and marketing reasons. This is the (blurry) overview which leaked a while ago: (More in depth explanation can be found here)

This I like to see. You might convince to buy this set.

Call me old fashioned, but I really hope for the opposite of that: A manual pneumatic model with all functions except the steering powered by pneumatics. More like a bigger and more modern version of the excellent 8455 from 2003. Only the compressor should be driven by a motor (and a dumb hub without smartphone dependency). If TLG then throws in smaller tractor tires for the front axle, then it will be an instant buy for me. End wishful thinking mode.

Well your right: The first in what I suspect will be a series of Top Gear sets is a rather conventional car: According to the Promobricks site, the set will be a white "rally coupe" with stickers of a union jack and an image of the Stig dressed with a bunch of extra headlights on the front (the car, not the Stig). I wonder if it will represent an actual rally car like a Ford RS200, Audi Quattro S1, Peugeot 205 T16 or a more recent Ford Fiesta RS WRC. On one hand. I would expect a certain level of accuracy from a car-based entertainment show for the petrolhead, but on the other hand this would mean two licenses in each set: one for the Top Gear franchise and one for the brand of the car it represents. Not sure if that is likely, maybe if they stick to cars already modeled in the Speed Champion sets? In that scenario we might get a Technic version of this:

I have a suspicion that TLG has a more strict definition of play that most of us. The general rule seems to be that official sets should be able to lift, push, dig, collect, carry, sort and dump Lego. I have always imaged that the environment of a set while playing is a big pile of bricks on the floor where the set should be able to function in. I think this is why we see so much earth moving equipment, trucks and cranes. I could also be the reason why agricultural machines are tricky as an official set since it is rather difficult to pick up, plough or harvest loose bricks on the ground after driving over them like a tractor with an implement does. The same is true for a grader; while the functions in themselves are interesting, playing with the model is probably more difficult to make robust enough. On the other hand, we have seen sets like cars, planes, helicopters, boats, firetrucks, hovercraft, cherry pickers, motorbikes, snow scooters and of course the 8284Tractor and the 8274 Combine Harvester. All of which have no real “useful“ function in combination with bricks, so I guess my theory is not really supported with a lot of evidence. The news of the Top Gear license is a bit of a surprise. I guess there are a lot of unique machines made in the history of the show like those amphibious vehicles which can be made in recognisable Technic sets. There have been a number of die-cast models of Top Gear vehicles, but they don’t seem to be very successful so far. As said by @Shdwfalcon , if the chosen scale is similar of the Corvette, the models will be too small to incorporate any other functions than steering and a mini-engine, which would be a shame for a Technic set. I guess TLG has struck gold by aiming sets towards petrolheads with all kinds of licensed car sets across the Lego themes (Speed Champions, Creator and Technic). Personally, I like sets with interesting mechanisms more than cars where the emphasis typically is on looks. This is also true for the cars in the “UCS” series (Porsche and Bugatti); whatever the next car in this series will be, I really hope that the will be more to it than yet another large scale car with a sequential gearbox, suspension, steering and a fake motor. Just one or two extra functions like adjustable ride height, convertible roof, pop-up headlight, adjustable seats, … are a must if I want to justify another €300 car in my collection. And I really hope that they won’t choose yet another rare or new colour for Technic parts, making MODs and MOCs unnecessarily difficult. Time will tell…

Yes, good point. I was considering this educational layer as well, but to me it is not that clear cut that it has become worse over the years for several reasons: - Lego bricks were always limiting how realistic real mechanisms can be modeled. The material and, more crucially, the scale of the parts will always limit how accurately complex systems like gearboxes and engines can be built in Lego sets. Which is why we have never seen a representation of a camshaft or valves in an official set. This is an inherent limitation of this medium which can only be solved by choosing a really huge scale like that massive V8 engine MOC (sorry, I forgot the name of the original builder). So to really understanding how something works, LEGO bricks are not the best way to go. On the other hand, I must say that I learned a lot about technology while researching source material as input for my MODs and MOCs. - The Control+ and Boost interface allows for some "light programmming", which in itself is an educational aspect, just not in the field of mechanical engineering. - Some crucial new parts have allowed for a increasingly compact mechanisms over the years and as a result some sets have packed functions in a volume which was previously unheard of. The suspension in the Arocs for example was a real eye-opener for me, both in showing how a real truck suspension works as well as amazing me about the accurate representation made with Technic bricks. So for engines you're right, but for other mechanisms they tend to get more realistic on the whole (for unmotorised sets).

