Erik Leppen

I don't know how, but somehow I managed to miss this whole topic from start to end, even though I think you and I have been building almost the exact same model, independently of each other. Which is cool, because it's fun to see the differences. Most obviously, your model is motorized, which adds a lot, becuase the rotor moves much more smoothly. You don't have the tilt control of the blades, which is understandable, because you used the little space you have, for other stuff (function switch & motorized winch). I think your model is therefore more of a playmodel than mine, and much more fun to operate. I may have more functions and it may be more complex, but it's also much less playable and harder to use. Your model seems to work really smoothly. Your steering also seems easier to operate, as it's geared down a bit. I think the only thing you could have added to make it even more playable, is a container that could be used with the winch. But, contrary to mine, your model has a proper hook that can be used to grab anything. Again, more playable. Bodywork-wise, one thing I really like of your model is that it's actually orange. It's the ideal use of orange, and the color works really well here. I was at first not sure about the green bits, but they actually work well as a little accent. Makes it just that bit more interesting than just the rather common orange-black combo. Also, your top greebles (engines) look closer to the original. And it's fully studless, which is more in the spirit of current sets. One thing I notice is that your model seems rather tall. I think it's the orange 3x11x2 panel you placed vertically at the back of the cabin, that caused the model to be taller than the reference. Maybe a 3x7x2 panel would fit better, but it's a rather rare part you may not own yet. The rear wheel legs are therefore also rather long (and their shape a bit jagged, but that's what you get if you work with a somewhat-rare color, I guess). I'm afraid the slightly-off proportions may cost you some votes. The long gray axles running over the top of the tail are a nice detail. All in all I think it's a really nice model, which as @Rudivdk said, could indeed work well as a set.

Sorry guys, for not posting any updates for such a long time. So I guess I have to make a huge bump of the topic to show the finished model. The first months of the year were occupied by other hobbies, which are time-of-year-bound, so I had less time for Lego lately. Also I had the Bugatti project. Fortunately, the Dutch LUG forum had a meeting last week, which I wanted to attend, which was an extra reason to build a bit on my helicopter and have it done in time. The model is not 100% to my satisfaction, but I think it's still rather cool and with the container added I think it's now complete. It has surely been a fun model to make, and something different than I usually build. Also I think the color scheme works well. Basically, the most important addition is the container and winch. I added a small mechanism to connect the container to the winch. I'm not 100% happy with it, but I was running out of time and I preferred having a mechanism than none at all. I think it's still decent. The white transverse 15L beam at the bottom holding the wheel arms in place was sitting in the way, but I didn't want to remove it, so the container's sides do not run all the way to the top. Also, the containre's top is open, mostly because the locking mechanism is rather large (I didn't manage to include the locking mechanism in the hook, which I wanted at first). Of course, there's also a winch, controlled by the 12t gears at the sides. I made a few small tweaks to the bodywork too. The front 2 pairs of white 3x11 side panels are now better fixed in place by a gray pin-with-pin-hole just above the rear of the cabin (on the sides) some light-gray greebles have been added, including wheels to simulate engines. The wheels have been mounted 0.5 stud lower, because they were touching some parts when rolling. (their diameter is 3 studs, but with the weight they need just slightly more room) Of course, there's the video too. I still dislike doing video, but as it's required for the contest, here it is. For demonstrating the container functionality, I quickly threw together a few stands with transparent parts, to display the model higher off the ground. As they were rushed (because not part of the model), they weren't very strong at first, which resulted in a nice blooper. I thought it was fun to put it at the end of the video :P Have fun watching :)

10. Skycrane Helicopter Functions (all manual): Rotor and tail rotor rotation by rolling gear on bottom Main rotor: joystick-based blade control Winch with container, with a locking mechanism Rolling wheels; the front wheel can steer Video: Discussion topic: Additional photos:

Well, the way I interpreted, the contest doesn't require to show WIP pictures, but it's certainly encouraged to do so (with a raffle prize this time), since it helps creating interesting talk about the challenges we run into with our builds. There's a lot of community value in many people building the same thing and discussing their challenges with each other. But it's not everybody's cup of tea. It takes courage to show unfinished builds, because you may show failures. I was really hesitant about it at first and really had to learn it. But I can really recommend it, even if it feels like taking off your clothes in public at first. You get a lot in return :) With that out of the way, I have to say I really like this model. I really like the yellow-blue combination (which is not often seen) and the panelling looks really nice. Very smooth curves in lots of places, good use of flex axles on the wing ends. I like the use of the blue ribbed hoses for the construction of the wings. Also, the wings seem to have only very little sag, so their construction looks quite rigid. Nice job :) But .. as it's a Technic model, I'd like to see more about the functionality. How do all the control surfaces work, and the engine? Could you show a few pictures of that? Maybe after you've done all the contest pictures and video, could you show a few photos of the inside and the linkages or gear systems that make everything work?

