Erik Leppen

Oh, yes, so much. My most recent model (linked below) has 28 of these (in a nearly-1500 part model). They're wonderful. Also what I notice is that I tend to use half-width beams much more than many Lego sets do. Often, sets use whole beams for everything, and half-beams are very often used in pairs to form a "whole beam". I think this is a pity, really. Working with half beams enables more compact constructions and it just opens up more possibilities. Just compare the suspensions of my Le Mans model with the suspension of 42039, and see which is more compact. The result of this is that my models have usually more axles (especially 2 and 3 long) and fewer pins. Indeed, the model linked above has about 100 3-long axles. The new pin with hole is also a lovely part, and there's a short pin with hole upcoming that will add further possibilities. And, indeed, the 5x7 frame. Makes it so much less trouble to have a strong structure and still be able to connect in all three directions to it. I have about 70 of those, of which 50 come from a bulk order and I had a moment where I had only about 20 left and the rest was all in use. I also like the 5x11 frames, but in practice I tend to use them much less often.

To prepare for purchase of the 42039 set, I was building a similer style vehicle, just to compare with the set later on, and then I found Techlug's competition 27 around the same subject: improve the design of 42039. I don't know if I succeeded, but it was an interesting model to design and build. It has 1494 parts (the competition allowed 1500 and the original version had over 1850, so I had to optimize it quite heavily). The color scheme was kind of dictated by which panels I had in which colors (and the fact that I wanted to avoid red), but I like how it turned out, a very rare and striking combination. Functions are nothing out of the ordinary. - rear hood that opens - doors that open independently using damped springs - steering (steering wheel not connected) - suspension - V8. The original version had a V12 but the competition required V8, so I left the empty space so that 4 extra cylinders are easily added. More pictures here (in Dutch, but the pictures are universal ;) ) http://www.erikleppen.nl/lego/bouwwerken/autos/le_mans_racer.php

I took the prices I have seen around me in Dutch toy stores. They might differ in other countries. (And I have seen 42030 for EUR 229 as well by the way, and I bought 8043 for EUR 117, so no, I'm not picking extremes.) That said, I do think 8043 is a much better Technic set than 42030 (interesting mechanisms, interesting to build), even though 42030 might be a better playset (but I don't own it so I don't know).

42039. The set itself is not very spectacular (but I don't own it yet), but if you check out its discussion topic, what you'll find is that many people are modding it. So it's a set that invites to mod it. Anyhow. 8043 is really great. The best alongside 8258 if you like complex gear trains. 8110 is great as well, and has many interesting pieces, but it's really big. I enjoyed building it and playing around with the crane is cool as well. What I like about the set is that it is very diverse - pneumatics, suspension, PF, the color scheme. But yes, it's 2000 parts, which is really a lot. 8043 is more "part efficient" in that regard. I wouldn't bother with another crawler. But that's coming from someone who doesn't own either crawler (I couldn't be bothered to buy a ridiculously pricy set with only two functions.) 42030 is badly overpriced as well. Just a comparison: 8043, 1300 parts (among which 4 motors, 2 receivers, battery box) - EUR 130 42030, 1600 parts (among which 4 motors, 2 receivers, battery box) - EUR 220 See the disbalance? 42009 is a thousand parts more, for EUR 20 less.

To be honest I think this is one of those wish list types of topics that becomes 100 times more interesting if people would tell WHY they would want certain parts re-released. As of now, it has little more value than a poll. No, not everyone.I wouldn't care. Why? I know the parts and have used them, but I have never found them very effective. There's some friction, and the distance between the connection and the wheel is too large. Instead I always opt for the parts used in 8448's front steering, and constructa non-steering axle with generic parts (like again in 8448). Are these discontinued? That would be a shame, really. These parts have a unique function not found in any other part. Losing the part means losing that function.Indeed, please bring it back :) Great example of a good and useful little part. There's now an alternative, but it has the steering link too close to the wheel, which I don't like. This part was perfect and I still use it for all steered non-driven axles.The wheels of 8448 are IMO very ugly and have the problem they are asymmetric. When the left wheel spins along with the aerodynamic features, the right wheel will spin against it. Also the axle hole is misaligned. The space inside the wheel is a features I'd LOVE to see return in newer wheels, and I hate it that new wheels don't have it. I still very often use the wheel of 8462 for this reason. The 8880 style hubs had the problem they can't be used in any other situation, so they are not "in system" really. Also, there are parts for this now (although they have the same problem as the 8466 spindle). Yes, also a shame it's gone. Not because of the metal, but because I don't think we now have a nicely shaped hook part that accepts a pulley. We still have a pin connector, no need to bring back the old one that has no other functions than the current one. I don't see the point of two tires of the same style that differ only 10% in size. We now have three sizes, I think that's OK for now. Yes, me too. I thought they made some models more lifelike. Even though they fit better with studded, so maybe a redesign would be needed. But the idea of figures that have actual human proportions (which the minifig lacks) and ho are actually posable (which the minifig lacks) would be really nice. I love the color vomited axles and stuff. They make it so much easier to dissect a model from a photo, and they make instructions so much clearer. And I can actually find the parts without needing many different bins for pins and axles. Yes, any strong but fast motor would be awesome. But, of course, in a way that matches the power function system. Is it discontinued? It's incredibly useful, as again it provides a function no other part serves. I hope with the revival of the pneumatic system we will see a new air tank. But it might be too expensive. It was certainly a great part. Yes, would be lovely. Better than two types of green that are almost the same (as much as I like both green and bright green, they are a bit too close together IMO)But let's first reuse dark blue and bright green in other sets before introducing yet another rare color.