@Sariel Thank you for another high-quality and in depth review. Your score was more positive than I anticipated. Your comment captures my feeling the best. The smooth and simultaneous control of all functions is impressive, but the price for this is too high (both literally and figuratively speaking). I know for sure that I won't be getting this set, for a more elaborate motivation of this decision, see my post here.

Allow me a look back at 2019 in this 2020 topic: I must admit that the 2019 Technic line-up leaves me a bit deflated. I have struggled to get my finger on the issue but I think I have figured it out: I dare to state that TLG is losing sight of its building philosophy, which according to me is this: Making sets based on a future-proof building system with unlimited possibilities that stimulates creativity. I have several reasons for this claim: Restrictions lead to creative solutions: Sets become bigger simply for the sake of bigger models and although I like an impressive sized model as much as the next AFOL, I think we tend to forget that creative spark that comes from the need to find a functional solution in a restricted building volume. The (more or less) direct drive of functions and the huge internal volume in the models reduce the need for clever building techniques and creative drive train solutions. And these two aspects are the ones I enjoy the most during the building experience and are the most important contribution to becoming a better builder. Modify the things you don’t like becomes increasingly difficult: Either the colour of the model seriously limits the amount of bricks available like in the new Defender or the restrictions of the Control+ app is prohibitive for any serious functional modifications like in the Liebherr. The 42099 is the worst offender since it suffers from both issues. Regarding the colors: I know we AFOLs have cried for years for a more divers colour palette besides yellow construction equipment and red cars, but the pendulum has swung too far, where it now restricts building options in certain sets very much. The dependency of a smartphone and app is a no-go for me. It goes against the principles of a timeless building system: It was once the intention that new bricks should always be compatible with bricks from the sixties and seventies. For physical bricks, this is still largely true but in my opinion, electric and electronic components should obey this rule as well, which they did up to now. The new Control + system means that from now on these bricks are inevitably bound to the world of smartphones and apps, which evolve and age at a much, much faster rate. I think it’s inevitable that at some point in the future, there will come a point where your expensive Liebherr model will become an inert statue because there is no longer any supported app or phone to control it. Read this article about the McLaren F1 car for an illustration of what I mean: https://www.theverge.com/2016/5/3/11576032/mclaren-f1-compaq-laptop-maintenance. More and more sets without B-models: it is probably not a big deal to most, but a good B-model has convinced me to buy a new set twice in the past. Heck, I even bough the Mack three times (for the A, B and C models). A good B-model illustrates the creativity of TLG designers and the flexibility of the building system. Doing away with them, for whatever reasons, is in my eyes an illustration of shifting priorities within TLG. To end on a positive note: If I have any wishes for the 2020 line-up it's the hope for more good small and medium sized sets, with some clever mechanisms, realistic proportions and some creative B-models. Think along the lines of the 42053 Volvo EW160E, the 9396 Helicopter, the 42054 Xerion and even the 42061Telehandler and I will throw the cash I saved this year at the nearest Lego shop. Happy building

Very recognisable, increasing the torsion stiffness of a frame with efficient part use is always a challenge. This site helped me to understand where to add structure and what effect it has: https://dsportmag.com/the-tech/chassis-tuning-torsional-rigidity/. Especially these images from the aforementioned site, I found very insightful (in the order of of increasing torsion stiffness):

Not sure if I like your commanding tone, I don't have to do anything. To be honest, I couldn't care less what compound goes into the parts. Personally, I think it's already impressive that TLG makes load bearing injection moulded parts with an intended lifespan of years without using glass-filled high-end plastic like the industry does. So an unlubricated replaceable plastic parts wears when you expose it to high or prolonged loads, big deal. Even IF TLG puts an additive from a sustainable source into its ABS parts to reduce the impact of their products on our world, wouldn't that be a positive evolution? As I tried to explain before, there probably will be minute differences between parts all of the worlds, simply because the chance is high that they are made in several locations. If you insinuate that TLG is intentionally and malignantly reducing the quality of parts intended for a certain market, I think you are seeing ghosts. Good luck on your wild goose chase.

