5150 Lego

Please show me one real vehicle were the motors are attached to the axles. I'd really like to see this. I understand why TLC did it for there model. But it doesn't make it "traditional". Especially when compared to real rock crawlers. Some RC rock crawlers do have motors attached to the axles, but as RC rack crawlers progressed, most companies have strayed away from this setup.

You don't get it. No one is saying they can build a better model. People are just pointing out things they either dislike or weren't expecting. I really don't see why that's so hard for some to understand.Rome through all the other reviews in the various themes throughout eurobricks and you will find several people in each thread review that find something they either dislike or would have liked to see done different. I don't see why this model should be free of the same fair criticism. I'm glad you understood what i was trying to convey. I have nothing but the up most respect for you. I appreciate the reviews you have done as well as the future reviews you will do. Its not easy designing a LEGO model that will appeal to the masses and still be profitable. IMO its both the praise and criticism that lets TLC give us better and better models each year.

Couple things.. First, your right that Blackbird and Conchas are good people and provide good insight when it comes to many of the lego sets we love. That being said, while there good pople, there not the hands down final say when it comes to LEGO and the products acceptance among the general population. If someone doesn't like the set for whatever reason then thats there proagative. I don't need someone else to provide my opinion for me. I'll view the material and decide on my own based on my needs, wants and expecations. A really grow tired of this type of attitude. Just because someone doesn't agree with the masses they just must be trolling. That to me is far more ignorant and narrow minded than disagreeing with someones opinion. @allanp, I too would have liked to see the motors in the traditional "under hood" position instead of the axles. I agree that it isn't as realistic and does look a bit odd and bulky. BUt i do understand the reasoning for doing so. Technic axles universal joints aren't very strong and my guess is driving all 4 tires would have caused them to snap under serious load. Yes, they could have geared down even more than they already have to compensate, but that would have made the model much slower. One needs to remember that while we all love LEGO, at time it does have its limitations. Maybe one day we'll see some metal universal joints for speacail models like this down the line.

It depends on which challenger is done. The original Dodge Challenger for the 60's /70's is solid rear axle with leaf springs. The new Challenger is independent rear suspension with coil springs. My vote would be for the Dodge Viper, new Challenger or new Chevy Camaro.

Thank you Sharky. I agree that the colors of the new truck with the white striping is much better looking. I've ben wanting to change up the coloring on my truck to match for some time, just need to find the sticker sheet for a decent price on brick shelf. Thanks again!

While big, you can't expect EB alone to accumulate the necessary votes necessary to bring the set to life. It would need to be front paged on nearly every major Lego site to bring in these numbers. (maybe that was done) Also, while i can appreciate the detail and complexity of the Western town, that theme isn't going to interest everyone. I bought one modular building years ago (café corner), and haven't bought another since. Just didn't interest me like I thought it might. I imagine that's whats keeping the votes down. The Hayabusa is nice, but I'm not sure its $50 nice. I can appreciate what its designed after as well as the details, but the price just seems a bit high for what your getting.

Very impressive. I like the rear end the most. You really captured the overall look on the car. Again, great job!

Well i tried but for some reason the half of the re-sized pics didn't actually get re-sized. So here's a link to my brickshelf folder. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=498077 Thanks for looking guys.

