Erik Leppen

The dark-gray linkage between the topmost LA and the bucket is designed in such a way that the forces that act on it, tear it apart at the position of the 3.2L axle that connects it to the yellow 2x4 beam. The LA pushes the dark-gray 1x8 plates forward, away from their only connection points (the studs). In fact, you can see this at 2:01 in the video. Also, how is the yellow arm connected to the main body? So yeah, it's a display model that can show the movements, but I don't expect it to be really playable. That said, it looks great and I really like the rather modest scale, and how much you've managed to fit in.

It would be a matter of using more half-beams. I am always surprised how sparse half-beams are in sets, versus how often I use them in my MOCs. Replacing those dark-gray transverse 9L beams with 5L half beams in the middle and 3L at the ends, you can create an opening of 4x3 studs in the middle that can house a differential. It's not hard. The chosen solution proves (to me) that TLC thinks that most people in the target audience don't care.

I'd like to step in the discussion and bring my boyfriend in as an example. He's not a Lego fan, but he likes a good build as a temporary decoration, so we sometimes build sets together, where he's the one building and I just collect the pieces for each step. Mostly the Creator expert cars but we also did Parisian Restaurant and a few Architecture sets. It has surprised me many times how much he struggles with these building instructions. I sometimes need to correct him; he probably couldn't work it out alone. And we're talking about a normal person with a university degree. Just not someone who's naturally drawn to "abstract things" like Lego. All of us at Eurobricks, are in some way naturally drawn to Lego. We're a highly pre-selected group, so our ideas are not representative of the general public. It's easy to forget how it works for someone not by themselves attracted to Lego but wanting to join their loved ones and experience this Lego thing together. It's easy to miss how non-fans will react to it. Connected to these building difficulties, of course, is the time required. We built the Ideas Treehouse, which was about 3000 parts. We spread it over at least 5 or so evenings, spread over multiple weeks, to finish that. And I can tell you, numbered bags are a godsend in this case. What they do is separate the build into "chapters", introducing natural moments to "pause" the build without loose parts lying around everywhere. Much to how a novel is split into chapters. Thirdly, I think, the very fact that the building process for a given model has become easier, means that the models can become more complex. Which, I believe, is great for us. Some people complain about colored parts in Technic or colored bricks hidden in a model, but I think, without those color-coded parts, we wouldn't have had the variety of parts we have. It's only possible to add another type of axle pin if it's clearly distinct from the other axle pin for non-AFOLs. Color-coding achieves this. Same goes for the colorful innards of a model. They ease the process, which allows for more complicated models. So, as much as I personally liked the shorter instructions from 90's Technic sets, the current instructions just work better for non-AFOLs. And remember: every set will be someone's first experience with Lego :)

Technic has become a "licenced supercars (and some other vehicles)" theme, much in the same way as Architecture has become a Landmarks theme. It's not about the architecture anymore. Similarly, the biggest perk of the Ferrari is that it is a Ferrari. Besides that (and a few nice parts), it has nothing to offer. The functions it has (suspension, drive, steering) are also all present in this year's RC buggy 42124, which is a quarter of the parts and offers remote control. Apparently, recognizability drives sales more than anything. Otherwise, this wouldn't have happened.

For these crossbeams, 7, 11 and 15 sound like the most sensible lengths, since this would match the lengths of the frames. In any case, these new 15L beams looks very useful! I want a few :D

Thanks for showing quite extensively how it drives. It seems pretty performant, given the limitations of Lego, and the suspension adds a nice extra for some light offroading. Yes - I can very much appreciate this set. I also like the striking colors. (I do agree on the black rear spoiler though.) Thanks for making the video :)

I like how this has become some sort of a "series". Nice tractor, nice scale, not too large or complex. Also very nice color usage without any color vomit. I think I prefer orange as tractor color because I feel that's somewhat more original. As far as trailers go I like the blue forestry trailer most, I wish Lego would make more of these pneumatic models. I wonder how the new smaller tractor tires from the Jeep would fit on it, I believe they're about the same size but wider. I'd say the orange tractor + blue trailer would work great as a set.

