2GodBDGlory

Super impressive work! Getting the relatively random gear ratios to work, and then topping it off in such an attractive casing is very impressive!

Yep. I'm just borrowing it, but it's been a lot of fun!

Here's my college dorm setup: General use parts in the blue bins, lesser used Technic in the set of droors, electronics and large tires in the black/blue bins, empty grey transit cases for the blue bins, MOC on top of shelf, system in top desk droor, and small tires in middle desk droor. It's perfectly workable for me; fortunately my collection is small. (I did have to leave most of my system at home, though.)

@allanp Good insightful comments, especially about the realistic accomplishment of functions. Sadly, I think Lego hardly ever does realistic functions, with the main exceptions being some piston engine drivetrains (without gearboxes), some suspension designs, and pneumatics. Personally, I really enjoy trying to make stuff realistic in my MOCs, even when it ends up being dysfunctional. A recent example would be the brakes in my Ford F-350, where I went with an extremely complicated matter cylinder system to operate the pneumatic brakes, even though there were much simpler, more reliable solutions available. I suppose you were at least partially referring to me when talking about people doing the math on the cost of this set, and I see what you mean. From a collector's standpoint, who really cares how many parts are in it, so long as it looks good and has good functions. Personally, though, I'm far from being a collector. I bought about 9000 pieces worth of Technic sets from late 2016 to early 2020 to build up a collection for MOCing, and have no plans to buy more sets (I'll buy parts)--not because I don't like sets, but because I don't need the parts. My mindset, though, is to get a set, build it once, then rip it apart in a few days, so part count is way more important to me than functions. I'm probably in the minority, though!

There seems to be much less in the way of cars/trucks compared to last year.

Are you sure you're thinking of the small one (3x5x4) rather than the medium one (3x4x(8?))?

Time for variant #4! This version attempted to model a single-cab, short bed Ford F-100 modified to be better on-road. The external modifications included less obtrusive rear-view mirrors, a body color bumper, the short bed, the rims, and the lowering. Mechanically, it used my quasi-hobby motor for rear-wheel-drive, and the servo for tight steering with Ackermann geometry. Unfortunately, just as I was about to begin filming yesterday, I started having battery issues. Upon inspection, it seems that the middle of the three cells in my battery has died. I rigged it up to run just off of the other two, for a nominal voltage of 6.4 versus the original 9.6. This is enough to spin the rear tires in the air and steer, but the truck will not drive unless I push it up to speed with my foot and then hit the throttle, and even then it struggles just to keep moving. Because of all this, I have no footage of it driving, and it will be taken apart long before I get a new battery. I've got more images at: https://bricksafe.com/pages/2GodBDGlory/ford-f-series-7th-gen Here's my video, disappointing as it was.

Yeah, my calculations were based off of the cheapest offers of which there was significant quantity (no cheap outliers that will be gone tomorrow). You're right, though, a higher price might have been more meaningful; I was just too lazy to figure out what a reasonable one would be. The point wasn't how much replicating the set would cost, though, rather I just wanted to get an idea of whether the set was a good deal or not, despite the electronics that make it vaguer than usual.

Somehow I missed those rims' release! That 8462 mod sounds pretty cool; I've been wanting to see Harley tires used for a non-motorcycle for a while! (They'd be pretty sweet for a 1:7 supercar, I think) I like it!

I've been working on the 2021 update of my Technic book, and as a part of that I decided to run some numbers on the CAT pricing. Here's a quote from my first draft: "The main complaint against this set has been its price, which is identical to the Liebherr, despite this set having about 300 pieces, a hub, and three motors fewer. If we say that the set’s 3845 pieces are worth $390 CAD, and we put the electronics at current Bricklink prices, so that the hub is worth $21, the L’s are worth 2x$19, and the large angular motors are worth 2x$17 (all prices taken before this set’s release), we get a total set value of $483 CAD to stack up against the set’s retail value of $549.99 CAD. We thus have a discrepancy of $66.99 CAD ($53 USD), which is definitely enough to classify the set as overpriced, but I think complaints have perhaps overstated the issue." Running the same numbers on the Liebherr, though, we see that it was worth $578, or $38.01 over its list value. The takeaway for me is that the Liebherr was a rather good deal, the CAT is a poor (but not unusual) deal, but the sum difference between them overstates the CAT's deficiency.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Liebherr was a bit cheaper than usual and this set is a bit more expensive than usual. I think both are reasonably close to the normal from Lego, but are just on opposite sides of the spectrum.

That looks like a nice, thorough alternate model! I like the way you built the sides of the bed with the wheel arches, like the real truck, but unlike most other real vehicles.

Clever! I always enjoy seeing uses for the 14T gears, though I understand your desire to eliminate them.

Couldn't tell you! I haven't seen that movie, though my Dad had told me the plot many times.

As it is a virtual MOC, I tested it extensively with virtual children.

Yep. But now that I've heard a semi-reasonable argument for why I should align regular pins as well it may be even worse!

If I understand you correctly, it works like in this image, just with frames filling in the bare pin and axle. Yes, I'm pretty sure I could get a physical one apart, though some pins might pay the price (there's a reason I'm one of the few builders who regularly run out of pins!). Did I link to the file correctly?

Do your kids just keep smashing your MOCs as fast as you can build them? Do you need something with REAL DURABILITY? Look no further than THE UNDISASSEMBLEABLE MOC!!! With 100% of the pieces permanently locked together, those pesky children can try as they might, but nothing short of part destruction (or possibly illegal bending of parts that no youngster would dare attempt) will take even a single element off of this beauty! As if that weren't enough, it's is also a fully functional remote-controlled car, with breathtaking proportions and scintillating performance! The Servo motor's longevity is ensured by blocking it from ever reaching its extreme points, saving wear on them, and the L-motor's raw performance is maximized with efficient gearing. Perhaps the joy of its operation can even teach your children a more excellent way than the thrills of destruction. Order today for the low, low, price of $999.99* by calling our skilled team of professionals at 1-800-$%^-#$%@!!!!! *Plus shipping, processing, handling, snack, jacuzzi, and mystery fees. (Tax is not mentioned as it is more certain than death) Batteries not included--including the rechargeable one pictured!!! END OF SALES PITCH So, I finally got around to installing Stud.io, and as an introductory model, I decided to attempt a MOC that I would never build in real life--one in which all the parts are permanently connected. It wasn't as hard as I expected, largely because of the introduction of the larger frames since I originally conceived the idea. The main flaw is that the Servo motor cannot rotate all the way to the end points, but other than that I am pleased with it! Let me know if you discover any aspects that either cannot be built, or can be taken apart. Perhaps this is how I attach the file? https://www.bricklink.com/v3/studio/design.page?idModel=255849

No, nothing seems to detect it.

By sixteen channels I just meant that I could double the number of channels I could use from eight to sixteen, by using four Lego receivers and four Chinese ones. As for the pairing, when the receiver is powered on it flashes its light slowly, and then after it receives a command from the remote, the light stays on steadily. This strikes me as being a pairing procedure.

It looks very much like it is farm equipment designed by a supercar builder, in a good way!

Thanks!

Cool! I wasn't aware of your solution until now!

Interesting! I find it odd that a dirt-cheap knock off would use a more expensive technology, but it certainly seems that it did! If it doesn't require a line of sight, could I just bury the receiver inside a MOC like an SBrick?

Done: I now think you may be right! I see I have an antenna in there, which I don't recall seeing on Lego IR ones, and the remote seems to have to pair with a receiver before using it, unlike Lego ones. Would 2.4 GHz be seen as an advantage across the board, or are there disadvantages as well?