Hello EB community. Its been a while since i have posted a moc or anything really, so i present my B-Double Ferrari transport truck. If it looks familiar, thats because its not a 100% moc, but based off off Lego's 8654 Scuderia transport truck. This particular set is one of my favorites and that being said, i felt it still could be improved to suit my needs. So after keeping it stock for for a few years, i decided it was time for an upgrade. IN upgrading i had a few goals i wanted to accomplish. 1.- Be able to hold twice the amount of tools and equipment 2.- have living quarters for the drivers and crew 3.- be able to hold 2 F1 cars I quickly determined that i would need two trailers to accomplish all these goals. One trailer would hold the cars and equipment, and the other would be the living quarters for the crew. In the end, this is what i came up with.. The truck and trailer combination is known as a "B-Double" set up. It is compromised of two trailers where the first trailer has a built in 5th wheel hitch for towing a second trailer. This eliminates the need for a "dolly" to connect a second trailer. This gives better trailer control, but reduces the length of the first trailer. In this pic you can see the 5th wheel hitch.. This set up is commonly seen in north America and very popular in Australia. It is also the preferred set up for many Australian race teams. I've always liked the looks of this type of truck and trailer combination over a standard "double" trailer setup. To me it visually flows alot better. Anyhow, on to the truck. The first trailer is the crew quarters. A little place to get away between qualifying rounds. As you walk in there is a room for the crew to make a quick phone call, or just get away from the noise. Open the glass door to gain access to the main room. It has a sleeping area with dual bunks for Filipe and Alonso, computer desk, water cooler, big screen TV, and full galley with fridge, oven, sink and stove. There's also a small garage in the rear to hold equipment, or give the crew a place to work out of the elements. There's even a sliding glass door to access the living compartments. Some pics for reference.. Main living quarters.. First room as you enter the trailer..You can also see the sliding glass door to the garage.. Rear shot of the garage with some equipment inside.. I also wanted to build a new truck as the flat nosed Iveco the set came with looks way to small with the new load. Its based off a long nosed Iveco tractor. A third axle was also needed to complete the look, as well as to change things up for the original tractor. So this rig has a special feature. In order to fit everything in the living quarters i needed to incorporate a system to "expand" the interior. I did this by incorporating a "slide out" section. This allows the interior space to be increased by 6 studs. Thats more than half the overall width of the trailer. Some shots of the slide out section... Here's a shot with the loading platform all set up (it gets stored in the rear garage for transport) You can also see the main entrance on the slide out, as well as the outside entrance to the rear garage. Finally we have the rear trailer which holds the cars and equipment. I apologies, i only have shots of "pit" setup with all the tools and F1 cars, but I'll give you a quick run down. The forward compartment houses the tools and equipment, while the two cars sit stacked on top of each other in the rear. It has a ramp system which allows the cars to load up. All the equipment and tools shown fit in the rear trailer. Thanks for looking. I'll try and get better quality pics up soon, as well as more detailed pics of the rear trailer as well as some more shots of first trailer. Edit: Please excuse the shoes and stuff in the back ground of a couple of the pics. didn't pay attention to them being there till after i posted them up. Edit:, i give up. some pics re-sized and other didn't. So i'm just going to link over my brickshelf folder. My apoligies and thanks for looking. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=498077

I wanted this sooooooo bad when i was a kid. Playmobil was very rare in my area and even though i pulled off straight A's that year, my parents were unable to find one. I got over it and in a couple years found something even better.. Still wish i could get my hands on the playmobil crane though. That thing is a classic!

I find it funny that many will praise war mocs with blood, zombie mocs chasing people and eating their brains. I even remember not to long ago someone made a moc of the south with black mini figs picking cotton. Not one person raised an eye brow this topic gets frowned upon. All this on a supposed "adult" website. Funny indeed.. I think the moc is fantastic. Kudos to the OP for bringing up such a "controversial" topic. The detail in the building is great, and i love the themes that each room carries within its self. The hot tub is genius. Here's hoping we see more mocs from you!

Problem is the core fan base is not the target audience, and like it or not, kids love the "mech tech". Now i'm not saying this is an excuse for giving us, or kids inferior products. Hasbro should be ashamed for getting many peoples hopes up and then crushing them. I'll have to find it, but i remember not to long ago someone on one of the TF websites (I think it was seibertron.com) that the DOTM line was very successful. Don't know if the mech tech weapons had something to do with it or not, but never the less, it did well. My nephew loves all the guns his DOTM toys come with. For him, that was one of the high lights. He loves his figures with as many accessories as possible. That goes for nearly all his toys as well. He even makes trailers for all his toy trucks as well. Not saying he represents all kids, but it seems to me that Hasbro must have done some kind of market research. Your right kids today probably have the best toys that have ever been made. Problem is they are wasted on the youth of today. Kids today are lazy, un appreciative, and need everything done for them. Most kids today would rather plop in front of the TV playing Transformers on their Xbox than play with the actual figures. Adults collectors remember what we had, see what's offered now, and can appreciate the engineering, detail, etc because we know how far along toys have come.

