Erik Leppen

...why did you create a topic for this?

Starting a new project, rather than perfecting this one, sounds like a good way to practice and have fun. The time to perfect them will come as you get better. Also, if you want to learn, and have the budget, getting some of the starter sets is a neat way to learn some techniques. Anyhow, yeah, it's quite a nice buggy. Too bad the stickers don't work that well on it. Also I personally find it hard to work with those green 3x13 bent panels, but you did very well. Although the seating position doesn't seem to be very comfortable with that black gear where your head would be :P

Buiding sets is a great way to learn the way of studless building. This'll come in handy for building your own models, especially after such a long break. I don't own the set, but definitely build every set you have. If it really disappoints, you can always sell it "Used" for a slightly lower price, but as the set is relatively recent this won't make a big difference. And if you're enjoying it, and have the budget, get another set that grabs your attention. I don't own recent large Technic sets except 42039, but 42042 looks very promising indeed.

What strikes me as really odd is, why didn't they use studded bricks for rigidity on this? It served them fine in 2005 (8421) and all the bricks are still available. It would probably also make the model better looking.

Anyone noticed the yellow 5L and 9L axles? It just seems a continuation of doing some odd lengths in yellow and some even lengths in red. Still no idea why they do this, but here in this model the yellow axles work nicely as the fences of the walkways.

I think we're expecting more from it than it is. The gearbox shows that the lever cannot move sideways, unless it is a joystick similar to the red snow groomer from a some years ago (8263?). I'm not expecting this. I also am not expecting the suspension to be more complex than 8448's, there won't be four-wheel steering. Maybe 4WD, someone who is into Porsches? There might be a new (or existing) remote-control unit, as we don't see HOG, and I think this would mean the functionalities are quite simple, but there might just as well be a steering knob on the back. Or none at all, and steering works via the steering wheel only. Anyhow, let's see how this will beat 8880 functionality-wise :) At least there's no color vomit on this one :) Yet. Let's see what color composition the final model will bring. I hope something unusual like lime green or orange.

I'm not so sure about this. At first sight, it looks like a bunch of beams. I realize that it needs to be strong, but I prefer an intricate and compact model with lots of details, and and the Claas looks much more promising to me personally than this. Of course I'll be curious as heck to know what the inner workings are, but I'll be close to 100% certain I won't be buying this. Part of the problem is the colors. Not so much the pins and axles, but the gray and dark gray mixed seemingly randomly. If only they made the 5x7 box beam and the 5x11 panel in dark gray, there would already have been a lot more color consistency. Also the yellow stripe makes it look really crowded with too many color bands and things. I would have prefered a completely dark-gray frame with dark-blue as the main color and yellow for some details like the fences. The huge yellow wheel and all the yellow turntables are kind of an eyesore, to be honest, and of course, I'd much prefer having that absolutely wonderful new ring part in a more neutral color. So, I really hope they revisit the colors. Also it remains to be seen if the functionality justifies the size, or that a 2000 piece set could have been just as functional. There better be loads of functions. That said, I applaud the bold move by TLC to release such a wildly otherworldly model as a 4000 piece (and probably 400 euro...) set. I bet they do it just to seek the limits of what can be sellable.

I'm usually too modest to think all of my MOCs deserve a topic on their own. So I would naturally go for a single thread for all my stuff. However, the competitions require a thread per build, and I have to say I like this, because discussion is more focused that way. It is harder though to find stuff, because there are more topics, but there's indexes for that, but the topics themselves are cleaner, and give more room to discuss a model. So I probably keep posting new topics for my MOCs (at least, those that I consider worth posting).

This looks pretty darn great. I was surprised the B fit the box (just). Both models look equally well, B could just as well have been the A! Also, nice color usage on both models, I like the green-orange combo with the black. Well done!

