Saberwing40k

Yes, there is nothing quite like looking thru a thread for new replies, and seeing pointless drivel. We're all impatient, but seriously.

I have both models, and I'd have to say that 8366 is better, having more parts.

Another question, why do some sets like 42035, 42022, and others, only have a single wheel driving the engine when a differential would fit? Even if a diff were too much to add to the budget, even having both wheels on the same axle would be better.

This thick:

prepare for a long post, cause I have a lot of questions. Why are certain new parts, like the fender pieces of 42039 and the sliding brackets on 42043 introduced in bright colors? To me, this is an odd design choice, and it lowers the usability of the parts, and they could have easily been introduced in different colors like black or gray, with minimal impact on the model. This is even more of a problem when the part ends up being a one set part. Why is there so much color coding? Examples: the 3l axle with stop is brown, the new 16z clutch gear is red, even though it has no reason to be, blue 3L pins, red 2L axles, and others. This happens in no other line, and my opinion is that Technic builders should not need color coding. I feel that it helps nobody, and is a detriment to the look of the models. Why are certain parts only one color? For instance, the Pneumatic Cylinders, Linear actuators, studless frames, and others are only available in one color, even if it would be useful to have them in other colors. The pneumatic cylinders, in particular, only really look good in yellow machines, and out of place otherwise. Gray and other color cylinders would be useful, or is this not possible due to how the cylinders are made? If production is subcontracted, that might make things difficult. What determines color availability of a part? What influences the color of a set? Why do some sets have parts that should be a different color, but are not recolored? For instance, 42029 would have been better if the #3 angle connectors in the bumper were red instead of gray? Why do sets rely on stickers for so much detail? What determines the number of functions a set can have? Approximately how much does motorization add to the cost of a set? Some parts have odd design choices, like the sloppiness of the new wheel hubs. In addition, the front hubs are very difficult to integrate on driven axles. Currently, if the front hubs are used with a driven axle, the steering rods would clash with the differential, so it would have been better to have the mounting points be adjustable. What, if anything, influenced the final design? What is taken into consideration for a new part to be added to the system? Who names the sets? I ask because 42037 is not a very realistic Formula Off Roader, so that sounds like something marketing would come up with. Not sure if it belongs, but why are parts packs no longer around? Finally, what influenced the decision to make the Power Functions remote control system based on infrared? The Power Functions system is excellent in general, aside from the remote controls. It has poor range, no proportional control, and poor response time. Was it a simple cost decision, as in a radio based system would cost too much? Or was it how much radio systems are regulated? Or was it not possible to do the system RC at the time?

I'd go with both. One for each eye. It would look cool.

Can we please stop making jokes about having people having to sell their wife/girlfriend/dog/sibling/porn collection/dog/kidney/whatever to afford this set? Yes, it might be expensive, but the joke has officially gotten old. There, I said it, I feel better. I might have to dig out my handtruck in order to get it home, though.

I find it mighty odd that Lego has already included the 11L axle, especially since it hasn't been released yet. I can think of no other time this is happened. Also, the LDD update, for reasons unknown, does not contain any pneumatic parts, new, old, or otherwise, even though all of the other new parts for 42043 are in there. Also, L and servo motors. It's only taken four freaking years. However, for no explicable reason, they do not have other cable ends. Basically, you get the motor, but not the cable, which is odd.