Thank you for this. I was worried for a second that i was having trouble conveying my thoghts, but seeing that you basicly get deffensive and condensending with nearly everyone that disagree's with you i know its not me. I feel better now. Great article. I would like to bring up a couple points you mading concerning technic and trains being for boys.. I don't believe thats fair. While its true that more boys will find techinc and trains more apealing than most girls, this doesn't mean that these patricula theme's were directly intended for them. The point of techic is to bring modern machinery and there functions to life. These can apeal to nearly anyone as long as they an enterest in vehicles and how things operate. same with trains. There's only so many ways you can make a train and I'm not really sure how you can make one that would apeal more to a girl than a boy. Either you like them or you don't. Again, i guess its fair to say that more boys would be enterested than most girls, i don't believe it was intended for boys. TLC mearly saw a market and capatalized on it. Simular to the friends theme. Back to our friends discussion, i recently found out my friend bought these for his daughters. Come to find out the main attraction for them were in fact the mini doll figures. they liked LEGO before hand, but the new doll figures just sealed the deal for them.

Concerned with being right? Hardly. For whatever reason you had a hard time comprehending the point i was making. Oh well. Ya i know... You don't like the marketing, yet you understand and acknowledge the business aspect. You realize TLC isn't a charity organization, but still look down upon the marketing decisions they make for profit.. Yup, makes perfect sense. And the fact that you bought sets for yourself is irrelevant. These sets aren't marketed for you. And more importantly, your denying someone the chance to enjoy these sets purely on the fact that your upset TLC marketing strategy. You by these sets for whatever reason you have. whether it be the looks, parts, etc. Why wouldn't your daughter, or any young girl for that matter enjoy them for the same reason? Says the guy that is a fan of LEGO and not Barbie. I've got news for you.. Any large fan base can make the exact same argument. And you know what? Both sides would be right. It is in fact a completely fair comparison. Your right, i do expect alot from TLC. I also expect alot from Hasbro when it comes to Transformers and G.I. Joe. While each might be different, the intent is always the same. To give the consumer what they want. I'm not a fan of Barbie, but I'm beating a Barbie fan could easily make similar arguments about TLC as your trying to make about Barbie. Why? Because you initially suggested you were upset that TLC was marketing sets that were stereotypical "girly", and due to that you'd be passing on getting them for your daughter. That being the case i was curious if you followed suite through every aspect with your daughter. If you have problems with TLC being stereotypical, than you must with other companies as well. It turns it seems you have more of a problem with TLC doing it because you've always seem them as the one toy brand as being gender neutral. You put them on a higher pedestal than other toy brands. That was the reason for my question, and you have answered it. Thank you. And just so where clear, I understand you can be "girly" in plenty of other ways, colors etc. In many ways other colors can be just as feminie or 'girly" as pink. Here's a fun game for ya.. Post this on any gaming site or toy chat forum and see if you can get out with your life.

I never said people were out to boycott or anything of that nature (though that does appear to be the case with this petition) . ANd it doesn't need to be an over whelming majority. But the fact that anyone would opposes this line and petition it over it being girly is ridiculous. At this point you would have to petion Barbie, Polly Pocket, etc. Iv'e read all i need. As far as no one posting in this thread fitting this category, there have been a few and you are in fact one of the guilty.. Are all of your daughters toys gender neutral? Your telling me you've never dressed your daughter in pink, bought her a doll, or anything else that would be considered "girly"?

