Blakbird

It's actually really useful. There are various multi touch gestures you can use to accomplish specific tasks. For insatnce, you can switch between open apps by swiping 4 fingers.

A modern iPhone supports 5 touch points, so that is probably not the problem.

Could be a limitation of your touchscreen. Touchscreens are only possible of resolving a fixed number of touch points at any given time. Maybe yours can only handle 2.

I disagree. I actually think that the 8466 has the most accurate spring rate of any Technic model ever. The springs compress about halfway with the vehicle weight, exactly like they should. I had the same thought. When I first saw the box of the Ferrari I thought we were just getting another copy in a new color. Only after I built it did I realize it was completely different.

That's what he is already doing with the "foil trick". This bridges a couple of the terminals to get power to where you need it. It is obviously working or the receiver would be getting no power at all, but it may still have a resistance problem.

As far as I know, the hand-made shocks only appear in the cover photography 8860. All the sets that actually shipped use modular shocks but the cover art was not updated. I've been dreaming of and asking for this for many years. In mind, the problem is business. There's a pretty big market for Star Wars UCS models. The market it nowhere near as big as for regular Star Wars models, but it is still pretty big. Technic is a small market in the first place, and UCS Technic is a very small market. I have no doubt that such a model could be developed (and probably has been), but I doubt they'd ever make the business case positive. I hope I'm wrong. I don't think everyone knows that. I have lots of models on my shelves with more than 2000 parts, and several with more than 4000 parts that work very well indeed (and some that don't). I don't think we've reached the limit of the system, but rather the limit of the market. It is certainly true that getting a model to pass the quality standards becomes exponentially more difficult as the model becomes very large. For example, the UCS Star Destroyer would never pass the "kid-proof" requirements for a small set. It falls apart if you look at it too hard. It is a display model. Similar compromises would have to made for a Technic UCS. You could not jump it down the stairs like a pull-back racer. But you could still have an epic model. I can't argue that IR stinks as a control system, but it makes perfect sense that they chose it. It's use is widespread and minimally regulated. Most other technologies are regulated or can be expected to change over the upcoming years (like Bluetooth).

I think the recent posts have helped highlight that complexity of a design and complexity of a build are quite different things and not always directly related. I think recent years have produced sets which are more technically complex but actually easier to build. This is partially due to the 600 page instructions and partially due to the studless system. Both types of complexity have value to an AFOL, but TLG specifically tries to simplify the latter. Apart from designing your own models, your best bet if you want both types of complexity is fan designed MOCs. They can be complex and hard to build!

The whole thing is arbitrary and subjective. When does a car stop being a regular car and become a sports car? Is the cutoff, power, power to weight ratio, or design intent? Which sports cars are muscle cars? What is the line to make one a supercar? Is there any overlap between sports cars, supercars, and muscle cars? You'll get a different answer from every person you ask and therefore these terms have little practical value, though each person is likely to have a general impression of what the terms mean to them. Any car I can afford to buy is a "car". Any car I can't afford to buy is a "supercar".

Won't work. The gear system is all designed to drive the engine from the wheels, not the other way around (and there is a chain system in series with the drive). You would destroy everything trying to put a motor in place of the engine. The hubs are also very high friction. Now, if you were willing to throw out all the existing mechanicals then you could make it drive, but it would only look like an 8880.

I understand the purpose of machining. I was just wondering what this part is that is being made.

Although the receiver itself does consume a certain amount of power, it seems unlikely to consume enough to notice the difference. I would suspect the wires and/or connections. You are probably losing voltage with your foil trick. Maybe try reinstalling the foil in a new orientation and see if it helps.

My impression, having built all of them, is that the general tend is towards MORE complexity (but not necessarily quality) in recent years. Most of the original Expert Builder sets are very simple by comparison to modern sets. You can't compare individual sets because obviously there are a wide range of models available at any given time, but that's why I refer to the overall trend. I also assume we are referring to technical complexity, not just building complexity. For example, the Silver Champion is nearly impossible to take apart, and therefore could be said to have a complex build, but technically there is not that much going on.

I can't disagree with the recommendation to buy 8466, but I must point out that the silver champion is nothing like the 8674 Ferrari. They are built completely differently. The only similarity is that they are the same scale and both F1 racers. On the other hand silver champion and williams racer are nearly identical.

SSC Ultimate Aero and Vector W8 were American supercars.

I have no idea what it is that this machine is doing. I see that you are starting with an ice core and machining the ends to a new shape. Is there any purpose other than that it is cool?

Every country has laws which limit the permitted load per axle. In order to operate your vehicle on a public roadway, you need to add more axles to add more weight to avoid damaging the road. You will note that REALLY heavy vehicles (like the CAT 797) that are only for use off road only have 2 axles. On soft terrain, more axles and/or tires and/or treads also help the distribute the load so you won't sink in. From a mechanical perspective, it is easy enough to make bearings and axles to handle any load, so adding more axles usually has a non-mechanical purpose. Of course, LEGO axles have no bearings and therefore have a lot of friction, so it is possible that adding more axles may help support a large load, but I doubt it because it also adds more rolling resistance in the tires.

Heavy trucks have many axles not to make the truck drive better. They have many axles because the road will be damaged by too much load at one point (concrete will crack). I don't think you will get better performance by adding axles.

Sounds good to me. Don't let anything distract you from working on that dragline!

Wow! Looks like a perfect compliment to the braiding machine. Although you have described the operation principles carefully, nothing is better for learning than actually watching it work. Prior to this, I had very little knowledge concerning the working principles of a loom. My engineer colleagues will waste countless hours watching it!

This thing is fascinating to watch, and looks very much like a real R/C vehicle at a distance due to those tires and the mostly black construction. Having driven lots of R/C trucks, I can see that the one thing lacking to provide truly amazing off-road performance is some damping. The suspension has the right amount of travel and the right springs, but there is a lot of osciallation and bouncing which makes control difficult. I'd be interested to see how it would perform if some LEGO dampers (without springs) were put in parallel with the suspension. I had an R/C car in which the shock oil had leaked out of the shocks so there was no damping, and it was hard to control. When I refilled the oil, the difference was like night and day. Regarding the SBrick, your experience with the difficulty using a flat screen smartphone makes me again hope that they can make it work with Bluetooth game controllers. I know it can already be done using a laptop as a bridge, but that's way too difficult for a day at the park.

I suggest getting the instructions for Sheepo's Modular All Terrain Platform. It does everything you are looking to do and he is a master of the craft.

The range of motion is pretty small on mine as well, but I think moves a little further than yours. Changing the center point might be a good thing to try.

By last count I have about 70 MOCs currently built. Too many to display here, but most are those already listed.

I have to agree with your rating and might rate this set even lower. It has very little in the way of function and those ugly Bionicle blades! It is not surprising that this came out during the "dark years" when LEGO was losing money.

Looks like this: