Cumulonimbus

Looks like a lot of fun. The new parts are interesting as well, but the current colours limit the applications in Technic sets obviously. It raises a lot of question though: It almost looks like this set has equal or even more functionality than the EV3 Mindstorms kit. Could this mean EV3 is becoming obsolete soon? Will these motors and sensors be compatible with the upcoming Control+ system? Maybe the Control+ hub is a modified version of this SPIKE hub. If this is the case, will the rechargeable battery pack be suitable for the Control+ hub? What is the function of those wire clips: only to guide the motors cables through a model or could they be used like the Flex System of the olden days?

Still like the "face" of my version better than the original:

You're both right, that was one of the things I didn't correct yet. Another question which was raised is this: the truck appears to have two knobs on the side behind the cabine to control two functions. One function will obviously be lowering the rear of the upper deck (and thus tilting it), but what could the second function be in this truck? Lowering the front of the deck (unlikely) or maybe extending ramps at the rear? Or maybe a part of the lower deck be tilted so cars can be stacked more efficiently?

Update:

But on the other hand, if it's not RC then does the high price mean a high part count? So then it must either be very big or have many functions? I can't imagine many functions besides the obvious (engine, suspension, steering) nor can I justify a big scale vehicle. There is a daunting third possibility: that the license has driven up the price.

No official date yet, but an Autocar article from last year (click) refers to the launch of the new Defender in he autumn of 2019: " Although the firm remained tight-lipped, sources have suggested it is likely to be launched in autumn next year, with first deliveries then following in early 2020." EDIT: If this set proves to be a model of the new LR Defender, I'm hoping for something which looks suitably utilitarian like this render a well known German car magazine made:

Yes they do:

Hmm, I have mixed feelings about this news. On one hand it's great news that another licensed Technic set will make its appearance soon. The cooperation with Land Rover can lead to a great set, whether it will be a classic Defender like the many great MOCs we have seen or a model of the upcoming new Defender. The latter makes more sense to me from a marketing point of view, since LR has the gargantuan task to come up with a a follow-up to the classic Defender. This vehicle has has been produced basically unchanged for decades and a replacement will cause quite a stir (take a look at the bad reception of many conceptcar Defenders). Therefore, LR can use all the help they can get to please the crowd and potential buyers when the new Defender will be launched, this may include a Technic set. On the other hand, as pointed out by the comments above, the market for +€100 Technic sets might be close to saturation. These sets might start to cannibalize each others market share, which is never a good thing in portfolio management. Speaking for myself, I need to be more selective in future purchases since I'm more and more limited by space and budget. Spending close to €1000 on 2H Technic sets is quite daunting and I'm starting to feel that that amount of money can better be spend on hardware for the other hobbies I have.

Correct, my version of the truck has 49.5 tires like the Mack, the car has 43.2 tires like the London bus. You're also right the 43.2 wheels are bit too big for a truck this scale, leading to cars which as a bit to wide for the the truck (compared to the real thing). The fixed part of the upper deck can be tilted upwards hydraulically when it's empty. This gives plenty of room for the cabine to tilt. You can see the small black cylinder to tilt the (grey) deck in this image:

I like that idea, with the small fender pieces coming in three colors by August, all kinds of interesting liveries are possible:

@Equilibrium Interesting to see that we estimate the length of the truck so differently. I think my version might be a tad too long, but keep in mind that the angle the truck is positioned in the image really skews the perception of length (this effect is called foreshortening). Anyway, below is my best guess at the movement of the top deck. As said before, the base of the diagonal support slides forward and backwards. but is in itself rigid. I believe this whole mechanism is located in front of rear axles, which is not realistic, but this is where the required space is in the model. A Arocs gear rack fits beautifully and provides the sliding action. I'm think the rack doesn't provide the actual movement, that will be done with a LA I guess Speaking of the real truck: I found out that the mechanism is actually the wrong side up in the set. In the real thing the base of this support rotates and the top connection can slide. Additionally, the diagonal is also pointing forward instead of backwards. But the constraints of Technic bricks and the scale has led to this solution.

Done, any further progress will be posted in this topic (click).

As requested by Jim, here's a separate topic about the upcoming 42098 set and my attempt of a recreation of it. The truck represents a European car transport truck: Based on the blurry preliminary image which floats around the internet and a lot of guesswork, I made the following in LDD. Things I learned so far about the set while interpreting what I see in that one image: The trailer feels a bit short in relation to the truck, I guess there is only room for 5 cars (3+2), while the real truck should easily hold 7 (3+4) The lower deck of the trailer and truck is a bit high in relation to the ground compared to the real deal, so I suspect the tilting mechanism is hidden under the lower deck. This tilting mechanism is based on beam-built diagonal supports, which rotate at the top and slide at the bottom. This is an elegant solution keeping the bulk of the system inside the truck. The width of the cabine is 15M, the truck bed is 17M wide and I suspect the diagonal supports stick out 1M on each side, making it 19M in total. The blue car is 15M wide, as is the 42093 Corvette. But the mirror of the latter will probably be too wide. There will be a lot of room for a fake engine under the cabine, but this will be very hard to see because the cabine can't tilt due to the fixed upper deck above it. This room might be useful to motorize the set? Although the truck uses the same wheels as the Mack, the scale is not the same. I will see how far I can take this, it may evolve in a wishful thinking truck or even a MOC inspired by the set,

