Erik Leppen

Not sure if sarcastic or not, but I'd say it's doable if you have a good side-view image with not too much perspective. That said, much depends on your level of perfectionism, of course. I'd say it's better to build an imperfect car, learn from that and then start a second model with new knowledge, than spend endless time just looking for the right pictures. I've built lots of very ugly Lego cars in the past. Also @badmad, it is considered good practice on here to start a MOC/WIP topic only if you have something actually built (real or digital) that you can show. Even if it's just a frame or a module (suspension, gearbox, whatever). If it's only reference photos, there is little to see for us. For discussion, there's already a thread :)

Actually the system by @ShaydDeGrai is quite similar to mine. As a child I sorted by color, later I sorted everything by type (colors mixed - I don't have such quantities), which I kept doing for years, but a few years ago I suddently thought "what are all orange pieces I have" and started going back to sorting by color, for things I use by color. Functional parts, such as snot bricks or Technic stuff, is still by type. One main reason for sorting by color for "outside/nonfunctional/shape" parts is that you can get "inspiration" from the variety of parts in a bin. Looking for a red piece in a type-sorted bin only works if you know which red piece you need. When I build in a color, I don't always know which parts I need. I search through the bin and stumble on interesting parts that give me ideas of how to build things. This only works for color-sorted mixed-type bins. So for example I have all my orange System parts divided into only 2 bins - "everything that's rectangular" (i.e. basic bricks, plates, tiles) and "all the rest". For basic colors I sort functional parts by type, because I need them by type (I need "part X" in "any color"), but I still have all slopes by color because I use them by color (I need "a variety of slopes in color X"). To add to that, I have found that - at least I - needed a few iterations of different sorting systems to even find out what works best for me.

My advice would be to first just start building the car :) I sometimes do instructions for my models. It's quite time consuming, yes, but I find it rather enjoyable to do (indeed, @brunojj1 :P ), (although saying tghat, I still have a backlog of a few models that I want to do instructions for), except waiting for LPub3D to do all the rendering (could easily take 30 minutes for all steps of a 1:8 car model). Also, I don't go into depths to create "professional level" instructions. I just put the parts in a sensible order and use submodels. But I never use moving parts with arrows or parts "not yet in place" such as pins or axles that need to be pushed through later. I omit all that. I expect builders to "get" it. Same for strings and some other flexible elements. Those are the most time-consuming. I just skip that. (Fortunately I don't often do pneumatic models). But yeah. To do this at all, you first need a finished model. I'd work on that first :)

My personal experience is that to test the functions, nothing beats the physical build. I use the digital build mostly for planning.

I have read through the discussion diagonally and wanted to mention a few things I feel have not been said up to now. 1. Some here present a false dichotomy between paper vs. digital. There is no "vs.". There is a thrid option: paper instructions sold separately. That way, the paper lovers can go paper, the screen lovers can go screen. Win win. (Of course, this new way would take time for people to get used to, and won't work for the whole world at once.) 2. There's also a false dichotomy between paper and pdf. Of course, if you go digital, then you can use the additional features this offers. That is, 3D instructions, animated instructions, automatic updates for new (one-set or two-set) models, and everything else that can be possible. I would also say that a good user-friendly dedicated animated 3D instructions app is harder to copy by bootleg companies than pdf files or printed stuff. As far as I can see, there's quite a list of arguments either way. Paper instructions cost resources (including shipping all that weight) (and are often used only once) Digital instructions cost electricity (including server costs) (and are often used only once) Paper reading is better for comprehension (it remains a question whether this holds for imagery as well) Digital reading gives access to new presentation mechanisms (point 2 above) (it remains a question whether this can ever be better than paper. Personally I expect that ink-based screens (e-reader-like) would eliminate the difference between screen and paper. For still-based instructions (pdf) color ink-based screens would be perfect. Paper instructions don't "distract". (I'd say "airplane mode", but whatever) Color differences can be harder to read from screen Paper won't ever be "unavailable"; while apps can go offline. (However, we can still read ancient file formats, so pdf won't go anywhere soon.) There's too much screen time in the world already On the other hand, paper instructions cost more physical space to store. Digital storage is practically endless nowadays. I'd prefer to get rid of all that paper. (And while we're at it, all the plastic bags as well.) Yes, I get it, Lego is literally plastic pieces, but these can be used for years so the cost : use ratio is very different.