When I build sets, I build for relaxation. I don't hurry. After all, 10 hours build is 10 hours of fun, 20 hours build is 20 hours of fun :D So I take my time. That said, I still sometimes have difficulty splitting a build up into multiple sessions. If I start, I want to go on until it's done. With the Chiron I couldn't, so I split the build in 2 days, but it still feels rather quick for such a large set. I take my time when i add a specific part, wondering what it will be later. Although for experienced builders, there aren't that many surprises, especially when we have already seen images, reviews or instructions of the set in question. For some reason I can't not read those. All that said, I do get why reviews etc. specify build times, even if only for reference. This is interesting, because one idea I have is that the set design process doesn't take learnability into consideration. I remember sometimes in instructions that when a "module" is done, a few arrows are added to indicate which knob does what. The best set as far as educational purposes that I can remember is 8448. The build was split across multiple modules and beforehand, it's clear what each module is going to be. I have the idea with studless sets, with all their little fiddly bits, that every sub-build starts with an image of what it will be, but it's not always clear what a module is supposed to represent. It more often than not juts looks like a chunk of bricks. It doesn't help that the parts used for structure and the parts used for function are the same parts. With studded builds, there was a clearer distinction between structure (bricks, plates, pins) and function (axles, gears, liftarms), making sets easier to "read". If you check the Chiron, it looks like designers didn't spend much time thinking about how to make the gearbox easy to understand. Sure, it works, but it looks like a random mass of bricks. Compare to the gearbox of 8448, which is nicely aligned into two layers with some speed-changes in each layer. True, it's a simpler build, but I think nowadays, sets are designed so that they work, not so that they are easy to learn from.

Now this is interesting. Because it seems to forget the distinction between 42100 as a set, and 42100 as a model. I would say that the primary idea of Lego is that the build is the play. Playing with Lego, to me, and to many people, is building things with the parts. And if that is the case, then every set is a toy, because every set allows you to build models with the pieces, and there's even a prescribed model with building instructions. Whether the assembled model, after it is built, is a toy, is another question. That is, if you built the model, did you construct a toy that someone else can play with? Then, you'd have to compare to pre-assembled models of other brands. I mean, there are toy cars whose only functino are rolling wheels. But they are still toys. Now, I agree that the assembled model of 42083 is one of the least playable models ever. But, it can still be rolled around, which is a form of play. So even the 42083 model is a toy. It's just not a very good toy. But with 7 motorized functions, I'd reckon that 42100 will be one of the more playable models. I mean, is the 42030 model a playable model? I'm quite sure it is :) And I remember from the Jim''s review of 42070 that his nephews had a lot of fun playing with that model. So in short, I see totally zero reason to think the 42100 model will not be playable.

As far as I can see, smartphone control has the following benefits: Lower price. Not having a remote makes all relevant sets cheaper. Also, no backlog of unused remotes builds up in the houses of frequent set-buyers. :) Programmability/customizability. If TLC opens up the data protocol the receiver uses, then this opens the door for programming-minded people to create new possibilities. The usual Lego remote only has 2 front-aft controls, so any use other than that needed some mechanical solution, making the remote unwieldily big. If it will be possible to program an app that generates the required signals, then anything is possible. It would enable the system to merge with Mindstorms into a single system, provided the sensors can be used to work with the same data format. and the following disadvantages: Requires a smartphone. Phone-less people will have plenty of choice left from the other sets, but they need to know so that they don't make a $400 purchase they can't fully use. Possible compatibility issues - will the app work on all devices? Future running problems - will the app continue to work over the years, and/or be maintained in the future? I don't see the whole issue with "children having internet access when controlling the thing". First of all, this set is probably not child-targeted, so whatever (however, the SUV may be). Secondly, there are plenty of ways to disable internet access and thirdly, those aren't even needed if the child is a responsible person. Having a separately available controller set, as @allanp suggests, would give both options. However, I personally think there are too few smartphone-less people wanting to buy a $400 set, to make developing such a remote a financially viable option.

Where? I have only found light gray and orange.