Update At first I thought the upper deck was tilted with a Arcos gear racks, but as that would make it too bulky, I think something more clever is going on. The diagonal deck supports are simple beam-built structures which can rotate at the top and slide at the bottom. In the chassis of the Truck as well as in the trailer, there is a mechanism which provides a linear motion, a gear rack or a LA (possibly the XL LA?). This would explain why the lower truck bed is relatively high up for this type of truck. I must say that based on the grainy image, the scale feels a bit off, The cars are slightly too big, the wheels on the truck feel a bit too small, and the trailer a bit too short. But again, this is a lot of guesswork so I might be wrong.

Alright, this is what I got so far. Obviously a lot is guesswork, but I think I'm on the right track: It will be very tight driving a 15 stud wide car on this truck, that is why I believe that the linear actuators which tilt the upper deck will stick out beyond the sides of the truck.

I think the truck is at least 17 studs wide. The corvette is 15 studs wide, and by the looks of it, the blue car is as well. If the cars should be able to drive on the truck, the truckbed will need to be at least 17 wide to allow for the vertical supports for the upper bed. I have build part of the truck in LDD (not sure if I'm allowed to show this here) and the cabin is definitely 15 studs wide, but the wheel arches would increase the width to 17 studs. I agree that the truck appears to sit on 49.53X20 tires, as they fit pretty well to the scale.

But there are different types of play: social play, rule based play, fantasy play and construction play. Building a model from parts is in itself already a form of play (construction play), if you weren't attracted to that part, you would have bought a die-cast model for example. The playability you are referring to is the fantasy play of acting like the operator of your vehicle and imitating the function of the real machine. Speaking for myself, the fantasy part is becoming less important the older I become and most play value (for me) is in the construction play. Some of the big Technic sets of recent years were awful when you look at the fantasy play value, because they were hard to operate or not intuitive enough, but awesome when regarding the construction play. So my point still is that the upcoming 42100 will always be a toy, because you must construct it first and therefore you will take part in construction play, no matter what you do after you have built it.

Of course it is a toy: It is an item which is a small representation of a real machine, has no real world function (like cleaning your house) and building and using it is intended as a past time. The question is not whether or not is a toy, but for whom it is intended. Toys for boys (and girls) such as track-day racecars, jetskis, sailing boats, etc are all toys by the same definition but not definitely not aimed at children. The same goes for the huge large scale RC scene (trucks, airplanes, machinery, ...) out there. These all cost anywhere between hundreds and ten thousands of moneys. It seems that since the success of big Star Wars and Technic sets, TLG is increasingly aware of the part of their market which can afford to spend €€€ on big, limited edition or licensed sets. With the Bugatti and the 42100 it only caters to a demand which is clearly very present: Just look at the presentation the TLG CEO has shown at the latest fair: the best selling Lego sets of 2018 were a Technic set with RC (42065), a Technic set with a license (42078), the biggest Technic set so far (42082) and a huge Star Wars set (75192). The 42100 is a combination of all the biggest selling points a Technic set can have: License, big size and RC and tops it off with some new parts, so it will definitely be a commercial success, despite the price. I have explained this before here on the forum that cost, price and value of a product are completely different and mostly unrelated concepts. I will not repeat my explanation here, but suffice to say that the TLG has judged that the target audience for the 42100 values this kind of set with its size, license, new parts, and new functionality around €450. As long as those expensive sets are getting bought often enough, Lego will create them and they will keep trying to see how far they can go. I guess they will hit an upper limit at one point, but I dare to say the 42100 will not be that set. As Confucius said: "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

In my opinion this only depends on the target audience for this set. I had the experience of being part of developing team of an agricultural machine which was remotely controlled. Originally this was done via a custom handheld device with limited functionality, but at roughly the same cost of a smart phone, even back then. It was the explicit desire of the (future) customers that they could control the machine with their smartphone, since they carried it with them anyway, would increase the functionality and reduce the cost of the machine as a set. The biggest drawback of using 3rd party controllers such as smartphone is the fact that you as a company have the responsibility to keep track of the compatibility of your system with all the different type of brands, phone models and operating system versions during the entire life-span of your product. This proved to be very time-consuming and a never-ending story in the current smart-phone market. In short: if you look at these type of sets aimed for teenagers and AFOLS, then yes, it makes sense for TLG to assume their customers have smartphones. Especially if you look how popular the 3rd party remote systems such as BuWizz are in the MOC scene, I wouldn't be too worried about it. However, if you consider this a toy, then it would make sense to include some kind of remote in the set. BTW, has the option that Control+ will be compatible with the new Lego PF2 Train remote been ruled out already? I'm no expert, but I guess it could work without the added functionality, like the sounds and programming which appear to be possible on a smartphone. But even then, the BOOST system requires some kind of tablet device as well. PS: Someone mentioned it already, but, I'm very curious if C+ will really replace the current PF completely. PF could still make sense in smaller sets and as a add-on set.

