Erik Leppen

Easier instructions for a given model, is the same as a more complex model for given instruction difficulty. So, these easier instructions - or "dumbed down" as you call it - open the door to increasing complexity of models! And sets are surely a lot more intricate than 20 years ago. I have built a few sets (not Technic though, but the same argument holds) together with someone not used to Lego building - I can tell you he's having plenty of challenge with the current instructions. So if people wonder, why are instructions made so simple, then I'd like to ask: why would you make them deliberately harder?

In old (studded) Technic instructions, the pieces added in one step were all over the place, without any sort of coherence. You were building everything at the same time. The current (studless) instructions at least stick to building one thing at a time. This requires more steps, yes, but it also makes the build modular and focused, and, I think, more educational. Also I'm not so sure this is particular to Technic. It's no different in any other recent set I built from instructions. Maybe there are somewhat more parts per step, but I don't think there are more part types per step. I think system builds just require more of the same part in one step on average, which makes it possible to condense instructions a bit. But on Architecture it's even fewer parts per step than normal. Which is understandable, because Architecture sets are more likely to be picked up by people new to Lego.

I really like your point of view @allanp, both on this set and the crane 42082. You raise very good points about this set feeling a bit more "old school". For 1000 parts, it seems to be rather functional and has the right complexity, mixing pneumatics and mechanics, and a nifty steering system as a bonus. Thanks for sharing your view :)

To people who are new, I always recommend to start small first. First, get a decent smaller set, so that you can ensure yourselves you like the Lego Technic way of building. You better know that before you're going to spend hundreds of dollars on it. Use the advices of many people in the "which Technic set to buy" topic @mortenm linked to just above, or just go to a store and pick a set you like, and build both its models. If you're into mechanisms, I wouldn't pick any of the Pullback sets (those ~20 dollar sets of fast road vehicles). Get something that has more functions. If you like the set, you can go and check out larger sets. I think most sets would be fine, as long as you like it yourself. And besides that, the only way to get into it, is just go build something. Anything goes. These forums are also a pretty cool way to get feedback on builds and maybe get inspiration or ideas for things to build. There's currently a contest going on where all of us are challenged to design mechanisms we normally don't use, in builds of theme park rides (those use wildly different moving parts than the usual vehicles that many of us normally build.)

I think in your big list of things you did or didn't like, there's one thing you forgot, which is that you finished it! This may sound harsh but I think pulling a model through to the end is an achievement by itself, and a valuable lesson. Now you know what the challenges of such a model can be, so you're now better prepared for your next MOC. I still haven't finished my mobile crane ;) Actually I think the model isn't half bad. Yes, it's a bit bulky. This was already a concern in the WIP, so you're now aware of that for your next model. Maybe you didn't need to cover everything om panels. On many great MOCs, beams are showing through. About the color, I think the sunshine in the photos makes it look worse. I think on a cloudy day you'd let a less "intense" black, on which you could see things a bit better. I do agree a bit on the outriggers; I think they're not the way you envisioned them. I think it's very hard to pull off the geometry in such a way that they extend nicely outward. To better this skill, you could look at some outriggers in official sets that work that way. 42054 Claas springs to mind, even though the outriggers are manual you'll see how the linkage works. The low boom angle is a compromise you can't avoid if you use LAs. I think what's cool about this model is that you managed to make so many functions motorized, and have suspension as well, which 42082 at 4000 pieces doesn't have. Your model at 4.5 kg, I would guess, is somewhere around 3500 parts (accounting for weight of PF stuff). But thep endular axles take a lot of room that you had to build your chassis around, making it taller than ideal. But seeing the WIPs I think you took a good lesson of structural integrity, because it looks like it's pretty strong with all the dogbones and diagonal bracing. Oh well, you can't have it all. I'm glad you showed your MOC here and I think it's a fine model. Remember, often you yourself are your most critical judge :)

