Erik Leppen

I know it's not about the model, but is the "levihathan" logo a delibarete misspelling? Your username being without the extra H suggests it's a genuine error, so I thought I'd point out the difference. By the way your car looks magnificent and I love the use of a window element as air intake (front of the rear wheel arch), and you have to look closely to notice there are many other non-Technic elements used. This means they blend in great into the design. It seems to pack some nice functions as well, without becoming too complex to be instructive (looking at you, 42110) and I like the transverse engine.

I wouldn't be surprised if the corona pandemic has something to do with it. People having their state-of-mind less devoted to the relaxing deviation that is Lego building, because more important things take up space in our heads? Speaking for myself, I also have the idea that I build less than I normally do. It may be my declining interest in new sets (I don't care for cars and for control+, so that makes most sets an easy pass...), which results in fewer new parts or ideas. Also not wanting to make too many part orders, and also having my attention elsewhere. In a way, building with Lego doesn't "feel right" when you hear the news about intensive care units overloading, even though I can't really do much about it, so instead I work on programming my game because that at least can be considered "work". For some reason I have 4 or so unfinished MOCs standing around that I don't finish. Which is a waste because I think they can be nice builds. I have a nice pneumatic model in the works that I really should finish... Same for my 42083mod instructions... I sometimes feel this too, yes. Not only that, but almost everything is built better than I could do it. I know, that shouldn't be a reason, but it still can be, somehow. In any case, this is an interesting discussion with many interesting viewpoints :) And yes, definitely do a competition please, someone :)

I had a similar feeling with the Chiron, which I really wanted but I found it too expensive. In the end, I bought it a year after it came out or so, when a nearby store had a nice discount. So you can also choose to just wait, and see if any of the two sets comes by at a better price next year. Who knows. I don't think we can really help you make the choice between one set or the other... I can remember i was a bit underwhelmed by the Chiron's design, but I have the feeling that the Sian is better designed (and I had a lot of fun redesigning the Chiron, so at the end, it was still money well spent). So a lot depends on what you want to do with your set. (and if you mind mixing parts of different brands).

A lot depends on what you want to do with the things you keep. Is your collection a resource of parts to build MOCs with? Or do you want to keep the official models? A few years back I "slimmed out" my connection a bit, by thinking: why do I need 2000 black pins? I only have a few MOCs built at a time, and not keeping stuff built is a good way to save on parts. So for all common parts, I estimated how many I needed (by keeping a few more MOCs built) and sold the rest. Same for wheels I never used. I sold everything as one huge "lot" to a fellow LUG member who had started a bricklink store and could use some stock. I think this is something I will do every few years, so that I can enjoy new sets every now and then, without my storage space spilling over :) But I have to say I don't care about keeping sets complete. If you do that, your approach may differ.

42102 mini Claas, 42092 helicopter, 42075 first responder, 42079 forklift, 42057 hleicopter, 42045 hydroplane, 42049 mine loader, 42032 tracked loader, 42035 dumper, 42021 snowmobile, for me are all examples of good introductory sets but still good Technic sets with a decent function-to-size ratio. Those work best as Technic. But as you may notice, most of them are construction-type vehicles. Cars have "looks" as part of their design much more than construction vehicles, and therefore, naturally lend themselves better to a build style that can focus on looks more, i.e. System. Yes, the Aston Martin was a miss, but in my opinion the Beetle, Mini, Fiat500, Ferrari and Caterham are all very well done, so a lot is possible. ( see https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?pg=2&catString=36&sortBy=Y&sortAsc=D&catType=S ) I guess opinions differ, but I just fear that Technic slides down to becoming a car theme, instead of focusing on the vehicles that lend themselves best to the essence of Technic: those with many moving parts, like loaders, excavators, cranes, and vehicles with suspension and gearboxes. I, after all, find myself buying almost no Technic sets lately, the most recent large set being the Bugatti...

But here's the thing. If there's so little functionality (as 42096), then why make it of Technic elements at all? The reason for studless Tecnic to exist in the first place is because it allows much functionailty in small space. I believe the Mustang creator set 10265 is the example to prove that you can combine basic car functions (steering!) with a good-looking model that is much easier to showcase in a room than these huge 1:8 models. 10265 is basically Model Team. Why not make that a series with modern supercars? I'd buy a Mustang-style Sian in a heartbeat, and I'd expect most car fans to prefer such build style over Technic any day. 10265 just looks miles better (and much more recognizable as Lego to non-FOLs) than any Technic set could do. So, in short: if a model has Technic build style, I find it reasonable to expect it to be packed with functions. Otherwise, there is no need for that build style. And given the focus on cars in Technic, apparenatly there's a market for cars in various scales above Speed Champions. So why not make that a theme? Then, Technic can focus on techniques.

