Erik Leppen

The difficulty with technic bricks is that over time, there have been several parts with holes that could just as well have been "technic plates", but aren't. All of these are "plates, modified". And these two are somehow "technic connectors". Whatever naming scheme you imagine, there will always be parts not fitting. I once had a discussion long ago about why the 1x2 brick with axlehole was called a technic brick, because he used the axlehole as a decoration for castle walls.

I probably missed it, but when does voting close? I'm just seeing it now and want to take the time checking the entries. Skimming through the entry topic, I see that some seriously cool stuff has been built this time around. I take my hat off to all people who succeeded entering anything.

There was a challenge on the Lego Masters TV show where the contestants had to build a 3 meter long bridge. It inspired me to think about "how I would do such a thing, if I had infinite time", and I started fiddling around in MLCad and eventually came up with this: (only one side is shown). More pictures here if public: Huge bridge on Brickshelf Now I have to say it's not tested in real life, so I have no idea if it actually works, and most details of the actual build are missing (some parts overlap), but it was fun to design anyway. As you can see, I built the main beams from triangles, and then made a triangle of those beams. So it's triangles all the way down ;) in the hope that would be strong, even if some sides are only single parts. In fact I only used 3-4-5 triangles and multiples, to make things easy to interconnect. (The 16L axles with end holes are nice to use as the 15-side of a 9-12-15 triangle.)

Has anyone considered an "exoskeleton approach"? What I mean is, you probably get the strongest result if the structural parts are as far apart as possible, so that the weight-bearing construction is as tall as possible. The main beams will then be closely under the panel surface. And if you can use the panel surface as part of the weight-bearing structure, you'd probably get an even stronger result. For the rest, I do agree with the one who said that structural things like this can only really be tested in real life. Of course, it's a fun design challenge to build such a frame digitally, but I think no matter what you come up with, building it in real will always surprise you.

Hate to burst everyone's bubble, but "including 2 gray ones" reads to me as: 2 gray actuators and 1 blue pump. Of course I hope I'm wrong, but I don't count on more if this is all the info we have. Too high expectations is only setting oneself up for disappointment later. The key to happiness is low expectations :) Edit: but good to see a new pneumatic set coming, in the year after the tow truck. I really hope (but don't expect ;) ) this to be a yearly thing.

It's possible to have no problem at all with individual people wanting to collect, rather than build MOCs, and simultaneously have concerns about a societal trend away from creativity and towards collecting.

Selling display models makes more profit than teaching them creativity. Really, I think that's the whole bottom line. I think many of the creative people here would hope that Lego - being in a quite unique position to do so - would foster creativity. However, we live in a hyper-capitalistic world where the sole reason for a company to exist is to make profit. Make less profit, and you'll get overshadowed by another company that plays the profit-game better. Result: only the companies that play the profit-game the best, stay alive. So here we are, where Lego has upped their profit-game, with a whole new audience of wealthy adults that have been influenced by the 18+ line to think it has become cool to buy a building toy. Lego couldn't care less what we do with the sets, as long as we buy as much of them as possible. That's why B models have been phased out of Technic - they probably cost more to design than the profit they generate, so from a company standpoint, they are a bad idea. That from a society standpoint, they are a good idea, is not Lego's business, because Lego isn't a charity and - in the end - won't be judged as one. The bigger problem is that creativity isn't valued at all, anymore, or so it seems. Creativity is a skill, that can be learned. Education doesn't foster it (the answer is in the back of the book, see the three TED talks by Sir Ken Robinson), so people aren't taught it anymore. Personally I'm totally the other way around (or at least I try to be). I hate anything that's "popular" because "popular" means it gets way more attention than I consider "fair". I don't care whether something is popular, I care whether someone has been creative. I have friends who fiddle with music programs to create their own little tunes. They may not have the same musical quality, but they are self-made, original works, and the result of a creative process that is unique to them and that is therefore by itself interesting. I think you can only really talk about music with someone who has actually made some: how did you decide on X, why this chord or that rhyme, what do you look for, what did you try to achieve, etc. With non-musical people, talk about music is almost always only about the metadata of music - artists, albums, releases, concerts, etc. That's not music. Music is melodies, chords, rhythm, sounds, lyrics, etc. I think the same about Lego. Lego, to me, is not about sets, prices, availability, company decisions - it's a system of bricks. It's a creative medium, like music or clay or paint. So it's about building techniques, the build process, the design criteria for a model, the creative decisions, how to build things, digital building tools, etc. In my view, there are no "bad MOCs". If someone built something by themselves, the interesting questions are, how they think it turned out, what they learned from it, and how they handle feedback, and for me for posting: how I can help them with that. MOCs from the "experts" are beautiful - from a result standpoint, but personally I have less interest in those because the process is usually hidden. I can't see the creative process that went behind it, I only see what came out of it. And often, I care relatively little what comes out of a creative process. That's why the Eurobricks Technic competitions are so great - you get to see all kinds of people engaging in a creative process. And that's why I will be joining FAWM (February Album Writing Month) again next month: it fosters the creative process, no matter its outcome (yes, this is a tip for anyone doing anything with music).