Thanks for the review so far. I'm totally not into this whole powered-up or control+ thing, but this seems to be the best starter set for it so far. Much better than that ugly top gear car. I'm tempted to want one, which is a first for control+ stuff. This has a lot to do with the nice new parts (15L beam and tires), but as a Lego model it's also very likeable. I like how it's a rather bare-bones, no-frills model, while still looking really nice.

Good topic. Thanks for starting it, I think it's good to look closely at what exactly it is that we can appreciate on Technic models. Your questions about playability can hepl a great deal with that 1) How often do you pick up a Technic set with child's eyes? Never. I don't "play" with Lego models, I build. For me personally, the build is the play. However, I do certainly appreciate play features, both in Technic and other themes. 2) How often do you see the expressions of non-afol people around you when they see a "dumb"/for you/ set and its features? None, because I don't observe people around sets I find dumb, I rather try to drag them to sets I find interesting ;)3) How often do you appreciate the mechanisms that the designers put into a model without the critical eye and "I can make it better" mentality? As a MOC builder myself, I almost always have a "let's see how I could make this better/differently" mentality, because that's a thought process I enjoy, but I can appreciate any mechanism in a set. I appreciate the auxiliary functions of a set like 42039 for example, even if they are simple. But of course, to appreciat emechanisms, there have to be mechanisms in the first place. A set like 42077 Rally car or 42125 Ferrari just doesn't tickle my brain, as there are no mechanisms at all that we haven't seen 100 times before. They're empty shells to me. 4) How often do you just PLAY with a set? The way it was supposed to - like crashing pullbacks or driving around on the floor with the HoG steering. I build them, which is of course also "supposed to" be done, but besides that, no. That said, I appreciate if a model has features that can be used that way. 5) How often lately do you prefer the LOOKS and not the machinery inside? I can appreciate looks on all system-based themes, but in my view, Technic is that 1 (!) theme that permits not being about looks. That's what sets Technic apart from literally ALL other themes. ALL Lego themes simulate "existence", only Technic can simulate "movement"/"change". That's why I can get really upset when a technic set focuses on looks. To me, that's completely backwards. For looks, System just works way better in my view. Of course, I can appreciate looks in a technic model - provided the underlying technic-ness is solid, and provided it's done with normal parts, and not by stickers or specialized parts (both of which I consider cheating). Personally I see Lego almost exclusively as a medium for design/sculpting, consisting of single-colored plastic pieces with generic shapes that can be used to assemble things, similarly how generic programming-language instructions can be used to assemble all kinds of software. The Lego building system has limitations, which gives it its charm. Interestingly, there is a word for systems that have a limited set of "atoms" but still very wide usage options: elegance. If too many building blocks are added, elegance suffers, because "anything goes". Art, to me, is creatively using limitations. Which is why I consider stickers cheating - they add so many different types of "atoms" - anything goes - that the elegance gets lost. So the way I appreciate models is how they use this limited, elegant design medium, in a creative way, making interesting design choices, but still stay within those limitations. This is why I think the 42125 ferrari set is one of the worst abominations of Technic in a long time, in an already deteriorating theme. Most of the "sculpting" is done with stickers (and specialized parts for the wheel arches - at least flex axles that were used until 42056 are generic parts) and the underlying Technic core that warrants this build style in the first place, is almost nonexistent. 42076 may be ugly, but it is a genuine Technic model with fun play features and mechanisms, which is exactly what this theme is for.

I believe there was general interest for a motorbike contest.

It's concerning to see how all models except two (including the whole left page) are models of fast things. I can't remember it to be this skewed 10 or 20 years ago (see Blakbird's Technicopedia). Those 2 other sets (the tiny loader and the excavator) are, not coincidentally I think, the sets I like most (except the hovercraft, which I also think is really nice.)

