Erik Leppen

The alternative model is a big plus, I think. I like it, despite the odd proportions due to the missing third axle. But the Unimog didn't have a full alternate, so it's a definite improvement over that.

On my hypercar I used liftarms to ensure a strong "hull" construction. It worked surprisingly well :)

If you replace one of the 9L liftarms by a 11L it's even stronger.

"Where's the leap forward"?! I'd say that the fact that what was special back then is ordinary today, is proof of a giant leap forward! Because it isn't cool (to 95% of Lego customers). Kids don't see a GBC in the streets working on making their hometowns more modern, and recognize their shape from the Lego model. Also, because you need many for it to become interesting. Also, because you can't really play with it. You can put it on and look at it, yes, but if that's play then watching TV is play too. GBC is a funny and very interesting AFOL invention. But it isn't a suitable subject for Lego to sell to children. This, so much :) I always silently laugh when I see the next 2500-part supercar, thinking, Lego can do it with 1300. No wonder the AFOL model is more authentic, more realistic, more fully featured, whatever. It aims for different goals, so naturally it produces a different result. (I once created a supercar with only 850 parts. It had only front steer from stering wheel (no HOG), rear drive, 4-speed gearbox and no doors, but it classifies as a supercar. Although I used a trick (a construction considered illegal by TLG), and actually aimed for 800 or less, but I wanted to find out how hard it was and what the result would be.)

Really? I thought it was mediocre at best. Yes - the container functionality is cool, but that's kind of the only functionality it has, and the switching does have a lot of friction for no apparent reason. Add to that the horrible alternative model and I just don't like it as much as most other sets of similar price point/piece count. Does 8289 count as a mid-range model? 'Cause that was one I liked a lot. It had an unusual subject matter, the build was interesting and the functionality is decent. Also it has a certain charm to it, I think. also the alternative model is quite nice too.

Costing 2600 parts and $200, yes. That's why 8070's gearbox does not have the same function as 8448's. But guess what...complaints everywhere, because it was too different from what AFOLs decided a supercar ought to be.

Source? Again, source?From your post you seem to be thinking you know what will 'appeal to kids', what 'kids will love'. Do you have research to back that up? I'm asking, because to be honest, I reckon Lego has in fact done research on this, and we can see the outcome of that. You might not agree with it, but that doesn't mean it's the wrong choice for Lego. Also to be honest I think 8421 and 42009 are very different. Yes they have the same features. But their execution for many of them is very different (mainly the double-acting outriggers). But that might just be me ;)

And the very compact and clever 5+R gearbox. And the modular and minimalistic chassis design. And doors. And they fixed the flawed suspension of 8880. And the better wheels with hollow insides. The other way round, 8880 adds the driven steered wheels, the the beautifully crafted and strong studded construction, the headlights knob on the dashboard, and a great alternative model. As you can see the lists of differences between the two are very much in balance with each other. I can't really stand the opinion that 8448 is in every way a step backwards from 8880. It isn't. They're both great sets in their own right, and I consider them equal. The idea that 8448 doesn't add things that 8880 and predecessors didn't do, is provably false. This, basically. There seems to be a lot of hatred here because models don't cater to their wishes. Especially the "not realistic" spouted everywhere, mainly in disgust of the new LAs vs. the pneumatic system. I'm sorry but I simply don't understand the fuss about this. I have the idea that people do not realize that there are different kinds of realistic. There's realistic operation, realistic looks, realistic display, realistic play, realistic mechanism, whatever. LAs give more realistic (dis)play with a system that can be held in any position, vs. pneumatics that can only reliably be set into its two extreme positions. Especially a motorized model with LAs just operates well because the functions roll in and out very smoothly and with a steady pace. I have always disliked the "unreliableness" of pneumatic operation - it's hard to predict exactly how a system reacts on a given amount of air. Also I have always disliked fiddling with the pneumatic hoses, I just don't enjoy building pneumatic systems. But that's just me, I guess. Also I consider pneumatic an "easy way out", just connect a few hoses and be done with it. I love all the intricate gear boxes needed to operate LAs - to me they pose much more of a challenge when building. And I like that challenge. Set 8043 is the perfect example. But finally, as said perfectly by jantjeuh: we're not the (main) target audience. And even if we were, lots of us buy the sets anyway so why should they bother. ;)

I have never really noticed a difference in part weight, but studless parts are of a totally different design, so will naturally have a different weight. Also, about the "looser" parts - maybe it feels that way because the models are much more flexible? Studless builds tend to be much more bendable, especially long structures like 8285. It's because of the pinned construction, which is held together by very small and thin parts - the pins, and has more play (as in, flex) than the stud connections from pre-2000 Technic. Also some parts have a looser grip on axles than older parts. I can remember very old 8t and 24t gears almost impossible to remove. I still ahve "axle pin + 8t gear" combinations from the light-gray-axle-pin era that seem unseparable. Many new gears, in my opinion thankfully, have a lot less tight grip on axles. And, indeed, modern Technic might look slicker, it looks less "Lego-y".