@Sariel's Lego reviews of Technic sets on YouTube often mention the weight of the box, the weight of the final model, and the dimensions of the box. When opening the box, he usually states a percentage for how much the box is filled. Bricklink knows the piece count of most sets. You could put all these numbers together to calculate both the weight and part-count of a 100% full box (ignoring instructions), and convert that to a weight-per-volume. I don't know how the weight-per-volume of Technic compares with that of System.

Indeed, I missed that. Sorry! Looking forward to the rest of your writeup :) I understand that you are missing some things in the review, but I don't really like the tone of this comment. You could have gone for something like this... "Thanks for the review. I am however missing some crucial things. Blabla" Not sure what the dfiference is between my version and yours, but that's then probably just lost in translation over a text-only medium. I didn't intend to hurt anyone's feelings (I never intend to hurt anyone's feelings, ever), but let's say that tone is one aspect of communication I will probably never really understand (over any medium, including real life) ;) I appreciate the well-rounded writeup and good photography, including showing aspects of the build-in-progress. I just wondered why the aspect that is the essense to the theme was missing and therefore I assumed that the review wasn't complete yet, so that's exactly what I wrote, and because I wasn't sure, I added a question mark. That's all. Also, as it turned out, my assumption was correct. So there That said though, this very point highlights the biggest weakness of this whole powered-up drama. What comes in the box, is not the complete package and if we can take any value from this little misunderstanding then it's that it shows what you're missing out on when you don't have the necessary software. The whole part that makes this set Technic falls away if you for whatever reason can't get the necessary app. So that makes this set unsuitable as a present, because you never know if the recipient has the required technology and if it will actually works.

I assume the review isn't complete yet? I mean, Where 's the part on the functionality? I mean, how well does it perform? How's the power, how's the steering, how's the climbing ability? How much of a problem is it that there's no suspension? How much of a playset is it? How well does the cargo bay hold stuff? What is your opinion on the offroad/climbing performance? How easy is it to switch functions between the gearbox? What's the added value of said gearbox? Is it worth sacrificing the suspension for? What do you think about the app? How easy is it to control? Would it have worked better as a manual set with a manual switch?

I'd say it's more likely to be more than less, @I_Igor. The relative speeds of the two axles when they rotate is not constant. If axle A is perpendicular and axle B is diagonal, axle B turns faster, but after 45 degrees, axle A turns faster (in my experience this effect is most noticeable when the 2 knobwheels are in-the same plane). So this means that if the driver axle turns at a constant speed, the "follower" axle turns at a wildly varying speed. If this is part of a longer geartrain, then this can introduce a lot of friction. I would really only use knob wheels if there is any perticular reason for it, for example: the orientation of the axles matters for axles that only need to rotate very slowly or only a little (like steering) if the variable speed of the follower axle is something you actually want If there is no particular reason to use knobwheels, I'd always prefer normal gears.

A differential acts like an averager. The speed of the ring gear is the average of the speeds of the 2 axles that go in. 11/6 is the average of 10/6 and 12/6. So if one axle goes in with a speed of 10/6, and the other goes in with a speed of 12/6, the ring gear should turn at 11/6 times the original. When backdriven, this will be 6/11. 10/6 and 12/6 are both easy ratios.

Never attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained by stupidity... :)

I assume you mean 3.1415929...? Of course, you made good use of the fact that pi is so very close to this particular fraction (355/113). So, the next challenge would be to approximate the golden ratio to the same precision, because that number is specifically known to withstand easy approximation by fractions. For the rest, as always, good job, and as far as I know you're the only person that uses Lego and TeX together in projects. :D

No, we can start our own toy company and do it differently. But yes, we will indeed have to accept that TLC: 1. has guidelines to begin with; 2. tries to follow those guidelines; 3. made a mistake; 4. made some people angry and 5. chooses by themselves to try to fix the mistake. The choice, in the end, lies with toy companies whether or not to release a set, with shop-owners whether-or-not to retail it, and to buyers whether-or-not to buy it.

Liebherr is not a (mostly) military company, and a crane or a mining excavator is not a military vehicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_Group Osprey is (mostly) a military company, and this aircraft is (mostly) a military vehicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey Yes, it's a gray area. But that doesn't mean that you can say nothing about what falls on which side. Again, their statement may not be consistent (you can't be 100% consistent) but at least their statement isn't selfish. Ours is. Nobody loses anything over not having 42113, especially AFOLs. if 42113 where the only Lego available Technic set, you'd be correct. Edit: also, please don't make ungrounded assumptions about my personal surroundings. How and where I live has nothing to do with this discussion, keep it outside of it. Play the ball, not the man. I'd love to see that happen.

