Saberwing40k

I've seen 3D printed examples, but not something like this. These things are so expensive, though. $36 a pair normally. You're looking at $72 for a complete set. And, wheels and tires for this stuff ain't cheap. However, this is ultimately a good thing, and I hope to see more stuff like different gears and other parts made out of high quality plastic or metal, and not just 3D printed.

Oh come on, are you saying you haven't slapped things together at work just to get it done? Although, this may be a bit of projection on my part, as I have depression and motivation issues, and I'm thinking that Wabra is like me, which may not be the case at all. Also, 42070 and 42077 may be the result of bean counter overrule, and nothing else.

I was acutely aware of new parts as a kid, and I still am today. (My childhood experiences may not be that common, though. I got a UCS Star Wars set at like 8, and built it.) I also think that good looks and technical functions are not mutually exclusive. Wanting the set to look good on the box has little to do with how many functions are or aren't present. Also, kind of unfortunately, I think Wabra might be suffering some burnout, so he does some easy things to meet the deadline. I don't know for sure, but maybe, just maybe, some of the magic is gone, and now he's doing stuff like 42070 and 42077, versus 8258 or 42030

Well, EA made the horrible choice of giving everyone an equal payout in multiplayer, regardless of skill, so they're just inviting things like this.

I still am not convinced, especially at this price point. Furthermore, I think you're wrong about how kids think about this. For kids, more features are better, and I can speak from personal experience, working at a toy store, that a lot of grandparents put more thought into a toy, like what it does, and other things, so the kids don't get bored. And, real talk, I think Lego needs to do more, in Technic and elsewhere, to compete with video games and the like. Lastly, I don't think the opinions of children are relevant on this forum. I see this as being a forum for us older fans, and their opinions, and I can't help but think you're disparaging that with the "It's for kids" excuse. It's good to keep perspective, as to why Lego does things, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. Man did we get sidetracked. How about we just agree to disagree on this issue of what kids like? It's not like we can prove the argument one way or the other. All this discussion does is sidetrack the thread, an work people up over nothing.

I dunno, you're combining a Euro style trailer with an American truck anyway, so why not just leave the truck as a sleeper cab? I've seen a number of knuckle boom crane trucks that have sleeper cabs, for use in oilfields. For things like that, the driver might need to stay on site, and a sleeper cab might be perfect for that. The only thing I'd say is that you should use dark gray instead of black on the crane, to better tie it to the truck.

It's a problem because Technic is about looks AND functions, and Lego's ethos has ALWAYS been about doing more than the minimum. Plus, it would be easy to have a cool looking rally car with lots of technical functions, but no, we're doing another rehash of the same old suspension and steering, and direct engine drive. This set has no technical innovation or merit, when it would have been easy to add. And, before you say anything about kids not caring, the kind of kids that buy Technic would.

Yeah, I seriously don't get why Lego did not do radio control from the start. So much better than IR, and not much more expensive. I mean, you can get a cheap RC car for only 15 bucks, about the cost of a whole PF receiver. Surely Lego could do a radio remote and receiver for the same price as the IR pf stuff, but no.

Bit off topic, but the axle location should not matter. The axle forward means the truck would have an easier time with slopes, though, which might be important for certain applications. Anthems are relatively new, but I've seen all kinds of trucks hauling containers. US regulations can indeed make no sense, just look at Michigan trucks. Back on topic, looking at Shimon's replica trailer, I think this set would have seriously benefited from being pneumatic or having a motor. Function looks a bit slow, and I've always found manual linear actuators kind of tedious. Should be easy to mod, though. Also, the gooseneck looks just fine. Most container trailers look that thin.