Some links regarding this vehicle:http://prolift.ee/volvo/volvo-raudtee-elektriliinide-hooldusauto/ http://prolift.ee/volvo/volvo-6x6-raudtee-hooldusauto/ They are both rail maintenance and inspection vehicles, and the one pictured is a hybrid version that can use overhead lines for power via the pantograph on top. As a matter of fact, there are two work platforms, one that can be attached to the crane, and then the large one on the truck. It's an interesting vehicle, but I don't see a road/rail machine being made in Technic, unless Lego designed bigger train tracks, which is a shame because of the fact that there are many cool road/rail vehicles, and even just some standard train cars. Or, for that matter, some very eclectic locomotives, which just don't work at 6 wide scale. Can you just imagine a working pneumatically operated version of one of the 4-8-8-4 Big Boy locomotives? I don't normally consider myself a train fan, but I could go for that. As for future set wishes, I have a couple of things in mind: Let's start with two similar but different sets, not flagship size, about the size of 42008 or maybe 42025, the $80-110 range. Both sets are pickup trucks, and both tow trailers, but beyond that the similarities stop. Set 1 is a large pickup truck with a winch on the front, towing a large boom lift. A towable boom lift is not something that has been done before, and with updated Technic figures could be a great thing. The boom would naturally incorporate a lot of pneumatics. I'm thinking the truck is 4wd, but with no geabox, has a fake engine, and winch. There are also two spare tires, one each for the truck and lift. This is important, because now we talk b model. The b model could either be a longnose truck with a knuckle boom crane, that has 8 wheels, so a twin steer long nose truck, which also has not been done as a set, or and 8x4 towtruck, again with long nose and twin steer. Or, maybe both. The scale would be to 42024 tires, so right about the size of 42008, or maybe even 1h flagship at the largest. The second model is again a pickup truck, with 42024 tires, but instead of a boom lift, it tows a rampless trailer, and has a scissor lift on the trailer. A setup like this would be great for simple, but nevertheless cool machines that could not stand alone as a set. It's also similar to the classic 8872 Forklift Transporter. I'd kind of like to see more sets like that, multiple interactive vehicles in one set. This would also open up the door for other trailers and equipment, because I don't think just a truck and trailer is enough for one set. Back to the model, the B model is a skip truck like 8052 or 42024, which could work given the parts. Another nice thing would be to see a flagship 4x4 with full gearbox, locking differentials, and a high/low transfer case. Unfortunately, I don't know if driveline mechanics are interesting enough to justify in a set, but we're dreaming, so let's have this set be a Land Rover Defender, although I dunno what kind of B model you could get out of it. On to something bigger: I'd like to see a 6x6, 8x8, or even 10x10 vehicle as a flagship. It's a complex thing some people might not be interested in, but this is Technic. I feel that there really isn't anything Lego can do to surpass the pinnacle of Technic supercars that is 8880, which included an engine, a gearbox, 4wd, all wheel steer, and even pop up headlights. Sure, they could equal it, but I think a flagship needs something more, and in my case, that means more driven axles. A 6x6 would be a G63 AMG 6x6, which I think looks cool. And, I will never be able to afford a real one, so there is that. As a flagship, it has everything, locking diffs, portal axles, gearbox, everything. An 8x8 would be a MAN M1001 truck with crane. And finally, the biggest, baddest flagship I can think of would be an M1074 Oskkosh PLS truck. it has the crane , the hook lift, and while we are dreaming, a trailer with a second flat rack. I think one could be done with less than 4000 pieces. Honestly, you can't get any bigger than one of these bad... Darn you Russians...

Look at a real scissor lift, like this Genie unit, and look at how the beams are arranged. Also, i have found out that using pins, particularly frictionless ones makes connections that are really flexible, so try using axles for joints instead. Also, thinking further, the scissor lift you are looking at only has four scissor sections, whereas you have seven, so it's a little out of scale. Also, I have seen real scissor lifts in action, and they can flex a frightening amount at maximum extension, which is why they have really low side load limits.

They did, sort of. The old pneumatic system had one. What would a single inline one be used for? I can't think of any need in the lego system for one.

I'd agree with Kit Fisto, at this scale these wheels are approximatly 2 times wider than they should be, so single tires on the rear would look just right. Also, not having differentials at this scale probably would not matter, I have built an 8x8 truck that was roughly 100 studs long, and never had any problems with it turning.

Second option, but what happened to the red panels?

Which one? the one with multi axle ackerman correction, or the 3 axle 9398 derivative?

