Erik Leppen

You cannot have an axle in-line with a pinhole. There's no room to connect the two. You can have a pin in-line with a pinhole, because there's a small ridge in pinholes. The current 3L pin with bush makes use of this, and I think it would also work with a pinhole instead of the bush. Other than that, I think we have enough pins for now. Adding ever more such parts would only confuse the matter, I think. I'd rather see a few new thin liftarms :)

I imagine the new frames not to stand on themselves when supporting a structure. They can act as a base, and then be reinforced by other parts, such as smaller frames, dogbones, 3x5 L beams, diagonals, etc. As for MOCs being assembled: I disassemble quite quickly; I never have more than 3 models standing at once; and my MOCs are usually around 3000 parts each (at most). For exxample I'm currently redoing my latest mobile crane WIP, which is similar in size to 42009, and so far, uses one 5x11 frame, and five 5x7. (The reason for the low number is that I use studded beams for the chassis). For some reason, those 4x6 beams are parts I find myself often using way less than I own. I'm often surprised how many they come in sets, but I find them a bit unwieldy to use. If I want to support a 5-tall structure, I more often resort to 5x9 double-bent beams, or dogbones, or 3x5 beams. The 4x6 beam is rarely my best option, even though I know that triangles are often the way to go. The problem I often have with the part, is that it leaves a fairly long diagonal section with 4 holes that are "off-grid", yet the diagonal covers a lot of "unit cubes" that then can't be occupied by other parts anymore (so it's more useful in more "open" areas). Also, the final axle hole on the long end is rotated, which disallows connection to other beams with crossholes there (such as 5x9 double-bent). They're super handy to put things at angles, such as wheel arches, but for structural purposes, if I have the option to stay "on the grid" I usually prefer that. And I find that 3x5 dogbones are often super useful structural parts.

I don't know. It feels to me that the ability to drive many functions at the same time, is kind of the whole purpose of control+. If you look at PF sets, those that are remote-controlled tend to have multiple motors; each driving a single function (with some exceptions, e.g. 8043 or 42070). 8275 and 42030 come to mind. I'd say that sets that have those gearboxes, benefit relatively little from control+. They just use the motor as a replacement for endless knob operation.

Longer isn't the same as better. The building process of the Chiron was longer than any set I built before, but it was also worse than any set I built before.

Interestingly, I use 5x11 frames much less than 5x7 frames. In some cases, the extra 2L bits often have the holes facing the other way than I want them. The closed rectangle shape without the sticky-outy bits somehow feels more logical in most situations. One of my mobile cranes has a chassis made up of a bunch of 5x7s in a row. Also, the closed rectangle shape often is more versatile to place in all kinds of directions, also because, similar to bent liftarms, they have perpendicular holes in the corners. In many cases for example, the 5x11 is used horizontally, but the 5x7 is used in all three planes. These are a few of the reasons why I really want those new 7x11 and 11x15 frames, even though I have no direct use for them yet. They have the same design as the 5x7, but as they are larger, they will probably take up less space compared to the distance they cover. Two really good uses for the 5x11 are: differential case ( @suffocation mentioned it already) connector for turntables In these cases they can be better than 5x11 because the added ends enable to connect long beams to create a 1-stud-tall structure that holds the diff or turntable really rigid and provide access points in 3 directions. The other way a 5x11 is vey useful is when you need the end holes to be in that direction. Having 2 adjacent parallel holes also allows a lot of connections with all kinds of useful smaller parts, such as 2x4 L beams. In a WIP I haven't posted about yet, I used them like this and used these 2 last holes to add a connection with 3x3 T beams. But you also notice the holes on the other end are not used. I don't know. I have about 12, and I'm actually never short of them. Also, they have one side with the small cutouts from the molding process, where the inner edges are really thin, which is kind of a weakspot that somehow the 5x7 doesn't have.

I am inclined to agree with @Cumulonimbus, to be honest. Whether I buy this, will depend on the new parts and motors and stuff, how much it will cost to get the parts I want another way, and whether that difference justifies getting the set instead (and get another 3800 parts I already own). I think the sweet spot for nice detailed sets lies around 8110 Unimog, 42054 Claas, 42043 Arocs. So about 2500 parts max. It all depends of course on how the space is used, but I'd say a set is too large if you can have the same functionality (for the same subject matter) in a smaller set. 8043 is a great example of how a modest-sized set can be a technical masterpiece and very functional and playable, and look good as well. As weight is proportional to size^3, let's say number of parts is proportional to size^2.5. A factor 1.5 increase in size will then yield a factor 1.5 ^ 2.5 = 2.75... so almost 3 times as many parts. So maybe I should take on the challenge of building such a machine in a slightly smaller scale. E.g. using the 10-tooth sprockets, and using the normal LAs.

