Saberwing40k

First part, you want the fewest number of gears that can make the model move. I'd recommend gearing down 3:1, if you have a heavy model. You failed to mention the motors you are using, so assuming you are using XL motors, and have a device the size of Sariel's King Tiger, that's probably a good number. If possible, eliminate connections with bevel gears, as those tend to reduce efficiency. Second part, yes, you'd need one remote for each receiver. Well, not quite. It is possible to use one remote to control multiple receivers, but I find that to be an awkward solution at best, so go with one remote per receiver.

Toyota GT 2000: Nissan GTR: Mazda Furai: Mazda RX-8: Ford GT 2016: BMW i8: Lamborghini Centenario: Koenigsegg Regera: Porsche 918: Ferrari LaFerrari: And of course, Mercedes Benz G63 AMG 6x6: Any of these would be very cool, I think the G63 6x6 and BMW i8 would be the most interesting from a technical standpoint, although everything is interesting, and I'm sure I forgot something.

I found the topic for the other ropeway, , but your approach looks to be different. As it turns out, the toy you are replicating uses tracks to go around corners as well:

This project sounds plenty feasible, there's actually a topic on this forum for somebody who is making a full cable car system. Going around corners might be a bit difficult, but would be done if you build a rigid track for those corners, and have the string between those pieces. This sounds like fun, I look forward to seeing more.

I think you'd be better off using some gear reduction, as I think both your speed and lack of climbing ability are caused by a lack of torque, and the ineffiencey of gearing up. I'd try using 2 24z gears in the drivetrain, instead of the 36z-12z combo you have now. It may sound counterintuitive, but sometimes lower gearing makes a model faster, if it was slow due to lack of torque. You can also use 12-20z gear combinations in the portal axles, if you still need more speed, as that would eliminate the need for gearing up. Also, keep your expecations in line. This is Lego, and although some builders achieve high performance, it often times is an unrealistic solution, like mounting motors on axles. Don't expect performance on the level of an R/C car, and while it is good to set a challenge, I'd aim a bit lower for your first MOC. Monster truck performance is really hard to replicate, so you might have to settle for a crawler. But keep it up, it looks as if you have a good design, and only a few hiccups.

Actually, the catalog picture is preliminary, first of all, and secondly, the chassis is actually turned 180 degrees, so the drive system for the tracks is in front, when it should be in the back, and the panel is merely not visible from the angle in the photo.

Holy snot, that is a tiny build. Very well done, and nice performance to.

It would seem logical, as the plow I think has a couple of motorized features, so a front power takeoff is probably there. Or so I thought, until I checked the pictures, and the plow is on the back, same place as the crane. Does that eliminate the possibility of a front PTO? No, but it makes it less likely.

Another error, the #6 male angle connector was release in 2012, not 2015, and is already included in the 2012 parts lineup. You're brilliant, Blakbird, but even the most brilliant need some help sometime, right?

Yes,my bad. I forgot the Euros sign. So, somehow, the price differential between the sets is a lot higher in Europe? In the U.S. 42043 costs $230, and costs the same in Europe, but the Porsche costs $300 in the U.S. ,but somehow costs $330, or 300 euro in Europe? That's odd, that the Porsche costs more in their home region, as Germany is a much larger Technic market than the U.S., and none fo the other sets cost much more in Europe.

You're right. in terms of new parts, we've got a grand total of 3, all minor, except the wheel hub, which is how it should have been from the get go. And, we still have color barf, in a set where you'd think the demographic would know better. You have good points, except the difference is $70, which is not almost 100 GBP, or whatever. Now that you point it out, the 42043 has almost the same number of pieces, and more functions, yet costs a full $70 less. I was thinking something different, until i actually did some research. Now I understand better what everybody's complaints are. Let's hope not. Lego is meant to be played with, after all. I feel like everybody had really high expectations of this set, as in a true successor to 8880, which in spite of being 22 years old still has more functions, and is all around a better Technic model, even if it does not look as good. I can not even equal last year's flagship, in terms of new parts and functions. In short, this model isn't groundbreaking, and that's why people don't see it as being worth the $300. Objectively, in terms of parts, and price per part, it is not overpriced. But, for a flagship set, it feels light on functions, and that's the problem for most people. I've got to say, it's cool, but there is nothing about the set that makes me want to spend the $300. As a builder, I am interested in a set for the parts, and the building experience, to add techniques to my knowledge base. But, in the end, it is not overpriced. It might be expensive, it might not be what everyone was hoping for, but on a pure price basis, it is not overpriced. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's as if people are looking for an excuse not to buy it. Also, we have another problem. The collectors who this set is aimed at, on the Gizmodo article, a lot of comments are saying that they'd like it better if it were a set like the Mini Cooper, and are off put by the Technic building style. Also, I was sort of disappointed by the fact that the designers were talking more about parts recolors and the box than the functions, so there is that. Might Lego have misaimed this set? It's too early to tell, and I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I don't know if I'll actually purchase it.

The Porsche is not a bad value, I'd actually say it is a good value in comparison to some stuff from this year. The Porsche somehow actually has even more parts than 42043, and costs more. In terms of what we get, and exclusive molding, like the wheels are probably a licensed Porsche design, that Lego can not reuse, unless it is in another Porsche model, the set looks to be a fair value. It's not a super value, but it's not a ripoff. $300 might be a lot of money, but if you can budget for that, it is well worth it. People are grousing about it, but the set is only 10% more expensive than the ideal ratio of 10C per part would suggest. However, people are not griping about the price of 42050, which is a full 30% above what it should be priced as, and has no real excuse, no fancy packaging, no new molds, and not even that many good functions. So, I think the question is not whether or not it's a good value. It's as if some people are looking for an excuse to not buy it. If you don't want it, that's fine, nobody is making you buy it. Personally, it's a cool set, but the Xerion is higher up my list of priorities.

