recovering_from_dark_ages

What's the point of 42004 when 8455 already exists? 42004 barely missed the top 75, so it's probably still in the top 20% of the 533 Technic sets ever made. 42055 seems like a very interesting set from a mechanical standpoint imo. It's certainly unique - no other Lego Technic bucket wheel excavator has ever been made and it's the 3rd largest Technic set ever made. I've never personally tried out 42055 but the official Brickset review says that the motor is underpowered, that it should have more motors, and that the motion of some components is shaky. It's still the 39th highest rated Technic set on Brickset out of 533 Technic sets ever made, which is a strong showing. That places it just ahead of the 42083 Bugatti Chiron, the 8285 Tow Truck, the 41999 4x4 Crawler Exclusive Edition, and the 8258 Crane Truck, among other beloved Technic sets.

I agree that the rear hatch mechanism on 8880 is more interesting than on some of the modern supercars. And it has a center differential, which the newer 4WD supercar sets like 42115 seem to lack. So I guess those are its main advantages over the licensed 1:8 scale Technic supercars, along with its 4-wheel steering and adjustable headlights. But then 42115 has the lever-actuated scissor side doors, the adjustable lever-actuated rear spoiler, the more complex 8-speed paddle shift transmission with a separate D/N/R shifter, and pivoting side mirrors. Admittedly 42115's rear engine cover is comparatively lame; it's a removable cover with no hatch mechanism. The front hood opens using a hinge made of friction pins and two collapsing supports similar to the one on 8880's rear engine hatch. Some of the other modern supercars (e.g. 42056, 42083, and 42143) have comparatively lame side doors that pivot on a hinge. But 8880 doesn't have opening side doors, pivoting side mirrors, an opening front hood, an adjustable rear spoiler, or a separate gear shift and D/N/R shift; most or all of the licensed 1:8 scale supercars have each of those and two of them (42083 and 42115) also have 4WD. It's also worth noting that 42100, 42110, and 8043 are all separated by less than 0.01 average rating stars out of 5.0; 42100 is essentially the sequel to 8043 but they're neck in neck. I personally struggled to decide which of them to get although I discovered that 8043 has some flaws as well. The average ratings in these lists are so close that the sets are often separated by 0.01 average rating stars or less. With only 5.0 stars to distinguish 533 Technic sets, the average rating separations inevitably become miniscule.

I agree. I was surprised not to see 42145 in the top 20. Imo it's the best Technic aircraft set ever made (assuming 8480 is excluded as a spacecraft). Are you saying that you think 8295 should have a lower average rating than 3.6, or a higher one? The number of ratings is important in addition to the average rating number itself. I didn't bother analyzing standard deviation of ratings in order to determine a statistically significant minimum number of ratings per set. I arbitrarily decided on 40 as the minimum sample size in the second list but it could well be higher. Perhaps because it has the most functions of any Technic supercar produced so far, although some people are deeply bothered by its mismatched green brick colors What's the distinction between 2 and 3? I wasn't aware of any Technic Control sets made after Control Centre II, aside from 8479 if it counts. I tried to create the least biased ranking possible by using average ratings by enthusiasts. I'd love to create a less biased ranking although I'm not sure how to do that given the available data.

Agreed. I also find it fascinating that the average ratings show that Lego's newer sets only sometimes outperform their closely related predecessors. 8455 outperforms 8862, 42100 (barely) outperforms 8043, 42043 outperforms 8868, 42131 outperforms 8275, and (if we allow its limited sample size) 42171 outperforms 8458. However, 8880 still substantially outperforms every supercar made for 30 years afterwards, except maybe 42172. And 8868 outperforms 8110 while 42009 barely outperforms 42082. Personally, I don't fully understand the obsession with 8880. I had 8448 as a kid and always wanted 8880. When I first started researching Lego Technic a few months ago after 20+ years, 8880 was the first set on my mind. But when I saw the newer supercar sets like 42115 (with its greater number of functions), I completely lost interest in 8880. Basically its only functional advantage over the newer supercars is that it has 4-wheel steering, and it seems functionally less advanced in every other respect. 42054 has more complex steering, as does 42009 and debatably 41999 and 42030.