I've seen several non Lego toys that require a smartphone to use, so that's not an issue. Honestly, PF motors are plenty good, not that I wouldn't mind some additions to the lineup, like a small motor half the size of a current M motor. Where Power Functions is really outdated is the remote control system, you know, the IR receivers. So, I don't see Lego doing a full PF 2.0, like pneumatics, but I see a space for a new kind of receiver. There are many reasons I can think of for Lego to not have any PF upgradeable sets in 1H 2018, such as the fact that most of the sets barely count as Technic to begin with. The Mack probably could not be motorized as it is, without compromising the look. Another possibility is that for whatever reason, Lego decided to get rid of their motor supplier, and is working to find a new one, and is not including PF in sets until they do so. Still another is that maybe they figured out that having PF upgradeability is not as much of a selling point as they thought, and that full RC sets do not sell well, because of the overpricedness. But, maybe that's marketing VS. engineers, like so. Marketing: We've found that remote control sets don't sell well, so we're going to have to hold off on doing that for a while. Engineering: Duh, of course they don't sell well, you overprice them for no reason. Marketing: What do you know about set pricing? Engineering: It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 50% markup is a bad idea. Marketing: lalalala, we're not listening. or something like that.

ToysRus.

Nope, I'm US based. Sorry.

Check your local TRU, mine had four of the small Technic sets: 2018 Technic sets at TRU by Saberwing007, on Flickr Now, I can confirm that the dozer is regular blue. I considered getting it, but I'm holding off, as it would be a good gift set.

Fix them yourself. That's half the fun.

I don't think using a friction element like this would be any good for dampening.

My thoughts: 42075: It is actually surprisingly okay. I thought it didn't have that many functions, but it looks to have drive, steering, suspension, and an opening body for equipment. The top is rather empty, though. 42076: Yuck! This thing looks terrible, and is hardly a Technic set. It looks hollow and boring, and how did they get to a thousand pieces with this hunk of junk. Lego, we don't want City sets in Technic. 42077: Oh great, another race vehicle with the exact same functions and suspension. The suspension is the exact same as 42039, or 42056, inauthentic, and overdone. Lego, you do realize that there are other suspension types out there, right? Kids that are into Technic would appreciate that. Also, yet another set that needs a gearbox, but no, apparently lifting bodywork and working fans are acceptable functions for Technic sets now, as the only functions. 42078: Now here's a good set. I thought for sure it would have the larger wheels, but it does not. Hardly matters, it still looks good, and has some pretty interesting functions. I like all the extra details. I feel like lately Lego has released more sets with higher levels of detail, but fewer functions. I don't agree with that. Give us style AND substance, that is what Technic should be about now.

This is a really stupid mistake, and it seems as if Lego has let quality assurance slip in some areas. Given that this is a mere PDF, the fact that they haven't revised this is just stupid. All you need to do is use a 5L axle with stop, and change the step order a little bit. It's not like they don't have half the set's parts to work with to fix the B model.

Oh wow, I don't think I've ever seen a Lego tower crane with a functional climbing frame before, and the automatic switching between falls of rope is brilliant. Keep up the great work. do you think you could post an LDD file for the hook block with the auto switching? I'd really like to see how that mechanism works.

I have 3 pullback motors, because I bought one pullback for parts, and thrifted 2. I wouldn't buy one just for a contest, though. Unless the prizes were really cool.

Unfortunately, the problem is not just the cable. You need a slip ring to get power from the cable out the reel, otherwise you get tangled wires. Unless, you want a faux cable, and reel. I have never seen any sort of mining vehicle that had a flat cable, round ones are so much easier to manage. I'd try using pneumatic hoses as a faux cable.

Why do we need the 2L axle pin in red?!?!? Lego, why do you continue with the color barf? Other than that, the sets don't interest me that much,but are okay, except for the pullback racers, which look atrocious. Also, would someone please explain to me why the red pullback has way more red parts over the Lime one, which only has 4 lime parts? I hope we're seeing images for the bigger sets soon, those are of higher interest to me.

Like this?

I think we saw that before, but it would be nice to see, to see if it still says the same thing.

Yeah, no. Bricklink does not have a separate listing for this part, as it is included in an assembly. It only exists separately for purposes of some CAD programs. You can just get a steering unit and remove the part, if you are so inclined.