Erik Leppen

Which implies Technic is drifting away from its raison d'etre, its unique selling point. Technic IS about functionality. If there's one thing that should be good, it's the functionality. All the rest should be secondary to that. For looks, there's System, which does that much better. So, when that one single thing Technic is the absolute king at, is declining, it's no surprise - and even justified - that AFOLs start acting up and complaining. Take the Chiron 42083 set. That gearbox is great and an absolutely thrilling development. But I think it's worrisome that in a €350 set, they couldn't add suspension that works as well as that of 8865 (or 42083's own rear suspension). "It still is Lego" is no argument here - it should be an easy fix and I thin AFOLs perfectly feel whether something is an easy fix or not. (The W16 engine with its 3 crankshafts can't be easily improved, for example, and the function works as well as it can, so I don't complain there.) And the set is 16+, so we are in the target audience so if we don't like it, we have all reason to speak up. I want to end saying something about that "if you don't like it, don't buy it" argument that often comes up when discussing flaws. Speaking for myself: I don't care if the set I buy isn't perfect - I buy for the parts anyway. But I feel with those who buy the set for the model, don't know it has flaws until they have built it, and don't know how to fix those flaws. So I complain if a set has flaws, even though they don't influence my own buying decision.

- Change ground clearance, so that it's low when transported on a truck (so that a trailer with the loader on it stays within height limits), yet it can be high for off-road conditions on building sites.

I'm not a fan of the futuristic theme, it looks like something is missing (a cabin), but what speaks in favor of this set, I think, is that it's pure technic, without fuss. No PF stuff, no unnecessary frills, just a model with a decent amount of parts and 5 or so manual functions. I won't buy it (I have no need for the wheels or bucket, and it seems to be light on new parts) but I think for the target audience, it's a cool set.

Good post Jim. I wanted to add that I'm not so sure that all of this is just criticizing because we can. I think part of this is also the technical mind of Technic lovers enjoying trying to tinker with and improve things. Whenever the first images of new sets occur, our technical mind goes to work and we start trying out improvements. Because a model isn't physical yet, we'll have to do with suggesting and discussing flaws, ideas, ... There's this saying that if your only tool is a hammer, everything turns into a nail ;)

It could make the set 15 euro cheaper. This would have been the perfect set to combine with the existing PF motor set 8293. But you're right it's more realistic with a motor, in a way.

I can remember a interview Jim or Sariel had with Technic designers, and one of the questions I sent in and that was asked, was: what made a 4000-part set like the BWE possible, and if I remember correctly, in the interview the designers said: "well, basically, you guys!". Meaning us, AFOLs. So we do have influence. Even if it's only that one set, it's still quite something.

One of the things I have always learned is that if you want to state an opinion, say it as an opinion and not as a fact. If you think X, don't say "X", say "I think X". That way, you keep X as something part of yourself (namely, as your opinion). If you think "not X", I think it's much harder to be offended by someone saying "I think X" than by someone saying "X". Of course, discussion goes beyond "I think X", by not only stating opinions but also providing arguments. Maybe the person thinking X and the person thinking "not X" have drawn two opposite conclusions from similar premises, and by seeing each other's reasoning people can learn new ways of thinking about things.

Can someone tell me what exactly is wrong with the B model, and what exactly could be improved, given the parts available in the A? Also, I think the yellow-white-gray version looks really good! As much as I like weird colors, it looks more coherent this way (Also, the small panels are long overdue in yellow). However, I do agree with @Lipko that the problem is not the main color, but the random-colored nitbits (especially the red parts). And the white half-boom looks off.

