Erik Leppen

@BrickbyBrickTechnic I agree that the roof/windscreen beam looks a bit off, but I probably won't change it because it provides a lot of extra strength. Replacing the 9L beam with a 3L means I can't fix the angle, which makes the whole thing much weaker. So I take the compromise here and choose rigidity over looks. Anyhow, it looks like the thing is nearing completion, after I made the following small additions and changes: I added headlights! Also, I raised the back end of the front wheel arches by a half stud, which is just enough to keep the wheel free. When pressing the suspension it still touches, but preventing that would bring the wheel arches too far up and it would look weird. And, of course, I added rear lights as well. (yes, the 9L links are missing here) I found the sides a bit messy, so I changed the small beams by axles. Also, there were a lot of blue pins sticking out, and I decided to use 1x2x5 bricks instead of liftarms for the sides. I think it looks much cleaner now. Also the dashboard now has transparent parts. And last but not least, I changed how the sides are constructed from the inside. Some unnecessary weight (in the form of 4 more frames) is removed. Also, the construction is now a bit simpler (even though maybe less strong), which will also help the instructions (which I have already started). (In case you wonder, the protruding tan axle pins are temporary supports for building; these will be removed.)

Guys, guys, don't you see? You're all wrong. It's obvious that the panels on the forklift are Very Dark Blue, and the crane boom has 3 x 6 dog bones with 4 x 11 panels in between. How awesome, another new shade of blue and 2 new pieces

After having seen the images, I have to say I don't understand what all the fuss is about. They seem like nice sets, sure, especially the first two, but given the enthousiasm I expected more somehow. 42079 (forklift). Seems like a very nice set. Good to see a forklift again, and I like the modest size. 42080 (forest harvester). Also a nice model. Good to see pneumatics again; however I expect only 2 pneumatic functions. The green is that from 42008 by the way. 42081 (volvo autonomous). Is this serious? It looks like a TC12 entry. Let's see what functions it will offer. It will have to make up for looks somehow. 42082 (rough terrain crane). Looks great, but I really wonder what will justify the ginormous size (if anything...). Also, the outriggers and walls are too small.

Building models that, in hindsight, maybe you shouldn't have built, is a great way to learn the craft of building :) I think we all have (had) these kind of builds. I know I have :) I think it's good to show us the model you have built (I'm a bit less happy about the image host you chose to upload the pictures, but the video shows most of the information so I'm fine with that). I do think your car is a bit messy on the inside, but that's mostly due to the huge mindstorms motors. Also, the whole thing is a bit, well, colorless. Partly due to the not-so-great photo quality, it looks a bit like a large gray mass. On some pictures it looks like you made the photo black-and-white, until you spot some colored details. I think gray is difficult to build cars with. There are few panels in gray (and mostly large flat ones), so you have little choice in parts. The result is a lot of stacked beams, which makes it look a bit "square" and also makes the model quite heavy (as you have found out yourself already). Maybe it would be better to pick another color, one in which you have more panels and hopefully flex axles (these are rare nowadays). Red or white come to mind. If you have the money, maybe try to find a good single-color panel set (like 42025) to obtain some more build material :) I personally don't recognize the Ford GT unfortunately (but I don't know it very well), but I do like the dark-gray sloped link from the roof to the side that is on the real (new) Ford GT as well. I also like the 5x9 bent beams you used to outline the roof. From a distance, it's not even such a bad model, the problems mostly arise when you take a closer look and zoom in on details. But please note that you have took on a difficult task just by wanting to build an existing car. I normally go for fantasy models myself, since I find it way easier, because you can adapt your design to the sizes of parts (panels) Lego offers. As a not-so-experienced builder, you might want to try "just" building a car you're happy with, before you take on the much harder task of replicating an existing car.

This car wouldn't misfit in the Scale Modeling forum. I would even say the topic should be moved there. It's so good, both as a functional model and as a scale model. I love the removable body as a function, and the body itself looks quite strong too! Also the suspension seems to work very smoothly. Very, very well done, one of the better models. And the chrome looks splendid, even though it's not official.

