anomalocaris92

Well, tbh most of the Technic sets from the late '80s to the mid-'90s had fewer technical features than a transporter gang car nowadays. Not to mention the late '90s/early 2000s, with those horrible slammer cars/robothings. I was revisiting some of my childhood sets, like 8248, 8235, and 8230, and they were honestly atrocious. Comparably priced sets available today, like 42198, 42167, and 42201, are way better. The things that changed somewhat for the worse are the flagship sets: 8480, 8479, 8880, and 8868 were more "fun" and playable, and they had B-models (but tbh, even if modern sets appear less "rebuildable" at first glance, just take a look at Rebrickable...). It's like modern sets feel less like enjoyable toys and more like cold display pieces, and there's some truth in that, but I guess it's mostly due to nostalgia. Another issue is the overpricing of some sets, like the 1:8 scale cars, 42215, and 42175 for example, but you can find them at prices comparable to the flagship ones of the '90s adjusted for inflation. Honestly, I would have loved modern sets as a child, and I don't think I would have had a dark age if I had received something like the 42179 instead of the 6617 as a Christmas present in 2000.

After two months and maybe 30 lift-offs, my set has stopped working smoothly (though it never really worked smoothly to begin with). The string produces way too much friction; every time I played with it, the set seemed like it wanted to pull itself apart, and now it has started to halt entirely, especially during the "descent". Frustrated, I disassembled it only to find the CV joint basically grated. This is the first time I’ve seen something like this in 30 years of building. Quite disappointed by LEGO’s standards lately. Honestly, this set is poorly engineered; the structural alignment relies on long axles that come out of the box already bent. On top of that, the string is too thick for the 49283 pulley (at least in my set). The "crankshaft" that transmits power to the "gearbox" is held by a 32013 that relies only on a blue 43093 pin, which basically comes off after five lift-offs. Has LEGO stopped giving sets to children to evaluate if they actually stay together after some play?

Yeah, something like a 2 stud long axle connector with axle orientation shifted by 120° at each end would be needed to offset each pair of opposing crankshafts (the cam is another thing). I guess they did something like a crankshaft offset by 180° for each pair of opposing pistons (so 6 crankshafts for 6 pistons instead of the usual 3 for 6), but the offset of the symmetry axis between each pair would be 0 90 180, so basically first and last pair would be the same.

Yep, that’s what I meant! Sorry if my English isn’t perfect.The orientation of each pair of crankshafts would be exactly 180°, if I’m not mistaken.

Mmm correct firing order of the cylinders... I wonder if Milan used 6 #4368 cranks instead of 3, with each opposing pair of cranks rotated 180° to each other, to achieve true boxer-style synchronized firing. The fact that the pistons aren’t aligned is actually another accuracy bonus for a boxer engine!

Hi, I'm a new member from Italy. I've been a LEGO fan since I was a little kid and I never really stopped building with bricks, but after the release of the Saturn V 2130, my purchases became less sparse . I know this might upset someone, but the whole craze around licensed car models is actually what kept me in the hobby . Recently I discovered the MOC community and started rebuilding some of my sets just for fun. I hope to have fun here!