I don't see anything special about the turntable. I guess it's just the a normal turntable, maybe with a black z12 gear next to it to drive it somehow. Also, why wouldn't it be? It doesn't need to be bigger, if the superstructure is somewhat balanced and the rollers carry most of the weight.

I'm glad @jb70 has bumped the topic, because I have a nice update! In fact I had some progress for weeks, but didn't take the time to take some pictures and upload them and write a post on them. It's about time to show more progress :) Yes, you're right on this. Actually, there is a "stop" when the suspension is in the low position (when the 2L beams are pointing upwards), but there is no stop when the suspension is in high position (when the 2L beams are pointing outwards). There is plenty of space though to add such a stop, and I think I should really do that. I played with one solution that was easy to install, but it was too weak and didn't fit. But this is definitely doable. In any case, your ascii drawings are nice You can see the stop in the low position here (the red bush, gray 3L axle and gray 2x2 connector). it's not ideal, but it was easy to fit there. But given the modular nature of the build, it should be easy to take the axle module out and make a better stop, and one at the other extreme too. One little problem there is the 7.5 degree offset between left and right. If space permitts, a ssytem with knob gears and only one gear driven by the worm would be preferable. Ok, thanks for this. I didn't expect this, so I learned something new :) I like the idea of using common parts too. Especially for builds that could be interesting for others to rebuild. Butyeah, these oddball parts may come in very handy in some situations. Similar case is the black 1x3x7 beam I found first in the boom of 8421, which is also a Bionicle part. I think my version is lighter than the official set, but I don't think it's any lighter than the Porsche. I expect to end up somewhere above 2700 parts, so a bit more than the Porsche. But yes, the Original design of Box 2, which builds the monocoque, is very stiff. The problem happens at the joint between Box 1 and Box 2. I think my version of the monocoque is not that stiff, but it's also lighter. Also, a lot of the stiffness is due to the four dark-tan 5x9 double-bent beams, which I kept unchanged. This helps strengthen the roof tremendously. But I changed the A-pillars (windcreen sides) to increase strength. More on that later. Also, Ackermann steering will still be hard I'm afraid. I tried changing the arm of the hub using 2L beams, but either it doesn't fit inside the rim (the internal space of the rim is less than 7 studs) or steering angle is severely limited. That said, I didn't search very long or hard for good Ackermann solutions (I'm one of those people who don't really care that much about Ackermann geometry), and chose for a relatively simple steering system with a decent radius. Thanks for the tips, I'll look into bricksafe and LDCad. Probably not for this project yet (I rather try new software with a small test project), but it's good to know about it. Thanks! :) Anyhow, the progress! In fact, it already almost looks like the original :D But with a few changes (also see the picture below): First of all the change on the dark azure part. I changed the paneling of the doors. I didn't use the large 2x5x11 panels, but instead 2 smaller 2x5x7 panels back-to-back. Reason: freeing the large panels for the hood Inspired by a change on the Improvements topic (I don't know by whom) I used the large 2x5x11 panels for the front hood. Also I have been less careful about the coloring of the door hinge. The original set has the whole door hinge nicely in dark azure, I needed some piece that don't exist in that color, so I used black there. This is a step back, I agree, but I wanted the door mechanism (On the two 1/2 pins below the door hinges there should be a 1x2 panel in gray.) I haven't yet found a solution for the dark azure flex axles running over the front. The hard part is the place where the windscreen sides meet the hinges of the hood - a lot happens there in a relatively small space The 2x3x11 panels above the front wheels are sticking out, because they collide with some parts that hold the hood. I want to find a solution for this. The Original set has the tiny 1x2x5 panels quite hidden behind the horseshoe. I replaced those with beams (not visible on this photo) so I could use those panels on the hood. This "fills" the hood slightly better. Then the changes on the dark blue part: The original A pillars had some things I didn't like. The blue plate/tile things were only connected at the top, and the main construction used only an axle. So I used an 11L beam, which fortunately exists in dark-blue; connected at the top by 2x2x2 connectors. The 15L beam at the top of the windscreen was in a perfect spot, but rotating it 90 degrees meant I could connect the ends to the 2x2x2 connectors, meaning these three beams form a strong connection between roof and front. To hide the holes I covered them with tiles. I replaced the black 19L flex axle at the very bottom front bumper with a black 7L plus some axles, so I could use the 19L as the bottom of the windscreen (the set uses two 11L-or-so flex axles) The original side mirrors were kinda simple with only one panel, so I added some black plates on there, and an orange indicator because why not. This shows the door mechanism. It feels a bit flimsy, but it works. Maybe I change the connection points. Then the rear wing. To my own surprise I found a mechanism I personally find rather cool. It is operated from the sides, a spot very similar to the set, but with a knob on both sides instead of this key thing. (the yellow axles and brown connectors indicate that this axle is functional, rather than structural) It's not "double-acting", it changes in one single movement, but it does change the angle when it goes up. It goes up a little less than the version of the set though, and it has a link in the middle of the wing, rather than at 2 sides. Also, the knob turns the other way than you might expect. But I still really like it, so I probably keep it despite these flaws. I'm not 100% happy with all the small dark-blue connectors on the wing itself, but I ran out of 2x4 beams, and 1x5 beams don't seem to exist in dark-blue. Finally, for the heck of it, an underside picture :D That's it for now. It feels almost done, but I still want to tweak a few things, such as the dark-azure flex axles of the front, the suspension stops, door mechanism and some other small things. So still plenty of things to do :D