This pretty much sums it up right here. Off all things people are having a fit over theme targeted at girls? Stupid. There is no controversy. Just some douche of a writer that thought it would be fun to stir the pot with the AFOL crowd. One thing that i have to say about the AFOL group... At times i think they are far less mature that the actual age group this theme is targeted at. While it seems that most are in favor of this line, the fact that there are some that oppose it is not only ridiculous, but down right insulting. How selfish are you that you feel that your going to pass on this line for your daughter simply because you feel that it stereotypical of what girls like. You know what? Girls do like Pink. Girls do like the "Polly pocket" type figures. Get over it. Like it or not girls were never a huge market fot TLC and this is a push get grab that hare of the market that they have been absent from. If someone else has a better way of doing so then by all means, lets here some suggestions. Until then get off your high horse.

Yes, this is one of the "virus" that has popped up when vistiting. but not the only one. Also for me, it wasn't on the front page, but while randomly cruising the forums. I can't remember what popped up on the other two instances, but if it does happen again, i'll make sure to take down the info. Please understand that i'm not trying to put the site in any bad light. Just that i've never once had this type of problem here before within the last 6 yrs or so of membership. Thank you guys for looking into this.

IN the last couple weeks, on two separate computers, I've had 3 virus attacks as a result from being on eurobricks. Each time my anti virus caught and blocked each attack, but this is something I've never experienced on this site and certainly not this often. Don't know if this has anything to do with advertising, or the website change, but thought I'd bring this to the attention of the staff. Curious if anyone else has had this problem as well. Thanks.

All true, espeacaily when you concider the gearing in a model such as 8421. I the model was heavily operated, then there is more potential for certain parts to be worn out even more than say, scratches on a the bricks of a city set. It sure would suck if you were to fully build a model and then find out it doesn't work propperly because the clutches were worn out, or axles were bent, cracked gears etc. These things need to be kept in mind when buy a second hand technic set.

Yes, yes i am. You obivouly can't read. Since in the very post you quoted of mine, i said that you don't have to like the movie, nor are you wrong for not not liking it. NO, i never said that. I said that others thought it was good. You obviously have a hard time comprehending words, so there's no point in trying to explain it any further to you. You hear what you want to hear. You read what you want to read and attempt to twist it in your favor. It didn't work. You've acomplished nothing. Your just flat out wrong. I never said it was the only factor, but it is a big part. Your wrong. You can deal with it or not. But you are in fact, wrong. Yet you admit that movie making is in fact a buisness, but yet the buisness aspect has nothing to do with it from a movie making point of view. Now your a hypocryte. (And i'm not calling you that to insult you. You said yourself, that movie making is buisness) Page 14, post 198.. You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it, but that fact that it's buisness (that you admit to) proves that profits are not only important, but have to be concidered. Again, from a movie making stand point. I already covered that the consumer donesn't care. There the ones giving there money, so there main concern is that they are enterained and feel they've gotten there moneys worth. And rightfully so. Thank you Lothos. You got out what maybe i had a hard time conveying. And i highlighted the personal aspects because when it comes down to taste and what someone thought is good or bad, its all about personal tatse. Basicly someone's opinion. Their nor right, nor wrong. Just their opinion.

A story can continue to grow new characters and leave the old ones behind. Starwars still keeps its core with the familar Jedi's, Clone army, a few old characters etc. Like i said, maybe i'll change my mind once i see it and you all will see an apoligy post from me next summer. All i'm saying is that the big part of Aliens for me, were.. well.. The Aliens. Now that there not going to be in it, i'm a bit disapointed. That's all.