Well, the best way, by far, to encourage TLC, is to buy this set...

Is this Spike set real? I expect so. It contains the same frame part that some forummers here have spotted on the 42100 Liebherr excavator, but in pink (probably magenta?). It definitely contains som very interesting parts. Interesting in particular is the large (11x15?) frame. I want it, along with the 7x11 from the Liebherr. Even if it's medium azure. The gray gear looks like an actual gear to me for 3 reasons: it's gray. The 28t turntable has a black gear. it seems to have a bevel on both sides, like the 12 and 20 tooth double-bevel gear. The turntable's gears have a bevel on only 1 side. if it's a turntable, it has 2 connectors on each side; one side would then have to be inside the motor. You can spot the same gray gear also in the picture that shows the azure 11x15 frame and the boy holding the tablet with some kind of interface. The gray gear is behind the transparent 6x6 dish.

If I'm honest, I'm not sure if I like the white bodywork. It looks like it sits very high off the ground, almost like a buggy. This is probably because of the black bottom edge. It also looks like there's a bend in the middle, between the two white 5x11x2 panels. I'm not sure about the mix between panels on the side, and flex axles above the wheels. Also, with the black rims, the wheels are a large black area with nothing to break the blackness, which makes the wheelarches look even bigger than they already are. (too big wheel arches are a known problem in Technic cars that's very hard to solve) A colored line on the rim, as with the Bugatti, would have broken the blackness of the wheel areas. Most of the problem, I think, is caused by the black underside + rims, the dark shadows, and the lighting in the video. But it might also be just me needing some time to get used to the bodywork. The other thing I'm not sure about is the windcreen and side windows. The real car probably has curved windows, and because these are understandably left out, it feels like something is missing; especially on the side view. Maybe you could have taken the approach of Jurgen Krooshoop's Koenigsegg, which uses a beam through the center of the windscreen. ---- Other than those two bits, everything looks stunning. For me the problem only occurs in the side view; I love the front and rear views. I really like the color scheme with its 2 tones of blue, and how the dark-blue is rather subtle together with the black. The blue is used best on the rear I think. I also really like how the whole car opens up, so that only a rather bare-bones frame remains, with all the technical bits and freebles exposed. All the engine detailing is brilliant, the usage of gold pieces there. The rear window part with all the angles to create the round shape is very well done. Also, the interior looks splendid, and the adjustable seats are a really nice bonus. How are these powered? The coolest function to me are those flaps that move along with the steering. Brilliant, and must have been a real head scratcher to design. Overall it looks like a brilliant model, both technically and aesthetically. Well done and thanks for making this!

Yes, that would be great. But there is no hint of that. So let's not speculate. We're getting bigger frames (7x11 in white) which is already an awesome new beam-like part that would help us creating stronger structures. :) I also expect the turntable to just be the standard 60-tooth version we know for a few years now. If aided by 4 banana gears, we know it can handle a lot :)

I don't know how much thickness (and weight) you're willing to add to your model, but have you considered building sideways? Using bricks 1 x 1 with stud on their side, put the sideways stud in the bottom of the plate. The upward-facing side is then the side of the brick, which is flat. The bottom and top of the 1x1 brick are then facing sideways, so you can then stack bricks, plates, tiles all sideways to end up with a smooth surface, and even use curved slopes and cheese-slopes for some angles and curves.

I think this is a really good point. I'm not an aircraft guy but I still found some type of aircraft I found interesting to build. If the contest focuses on a single machine (say, the excavator) then people who don't care about excavators have little choice but wait for the next contest. I really like this idea too. It fits right in the typical range of Technic builds (vehicles) but challenges people to build something most of us usually don't. Also, it shows the vast variety of vehicle types, which may inspire people with new build ideas to try out after the contest is over. Also, I immediately get some ideas of things to build. Which is a good sign. The only thing I'm not sure about is the rule "anything that has not been a set 3 or more times", because that may require people to browse through the history of Technic sets, or open a discussion about what category a certain vehicle is. What if someone thinks there has been only 2 fire trucks, and builds a fire truck, and then someone comes along saying that 8280, 8289, 8454 and 42068 are all fire trucks? Then you get a discussion about whether "airport firetruck" is a separate category or not. This is only 1 example but I'm sure such discussions will pop up sooner or later. So maybe just make an explicit list of excluded types, and leave all the rest open.