The bottom view says it all, really. It's too bad, because I thought I'd like this when I first saw it, because of the color and "LMP-like" concept. I thought the two dark-azure 9L beams were new, but they appeared in the sailboat before. They're interesting parts nonetheless, as well as the dark-azure small panels. The white 19L flex is also interesting in a low-budget set. And I must say the old 42047 Police Interceptor looks fun :) Maybe it's time for a new pullback contest, where the goal is to design a set-viable model, just to show how to do this properly :)

Two sets I fondly remember are 8460 (mobile crane) and 8479 (Barcode truck). 8460 is my favorite because of the very high function density, large lifting capacity and cool outriggers. It also was the first Technic set I can still remember getting from my parents, along with a red motorbike set (my brother got the mighty 8688). And I think 8479 is one of the best-looking studded sets, and made good use of slopes and other system parts, as well as "studless" technic parts, for example in the construction of the cabin. And it had wonderful (motorized) gear systems, and a working steering wheel. It would be really cool to try a "classic style" MOC one day. Really. But with the advantages of all the new elements. The brick-plate-studded construction felt great to do and was more varied than studless Technic. Unfortunately I have sold a lot of my old Lego, including many Technic bricks; and Technic bricks are quite expensive now on Bricklink.

I think they are interesting pieces. I expect they can be used both as spur gears or as bevel gears, similar to the 12t and 20t double-bevels. Also, I wonder if they can be meshed with the knob-gear. I hope so. I think from what we have seen there are (already) 3 sizes. The purple one seems to be 8t or maybe 6t, the dark-gray one seems to be 12t, and the party bus seems to have 16t, or maybe 20t, in that new "light salmon" color (not sure how it will be called). I also expect (and hope) they have a round hole, because I think that is easier to understand for kids, and more versatile in system builds, because it's easy to lock it to an axle with a 2x2 round brick or plate, or with a bush.

I like how clean and "minimalistic" this looks. I like the sleek design of the whole thing, especially the input and output bins. It looks very "modern". The perfect black with orange color scheme also works really well. And the workings are quick and simple, yet still unique. I like it. To cirvumvent the 30-ball batch rule, you now also have to create another module to put before it :)

True. It's probably not realistic. I'm not really the person to care much about realism. So you could raise this point for most of my builds :) As long as it does what one would expect a car to do, I don't really mind how it does it. After all, is rack-and-pinion steering still accurate? I believe that in many modern cars, there's not even any mechanical link between the steering wheel and the wheels anymore. It's all electronic now. Yeah, after you someone else mentions the same part. Maybe I should change that section a bit. It's an old Bionicle part, #50904, and it's actually one of my favorite Technic parts, since the time I bricklinked 8 of them. It's sort of a frame avant la lettre :) True. We as AFOLs don't have to minimize the number of lots, we aren't restricted to parts currently in production, we aren't restricted from using rare parts, illegal constructions, things that are difficult to build, weak connections, and in the case of 42083 there isn't a million-dollar car company looking over our shoulders with even more wishes and demands. :) So yeah, we can do stuff TLC can't. I'm aware of that. Maybe this build can be seen as a hint to TLC that maybe their restrictions are becoming so tight that they hinder their theme's core values... Oh, I sure had a great time when building the set. The gearbox is defintely cool, I love the shifter, the rear wing linkage is ingenious and I really like the seats and the fact you can lift it by the roof. But I also had head-shakes at times. And yes, I think it's made for non-Lego-fans too. Also I agree that 8258 is one of the best sets. I'm also starting to appreciate 42070 more and more, with its 6 motorized functions in 1800 parts. (I haven't built it though.) Since 2 people mention this now, I think I'll change the part with the Bionicle piece. It's a structural - not functional - area anyway. But apart from that I don't think I use many weird pieces. I don't know how rare the 24-tooth crown gear is becoming though. But for parts unique to the Chiron, I don't use larger quantities than in the set. But I may use one or two panels or other blue parts from 42070, 42077 or 42064. But I'd like to have access to the full breath of the parts bank that Technic offers :) Oh, I don't really mind closing up the bodywork with more details. I love the bodywork on 42083. My complaint was about closing up all the rest too. (Yes, I understand that the real car probably has a closed aerodynamic underside as well). And my complaint was about the functions not working as well as I think they could. And yes, I don't think it's fair to say the TLC designers had it all wrong. I'm sure they know what they're doing, and if it's this vs. a neglected and dwindling-away Technic theme, I'd choose this any day. But we as AFOLs, a minority subgroup of the customer base, can still have our own fun with it, and we like to tinker with stuff. :) I am also making compromises and I don't want to pass off my version as "better" - merely as "better in certain aspects", simply because I make other choices than TLC designers, because I am not influenced by marketing-based arguments. But it's worse in other aspects - I had to remove the shifter for example.

