Saberwing40k

They'd probably use small turn tables to support the boom, not big ones.

With some bucket wheel excavators, the conveyor belt carrier is part of the machine, but in the above case is not, likely because the mine is smaller, and there are probably times that the machine is a lot closer to the stationary conveyor belt, and can use its own belt. As for using a truck with one of these machines, forget it. I have never seen a situation with a bucket wheel of any size being used with a dump truck. However, Lego probably included the truck to both add play value, and really hammer home the scale of the thing.

But the price per part ratio is the same, or very close, so your statement while true is kind of irrevalent. Wow, 3000 pieces? This thing better have some neat functions for that size.

Excellent point. My estimation is that the set is about 1800 pieces, and there is no way that Lego would try to sell something where almost half the price is liscensing. And, as you point out, liscensing on the Speed Champions sets adds basically nothing to the cost. Either the price is wrong, or we're really missing something here.

With one motor per axle, you get better traction, but I'm not so sure if that would be relevant for an RC car. For a crawler, yes, but for just a drift car, or similar, it does not matter, they are equivalent.

We've been quoted at a price point of $240, at least going by the 2016 discussion thread.

I for one like the camouflage, it really reminds me of one of the Angels from Neon Genesis Evangelion. More specifically, Leliel: I'm really curious if they are going to keep the black color scheme, or if that is just to hide detail. I'm also seriously wondering if there is any PF at all, I don't see anything clearly indicating it. Also of curiosity is the shift paddles by the steering wheel, even though there is a shifter on the center console as well.

I don't think it's just me, the XL motor actually looks smaller, counting the number of studs next to it, and the fact it has no ridge on the back as current ones do. When I saw this, I think I became a born again technic fan.

What, I'd have loved that as an Ultimate Car, especially since the crane allows for more functions than the standard car, and would be especially nice if Lego mad the camera mount stabilized somehow.

I could have sworn I have also seen them in ToySRus, I'm sure there are many other places, like amazon where you could purchase one.

Unless you are all tanked out, here's an interesting tank concept by artist Keith Thompson, who has done concept work for Borderlands and Pacific Rim, as well as illustrations for a couple of books. The T-10 Charioteer: It's a very interesting design, and I think that would translate into an interesting build. In particular, the robotic torso on the turret would be interesting to replicate, in terms of function. Plus, you've got two different guns to work with, and some room for artistic license. But, if you've got tank fatigue, I understand. Jeez, building those treads must have sucked.

Yeah, the only thing really interesting about the real tank is the size, and maybe the suspension. But, it's still a great model, even if it's not perfect. Now, a LandKreuzer, on the other hand...

What program did you use to render this and the other parts? I'd like to find out. Also, I have a couple of suggestions. The roller bearing are probably not necessary, at least at this scale. I don't know if bearings are needed at all, but they would be nice to have. If you want to have the bearings, I'd suggest using simpler to make and assemble tube bearings rather than ball bearings. If you could find a way, you could actually make use of the 1L pin joiner in this manner, which would make it a better sell for Lego. Finally, it would be really helpful and solve a number of problems if you had the inside of the drive, the part that connects to the steering or frame, lock into the rim. That way, the rim can not walk off of that part, and the other side only keeps the gears in. Overall , though, this is a great design. I only wish Lego had some kind of direct to consumer program for stuff like this, in addition to motors and stuff. It would be good for parts such as this that are not really practical for use in sets, but clamored for by fans.

We have no girlfriends :)

Yeah, good point, but after the design by me stuff was discontinued, LDD ceased to be a revenue generator, and instead would just bleed money. Going forward, I'd like to see Lego do something like create an add on for something like Autodesk Inventor or another CAD program, and market it as an education tool to introduce students to CAD, and at the same time gain a far more powerful render engine.

You realize that Lego is in the business of making money, right? Also, there is no indication that the bucket wheel excavator won't be a bagger 288. I'd actually be rather surprised if it weren't a 288, as most people on the street would picture one of those when asked about a bucket wheel excavator. Regarding the car, for a $300 dollar set Lego would want something with Brand Recognition, something the Lycan, cool as it may be, does not have. Most people would not recognize a Lycan Lego car, wheras most everyone would recognize a Ferrari or a Lamborghini. There are several realities of running a business, and having a cursory knowledge of them can help us guess what the Ultimate IP Car could be. It's okay to have wishes, but we must understand that Lego is a business. Finally, I'm really surprised, and frankly kind of miffed, that Lego is using the new WeDo 2.0 connectors as standard for Power Functions. I've talked about this elsewhere, but there are honestly no good reasons for the system to be set up the way it is. Also, if the new motors have encoders, that will just drive up the price. I don't think merging Power Functions and Mindstorms is a good idea. Far better would be for Lego to have separate motors and sensors for different things, and just a common connector. Also, why did they feel the need to change around the M motor to have more studded connections? When is that ever going to be used, and why does it not extend the full length of the motor? Honestly, I hope the WeDo stuff stays where it is, and PF 2.0 is something else...although, going by what's been said, that might not be happening.