It would be cool to actually take on the challenge. I'm curious to see what you can come up with! And of course, we can build a model with the same functions with fewer parts. Probably even 1000 parts less, yes (3000 parts is still a lot of room to play with). But we probably can't provide the instructions to make it buildable by an 11-year-old with the same ease as the original instructions. (Also, I think the 3000-part model will have to sacrifice some of the looks or details. Not saying this is a bad thing per se.) As I said in my previous post, I think a lot of those 4000 parts go into making the model easier to build. (And yes, it does feel like no expense has been spared to create a good-looking model. 32 round 1x1 tiles on the wheels? Why not) Probably my ideas to try to save the most on part count would probably be: Use studded bricks for a strong and stable chassis with few parts, similar to how studded bricks are used for booms in some cranes. I understand this might feel as cheating by some, but studded bricks are just as much Lego as studless parts. Replace the Unimog hubs by Claas hubs and simplify the steering arms. The axles seem to be more complex than needed right now. Change the geometry of the outriggers slightly, so that their vertical displacement is increased, so that the pads aren't needed anymore Simplify the wheel arches and other details in the undercarriage. Note they have been built from beams and connectors, instead of panels this time. Simplify the paneling of the superstructure Instead of 3, have 4 functions in the upper gearbox, the 4th one being for slewing. That would eliminate 1 gearbox in the undercarriage. This would simplify the undercarriage a lot. But, having the control for slewing on the slewed part isn't a good move playability-wise. Having the control for slewing on the undercarriage is much more sensible for operating the thing, because then the control doesn't move when the thing rotates. So I understand why they did it this way, and I think it's actually a very cool move. I have 4 of those wheels lying around. So maybe...

It has been a bit silent the last two weeks, but I haven't sit still. I have two updates: the new bench, and a coupling/decoupling system for the restraints/entrances. I added some diagonal V-shaped plates to the bench (white plates), and I added a "floor" beneath it that has the same V's, attached to a platform that moves along 4 vertical axles. The photo above shows the platform in its bottom position, where it mostly sinks between the yellow beams of the base. In this position, the bench can freely move. In the picture below, the floor is in the top position, and holds the bench in place. The knob wheel in the middle of the floor will then attach to another knob gear on the bench, that will control the restraints. You see an axle runing through the bottom of the base. This will move four linkages below the corners of the platform, to raise and lower it. It is now controlled manually by the knob (twin 12t double bevel gears) on the far right of the image, via a series of 24t gears (spur and crown) in the base, and then a worm to 8t on both sides. Here's a slightly better look on that linkage and gear system: The other update for now is that I actually created a bench that I personally find really nice: I went for groups of 3 seats, cheating a bit by sharing each blue 3x5 beam between 2 seats. That way I could get 3 seats into 7 studs. This way, I can make it look larger than it would be if each seat would be 3 wide, or even 4 if each seat would need their own restraint. So I went with a large single restraint bar. It may not be realistic for an inverting ride, but it gives me the ability to increase the number of seats to more realistic proportions. As you can see, it seats 24 imaginary riders :) Also, you notice I have laid out a color scheme. I used the new yellow and red axles, and chose to use red as the color for the restraints so I could use the axles. Same for the yellow handrails. What I notice with this contest, and which I am sure many TC14 builders will recognize, is that I require lots of the same part in all kinds of places. For the 24 seats in 8 sets of 3, I needed 32 L-shaped 3 x 5 beams. That narrowd the options to red, yellow, blue, gray, black. The only color that stands out from the already existing colors is blue (which goes really nicely with dark gray). And aren't blue seats tradition in Technic models? So, parts availability dictated the color scheme I disliked so much on 42024... For the final pictures, I show a cross section of the bench (without the frame) with restraints up and down (you can see the knob gear at the bottom): \ The bench is quite heavy, so I will need some sort of counterweight on the arms (I counted on this, because I think the real ride has this too. Fortunately, I have 4 weight bricks.) Next to-dos: adding the entrances, and connect them to the moving platform so they give access to the ride when stationary, but fold away when the ride moves motorizing the three main functions Question: how would you suggest to do the motorization? one motor per function; RC to operate the motors one motor for everything, use gearboxes to operate the functions Using RC feels weird on a ride that isn't actually remote controlled (I don't think actual remote control adds anything of value). But using only 1 motor will probably overload the motor. Are there other ideas? A Control Center or similar would be great, but I don't own any such things. Maybe I should bricklink a few PF polarity switches, but I reckon these aren't cheap. So this is an unsolved problem for the moment. Any insights? Any feedback is welcome

From the video above, this thing looks mental. I'm more positive about the set than I was before; the building process looks great fun. I would almost get the set. The thing holding me back is that I already have most of the parts and there seem better ways of spending 200 euro for me. It looks like a lot of parts are added to make things click together more easily. It's absolutely packed with stuff from the inside, and everything has to be buildable by the general public, and I think great care has been taken to make as many little things into modules that can be easily clicked together. Which is something I really like, but it does increase the number of parts needed for the structure. But to be honest, it looks like one of the better sets of recent times. Sure there seem to also be little flaws - the slow and small outriggers, plus I have the idea the chassis is weaker than needed - but note how everything in this model is driven by a single motor, through all these two-directional switchboxes, which generate most of the complexity we like so much :) Also, I think it looks splendid, mainly thanks to the good red-black color scheme and nice paneling. Also, finally we have a large-scale crane where swiveling is also driven.