I have no problem with the Technic theme as a whole or how it would be declining or whatever, but I do complain when a set says "2 in 1" yet appear to be more like "1.2 in 1". And since the discussion came about when 42082's B model was presented, it looks like that's what more people oppose. And this seems to be more common recently than in the studded era (even the Claas lacks a proper B). I can't remember many studded sets that didn't have a full alternative, besides the power puller. I do agree though, that sets are sometimes getting unwieldily large. A set should be as large as needed to incorporate the functions kids would reasonably expect such model to have, and not larger. 42070 is too large, and feels rushed as a result. 42069 is too large, and has too many parts as a result. I think 42082 is also too large, but what that does to quality remains to be seen. The Arocs's (42043) size feels justified because it's a very complex model. After that, the too-large sets began to emerge. I think the only really large set whose size is actually justified, is the BWE 42055. I think that one just needed the size to work as it did. All the other huge models, not so much. The Porsche and Chiron are arguably not even Technic, despite their intricated gearboxes. They are sets focusing on their looks, and studless is not suitable for sets focused on looks. I am still confident that a Porsche and Chiron would work much better as creator 1:17 cars like the F40, Mini, Beetle and Caterham. I'd much rather see a well-built studded Porsche or Chiron of, say, 1300 parts for €130, and I would expect car lovers not specially into Lego to prefer that too. System builds are just much more recognizable as Lego to a non-Lego-fan; also the smaller size make much better display pieces to put in a living room instead of in a glass case. And Technic lovers probably wouldn't have missed the two supercars if they weren't there.

That angle will be to sharp for the U-joint, probably.

I have the same feeling hre (except I like 42080 and the B model seems decent. Nothing stellar, but given the parts and wheels I think they did well. I don't see much better options. How different this is with 42082, which has more than 3x as many pieces. 42082 is begging for a good B model, and while original, reusing the carrier is not good. I'm sure we will see great C models in the community within the first month after release. Why is it that so many great models have such lacking B models? The Claas had the same issue.

Strawman argument. Richard said nothing about clone bricks. I'm sure you have heard of the idea of painting parts, which is also an option.

Wouldn't you achieve this simply by rotating the orange gear selector 180 degrees? That should swap 1-4 with 5-8, right? (Or am I imagining things as too simple now?)

Just as I was browsing Bricklink looking for flex axles in interesting colors, I thought: how nice would it be if the color guide would list the most recent year that the part appeared in any set, for every color. That would give me a quick glance on which colors are still current (and hence affordable new), and which ones are old (and hence wildly expensive and almost always used). Any way to just gray out, or filter out old parts would be really nice. Same for filtering out old colors like "Light orange" that aren't used anymore. I still accidentally click Brown sometimes when I mean Reddish Brown. Edit: for rebuildability purposes (by hypothetical people using my hypothetical instructions, and very occasionally real people using my real instructions), I rather not use part recolors that have been once in one set somewhere in 1990. A part that has been in one set in 2018 is much more likely to return and become more ubiquitous soon. This goes not just for Technic, but I'm designing a sculpture right now that needs a few old parts, but also quite a few recent parts such as 2x2 corner tiles and all those recent new small wedge plates and curved slopesand bows.

Dark pink? I know it exists in magenta (the even-darker pink) in 41239 - https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=155365#T=I, along with the angle connector #5 and the pair of 2x5x7 panels (#13 and #14). Bricklink doesn't know of a set that dark-pink 12L flex axles. Edit: but I checked the set (https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=165217#T=S) and it sure looks like dark pink indeed. Good find.

Weird colors, probably ? Edit: on a more serious note: make a vehicle not done before in any Technic set. make a motorized model with 1 motor and a 4-function switchbox make a futuristic model make a water- or air-based vehicle

The standard black pin accepts a bar too, since the mold was changed a few years back. But indeed, in the past, pins were thicker.

The exposed engine? I'd say, finally. Do you remember this debacle with a particular orange Technic car where so many people complained that there was little point in having a transmission drive an engine that you couldn't see? I like how a Technic set shows its internals. Also, covering it would have made the model bulkier. But good observation about the boom. I think you're correct that it doesn't go fully horizontal. It seems to be at about 25 degrees up, with the LAs 1 stud extended (out of a range of 5). The little side image shows the boombaout 65 degrees up. Assuming that is the max angle, it means the following: LA 1 stud out = 25 degrees LA 5 studs out = 65 degrees Linear extrapolation (which may not be exact, but gives a good estimate) gives LA 0 studs out = 15 degrees Also, note that there are mirrors on the undercarriate. I assume that the driver would have to look underneath the boom to see those - hence the boom is raised a little in the lowest position. Thirdly, remember it's only 2 LAs lifting this huge boom. Smaller range/angle means more leverage, which will be more than welcome here.