One suggestion that hasn't been mentioned yet, that may be obvious but maybe not: show your progress in a topic here on the forums. (Many people create a separate topic for each model they create.) That way, you can get feedback that's specific to your build. If you specify in your topic that you're still learning, the feedback on here is often very valuable. (Make sure the topic title starts with [WIP] to indicate it's a work-in-progress). Another thing I want to mention is, to get a sense of scale, what I do is find a picture of the original (often a side view), and use a drawing program (I use paint.net) to draw a grid over the photo where every grid-cell is 1 stud. So measure the wheels in studs, say if they are 10 studs, then draw a 10 x 10 grid over the wheel on your photo and then extend the grid. From there you can get the height (measured in grid-cells, i.e. studs). If you have a frontview photo as well, you can use the height to find out the width of the model. Then count the grid-cells and build a very simple rectangular box that holds the wheels to get a sense of scale/size. Then you know what to work with. I guess this is a complicated version of what Sariels Scaler does automatically, but by doing it by hand I have the idea that I have more control over stuff. By the way, I do this even while I don't want to recreate an existing car, just to get realistic proportions. By the way, I also usually start with axles/suspension/steering/drive, then chassis, gearbox and seats/interior. But whatever approach you choose (all the advice above is super useful) the most important thing is: practice, and have fun doing so :) Start building something, show it on the forums, finish it (this is what new creators sometimes forget to do), evaluate it, learn from it, and use these lessons for future model(s). And all the while, enjoy the journey :)

Environment-wise, I always rather hate those paper instructions, to be honest. I only use them once, and from that moment on, they're waste. The question, of course, is what's actually worse: the download + electricity cost, or the paper + ink + extra shipped weight. But it feels rather wasteful to spend so much trees and ink on a book that's only used once. So personally, I really wouldn't mind to see them go all-digital on instructions. But this is probably an unpopular opinion. There's probably no solution that will keep everyone happy (including the general public). The best I could think of, is: sets are without paper instructions; these are sold separate, and physical stores give the option of borrowing instructions rather than buying them. Like a good old-fashoned library.

I noted on this in the other topic (the one about Sariels video) but I'd say, it is the lack of a physical controller. Using a smartphone means no tactile feedback, and this means you have to look at the controller all the time, instaed of focusing on the model. Given that, what more is it, then, compared to just playing a smartphone game with a digital excavator? (This is exaggerated, but you get the point.) In any case, it means you will have to switch your focus all the time between the controller and the model, which I expect to be very tiring. If you could connect a game controller to it, things will get tons more interesting. Especially if there would be a way to program the controller input. (I don't know if there are peeps from third party electronics who are doing just that?) The other big con, for me is: despite the huge novelty in electronic aspect, there's nothing new in mechanical aspect. Same problem as 8275, but 3x as expensive.

The result of no tactile feedbcak is that to control the machine, you have to look at the controller, instead of at the machine. This means that playing with 42100 will involve a lot of screenwatching, and constantly having to switch your view between controller and machine. I expect this constant switching to be very tiring, much more than when you can constantly look at the machine and feel the controller. This is a problem the good-old PF remotes didn't have. I find this a major downside for Control+, playability-wise. I think this could be solved by creating a controller similar to those used by game-consoles, and then have the smartphone/tablet app act as an interface to programming the hub and controller (linking controller inputs to motor actions), with a pre-programmed setup for each official set.

