Erik Leppen

This is looking to be very interesting. This seems to be the first case of a gearbox with 3 speeds where all the gears are on two axles, like in reality. Not sure yet how the yellow "stepper wheel" works, and how the medium azure thing has 8 positions. My guess is that putting it on the axle the other way round will shift things by 45 degrees. Also, there are letters on the azure thing that are probably there to indicate stuff. Also I'm very curious to how smooth everything works with those orange sliding things. In any case, it's good to see the new 24t gear and the new shorter driving ring (always hated how the new driving ring is a full stud longer than the old). But IMHO, TLC has shot themselves in the foot by using blue and azure for the recent "normal" 12t and 20t gears. There's rhyme nor reason now to gear colorings. It's good that the 24t is red, to indicate it's "functionally the same" as the 16t, but they should have made all cross-hole gears in basic (dull, grayscale) colors and reserve bright colors such as blue for all the round-hole gears. Right now, there is no functional relation between color and gear type. I think both the normal 12t and 20t could have been white, or dark tan, or reddish brown. Those colors won't confuse with existing gears, but are still basic enough to indicate "normality". Anyhow, looking forward to seeing the reviews. Also, glad I didn't buy the skidder just yet...

After looking a bit more on pictures of the base, I noticed that that is full of frames as well. Both the undercarriage and the superstructure. To that point that I wonder why this crane had to be so big. I wonder how much of the functionality would just as well have fit in a smaller package. Is this big because the functions require the size, or is it big just to show off?

Guys... the A in AFOL stands for "adult". Let's act a bit mature, please. That would make it a bit more pleasant to be here for those of us who just want to discuss a Lego set.

As far as I can see, there are only two problems with this set. the short boom the price All the rest seems fine to me. People who can't stand the price: don't buy it. That tells TLC the price is too high. People who can't stand the low height: wait until the boom parts come available as parts. Then, nothing (except, again, price) should hold people back from extending the boom to 3 meters or whatever they find realistic, and have the tall crane they want. The price is a marketing thing, they probably test how far they can go and what profits will do when asking more for a set. Sure, there are some expensive parts, but I do think a serious margin is taken just to test the market. And the low height is probably a safety thing.

I think this will be fun. I guess a good place to start is to scroll through all Technic sets and see what sparks ideas. BrickLink Reference Catalog - Sets - Category Technic Curious to see what others will come up with :) (and I hope to join, but I don't have any ideas yet) Edit: also, I really need to free up bricks. I have too many works in progress and old stuff built up that I should disassemble...

I think this depends on the specific mould(s). I tested my neon yellow parts (which I'm certain to be new) and I notice no difference in clutch strength for studs in holes compared to what I'm used to. The all seem to act normal. So I hope your experience is a one-off (I mean, part-specific) because I often use the plates-in-holes technique to join long beams end-to-end by 1x4 plates (or Technic bricks by 1x5 rotor plates) for a super-rigid connection.

What if, in the version on the right, you would extend the two 3L axles to 5L and add an xox connector and two 3L bush-pins locking those connectors to the 7x11 frame? Then it would be both sturdy and form-locked. But that would take more room, so I don't know if that would fit.

I see it came across much harsher than I meant it... I think I should have said "communities are weird". Which we are, I think :) And I should have added a "", because I have no mean intentions. I just observed this difference. Also, when I say weird, I don't mean worse or better than anyone. I don't mean "weird" as a negative. I just found the conflicting opinions (of different people, you're right, I glossed over that ), well... amusing. I imagine the designers who might read this, will think "man, these are a hard to please bunch" :) (which we are, myself included) So, sorry for the needless slap-in-the-face

What's new, though, is the licences. And what licences do, is, instead of a model fitting around its intended functions, the functions now have to fit in a pre-destined outer shell. Which has changed the focus.

So we're complaining for years how the theme has become slick and smooth and repetitive instead of functional and technically interesting, and now, for once, we're getting an out-of-the-ordinary set with original and novel functions, and people aren't getting it because it's not slick and smooth enough? Some people are weird...