I would hate to do a contest where the point is to have a mechanism with "pointless steps" (a.k.a. Rube Goldberg) - I think thinking about how to make things efficient is more interesting than thinking about how to make things deliberately inefficient. But the idea of having a specific end task and then building a device executing that task, sounds very interesting and could result in some neat and original builds. But what kinds of tasks are people thinking of? Pick up an object from the floor and put it on a table, 80 cm higher (but without the machine be 80 cm tall) Pick up three objects and put them down in a different order Hold a pen and draw some interesting shape on a piece of paper Pick up a bin full of black 2L pins and empty it in another bin Is this the direction of thought? What kind of "tasks" did other people have in mind? Maybe, given the above list, the task shouldn't be predefined, but chooseable by each entrant. That would give an even greater variety of entries, and people can go really wild in their ideas. The competition would then be "think of any arbitrary little task, and build a machine that executes it". And then with the rule suggested above that it needs to do in one go, within one minute. And then give a list of ideas to set the general "scope", but without it being a hard limit. I think that could be really fun.

I like the creative use of the wheel-arch parts to form the monocoque. (and there seems to be a third one at the rear too). The panelling of the car seems nicely filled up. The wheels look a bit small on the car, but little things like that are inherent to building one-set alternatives. I like it :)

Noone would advise a Bach piece as someone's first piano piece to practice. Why do people advise sets likte 42055 or 42082 to someone who says they want to start with Technic? Technic building, like piano playing, requires practice. You need to "learn the language", so to speak. First, practice "reading" how to work with beams, gears, pins, axles, etc. (that is, build sets from instruction). Later on, practice "writing" with those elements (i.e. build your own stuff and see what comes out). I think the advice to @mlluell, or to anyone starting out for that matter, is very simple. Get a small set. Which set? Any set that speaks to your interest. I think if people advise, they do so from their own interests, which aren't necessarily the same as the topic starter's interests. You like boats? Get a boat. You like trucks? Get a truck. Etc. There's a good enough variety currently on offer, so I'd just go to your local toy store and pick something you like. Starting small is mostly a way to limit the damage in the case this Technic thing isn't what you expected. Also, let's not forget that to someone who has never done it, Technic building is harder than many experience builders may think. I sometimes build Creator sets together with my boyfriend and I notice the difference between us in how quickly we read instructions and translate them to the model-in-progress in our hands.

I just read your post three times nerdsforprez, only to realize that you are completely correct. I voiced my opinion on this, but in fact, my opinion on this doesn't matter. Actually, this is simply not a topic for me :) In retrospect, I was actually pulling a Stop having fun that derailed the discussion. So, sorry for interrupting. I do not retract my comments, but I do stand corrected. Thanks for expressing your thoughts here, @nerdsforprez.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say you had to change your model. I said it wrong, sorry. What I was trying to say was that building in another color would circumvent the need to modify parts, so in the current state it's rather easy to "fix". But it only needs fixing if you see it as a problem - which I do, but you don't. And it's your model, so it's your choice :) That's correct. To me, limiting myself to existing parts is the essence of this hobby. For me, limitations spark creativity. Sticking to what already exists, is the simplest limitation I can think of. The challenge I enjoy most, is to find what can be done with the existing inventory of parts/colors. If the challenge you enjoy most is something else, that's fine of course :)

I'm not supporting this. Make your truck another color. One in which all the parts you need actually exist. White, red, orange; dark azure: all these colors have both the 7x5x2 and the 11x5x2 panels available, and of those colors, white also has the 3x4x5 panel. My problem with it is, if you allow yourself doing this for aesthetic purposes, how can any of us trust you that you aren't doing this elsewhere for functional purposes. Until the part actually exists, it's not a pure Lego build anymore, because the idea of Lego (or, one of the ideas, to me) is that it's always reversible, and cutting is not reversible. Cut a part into an existing part: fine, but creating new parts: not in my book. Cutting a 12L into an 11L axle is fine to me, since 11L axles exist, unless you are using the fact that it is another color than those that exist (yellow and gray). Also, if you've made the jump once, the barrier towards more serious modifications becomes lower. You might one day decide to need a 13L axle and thereby create a build that can't be replicated by others. This would be fine to me, since the axle 3 with stop exists, so you're not creating a new part. At most you're creating a recolor, but for those parts the color usually doesn't matter. So this doesn't hinder the re-buildability of a model by others. Yes, I know it has the "heresy" in the topic title, and I clicked it anyway, but I still wanted to voice my stance on this, since I personally find the community to be too lenient on such modifications and therefore wanted to make a case for the other side of the argument :)

Duplo? Juniors? Maybe City (don't know how much attention that gets on the forums)? Those are, I think, the themes that get people into the hobby, after all.

