Saberwing40k

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/f62cd20a-b8fc-4988-b817-628507cd3503#&gid=1&pid=6 Yup, this MOC, specifically. Now Lego would have to make their version modular, if only to make the build manageable. Whether that means it will break down like the real one is up for debate. I think the arm and undercarriage will behave similarly to the real machine, but the main body will not. Why? Lego doesn't have to worry about transport weight or dimensions, so they can do what is best for the building process. Of course, they could still surprise us, and make it modular. Incidentally, does this model scale with, say, 42078? It would be pretty cool if a diorama could be configured to recreate the real setup process.

Hey look, we have the official price, $250 USD. It's up for preorder on Lego.com. We also have the official part count, 958. Wait, what? Figuring 10 cents per part, this set would be roughly $100 on its own, leaving $150 for the PU components. Equivalent PF components would only cost $85 which means that the PU "Upgrade" costs us $65. Is PU worth the extra money? I honestly don't think so. Here's what you gain with Powered Up versus Power Functions: Bluetooth range and resistance to sunlight. And here are the downsides of Powered Up No ability to stack motors. No backwards compatability More expensive parts Larger, bulkier motors, especially considering the fact that they also apparently have lower power. No physical controller. Bulkier receiver/control module Unneeded/unwanted extra features. Okay, the last point is kind of debatable, but I do not think that Powered Up is a well though out system. For Mindstorms, Boost, et al, this system works just fine. But, as a replacement for Power Functions, it seems like a really stupid idea, and I just can not understand Lego's reasoning behind doing it this way. You would think it would be cheaper and easier to make a 2.4ghz or bluetooth controller and receiver for Power Functions, and leave Powered Up for robotics systems, but no, there can only be one ecosystem, even if it does not work well for certain applications. There was also, at least in my mind, not any community involvement, unlike Power functions, which saw Lego asking fans what they wanted out of Power Functions. But, Most of my problems are with Powered Up, and the baffling decesions and higher cost that it brings, rather than the set itself. With the set itself, it's... okay, I guess. I majorly dislike the fact that it has both pendular and independent front suspension, which seems to be an unneeded feature which just makes the set look worse. It would have been all too easy to give the set more suspension travel, using the same wishbone pieces as it already does, just by changing mounting points and using the longer 9.5l shock absorbers. That's another thing. I dislike the fact that Lego wasted a perfect oppertunity to put out more shock absorbers, because a lot of moccers need them, but they are rare and expensive. Honestly, the set is okay, but I think that at a premium price, just okay is not enough. And that's not even touching the whole argument about RC sets in general.

By the way, this set is listed for preorder on Lego.com, for $179.99 USD, and the official part count is 2493 parts, making it a pretty good value.

A ballast carrier for a truck like this is a good idea. Virtually every heavy haulage truck I have seen has a ballast box, or at least an option for one. Are you going to add a tarp roof and other details to the box?

Hey Zblj, did you notice that the front pendular axle actually extends for like 2/3rds the length of the model? Because it does.

Sure, just ask Ngoc Nguyen for some candies.

Nope. There is plenty of other room for a sticker pointing at the cab lift to go, whether that's on the beam directly above it, or on the panel below or behind it.

Yeah, I agree. I don't know if anybody else has noticed this, but there are some new parts on the top racks. It appears to be some kind of wire like piece that is 22 studs long, very thin, and sized for 3mm bars at either end. I really like this piece, and I think it has lots of uses, maybe even as a replacement for flex system, but less speculatively, it would be very useful as pendants on a crawler crane. One thing that does irk me a little bit is the fact that on the trailer, the controls for the ramps are on both sides, but on the tractor, it's only on one side. This is really annoying for the HOG steering, but other than that, this actually looks kind of interesting. I'm just trying to figure out how this truck has 2400 parts, and just seems so small. Like, as a point of comparison, 8258 had only 1877 parts, but is a far larger and more substantial model. I dunno. Honestly, when I first saw this set, I was tempted to sneer at it, but seeing actual photos, it actually looks interesting.

I'll take some confidential candies.

Actually, not really. Lego, at least now, wants functions to slip in case a child manipulates the mechanism by hand.

I'd suggest you go for a smaller scale. Having to order parts is expensive. For a 2000 piece model, the price would likely be around $500 dollars, just for the parts. That would be a model that is closer to 1:16 scale, by the way, which I think would be better for your purposes. A smaller model would also mean higher RC performance. As for Lego RC stuff, what is currently available utilizes infrared remotes and receivers, which has a lot of cons, or the third party Sbrick and Buwizz, which use bluetooth, and get better performance, but require a smart device to function. There is also a learning curve to the apps.