So far, no. Unfortunately. I bricklinked some extra bright green parts at the time, in the hope that the color would come about in the future. (I tend to do that when new colors show up.) There seem to exist 3x5 L beams in bright green that weren't in this set. According to Bricklink they are in a WeDo set and in Joker's Manor (the set that was famous for being the first to introduce the new roller coaster tracks).

(emphasis mine) Restart? What exactly do you mean with "restart"? Do you mean you have built all of those once and are asking which of those you should redo/upgrade/update? If that's indeed the question, then I'd say you shoud redo the one for which you're least satisfied with your previous model. If that's not the case, and you just want an opinion about which of these models you should build, then I'd say: I prefer machinery over cars, so I'd personally vote against the F40, but for the rest I couldn't care. A good Lego excavator is always cool, no matter whether it represents a Volvo or whatever brand of real excavator, or doesn't have a real counterpart at all. If it works and shows all the motions, and looks like it could be real, I'm happy. In fact, why would it have to look like any particular brand? Wouldn't it be more creative and much more fun, and also a better fit for the lego Technic medium, to just make a functional model with whatever proportions work best for the existing Lego parts, and find your own styling for it, so that it becomes a genuine jorgeopesi excavator instead of a wannabe Volvo?

The non-driven version looks simple but effective :) Have you tested the driven version? I would expect a lot of friction because the driving axle is also the load-bearing axle. I'd suggest replacing the first (= on the fixed axle) 16t gear with a red round-holed one and then adding an extra gear on a separate axle that drives that.

By this logic, if you extend the suspension arms to 500L, you would get 100 times the travel but still the shock compressed by 50%? (ignoring the suspension arm's own weight). I'd say this conclusion is absurd, yet it follows your logic. So I'd say your logic has a mistake somewhere. Looking up some definitions online, I conclude the spring has potential energy (called "elastic potential energy"), that is stored in the spring by compressing it, and when decompressed, does work to push the vehicle upwards (against gravity). Energy translates to work, and the amount of work is therefore fixed. Work is force times distance, so if distance (= travel) increases, force (= weight) can only go down. See Work (physics) - Wikipedia -> "work and energy". of cousre, you could also test it. If you have any MOC or set or WIP with suspension lying around, take the wheels off and attach 15L beams to the lower suspension arms, basically extending their length, and see if it, at rest, the springs are still compressed the same. Without testing, I predict they will be more compressed and the vehicle will not be lifted. Anyhow, i think this is slightly off topic, so sorry for interrupting :)

No, it does not. Increasing the travel will always decrease the weight the shock can handle. This is because a shock can handle only a certain force (not weight) - namely, the force your fingers exert when compressing the shock by hand, without any levers. If you increase the travel, then the same force (or energy?) is used to push the vehicle up by a greater distance, meaning the vehicle has to be lighter. (I'm sure there is a physicist that can explain this using the correct units.) You can easily test this theory by using an extreme example: if you would make the suspension arms 10 times as long, you'd discover that the suspension cannot lift your vehicle 20 cm up :) (if it somehow can, add more zeroes to these example numbers until it fails :P )

For a set so focused on building experience, I would say 42083 didn't exactly deliver. The whole set had a lot of dead weight with superfluous liftarms everywhere and an overall incoherent design (the gearbox was a mess) that wasn't at all enjoyable to build. But oh well. it's not about 2021. I think just prefer 1:9 or 1:10 scale cars than those huge 1:8s, so maybe the new Ferrari will be a nice base to mod. :)

I have to say the transparent headlight piece with the red sticker is certainly an improvement over having a red piece there. Would have hoped to see some actual transparent studs behind the piece though, instead of the details on the sticker. It's nothing that can't be added though, so that might be a simple first mod.