I apologize if you felt insulted. That was not my intention. But I'm glad were on the same page concerning money. Now where i believe i faulted was giving you the impression that because it makes money meant its automatically good. I can see where you could have taken that, and that's not where i was going. Its all a Business. This is true. Making money regardless of it being a movie, comic, game, TV show, etc is the all in all key. My point in bring up the financial success of TDK was to illustrate that while you may not approve of Nolan's vision of Batman, other did. Millions across the globe felt it was a good Batman movie. You may not have felt his formula was the right one, but many others did. Like it or not, he did something right. Do you have to like it? No. Is your vision of what makes a good Batman movie wrong? No. Is Nolan's vision of Batman the only way to go? No. Are you wrong for not liking Nolan's movies? No. No ones painting anyone as an idiot. I brought up that question because of def's original statement of.. This is just a false statement. There's no other way around it. Now it seems that what he should have said was... "Money and profit are never a sign of something good". Then he could have debated his point. I never said it was the only measure of success. Also I'm not sure what your referring to as "bad", but if that implies doing something illegal, then of course that doesn't apply. At no point did i ever imply that one should break the law in order to gain profits and make money. In my business many I have gained many customers due to my knowledge and customer relations. Not to mention the quality of work. In my business i build emergency vehicles from the ground up One of my polices is we solder all electrical connections and don't use butt or "crimp" connectors. Crimping the wires together is much faster and therefore if i used this method, i could turn out vehicles faster and make more money. But by doing so I'd be giving up the quality of my builds. I won't do that. I have a reputation of building the best quality emergency vehicles in the western United States. That reputation brings back my customers, and gains me new ones. But the kicker is when i bid on jobs, i bid on them according to how long its going to take. While i won't give up my values, i have to make rent. I have to put food on the table. Most of the cast gets paid? That's acceptable to you? As a business owner would you be OK only paying some of your employee's? Now one thing i will say is when making a movie there is no guarantee for profit. There's no guarantee that the story that the director sets forth will in even break even, let alone make a profit. But that's why companies like paramount, and DC comics, hire people like Nolan vs. Uwe Boll to direct a movie. (At this point, Boll has such a bad rep, he has had to fund the last couple movies he's directed with his own money) It is possible to get work regardless of the profit you made on your last project. But that's a long shot. IN the case of a movie, its an investment. Studio fronts the money in hopes of a profit. As i said before, there's no guarantee that a movie will make money. But that's the hope. When a company is fronting millions up front, who do you think there going to look to hire first? Boll or Nolan? Most (including the general public ) know both of these directors reputations, and that's going to be part of the driving force to wanting to see the movie. Exactly. There is no formula. Only what you, I and the next guy would personally like to see (in this case) a batman movie. And that, is largely subjective. My vision, is no more right or wrong than your vision. Mortal kombat is probably the one that instantly comes to mind. Both movies were corny, bad acting and dialog, but very entertaining at the same time. I liked them alot. Very much Mortal Kombat. Defiantly had fans in mind before anything else. Of course you don't. That wasn't the question. :septic: Your not the one fronting the money for said movie.Consumers don't care about profit. Your the consumer and just want to be entertained. You obviously haven't read anything i said. I clearly addressed that a movie that makes more money than another does not mean it was better. I'm going to say this one more time.. The point of bring up the profit of Nolan's Batman movies is to show that others liked his vison. If you or anyone else didn't like it then fine. You don't have to. No ones forcing you. But you can't just dismiss that his vision was wrong or didn't capture Batman. Again, if it didn't to you, then fine. But one can't dismiss that others did in fact approve. In a business aspect Yes. I define profit as success. Movies as you have already admitted, are a business. 1.- Nor am i trying to take anything away from you. I respect your views on the movie and never tried to convince you, or others otherwise.c 2.-Maybe you didn't feel it was great. But you know what? I bet those 14yr olds boys that spent there allowance to see the movie 4 times did. 3.- You don't have to measure the popularity as quality as what's quality to you, me, and the next guy is subjective. 4.- Please re-read my last post. I never asker you to care what the investors think.

