Erik Leppen

it's a nice model, and a good thing you managed so many functions in only 200 parts. Also, indeed, the pneumatics are really well done. However, my first impression when I saw the model is that it is quite large and (especially) empty. Would it be possible to do the same thing, but smaller? I think there's more room to add details if you take a step back in size.

Looking at this line-up, I think I like the Koenigsegg best of them all, the Ferrari being a very close second :) Anyhow, it's pretty cool to have this as a way to compare models by all kinds of different builders side-by-side (literally). It shows how different models can be :) I think it would be cool if you could do the same thing for "The Color Yellow", or any other color you have nice line-up for. Would be cool to see I think. You have the cars anyway, and you take great pictures :)

As soon as I saw the contest, I thought, what could be nice as a 200 part set? I was digging through my wheels box and I noticed the wheels from the Creator 31006 set, the white sports car of last year, and I already imagined these as the wheels of a nice red-and-black Technic mini-supercar. That was how this Technic Mini competition entry came into existence. This is where I am now: (Sorry for the bad picture quality, they're taken with my phone.) This is the second version. This is 192 parts (the first one had 241 parts, hence I didn't post...). This means I have 8 parts left to spare for some adjustments. This will be done for sure, as I'm not 100% happy with everything. In particular the rear bumper should be a bit lower, and also right now it's only attached with a single pin, which means it can wobble. The front bumper could use some work as well and I think the 2x4 tiles at the sides are kind of out of place. Also I have no lights yet... It remains to be seen how much can be done with only 8 parts... I wanted to have two functions: steering in the front, and either suspension or an engine at the back. In the end I opted for suspension, I thought that would be more interesting as a play feature. The steering mechanism prevented me from having seats. Another challenge I faced was that the shape and functionality dictated me to use small parts (no panels), which means the parts count is racking up quite fast. Here're some more pictures: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Competitions/MINISupercar/minisupercar_v2_1.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Competitions/MINISupercar/minisupercar_v2_2.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Competitions/MINISupercar/minisupercar_v2_3.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Competitions/MINISupercar/minisupercar_v2_4.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Competitions/MINISupercar/minisupercar_v2_5.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/Competitions/MINISupercar/minisupercar_v2_7.jpg The Brickshelf folder All comments and critiques are very welcome!

Second incarnation of my model, 201 parts! Hopeing to replace anything by anything that requires fewer parts, and off I go :D

Because people like to share? :)

Track links count as parts. Are you sure this is within 200?

I'd buy it. (admittedly, partly because it's such a nice parts pack...) Anyhow, great little model. I like all the angles. By the way, I prefer the old landing gear, because the new one is connected less sturdily and the rear ends will "wobble". Also remember that 3L axles are gray and 3L pins are blue :)

This one's especially nice looking, well done! The fact that it's a mini of an existing set only adds to its charm.

Interesting. Original subject. I don't like the cabin though. it's too much gray with dark gray pins. Maybe you could add some color. Also I'm not sure about the 6x12 plates, they look kinda out of place. Third, the chassis seems to sag. You might want to improve strength there.

This one's really lovely. Quite a brilliant little model. I like the way you did the steering.

First incarnation of my model, 242 parts. Need to strip down in some way. 200 is less than I thought. This is gonna be pretty hard without affecting the looks. By the way, what about techniques that would be illegal in official sets? E.g. plates attached to beams studs-inward? Sub-assemblies that are only connected at one point? Things that fit, but aren't "in system"?

This little competition would be too good to pass. There's bound to be some time somewhere in two months to build something with 200 parts. Let's start up the idea machine :D

As a Technic person, the thing I find the absolute coolest thing about this model is your extensive internal frame that almost looks like a real ship's frame with al l the triangles and is an incredible technical achievements in itself. I'm ctually surprised you used sinple plate-brick-plate connections without pins in many places. Also this is probably one of the few MOCs that actually need such an awesome framework inside. So glad you took some pictures of the internals at all, by the way.

I have always thought that the 3 x 3 part with 4 pins was meant to be frictionless and all versions with friction are actually errors. After all, official sets use them for steering, for which a frictionless variant is simply better. Also, when the part was new it was frictionless.

It happens. All we can do is accept it. It will happen anyway. That's how I look at it. If you say "it's not Lego" when it's clearly building blocks (hence Lego to those people), they will think you're either crazy or pedantic (and in fact, the latter would be true). So instead of saying "it's not Lego" you could go with the flow and say "it's fake Lego. This here, this is real Lego".

