howitzer

James Bond, Ghostbusters and Back to the Future cars have already been done in other themes, as have been various Batmobiles and so on. There's not that much space for actual innovation with movie cars. 1:8 scale is already big and cumbersome, hard to handle and to appreciate after finishing the build, moving to even larger scale would make them even worse in this regard. And of course the parts would be under much more strain as 1:6 scale would be over twice the weight of 1:8 (all else being equal). New large scale backhoe has been on the wishlist of practically everyone on this forum for a very long time now. We'll see what they do for the anniversary year but somehow I'm not having very high hopes...

According to Rebrickable 42100 has 4108 pieces with 102 of those being the extra "rock" pieces for it to handle so still over 4000 pieces for the machine itself, but just barely at that. And yeah, the very largest sets all seem to include some kind of extra which increases the part count - 42082 had those house things and 42055 came with a small secondary model and some round bricks to represent rocks. 42131 didn't have any extras though and with 3854 parts it's one of the biggest especially if you don't count the extras in other sets. I'm not sure how many parts the prefab house parts for 42082 were but I suspect it along with 42100 still have more parts for the main model than 42131. McLaren P1 had 3893 pieces so more than the bulldozer and only a bit over 200 pieces short of the supposed part count of 42232 so I don't think that's a crazy amount of parts for 1:8 car. 4500 or more would be a bit harder to imagine, at least for supercars.

I think what differentiated original Model Team from other themes was their scale and realistic looks and proportions for the time, as Technic was nowhere near in looks or realism and other themes even less so. In this sense Creator and Icons vehicles indeed are very much spiritual successors to Model Team. The more complex City sets could also be considered this, though realism in looks isn't the main target in their design. I think the functionality is rather irrelevant point, as Lego has come a long way since 90's and moving parts are today much more widely available even in small playsets and as you said, original Model Team vehicles really only had one function.

I hope I'm not being misunderstood with my previous comment, what I meant to say is that the actual designers of the sets are indeed doing great job. But they aren't the ones calling shots on what sets to make, their pricing, etc. and these are the constraints I mentioned. And yes, we here in EB are only a very small and very critical slice of the entire customer base of TLG, the current trend of having a lineup comprising almost entirely of fast cars is no doubt based on lots of market research and also plain numbers of sales. I'm not sure if Lego designer would be a dream job, perhaps to some it would be but they say one sure way to ruin a hobby is to attempt to turn it into a job, so personally I'd rather do something else to pay the bills and then enjoy my Lego on my own terms.

The general sentiment I've observed in this forum is that most people feel that the set designers are doing their job very well within the constraints imposed. Most sets are designed well while some sets have had shortcomings that can really only be explained by designer being very strictly constrained in a way that leaves the set with perhaps minor but very obvious flaws. The complaints here aren't generally about what the set designers do per se, but they're mostly about the available range of sets (cars, cars and more cars) and also about price not meeting the size and quality of the set (Volvo Excavator).

Of course the senior management instructs set designers on what to design and I doubt they read this forum even if some designers might.

You're not wrong, but sadly it seems that TLG is set in its direction and not at all interested in what we think here in this forum :(

I don't think a Technic build has ever been approved in Ideas. Technic is a niche, and while it certainly enjoys some popularity, it's still not a priority for TLG, and they probably have quite a strict limit on how many Ideas sets to produce and steep expectations for their sales so Technic being niche tends to receive short end of the stick, no matter how good the models are. Also, as we see how narrow and boring Technic is becoming, I don't think there's even that much of a chance of getting Technic set approved, as non-car sets don't fit into TLG's agenda and car sets are already produced en masse so there's little room for anything original and interesting.

The original question was about TLG not making robot sets so yes, it's true that C+/PU can be used for that but TLG never did much with that system to encourage programming - all the sets were provided with preprogrammed movements with no options to make your own adjustments, and no generic model programs nor building instructions or even ideas for alternative builds - contrast this with the universal sets of the '80 and '90s with all kinds of fanciful builds they included. They even failed to provide a comprehensive guide on what the various code blocks do and how to use them properly. Also you had to buy non-motor devices such as sensors separately or get a Mindstorms set would include them, there were no Technic sets with those, except for the tilt sensor built into the hub. And yeah, while Pybricks is great, the lack of official support for standalone operation is also a huge wasted opportunity from TLG's part. Also I should note that the word "robot" can have various meanings here, and I'm not entirely sure what @Satisfied meant with that. Humanoid robots which walk and move around are really, really difficult to make mechanically, and the same goes for other walkers, also those with more than two feet. Other kinds of robots - well there's stuff like robot arms and people have built and presented those even in this forum but they also seem to be quite a difficult things to get right and also tend to become very large, requiring thousands of parts and many motors and hubs, so they'd get far too expensive as an official set. There has also been sets like 17101 Creative toolbox, which included robotics and programmability and many alternative models with instructions but that set was aimed at kids of 7-12 years old, and it showed, the models weren't that impressive and in some cases didn't even work very well. Also it wasn't Technic in branding or building style. Actual robotics is a very difficult thing to do in the context of official Lego sets.