All this from just two sets (mostly) I like the color distribution of the first bike, with the red front. Doing the color right is hard enough, especially with limited parts. With this one, it just looks perfect with the duocolor scheme. I like the sideways engine and there seems to be a lot of complexity going on in that gearbox. How many gears does it have, how does it work, and what are the moving parts? I see a lot of levers, what are they for? Also, do I see correctly that the gearbox is actually operated by the left foot pedal? I know nothing about motorcycle terminology, but I always find those one-sided suspension arms pretty cool. I'd imagine it's hard to keep it strong with the asymmetrical forces. That it becomes bulkier than you'd want to, is something you often can't get around in Lego. That's the limitation of the medium. And motorcycles are hard already because of the limited space and weird geometry. In the second bike I like all the unusual angles going on in the frame. Also, dark gray is the perfect color - neutral, but not too dark for photographing. The only thing you should really do next time is remove the dust before taking the pictures. Some parts are rather dusty ;)

4: 10 13: 6 8: 4 7: 3 6: 2 18: 1 It was sure hard to pick a top six this time. Really a LOT of cool stuff has been built, and the variety of it is so great. Some very original entries. Some are even C models. Lots of great planes and helicopters and other flying stuff, but I somehow get drawn to the more unusual entries. Well done to all!

Not sure where to add this, but … @vitreolum : you didn't use the correct formatting for your vote. It must be entry number : points. I presume Jim is running some kind of script or other quick method to count the votes. At least, that's what I suspect given the strict voting formatting rule :) Also, how much time is there to vote? I didn't have time in February due to another hobby, but as the month is almost done, I can make some time to look at all the videos and cast a vote. Just not sure yet when I have time.

I have the idea the car looks larger (mostly longer) than previous cars in the Expert series. Is this a feeling you have as well @Sariel? I know your video shows a comparison with the Mini and Ferrari, but did you have a similar thought when building it? It also looks to be 16 wide, where previous cars were mostly 14 wide. I think it's that bit of extra width that made the steering possible. Also, about the rims. I really love how TLC doing a real car together with a real car manufacturer, the wish for steering led to the design of an element that fans craved for for so long - wheels with deeper rims to allow the space for steering. I think we all know the complaints about huge wheel arches. So I really hope they'll show up in other sets. I read elsewhere that the Ferrari rims were licenced to be unique to their respective sets, do you think this rim is generic enough to be reused in other sets? Especially as it is a very generic rim size (as your video shows)? Also, this is the first time you gave perfect score, right? You have given some pretty high scores in the past, but never 35/35. Do you keep a list of scores somewhere, so you can ceep track of high/low scores, or trends, or averages per category, etc.? Just wondering :)

Wanted to check out if the set actually had steering. Ended up watching the whole video. Thanks for making it. The set will be a sure purchase from me, and maybe my brother will get one as well. I really really hope this sells like hotcakes, to prove there's demand for these good-looking and functional Creator cars. Nice surprise for me is that it has 4 full-fledged seats. Sure, it's not the first car to have that, but I somehow didn't expect it. The only thing I miss is some tiles on the floor. Oh well. Problem is, if I have this, I might want the Ferrari and Caterham too. I'm so happy this is turning out to be a really nice series. I love (and own) the Beetle and Mini. The London Bus was a bit of an outlier and the DB5 a bit of a missed chance, so I passed those, but this Mustang makes it more than good and is a great followup. I hope they do the Countach one day.

Depends on how you look at it! I'd say: you took on a really challenging and cool project, and while you didn't manage yet (and can't enter this for TC15), you learned some new things. That's not failure, that's part of the learning process. :) As far as I know, this can't be solved. If yo udrive an axle through a turntable, then driving the turntable will have effect on that axle. You can minimzie the effect by gearing-up the axle before it goes through the turntable, and gear-down afterwards, but that only makes the effect less; it will not completely go away. I think the only way to curvument it, is to place the motor above the turntable. But they, you have the motor cable to deal with... Actually, I think it's a very likeable little plane. It's perfectly withni the spirit of TC15, and I really like the looks. Good paneling and the black-and-white works well. Also, seeing the list of functions, it seems to be rather functional. I'm not sure about the minifigure-out-of-bricks, but that's a matter of taste :) Good job, and I'm looking forward to the video.