howitzer

Probably. There appears to be some disagreement on how "impure" various things are compared to each other, though as for the string, hose and rubber bands, nobody seems to have any problem with those. There also appears to be surprisingly many people who think nothing of painting parts and for some reason 3rd party tires are not frowned upon nearly as much as other kinds of third party parts. But yeah, in the end, it's a decision everyone makes for themselves. The question is probably only relevant in competitions anyway, aside from building instructions for MOCs.

It might be true that the term is fuzzier today than it was historically, as there are today competing brands offering compatible parts with variations that don't exist of Lego (not to mention 3D-printers and such), and sometimes TLG even makes a new part similar to what has been already in the market from some other manufacturer. On the other hand, I don't think anyone has ever considered using 3rd party string as "unpure" in any meaningful sense, it's just a practical solution when Lego string isn't available in a length you need - and this has been true as long as the string has been around. And then there's stuff like Sbrick and Buwizz, which are approved even in some official capacity, for example a couple of years ago there was a local Lego show here where non-Lego elements and builds were forbidden but they were specifically listed as exceptions. Anyway, as others have pointed out in earlier discussion, there are many "levels" of purism, so the discussion is entirely warranted as it does mean different things to different people. If you want to do a scientific study on the topic, there's nobody stopping you, but I don't think these kinds of forum discussions are ever going to be scientific in any way and that's fine. We're not trying to set a policy here, we're having a discussion about our hobby. Yes, they of course have their system of how the parts fit together and into the larger scheme of things, which is entirely sensible thing to have when you're developing a complex product such as Lego. But I think this concept of purism is very different from what we're discussing here, as TLG can still introduce new parts (often such that they are very easy to fit in the system) on demand, while a purist builder is limited to what TLG chooses to offer. A purist builder is limited by external constraints which change without their input, while TLG is only constrained by what is economical and ensuring that their product stays functional. Isn't this why the excitement is always huge when new useful part is being introduced, like the wave selector couple of years ago or the alternating hole beam in the next wave of sets?

For comparison of the characteristics of various motors, I recommend you take a look at this: https://www.philohome.com/motors/motorcomp.htm There you can find all kinds of measured data from I think all Lego motors since the beginning of the 9V era. I think PU motors indeed can all act as servo, except the M-equivalent is still of the dumb kind, which can only be controlled for power and not speed or position, I don't know about train motors. (I wasn't able to get the M-motor to work in a quick test with the Mindstorms hub, though I hear power control should be possible with Python.) C+ motors (L and XL), along with the angular motors that come with the Volvo hauler and Spike Prime are controllable for power, position (both, relative and absolute) or speed and they can also act as a sensor, so there are tons of possibilities out there for them.

Wasn't the whole point of this topic sort of to have a discussion about what is purism and what it means to different people? I don't think the term applies to TLG even on a conceptual level. New parts, colours and even connection types have been made throughout the history of Lego and that won't end as long as the company is around. So yeah, sometimes some new part gets released that makes the old designs obsolete, but that really doesn't happen that often (what functionally novel parts have been designed since, say, 2000? Not many.) and even when it happens, well, that's life. Technology, design and society on the whole marches on.

I guess the answer depends on how you plan to develop your collection in the long term. If you really want to display your MOCs or whatever for a long time and have the space to go with it, you obviously need to get new parts for each new build, but most people don't have the space or money to go that way so they will dismantle the builds at some point. I personally have a few sets which I want to keep built for displaying but other than that I take my MOCs apart at some point. Sometimes though, I have cannibalized a set or MOC for parts when I have been missing some part and knew it's found in an assembled build. I try to replace them later though, with either new parts or when I take apart the MOC in question.

I guess you could fit the instructions on the backside of the bag itself?

Very interesting topic with many valid points of view. I think the bottom line to keep in mind here is that Lego is a hobby and each of us are allowed to choose whatever constraints they feel are appropriate for themselves. So it's nobody's place to say that "this is wrong" or "you shouldn't do that" on someone else's hobby project. As for myself, I choose to limit my building only to parts and materials that are manufactured by TLG and are easily available - no obscure parts that have gone out of production decades ago or are otherwise very expensive or hard to get. Few exceptions that I allow for myself are third party hose, string and rubber bands, as those are obviously stuff that TLG can easily produce in any size/length they need without significant investment in moulding and some of them also tend to degrade over time and are hard to replace from official sources. I also try to make my builds in such a way that they only use TLG-legal connections and building techniques. I can of course change these constraints on a whim, I'm not obligated to ask anyone's permission on how I conduct my hobby. With the above being said... For MOC instructions that are sold for money I expect that there's no parts modifying, third party parts or TLG-illegal building techniques - or if there is, the seller should be very clear on how the MOC in question diverges from the purest forms of purism so that the buyer knows the specifics before making the purchase. For example, they should provide the full parts list, along with explanations for any possible modifications on parts so that the buyer knows what they're paying for. Freely provided instructions are again another matter, as the prospective builder can inspect them before they start to build.