To be honest, I'm with the protesters and I really, really don't get the point of this stupid petition here on this forum. Sorry to say but that makes us (where we = Eurobricks) just the same as we make out those German piece association people to be, except that they actually have a point and we don't. We just want to buy plastic pieces. What they say is because this is a licenced set, a third party that is involved in military operations, may receive revenue from a children's toy. This makes it different than sets like 42066, that had no such licence, and is the reason they don't want to market the set. How is that so hard to understand. Yes, there are sets about vehicles used in coal mining. Using that as an argument for 42113's normal release, is a logical fallacy called "whataboutism". "What about 42055?". Is it such an awesome worldchanging set that we can't do without? Come on. We, AFOLs, of all people, are the ones that can design a better Lego aircraft ourselves. We need this set the least of everyone. It's an interesting set, sure, but it's not revoluationary. Please instead of whining, go make your own aircraft, and put in on rebrickable. We can do that. and not a single penny will go to that company. Apparently, this set is against TLC's guidelines. Otherwise they would have issued a statement that it isn't, But they pulled back the set. This means they know they are in the wrong. In my opinion this is a totally stupid move by TLC to even begin producing such a thing without looking into the company they arranged a licence with, and it's about time a group like this stands up against it.

One solution is to control the first and last axle independently, and use a beam to interpolate the intermediate axles. Works like a charm on small models. On large models, probably needs a stronger way to do this.

Smart little model. The engine even being functional is the best surprise of all. Smart part usage using the LA bracket there, and love that little red exhaust pipe. But the whole model looks great and even quite large for the set. The only minor gripe would be the vertical steering wheel, but that doesn't seem fixable in any way. To me, this is what B models should be. Different from the A.

My first thought was, aren't Technic figures roughly this scale? But I measured one and it's about 9 cm in height, so in 1:25 that would be 2,25 meters, which is not very realistic. They're more like 1:20. Also, an obvious problem with them is that there are no girls. What about brick-built figures? They're sure recognized as being Lego, but they may not be as "expressive" as specialty figures, and harder to change/pose. If the proportions of minifigs are off (which I agree!) then maybe friendsfigs (minidolls) are a way out of this. Visually, I personally like those better, however their limited posability is a major downside. The problem with scale is that if you multiply your scale by a factor x, then areas are multiplied by x-squared (x^2 or x*x) and the amount of space it takes is multplied by x-cubed (x^3, or x*x*x). So twice the size means 4 times the area and 8 times the space. The factor for parts will be somehere between 4 and 8, I presume. And yes, I can certainly recognize the idea of being "used" to a particular scale. Will you show a few pictures of some of your builds here?

That same 135-degree elbow part is in the Mickey/Minnie Mouse set in black, 14x if I remember correctly. Seems a useful generic part. Not sure yet what for, but I'm sure people will find all kinds of uses. If anyone knows the radius (inner/axis/outer), that would be useful information.

It was a matter of time before this topic would appear. I found the end axlehole to be a bad idea from when the part was first introduced (and also mentioend this on Eurobricks). The black ones are newer, so they will show the same problems next year... I did expect it to take a bit longer though. I'd say, if the part is not usable anymore, just order a replacement part from TLC. They're still in production, I suppose. If TLC get lots of replacement part requests for this part, I hope they notice the problem.

Does he already have some sets? If not, I'm not sure going with 42082 right away would be good. I mean, it's (almost) the largest set out there. When I got into Technic as a kid, it took a while before I got to the large sets (I was below 12 though). The Ducati motorbike 42107 may seem interesting, with its gearbox, steering, drive and suspension. :)

Kids may be aware they can build other things. B-models provide ideas for such other builds that are possible. I would think that would help less-creative kids. (But I don't know.) Also, I can remember from my own childhood there have been a few sets where I just liked the B-model better (even though they were inferior from an adult's perspective). 8853 and 8856 spring to mind, and universal set 8042. Also, some alternative models strike a chord with parents for wgatever reason, in my case (or rather my mom's case) 8479's buggy. In short, what B models do is that with 10 sets on the shelves, childrens have not 10 but 20 models to choose from. 20 choices in the shelf-space of 10 boxes. There's a topic right now asking whether there is an excavator set in the current lineup. If every set had 2 models, that would have been 2 times as likely.

B models show the concept of part reusage and, I would hope, with all its leftover parts, would give a starting point for people to actually try this "essence" and become aware that this is even an option. Not everyone buying Lego may even cross this thought. But, cynically put, TLC don't want you to reuse parts. They rather sell more new parts.

I 'd say: assume ignorance, not malice. So, you could send a polite message stating you're flattered by the similarities' but would like a little thank-you notice in the form of a credit or even a link. If there's actual bad will, it will show soon enough. Not that it matters much though. In my opinion, the internet is basically the wild-west as far as copyright laws are concerned. So my advice would be, enjoy the flattery and move on back to building.