Finally a car set I might actually consider buying! Hopefully they make next Detroit Electric model 1916, perhaps as collaboration with Disney, as Grandma Duck's car has been modelled after that one and it would suit well the TLG's attempt to introduce electric vehicles to the lineup.

Robots need programming, and that's what Mindstorms was all about. Normal Technic sets are designed to be playable without any programming which excludes robotics. But this discussion is more properly suited into another topic:

...or not buy at all.

Dunno, I haven't researched the mechanism. The System brick that mates with the worm gear is loose in the sense that there's no friction beyond that of parts sliding freely against each other.

I don't have that part in hand to test it but what would be the purpose of this new piece if it couldn't slide freely on the worm gear?

I thought it was about parts that exist already but are hard to obtain for some reason, naturally any truly new part would attract a lot of attention, but at the same time it's definitely not going to happen.

What parts would those be?

Yep, same here. I bought the 42209 as I thought it would be good and it was, but I fear that will be my last Technic purchase at least for now, perhaps the trend reverses at some point in the future. Meanwhile I've moved to building System, but instead of buying sets I get my bricks from Bricklink etc. so perhaps there will be exceptions here and there but mostly my days of buying sets seem to be over, at least for now.

Oh, right, I thought that was your photo and you had the part in hand which would imply a part that's released and in circulation.

Are you sure it's Lego and not of some other brand? I couldn't find a wheel like that in Bricklink or Rebrickable as it's definitely not 39367pb02 or 49295pb02.

That was a System build though, Technic builds have inherently more parts due to pins. But its true that RC cars are entirely possible even with small amount of parts and 719 is more than enough, especially with the all-in-one hub.

Care to elaborate?

While remote with proper physical controls would of course be better, I think with this particular set the smartphone control isn't that bad. Sure it still requires an expensive third party device (which everyone who can afford the set itself has) and there's no haptic feedback, but it's not that big of a problem when controlling something big and slow moving like the crane. For controlling cars the smartphone-remote control truly sucks and it's very problematic that TLG still hasn't addressed this issue. You're exactly right about the trusses, and not only because they're easier and nicer to build but also because the large pieces make it much stronger and also better looking than any truss would be if built from standard beams and pins. I don't think it's particularly expensive for what you get, even if Control Center style remote would be a great addition. But of course it's really expensive for a toy, no matter how well the price is justified by contents.

This thing has been sitting on my shelf since I finished building it, only be taken out occasionally for some play demonstrations. I haven't modded it in any way, not even to fix the small building mistake I made originally (routing one of the cables wrong way, not a practical problem but aesthetic one). After all this time my fondness of the set has only grown and here's some thoughts on why. Most importantly, it feels properly Technic, same as the old great sets like 8868 or 8880. The functionality is interesting, complex and plainly visible - not being hidden inside closed exterior. The functionality is also (mostly) quite accurate and true to real machine with the only real problem in that sense being the silly rollers under the counterweight. The educational value is unparalleled in modern Technic. I remember it being a great building experience, feeling challenging and rewarding at the same time with no moments of asking myself "what am I doing, what's this thing supposed to be?" unlike with many other large sets I've built over the years. I had to take it slow and concentrate to get it right, but it still didn't feel annoying or tedious at any point, which I can imagine is the case for some adult-oriented sets such as the Botanicals. It also works great. Even after all this time collecting dust in the shelf I can take it out and unless batteries need replacing, it can be played with and there's no jams or clicking gears or any problems whatsoever. The same cannot be said for many other sets, with Land Rover Defender being the most notorious, but I also noticed while ago that the gearbox of my Ferrari Daytona SP3 doesn't work anymore, it jams at one point of the shifting sequence. Sure I guess I should store them behind glass or packed away somewhere safe from dust, but the same problem doesn't seem to affect the Liebherr crane, instead it works as well as when it was just assembled. Sure, the proportions are all wrong, but have you seen photos of the real thing? There's no way it could be ever replicated in a Lego set with it still being at least somewhat playable and strong enough to hold together. Some concessions have to be made and within the realities of scale modeling and ABS I think TLG has after all done quite nice job.

Lately I've been losing interest in Technic as everything seems to be repeating the same old cars and nothing else of interest, and these rumours just confirm it. I feel that the Liebherr crane was the last large properly Technic set.

That's a cool idea, but I wonder if the parts stay together or tend to separate over time when the switch snaps to on and off. Though I'm sure it stays together well enough when using 26287 but while using 18948 it might separate.