Now this is something! At it happens, exactly the same crane in the same scale is on my to-build list, and I started twice, but never finished. But I wouldn't come close to your level of realism in looks I think. Your model looks exactly like the real crane. It's as realistic as it gets in terms of looks, and packs quite a punch under the hood in functions. Edit: also I like that it's not oversized for what it does. /edit I'm quite surprised by how well all those functions seem to work, and that there's some lifting power as well (which is impressive at this scale). Especially that steering seems really quick and smooth. I know the "beam method", but I didn't expect it to work on this scale. I honestly don't get why TLC doesn't grab these kinds of licences and brings out these kinds of sets. I mean, this is what the Lego medium is about, right? Dang, I should really get my crane up and running :P

What's interesting about 42000, 42039 and 42077 is that they're all "just" cars. No licence. The newer cars are mostly licenced replicas of real cars. The effect of this, at least in my eyes, is that the focus is shifting. Away from what defines Technic. Apparently, being "just a car" isn't working for the public, or at least, being a car with a brand name stamped on it seems to work better. Really, I don't get why people would buy Technic for looks. If it's for the looks, System works much better. Technic is optimized for functions. I mean, sure, I drool over the Sian, but mostly from a parts and build/design perspective. Ride height adjustment Rear steering that changes direction depending on low or high gear Simulated brakes (as in, some movement in the cabin moves things near the wheel) Headlights that move along with steering Rear wing (or other airflow-control surface) that moves along with gear change Some suspension advances - camber, caster, torsion bar - I don't know what the first two are for, but having them in a set would be a good opportunity to experience that Removeable bodywork Built-in jack (there was a creator set that did this) Actual modular design, where e.g. the gearbox, engine or suspension can be removed easily just a few functions I can't remember being done in a set, but that exist in some real cars. It's not like there aren't any interesting functions left. or even something simple like a transverse engine or anything that breaks the "same old". Even if it were done before, things like convertible roof, moveable headlights, adjustable seats are still very welcome, because it has been a while since we saw those... Thing is that apparently - and these sets prove this - the goal of Technic isn't to educate people about the technical workings of things anymore. Which is a shame, because there's no other theme that does this to the same extent. One reason to buy a set for MOC is to learn techniques from it. (for excample, 42054 Claas was great for showing how a steering mode selector could be done. Seeing this happen in a set and experiencing it while building it, sparks my interest in trying similar things in other-type models.) Unfortunately, this educational aspect is diminishing because of the above-mentioned lack of novelty - and because gearboxes are nowadays made too complicated to even comprehend, without there being a particular reason for the complicatedness (42083). I stopped even trying to understand how 42110 was supposed to work, because honestly I couldn't care, with gears and axles being all over the place (probably because in a licenced set, correct external proportions seem more important than actual workings nowadays).

It's a nice way to play with the geometry/shape of pieces. I even see a few that I didn't know existed. (You should definitely change the gray pieces in the stand though :P )

Part of it is surely nostalgia, but there is a factual argument to make for the older cars. 8880, many people's favorite, has suspension, 4 wheel steering with ackermann geometry and working steering wheel, 4 wheel drive, 4 gears, and it has moving headlights, and it has one of the better B-models we have seen. But it also has only about 1400 parts. 8448, my personal favorite, has super smooth suspension, a highly optimized chassis, a modular build, steering, drive, working steering wheel, optional front or rear engine, compact 5+R gearbox, damped-sprung gull-wing doors. And 8448, too, has only about 1400 parts. 8865, is older and slightly less functional, but it has moving seats and only 900 or so parts. 8070, a set that many don't consider a supercar beause it doesn't have a gearbox, has steering, drive and suspension, and a 4-way motorized function switchbox controlling scissor-like doors, the hood and wing, all from a central switch between the seats. Yes, it's not a gearbox, but here too, it's only 1300 parts, for a studless set. This proves it's possible to build a decent-looking studless supercar with about the same number of parts as studded sets. Now, those who think the comparison is purely nostalgia-based, please point me to a modern supercar set that has this many functions, but this few parts. 42039 (green-white 24h race car) tried, but has only 2 motorized functions (optional) and is therefore less complex than 8070, and the function switchbox isn't in the correct place. 42077 is interesting, but without the gearbox, doesn't count. Besides, the 4 sets listed above all contributed something new and original to the table. 42077 on the other hand, didn't do anything that wasn't done before. 42083 Chiron surely did, with the huge gearbox, but that one has almost as many parts as 8880, 8448 and 8865 combined. Add to this that it is a recent trend that we have sets with functions that don't work well (42110 gearbox clicking, 42083 suspension sagging), and I think it's easy to make the case that even without nostalgia, the older supercars sets are actually better Lego models than modern sets. This new Ferrari can better be compared to a set like 8653 Ferrari Enzo. Compared to that, it adds suspension, and it looks better, but it also adds 300 parts (if I remember correctly), and I don't expect it has the same damped-spring doors the Enzo had.