How would you personally rank the top 5, 10, or 20 best Lego Technic sets of all time? After a Lego hiatus of 20+ years, I spent considerable hours in the past few months determining which unowned Technic sets I should buy in my limited amount of living space that can accommodate 10-20 sets at most. At first, I spent considerable time researching Technic sets, reading reviews and watching videos of them and compiling lists of their functions and other characteristics in spreadsheets. This helped me determine my own preference in Technic sets. But I wanted to determine what the objective preferences are of Lego Technic enthusiasts and how they rank all Technic sets. To that end, I started comparing ratings and reviews on multiple sites to determine which sets are considered the best. Eventually, based on this Brickset page, I created this spreadsheet showing the exact Brickset rating distribution of the top 75 or so Technic sets. My main reasons for only using Brickset for this purpose were as follows: Set ratings and reviews on Google, Amazon, and Ebay are influenced by individual purchase experiences (e.g. shipping time, condition of item, communication with seller, etc.) rather than the set itself Brickeconomy reviews seem to be influenced by investment returns on sets, and it's impossible to determine each set's rating distribution Ratings and reviews on technic-dialog.de are solely or mainly done by enthusiasts but it's very time-consuming to get each set's exact rating distribution Ratings on Brickset are solely or mainly done by enthusiasts and each set's exact rating distribution can be viewed with one click I decided to create the spreadsheet because although Brickset has a fantastic page that lets you view the top rated Lego sets among all themes and within any theme, it rounds ratings out of five stars to the nearest tenth of a star and does not precisely order ratings by hundredths, so the page does not show the sets based on the exact order of their average ratings. As seen on the spreadsheet (which also shows each set's average rating), these are the 20 best Lego Technic sets of all time according to their exact average Brickset ratings, with their year of release: 42172 Mclaren P1 (2024) 8455 Back-Hoe (2003) 8480 Space Shuttle (1996) 8880 Super Car (1994) 8485 Control Centre II (1995) 42054 CLAAS Xerion 5000 TRAC VC (2016) 42171 Mercedes-AMG F1 W14 E Performance (2024) 42030 Volvo L350F Wheel Loader (2014) 42043 Mercedes-Benz Arocs 3245 (2015) 42157 John Deere 948-L II Skidder (2023) 42009 Mobile Crane Mk II (2013) 8868 Air Tech Claw Rig (1992) 8862 Backhoe Grader (1989) 42082 Rough Terrain Crane (2018) 852 Helicopter (1977) 8443 Pneumatic Log Loader (1996) 42115 Lamborghini Sián FKP 37 (2020) 42128 Heavy-Duty Tow Truck (2021) 8458 Silver Champion (2000) 42100 Liebherr R 9800 Excavator (2019) If we ignore small sample sizes by only considering Technic sets with at least 40 Brickset ratings (somewhat arbitrarily), we get: 8455 Back-Hoe (2003) 8480 Space Shuttle (1996) 8880 Super Car (1994) 8485 Control Centre II (1995) 42054 CLAAS Xerion 5000 TRAC VC (2016) 42030 Volvo L350F Wheel Loader (2014) 42043 Mercedes-Benz Arocs 3245 (2015) 42009 Mobile Crane Mk II (2013) 8868 Air Tech Claw Rig (1992) 8862 Backhoe Grader (1989) 42082 Rough Terrain Crane (2018) 42115 Lamborghini Sián FKP 37 (2020) 42128 Heavy-Duty Tow Truck (2021) 8458 Silver Champion (2000) 42100 Liebherr R 9800 Excavator (2019) 42110 Land Rover Defender (2019) 8043 Motorized Excavator (2010) 42056 Porsche 911 GT3 RS (2016) 42131 CAT D11 Bulldozer (2021) 8110 Mercedes-Benz Unimog U 400 (2011) What do you all think of these rankings? How would you personally rank the top 5, 10, or 20 best Lego Technic sets of all time?