When the Porsche came out, it's not that far-fetched to compare it to the previous most recent large-scale race-car Technic set, which the 42039 Le Mans car was. I think it's a very logical comparison to find out how much news that € 300 set brings above a € 120 set. Remember there was little else that the Porsche could be compared to, so for people wanting to know whether they want it, it's very sensible to find the most similar set and compare it with that.

Good find @imvanya. But, didn't the complains about reusability, at least partly, have to do with those 3 pins attached to the rim?

Because competition adds a game element to our hobby. And many people like their open play to be complemented with closed play (i.e. games). Edit: while it's awesome to get rewarded, we're not all in it for the prizes. I know there have been topics about doing a compo without prizes once. It's the competing itself that adds the fun - all working to the same goal in much different ways is cool. Also, it'sa cool way to learn new things. Edit: yes I know the question was rhetoric, but I wanted to answer it anyway :)

The problem with #2, is first that I have difficulty understanding it, and second, if my understanding is correct, it requires all participants to keep a part list of their whole model and count the points. I think this would leave many people spend more time counting than building. I think this detracts heavily from the fun of building. This is basically a part cont limiter, but made more complex becuase instead of every part counting as 1, it counts as their "point value". (so it's a weighted part count, so to say). I believe there have been early contests with part counts, (but correct me if I'm wrong), but they can't be checked and are difficult for participants. Better just have a size limit (which more recent contests have done.) The problem with #1 is that you'll have to define what coutns as "too much" of a change; something which is nigh impossible to define well. I like the idea of a modding contest, but it will be hard to draw the line between what counts as modding and what counts as a complete MOC redesign inspired by a set.

What you forgot to mention in the Colors section was the color for the interior; which I find much better on the Chiron. On the Porsche, the interior can hardly be seen because it uses the same colors. As for steering, are you sure the radius is 210 cm, or did you mean the diameter? If ind ith ard to believe a full circle with ny of these cars has 4 meters diameter. 2 sounds more credible to me, seeing the steering angle. Porsche winning the Motorization section is essentially giving points for empty space. Since when is empty space a pro on a Technic model? Also, why are you consistently caling 42056 by its make, and 42083 by its model? Why not Porsche vs Bugatti or GT3RS vs Chiron? Edit: also, since how long do you have two hamsters? I thought you only had the Chiron hamster, the Porsche hamster seems new.

Nice truck. Good scale, not too large. This is a nice size to work in, I find. Also, nice array of functions. The main boom looks good, I like how you operated a function on a telescoping section. You might want to know there's special frictionless 8t gears for exactly this application, which appeared in red in 42009. These have an axle hole, but can slide over axles the same way that 2L worm gears do. Why did you use the Unimog portal axles for the rear? I think if you remove those, and change the chassis a bit (use the strength of the 5x7 differential casing frames to your advantage), you could do double tyres at the rear (unless here's something else in the way I didn't see). Also, except for the boom, it's a bit monochromatic for my taste. Personally I prefer if models have a bit more color. But that's a matter of taste, of course. I think the rear wheel arches are an improvement, although I would personally add wheel arches first and then the panels above them (similar to the front), rather than do panels first and then wheel arches attached to the sides. However, if you can only work with what you have, you're always going to be a bit limited, and we can't see your parts collection, so making usable suggestions is always harder then. All that said, I think your truck is a very nice way to introduce yourself as a builder. Curious to see what will come from you in the future.

Interestingly, I noticed yesterday that 3L axles with stud (normally dark tan) are coming in white in Classic set 10712. https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=6587&colorID=1&in=A