Do you have a budget and time frame in mind? What features do you want? Do you have a picture of the actual vehicle? I might be interested, I'd PM you, but you're a new member, so you'd have to make at least 10 good posts.

That's a cool vehicle, but it doesn't really belong in the Technic forum. I think it would work better in the Sci-fi forum.

I think this is false dichotomy, because there are actually 3 choices: Completely manual Motorized Remote Control For some things, different options might be better. For instance, my Volvo ETS model is completely manual, and is a major pain to use, so I will be upgrading it to have a motor. @Lipko, I think that Lego actually follows your philosophy in some areas, regarding motorized models. However, I personally disagree with it. In my opinion, any kid that can't not click linear actuators or tries to move something on a worm gear should not be playing with Technic. Personally, a lot of my models are either motorized or RC, barring my really small models, but when it comes to buying preferences, it's the opposite. I tend to shy away from RC Lego sets, because they are often boring in terms of design, and overpriced. My point is, there is really no right answer to this question.

A Terex AC-1000, with all the equipment, including fly jib. A giant crawler crane, like a Libeherr LR 1600, or something even larger, with all of the jib and derrick options. A large aircraft demonstrator model, built as a wireframe to show off all the functions.As a matter of fact, you could have iconic Star Wars ships in the vein. A truck with a knuckle boom crane, like this, scaled to Unimog or updated 24x43 tires. This haulage configuration:

You know, for a model that is square, you might not need to have steering like this at all, but that's a different argument entirely. So is making steering hubs. you could use a set of mine linear actuators hooked up to each wheel to steer them that way. Here's a vid of a model that does that:

Ugh, the colors are eye searing, 90'stastic NEON. I don't particularly like it, especially for structural components. Like I can understand panels, but not frames and other parts.

That's pretty cool, I've actually seen a trailer like this on Youtube, in full size. Langendorf is one company that makes these, they are called, in English, inloader trailers. binnenlader actually translates more as sliding drawer, which actually works pretty well as a name. Now, looking at the model, I thought for sure the moveable gooseneck was a solution for the model only, but looking at the real machine, it appears that it has a moveable gooseneck as well, so that's a nice catch, and a great detail. I also like how you managed to get all of the motions to work with a single motor.

It looks like for some photos the builder uses standard rims, but then switched them out for custom ones. Void_S gets pretty close, but I think the wheels on the model only have one wedge belt wheel per, not two.

Lego ain't ever going back to studded construction. But, like the Mack Anthem, they will use studded parts to add details.

Oh great, everyone's an old fart. Well, I'm not. I think we do have a number of young and younger fans on this forum. But not any kids, thankfully. Back on topic, I really thinks Lego risks overstretching the Technic brand if they include to many cars with minimal functionality. That should be in Racers.

What about a contest to build uncommon/unmade vehicles in Technic? Basically, anything is fair game, as long as it has NOT been done more than twice as a Technic set. (To make things easier, B models don't count.) Thus, you could not have wheeled mobile cranes, but crawler cranes would be fair game. So, under these rules, you could not make: Wheeled cranes. (8+ sets) Wheel loaders. (8+ sets) Bulldozers. (4+ sets) Tracked Excavators. (7+ Sets) Supercars. (9+ sets) No F1 cars. (13+ Sets) and so on and so forth. But, there is plenty of equipment out there that has never been made in Technic, or only made once or twice. For instance: Garbage trucks Graders Hook lift trucks Logging trucks Forestry equipment in general Space shuttle Tank Armored Engineer Vehicle Any Military vehicle, really. Drag tractor Submarine Ship Snow Groomer Articulated dump trucks Fire Trucks Combines And that's just off hand. I'm sure there is a lot more. Now, the rarity could be shifted either direction, either excluding vehicles that have had a Technic set entirely, or being more inclusive, like counting uncommon as 4 or less instead of 2. There should also probably be a rule about real world equivalents, as allowing "futuristic" designs would make this a little too easy. so, what do you guys think about this idea?

Nope. Lego seems to be highly resistant to showing off sets before release, at least over the past couple of years.

Since it presumably uses similar wheels to your model, then yes.

Going by the pictures on Instagram, I have to say the crawler thing looks terrible, especially the chassis. I'm a lot more interested in the truck and spider crane. I hope we get more and better pictures, but overall, the 2H 2019 sets are actually pretty good.