Fair point. In any case, Reddit agrees with 50 net upvotes that the rear tires look used, in contrast to the fronts, which look new. Fair point. Further complication arises from the fact that there aren't many close-up photos from more than one angle of some of these parts, although Bricklink has a computer-rendered 360-degree part view tool that hopefully shows the part exactly as it appears in real life. This actually is one of the better features of the site imo although there's certainly lots of room for improvement in other areas. Don't get me started on the checkout, shipping, and messaging interfaces. I actually think that Bricklink sellers (and hence Lego itself) are losing considerable revenue to Bricklink's current implementation of those features, as I described in the Reddit thread. Actually I didn't mention the messaging interface in that thread; its main issues are that 1) Bricklink site messages don't support attachments, which are critical in Bricklink as users often exchange photos of sets and parts and many items are listed without photos 2) Bricklink messages and emails are not automatically coupled including any attachments, such that a reply to an email would also generate a message in the site and vice versa using default settings. Thanks for sharing those photos. There does appear to be a slight discrepancy between the condition of the front and rear tires in that Eurobricks review of the set. Granted, it's not nearly what we're seeing here, but that review was done over 12 years ago. And of course it's a "New" rather than a "New & Sealed" set so one can't be certain that the rear tires are entirely unused and came from the same set as all of the other parts, even if that's very likely the case. EDIT: I'm still quite convinced that my rear tires when I opened the set were dirty/dusty rather than degraded because the chalky dirt/dust rubbed off easily with a finger and didn't have the residue-like texture that I'd expect of degraded rubber, instead having the obvious texture of grime. Moreover, rubber degradation doesn't result in randomly placed scratches on the bottom of the rear tires that aren't on the sides, as shown in my photos. It is obviously certain that the rear tires were heavily used and frankly I don't understand the denial in this thread. Are you all paid Lego shills or something?

Yes - filing a dispute with PayPal is possible in this case. I don't want to go through the hassle of doing that and then getting a different set to replace it. That process would take some weeks and by that time, I won't have time to build the sets for a few months while my work ramps up more heavily. The biggest issue here is the false advertising, and I posted this mainly as a cautionary tale to other Lego enthusiasts. And thanks to the feedback here and on Reddit, I've decided to prefer "New" over "New & Sealed" sets on Bricklink (after requesting comprehensive photos) from now on.

Lol yeah Reddit "agrees" if Bricklink/Lego PR reps downvote my post with lots of Reddit accounts. That 8455 set is very obviously resealed and very obviously doesn't contain 100% new parts given the state of the rear tires which simply have no excuse for being so much more scratched, dirty, and worn than the front tires. Reddit agrees with 50 net upvotes (including any downvotes) that that's a "dead giveaway". Frankly I'd be more impressed with more accountability here rather than the dishonest and incorrect attempts at discrediting me and ignoring the facts. If I were a Bricklink seller or Lego PR rep, it seems like it would be in my best interest to say that "you were unlucky and had a bad, non-representative customer experience on Bricklink", rather than BS'ing me with blatantly false statements about the state of the set or that I've never owned or built a classic Technic set, or about bag numbering and other completely irrelevant nonsense. The end result is that Bricklink now looks a bit less credible than if full accountability had been taken. Your assessment regarding TLG codes/marks on elements is correct. My 8674 set from that same seller mostly contains parts with TLG logos, but contains a fair number of parts that normally contain the logo but do not in this case, and thus are evidently non-Lego parts. Like this 8455 set, it also suspiciously has parts bags made of multiple different types of plastic, with a few perforated bags that have much thicker plastic and much larger holes than I've ever seen in any perforated Lego parts bag. Unsurprisingly, some of the non-Lego parts are in those bags. Believe it or not, that's the exact reason why I bought "New & Sealed" sets. I missed out on these sets in my 20+ years away from Lego, and can afford to buy "New & Sealed" and want the experience of opening and building the new set. That's one of the reasons why I'm pissed; it was immediately obvious that I'd been scammed when I opened the box, which admittedly took a few months due to my work commitments. I've definitely learned my lesson here and will prefer "New" on Bricklink in the future. I still haven't heard from the seller and can't change the feedback rating on Bricklink, which I foolishly left without having opened the set; we can say that the rating is my fault but any competently made e-commerce website allows updating ratings and reviews. Admittedly Ebay doesn't either, but Amazon does and we all know which of them has won in business. (Side note: that may be one reason why someone in this thread had a bad experience on Ebay.)

