CP5670

It's used on the yellow Lego shopping bags, the ones you get if you buy stuff at a Lego store. I don't think I've seen it on actual boxes either.

This seems to happen rather often. TLG should require the photos to have some kind of evidence that the model was actually designed for the contest (like a contest code written on a piece of paper, the builder standing in the picture, or something like that). I think that would eliminate a lot of these incidents.

Check if the motors work if you connect them directly to the battery box. It's quite possible that the micromotor is broken (the one in my 8480 suddenly broke down a while ago), but the regular, ungeared 9V motor is generally reliable. It also could be that one of the wires is faulty.

These renders look great and show various stages of the construction nicely. About how many hours did it take you in total? You might want to try SR3D Builder instead of MLCad for some sections though, especially for those odd angles used on the cab and claw arm. The interface is a bit clumsy and takes some getting used to, but its connection-based brick placement is especially useful for Technic construction. There is a two-plate gap above the motor on mine. You're meant to be able to slide out the motor (after removing the 1x1 round plate) and put it in the other side, so the truck can be driven by it. Do the instructions show it differently somewhere?

In the case of computers, there are plenty of far more basic technologies that are used by all the companies today. For example, imagine what PCs would be like today if Xerox had gotten patents on the mouse and GUI that never expired, and they chose to keep those things proprietary. The point here is that the basic Lego shapes and dimensions are a technical concept, not an actual product. TLG can profit from their idea for a certain period (which it has) but can't do so forever, and courts around the world have seen it that way too. There is also the fact that the original "proprietary components" were not actually created by TLG, although they did acquire the patents later on. Anyway, as Front said I think the issue in this case is the 2x4 brick trademark, rather than the brick as a functional standard.

This design is based on the robot arm in 8094 (which was rightly described as "magic" on Technicopedia ), but it has some additional features. Does that book contain instructions for it? It worked quite well from what I could see there. I look forward to seeing your update though.

It should be kept in mind that TLG doesn't compete with clones on price only, but rather on overall value. If Lego sets are more expensive than clones but also have better designs or higher quality bricks (in the eyes of consumers), then that increases their value and keeps them competitive. Exactly. What the company wants is not necessarily what we, the consumers, want. Lego in 2003 is a good example of this. This was financially TLG's worst year, but we got high quality bricks and exceptionally low prices on many large sets that year, the likes of which we have never seen since then. By that logic, cars or PCs should only be produced by a single company today. The brick patents were established by TLG in the early 80s and are no longer in effect. There are very good reasons why patents eventually expire.

This is somewhat harder to do with early to mid 90s sets, since as Karto said, there were a lot of changes to basic parts during that period. Molding mark positions, hollow/filled tubes on the bottom and marked borders on the undersides of plates are some things to watch out for. Many specific pieces like 1x1 round plates, minifig heads and several Technic bushes and gears also went through revisions in those years. Exactly what pieces a given set contains depends not only on the production year (which may be different from the release year), but also the theme and the country it was sold in. If anyone starts a database of such things, I would be happy to contribute to it too. The quality reference thread lists some changes that could be considered defects (or fixes of defects), but many other changes don't fall into that category.

This doesn't make any sense. Having more sets in production does not necessarily reduce profits. It depends on a lot of other factors and will in many cases increase them. Any quality reductions in set designs or parts will only occur as long as consumers at large don't notice them, and those can happen equally well without any competition present. If there were no clone brands or comparable construction toys out there, you can bet that TLG would be charging us double the prices on everything. Competition from clone brands is good for us.

Mine is essentially just random characters. It came about when I was signing up for an online gaming service in the mid 90s, and every name I tried was already taken. I mashed the keyboard and came up with this. I keep it for reasons of continuity these days, as it's easily recognizable and there is 12+ years of forum history behind it at this point.

This is quite recognizable. I like the antenna technique you used, with the Aquashark hook hands.

There is an interesting variety of opinions on this. If you take your models to competitions or public displays, it makes sense that you would want to maximize performance. I've taken a few things to events but just operated them myself, so there was no need to make them very user-friendly. Of course, neither extreme on this is ideal, and you want the mechanisms to work in some way even if they are complex. But many MOCs are designed with an emphasis in one or the other direction. Like Blakbird, I also think of Technic models as stylized representations of vehicles that illustrate the key mechanisms, instead of miniature versions of them meant to do the same work as the real things. I had this model in mind too when I created the thread. It can be contrasted with 8475 or 8366, which are at the other extreme. Many models in the old Universal sets and the idea books are also like this. The 8888 progammable crane comes to mind. That model won't impress anyone who wants to pick up heavy loads with a Lego crane, but the mechanisms behind it are totally unique and set it apart from other cranes.