Interestingly, I have designed a 6x6 derivative of 9398. To get the right angle of the additional axle, I made it so that the wheels turned twice as far in relation to the other axles. With a six wheeled vehicle with all wheel steering, the pivot point that the vehicle would turn around would be between the two rear axles, as it would be for the standard 9398, therefore you already have your central point, and just need to have the added axle point to that. In terms of Ackerman correction, nothing special has to be done, aside from offsetting the angle of each wheel. I have built an 8x4 truck using Ackerman correction on the front axles, and the axles are identical,at least in terms of the wheel offset. Therefore, with Ackerman correction on multi axle vehicles, the pivot point is offset by the same amount on each axle, no matter where that axle is. As long as the inside wheel on each axle points at the same point, you should be fine.

Very nice, and a really uncommon machine. Might you make a normal volvo dumper? I would think the 1x11 cylinders would be perfect for this.

Lucio Switch's Airport Crash Tender: link to instructions and inventory The instructions aren't free, but that shouldn't bother you, right? There's also Jurgen Krooshoop's Manitou Telehandler:

Brickshelf user Netbulli made a tool to swap spring out of standard parts: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=432545 I'd be careful, lest some piece go flying off under the couch.

Today, I found a video from our good friend Sariel about a new, Lego compatible motor system called RCBRICKS, from a startup of the same name. These motors look quite unlike PF motors, and seem to be based off of high torque hobby servo motors, and as such are quite capable. Watch the video for more information. (It's in Polish, but the subtitles are just fine, and in English.) Here are the Pros and Cons, as far as I can see: Pro: Lots of power Highly responsive Great range Should be relatively inexpensive. Compatible with any kind of RC gear. Con: Not compatible with Lego PF system in any way. RC receivers and transmitters are expensive. Questionable battery choice. Motors are entirely new shapes, and not readily compatible with the system, meaning that they are not drop in replacements Unproven startup. Receivers and batteries are not Lego compatible. I don't know, they sound okay, but the thing is, what most people have problems with is either the power supply, or receivers of the Lego PF system, and not the motors. While I think it is a valiant attempt to rectify the Lego systems short range, I don't think they are going about it the right way. I am also kind of dubious about the idea of using a USB batter pack for this, as it is not really Lego compatible, and has to be awkwardly rubber banded in place. It would be preferable if there were a way to go from RC standard to LPF standard, as having all new motors might alienate people who just want a drop in PF receiver replacement, like SBrick. What do you guys think?

Interesting, I could have sworn we had Jim talking about it in the 42043 review.

If TechnicBricks gets it, they probably will have a live build, although you would probably need an astronaut diaper to sit through the whole darn thing.

You'd be surprised, I have seen at least one kid who was after the architecture sets.

Really though, is it really a kid's toy? Yes, kids play with Lego, but for something as advanced and expensive as 42056 is, does it count? Are the Star Wars UCS sets kid toys too? Where does one draw the line? Plus, a toy company can aim stuff at older collectors. Also, what I meant was basically what parent would buy this thing for a kid? This set is clearly aimed at adult and older collectors, somebody with enough cash to buy this thing for themselves. Although, I can think of some exceptions, my parents included... For Christmas of 2001, at the age of 7, I got 10019 Rebel Blockade Runner as a present, and built the darn thing by myself, with minimal assistance from any parental unit. But, I'm a rare case. So, I was just saying that while some parents might get this set for their children, it's going to be rare cases.

How do you know that? Where do you see evidence for this? I don't, but if you make a statement this absolute, it would be nice if you included evidence to back it up. Anyway, the whole thing about kids playing with this is frankly a little bit baffling, as not only is it an advanced model, it is quite expensive. Also, however unlikely, Lego could include a disclaimer like in RC helicopters, that the maker is not responsible for flight damage, due to a lack of skill on the user's part. However, I do not think that Lego would do that. I'd think that they would have the model be drivable, but there would be more emphasis on the gearbox, and the interior and other details that a regular RC car would not have. Or, there is no motorization at all, in which case I think the reported price is too high to be correct. Given how little we know about it, there is no real way to settle these arguments, unless Lego had a closer to production version at the Porsche stand for the Geneva motor show.

Yeah, one problem. He designed 42043, and it has no MK 3 on it. I think he designed other flagships, but I don't remember for sure. Anyway, wasn't 8265 not a flagship?