Erik Leppen

Apparently. I think the most likely candidate is bright light orange. There have been Technic parts before in that color.

Finally. That part was a long-standing omission in part availability. But it's funny how often we see new Technic recolors first appear in non-Technic sets. Lime cross block 3L in another Speed Champions Porsche, in exactly the same configuration as this white one White inline axle joiner 2L in the latest Modular Building Yellow angle connector #2 in Emmet's Tricycle

I expect it's at both ends of one of those tubes that are used to connect pneumatic hoses. Nothing new, I think.

This will be a fun theme. Quite out of the box. I'm expecting some really novel entries, excited to see what people will come up with. I myself don't have something spring to mind right now (hmm, maybe I do), but we'll see :) Have fun everyone!

I think that's the problem with things that are based on trust. If 999 people follow it and act nicely, and 1 doesn't, you're still screwed.

The old worm is the one you use (that has different types, with different axleholes, indeed). The new worm is the one @Doug72 uses and @XtremeBuilder linked to.

For gears, the radius is 1/16 times the number of teeth. The old turntable has 56 teeth, so has a radius of 56/16 = 3.5. The new turntable has 60 teeth, so has a radius of 60/16 = 3.75. For worms, the radius is as follows: The old worm has the same radius as the 8t gear, which is 8/16 = 0.5 The new worm has the same radius as the 12t gear, which is 12/16 = 0.75 So: The old turntable can be driven with the old worm with a distance of 3.5 + 0.5 = 4 studs. The new turntable can be driven with the new worm with a distance of 3.75 + 0.75 = 4.5 studs. Therefore, you need to use a half-stud offset. Of course, there are other ways. For example you can use a 20t gear (radius 20/16 = 1.25) in between the worm and the turntable. Then, worm-gear is 0.75 + 1.25 = 2, and gear-turntable is 1.25 + 3.75 = 5, both of which are convenient (whole) numbers. However, the 20t then isn't secured and can slide off. Or you use the bevel ring of the turntable and use new worm-20t and then 12t-turntable in a 90 degree angle. But the 90-degree angle may be slightly weaker too.

I'm not sure that my stance on it is what you'd wanted to hear, but I think the best way to win is by not fighting. Your most valuable resource is time. Use it on things you enjoy. What these idiots do is drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. All it would likely do is make you angry. That's not good use of your time and energy :) In these cases, sticking your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist, may be the least bad option afterall. It sucks, big time, but I think any other option sucks as well. They've now taken your potential revenue. Don't let them take your time as well.

I already have snapped beams 5 x 0.5 with axle hole ends. And this is a relatively new part. And I even have some snapped axle holes on some old 4x6 and 5x9 bent beams. Unfortunately, all similarly-designed axle holes have this (those of bushes/connectors, and those at the ends of beams). To be honest, this is one aspect I really dislike about those new 11x11 quarter circle gear racks.

Technically I think you're right about the center diff. However I think it does make things more complicated, and I don't see the space for it right now. 55 minutes ago, BrickbyBrickTechnic said: This is good to know! Thanks for the advice (as well as your other points (not quoted)) I think I place it somewhere where normally he V8 would go, and put the V8 above the front axle. It's not ideal, but I think from a Lego model perspective, it's the most sensible option. Also good point about the sideways bend, even though a large lift capacity is not one of my wishes. It remains to be seen how long and heavy the boom will be. As for modularity: the outrigger sets will be easily separable, and the superstructure is also an obvious one to make modular. Thanks :)

Since 42082, I'm seeing a few all-terrain crane MOCs on the forums, and I thought, it's something I haven't built yet and it sounds like a fun challenge, so I thought I'd give it a try as well. I'll be using the same wheels as 42082, so the scale is similar, but I'm not basing my model on a specific real-life model. Here's the first WIP: The base is as short as possible given the wheels and turntable ring. The wheelbase is 2 studs shorter than 42082, which I think is good. It is a bit wider though, but this is needed to accommodate the steering modes. As you can see, its a bit of a weird color combo. As I only have the banana gears (11x11 quarter-circle gear racks) in yellow, I'm kind of stuck with that color, so I decided to use yellow for the wheels too. As I find yellow by itself a boring color for a crane, I tried to find a second color to match with it that's preferably not red or black or gray. I think orange is unusual enough, and also readily available in my collection. I think, like with 42082, I'll be using black as a filler color. I want to do a similar setup with motorization as 42082: have one motor and a switchbox in the superstructure, and control at least the following functions: boom up/down winch boom extend superstructure swivel outriggers (one degree of freedom) Also I want the following manual functions: outriggers (second degree of freedom) fake engine steering (with steering modes as in 42054) I copy the same mechanism 42054 uses for the steering modes. So that won't be very original, but it proved hard to squeeze it in the rather limited space available. The bottom view shows there's no center diff. I don't think it's needed. Also, there is no suspension. Also, as the steering selector is in the rear, I expect the V8 fake engine to take place at the front. Here's a top view without the wheel arches and turntable ring, that hopefully shows the steering linkage. The black beam that slides on the two parallel yellow axles is the steering mode selector. The 24t gear on top controls the steering, through the turntable. This means that the outriggers wll have to be the second function to go through the turntable. The long red axle sticing out the left runs all the way through to the right and will conect to the outriggers. Also, I want to make sure there is a large ground clearance. I hope this side view image shows a bit of that. Also i focused on having a simple strong chassis, which is basically a 5-stud-high box of parallel long beams (13 + 15 + 13) connected by 5 x 7 frames and dogbones. It's a bit hard to see with all the black though. Also I tried to make a strong base for the turntable ring (see above). I think the last bit of interest is the outriggers module. I wanted something that's a bit different, and I know there are cranes with angled outriggers, so I tried to recreate that. I think it looks quite cool and unique. It's not an exact fit, but it works well enough. The idea is that the extending with the gearracks will be motorized, and some kind of footer at the end will be manual. The red axle drives the whole thing. The 8 red bush-pins connect the module to the chassis. I hope to keep it a modular build like this. Next steps will be the base of the superstructure, and see if I can find a way to add the motor and switchbox.