My guess would be that because it's rough terrain, it doesn't have to limit itself to 12 tonnes per axle (a rule for on-road traffic), so it can carry more weight on fewer axles. 2 is minimally needed for driving and has the fewest parts, which eases maintenance. Edit: Milan beat me to it

Is "earth green" the green from 42008?

Why are there 4 LAs? What will each of them do? i'm asking, because the way I know pivot steering is that the turntable is fixed to one half and the other half rotates. That woyd require 2 LAs, obe lefat and one right. I velieve thst's what 42030 does. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're planning to do. I don't know the source vehicle you're basing this off.

So I read there's pneumatics. Good to hear, I was wondering whether it was forgotten, but fortunately it's given some new love. Also I missed out on the Arocs (the pneumatics woukd be the only reason to get it, and I'm more of a mechanics person). So maybe this new set might be interesting (haven't seen anything yet).

Interesting theme. I might have two little ideas, so not sure what to do yet.

Yes, I am also very curious to the B model, which I think I like better as well. (But that's mostly because I just find trailer-trucks very uninteresting.)

Edit: now seeing Jim's post. Sorry if my post stands in the way of the new topic. Mods, please feel free to move it. Good theme!

I think you're right Jeroen. My wording wasn't optimal. I think what I try to say is that over the last years they kept moving in a certain direction.

Keep in mind though that #12 was "weird vehicles" and #11 was "battlebots" both of which are not very conventional. So if #13 will be "non-vehicle", it would be good if #14 will be something more "down-to-earth" so that more conventional builders who just want to build a nice truck or a nice tractor or whatever can join. Personally I'm not a fan of this non-vehicle idea, but if many people find it interesting I say, have a go at it. It's most certainly a theme worthy of exploration within Technic, because it sparks new and original mechanisms and solutions to problems that usually don't occur when building a truck or a car. So, personal preferences set aside, non-vehicle themes are I think very suitable for competitions now and then.

Panels, or flex axles, or bricks and plates, or tiles and curved slopes, are all design choices. I think they are equally valid, and each poses their own unique set of challenges (weight, structural integrity, number of parts available/required, etc.) and they also have their own styles, and different substyles in each, and combinations. Each style choice can be appreciated. One of the things I really like in a model, is a sense of coherence. Coherence in style, coherence in detail, etc. That is, that the different sections of a model have the same amount of detailing and the same style. If one section of the model has much more closed forms and another section is open, it doesn't seem to "flow" as nicely. (I notice how hard these kinds of things are to put in words). In official sets, I am also lucky enough to have seen a large part of the transistion, my oldest set being 8853. I think every age has some really good-looking sets. I think 8880 is a beautiful model, for example, because it has a very clear style. A few years further, you arrive at 8479 (the green Barcode/Scanner Truck) which I find one of the best-looking studded sets which has a bit of a Model Team vibe to it. A few years later you get 8462, the futuristic blue tow truck whose design is sometimes frowned upon by fans, but I really like it because, although the style may not be my taste, I personally find it really well-balanced and coherent. 8448 is also really nice, because it's good at suggesting shapes that aren't actually there. @Didumos69 in his post explains how modeling is about representing part of a system, which means modelling is also about leaving certain things out (abstracting them away). As a modeler you can use the brains of your viewers to fill in the gaps for you (artists do this; painters, musicians etc). You draw a few curved lines and the viewer's mind sees a windscreen. That way you can create something without actually creating it. A fallback in design quality came ardound the time of 8436, where the studless has more or less "taken over" with panels becoming more important but the newer panels not yet designed. And personally I feel that bulldozer 8275 (which has completely its own style concidentally) marks a turnaround point from when the Technic designers started moving more and more towards the current mainly-paneled "design style" they kept for the last 10 years.