This may count as an unpopular opinion about Lego, since it apparently owns Bricklink:

To add data here: two of the four "New & Sealed" Technic sets that I've bought on BrickLink had serious flaws, and they were both from the same seller with 99.9% positive feedback and 1,000+ ratings. But yeah, point taken to buy "New" sets with exhaustive photos of their contents instead of "New & Sealed". That's been my main lesson from this and I find it laughable that "New & Sealed" sets typically command higher prices than "New" sets. And there is effectively no difference between "New" and clean "Used" Technic parts on Bricklink from what I'm seeing. The two sets that I bought from a Lego brick and mortar store and the two that I bought on Ebay (one of which was 8485) are all in great shape and seem to have no flaws; all were legitimately "New & Sealed" when I purchased them. It's also needlessly complex to get a refund on Bricklink when the seller doesn't ship the set after you pay. Anyway, it's become quite clear to me why buyers pay a 20% premium (or more) to buy sets on Amazon and Ebay instead of Bricklink. In summary, my "New & Sealed" successful purchase rate on Bricklink has been 50% while it's been 100% each on Ebay and from Lego directly. All sets were purchased from top-rated sellers. That's quite a bad record on Bricklink.

You still haven't explained why the rear tires are so dirty and deeply scratched relative to the front tires, despite being made of a harder and less sticky rubber. That's very obviously heavy use only in the rear tires. 50 Reddit upvotes attest to that at this point, so I don't see why one would assert the contrary given the evidence. The set clearly does not meet Bricklink's requirement of being "untampered with as shipped by the manufacturer". I agree that the outer box condition is good but that's irrelevant. I never questioned the box condition, but only that clear tape was suspiciously applied on top of the box's clear plastic seal so it's obvious that this 8455 set is resealed rather than legitimately "New & Sealed". It certainly does not have "unopened factory seals intact". The outer packing tape was intact, not the factory seal. I never mentioned bag numbering and that's also totally irrelevant here. For the record, I own 12 Lego Technic sets made between 1995 and 2022, all of which I received new and sealed. None of the parts looked used in my other sets when I received them, including the 8480 and 8485 sets that I bought recently. However, my 8674 set from this seller contains some non-genuine parts as I mentioned in my Reddit post. This 8455 is the only set that has bags that don't seem like genuine Lego bags, aside from the suspicious 8674 set from the same seller. Again, the bag covered in text has no mention of Lego anywhere, and the text is cut off on the top and bottom of the bag. The set's perforated bag is made of thicker plastic and has larger holes than any genuine perforated Lego parts bag in the dozens of Technic and non-Technic Lego sets that I've owned. Yeah I'm well aware of the need to look at the number of feedbacks. As I thought I mentioned in my Reddit post, all three sellers that I mentioned in my list of BrickLink incidents had 1,000+ feedbacks. Two had over 99.9% positive feedback and the other one had 99.8% positive feedback when I bought each item. I agree that Bricklink itself isn't necessarily bad but since it seems to be commonplace to 1) pass off vintage Technic sets as "new and sealed" that are nothing of the sort and 2) sell cleaned used Technic parts as "new", and 3) Bricklink's buyers either can't tell the difference or Bricklink somehow doesn't include their feedback, the end result is that "new and sealed" vintage sets on Bricklink are often a scam to a discerning buyer. That may not be unique to Bricklink and may be common on Ebay and Amazon sets, although I've had no issues with those so far (in an admittedly much smaller sample size). In the future, I'll prefer "New" over "New & Sealed" sets on Bricklink, as others have suggested. My latest problem with Bricklink: I paid for an item 2 weeks ago and the seller still hasn't shipped it or even responded after I messaged him last week, so I filed a non-shipping seller (NSS) alert as Bricklink calls it. Based on this incredibly lengthy and unnecessarily complex documentation page, it's not clear to me how I'll get a refund if the seller takes no action within 2 weeks of my filing the NSS alert, at which point my order will be canceled. Bottom line: none of this benefits Bricklink itself. On the whole, I love that it typically offers sets at cheaper prices than Ebay and Amazon, but I'm beginning to see why. Buyers might be willing to pay more on Bricklink if its marketplace platform improves.