I think we'll never know the exact reasonsing for why Technic has become studless. We can only guess. My guess: it's cheaper for the same amount of functions (and, thus, for the same amount of advertisement that can be done), and it might be easier to make it look good. Compare any 2013 Technic to any 1990 Technic and you'll notice that studless Technic looks much more sleek, and the older Technic looks much more blocky. The modern look might appeal to the target audience more. (Remember, we are not the main target audience for Technic.) Welcome to the club. We all go through this. Even I have trouble sometimes getting things to work as I want it, and I build studless for as long as it exists. That's part of growing up. Technic didn't become simpler. You have just become smarter ;) Then 8258 if you can still find it. All the gear trains in this set are wonderful. Also this set is a great parts pack for custom building. Some other options, but I do not own them are 42009 and 42008. Both look fairly complex as well (maybe 42008 more so than 42009, because it is much less "bulky").

This is wonderful! I especially like the paws.

The double space between "The" and "Eiffel" on the printed tile looks untidy. For the rest, looks like a nice set, well thought out construction.

What I find intersting is that over four pages of discussion, almost no one seems to consider the quality of the alternative models when judging sets. I find that very strange. Part of the appeal of Technic is that you can build two (or more) models with one set. Part of the reason I like 8868 so much is because the alternative model was just as cool as the main model. Part of the reason I hate 8052 and 8454 is that the alternative models are worthless.

To be honest, me neither. It isn't aimed towards anything, so there isn't really a reason to look there. Threads like those are often very messy because of all the different topics running through each other. If I have a specific question, I ask it by creating a thread whose title shows what my question is about. If I have a general question, I'd do the same. Why hide a question between other questions? It only makes it harder to find for those who know the answers.

Don't build somethign for Cuusoo because you want to build something for Cuusoo. If you have an idea, go for it, if not then don't force it. That's the wrong intention. Cuusoo is not a MOC sharing site. Edit: also, decide for yourself what you want to build. We can't do that for you.

The main davantage of black is that everyone has enough of it. The main disadvantage is that it's hard to see. I hate working with black in the evening, when I only have artificial light. In daylight there's much less of a problem. Also, two of the most useful Technic parts, and are only available in light gray, which doesn't look very nice in an otherwise black model. I tend to build in mainly light gray whenever possible, but I particuarly like building colorfully, especially on the inside of things I tend to throw some random colors to the mix for easy differentiation. Here's a good example: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/FailedProjects/StudlessAc70City/studlessac70cityfailed_013.jpg Or this: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ErikLeppen/FailedProjects/NavyBlue5AxleCrane/navy5axledrivencrane_029.jpg When designing in MLCAD I choose one color for every specific part. E.g. all 3 x 3 x 0.5 beams are blue; all 6 x 0.5 beams are lime, etc. Only when I'm done do I change all non-visible parts to some sort of default color, usually light gray, to make it look nicer.

Exactly what problem are we trying to solve? Is there a problem at all? I think a busy forum is a healthy forum. Also, what keeps forums alive is the discussion, not the archive. You can bash people who don't search, but is a duplicate topic a problem? We enjoy discussing, right? So the more discussion, the better, I'd say. I think the forum is fine as it is, there's no need for change.

I'd say 8285, the huge black tow truck. Mostly because it was pretty cheap given the enormous part count, and the final model, while nice, didn't give me the "wow" feeling that some other large sets like 8258 and 8110 did.

I'd say connect the top 13L beams that connect to the 9L links, by 15L so that you can connect them to the 5x9 beams for added rigidity. For the rest, looks cool :)

Does a bush fit besides the new 8t gear (on a parallel axle right next to it)? Can someone who has one test this?

Also, a triangle underneath the track is probably a better option than a triangle above the track, since when the triangle is below the track, the compession is on the track, that has the most material, which gives the least chance of bending the members that are in compression. When building a triangle above the track, the triangular section is in compression, and these are usallly longer members than the track which means you have to take more precautions to prevent them from buckling. What a little playing of bridge building games can teach a person :D

Nice car you have built here. Not fond of the white mirrors, but the lime with yellow combo works nice and the white exhausts are nice too. (It's just that I don't like the combiation of white and yellow). But the overall shape is very good, I like the front and the sleek side view. The doors remind me of a Diablo for some reason. What color will you be doing the seats?

While 42022's folding roof is nice, it's too bad it's almost identical to that in 4993.

I'm relaly not fond of the sets - should have been three sets instead; I see no reason why not - but the review is very good, and the photos are great! Thanks for sharing. Also the new parts look very interesting, especially the new 3x5 beam and the new tyres. The new worm, the 5L stopped axle and dark gray pin will have to prove themselves worthy, I'm not convinced of their usefulness yet.

Thanks for the great review and the superb pictures, but I still thin kthe set is very average. I'm from the "the colors are disgusting" camp. These colors are from Technic from the year 1977. Any other combination of three colors would have been better. For the rest I feel this set falls in the same league as 8052 - too few functions for its size. It's nice to see a new subject matter though, and the tyres look great (I want those for mobile cranes). Also the return of yellow 1x6es is very welcome :)