The digital file I have is at 2600, but it's not complete. I expect to end up around 3200. Which is not that much less, but I feel the inventory would be slightly better balanced. Less pins, more axles, more half-width beams (oh, how I miss thos in sets). Please note that I do use parts from my collection. Also dark-blue and dark-azure parts I bricklinked, or from 42064. 1st and 2nd (and 3rd and 4th) are done by the different speeds of the first and second driving ring, which have a ratio of 4 : 5. 1st and 3rd (and 2nd and 4th) are opposite ends of the same driving ring, which is 3 : 5. So the relative ratios must be 5 : 4 : 3 : x, where 3 : x equals 5 : 4, so x must be 12/5 = 2.4. The relative ratios of the high-low is 3 : 1, so the relative speeds of all 8 gears is 15 : 12 : 9 : 7.2 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2.4 I have to say though it has a lot of friction at the low gears. I will; I spent about the whole day building today (last day of holiday), tomorrow at daylight I will post pictures of the front and doors. I made some changes there too. Door mechanism uses the old damped springs. I'm thinking of using a third damped spring for the engine cover, but not sure yet. My plan is to do instructions. But I know I say that for most of my models, and I have a little backlog of models I want to do instructions for... What I am trying to achieve is a technical model that looks as good as the set :) I'm not really the person for realism, I prefer playability and "interestingness" of the functions :) I skipped the Porsche, mainly because I didn't want the parts (I usually buy Technic sets for parts only). Maybe the excitement was because it was the first in the 1:8 car series? More novel? Also, from what I have seen in reviews, I thought the "marriage" of the Porsche was much more interesting and made more sense. You'r completely right on both these points (I shortened the quote a bit). The 7.5 degree offset is only noticable because you can see the 1x2 beams are not perfectly symmetric, but the difference is so tiny I just neglected it. But technically you're correct - it's there. As for the set - I think most of the problems are a matter of taste, except the front suspension which I consider the only real, actual, unmistabable design fault. All the rest is defendable, and even makes sense from the "ease of build" perspective. 11 hours ago, suffocation said: I was also puzzled why they seemed to go to large ends to maximize friction there; but one thing that I haven't even mentioned here is that this setup puts unnecessary stress on that tan 4L axle and black 1x2 beam that holds the lower end of the springs. I should find an easy place where I can upload non-image files. Not sure if brickshelf allows .mpd. Does this image help? By the way, maybe I should just mention the Brickshelf folder, because I don't post all pictures I upload there. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=576408 I use old and trusty MLCad. Simply because it's what I'm used to. I use LDView as the viewer/renderer. And yes - this separation of modules was actually an accident, but I find it works well and even with the doors and such in place, the whole thing is still modular. 6 hours ago, suffocation said: Which probably all fits into a wider trend in society of customers expecting gratification, instead of challenge. Thgis explains a lot of trends in Lego sets, so let's not delve into that here, because I think you could write whole books about this. 6 hours ago, Jeroen Ottens said: I think you mean @NKubate being the first, with his redesigns on page 16 of the Mods and improvements thread? He shows that even if you keep the existing separation in a front and a rear section, it's possible to greatly reduce the clutter. I think "overdesigned" is the perfect word. I think part of the reason I felt this way is that this is the largest set I ever built by quite a margin - previous largest was I think Unimog or Claas, and this Chiron is 1500 parts more, so I think I totally wasn't used to the increased size of some newer sets, and was surprised by how the build went on and on and on... About reducing the part count - I'm not even very good at doing a lot with few parts, I think someone could take my design and shave of another 200 parts without much trouble. I'm not after the lowest part count; I just want a Technic-spirited model of what the set "could be". I'm not even sure what I should do with all these pins. I have too many pins for my needs :D Thanks to all who replied for the support! The next update will have front and doors; and after that, the pace will slow down a bit, as holiday is soft-of over :)