Exactly @Zerobricks. The limited angle is a compromise to make a boom of this size even possible with only 2 LAs. It was either this, or a smaller crane (or a completely different solution, like pneumatics, which would have yielded a totally different model).

BrickBuilder has the speed build video up. I have to say, after having seen the video, I'm actually much more positive about the set. First of all, the building process looks super satisfying and interesting. The functions seem really ingenious, and I like how there's many asymmetries because of them. Also, the way the chassis is mostly black with some color, is something I relaly like. Secondly, the car looks bigger than I thought. Especialy longer. If you forget what it's supposed to look like, it's actually a very cool Lego car (in a very boring color) with some quite interesting functions and details and building techniques. I thank the Bond licence for the cool functions, and for the rest, I think I like the set for what it is, and just disregard what it represents (I'm not into Bond or Aston Martin anyway).

That pneumatic thing would have been really cool as a set. What makes it cool to me is that it seems to be really bare-bones and to-the-point with no fuss, which is what Technic should be like IMO. This seems to be the version before the designer added 400 parts for "better looks".

If you're starting out and have no Technic building experience yet, start by make sure you enjoy Technic building; so I'd advice to start with a small set. See https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?pg=1&catString=36&itemBrand=1000&catType=S&v=2 for a list. I think 42057, 42060, 42071, 42084 I think are all nice small starter sets. (I'd advice against the pullbacks, because they are not really Technic as they have no functions other than the pullback.) Then if you like this, then as a second ste you can go slightly bigger, such as 42048, 42049 (if still available), or the 42075 already mentioned. 42077 is also interesting if you're into cars. The hovercraft 42076 seems a really nice part supplier, but I remember the model was not great. If you made sure you really enjoy Technic building and you want more parts, you can check the bigger sets. Such as indeed the Claas tractor, which I think is the best large set still available (unless you can find 42043). 42069 also seems quite good. I'd avoid the two exclusive supercars (42056, 42083) as parts packs; these are more expensive per part than other sets.

I'm wondering... people are thinking single tires at the front are unrealistic, but isn't it more realistic if the truck is the same width as the pellet? That would seem realistic to me, thinking about how forklifts may be used. Similar how front loaders are not wider than their bucket. With double wheels, the truck would have become wider than the pellet.

To be honest I never understood the praise for 42030. Sure, it looks great, has a cool licence, it's a good PF parts pack, and is a very playable toy when built, but the one area I find it lacking is the interesting Technic functions, which is the area Technic should give preference, in my opinion. In that respect, 42043 performs miles better. I think 42043 is one of the most interesting sets to build. But in the end, it all depends on what you're after. If you want a satisfying building experience and learn something about techniques, get 42043. If you want ideas for how to use power functions, get 42030. If you're in it for the parts, check out both inventories on Bricklink. If you want to get both in the end, get the oldest set first (which is 42030).

My guess is that these white ones arein the same numbered bag as the gearboxes, that needed those parts in white anyway. Replacing these for the gray or red newer ones, would probably increase the number of "lots" in this set of bags. And I believe the number of lots in each set of bags is minimized to lower the cost of packaging the parts.

I am creating digital instructions for a MOC. Now, many parts in the model aren't visible on the end result (structural stuff and SNOT work). So, it doesn't matter which colors those internal parts have. So I wonder, what color would I give these parts in the instructions (and parts lists)? To give an idea of the type of builds that happen inside my model (The exterior colors are tan, brown, white and pink): Internal parts would be signified to tell builders that these can be "any color". So the first question is: would you care whether instructions told you which parts are internal? Or would you use the signified color anyway, even when you know you can swap it for another? Would you be bothered? One obvious option is to pick a color that's not in the model (say, yellow), and show all internal parts in that color. It will be obvious from photos that the model doesn't use yellow, so all yellow parts have to be internal. However, this makes a complex internal build into one large yellow blob, which would be hard to decipher. Also, not all parts exist in yellow (such as the balljoint plates), so those parts would still have to be in a different color. Also, my model uses 1x1 bricks with stud on 1 side 1x1 bricks with studs on 2 opposite sides 1x1 bricks with studs on 2 adjacent sides 1x1 bricks with studs on all sides I think it'd be better if those were different colors. So I'd be tempted to "color code" the various snot 1x1 bricks, so that it's easier to see which is which. That sort of leads to the idea of "color coding" all internal parts. I pick some random (but existing) color for each part type, and all internal parts of that type are that color (e.g. all 1x1 Technic bricks are lime). The big advantage is that the color coding makes it immediately clear where parts go in each step, making instructions easier. However, it looks messy. Also, unaware builders might think they need to buy lime 1x1 Technic bricks, even though they could just as well use any other color. Also, Rebrickable has no "any color" option, so lime 1x1 Technic bricks might end up on someone's parts wishlist if they were to "part out" the model. I could go for some kind of middle ground and color-code most parts in gray or other neutral colors, with some special or similar parts such as snot 1x1 bricks in various other colors. But I wonder what others think of these considerations.