Thanks for making this super extensive video review. It seems to show most of the features. As for the set itself, I'm still torn between two thoughts. On one hand, it's absolutely amazing, such a large model that works so smoothly and with all those control options. That, and actually having load capacity, after all the complaints about some older sets that looked great in motion but couldn't lift much. On the other hand, it's still a white box on tracks and mechanically not very special. All the unique stuff is in the app and the electronic components, not in the model itself. Motors are directly coupled to functions, so I would way it's boring in the technical way, even though it's very insteresting in the technological way... So one thing I really don't get is how Sariel gives "building experience" max score. It looks like a very longwinded uninteresting build with mostly pins, panels and system bricks. All those details are nice, but they fill the set with more parts and make it more expensive, while getting less Technic for the theme. If I want to build system, I can get to literally any other theme. If I buy Technic, I don't want all the nonfunctional system bits. I get the feeling that half of this set is boxes and railings. If you extend the comparison to the previous RC excavator (8043), it's almost 4 times as many parts, for one extra function. I'd say that 8043 is the (much) more interesting set here. Achieving 6 RC functions in a small package with only 1200 parts and only medium motors, that's an achievement (and a joy to build!). Everyone can get 7 functions out of 4000 parts (and thousands of lines of code) like in this Liebherr. So, I'd say 42100 is impressive, but 8043 is a design marvel. I know what I prefer :) Oh well. It just seems the set is not for me, even though it seems to be for people like me. I just can't see myself spending 400 euros on the electric components, a few new LAs, clutches, 7x11 frames and other new stuff, plus 3800 other parts I already own too many of. Space-wise, it may be a better move to spend part of that 400 euros to just get the new parts, and have some money left to spend on the new parts in the 42110 Defender, including some cool olive green stuff. (By the way, the yellow 3x3 frame is an interesting, if slightly odd, recolor.)

Maybe they wanted to avoid 8t gears? I don't know. I'd say if you want to achieve 1:18, just use 8:40 and then 8:28. By the way, this is what I mean if I say a set is too big for what it does. It makes designers use their space inefficiently.

Hmm. Everyone seems thrilled about this set. Super high ratings also in this review. I'm not sure yet. Visually the color is growing on me, and I really like the dark-tan interior, but I personally find all the boxes and extras just add a lot of fluff that I had rather not seen. Also I can't get over those super ugly fender panels. I somehow still have the feeling that for 2500 parts it's not very function-rich. Even given the neat gearbox. Also, it doesn't do very new things. But maybe I shouldn't expect this, after so many years of Technic. Also, the winch ontrols hdiden under the hood is weird, and for me the tiny engine looks a bit dumb. I'd rather see a 42043 solution with the standard engine parts that may be too large, but do work like actual engines. (Oh well. In a few years, we don't have combustion engines anymore anyway.) It's good to see decent suspension, for once. It has a few interesting parts, but in very low quantities (7x11 frame, blue gear, orange selector, yellow extender). The only interesting thing for me inventory-wise is the olive green parts. It remains to be seen how expensive those will be to bricklink or obtain otherwise... Edit: in any case, thanks for making this extensive review.

For, me, one of the most useful "unknown" parts is 50904, a Bionicle liftarm 8 x 3 x 2. It's one of those parts I wish they'd re-incarnate. https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=50904#T=C&C=86 With the half-width beams it's easy to integrate, with all the axleholes it's usually a strong connection, the central space can be used to host crossblocks or axles with gears, so it's very useful as a frame. I bought 8 on bricklink and keep using them in various MOCs.

My 5-axle crane has a crab steer system. But the axles are not driven, and it has a rather un-orthodox way of achieving it that doesn't scale well. You can check the instructions to see how it's done, but it's basically: the first and last axles are controlled separately, and a beam running below the whole model is used to interpolate the angles for the other axles. It only works for relatively small/light models. https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-8316/ErikLeppen/five-axle-crane On a meeting I once saw a proof-of-concept by someone who used linkages to do a 4-axle steering system using 62.4 tyres, where the 1st and last axle were controlled and the others interpolated. I can't remember who the builder was though...

That's exactly why there's a problem with all those "car" sets. They're just not interesting as Technic sets. That's exacty Jundis his argument. You guys seem to agree on this one. (Yes, there are exceptions. We can all mention interesting car sets or uninteresting non-car sets. It's just that in recent years, there seems to be an abundance of very forgettable car sets.)