If they'd do that, it would make other sets more expensive. After all, they'll have to earn back the costs that went into developing this one. Also, cancelling the set would help the competition sale more of their cranes. :) So, from a TLC perspective, as far as I can see, cancelling the set sounds like a very dumb idea.

I think that the design department found out they wanted smaller panels, and they started working on creating a sensible/coherent set of them in one go, and when they had something, it proved so useful for smaller models that they decided to produce them all at once. At least that's my perception with all the new small panels coming. I really think this will change the design of smaller models.

As a car, I think it looks nice. I like how the doors are slightly slanted. Also, seems a good parts pack for new small panel stuff in lime. I might get it just for that. For the rest, these cars are all a bit "samey".

I see the new 6x6 quarter-circle "small banana gear" from the last AT-AT, in black, hidden in the sides. The tyres are nice. For the rest, it seems a waste of parts.

Super nice model. This ticks all the boxes of a great alternative. It's functional, with two functions that are super appropriate for the X-wing. The switches are nicely conceiled (I like the switch in the cockpit). As for looks, I like how good it looks, it has the perfect color scheme (including how you used the yellow), it doesn't look messy with jumbled colors everywhere, but it does have the "greebles" that come with spaceships. I like the light gray fronts of the "engines" on the wings for example. And it seems to use a large fraction of the set's inventory. Just, awesome (says someone who's totally not into Star Wars).

Older sets never had these additional stuffs, and I can't remember ever hearing anywhere that anyone missed them. I'm really happy that 42157 is just the vehicle. All those additions feel to me like unnecessary parts waste: I buy Technic for the techniques. For play sets, there is almost all the rest of TLC's offerings. If I buy a City crane, yes, a set of walls to play with is a great addition. If I buy a Technic crane, I want a Technic crane, not a Technic crane plus all kinds of additional stuff that adds no functionality to the actual crane but that I still have to pay for. Yes, I know they are children-oriented sets. But children are creative. They will find things around them to haul around, lift, grab, etc.

This was (mostly) because 42082 did actually (just) beat the previous part-count record, set by 42055 which felt more deserving of that record. Also, the way I remembered it, it wasn't just the wheel covers where 42082 was overly generous with parts. The whole design felt over-engineered.

That 11L liftarm is connected at only 1 end and held in place by a half pin. So it's really sqrt(26). That would make sense, because the holes are then all in grid.

The Perseverance set has the 7L flip flop in black, I thought. Somewhere in the suspension arms for the wheels.

In short, my process is Build chassis Get stuck, tear down, and build a crane instead In a bit longer, my usual order is something like Build a front axle Build a rear axle Connect axles via rudimentary frame Think about layout for engine and gearbox Build a gearbox Build a frame to connect everything and put engine in Add seats and interior details Start bodywork: Build lower part of rear and front bumper Add wheel arches This is usually the point where I get stuck...

Also, the Airbus helicopter 42145 has been universally praised for its realistic main rotor functionality and functions in general. If you want to get into MOCing, then you could consider picking a set that has colors you already have, so you can expand your collection in a particular color so you can build more models in that color faster.

and maybe kept in place by half-pins. But it's still weird to find a Technic piece with holes at slight-more-than-integer distance between holes. That said, if the expectation that it's 16 long is correct, then the triangular parts have a 1:5 ratio, which would be half the angle of a 5:12:13 triangle which is known to have almost exactly the same angle as the #3 and #5 angle connectors.

This sounds like a very reasonable price for the model. If it's this, I'd probably get it some day.

Now this is lame. I expected a blue car. Now, we're getting the same black car with only a few blue accents. Now how many parts did they recolor? 30 or so? For that worth, they could just have added the 30 extra blue parts (and a few duplicates of the parts to be stickered) to the original set and offer 2 color options from 1 set.

Probably 1x7 flipflops in green, same as in the pullback. Edit: oops, this is reply to previous page, about 3x19 frames.