It's a super nice model you made. I like the different solutions for the front and rear steering, and the unusual shape. The yellow/white color works well here too. I also like how you kept it relatively narrow despite the wide wheels. That gives you only a small space to work with for the functionality. The flashing lights are a nice touch and the shaping/paneling is very nice. Also, the bed has quite a good range despite only using LAs. So, nice job! Also, I stored the reference photos in my Lego build inspiration folder :)

I'm not saying you did. I was merely re-iterating some things that have been said around the time the set was announced/released which Idris may not be aware of, but that explains why he got some comments on that. I was merely explaining :) Except the price, I think it's a decent build as well. Not perfect, but pretty OK.

I think what @sirslayer means is that the current electrical system (PF, Power Functions) will be replaced by a new system, called Powered Up. So the current PF will indeed be phased out. There will still be motors and all the stuff, but they're new designs, and probably new wires too, so probably not compatible with current PF...

Interestingly, 42070 got a lot of hate on the community, for various reasons: It has no suspension. Yes, it has pendular rear axles, but the front axle is fixed an there are no springs. So offroad capacity is actually quite limited. On uneven terrain, it happens a lot that one wheel is not touching the ground. And because of the differentials, if one wheel is off the ground, all the power goes to that wheel and the truck won't move. It looks ugly, so the first impressions were quite bad. And first impressions are hard to overcome... It makes little sense to have a RC model, with a manual switch for the functions. It was very expensive (very high price-per-piece ratio) So it's not the most beloved set around here. You can't compare a Lego set to a RC set, because a Lego set consists of generic-shaped plastic pieces. Believe me - the limit to the strength of a lego crane is NOT its string. It's the plastic pieces that can't handle forces like that. Try to lift 25 kg (which is a 7-year old child by the way) with a solid metal beam. The forces at play will become huge multiples of that. If you lift anything with a Lego crane, a multiple of that weight would go through the axle that holds the linear actuator that holds the boom up. All that force would sit on that axle, and the axle would simply break. If it were replaced by a steel axle, it would simply carve through the holes of the beam when rotating. If the beams would be metal as well, it's not really Lego anymore, it's Meccano, and of course, with 25kg on the hook, your 4kg crane simply falls over

Thanks for the correction @Maaboo35. Didn't know 8295 had one too.

This is actually one of my favorite Technic parts. It's a frame avant la lettre :) The only problem with it is that when I use it in a model, and then create instructions for that model, then many people cannot rebuild my model because its a rare out-of-production Bionicle part. The mold for the part is probably long gone... That LA bracket thing you showed is also super rare (it was only used in one set), and costs 6 euro used, so not an option. The 2x2x2 cross block is brilliant, but if its pinhole is pinned to a beam, it blocks the holes adjacent to the pinhole.

I think you're correct that the 4-axle steering would indeed be quite cool. The reason I still think it would be less interesting, is becuase you'll lose the switchboxes that control the functions. In the current model, all functions are driven from he same motor, so everything is connected. There is a whole drivetrain rom the motor to the crane functions, including those marvellous outriggers and it has to be designed so that a single motor can do all that work. If you can just put a motor directly at each function, you'd lose this connectivity, and to me, it then feels like a model becomes a bunch of seperate functional modules clicked together. But this is very much personal taste. I don't "play" with my models after I built them, so I care relatively little about that.