The real R9800 is obviously too big and heavy to transport as a complete machine, so it must be broken down in smaller but still heavy components. The yellow parts indicate the lifting points to hoist these components during all the logistic maneuvers involved. Here is an interesting video that shows this process: EDIT: this video shows a slightly different version of the R9800 with a more traditional excavator boom. I have a suspicion this might be the B-model if there will be any in this set.

Like this (n)MOC? PS: I must say I'm sightly confused about the "no press" and "no camera's" policy at the fair and yet they show the flagship in almost all its glory.

Thank you for the info. Sounds like a new level for an official Technic set: Seven motors, two smart-hubs, smart-phone support and a Liebherr licence.

I hesitate to join this discussion since I don’t have an overview of all the information, but I would like to share the following: All I can say for sure is that Thomas Panke often formulated the same criticisms I felt in his reviews of (Technic) sets. Without wanting to bash TLG, I get the feeling that the direction being taken recently, wonders away from what I like in sets as an AFOL. I felt reassured that independent reviewer like Thomas spoke out and I hoped TLG was taking notes on how it could improve sets to appeal more to this (small?) part of its market. I think his voice represents an important part of the AFOL community, seemingly confirmed by the huge commotion created at the moment. To me, his reviews gave balance to the often overly positive reviews or inflated expectations elsewhere on the internet in these times where (Technic) sets are ever increasing in cost and size while losing functionality and realism in shape and proportion. Having worked for a manufacturing company which produced and distributed products all over the world, I have experienced the weight of the responsibility, the difficulty in catering for all those different desires and the challenge to keep the quality high. In this respect, I admire TLG as a company and wish them all the best. But as an AFOL and a customer, I often feel ignored by that same company when seeing another line-up of a new release where so few sets really speak to me (and the 12-year old boy inside me). Seeing TLG acting this way is a wake-up call to the fact that it is a global cooperation with commercial rights to protect, but it feels a bit too aggressive and even a bit arrogant to me. At some level I’m curious about the sets of other brands and the quality of their creations. But at this point I’m not sure I will ever be convinced in buying one of those sets. However, I imagine that Thomas giving an audience for these largely unknown brands can be quite damaging for TLG in the long run, something I’m not thrilled about. We’ll see how this one will pan out ... Happy building to all.

@Erik Leppen Nice write-up, I can relate to many points you mention. Personally, I appreciate effort that was put in the set design to replicate the marriage process of the real Chiron. In the real machine this connection is also made permanent by joining the necessary structural, mechanical and visual interfaces and is not really visible anymore in the finished car. You’re right though that the compromises like the heavy chassis and slip gearbox functions are a rather high price to pay for this feature. To me, this is another sign of the priority choices in this set: marketing value over functionality, hinting that another audience was targeted besides the Technic fan. Overall, the build process of the standard set was rather enjoyable for me, based on the number of oh-s and ah-s I muttered while building it (gearbox, spoiler mechanism, rear axle build and interior come to mind). But I can’t help the feeling I was expecting more exciting, elegant and/or novel building techniques, or new functions on a Technic set of this size (and price). You hinted at it in your “rant”, but I like to point out that in my opinion, large official sets like the Bugatti have an educational task as well. It should showcase evolutions in the studless building system which allow more complex, realistic or better looking models. This knowledge is the basis for anyone building Technic MOCs to keep learning how to build modular or create rigid structures for example. Here, the 42083 tends to fall short again. The differences between it and the 42056 are not big enough to be the next step in the evolution as an apex predator Technic set. On the note of educational value: as you said, Technic models can also be seen a gateway to the world of engineering: simplifying and explaining complex systems and principles as gearboxes, suspension geometry, self-locking mechanisms etc. You are very right that a model should be “readable” to achieve this. I agree that this set feels cluttered inside by seemingly superfluous part use. I also lost the overview of what part of the car I was building and how a function is integrated in the whole vehicle. The easy to read design (and color use!) of earlier sets like the 8258 really helped me understand the possibilities and limitations of studless Technic era and are still the gold standard for me. I like your modular approach as it offers many advantages: It makes sub-assemblies more manageable during the build, less prone to building errors and the inevitable errors are easier to reach and correct, all making the building process more enjoyable. Additionally, modules are more easily swappable with modified versions as well as allowing them to be easily copied and becoming the basis for a MOC, again fulfilling its educational task as mentioned before. I will follow this topic, I like your point of view on this model. Adding some features and transparency in its inner workings seem like a good idea. Not sure though about using the more rare parts in you MOD/MOC. Good luck

Thank you for the complement, but at this point is just an unfinished WIP and it is not a C-model (yet): I have used some spare orange parts I had before I bought the Corvette. I will see how far I can take this Porsche idea, I might turn it into a true C-model. Or alternatively, I might try to cram as much functions in it as I can. I was experimenting with the suspension of the 42021 snowmobile as for the front suspension for this model. For this model to work, I think it should have some sort of engine, but a boxer version of the Corvette engine doesn't really function properly: Gravity can't pull the "cylinders" down, since they are laying flat, so some kind of spring force will be needed, maybe some rubber bands might work ...