That's probably because the part list is sorted by color (and the odd colors are tucked away in corners). But even the part list shows white studded stuff, green panels, lime panels, orange stuff, dark orange stuff, lots of red stuff, etc. But I'm still curious to how functional this turns out to be. Especially steering and pendular axles. But also how the arm and end effecter "operate" - its playability, so to say.

Aren't 15L beams new in green? That's a welcome recolor :) Also, how do the new valves "feel"? Are they smoother than the old valves?

Interesting idea, and first renders seem pretty nice. How are you going to do the actual drop motion? Are you going to slow it down to make it seem realistic as a scale model? As a coincidence, I have once thought about this, and I would probably use a large heavy wheel hidden underneath the tower, connected to a winch from which a string runs through the tower, over the top, to the car. Then when the car falls, the string pulls the wheel into motion. This would slow down the motion of the car, so that it looks realistic and the motion isn't over in a half second. Doing this in reverse, that is, motorizing the flywheel to high speeds to "wind up" energy, you could maybe even do an upward launch (but that will be much harder). But I presume you're not going to do an upward launch. Edit: the other hard part will be slowing down the car nicely so that it doesn't slam against the floor. After all, you can only pull 5 G or so before the ride becomes unsafe. That is, you'd need at least 1/6 of the drop height as a brake run.

@Johnny1360 Page 5 contains the part list, showing exactly what it contains in dark-blue: 3x beam 3x5 7x beam 11 1x panel #21 (5x2x1) 1x panel #22 (5x2x1) 1x panel #1 (5x3x2) 1x panel #2 (5x3x2) 1x panel #5 (11x3x2) 1x panel #6 (11x3x2) It's not very much, but it's a welcome set of extra parts in that color. (How do I add a quote when editing a post?)

Have you tried a string-based approach? Either by having a string pull out a cylinder, or by having a string above the arm, pulling it up? Like the attached image? That way, you don't have to raise the main hinge, It might pull some hefty forces on the string, maybe you need to wind it multiple times, like in cranes. But the motion doesn't have to be fast.

This seems like a good time to buy the Mini... I think it's less ugly than on the preliminary picture, but it's nowhere near a DB5 and personally I find a gray car to be a bit boring (but I understand Lego had little choice given the licence). But it's quoite cool that it seems to have a few moving parts, and I think there are some nice building techniques, such as the slightly-sticking out tile on the side, just behind the front wheel, and some details at the front and back seem to be well-thought-out too. In fact I think the car itself isn't even that bad. If they did't call it a DB5, skipped the 007 licence and picked another color (anything would be better, except dark gray), it would be a decent set. I just think it focuses too much on details, instead of the shape of the actual car. And then to think that with the Beetle, they proved they could do a curvy car really well.

That's a huge amount of panels you'd be needing Just in case you didn't think about alternatives: have you considered to use, instead of panels, baseplates turned upside down, or 8x16 tiles? The former option uses fewer parts, and the latter may give you a smoother surface than the panels with all their holes. Personally I often find these large surfaces made of 5x11 panels to look ugly, because of the holes and lines of the panels. Also, you might consider downscaling a bit. If you could downsize the cars and make the link shorter, you may be able to get a smaller ride. If that's what you want of course, but personally I'd find a smaller build more elegant if it has the same functions, even if it might be slightly out of scale with the figures.

Yesterday's progress is a new base with both towers. It's 64 studs long (4 x 16) and surprisingly strong. The only disadvantage so far is that I'm kind of stuck with yellow as a color. I hope to find a color scheme that combines well with yellow and black. My idea is to add some kind of an operator's panel at the front where the ride's motions can be controlled with levers. That will come at the front, attached to the 6 x 8 bricks sticking out. However, I played with a gearbox system, but that got too many gears for one motor to drive. So I'm not sure how I want to solve that. I'd rather not use RC, and I don't have the polarity switches.

As it looks in the pictures, the steering angle is already really small. The 7L gear rack has only about 1 stud of deplacement, and the steering arms seem to be 4 studs long. That's quite a bad steering angle (about 15 degrees?) (I hope I see it wrong though.)