Take a deep breath; I’m sure nobody here is out to insult you or your work. It’s an interesting theory, but you will need a lot more substantial data to proof it’s more than a theory. The first issue is the fact that your data seems to be very anecdotal. Maybe you have more data than you can show at the moment, but so far I don’t think you have enough data points to draw any conclusions yet. The weight differences are so small that I can image a lot of factors playing a role here: Variations in material batches Multiple material suppliers Weight variation of the different additives which are used to tweak certain properties Variation in humidity during production and measurement To see if these differences are even significant, you will need to weigh many more parts to see which variable (or combinations of variables) you are actually measuring. Ideally, you will need to single out the effect of each variable, for example weighing dozens of identical parts in the same color but from from different production years. The second issue I have is the fact that you are only measuring weight (a part property) while you want to make a claim about density (a material property). You assume the volume of the parts is constant between parts, but you will need to measure this as well to be sure (Archimedes will be your friend here). Again, there are a lot of variables which can have an effect on the volume of two seemingly identical parts: Different molds for identical parts, for example in separate factories Variations between parts made with a multiple cavity mould New or updated moulds for a long running part Slight volume variations due to wear in the mould over the years In short: there are a lot of possible explanations for the observed difference in weight, even before you start to consider a theory like TLG cutting ABS with another (inferior?) material.

@kbalage Thank you for your answers. There are a lot of parallels between the introduction of PF in 2007 with the 8275 Bulldozer and the launch of Control+ with the Liebherr set. In both cases a big impressive set showcases the possibilities of the new RC system. For PF system the L, XL and servo motors were introduced in later sets so it's reasonable to expect new Control+/Powered Up components in future sets which will add possibilities. I get the feeling though that PF was a more developed system at the time of launch than Powered Up is at the moment.

I agree, whether or nor you like the styling of the new Defender, the resemblance of the Technic set is good. Generally I like the set, but there are some missed opportunities to make it a really great set: The wheels of the Technic version are very out of scale (especially the width) and they lack a realistic thread pattern. They made new rims, but I guess new tires would have been too costly. Since there are no good Lego alternatives, I wonder if there is any RC tire which has a more suitable size and pattern? Anybody familiar with RC vehicles has an idea? I'm curious about the details of the interior. The seats seems detailed enough and I guess a dashboard will be partially brick-build to look as realistic as possible. But on the other hand, it seems that the rear wheel wells are open, so you see the rear wheels inside the cabin, not a good look. Controlling the winch from the inside of the engine bay seems a bit awkward, but maybe the looks of the exterior and dashboard could not be compromised? Not a big fan of the accessories on top and on the sides. They hide the lines of the vehicle too much and are a bit confusing (see all the cofin remarks). But you could skip the building steps for those I guess. I'm toying with the idea of making the 130 version that will be launched after the 90 and 110, but availability of the green parts will be the bottleneck here. Rebuilding in another color is also an option, but then an alternative for the new panels will need to be found. If there ever was a set that was suitable for adjustable ride height is was this one. A system like in the ancient 8297 Off-Roader from 2008 would have bee great representation of the Land Rover Terrain Response. Summary: apart from the functions, the scale, the color and the details, I like this set. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe I don't really like the set after all.

Maybe it has been answered before, but I wonder whether or not it will still be possible to simply motorize a creation without the need for RC in the new Powered-up ecosystem? I'm thinking about sets like the BWE and many others where the power of one motor is transmitted through a gearbox to the desired function? The new BB with integrated receiver seems to suggest it is a thing of the past. But I think there is still a valid use case for motorizing the input size of a gearbox, but still manually switching the outputs to control the functions. For me personally, this is still the best of both worlds: mechanically complex sets, but no more sore fingers of endless turning knobs. If I understand correctly, at the moment with the current hardware you would need the 88009 Power-Up hub to this, but this is not optimized to interface with the Technic building system since it has even stud dimensions and lacks stud holes. Can we expect a new version of the "dumb" Technic battery box? A follow-up question is whether an new version of the 8293 PF Motor set will ever be launched.

My apologies, I read too much in your use of the capitals at the start of "you" and "your".

Is this meant as a sarcastic comment?? I guess you think I was bragging, but I only wanted to illustrate that I had first hand experience that the OP might find useful. Thank you for taking your time to post such a valuable addition to this discussion.