Believe me, there's a world of difference between "adults" and "AFOLs". I sometimes create for myself the opportunity to build a set together with my boyfriend and I can tell you: instructions are NOT too easy. I find it, by the way, an enlightening experience to see someone struggle with the instructions. It teaches that something that's totally obvious to me, can be a complete riddle for someone else. Remember, we're the top <0.1%, because we're the people that tried the hobby and chose to stay with it for years. Of all the people, I'd say we're the least qualified to tell how difficult this is. Similar to how one cannot judge a person one is infatuated with normally :)

As far as I know, the new (red) 16t clutch gears do not integrate 100% well with the old (red) 2L driving ring. They are designed to be used with the newer (dark gray) 3L driving ring. The difference is that the new gear has the clutch on both sides, which means the clutch is less than 0.5 stud deep. The old driving ring is designed to move 0.5 studs, which it cannot do with the new gears. Although I don't have the parts at hand right now, so maybe I'm wrong. In any case, the set works fine with the old (gray) gears, if mounted with the hollow side facing the red driving ring. Make sure that all red driving rings can move 0.5 stud both ways, relative to its center position). So there should be no need to order other parts.

Hmm. It would be cool to compare the performance with 9398, and with the 12t-20t pair of gears switched (on both axles, if possible), or replaced by 16t-16t pairs. The one pair shown in the video looks relatively easy to switch around, with only the new 3x3 connector holding it. I'm kind of surprised the video mentions stickers as a pro. I really think they went too far with the stickers here, it looks like this set wants to be something it isn't. Stickers take away from the essence of Lego, which is building bricks. They also make the parts sort-of single-use, which, again, deviates from Lego's raison d'être. Bright orange seems a cool color, but I'd rather have seen this set be bright-green, just to expand that color's parts palette a bit. Now I care little, I won't buy it anyway. The only possible reason to buy for me are the interesting new parts, which I'm sure will appear on BrickLink soon. Anyhow, thanks for making the extensive review :) I think it's a great rundown of all the features.

As always your reviews give a very nice overview of the sets and highlight all aspects. Thanks for making them! I do find both sets a bit weird though. The car transporter looks like a perfect play set for the target audience, but as a build, it seems beyond boring to me. I already thought it felt like beam stacking before all the platforms/panels went on. Sure, it's a nice set and I like that we see something different, but I also think the set would have been better without the trailer and with the ramp just attached to the main truck. Right now, there is a lot of repetition. Also, it doesn't offer much new in terms of parts. I do like the fact it can be used with 42093. The spider crane is also a bit of a wacky model. It feels like an experiment, it's so different from other sets (for me, that's a plus). And it's not even that small a set. In a way, I like it a lot. But I am disappointed that the outriggers are not linked (not even in pairs), and that there's so many functions whose controls are so close to the operation that it almost doesn't count as functions. That the outriggers are so flimsy is a shame, but I think would be hard to fix. Although all those linkages with infinite amounts of 2x4 L beams certainly don't help. In any case, I'm triggered to try building a spider crane MOC some day, to see if I could do better :)