I've added another two pics to the bottom of my Reddit post. The last one shows the box contents and that this was a very roomy box for everything to tumble around. As I said in my Reddit post, it makes zero sense for the rear tires to be so dirty and scratched while the fronts look new, given than the rear tires are made of harder and less sticky rubber. So your argument about the tires doesn't apply in this case. And yes, rubber degrades over time but without heavy use, that doesn't cause tons of deep and uneven scratches plus dirt, even though it may cause some discoloration.

Did you look at the second photo in my Reddit post, showing the rear and front tires together? The rear tires are heavily scratched and discolored, and very dirty with small hairs on them. The front tires have none of those characteristics and look like new. I still own some of my Technic sets that I built in the 1990's and that were new at the time, and I know what heavily used tires look like. There's simply no way that anyone could consider those rear tires to be new and I find it concerning that several accounts (seemingly from Lego and/or Bricklink shills) are adamantly claiming that they're new. I read recently that Lego owns Bricklink, which may understand why I'm seeing so many delusional posts rushing to defend a set that obviously isn't legitimately "New & Sealed". I'm inclined to agree that the premium for "New & Sealed" is definitely not worth it. "New" with thorough photos can be worth it. I have bought some "New & Sealed" classic Technic sets that seem to be exactly described, but the overall defect rate in terms of used or non-genuine parts in some "New & Sealed" sets is just too high to justify the price premium for anyone but a foolish investor who doesn't closely inspect the sets and then may struggle to resell them. It certainly isn't worth it for a builder like me who just wants the experience of building a missed set from his Lego dark ages as new.

Ok. Perhaps it's easiest if I just post a link to my Reddit post, then, since it already has all of the photos and they're formatted nicely with captions:

Every time I try to fix a typo in my post, something deletes my photos. This sentence should read as follows: It seems like you can fake a "New & Sealed" set fairly easily by buying a mix of Alibaba and secondhand Lego parts, cleaning used parts with hydrogen peroxide, using a bag sealing machine to seal them in some random plastic bags (after grouping them sensibly), and scanning and printing the original decals onto an empty decal sheet before cutting them. Where are the rules posted about the image size requirements? I just searched the site for that and didn't find them. Seems a bit sus tbh, as though you are protecting some Bricklink sellers from your site users potentially seeing my high-res photos. Posting smaller photos will make this set's flaws less visible.