Good idea to have a round of just-for-fun questions. Also, nice questions @Aventador2004 :) How much does lego control your life? Well, space-wise or time-wise? I mean, Lego controls a large part of my room ;) Fortunately, it doesn't control my life. But of course, some things in life do inspire me to build things, and sometimes I can spend whole days building. But that holds for all hobbies :) do you want a White Christmas this year? We had snow last week (same country as Jim ;)) and it looked beautiful, but it was good that most of it was in a weekend, because Monday and Tuesday half of my colleagues had to work from home and one colleague was stuck abroad because his flight back home was canceled. So, yeah, snow is beautiful but it's also dreadfully cumbersome ;) Personally, I don't care for Christmas so I don't care if show falls around the 25th or sometime else (as long as it's not in June :P ) Are there going to be lego boxes under the tree? No children here, so no Christmas presents (the Dutch have Sinterklaas 3 weeks before, which is more of a children and presents thing. Christmas here is more focused around family and friends, diners, end-of-year lunches with colleagues, cliché movies and decorations with lots of little lights ;)) Do you do anything special with legos during Christmas? Not really, no. Except that it's the start of a 2-week holiday here so no work!! :D So, more time to tinker with little mechanisms :)\ And last, what is your favorite color of technic? That's a hard one. What I like most is combining different colors and trying out interesting palettes. But I have to say I really like Lego's white. It's not pure white, slightly warmer (compared to, say, a sheet of paper). Also, white is the best color if you build with non-optimal light :)

Too bad to hear this about the prizes. But I'm sure everyone will understand that the forum staff isn't to blame here. I don't know how I would react if I were a winner, but I probably would have said, oh well. I have enough Lego anyway. Which brings me to the point: do Eurobricks competitions even need prizes? I think most people who join just like the challenge, and the community feeling that rises from it, and join the competitions purely for fun and to challenge themselves or "pitch" their builds against others. What if the only prizes would be a mention in the competition HoF and the badges usually given out? Wouldn't that be fine for most people? I can't imagine many people having a problem with that, really. (Also, personally, I think a community's budget can be spent in better ways than by giving Lego to people who have plenty of it anyway.) As for a new contest. I don't have a particular preference, I just await the announcement. Curious what you will think of.

What's interesting about this one is that it fits. I was looking at it for a bit until I realized it's not an exact fit, but close. This can be proven using some mathematics. For those wanting to know: A hexagon consists of 6 equilateral triangles, So, for a hexagon, the "radius" (center-to-corner distance) is equal to the side length. The yellow hexagon has sides of length 3, so the radius is 3 too. The blue hexagon has sides of length 8, so the radius is 8. The height of the blue triangle (side-midpoint-to-center distance) can be found using Pythagoras as height^2 + 4^2 = 8^2, hence height = sqrt(64 - 16) = sqrt(48), wuich is about 6,93. So the red rod, whose endpoints are 3 and 6.93 from the hexagon's centers, has mathematical length 3.93; so the piece used is 0.07 too long.

Thanks for posting the part list. Good to see the variety of dark azure being increased; some nice new parts there. Also, is the 3x4x5 bent panel new in dark gray?

Also, the towball pins they connect to, aren't parallel, so the 8.06 isn't the exact distance. My guess is that it's about 0.06 less, due to the fact that the pins on the front suspension unit are slanted slightly, yet the pins on the chassis are vertical.

I expected nothing after seeing the pictures, but I certainly would have hoped or wished for more. Except "everything most Technic cars have" it would be cool to have something that "few Technic cars have". Could have been anything. Suspension travel adjustment, for example, like 8297 had, would be cool. Anything would be good. Even something silly like 42050's wheelie thing that disgusted AFOLs is better than nothing (in my opinion). 42039 has two additional functions + motorization option, 8070 has 4 additional functions + default motorization. It may seem lame to some people, but to me it doubles the number of functions (since I only count a moving panel as a function if it has a mechanism. Technic, to me, is not about play sets, it's about build sets. For play we have 90% of the other themes. So I expect an interesting build, and mechanism make builds more interesting. Any mechanism can make a build more interesting to me. I just don't see any interesting build features in 42077, except the two suspension units and the linkage that opens the side panels when you raise the engine cover. Or, turning the argument around: given that the set has only those 3 functions, I could have hoped for a smaller set. A smart mind once said somewhere on these forums "you should build as big as needed, but not bigger". I feel this set is bigger than the functions require. Evidence: 42037, which has the same functions. It's just that 1000 parts for {drive, steer, suspension} seems lackluster. 8069 has 7 functions for 600 parts, to throw in a comparison. And yeah, 42070 was ugly too, but at least it had an intricate motorized double gearbox that controlled 6 functions. I don't really care (well, OK, I do, apparently :P), I'm not the target audience and I probably won't get the set anyway, and apparently there're many people who like the looks. I just feel it's not very "Technic'y". If it was labeled Racers, I wouldn't complain. It's perfectly fine as a Racers set.