This car is pretty much madness. It seems ridiculously intricate on the inside and the bodywork looks to be the most detailed I have seen instructions for. Many thanks for providing it free of charge! :D

if you replace the parts by the more common parts with the central round hole, you will find that the edges of the central hole can rub the teeth of the 24t gear. Whether this happens depends on the gear though. Just try it out with a few 24t gears. The seats don't look closer to each other than in any other supercar with similar functionality. So I think it doesn't hold. It works in real life, but not in Lego where the slider mechanism (whcih is genius by the way) takes up the same, if not more, room than the actual gearbox. Anyhow, great review of a - so it seems - very interesting MOC. I'm surprised the vertical gearbox is even possible (both mechanism-wise and space-wise), and works so well. It seems to be quite a feat of engineering. The model itself looks great as well by the way. It has a bit of a Koenigsegg vibe to me, and I love the orange and dark-gray details. The review is also very extensive and covers every aspect quite well. So great job (both writing and photography) :)

Rumor topics often dwindle into wish list topics. Let's not do that (but feel free to start a new tyre wish list topic). There's either a reliable source for this rumor, or there isn't, and if there isn't, there's no reason to believe it and really not much to discuss here....

It could also be a marketing trick. Trying to sell the parts more expensively by saying "this will become rare". Also you could contact the seller and ask their source for this statement. Surely they didn't pick this out of thin air, right?

Saying "is an increasing number of technic axles,liftarms etc in system set?" is like saying that technic parts are of a different kind than system parts. Why is such a distinction made? Both system and technic are Lego parts. All Lego parts are used in Lego models where designers think they fit best.

A lot can be said about this model, but it has one huge positive aspect, and that is, that it's very moddable. Seeing what all the people here do with it, it's surely a good source of inspiration.

Won't the front wheel touch the body when the suspension is compressed?

I'm with Owen on this one. A Lego car is a supercar if it looks like a supercar. There may be a sub class of Lego supercars that have a gearbox, but why would a car without gearbox necessarily be not a supercar?

The official instructions are on LEGO's own website. www.lego.com, go to the bottom, where you find a link to building instructions, then on that page, enter the set number 8258. Or go to technic.lego.com and you'll find your way there. I'm telling this, because if you have the parts to recreate the steering mechanism, you can use the instructions and build that section yourself. You will learn everything you're asking here, and probably more. If you do so, please come back and tell us about your findings.

usbdevice has built a tool to find out which beams to use to build a specified angle, or which beams to use to brace a construction with diagonals (to create triangles, which makes a construction stronger). He has posted his tool here and people are giving suggestions as how to improve upon it. Interleaved with those suggestions is a discussion about how everyone works with angles and diagonal bracing. People then mention that LEGO themselves have one of the main triangles built in their 4x6, 4x4 and 3x7 bent beams. That's kind of what happens with all the math removed ;)

I think this set will be my next purchase. I love the color scheme and indeed it looks like a nice set. Also 1200 parts for EUR 100 is not a bad deal. And yes, the looks of the car have really grown on my since the first official pictures appeared. I'm curious how the bright green will work combined with other colors than white. I really hope more sets in the future will use the color (so that more different parts will be available over time). I think I'm the only person on Eurobricks who doesn't like the looks of the B model, but I appreciate the extra functionality it offers. Besides the set itself, I think this is one of the best reviews I have read in a while. Great job on the superb photographs (which I think are essential to a review) and the extensiveness of it all. You really touched every subject, which is great :D