I'm not made of money, which is why I want those new, and far superior to the original 42000 hubs in a set that isn't 300 dollars, so I can procure more, and use them in my own models. I might, and this is a big fat might, buy the Porsche, but that is way down my list of priorities right now. Incidentally, now you got me wondering what the 42056 would look like with 107 mm tires and portal axles. As an aside, Porsche used to make tractors, and tanks.

I would think the tires are new, but the rims are the same as the unimog. So,the tires are 44 mm wide by 107 mm in diameter, meaning that they are narrower, but larger in diameter than the Power Puller wheels, which are 106 mm in diameter. I'm hoping that they use the same wheel hub used in the Porsche set, as revealed in the designer video, which would be suitable for mounting these wheels on.

Same thing here. I don't want the box and presentation to make up most of the price of the model, that's not what most Technic fans care about. Shame about no suspension geometry, and the blue pins still being in use. I really hope the new front wheel carrier is retooled to have less slop, same with the rears, and that it shows up in other sets. Also, if the new double sided 16Z clutch gears and the 3L axle with stop have completely replaced the old variants, why are they in new, clashing colors? It's obvious that a model like this would not be introduced without a lot of controversy, but I think that at the level they want this thing to be at, they could do without the color barf. Like, the yellow axles. Why? I'd be just fine if they had the standard flagship box, or even one like 41999, and hacked $50 off the price tag. Also, I'm kind of having trouble seeing the 2700 parts, even if it is very filled out. At least with that part count, it isn't that much more than a standard set, at least in terms of price for pieces. I'm debating if the lack of PF is a good thing or not. I'd welcome new PF parts, but on the other hand, this set is really nice, even for the lack of PF. With the rumored PF 2.0, maybe Lego thought about including it, but ultimately did not, because it was not far enough along in the development cycle, or they thought it would be a bad fit for the set.

We've already had these photos posted in these threads, why are you reposting them?

For an etailer to not take paypal is kind of limiting, it's not really that odd a complaint. Anyway, if the release date is June for everything, if that is correct, might we get a set of reviews in May to give the hype train some more speed?

If we're thinking of the same part, that piece is part #32068. It is commonly used in constructions with worm gears. I would think the b model would be some kind of cultivator, like this:. It would use the liftarms on the grab for the tines, at least if I'm thinking about my equipment correctly. Thing is, a Xerion is a large tractor, so most of the attachments to it are large, as well: Also, I don't know if any of you have noticed, but the headlights and mirrors on the prelim model are different from the toy fair ones. But, in both cases, the final ones are more in line with the real tractor.

The catalog picture is preliminary, so it is less recent than the toy fair models, so no, the white truck is still included. Although, I find the truck to be an odd addition, as mining trucks like that are pretty much never used with bucket wheel excavators, and the two models are pretty clearly out of scale with each other, with the truck being much too small. The excavator and the truck should have roughly the same cab size, but the truck has a cab that would be to scale about the size of a dishwasher, much too small for a person. We've seen catalog photos for everything thus far, aside from the 42056 Porsche. Has anyone else tried exploring the index, and seeing if there is anything in there? I have, but turned up nothing.

Given in the prelim pics the crane is more substantial, and the 3x11 panels on the front are conspicuous in their absence, at some point I think the b model attachment was something else, but either Claas or one of the designers did not think that was good enough, and so the model was redesigned, to keep it in budget, but add enough panels for the plow. I'm a little bit disappointed, as more of the Arocs telescopic parts would be welcome.

Interesting idea, although I think the magazine needs some work. Currently, it looks rather bulky. On the other hand, it's a configuration I haven't seen before, which makes it interesting.

????? I don't see how this has anything to do with the discussions we've been having. But yes, it is kind of ridiculous that people are wondering why some of the handrails on the set are orange, when there are any number of pictures showing that they correspond to the real machine. I was just pointing out that while the cab guard is a feature on the real machine, but is an odd feature for the arm configuration of the set. Also, I'm just lamenting the fact that 8455 had about 400 fewer pieces and had more functions. I'm just idly wondering about why Lego decided to go for the simplest version of the machine, when they could have taken it much farther.

I think it's almost in scale, or at least close enough for most people to not notice. Although, the guard on the cab is something that would typically be on a demolition or scrap hauling variant of the machine, and not on a roadworks version with a clamshell. That guard is actually more along the lines of FOPS, Falling Object Protection System, and not ROPS, which is Roll Over Protection System. Most demolition excavators have guards like this on their cabs as well, in order to prevent any objects from penetrating the glass and injuring the operator. I'm still kind of disappointed by this set, I feel that with the real machine to go off of, they could have pushed it much farther, like having a 3 section arm, rotating bucket, outriggers that aren't just levers, etc. Also, the b model is rather boring, and they could have used the mini pneumatic cylinder to actuate the grab. I see the part count as being way off, this thing has 650-700 pieces at most. I just hope it isn't overpriced.

Nice to see this update, and 8448, finally. But, I think there is an omission with 8252 Beach Buster. It has 4 modules, not 3. The missing module is an odd single wheeled thing that uses a small wheel and tire. As seen here:

You can also try using Rebrickable.com, which allows you to create inventories for anything you have an LDD file for. Basically, you can upload the file, and it will tell you if any of your parts are not available in a color.