From the side, the new design looks "simpler". Easier on the eyes, with a straight line running over the top of the doors all the way to the rear. But I'm also afraid that makes it slightly more "boring" - less exciting, so to speak. The roof is now also parallel to that line over the side, where in the previous build there were more "angles". Not sure if this is fixable though. Maybe the "simpler" design is, in the end, cleaner and more elegant. Little question: will the sides of the windscreen get a blue touch, you think? Or will it stay black? I'm not 100% sold on the paneling of the doors, with the two 5x7x2 panels "facing each other" so to speak. If there ever was a case for a 11x5x2 curved panel it would be this. Again, not sure you have any other options here. In any case, I really like the global design and I like how you took on the challenge of using this new color for the bodywork. That makes it harder to get somewhere, but it also gives the car an "edge". By the way I absolutely love the front and rear views.

(Sorry for quoting the image, but I think it's important here) I probably wouldn't do it this way. I think the "stepped" beam stacking looks plain ugly. What I would do, I think, in this situation is "you don't have to build a shape, you only have to suggest the shape". Use a flex axle or other curved element, and keep the rest open. Other options are to fill it with a panel (in this case maybe https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=18945 because it is closed on both sides), or use studded elements (such as slopes. Maybe https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=30249?) And in your particular case, maybe even the sails from the recent sailboat set can help. See the upward tail wings of 42066. They have a beam (you can have a flex axle there) and a panel, and the space between is suggested. And of course, @Didumos69 already mentioned it: consistency is key. So what solution you pick, depends on what the rest of your model looks like.

