Jim

You can honestly tell them that you don't want C+ in every model.

So the milion dollar question is.....have you been naughty or nice?!

Here's your chance to express your "Future Wishes".

This is your chance to share your thoughts! The LEGO Technic team is looking to get your feedback on 11 questions through this survey. The survey should take approximately 5 minutes to complete and will be running for until March 7th. Please feel free to share with other LEGO Technic enthusiasts.

A bit late with my reply, but what an outstanding set. Thanks for the review. This looks like a must-buy

You need to host your images elsewhere. Use Flickr or Bricksafe (it’s free) to host your images and link/embed them in a post.

It's an experiment. To see who's offended by it. You won

Sweet! That's an original idea. How many parts were left-overs?

We need to look into it, but it might have something to do with the mailserver you are using. We don't see any problems with notifications. Can you try to temporarily switch to another email address to test whether you will get them on that address?

Hi, Welcome to EB. Which parts are you looking for? You say you are looking for Technic parts, but you are posting in the Mindstorms forum. So are you looking to get Technic parts to build Mindstorms robots? The usual answer is Bricklink. Are you familiar with Bricklink?

Wow, this is such a cool set!! One of the coolest microfighter sets.

Hehe true that, but thinking about new voting mechanisms is fun though

I like the suggestion, but we do need to fix the broken poll first. True that. Let's keep it in mind for next contests. I do like the idea.

@Toastie That isn't so bad indeed! I always read horror stories about the need for virtual machines etc. But this isn't so bad. @dr_spock obviously has the right answer. The answer that is always right. Things are cheap when they are in low demand (compared to the availability).

Perhaps because they are outdated and hard to use on modern computers?

No problem, it was a good suggestion!! Go ahead and vote for your favorites. I will see what I can do. Won't be very hard to do an extra lookup in the names list. (and most of the time, the results are the same anyway)

I absolutely agree. I will see that it gets built into the vote counter. Thanks for the suggestion.

No problem!

I will close the contest tomorrow evening.

You can use that topic. No need to make a new topic for 3.0. I will leave this comments here as a reminder that there is a separate BuWizz topic.

Ask the designers?

I received a reply to some questions. I will try to quote the questions. We have a limit array of materials in the TLG to choose from. And reinforced materials are not part of this, since it has some disadvantages like, not easy to recycle, production setup etc. Most important, reinforced materials will put a higher load to the rest of the LEGO systems. When developing a new element, It will always be a compromise regarding size, building possibilities, materials and production platforms, safety and the LEGO building system. 1) The new CV joint was designed 3 studs long since it was mostly to be used with the TECHNIC frames. To make this build more rigid and easier for larger models, the extra length was chosen. 2) Due to material chosen, it was possibly to make a cross axel hole with friction. Which is preferably for some builds. For multilink suspension, a friction free cross hole with sliding interface will of course be advantageous. But we chose the friction for this first version of the CV joint. 3) To transfer more force, a full stud length cross hole was needed. If shortened it will reduce the CV working angle to almost 0 degrees. The Multi-toothed ball design from The 8880 box was part of the inspiration for this CV joint, but wishes to size and building possibilities we ended up with this compromise. The primary requirements for the new upside/down suspension was to make it work as a motorcycle fork. And you are right it made it too wiggly if the rotation was not locked. It was considered, but not chosen. But we are always open for any possibility in the future if it gives good play experience for users. We made extensive test to different materials and combinations of this, to reach our goal of only having a two elements clutch. I think we went through approx. 15 different test molds and almost a year of frontend work before it was ready for production setup. We always try to use existing LEGO elements whenever we make new models. And when we cannot achieve the function or visual expression with existing elements, only then will we create new elements. When we decide to create new elements, we start with an Element Design Brief where we specify our project’s goal. Then we setup a team of around 5 people from design and engineering that works together to find the best solution for the play experience, quality, toy safety, production, and materials platforms. We use 3D CAD, 3D print, FEM analyze etc. to verify and visualize our design ideas. TLG also have a large amount of inhouse experts that we use to validate the designs. The biggest challenges are to get the building interfaces as universal as possible and still deliver to the specific demands for the element. Toy safety and mass production demand are also demanding. For the 3 elements I believe we reach a good solution on all of the above. You can still ask some questions. There will be a final round of answers!

We still have an issue with the Api to solve.

It makes sense, because the flaws are obvious. So nice try, time to make version 1.1 That is a big plus indeed!!

All the chassis pictures are okay. The idea is to have a glance at the interior, instead of seeing a bunch of panels. Other than that, the requirements are not that strict.