Not sure how people find this set good looking, I still think it's dead ugly (especially the rear half of the roof) and find the design sorely lacking finesse. It's as if they threw a few large panels in and then called it a day. Also it looks short and wide (and wider at the back), not sure if that's realistic for rally cars. I do like how it's not too large, and I still like the rollcage. It's also very light on functions. The best comparison I think is 42039, the other recent race car, which had all functions 42077 has, plus a mechanism for the doors, plus a mechanism for the rear hood, plus a switchbox, plus the ability to motorized it. It may not be much to other people, but I think that makes 42039 a lot more Technic than this. 42077 has the same functions as 42037, but more than twice the parts and they still didn't manage to make it look nice. If you compare it to 8070, surely 8070 comes out much better. Better looking, much nicer wheel arches, less gaps, better flowing design, more coherent color scheme, more interesting angles, better proportions, much more functions. All that 42077 has counting for it is that shiny blue color, a nice rollcage and being a bit cheaper. Parts-wise, it's good to see more variations of blue panels arrive, but I don't see what I can do with all those panels if I don't have connectors in the same color to to connect them with or to fill the holes.

If 42077 is dark azure, this means we get our first connector in that colour... (top rear of front wheel arch shows "xoo" cross block)

To be honest, I came to similar conclusions about the panels myself. It's hard to make anything look smooth with them. (I'm certain this played a role in replacing them with a new set of panels). That said, I see their use here as an important feature, so I won't switch them out for the newer ones. They're a design feature here. I think the old panels make this build quite unique and therefore interesting. But I agree that it would be really neat to see what could be done with current pieces. (Maybe, using flex axles could even be a better bet). Well, in any case it presents a perfect opportunity for a future project. In case someone else picks up the challenge, I'd be following with interest :) I'm planning to do instructions, yes. But this will take some time, I always run behind with those...

Update! I haven't posted in a while, but a lot has happened. I added most of the body, including the green panels, and it's now almost done. Unfortunately, the front wheels are touching the wheel arches when steering. I get back to that in a moment. Also, the rear fin doesn't fit very nicely. The fin is about 0.3 studs too long, bending the rear wing slightly backwards. So I have to change some things there. In the top view you have the best view on all the green panels. It's quite hard to make them flow nicely, becuase the smallest part is still 3 x 5 studs, and all the parts have only 2 or 4 connection points, all in 1 direction. It makes you appreciate the new panels with all their connection points once again. I know the pictures aren't the brightest ever, but the weather was dark when I shot the pictures. The 9L links at the very back provide a little bit of strength to the sides, without adding too much volume (so air resistance is minimal). The low height is best seen in a low front view. The nose is not exactly like in the original reference, but you have to work with the panels there are, and given those I think this is a nice solution without large open spaces. The main problem right now is the front wheels touching the wheel arches when steering. I might have to change the wheel arches slightly. It may only need to move a few millimeters. So I'm thinking of replacing the #5 angle connectors with a pair of #1 angle connectors so the angle is free. The top flex axle may then be slightly further from the wheel, without making the whole thing higher. But I have to experiment with this. The other option is changing the geometry of the suspension, but I see little space for that. Simply installing stronger springs won't work, because there is no "slightly stronger" spring of the same size than the dark-gray ones (as far as I know). Remaining to-do (besides fixing the rubbing problem): add front and rear lights (between the black side panels, as clearly seen on the last picture). I'm not sure a car like his even needs indicators, but if they can be added then why not. Also, I want to change the structure around the HOG, becuse there's a bit of a weakspot there for the frame. The digital file says I'm around 1700-1800 parts. You may not expect that, but there's a lot of small bits (e.g. 60 beams 1x2x0.5 and 50 half-bushes). Comments and stuff are again welcome :)