No, it's just normal gray. Just compare with the dark tan axle and the dark gray 24t gear above it. Nothing special (although a 40t by itself is rather rare, even in gray).

I can't remember needing 8L or longer even liftarms. Maybe in some highly specific solutions, such as when working with triangles. I do remember needing a 9L thin liftarm on various occasions. I'd say if 1x12 plates ar possible then 1x9 thin liftarms should be feasible too. Or a 1x3 thin liftarm with middle axle hole and round holes at the ends. Or more parts in general with axle holes at other places than the ends. In general, I find myself using more half-stud offsets and thin liftarms than official sets do. This enables a finer grid than the 1x1x1 cube grid. A simple "thin L-liftarm with pin holes" (the existing 3x5 L sliced in half) would open up so many options for compact frame building. And I'm still advocating my "1 x 2.5 thin liftarm with 1 axle hole and 1 hole", to add more ways of adding half-stud offsets - the two different holes being to distinguish it from other thin liftarms and offset 2 different orientations to increase build options. That's what I often find: if parts are too symmetrical, they are of more limited use, because flipping it over doesn't add a new option. That's why the basic 2x4 L liftarm is so great.

Lol, did I say 3L? Oops. I meant 4L. Sorry! I was indeed thinking of that part (that's probably why I wrote 3L), thanks for the mention. It seems super useful.

Actually, a part I was needing yesterday was a 1x1 brick with an internal ball socket. So, just a 1x1 brick with a hole carved out that would fit a ball. That could be useful in studded builds. Similar to how we finally got the 1x1 brick with axle hole :) And there is an old part I still find myself using now and then, and that's this one: for mostly the same reasons: it has a ball socket in a small space. But it's a bit unwieldy to use sometimes. Also, Mixel joints As for 4-long pins... I sometimes use a bar 4L to connect two normal 2L pins. It's a bit of a problematic solution (you hav eto insert the bar last, because if the bar is in place, the pins can't "snap". Maybe you can use a 3L bar, but I haven't tried this.) Actually, I can't remember ever having needed other 4-long pins than just normal ones. Maybe even there could be 3L pins without the middle ring, so they can be slid in from any side at any point. This would also make them visually different from other pins, which would mean they don't have to have a weird color, and can just be made black.

As said by @62Bricks, you need a ratio of 1 : 1 : square root of 2, which equals 1.41421356... , a number which cannot be the ratio of two whole numbers. 7 / 5 = 1.4 comes close and 10 / 7 = 1.42857... comes close, so the triangles with sides of lengths (5, 5, 7) or (7, 7, 10) are almost right, but not exact. So, how exact do you need it to be? In practical usage, I find the (5, 5, 7) triangle - basically the same as the (10, 10, 14) in your photo - to be good enough, even though it's not exact. But I don't build polyhedra ;) Also, if you use gray/tan pins, you can allow some leeway. Also, the (3, 4, 4) triangle has one angle that is almost 45 degree. Again, not exactly (about 44,05 degrees). I think it should be mathematically possible to construct an exact 45-degree angle, but probably not in a straightforward way.

Mostly, I think they're carried away with the whole pullback thing. That stuff is taking up 4 sets now. Make it into a separate theme already. I'd like to see a great playset for once, with tons of functions. Like the tow truck. Manual, or with 1 motor and a switchbox.

I really get what @gyenesvi is explaining, and I partly agree, that it would be better for the building system if they were to recognize it more as a system of interconnected parts, rather than a collection of models, but I think it's also good if they are testing whether the parts are being used at all before introducing new sizes. They wouldn't want to introduce a whole series of new parts and then find out they turned out not to be very useful. So it's a wise move to develop 1 or 2 parts, test the waters with the designers, and if they prove their worth, expand the range, and if not, forget about it with relatively little waste. It looks like the flip-flop beams are used enough to warrant adding new lengths, so let's hope for the best. Personally, I expect 7L and 5L to be the next ones to come up, so that all the side lengths of panels are covered.

This is not the same. Pneumatics dont give the illusion that they are something they aren't. A blue coil that does nothing, gives the impression it's something it isn't. That's what I have problems with, because it breaks the educational aspect. If kids tinker with the part and discover the blue coil does nothing, they may catch up a misconception about how springs work, because the working part is hidden from view so they cannot investigate it. This is what I mean with hiding functionality. Pneumatics work exactly the way they are advertised. I don't care whether it's the same as a real excavator, everybody understand that can't work, I care whether it is what it suggests to be. Linear actuators have a very clear technical purpose (fine adjustment, and holding their position when not driven), so I'm fine with those as well. Yes, they also hide functionality from sight, but there's not really an alternative.