I thought we had rumored prices of like $60 for the volvo, 150 for the Claas, and 220 for the bucket wheel excavator. Finally, the Ultimate IP car is $330. But, if the rumors of everything being more expensive than 42052 is true, you would think the Claas and the Volvo would be $150 each, as moving up the price of everything else makes little sense. Also, if it is indeed the case that it starts at $150 for these sets, they better be really nice, rather than grossly overpriced.

I have old 24x43 tires, and have not expierenced any degradation. I also have many Town tires that are much older. I have not had any expierence with glycerin or ArmorAll, but it should not be needed.

I've never really had this problem, with some key exceptions. I think one brand new motor, not the rc one, but the old 9v, failed a week after I got a Mindstorms kit. I have had no other motor fail. I even have a few 4.5 volt motors that still work. Also, I haven't really had any parts fail from degradation. There is a grand total of one part I have that could be degraded, and it is a pearl silver 3l thin liftarm. However, because that color is metallic, it might have a well known toy issue known as Gold Plastic Syndrome, which in spite of the name can affect any metallic colored plastic, most prominently in Transformers figures from the late 1980s, to the mid to late ninties, it is unclear if the issue has been resolved. To sum it up, the theroy is that the dye and plasticizer do not interact well in the plastic, and so it degrades. But, I have not seen or heard of any other examples happening with other people, so it could just be me. I have, however, encountered another brittle plastic in Lego, both firsthand and online. Whether due to a design flaw, bad plastic, or both, a lot of Bionicle parts, particularly lime green ones, were reported to fail in 2007 on, ad I recall. But, other than that, the only parts I have that cracked were due to mechanical stress, like using a differential in a vehicle with PP wheels, having limited slip on the differential, and no gear reduction whatsoever. Naturally, that was one of my first Technic experiments, and I have learned much since. Also, I could have sworn we had a thread like this a while ago. I'd try to find it, but posting links from a phone is a pain, so I can't.

Also, we've seen a similar poster before, remember the whole 42039 debacle? Basically, it's an in house motivational poster and has no bearing on any sets released now or ever.

Aww, 41999 had a model team baby.

No, I'd have to say for a non motorized model, pneumatics are much better, being more responsive and easier to use. Lego could not have made 8455 the amazing set it is with Linear Actuators. For attachments, I'd say having the Claas with no B model but different attachments would work, as that is what Lego did with 8110 Unimog. Basically, you have the base vehicle in the set, than a couple of attachments, and then you can take apart the attachments to make other ones. It'd be really cool if the Volvo had different configurations buildable, but as a small set that seems unlikely. In my opinion, the Volvo deserves a $150 set, over a tractor. Numbers not indicating the set size actually has some precedence. In 2013, both the pullback sets have higher numbers than 42009, the flagship. Even better, in 2010, the flagship had the second lowest number, 8043. Going by numbers alone, some people would assume that 8053 is a larger set than 8043, but that is not the case at all. So, there is the possibility, remote or not, that the Volvo is larger than the Claas. Fingers crossed for that being the case.

I can't believe that Lego is going with this new, incompatible with anything else connector. This is going to piss off a lot of people. I'm not talking about fans like us. I'm talking about educators, which is what WeDo is aimed at. Everything about this system is baffling, and it seems more like a gimmick than anything. Oh, you already have WeDo 1.0 kits? Too bad, they are not compatible with this new system, at least not without an adapter cable. We've also lowered the voltage, so now models will have even worse performance than before. Also, you are still limited to 1 motor and 1 sensor per hub. And, it's more expensive. Because of the above, I think several people are going to balk at the new system. When I first heard about this, I was hoping, praying that this was just a prototype, but no, its the final system, available for sale. If this is the future of the Power Functions system, I am extremely worried. If they indeed use this connector, you can say goodbye to running more than one motor off a port without an adapter cable. Why even use this connector? Why couldn't they just make an adapted version of the current PF connector with two extra wires? That way, you could have both encoders and backwards compatibility, and stackable connectors. The only reason I can think of for them to have these connectors is that they are worried about kids stacking sensors and confusing the control modules. Well, in that case, the sensors have a different connector, maybe like the EV3 plug, or maybe like the standard PF connector, but with the top port blanked off. Also, they had no problems with the last iteration, so why is it a consideration now? Why even have new sensors with new plugs, why not just use the EV3 hardware? Also, why make it 3 volt? Why not make it run of a 9 volt battery, or, I dunno, the standard PF battery boxes? Why not make it so that you have the option of using either the standard PF batteries, or a small battery pack? Good grief, this new system seems like a step backwards in almost every way.

That could be an option, but I just feel like this thread is going in circles. I don't think I will be responding until we actually have pictures. Speaking of, it is less than a month till the Toy Fair, I'm kind of surprised that nothing has surfaced.

The sidewalls and width, on the other hand, are not. Also, if the Volvo is the small set, and the Claas is larger, that would not work, as a small E160 would be tiny, likely with wheels like 8052. Therefore, a $100 set of a tractor would not work with such small wheels and tires.