Its all a business endeavor. Movies, comics, video games,.. All are made to make profit. If you think otherwise, then your kidding yourself. And its financial success does have everything to do with it. You may not approve of his vision, but others obviously did. I'll say again, ask any business owner whether or not profit equivalents to success and come back with their answer. And what exactly formulates a good "Batman" movie? Batman is 70yrs old. If every time a new comic book writer used the same formula (or at least the one you want them to use), we'd have nothing new. Just the same old stuff over and over again. Maybe your fine with that, but many aren't. To a point, I'd agree. previous hype can help in the initial jump of profits. As i said before, Heath Ledger is what made TDK good for me, so it will be interesting to see if anyone in the new movie can live up to Heath Ledger and give a similar performance that Heath gave to the Joker. If i like it, you can bet I'll see it a couple times in the theaters as well as recommend it to friends and family. If i don't like it then i would have wasted $8.00 with no recommendation. Life goes on. No, i justify the quality of TDK based on That i thought it was a good movie. It had a good story, excellent acting, and good effects. I liked it. And the fact that it made as much money as it does proves that there were others that felt the same as me. Maybe not for the same reasons, but liked it non the less. The point was the profits are proof that the masses approved of what they saw. Doesn't matter whether or not you bought it. You said that profits don't mean success. This is not true. It just isn't. The profits from those movies brought in money for the series to expand. Those are facts.This is in fact, success. Again, ask any business owner whether or not profits mean success. That's fine. You don't have to like, or hate it. And your right the fact that alot of people watched it doesn't have meaning. Its the fact that they paid to watch it, and liked it that has meaning. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight/ And who are you to tell others they have bad taste? because they don't like the same entertainment you do? What exactly makes a movie good in your eyes? So if a movie has a 100 million dollar budget but only rakes in 20 million, but was good in your eyes... You'd equivocate that as a "success". I'd like you to explain that to the investors.

This is just not true. Sorry, but your wrong. I challenge you to say this statement to any business owner and see what their response is. Like it or not, the companies that bring you the movies like Batman, Transformers, POTC, etc are all in it to make money. Same goes for the companies that own said franchises such as Hasbro, marvel, DC Comics, Disney etc. People can believe all they want about staying true to roots/ source material etc, but when it comes down to it, its all about giving the consumer what they want. Take CD Comics for example. Hard core fans like to make the argument that comic books and most TV series there based on have more substance, better writing, dialog etc. than many of the big budget movies. There fore there better and they care more about the consumer and fans than they do making a profit. That couldn't be farther from the truth. All their doing is catering to a particular audience. Comic book readers are looking for different things than say the audience of a big budget block buster. What appeals to one group, might not apea to others. You need profit in order to continue making products for every genre. You can't pay your employee's on hopes and wishes. As far as your examples... Transformers 2 wasn't the best of the 3 movies in the eyes of fans and fandom. But the money that was made from the movie paved the way for many new lines, as well as two new TF TV series. These lines and shows have done well with fans as well as consumers across the boards, so I'd defiantly call that success. I personally can't stand Alvin and the Chipmunks. I'd rather sit though the whole twilight series building with mega blocks than watch one of those stupid movies. But you know what? If they have found an audience for that franchise then so be it. Just because something doesn't interest you doesn't mean it isn't going to capture someone Else's eye. just so where clear, I'm not saying that something that makes more money than something Else automatically makes it better. But the bottom line is people don't pay for things they don't want/like. Period. In the case of Nolan's Batman you don't make $1 Billion dollar profit on chance. His vision was meet with mass approval. like it or not, he did something right.

No reason? maybe to give the audicne something they've never seen before. Like it or not, you have to expand beyond the common thinking of the standard comic book realms. You may not aprove, but $1 billion profit says his fomula worked, and worked well. As far as the cell phone radar, I don't know if that's really possible. The way I look at it was meant to represent that Bruce Wayne/Batman had technology and gadgets that were yrs ahead of our time and had acces to technology that the average comupter geek could only dream of. No, i don't know who dini is. Should I? I agree with that to a point. But in this case the problems you guys seem to have are so mi-nute. Your looking into things way to much. Don't get me wrong. Its your right. Just think your being a little to critical. And people actually liked this junk?