It's not an odd one out. 8z mates with old worm if distance is 1.0 stud, i.e. (8 + 8) / 16 16z mates with old worm if distance is 1.5 stud, i.e. (16 + 8) / 16 24z mates with old worm if distance is 2.0 stud, i.e. (24 + 8) / 16 32z mates with old worm if distance is 2.5 stud, i.e. (32 + 8) / 16 (doesn't exist) 40z mates with old worm if distance is 3.0 stud, i.e. (40 + 8) / 16 48z mates with old worm if distance is 3.5 stud, i.e. (48 + 8) / 16 (doesn't exist) 56z mates with old worm if distance is 5.0 stud, i.e. (56 + 8) / 16 (old turntable) and 12z mates with new worm if distance is 1.5 stud, i.e. (12 + 12) / 16 20z mates with new worm if distance is 2.0 stud, i.e. (20 + 12) / 16 28z mates with new worm if distance is 2.5 stud, i.e. (28 + 12) / 16 36z mates with new worm if distance is 3.0 stud, i.e. (36 + 12) / 16 44z mates with new worm if distance is 3.5 stud, i.e. (44 + 12) / 16 (doesn't exist) 52z mates with new worm if distance is 4.0 stud, i.e. (52 + 12) / 16 (doesn't exist) 60z mates with new worm if distance is 4.5 stud, i.e. (60 + 12) / 16 (new turntable) This is because two gears of A and B teeth can mesh if the distance between the centers of the axles is (A + B) / 16. And the old worm has the same radius as the 8z and the new worm has the same radius of the 12z. There interesting thing for an inline mesh (with paralle axles) is that if A + B is given, A and B can be varied. So if 20t + 20t can mesh, then for the same axle setup, so can any other combination whose sum is 40, which is 16t + 24t, and 12t + 28t (and 8t + 32t if such a gear will ever exist). Therefore, it doesn't susprise me that 28t + 16t is a bad mesh. it's the same as the 20t + 24t we saw in the Chiron reverse gear, which got some critique. Edit: Personally, I'm especially happy with the mesh of the 28t with the 8t, where previously 24t-12t had to be used. That makes it possible to achieve much greater reductions over that specific distance (2 sideways, 1 up).

My guess is, transparent printed panels 1x4x3. Edit: great minds think alike

They don't fit the design language of the other panels. All the asymmetric (numbered) panels have the same design language. The shell panels (2x3x11, 2x3x7) fit nicely with those. The flat panels (3x11, 5x11, trapezium) have a slightly different design (with the stripes), but I can make them work together. The Porsche arch is a bit of a odd one out, but 3 sets so far have shown it can flow well with existing panels. The 2x3x9 variant used in the Chevrolet can also work well with the rest. But this new panel has totally new shapes that are catered to Land Rover more than to the Lego parts catalog. It doesn't look like a Lego part, because it's unlike all other Lego parts. And because the wheel arches are so prominent, the model doesn't look Lego-y enough. Also, I imagine it would have been much more useful to break it into 4 smaller sub-parts, that are similar in size/shape to 8x3x2 wedges (https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemPic.asp?P=41750). Or, better yet, try to replicate the shape with existing parts, even system parts such as that 8x3x2 wedge. That would make it less Land Rover-ish (and more parts), but more Lego-ish.

Having seen the photo's, the first thought was: that wheel arch has got to be the ugliest panel so far in the whole lineup. How's that gonna be useful for anything else than Land Rover wheel arches? At least the Porsche wheel arches can sit flush with beams at the bottom ends. I don't see how this one can be built into a model. Also, again a new color? I mean, I like 42039, but I haven't used the parts much yet, and it's been 4 years... Also the tires are too thin and wide, and the rims too large. For me, it detracts from the model. If they're going all the way, why not go all the way? Let's hope the technical functions are up to par, because personally I'm not convinced by the looks so far. Especially that horrid wheel arch. I thought Lego was about using existing parts to build cool stuff? Apparently, realistic looks and single-use parts are prefered above a sensible interlocking bricks system. Woe the designer if people can see that it's a Lego set.

Indeed, those extra half-stud-width rings on both sides of the official sprocket seem to have little function, and your explanation on the disadvantages is very clear. I hope Lego one day adopt your improvement. I'm actualy kind of surprised it works so well with the wedge-belt wheels, since you rely on friction alone there. Edit: I'm very purist, and I can stand 100% behind your argumentation above.

Yeah, I use that one sometimes. Mostly in double-size, so as a 4-8-9 triangle. Especially as the 5x9 double-bent beam can act as the "4-8" part. This is very easy to test: put an axle in both axleholes of a 5x9 double bent beam and you can slide an 11L or longer beam over both axles. It's basically the same triangle as the one used to mesh a 16t gear with a 20t gear. 2 studs aside, 1 stud up, hypotenuse 2.25, which is half the size of your triangle. (In general in Lego Technic, the distance between the centers of the axles of two meshing gears is 1/16 times the total number of teeth on those 2 gears. So 1/16 x (16 + 20), which is 2.25) Similarly, 4-7-8 is also possible (or 2 - 3.5 - 4).