I recently bought some "New & Sealed" sets on BrickLink from several sellers, including one with over 99.9% positive feedback on thousands of orders. Check out the photos of this "New & Sealed" 8455 set that I purchased from said seller (whom I will not reveal): OVERSIZED IMAGES REMOVED EDIT: apparently the mods have removed my photos without my permission, so here they are for all to see: I can't prove that the parts bags aren't genuine although the other flaws are indisputable. Even though the parts all seem to work, this seems like a ripoff considering that I paid over $150 extra for this "New & Sealed" set supposedly sold by its original owner, instead of buying a used set that was honestly described as "Used" rather than "New & Sealed". Other recent Bricklink experiences: I bought a "New" instruction booklet for a set from a different seller with 99.8% positive feedback on over 1,000 orders. It was described as "New" yet when I received it, it was warped with obvious water damage and smelled like mold, and the pages were falling out. The description said some of the glue was weak but it said nothing about the water damage or mold odor. I bought various Technic parts described as "New". They did not come in any Lego packaging and one of them has a heavily dented corner despite weighing almost nothing. I received that one from a third seller with thousands of orders and over 99.9% positive feedback, and it was wrapped in multiple layers of thick bubble wrap so clearly it was a used part to begin with. I bought a new (not sealed) 8674 set from the same seller as this 8455 set. It came with no instructions and some of the parts are embossed with the Lego logo, while others are not and look like they came from this Chinese copy. Does no one open their "New & Sealed" Bricklink sets? How does no one else seem to notice this stuff? It seems like you can fake a "New & Sealed" set fairly easily by buying a mix of Alibaba and secondhand Lego parts, cleaning used parts with hydrogen peroxide, using a bag sealing machine to seal them in some random plastic bags (after grouping them sensibly), and scanning the original print and cut them onto an empty decal sheet before cutting them. Then, you just buy an original Lego box in decent shape and an original instruction booklet, put all of the "sealed parts" and "original decals" in the box, and sell the set as "New & Sealed" on Bricklink. Granted, this would require investing in the right equipment but it seems doable and financially worthwhile for repeated sales of the pricier classic Technic sets. Or, perhaps more profitably: you simply buy an incomplete set with sealed parts at a heavy discount, and then buy whatever it's missing on BrickLink (in this case, seemingly the rear tires and the pneumatic hoses). But then since many "New" parts etc on BrickLink are just cleaned and bagged secondhand items, you can complete the set with secondhand parts, box, and/or instructions. Then you sell the set on Bricklink as "New & Sealed" and get >99% positive feedback, with sufficient diligence. DISCLAIMER: I have bought some "New & Sealed" sets on BrickLink that seem to be correctly described. But then I also had the experiences described above. EDIT: my captions are missing but you can see that the rear tires are dirty, scratched, and obviously heavily used, especially in contrast to the front ones. The uneven reapplication of tape on the very dirty pneumatic hoses shows that they also seem to be used. Each of the parts bags is different; the first one is covered with text but has no mention of Lego whatsoever, the second one has no text at all, and the third is heavily perforated with no text.

If that's the case, then why is Lego advertising it as a "2-speed gearbox" on their website?