Do you like models designed for actual performance and build MOCs with that in mind, or do you build with more of an eye towards making cool mechanisms? There are plenty of both types of models that get posted on EB. For example, suppose you want to motorize a large car or truck. The performance-oriented solution is usually to have a motor for each driven wheel and minimize any gearing, which prevents efficiency losses in the gears. In contrast, a conventional drivetrain with differentials, a full gearbox, etc. will not work as well, but is a more mechanically interesting approach. Similarly, 8043 could have had 6 motors (like in Jurgen's version) or 8265 could have had pneumatics instead of LAs, and in both cases it would have simplified the gearing and improved the models' performance. On the other hand, the 3 drive motors on 8043 or the LAs in 8265 result in more complicated geartrains but perhaps make the models more appealing. I'm probably more in the latter category myself. I always like to have elaborate geartrains, intricate switching mechanisms and other such things in a Technic model. I especially like models that have several functions operating off only one or two motors, such as 8480 and 8258. You could say that it's a more efficient use of resources as well.

I've always liked regular City stuff, but was kind of lukewarm on these modular buildings until this one came out. It has now inspired me to build some MOCs like this.

BUMP I built my GE over the last few days. This is my first modular building and it's huge, much bigger than I had expected. I had seen it before at events and store displays, but you only get a true sense of its size after building it yourself. It's so tall that I will need to lower the sign on the roof to make it fit in my display shelves. The ground floor exterior looks perfect. I love the corrugated pillars and store displays. On the other hand, the arches and tall, thin windows on the upper floors give it a somewhat "official" feel to my eyes. It seems more in line with a government building than a glitzy department store. However, it still looks quite modern and fits in reasonably well with regular City sets, which is why I like this set much more than the previous modular buildings. The interior seems rather bare given the amount of floor space, especially the upper floors. The existing interior details are wonderful, but there need to be more of them. I'm going to put in more tables and trinkets in there, and add more minifigs. Until now, I wasn't a fan of tiled floors since minifigs don't attach to them, but this set has changed my opinion to some extent. They look great and also allow minifigs to face any direction, instead of having to be aligned with the studs. Modern minifigs have a weak grip on their feet and don't stay on well on baseplates anyway.

I had more or less decided to pass on these minifigs before they were released. The only one I got was the spaceman, and it was from Bricklink. He's cool, but the quality is lousy and I wouldn't want any more of them, even if there wasn't all the hassle involved in acquiring specific ones. However, I'm not really a big minifig collector in general. I tend to prefer well-designed sets over well-designed minifigs.

I wouldn't be too hard on the small, sub-$15 impulse sets. They only have one or two simple functions, but that's why they cost so little. I agree that all the Throwbots/Roboriders/early Bionicle lines were useless as Technic sets, and should have been marketed differently. The Star Wars Technic sets had the same issues and seemed out of place in the theme (with the big exception of 8002). I think the worst sets are some larger ones that were both mechanically simplistic and expensive. 8458 looked great, but had pretty basic mechanisms and was a major letdown for its $170 price (even the nearly identical 8461 was a good $40 cheaper). 8279 and 8472 were both built around a big, specialized motor/battery core and had very little functionality for their $70 prices. Some more recent sets with the same problems are 8264 and 8063. Yes, this one was weak. I recall that it wasn't very cheap either, coming in at $50.

This looks great. It's like an upgraded 8857.

This is a nice set with some fun features. I love Flex's expression too. This set was also sold as a package alongside 6771 and 6773, called the "Secret Mission Collector Pack." I got my copy that way.

The UV-based yellowing is fairly easy to avoid. Just keep the sets away from sunlight or fluorescent lighting. I have had sets built up for many years like this without any issues. There is also a second type of yellowing caused by oxygen exposure, but that can happen even if the set is unopened. The part bags back then were perforated and let air in. I have a ton of old MISB sets from that era too, but have been steadily opening and building them over time. It's easy to keep the bricks in pristine shape if you take a few precautions with the lighting and how you disassemble the bricks.

I never liked the look of those wipers. They look way too small and don't line up with the windshields at all, although I guess it was the best TLG could do with the parts available back then. The wipers look especially silly on the larger scale models like 5571 and 5563.

Most of my sets are built up, although often with modifications. I buy sets only if I like the set specifically, although I make exceptions if they have rare pieces I need for a MOC. I buy more common, bulk parts off Bricklink. As for MOCs themselves, so far I haven't needed to take apart any of the "major" MOCs I've made. If I really needed specific pieces in them for something else I would do it, but I typically just go to Bricklink instead to replenish my spare parts. I used to do this at one point for the whole model. My older MOCs all have ldraw versions I made after the MOC was completed. I stopped doing that though since it was too time consuming, and I was ending up keeping them built anyway.

My favorites are 8868, 8455 and 8480. These sets were just about perfectly designed. 8455 had a staggering number of pneumatic parts and functions for an official set. 8480 and 8868 also had some of the best alternate models seen in Technic. I always thought 8448 was underwhelming as a successor 8880 (the later 8466 was everything it should have been), but interestingly I think the general opinion on it has changed over time. I recall that most people on Lugnet had the same thoughts as me when 8448 came out, but today it seems to be well liked by many people.

Thanks, I just saw this post.

This sounds interesting, but the price is way too high. I would much rather buy $2000 worth of actual Lego sets.