There can only be a fight if there are at least 2 people fighting. If one of you guys stops, then the other has no opponent left in the argument, and has no reason to continue either. Yes, maybe, you are right, and the other is wrong. But, even if that were to be true, is it worth bringing it up every time? Maybe, it is better to be wrong and at peace with that, than to be right and fighting a battle that annoys the heck out of other members trying to read a discussion topic about a new set. In any case, in Dutch we have a saying that goes "if 2 are fighting, 2 have guilt". Be an adult (you stated you are one when you registered), and stop this mud-throwing competition before a moderator might step in and send either or both of you on a little "forum holiday". Because if that happens, even being right doesn't save you ;) Let's talk about the set.

Wow, nice. Very impressive at this small scale. Even the wheel rims are almost the same :D When looking at all the detailing, you wouldn't say it's "just" 10 wide. I think what I like the most is the fact that everything opens, but there are no visible gaps when everything is closed. In my experience this is very hard to do well. It's funny how the real car seems to have a longer nose, but that's probably the photo that distorts the dimensions of the real car, because you actually measured things with a grid. The glass-filled windows give it a bit of a Legoland (the amusement parks) feel to me. It wouldn't be my prefered choice but it works very well here, and it allows to add the silver rims of the side windows, which really helps the color scheme, and have "full doors",which I always find a big plus. Oh, and you gotta love the bike

Despite koala's post above, I am still goign to criticize this set, because I find it hard to imagine that someone would buy this. I know nothing about the real colosseum, I just look at it from a Lego model perspective. It looks like a nightmare to build (repetitive), it's too big to put it anywhere without it standing in the way (at least the millennium falcon you could position vertically or hang on a wall), and the shape of the base looks very cheap to me. It's not really elliptic, it's a jagged and wobbly looking shape and additionally personally really dislike the dark-gray with black color of it. Compare it to the old trafford stadium set, which was also on a gray/black base, but thats much more subtle and the building itself uses much more varied coloring so the building is the star of the show. Personally, I just think this huge black/gray rock is a real eyesore that distracts from the building. I can very much understand the idea of a "colosseum set". If it were about 32x32 studs, around 1500 parts, it would have been an interesting display model that is also an interesting Lego design. At the current scale, there doesn't seem to be much intelligent design in it, because it's so huge that even adding detail becomes trivial. It comes across to me as being just big for the sake of being "the biggest set ever" (again - a marketing trick I have grown tired of by now) and tries way too hard to be a realistic depiction, instead of a model that resembles the real thing. I don't mind big models per se - I'm not a fan of Star Wars but I can really appreciate the huge millennium falcon because at that had interesting design that the smaller versions didn't offer, it had an interior that was cool, and the internal structure was mechanically interesting. I feel that this colosseum could have been half the size without losing recognizability and detailing (but would have been 80% cheaper and take up less space). It seems that with these buildings, there are really only two scales... too small and too big. Sydney opera house being the most blatant example. The Architecture one was so small it didn't leave any reoom for designers to experiment with interesting build solutions and part usages, but the big one was so large it didn't really require creative parts usage either, and would also have been recognizable if it was made from 2x4 bricks. Also, there would have been many much more interesting buildings to depict in Lego form, that would have made more colorful and varied sets. Just compare to the - also mostly tan - 6000 part Hogwarts set, and tell which one has more to offer and is more attractive as a Lego model.