Anio

Very bad news : it seems the 8110 has been withdrawn from the Lego stores (basically the only place where it is possible to get the set at the moment). According to the Lego employees, a pneumatic part would have some problems. Since the classic cylinder, the small cylinder and the switch are used for many years, I think these parts are ok. So, the problem could come from the new compressor (keep in mind it is not the same as the one we used to know in 8049 and 8868). And this make sense since it is the compressor (and especially its join) which is constrained when the pressure is too high. The join has to leak, to let the air go. And that may damage the join, and so the compressor. The delay caused by this problem on one of the pneumatic parts could be a good opportunity to fix the problem on the front panhard rod (if it turns out that this panhard rod has indeed a problem). We should learn more about all of this in the next days...

Yes, because the right side is very different (we can see that on the photo you have posted) Maybe it's here to prevent the whole axle from moving left/right, when the both suspensions are compressed.

Very easy : instead of switching off the battery box first, just disengage the lever of the working function. So, it stops exactly where you want it to stop. And then, you switch off. If you really want a swith, the solution is not that obvious... What would make sense is were to put the switch on the right, to have all the controls on the same side. But the is not much room on that side. Moreover, that would increase the problem caused by the weight on the side. So, if you want it on the left side, I would suggest to put it upside down with studful/studless parts, under the battery box, in order to achieve something like the lever of 8297. If you want it on the right, it should be pretty easy to includ it at 90°, with studful/studless parts. Just hope the cable is long enough to reach the battery box.

@ T_Tank : I do not understand exactly what you mean. But there is a lot of room in the front of the rear axle. Between the compressor, and the 1st pneumatic switch. There is enough room to add the small battery box. As you can seen, there is only 1 blue hose here : @ Marin : the towball is here to stuck the dark bluish gray liftarm well. Besides, these liftarms (4) are VERY important for the sturdiness of the chassis.

Booklet 2, page 49, step 19 : we are shown that we must use that connector to attach the towball, and so the panhard rod. But this connector makes a half stud offset. And as a consequence, the front axle is not straight : So, it is necessary to replace the first connector by this one : And so, the front axle is straight. It's that simple. It is strange to have such a mistake on the final product for 2 reasons : - it is very visible - the rear axle has the right connector So, I'm still not 100% sure it is a mistake. Maybe this connector has a reason to be here. Maybe it's here to compensate the weight of the battery box which prevent the model to be perfectly balanced. When you push the model on the left side, it does not go back to its very initial position. But sincerely, I doubt this is the right explanation...

I emailed the person I know few minutes ago. Unfortunately, today is Friday. We will have to wait till Monday at least, to have an answer.

Very nice set ! It is well executed. :) I love podracers.

I noticed the mistake on the panhard rod too. And I changed the connector too. Otherwise, the whole front axle is not straight. I still wonder how they did not notice such a "problem" when they did the building instruction. O_o I've seen it as soon as I put the 6L link. But well, the connector which has to be used to fix the problem is very common. Most people may have one. But what is more interesting, is what this mistake means. Did they lack time to finalize the model ? I wouldn't be surprise of such a thing, cause the way the chassis is built is much less optimised than what we have seen in the past.

Well. I'm glad you like it is written in French. But IMO, if all my reviews were in English, it would be much more useful. Cause much more people were able to read them. I hope the translator does a good job. At least something understandable.

Hi, I finished the review of the Unimog 8110. I gave as much explanations as possible. Actually, I had much things to say. :) If you want to read it : http://www.setechnic.com/review-lego-technic-8110.html (you may use the translator)

100€ ! What a joke ! I hope I will have it soon. I'm interested in that set. Not because it is impressive (actually, I think it is not ! ^^), but because we do not know much about that set. :)

The turning radius is exactly 85cm (from middle of the vehicle to middle of the vehicle). So, with the width of the Unimog, you need 85x2+20= 190 cm to turn 180°.

Those who keeps tens and tens of boxes MISB for years, and then sell them with an (unfair) premium are not Lego fans. They are money addict. That's all.

C'mon ! Where is your critical eye ?

The gap has nothing to do with the size. The is a biiiig gap on the 10221, just because the wings are angle on the top, while they are flat on the underside. On that small model, the angle on the bottom wings seem to be very similar to the angle of the wing on the top. So there is no gap. On the contrary, the angle are very different on the 10221. So, there is a gap.

Sorry to post in that old topic. But today, Cypr-21, a member of SeTechnic, did a great job. Indeed, he reproduced the Juggernaut I did with LDD. So, now, if any of you want to reproduce my Juggernaut, it is possible ! :) Here is the file : [edit]instruction for sale[/edit] Some parts are not well placed (cause sometimes it is not easy), but all the parts are in the file excepted the wheels. To know where you must place the parts which are next to the model, and to know where you have to use printed parts, use my brickshelf gallery or my website. And the sticker : http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=4982966 Hope you appreciate the work Cypr-21 did. And if you reproduce the MOC, keep me informed ! ;) PS : my estimate was pretty good since I thought the model was made of 1400 parts. Actually, there are 1431.

I've been browsing the net for hours and hours to get all the ressources I could get in order to know the real length of the ship. Eventually, I retained the 19,000 km value. It was IMO the most relevant value considering the reliability of some websites, and the quantity of each value I found. Whatever, it is true that the mini ISD does not have the right size. 124x1600/19000 = 10.44 cm long. Mine is 11.9 cm long (+1.5) The one in the 1221 seems to be 8.8 cm long (-1.6). But IMO, the biggest problem is not the size itself, but the fact that building a smaller model compels the designer to build a sucky mini ISD.

A A-Wing would be great. I like this ship. :) I hope this time the underside will be well designed. Not like 10215. Not like 10221 either.

Done. My scale is very old. It is not a digital scale, so, it is not 100% accurate. But that's all I have. I weighed my Executor : 3710 grams To compare, I weighed the 10030 : 5060 grams. So, if someone has an accurate scale and is able to reweigh the 10030, we can see how accurate is my scale. If it is not accurate, with a rule of three we should be able to correct the weight of my Executor.

With the first pic several weeks ago, something immediatly caught my eye. Ok, the bottom wings are flat. But this implied that the structure (or the frame, call it whatever you want) was wider than necessary for the upper wings. So, I assumed a (big) gap was necessary between the 2 wings, to remedy the fact that the structure was too wide. Finally, here is the gap : http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5272/5843426859_393aa01863_o.jpg The gap is 9 or 10 millimeters wide...

4,300 is an estimate. Maybe it has a little bit less parts. To know the right part number, I would have to pull apart the MOC. So, we will never know... When you do a big model. On Mashal_banana and Cavegod Sandcrawler, they say about 10,000 parts. In reality, it may be 9,200, but it is may be also 11,000. That said, it is true that there nearly only very tiny (and so cheap) parts on my Executor. I remember that Jens Kronvold Frederiksen, the (former ?) Lego Star Wars design manager, said that the weight of a model is a very good indicator to estimate the price of the model. One day, I should weight my Executor, and compare it to this 10221. Moreover, it would be very interesting too to calculate the price/grams (PPG) for each model, and not only the PPP (price per part). I would not be surprised if my Executor and the 10221 had a similar PPG.

Thanks ! I confess I have the same opinion.

The model definitely looked better when we just had a very tiny pic. Haha.

If you didn't see the pics...

The model is eventually 124cm long (exactly like mine). When I did the math, I found 122. I was close. What an euphemism ! The model really sucks. It is done in the same style as 10030 (it's a similar ship I mean, big, grey, a lot of greebs). But the finitions are as good as the 10143. The final result is simply disastrous.