I can be critical about sets whose functionality doesn't meet their part-count, as people may remember when I redid 42064 to make it more to my own tastes. For the last winter holiday I bought 42083 as a gift for myself, which was on my wishlist for a few reasons: for the new pieces (dark-blue; dark-azure; gearbox pieces) to experience building a 1:8 car to mod it I built it "vanilla" (i.e. without mods) and was aware of the problems from the reviews and the mods topic, but boy, does the set come with a slew of issues on its own. When the official model was built and I wanted to explain the functions to my father, the summary went like this: The front suspension sags, the rear suspension sags slightly and the car touches the ground Due to the slack in the drivetrain, the engine doesn't move if you roll only small distances. So I left it in reverse mode so the pistons actually move. The cool paddle shifter controls a really cool gearbox, but all you can see from it is some abstract elements moving through a 3x5 stud hole in the bottom The steering wheel is hard to reach You can raise the wing, but you have to stick a "key" randomly into the side. Basically it's easier to adjust the wing by hand. No, the engine cover doesn't open. Basically, not a single function is without problems… Of course, there were things I noted myself too. I'm one of those rare people who consider 8448 to be better than 8880, and one of the reasons is 8448's modular build-up. It worked like a charm there, but in 42083, I found this whole "marriage" thing to be a huge deception. The actual moment takes maybe 20 seconds and isn't even very interesting. Yes, it's nifty, but after you have clicked the pins together, nothing is seen of all this, except a very heavy chassis that has quite some bend in the middle because of it. Also, and IMO more importantly: because the half-chassis only contains a half drivetrain, you can't test your model while building. That gearbox is cool, and it works well, but it looks like an incomprehensible mess of beams and gears. It doesn't have a nice layout that shows how it is built up. Beams everywhere are hiding important gears, so there's no angle to view it from that gives a good overview. The designer chose to have an opening in the middle bottom for the drive axle, so the gearbox is a separate module that could be nicely "laid" into the chassis. A design choice I don't really get: the module isn't even complete; more gears need to be added after putting it in place. What's the point then? The idea that I was having afterwards is that the whole construction is designed to be "easy to build", so that non-Lego-builders know which part goes where in which order. But this has come at the cost of understanding what's being built. (42082 seems to suffer from this too.) It's easy to build, sure, but it looks cluttered and the only way to build it, is mindlessly. You can't anticipate, or appreciate the modules, or whatever, because a submodule makes no sense by itself. The submodule at step 229 has one gear packed into a whole framework. Why the framework? It seems to be made foolproof, but it doesn't tell this. As a result, the design is hard to "read". Why all these beams everywhere? Does it really need 6 layers at each side below the front axle? And there are many more places where I really wondered why there's another layer of beams. I get that Technic is beam-based, but it certainly felt like overkill here. For fun, just check the first part of box 2 (steps 205 up to 230). I mean, did TLC have a backlog of 3x5 beams they needed to clear? Why did TLC want a closed, flat underside? It costs space, adds weight, adds uninteresting pieces, raises price, and worst: hides all the functionality. That's the problem with this huge gearbox and the "marriage" - if you're the one who built the model, you know it's there and you can enjoy that thought, but if you are just seeing the model, you can't see anything of its insides, and then it's just a 3600-piece static car. It can't be "explained". And then you wonder: what's the core principle of Technic? No father who bought and built this for himself can explain to their interested child how the car works, because the child can't see anything working. the huge distance needed to make the engine run through the gearbox is not because of the slack in gearbox elements, but because the whole gearbox is geared down and everyting runs so slowly. Then any slack really adds up. Of course, you can rant, but it's of no value if you don't provide an alternative. Now, 42083 may already be the most-modded set ever, but while the many mods take on some of the major problems: sagging suspension lack of playability cluttered gearbox they, IMO, leave some other major problems untouched: beam overload functions that can't be seen very heavy chassis with a weak-spot in the middle So I wanted to do something else. Rather than try to improve the existing chassis, I ditched it completely and started over. Where I want to note that my version isn't necessarily "better". It's just a different approach. I started looking for a digital version of 42083 and found @jb70 's wonderful "Pimp up my Bugatti" on Rebrickable, https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-16181/jb70/42083-pimp-up-my-bugatti/#comments and took the .mpd as a base. I removed everything except the bodywork and went from there. The first design principle to kill is that stupid "marriage". That'll save 500 parts and allows me to redesign the chassis as a whole. A draft: Second is the front and rear axle. I used longer suspension arms and fixed them one stud lower so they are more horizontal, meaning the wheels don't move outward when the suspension is compressed. Also, I use the spring's whole range, giving me much more power without reducing the travel. And of course, frictionless pins. The lowered rear axle of the official set is neat, but I believe there's enough space to do it the normal way. The engine can always move a few studs to the front; there's plenty of unused space there. So the rear axle is similar (I like symmetry) but without balljoints. As a bonus there is even a new function (in light-blue): a suspension height adjuster. Why not :) Third: because the axles are fixed one stud lower, the diffs and therefore the whole drivetrain sits one stud lower. This is possible, because I also ditch the closed underside. This is Technic; functions should be visible, and the best place to see the functions of a car is the bottom. Fourth, I know from the Mods topic that much work is done improving the gearbox. @Didumos69 showed it's possible to reduce the number of gear meshes and make it much more organized. Others have made other nice adjustments, such as a "gear block" that locks the high-low gearbox to only 2 positions, making another set of 3 gears useless and preventing switching from 8 to 1. With these in mind, I tried my own take on the gearbox and I think it's actually quite similar to existing mods. The first draft: The wheels drive the lime axle via the 20t gear. The lower pair of rings then drive the light-yellow gears in 4 speeds. Via the yellow gear in the middle this goes to the dark-tan gears. The upper pair of rings then drive the green gears in 2 speeds, which then goes to the RND selector. This is the concept - switching the lime 16-20 pair and the green 8-24 pair is possible to ensure correct gear order. I didn't like the dependency on a rubber band, so I tried a spring-based solution. (pictured is a draft that is replaced by a similar but different setup) Fifth, I didn't like how the steering rack was in front of the front axle; so I moved it to the usual place. Later I noticed the reason it was in the front: the paddle shifter needs the space. So, that had to go... something I didn't want to do actually, and I don't think there will be a new shifter - shifting gears will be HOG only I'm afraid. That's the main loss of my version (so far). Sixth; I know the complaints about the engine not being W16, so I tried an alternative, which seems to work well. The crankshaft is weaker but for a MOC this will do. I didn't mind the original engine, but I like my alternative engine as well, so it felt better to use it. So all of this digital stuff was the week before last week. I spent the last week to convert the digital design to actual bricks, making more gradual improvements and starting to add body elements. Here's the progress so far: (the suspension is at its highest here) The roof, the engine cover, the rear and the front are separate modules. From what remains, the axles can easily be taken off. The first thing I built in real was the gearbox, and I noticed it worked nicely as a separate module and when designing a chassis around it I noticed it was relatively easy to keep them as separable modules. So I continued this idea and as a result, the whole gray central unit could be made as one huge module that is locked in between the main chassis beams. So let's call this my version of the "marriage". It's not the way the real Chiron does it, but it's a way that makes sense in this Lego model. In the end, the core module is this thing: This thing contains the entire gearbox, RND selector and gearshift HOG, so it can be tested. Also, the seats are changed a bit and are now slightly angled too. The two tan 20t gears sticking up are the HOGs for steering and gearshift. The HOG for gearshift rotates less than 360 degrees, so it can be modified into a gear indicator. This is an idea I took from @jb70 's .mpd file, but I don't know whose original idea it is. Of course, a lot is still to do. Most importantly, the doors. There is plenty of space to include a door open/close mechanism. Curious where this will take me.

