howitzer

Not sure if they would choose such a less known brand for the next supercar. So fat every licenced car has been from really well known brands and that's even more pronounced with the 1:8 supercars.

They have been at Bricks&Pieces for at least something like a month now.

It was actually in the Top Gear rally car, Concrete mixer truck and in Mini Claas Xerion in 2020 and in the Off Road Buggy in 2021. Still, it is along with the 40T gear surprisingly rare among Technic sets, at least compared to most other gear sizes.

Wow, this new part is really cool. Obviously it hasn't been created for this set, I wonder how it'll be used in the upcoming sets...

Not using differential to get the gear ratios more accurate is a kind of missed opportunity here. I'm sure many people have familiarity with the usual gear systems but using a differential to get different ratios is probably something that most people don't know about and this set would've been a perfect opportunity to introduce such a mechanism.

I find it hard to make meaningful comparison here. MOCs and official sets are designed with completely different and sometimes conflicting constraints and for different purpose so it's apples and oranges situation. I think both should be compared only within their own category (though even that's somewhat questionable with MOCs).

The inability of doing most of the motions of an excavator that follows from having a linkage is the unrealistic part here, not the single possible motion forced by that linkage.

But sometimes you want to dump the bucket when it's lowered and vice versa. And you want to do huge number of other motions too, that kind of linkage is completely unrealistic as it mimics only _single_ possible motion of the arm. There are also numerous other Lego excavators (starting with the very first one, 8851) with more motions, which are as realistic as they get within the realms of Lego. So calling that sort of linkage realistic is just as correct as calling the forage harvester's head realistic (which neither are).

While the linkage mimics the common digging motion of an excavator, it's in no way realistic as real excavator can move the bucket and the arm independently so it can do vastly more motions than the single trajectory allowed by this linked mechanism. There's no more realism there than in this forage harvester.

I believe the engines represent rocket engines, so no spinning is to be expected (unlike jet engines or whatever). Or because the models seen in the video aren't final products, they may have minor differences. We'll see.

I know. Mine wasn't.

If Barbie's car was made in Technic I would so buy it. And then I'd buy several for my friends as well. Too bad I don't really see a collaboration between TLG and Mattel happening anytime soon...

Yeah, but I meant that having the garbage truck motorized would be great in relation to the source material which is electric truck. That way there would be no disappointments over the name, which I'm sure many kids will think means that the set has electric motors in it. On an unrelated note, we really need a properly functional large scale garbage truck in Technic and this would have been an excellent opportunity to have one...

You're right, though I can't help but wonder what the pre-teen/teen kids getting a 42125 think of all the emptiness inside. Do they think that "this is really awesome"? Or "I wish there was more stuff inside"? Or something else? After my years of darkness (all 25 of them) as the first set I bought 42055 and I was in awe by the ingenuinity and possibilities of Technic at the time. The next thing I bought was 42096 and I was disappointed and dismayed by the boring build experience and the almost static nature of the model. I disassembled it within hours of completing the build and I guess it was a nice parts pack for someone with not many parts but other than that completely worthless as a Technic set. At least I got it with a significant discount. As an adult I could deal with the disappointment and concentrate my future buying on sets that have some actually interesting functions but as a teenager I would probably have kept admiring my BWE and forgot about the rest of Technic.

Yeah, I remember that, It's a great one though indeed really bulky.

Did I miss something, I thought 42078 was purely manual model...

Very nice! I once wanted to build my own full solar system orrery, but couldn't figure out how to make all of the planets orbit around the same axis so I scrapped the idea... I guess that would become pretty large and complex, perhaps too much so to be doable with Lego.

I kinda understand the worries about misleading title. Would've been cool if this set had been released as a fully motorized flagship-level set or at least partially motorized mid-size set.

The old toothed half-bushes are pretty tight, especially if you arrange them so that the teeth engage too. A bunch of those end-to-end makes the really hard to pull out.

Yeah, but someone buying a diecast wouldn't earn TLG any money, and apparently stuff like 42125 sell pretty well so it's natural for TLG to produce them. For us AFOLs 42125 is of course totally uninteresting as a Technic model with its severe lack of functionality. My hope would be that the licenced sets would have some nice functions rather than the repeated empty shell models we've been getting. On the other hand, some of them include some nice recolours (especially panels) and whatever the case, I don't have to buy it if I don't like it. The upcoming space lineup is already more than enough to fill my buying needs for a long while.

I really, really hope that they haven't designed this set with such enormous flaws, I mean 360 days in a year would be sufficiently close and not that hard to do, and as there's axial tilt of the Earth, I expect it to reflect the seasons correctly.

Indeed, that's also different and while useful in many places, not the same especially when you're trying to fit it in tight spaces or you're in need of perpendicular pinholes.

I feel you. The part you describe would be so useful. Funnily enough, there's this which is sort of the same but still too different to be nearly as useful:

I believe the main problem here is the license. It's obviously very different from its supposed real life counterpart, which kinda begs the question: why have license in the first place if the thing doesn't resemble much the thing it's supposedly modelled after? Well, I guess they had a licence agreement and the folks at John Deere aren't very nitpicky about details...

You're not wrong at all, the at least some part of the marketing is definitely aiming towards people who ordinarily wouldn't be interested in Lego at all - those who are not interested in building their own thing with construction toys, but who could still be tempted to buy Lego out of nostalgia or brand loyalty (with licensed sets) or just to have a cool thing on a shelf. The whole 18+ branding and many of the newer sets (especially Icons line) are aiming exactly at these people, and yes, B-models are meaningless to (most of) them.