I think this hits the nail on the head. Lego is not doing much wrong. But I do see it as a sign of the times I'm not happy with. Apparently, the general public wants good looking display sets. Apparently, people are interested in shiny things, instead of mechanically intricate things. And my contention is that people are made to be interested in shiny things, becase shiny things are easier to make and sell then mechanically intricate things. It's hard to blame a commercial company for this, but it's also hard to not blame commerce for this, because I do think that it's the commerce as a whole (and social media in particular) that gave shallowness the podium it now has. So, yeah, to become a mass product, you have to get hop on the shallowness train. Apparently, Lego, being the market leader, clearly wants to be a mass product.

The new rear shock absorber (the one with the blue coil) shows exactly what's wrong with the Technic theme in recent years. As I understand from the reviews, the blue coil is decorative. So, the blue coil is not the spring. The actual spring doing the work is hidden inside, apparently. This proves that Technic has become a cosmetic theme. The focus is not any more on how it works, but how it looks. Functionality is deliberately hidden from sight. Because, in reality, the blue coil is the spring. By not doing the same in the Lego part, Lego Technic has stopped even trying to be educational.

Thanks to Milan for the extensive review. Lots of info, thoughts and pictures, thanks! I'm not a bike person, but I think I can agree with the overall sentiment - the set looks great, but seems not to offer much new in functionality. That's a bit of a pity. The switch mechanism seems like a nice addition though, but all the rest feels "big for the sake of it". I'm not sure that this is something I want to spend €200 on - no matter how much I love those wheels :D That said though, the set brings more to the table than the so-manieth supercar. At least it's something they didn't do before, which, by itself, is a good thing! What I personally dislike is how some of those new parts seem really single-use. Especially that "modified" font wheel mount really feels like a cop-out. Oh well - I'm sure Afols will find an original use for it. The new springs and such are cool, but limited in practical use, I think. Though the blue one seems interesting and usable in other situations. I'm not a fan of single-use parts, I'll have to see these parts return in other use-cases to prove their worth before I can believe they add something to the parts palette. But yeah, those wheels are awesome :D

Thanks! I definitely think there'll be some cool options with this part. Also, nice that we're getting it in 2 useful, basic colors at once :)

Probably they take a new multiple of 10 for a new "series" so they can fill the intermediate numbers for different sizes within the same design. If the trapezium/triangle panels come out in smaller size, they can be given 52/53 and the numbering still makes sense. Of course, the problem with 60 and 61 is that they shouldn't be mistaken for 09 and 19... As far as I know (but I could be mistaken, I don't have an overview of all panels), all asymmetric panels (i.e. all panels that have a left and right version being each other's mirror image) are numbered and all symmetric panels are not. That proves that at least one important reason for the numbers is allow people to discern the left and right versions.

Aha, that's a good point, I didn't think of that

Those pictures seem to suggest (but I still don't get why you don't just test this and show us) that the angle between the surface holes (and the diagonal edges) is indeed the same as that of the 4x6 bent beam and the distance therefore must be sqrt(3^2 + 4^2) = 5, and that, therefore, the new panel could be installed at an angle, similar to the "seat panels". Not sure how that will be useful, but it's always good if panels have multiple ways of using them, particularly at non-right angles. I suggest we call it Panel 7 x 5 x 2 Parallelogram :)

Kids won't get into Technic this way, because there's hardly anything offered by Lego to "get into" anymore. Yeah, other companies offer Technic sets, but not TLG, or so it seems. Sorry for the sour remark, but if this is the quality of TLG Technic sets, I may need to seriously consider taking a look into other brands. And I'm one of the more purist people around here!

What does the red launch thing do? Edit: I see you showed the mechanism in the 42138 review. /edit Also, what's the distance between the holes on the new Technic panel? Is it like the 3/4/5 triangle? Those are things I'd like to know from a review. :) Also, let's just call it Racers already. There's no Technic here. 42101 had twice as many functions. You (Jim) used the image with 8 stars where you said 7. Same for 3 other categories. Also, if 1 function in a 50 euro set is enough to get 4 stars, than what are the first 3 stars for? If a set is so devoid of functions, it should simply get 1 star. Oh well, at least there's room for decline. In coming years, we'll need it if the theme continues like this.

Ha, nice! I like it when people build things you don't see very often, and I think this one is quite well executed without being overdone. The cleverest bit of this build seems to be the double motion of the red support arm in the center. There seems to be a clever linkage below the tilting arm to make the double motion to make sure the wheel is lifted exactly right so it doesn't touch the boarding platform. The only real ride of this type I know just uses a single arm but much longer, but I like your solution better :) I do think though that if this were a real thing, the wheel wouldn't spin that fast ;)