Isn't that Netherlands-only? I think for trading Lego, the one site that you should really familiarize yourself with, is mentioned by @letsbuild, Bricklink. It's basically a worldwide Lego-specific marketplace website. In the top search bar, type a set number, then on the dropdown that appears, click the set, and you will get to the Catalog page of the set, with some practical info such as year, size and part inventory. Then, use the link "View price guide" to find sellers for New and Used copies of the set. I know it's possible to genearte a list of sellers in your country, but you might need to register an account for that. Most sellers are AFOLs though, who usually know the value of a set very well, so if a set is highly valued, prepare for a big pricetag. Cheapest New 42030 right now is about €250. But, in my experience, Used is most often very good state :)

I would hate to see a development in that direction. If 42009 were as you said, not only would the technical prowess go down, the price would go through the roof. For me, Technic, above all else, is about functionality. It's not about remote control. Remote control is cool and it's good that there are some RC sets, but they're not the essence of the theme. I'd happily let the AFOLs create the wonderful RC masterpieces :) Also, I personally consider a set like 42030 to be rather boring. It's surely very playable, yes, and looks great, but I don't think it's very interesting to build. Also, I think it's too large. I would absolutely prefer 8265, which is rather functional for its size, looks cool too, and also allows motorization. For me, a good set that demonstrates what Technic is about, is 42075. It has steering, drive, rear suspension, winch, and a deployable light beacon thing, moveable doors and hood, all in a relatively small space, without any bloat that makes it more expensive than needed.

You should really read it. It has a really good point. RC tends to come in the place of realistic functions. I'd say that RC is a play thing, not a build thing. The tracked racers sets are prime example of this. For large sets, I prefer the single-motor -> switchbox approach that 42082 takes. While @allanp seems to focus on realism (authenticity) of functionality, I'm more on the complexity and interestingness side of things. I actually care little whether a function is realistic. As long as there's some inventiveness and some interesting and new solutions, or if a lot of functions happen in a small space. 8043 is a good example of a relatively small set with lots of functions, and it still looks great. It may not be realistic to have such a switchbox, but it's a very playable model that's also, to me, very interesting to build. I have the same thing with LAs. They may not be realistic in a sense, but they're a nice way to "emulate" what would be a hydraulic cylinder but driven by a motor. Their precise controllability can be an advantage that pneumatics lack. Pneumatics on the other hand, are more realistic in the way they work, (and therefore more educational) and have other benefits such as speed, and not needing a geared driving axle so easier to use in remote places of a model. I think there should be more sets featuring pneumatics.

I can't remember every having come across a need for that part (3 x 2 T beam). I have come across the need for a 3 x 2 L beam various times though. Where the 3 x 3 T beam didn't fit, and the 2 x 4 L beam is too long. But in the end, I was always able to find a solution using existing parts. There is another part I would like to have though. I can't count the times I wished it'd exist.

A lot depends on what exactly is meant by "hard". I mean, every set comes with instructions that tell you exactly how to build them. Therefore, there can be 2 difficulties: 1. interpreting the instructions, and 2. actually assembling the parts. For 1. old sets usually win, because they take much bigger steps, and don't split the model into sensible sub-assemblies, so there's no "sense" in what you're doing. In new sets, you usually work at one thing at a time. In many old studded sets, you build many mechanisms in parallel, depending on how they happen to come up in the model. I fondly remember how 8448 broke with this habit and took the modular approach. Another thing about instructions is that I often find instructions about routing pneumatic hoses and electric wires, relatively hard to decipher. For 2. what is hard, depends on motor skills (and finger size). The only things I personally find hard to do is tying knots in strings, and applying stickers. Also, the new pneumatic hoses are stiffer than the old ones, and I read that the crane of 42043 was a particularly hard-to-build sub-assembly. I never built 8455, but 8868 had a lot of pneumatics in a tight space too.

The search engine of the site seems to be usually rather limited, but here's a thing you should do: Google the phrase "most difficult technic set site:eurobricks.com" (without the quotes) and you'll be presented lots of cool interesting topics about this. There's a LOT of good stuff already written. Such as: https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/148789-hardest-technic-set-to-build/ https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/112752-what-was-your-most-difficult-building-experience/ https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/38198-what-is-the-hardest-lego-set-you-have-ever-built/ https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/104656-are-technic-sets-getting-less-complex/

I think you're adding where you should be subtracting. On the left of the attached image is your suggestion (gray is the shape of a pinhole); on the right is its cross-section, which, as you can see, proves that your part falls apart into 2 separate parts. Remember: axleholes don't have this recess, only pinholes do, so axles can't have ridges. Check your axle pins :) It would work with a pin, and to be honest, a "pinhole-with-inline-pin" would be a nice part to work as a "pin extender" of some sort. In fact, I drew this on my "wish parts" brickshelf folder in 2009 :) But to be honest, I still think that with all the recent small parts, the Technic pin collection feels rather complete now and has now come to a point where I think it shouldn't be extended further.