It looks like a nifty tool, but I would have some suggestions for improving it. First of all, why is B is in another unit (brick-heights vs. studs)? As you can see this confuses people, and it's mathematically weird as well. So @darsedz: The 10 in column B means 10 brick-heights, which is exactly equal to 12 studs, which makes 5/10/13 actulaly 5/12/13, which is a known Pythagorean triple. So I really think the UI should reflect this, and also, B should be available in studs. (Maybe have an option checkbox, or a second B column, and have the original B-in-brick-heighs column in another color to disitniguish it from all numbers measured in studs. Adding B measured in studs would open up the program for the studless system (where a length of 6.5 for example could also be achieved using a 5.5 axle and two angle connectors). Then you can have a checkbox "work with multiples of 0.5 for B" (studless system) or "work with multiples of 0.4 for B" (studded system - a plate's height is 0.4 studs). Also, I think, it would be very useful to add "near-misses" as well. For example I use the 4/7/8 triangle sometimes. It's not an exact Pythagorean triple, but 4x4 + 7x7 = 65 and 8x8 = 64 are so close together that this works and doesn't cause "strain". Same for 4/8/9. Sometimes I even use a 4/0.5/4 triangle, where a 5L beam is placed almost-vertically, because 4x4 + 0.5x0.5 = 16.25 is so close to 4x4 = 16. If you would do this, the actual offset (sqrt(65) - sqrt(64)) would be an interesting measurement, as that's the actual distance by which something in the structure has to stretch or compress. But if that's really small, it will fit with no problems. I'm not sure I would use this personally (I prefer just trying in real bricks whether it fits, and in other situations I'm mathematically adept enough to use my own method. Also I sometimes want to do more complex stuff not possible with your program). (And yes, building a user-friendly UI system is very often very time-consuming. So great job on that)

Besides Technic I also sometimes build mosaic and sculptures of people. This one here is my newest creation. Do your recognize who this is? The answer is in the Brickshelf folder, as well as pictures from the back side (which is certainly of interest to SNOT oriented builders): view the Brickshelf folder I'll update this topic if I build new stuff. I might throw some old stuff here too if it's worthy :)

It's the same mechanism indeed. :)

Indeed. You can't blame a commercial company for wanting to make a profit. It's the buyers who take the decisions, eventually. If we all buy X, the company will produce more of X. And those decisions are in turn influenced by governmental plans (that affect the purchasing power or free time that parents have).

It's good to see so many entries. It's more than I expected, to be honest. It will be hard (as always) to pick favorites.

To be honest I think this particular ship just doesn't make a very interesting LEGO build at any scale. I presume the UCS is mainly built to cater to people who like the ship, rather than those looking for interesting LEGO constructions. I don't think the model could have been done much better really. But you just don't have many design options with a ship like this. It is a ball and two panels, no matter how you turn or twist it. So the problem didn't arise when designing the LEGO model, the problem (for AFOLs) already arose when choosing the subject matter. 'Cause yeah, it underwhelms me too. I'm not a Star Wars fan by any stretch of the word, but I agree that for the price you can get much more interesting works of LEGO art. The Slave is a good example. That said, I like how they built the "ribs" of the panels using the minifig droid arm to connect the inner and outer sides. Also it simply doesn't look like this is 1600 parts. It more looks like about 1000. And indeed, they could have made a sleeker display stand.

Could anyone please name two recent Technic sets that would benefit from the same transparent part? Adding windscreens to Technic vehicles would add a large part that I would consider a POOP (piece of other pieces) with a single purpose. They would suffer same problem with buckets and wheels. Also, Technic (and the whole of Lego even) is still about suggesting a shape, rather than replicating it. An open rectangle suggests a window that's not actually there. In that sense, lego is akin to art. Art is also about suggesting things that are not actually there. What windscreens add to city trucks is that they have sides and if you'd leave them out you'd have to add the corners as separate parts, which would not work for small-scale cars. For large-scale cars, it's easier to build the corners, making a separate transparent windscreen part superfluous. Creator cars, like some from the main Creator line a few years ago, and both Volkswagons and the Mini, show this. Also, in my opinion a large transparent panel would be out of style given the looks of a Technic set. A crane arm also has holes that aren't there in reality. Technic is abstract. A windscreen doesn't fit the style, in my opinion. Also it would drive set prices up. So I hope they won't add them.

While I really like the idea, I do think it's way too large and the tower looks very bulky. (This could also be caused by the rainbow color scheme that I'm not fond of.) I think this would work better using traditional studded lego with Technic insides, and on a (much) smaller scale. For example, do you really need the second degree of freedom in the arm (small LA)?

Why is a topic called "future contest setup" having a discussion about future contest themes? That's a whole other topic. The only thing in the last page that is about the actual contest setup, is the idea of having a prize outside the top three. Which I am definitely in favor of. I rather see many smaller prizes, than a few large prizes that usually go towards people who have plenty of bricks anyway ('cause you don't just need a bit of talent, but also a good sized collection to build top-three-worthy models).