After extensive research, I'd say: 42043 (year 2015 with 2793 parts), for all of the reasons mentioned in the thread. Afaik it has the most functions of any official Technic set ever created, with 15 functions combining motorized and pneumatic functions, and features a motorized pneumatic pump like 8868 (which only has 8 functions) and 8110 (which also has fewer functions). It's a very realistic replica of the Mercedes Arocs (including its non-independent truck suspension) and as another benefit, the set remains relatively affordable as of this writing. Lego seems to have tried multiple times to top 8868 and with this set, they finally did it unequivocally. 8480 (year 1996 with 1368 parts), for combining fiber optics (only ever included in two Technic sets) with motors, and easily being the best Technic space set ever with the most functions. The B-model submarine is also arguably the best Technic watercraft ever produced to date, since no other Technic ship or submarine has as many functions. Many have probably seen the excellent write-up on this set here. 42115 (year 2020 with 3696 parts), since it easily has the most functions of any official Lego Technic supercar set ever created including the venerated 8880 (which nonetheless has a higher average rating on brickset). 42115 realistically recreates the real Lambo. It's also the first Technic supercar with printed parts and no decals, although there were complaints of inconsistent green colors on a few pieces. It is the longest-produced Lego Technic set of all time, retiring EOY 2025. To expand to an unordered top 10 list while spanning as many Technic functions as possible with minimal duplication (where A / B means I struggled to choose between two excellent sets that serve a similar purpose and gave a questionable win to A): 42100 (year 2020 with 4108 parts) / 8043 (year 2010 with 1123 parts): while 8043 is more popular in this thread, 42100 has the most parts and the most remote controlled functions of any official Technic set ever, and has arguably the best interface of all of the Control+ app-controlled sets while being a highly realistic replica of the real Liebherr excavator. 8043 has a fourth as many parts and almost as many functions, and many prefer its infrared controller since it can easily be rebuilt into any MOC while the remote control interface of every Control+ set requires a smartphone and is bound to the original Lego set. But 8043 had a number of engineering flaws including insufficient motor strength, an unrealistically large bucket, and defective linear actuators. Nonetheless, many Technic purists rightly prefer 8043 overall, which has a >3x greater density of functions per part. More info can be found in a recent poll, which 42100 very narrowly won. These two remote controlled excavator sets have nearly an identical average rating on brickset.com, with 4.376/5.0 for 8043 and 4.388/5.0 for 42100. Note that buyers willingly pay >$100 more on average for 42100 than 8043, despite the latter being 9 years older and hence scarcer. 42113 (year 2020 with 1636 parts) / 42145 (year 2022 with 2001 parts): these sets are competing to be the best aircraft set ever from Lego Technic and are both realistic and mechanically intricate licensed replicas of a real one. 42113 was canceled shortly after launch and hence is now prohibitively expensive for many would-be buyers. 42025 is is noteworthy as well but it's not a replica of a real aircraft and it's strictly an airplane, much like 42145 is is strictly a helicopter. 42113 is special because it's simultaneously an airplane and a helicopter. 8455 (year 2003 with 704 parts): with 10 overall functions and 7 pneumatic functions, this set has the most pneumatic functions of any Technic set of all time. It also has one of the greatest densities of functions per piece of any Technic set ever, and tops all other sets mentioned in this post in that regard. 8485 (year 1995 with 1079 parts): the remote controlled & roboticized dinosaur B-model in this set (see video), which features a controller that can record and play back inputs in a loop, is unlike anything else that Technic has ever produced. The helicopter A-model is quite interesting as well, although 42145 is a much more realistic, extensive, and detailed replica of helicopter functionality. 42054 (year 2015 with 1977 parts): this tractor set has the second most functions of any Technic set ever afaik, with a total of 14 of them. It's easily the most mechanically intricate farm equipment Technic set ever and combines motorized and manual functions with modularized and removable components. Uniquely among all Technic sets, it features adjustable steering that activates one of 3 modes: 2-wheel steering, 4-wheel steering, or crab steering. 42130 (year 2022 with 1920 parts): this is arguably the best Technic motorcycle or 2-wheeled vehicle set ever created, with a 4-cylinder engine, 3-speed gearbox, suspension, steering, swappable dashboard elements, and accessories such as a stand and a lift. 42130 has the most parts and a more realistic gear shifter relative to its mechanically similar counterpart sets 42159 and 42202, which do not include an additional rear axle lift like the one included with 42130. 41999 (year 2013 with 1585 parts): this set has the most functions of any official Lego Technic remote controlled wheeled vehicle set ever produced, featuring working lights (a Technic rarity) and a motorized winch. Like 8043, it has the infrared set-agnostic Power Functions remote control interface, and is the only winning set in this list to include it. Honorable mention: 42009 (year 2013 with 2606 parts) / 42082 (year 2018 with 4057 parts): many mechanical aspects of these top two crane sets are redundant if one already owns 42043 and 41999, which is why I didn't include them in the list above that is intended to encompass as many Lego Technic functions as possible in a list of top 10 sets. However, if all sets were evaluated individually with no regard to function duplication between them, these two sets each top 41999 and 42130 in terms of having more functions and greater complexity. 42082 and 42009 are objectively extremely closely matched. 42009 won a recent Reddit poll by one vote and they have nearly identical average ratings on brickset.com, with 4.4505/5.0 for 42082 and 4.4499/5.0 for 42009. These sets have higher average ratings on brickset than all other official Lego Technic crane sets including 8258, likely because they have the most functions of all cranes (although 42146 has the most lifting power). It's also worth noting that after owning one of these two crane sets, the most mechanically full-featured Technic tow truck sets (e.g. 8285 and 42128) are largely redundant in mechanical functions and have a higher percentage of manually operated functions than the cranes. Other excellent sets that didn't make the list: 42030 (year 2014 with 1636 parts): while it's one of the top 12 highest-rated Technic sets of all time on brickset, it has fewer remote controlled functions than 42100 and 8043, and fewer overall functions than 41999. If one already owns 8455 plus 42100 or 8043, the only additional function gained from this set is remote controlled articulated steering. One of its biggest benefits is that it includes a wide variety of discontinued Power Functions parts, listed here. 8275 (year 2007 with 1384 parts) / 42131 (year 2021 with 3854 parts): these RC bulldozers are unneeded if one already owns 8043 or 42100, since they each have fewer remote controlled functions than their excavator counterpart while redundantly being treaded RC dirt movers. 8275 uses the Power Functions remote control interface like 8043 and 41999, while 42131 uses the Control+ app like 42100. 42128 (year 2021 with 2017 parts) / 8285 (year 2006 with 1877 parts): while they are each arguably the best Technic tow truck ever, these sets (compared here) mostly have manual functions and the only distinct functionality gained from owning one of them after owning 42043 and 42009 is a towing platform. With a new price of around $200 USD and 11 overall functions (afaik), 42128 is a superb value in terms of functionality per dollar. A number of reviews and Reddit posts complain about its hideous decals, which need not be applied and help keep it cheap by reducing demand for it. 8461 (year 2002 with 1484 pieces) / 8458 (year 2000 with 1431 parts) / 8674 (year 2006 with 1246 pieces) / 42171 (2024 with 1642 pieces): while they are monetarily valuable and are highly rated on brickset, these F1 car sets are very mechanically similar to supercar sets like 8880 and 42115, except that they lack a transmission and have independent pushrod suspension instead of independent wishbone suspension (a minor difference). So they are essentially redundant except to F1 fans.