Inspired by this year's small hydroplane set, I decided to go for watercraft for the [TC9] A + B model competition. After having done some calculations on sizes, I eventually came with a box of 41 x 21 x 11 = 9471, which fits the 10000 constraint. So, the A model is a hydroplane, but bigger than the set. The green is the bright green from the 42039 Le-Mans car, a new color. I haven't yet seen any MOCs where the color is combined with yellow. Also, the new 3x13 bent panels I only own in that color, work very nicely as air spoilers. http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Vehicles/Watercraft/tc9hydroplane.png First I thought about doing a hovercraft as the B, but in the end I chose to do a regular boat. Both models have the same functions. Small front wheels drive a V8 engine and a propellor at the same time, and there is a HOG wheel that rotates the rudders and a set of rear wheels, similar to the 42025B hovercraft. http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Vehicles/Watercraft/tc9boat.png I know it's a bit light on functions, but I went for looks this time, at least for the A model. In any case, doing these models is an interesting deviation from my normal things, and a nice lesson in working with so many panels. :) I hope I can find time this weekend to do a short video. (not very much to see though, just drive/engine/propellor and steering. Might just as well not have time for the video, as something else very important might take my weekend, but if I find some time than this will be my entry :)

If you do an alternative model within a week, you could enter it for the current [TC9] competition.

Yes, building sets from instructions is a good way to learn. But be sure not to forget the smaller sets. I think small sets show very well how you could use parts to create a whole. I think a small set like 42032 or 42021 can teach novices a lot. For the rest, be sure just to get going. Take the bricks and build. It might not be good, but at least you get experience and will discover things. After all, in the end, you gotta learn by doing :)

Sell them all, and when the time is there to MOC, buy the tyres of that time. E.g. Unimog tyres, Tumbler tyres, or whatever TLC will come up with over the coming years. There's bound to be large tyres available, whatever year you'll be in. There's nothing that special about power puller tyres, except the price. (And yes, I'm a hypocrite, because I keep mine as well.)

They are in tension (pull), not in compression (push). :)

It looks like most people assumed a motorized version, akin to 9398. But I probably won't be doing that. There are many great crawlers already on the net, there seems little point in adding another one. I want to do something similar to 8070, where the driving is manual and auxiliary functions are motorized. Anyhow, thanks for responding all, and also for voting! The votes seem to be pretty even! I decided to continue with a heavily modified version of the the tall version, with many changes for the better. I changed the linkage for the suspension. The 9L links were not great (thanks Cumulonimbus for pointing this out), and the sagging problem was caused by the fact that the mounting points on the axle were only 6 studs apart and were very low. So I put the mounting points higher, and 10 studs apart, and there's no sagging now. . I now used the new 1x5 suspension arms combined with the 2 x 4.8 beams with ball. The new mechanism also removed the need for the weird anti-sway bars, so these are removed as well. This automatically solved the bending-parts problem. I made the mounting points much higher on the axles, reducing the sway problem. Also, the mounting points were only 6 studs apart, I made that 10 studs, reducing the say problem further. Now, with the body on, it seems to work fine on flat terrain and won't sag when pushed sideways. I also made the whole chassis 2 studs longer, so that I could create a space in the center that fits the battery box. You'd be surprised by the strength of the studded beam of the other version. Good point, I now found another solution. Will post picture later.

So I wanted to build something off-road. So I built a cool off-road chassis. Of course, I could have stopped there, but I wanted to explore other options. So now I have two off-road chassis. But this raises a problem. Which one to use! Both have their own pros and cons, and they seem to weigh up quite well. Which makes it all the much harder to choose. This is version 1, which I will call the low version. This is version 2, which I will call the tall version. Both versions are intended to be used with the Power Puller tyres (8466), and both have four-wheel drive and four-wheel steering. Both versions have the same vertical suspension travel and the strength seems to be the same as well. The pros of each version: Steering: the tall version has much smoother steering. the tall version has a smaller turning radius the tall version steering does not depend on the suspension compression the low version has the turning point inside the wheel, giving a smaller displacement of the wheel. Steering the tall version looks kinda ridiculous. Drive the tall version's drive train has much less friction the tall version's drive train has a 3:1 reduction near the wheel Suspension the low version is much more stable. The tall version has much less resistance against pushing it sideways and I'm afraid it will "sag" sideways when more weight is added (because the body will not be very light I'm afraid). the tall version's suspension has a linkage that makes it heavier when it is compressed more Structure the low version doesn't bend parts. In the tall version the 16L links are bent when suspension is compressed on one side. the tall version looks cooler. the low version is much lower, and therefore, needs much less space, which means much more room is left for other mechanisms. the low version's frame could be adjusted so other mechanisms can be incorporated in the same space. In the tall version, the space is mostly taken by the moving parts and the structure. the tall version is fully studless, which is more "in style" (but I might change the low version) Wheels the low version can attach the wheels with the deep side inwards. On the tall version, when the wheels are mounted with the deep side inwards, the tyres rub against the Unimog portal axle parts. So... which version would you rather continue with, if you were planning to build a rather heavy body? For your convenience I have added a poll, but I will mainly look at replies offering valuable insights :)