It's actually straight, but I think the paneling and the angle of the photo makes it look like it's not. Maybe I could change the panels on the tail, but it doesn't have high priority. If you mean the upward-angled part, yeah I might change that. I'm not supe happy with it. The horizontal section is also wider than in reality, but I think I need the space for mechanisms. The gray bricks + white panels are taking a lot of space, unfortunately, but the bricks are needed for strength and the panels are needed for looks. The only way I can think of to make it better is to use white bricks, which would make the panels superfluous. But I think that would break the style. Anyhow, I have an update again! I added a joystick mechanism in the tail area. I found it the most obvious place to add this. I also added some gray axle stuff at the sides. If I'm right, the joystick is actually about 45 degrees off, because when moving it sideways, the blades that change the most are those in the right-front and the back-left. I'm not sure I can do much about that, except changing the links that control the blades. Swapping the vertical and horizontal controls of the joystick would make the mechanism a lot more complex and I don't think it will fit in the space. It's already a pretty tight fit. The other update is that I added wheels. The front wheel can turn, directly from the axle on the roof. Probably won't be connected to any driver's control. I don't think there's room for that. This is what the bottom looks like now. It's hard to see, but in the back there's a 36t gear that can be rolled by hand to rotate the rotors. I think that's as advanced as it gets for the rotors. I'm very glad the 36t gear just fits (less than a millimeter of space between the gear, the gray bricks and the cross-joint at the rear). The gray thing with the 2x4 connectors supporting the main rotor axle is now only to provide support, but maybe the holes in the 2x2x2 connectors can be used to hold the string for the winch. There's not much space left for that by the way, only the part behind the cabin. I have noticed that the bricks + paneling being at a 0.5 stud offset makes it hard to add knobs to the sides to control stuff. This is a bit annoying because knobs at the top isn't handy because the rotor is in the way. Anyhow, I think it's nearing completion, which is cool because holiday is almost over :)

Well, building sets is just a matter of following the instructions, so, for most of us, that's not "challenging". It can be relaxing, it can be rewarding, it can be a learning experience and a whole lot of other things, but I don't see it as challenging. If you want challenge, see if you can make your own models :) Or if that's a step too high, try modifying an existing set. If you don't have a collection, try creating C models from a single set, or try modifying the official B-model. As for the most technical sets, I have bought very few Technic sets lately (about one large set per year) but from the looks of it, 42043 is the most technical recent set. Not sure it's still for sale though. 42070 is also quite functional, but too expensive and rather ugly (and lacking suspension)... From a few years earlier, I found the Unimog 8110 to be a very fun build as well.

You already mentioned two obvious answers yourself - use another motor, or use different gearing; a less obvious solution you may not have thought about yet is using two pumps that operate in opposite direction (like a 2-cylinder engine, inline or boxer). Why? Well, a pneumatic pump has an internal spring to make the rod come up after you release it. Part of the motor's energy goes into compressing the spring. If you use 2 pumps, the internal springs of the pumps are cancelling each other out. Also, you may want to check if the actual total air flow is actually larger than when you use (one or more) small pumps at higher speed. The small pumps are meant to be used with a motor, after all.

I thought that too, but then the shorter axle would be 7, which is gray or yellow, not black. Unless of course the whole skid is made either one stud shorter or one stud longer.

Unless you rebuild the front suspension to use the old 6.5 suspension arms :) Another idea could be be maybe to lower the axle by 1 stud, so that it's at the same height as the rear axle.

8480 Space Shuttle is one that comes to mind