It's good to see some healty discussion about a subject like this. There's bound to be as many views as there are people, and it's good to see so many different opinions. In fact, this very discussion is a form of sharing, but of sharing opinions and arguments rather than MOCs. And, opinions and arguments, like MOCs, are a result of creative thinking. So by even joining this discussion, we're sharing, and helping create a community. Anyhow. As far as MOCs go. My personal experience with sharing is 100% positive. I have shared quite some instructions of my models on my website, and not once have I been copied. On the other hand, I have seen that people have built my models, which is the biggest honour you can get as a MOCcer and instruction sharer. Also, I think the entire copyright/patent "protective" mentality is detrimental to society and innovation as a whole and I wouldn't want to be part of such an environment. I want to be part of an environment where sharing is normal and people admire each other for the beautiful stuff they create, and be inspired by each other's ideas to create even better stuff. That's how humanity advances. Also, holding back stuff because copycats may copy it, means the copycats win. Let's not give them that power ;) Besides that, I think that people, even outsiders, will eventually find out who is a genuine creator and who is a copycat. Also, remember that you're only copied if you're really really good. Copycats know what to copy - the best of the best, and that which will impress the general public of non-AFOLs. So, in essence, most people are not even a target for copycats. For those people there's not even really much of a dilemma ;)

Both are already mentioned by others, but I think for me it's the Technic pin and the 1x2 plate. The 1 x 1 brick with stud on 1 side is a contender as well for me.

Of the original two images I'd say the blue version is slightly better because the connection with the 6-stud brick is on the longer side, meaning the horizontal 16-brick has a little less play if the two-pinned connection between the two horizontal bricks bends. But that's really the only difference. If you use two 2x4 plates covering the connection with the 6-stud brick, the two are equivalent, because they have the same triangle (6/8/10). By the way, have people noticed that in bridges and other structures where a rectangle needs to be braced with a diagonal, most often the diagonal that is in tension is added, because the diagonal is longer than the side, and it's best to put the longest edges in tension. This is because when an edge in compression it matters how long it is - a long edge buckles sooner than a short edge - while for an edge in tension the length doesn't matter. See image below for what I mean. The diagonals are in tension.

Lovely MOC, all the little details are there. I like the exit, the X next to it, the observation room, the buttons and switches, all the platforms. Really nice :D

I thought it was a great set to build. I even enjoyed fooling around with the finished set. The pneumatic crane works well, and unlike some mechanic cranes we have seen is actually capable of lifting stuff (actually the weak point is the gripper). The 4WD and suspension is also cool. The steering is bad, but fixed relatively easily (friction pins vs. smooth pins). And I liked the color scheme. I never built the snow plow alternative though.

Are we doing speculations, or wish lists? If the latter, I'd like to see something like this: We have had fire trucks in the past (8289, 8454), but none of them the typical large classic truck model. I reckon this will appeal to kids too. Would take the same scale as 8109/8052/8071, could very well be a flagship. Also, I really think it's about time for a follow-up to set 8857... Also I hope they will do anything we haven't seen before. what GoldVillage posted two posts above me walking excavator - or anything that walks, really mobile folding crane (I know this is a challenge...)

This is pretty cool! I especially like the colored stripes that break the large mass of gray. The huge spoiler is cool too. It all kind of screams "too much" but I like it. All of it goes well together.

Is English even the most common printed language? Wikipedia states that sported by native speakers, English comes third after Mandarin Chinese and Spanish. (English language - Wikipedia

Why create exceptions? Exceptions only create more discussion about "why this one, and not that one". I don't think we should do that. If we agree on the rule 'no functional non-Lego parts' than we will have to judge by that rule, and that means that models not following that rule won't apply. No matter their quality. By all means discuss the rule, but please don't accept a rule and then create exceptions.

The problem I have with articles like these is that they silently assume that reducing the gap between girls and boys is a goal we should pursue. Someone will have to convince me of that idea. Boys are boys, and girls are girls, and boys are not girls. They are not equal, and they should not be equal. They are good at different things, and both should have the ability to pursue what they are good at. We shouldn't strive for the equality of sexes, but for the happiness of individuals. By all means present Lego to girls and dolls to boys, but let them choose themselves and if they choose the gender-stereotyped toy, this is totally fine and there is no reason why girls should do boys things and boys should do girls things. They aren't made for that. There is a reason Lego is a boys thing and dolls is a girls thing. The wiring of boys's brains are different from the wiring of girls's brains and one consequence of that is that they enjoy different types of play.