When disassembling a model, I always first take everything apart, and only then start sorting. Also, I tend to disassemble models in a sort-of tidy sense, keeping things mostly symmetrical during the disassembly. I can't stand the mess that happens when just tearing things apart. Does that count?

Yes! I found one I do as well! :D Because it looks like compared to all of you, I just build :P OK, I do care about symmetry where possible, and about slots on bushes being aligned to those on cross blocks where possible. But for the rest, I am far from as OCD-like as many people here. I do have a tendency, though, to use black inline axle joiners for structural ones, and gray inline axle joiners for functional ones (those which rotate). Often, moving linkages tend to be gray as well, and the frame is usually black. Another thing I can't stand is old gray and old dark gray. They just don't match, even if not visible in the end... Also, 1/2 pins are blue or gray, but in my models they're either all blue, or all gray. OK, maybe I am a bit perfectionistic, just like you all :P

I think the writing is completely fine. And who cares if you use the same phrases in different reviews? What counts is that you cover the facts and provide different points of view. Which seems to be fine. You cover the interesting parts, the inventory, the functionality, the looks, the colors, the stickers, the packaging, the playability, etc. so it looks rather complete to me. And, as you said, most people concentrate on the photos anyway. But, did you consider writing in your native language first and then translate? Just an idea for next year :)

1. Build a cool model 2. Use most of its parts to build a decent alternative model At the core, that's it. I suspect they update the main model if the alternative model would be better off with a certain extra part, but the rule of TC9 is, the parts of the B model are a subset of the parts of the A model. Follow this rule, stay in a 10kcs box for both models, and there you have it - a valid entry :D

Why would there be discussion about whether you'd be allowed to not sell something? This is a given for everything someone owns, right? As far as I know, whenever you're the owner of something, you decide whether or not to keep it. Or am I overlooking something obvious here? My advice would be to not invest any energy in those people. Invest energy in people you like. Edit, also, did you realize you edited out his name in his posts, but not in yours? (not that I care, a youtube comment isn't private, it's on the internet anyway)...

I think they are for making things easier for children. But why does one set have 4L and 5L Axles colored and the other sets have 6L and 7L axles colored.

Checked out all the reviews. Thanks for making them, it really helps. I'm not sure if I'll get any of the sets, or just collect the pieces, but for some weird reason I like the hydroplane most. I also really like that dragster for ingenuity and originality. I think it's simply just quite a weird set, and it's good to see designers to out and create something weird for once. One thing I really miss is some more time to check out the uses of that new bent panel. I think it is best used on the diagonal of a 3/4/5 triangle, as is done on the loader. Also we should really find out what the colored axles are all about.

Not sure what people like about this set, I think it's the worst of all 1H2016 sets. Odd shape, bland colors, no new parts, and the windscreen isn't even closed. But the reviews are great, indeed. :)

I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised by this set, especially by the looks. I really really like the colors - dark gray works very well with the two vibrant colors, and good to see a new dark gray panel. And if I compare to the green-white version (relaly great idea by the way), I have to say I very much prefer the orange and purple version. I really hope we will see more purple in the future. Also, good to see the large steering wheel make a return. Didn't even realize this on earlier photos.