Wow, this is great. I just might have to build the original and this version (if you upload the building instructions) and compare them side by side. I even have the horrible original friction pins boxed away somewhere, though maybe I'll skip those... I think it's a good choice to make use of only such parts that are actually in production currently. For the steering linkage, Ackermann geometry is really important feature, as the original had it too as a major upgrade from the previous car chassis sets. Not sure about the wheels and tyres, considering that I don't think there's anything currently in production that would match the originals even remotely.

You're very right here. So many new ways to build curved exteriors with these.

You can use any generic rechargeable AA-sized batteries in PF battery boxes or PU hubs. There's also Buwizz, which is a rechargeable power source and bluetooth controller for PF motors. It's probably your best bet if you want to go full RC with rechargeable battery. There's also Mindstorms hubs (newest released just couple of months ago), which include a rechargeable battery but using those is considerably more demanding, as they have to be programmed and while that enables a lot more things you can do with it, it's also a lot harder to make use of them.

Yep, 42101 is great for its size and included only one gear as a steering knob. Gears don't make a good Technic set, interesting and clever functions that work well and are packed into a small space make a good Technic set.

That would be a shame if true. I mean, Arocs was perfectly recognizable with brick-built grille...

The stickered front grille feels a bit lazy, I wonder if it could be improved. Otherwise mostly nice enough work on the looks. I like the new panel usage in the front of the hood.

I love it! I don't know much about tractors but this is instantly recognizable as the classic Ferguson, well done! We don't see enough vintage machinery here, even though they have a lot of interesting functions and also tend to show more of the mechanisms compared to modern machines.

I love the part usage, especially those mudguards!

Only a guess, but I believe the decisions on what kinds of sets to produce (and GWPs along with them) have been decided already last year or even the year before that, and in the meantime sets have been finalized and factories adjusted for the new products. Then COVID happened and threw a huge wrench in their production machine, making it a lot harder to meet the demand. Similar things have happened in other industries too, for example I shopped recently for a new bike for my kid, and while one shop happened to have a suitable one in stock (which I bought), they were mostly out of bikes to sell and spare parts and accessories were running low too. Another shop which is usually very well stocked had total of eight bikes available for sale and none of them kid's bikes. No promises on when they'd be getting new stock either, maybe in January, maybe in late spring. Apparently there's also significant problems with the production of new computer hardware, namely the newest graphics adapters and such. So it would be surprising if TLG were somehow able to run production at full capacity.

Wow, great job. Like others, I have to admire especially the tubework and functionality of the backhoe arm. So many functions in so small space.

Another progress photo. This time I added the undercarriage: I don't have the medium sprockets for the treads (waiting for BL order to arrive) so I couldn't add the treads themselves yet but otherwise I believe the undercarriage is complete and works fine. --- Now the structural and functional parts are mostly complete and there's only minor things to add like hosing/wiring and some additional support for the boom gearing beside the cosmetics like exterior and a cockpit. And of course programming the interface for controlling this thing.

Something that baffles me is why the designers like put gears as knobs where a crank would be better in Technic sets. I get that for steering HOG and other such controls which are rotated only a little a gear is good but for example the Compact Crawler Crane (42097) had something like a dozen knobs which had to be turned many full rotations to deploy the outriggers and all of them had a 12T gear as a knob so deploying it for play is reeaally tedious, using cranks would've made it much, much easier.

I think the wheel-size problem is less about the wheels themselves and mostly about the mudguards. In the real car they follow very closely the tyre's outer curve but in the Lego version there's a significant gap, which makes the wheels look too big and too small at the same time. This is particularly egregious on the front wheels but the rear wheels also have too big gap. Fixing that would be really hard though, as it would probably require both, new wheel size and new mudguard part specifically made to accommodate the tight gap between the tyre and the mudguard.

I love it! It's the kind of build where all the visible studs add to the character of the vehicle and make it seem more real, kinda like 8868. Today's studless construction certainly has its advantages but I do miss the days when Technic looked like this...

I don't think the old style tread mates with anything smaller than 16T gears. 8T has the correct tooth profile but is too small, and all other small gears are beveled so they can't be used with the chains.

Lots of new stuff indeed. I updated my panel listing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MdCtQMN_kaaMzyWy_blFLJNzT05f4dCxXS1Nx3DhfDU/edit?usp=sharing) partially but going to wait for Bricklink entries for the new moulds. I'm wondering about the quoted parts, are those really light turquoise as in Medium Bluish Green in TLG colour names? That colour hasn't appeared since 2003 at all according to Ryan Howerter's colour guide so I'm just making sure before I create a new colour entry.

Sorry for continuing the offtopic, but the suspension arms work like a lever, and extending their length is like extending the lever travel which translates into greater force. The comments on this topic is btw. a great demonstration why I like this forum: proper advice on how to make the MOC better and good discussion about the reasons why something works better than something else while still keeping the discussion polite and good-spirited.

I've wondered the same, why don't they sell the stuff by the meter for MOC builders? Same should go for strings and it would also be nice to be able to buy rubber bands directly from TLG in bulk in all the sizes currently produced. I recently bought 25m spool of silicone hose for with the same dimensions as the official one from a plastics oriented department store. Cost about 20€.