In that case, 42207 seems to top 8674. I'm quite annoyed about this because I bought 8674 in October and it effectively became irrelevant a month later, when Lego announced 42207. EDIT: It's still not entirely clear to me how the new Lego 2-speed F1 gearbox works in 42207, although I can see its lever below the engine cover in 42206.

Unless I'm missing something, imo it doesn't seem like the 42207 Ferrari SF24 tops the original 8674 Ferrari F2005 set with a V10 engine.

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying

Does the 8043 actually have enough power out of the box (with the stock motors) to do the final climbing trick in the video that you linked?

Fair point. For me, the pros and cons are as follows and I'm still undecided: The main points in favor of 8043 for me are that it takes less shelf space, looks in scale with other classic Technic sets (like 42043 and 8455), has a handheld PowerFunctions controller instead of the Control+ app, and that it achieves 6 out of the 42100 set's 7 functions with around 1/4 as many parts, making it the more mechanically dense build. I also happen to think that it looks slightly better (which is subjective) and I've seen a number of posts and videos from people who own multiple (even many) Technic sets and who think it's the best Lego Technic set ever made. The 42100 set has two additional functions (motorized bucket open/close and non-motorized ladder raise/lower) and based on what I've read, it has the best app user interface of all Control+ sets. Unlike the 8043, it allows controlling the motors with adjustable speed rather than just setting motor on/off from the controller. It also has far more digging power than the 8043 (which has insufficient digging power due to its use of small motors). And 42100 can drive, rotate, and use its digging arm at the same time, unlike the 8043, which can't use its digging arm while driving or rotating. 42100 also doesn't have any defective linear actuators, which the first few weeks of production 8043 sets all had. EDIT: updated this post with some additional distinctions that I discovered between the sets

Are you saying that the 42100 allows controlling the motors with adjustable speed from the controller and the 8043 does not? Is that true of all motorized functions or just steering? Thanks for pointing this out - was not aware

Which is better: 8043 or 42100? I've researched them both endlessly and am having a tough time deciding. I only have space for one of them at most. After searching, I didn't find a definitive thread about this. By the way, is it possible to post a poll? It would be great to get some data on this question. Please clarify whether you've owned both when replying