Erik Leppen

Er, yes, that's kind of the definition of rarity :D

There is no "I don't know" in 2013 ;)

It's interesting and refreshing to read the observations from someone who is new to a system I have grown quite used to after ten years. And yes you make a lot of valid points. 2. Colors! Yes, back in the day it was simpler to explain. But I kind of like all those new colors. It makes it much easier to find parts, and also, as an advantage to AFOLs it makes it easier to dissect a model from a photograph. Because if you see a black axle end, you know it's an even-length axle. See a blue axle end and you know it's an axle pin. Although I don't get the reasons for colored bushes. I mean, why do some sets have colored bushes, while others don't? I'd say it'd make more sense had the colored bushes replaced the gray ones entirely. (Those who want to throw tomatoes at me for saying this, go ahead.) 3. Sizes! The odd lengths and distances take some getting used to, I agree. It'd be intersting to make a comparison to set 8454 - an even-width studless set. This is a set from the early ages of studless, before they took the change to odd widths, and you can see they have come far since then (I still think 8454 is one of the least interesting sets in my collection. At the time I just wanted the studless parts). But if you're used to it, it can only make sense. I disagree. Yes, the holes in the beams were odd-numbered, so that there was always a hole "in the center", just like it is now. But things have definitely changed in the corners where beams meet. Just compare the holes in the 6 x 8 rectangular brick with those in the 5 x 7 rectangular beam. Every side misses two half-studs near every corner. This is the essense of the move from even to odd. It took TLC years to come up with a studless version of the universal joint, for example, and some parts, most notably the driving ring - is still best suited for even systems. 4. Instructions Yes, they have gone too simple. For us. We as AFOLs shouldn't be the ones judging though. I'm sure it has been tested and proved better by a group in the target audience. 6. Parts I have to say I agree on the "linked short axles" point you mention - why not a single long axle, is a question I have asked my self many times too. A 2L axle was a rarity in the studded era, now it's one of the most common axle lengths. 7. Completed Set I agree with you on flexibility vs. sturdiness of studless vs. studded. A studless set always feels flimsy to me too. On the other hand, a studless set usually has way fewer "prone to fall off" parts than a studded set (alghouth the 8448 chassis does pretty damn well in this regard too). By the way, 8258 does pretty well in the sturdiness department, thanks to those lovely new 5x11 and 5x7 beams. :)

I was hoping the four corner holes were in another orientation (similar to the ends of the 5x11 frame). The way drawn above would not add much to the existing combination of two 2x3 cross blocks connected at their axle holes with 1x3x0.5 liftarms.

You could try my tow truck :)

I think you can't speak of set-unique parts if the parts are still in production, because thise means the part can still be used for future sets. The truly set-unique parts are those that have been used once, and then went out of production. For example, the wheels, tyres and hubs of 8448, the hubs and shift plate of 8880. And I think the main reason for creating such a part is that no other existing part offered the same functionality, and maybe the design team expected to be able to use these parts in future sets (and maybe they did use them in prototypes) but this never came to be, or the part was improved to be more versatile (like the shift plate, that got replaced by the 2x6 plates and the changeover catch that is still in use today.

These are some strange sets. I do raelly wonder what these sets enable that can't be done with regular sets from regular themes. Buy a creator set or a basic brick bucket and you have many of the same pieces. So let's hope that these sets are more than part packs - they better include presentation material or the like. You'd struggle to create something with those 47 pieces because you've been a builder many years - being a builder for many years raises your standards of what constitues a good build.

I think it's kind of dumb. Not that I don't appreciate a new part, but I'm afraid that in no-time we will have axles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, AND axles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 with stop, AND axle 4 with cylinder section AND axle 3 with stud AND axle 5.5 with stop. It gives me a "Haven't we got enough types of axles already?" like feeling.

I put this MOC on Rebrickable a while ago, with the full inventory and a link to the free full 83-page PDF instructions. I'm sure someone is curious how this things looks on the inside. ;) http://rebrickable.com/mocs/erikleppen/edward 1300+ parts I also put two other, older sculptures there. http://rebrickable.com/mocs/erikleppen/william-waiting 1600+ parts http://rebrickable.com/mocs/erikleppen/adam 1000+ parts Both of these have free full PDF instructions as well.

Pretty impressive! I do think though that I like it better without the trailer. With the trailer the first impression is "huge". Without the trailer the first impression is "beautiful truck". Also, I'm a purist. So I don't like the stickers. But everything else is really wonderful. The lights, mirrors, color scheme with brown details, there's only little giving away it's actually Lego.

Soooo, what're you gonna do with your brand new digital toolset? :D

...anymore. They have done so in the past. But, out of curiosity - why would anyone want to know (except, out of curiosity)? I think with 8880 it is easily explained: the part in question opens up a unique new functionality that was a core aspect of that set. Newer gearbox selector parts were only designed after the set came out. I'm guessing for 8448 it is similar, although the wheels mostly just add to the "coolness factor" of the set.

Wonderful MOC. One of the best cranes I have seen to date. I like how you solved the double acting outriggers. Very nice that you managed to make it 8x8x8. I think this is the best scale for cranes, large enough to have space for functions, not too large that things become impossible.

Someone else owning the set already? If so, I'd be thankful to the first person to do a complete review. I'm still very curious to the building techniques used to build the sails. :)

The reverse gear, and a much more compact gearbox setup Doors that open and close via a damped piston Fluid suspension (8880's was way too stiff) Modular build Much more minimalistic design

would probably be my choice as well. Has opened up a lot of possibilities for the creation of sturdy frames.

That's what I liked so much about 8448...the modularity of the build.

Playability != RC. There's alot of playability in sets like 8258, 8285, 8110, 42008, 8880. Also let's not forget the build as part of the fun. Building Lego is playing. :)

That's an opinion and I disagree. 8043 springs to mind as a model hat is a lot more complex than 8868. It doesn't have more functions. But it's certainly more complex (if you ask me). Same goes for 8258 and 8110. To that I agree, 8868's alternate was a unique model and I was really surprised how it all worked when I built it. It's time for a new Dinosaur, isn't it? :)

What about 8285? The big black American tow truck? I don't think it's in stores anymore, but when it was it was an incredible parts pack, 1880 parts for EUR 110 was a great deal. Especially if you want large amounts of black and red beams. Also, 8265 is nice as well, if you can get it for a cheap price (say, EUR 70). If you don't need the wheels though, I think 42009 pretty much covers this one. And I can only agree with 8258.

It's not about whether Lego can do it. It's about whether people will buy it. It's a kid's toy, remember? It has to stay affordable for the target group :) Often I see supercars around here reporting 2000+ parts. That's a 160+ dollar super car. Compare to 8070 which was 100 dollars or so. For us adult fans there's a significant difference in realism. But for Lego's target audience - who still generate 90%+ of their revenue - 8070 is fine and an extra 700 parts thrown at it doesn't really improve it. Bottom line: keep in mind Lego's goals when discussing things like this. Edit: ^^that^^

All those good proposals reaching destination makes me fear the chances for the Portal proposal...

I was genuinely surprised when I saw you put a battery box right there in the middle of the chassis. It looks like a wonderful build. If there's one MOC built by someone else I would like to try, it's this one.

The problem with this is everyone has a different idea of what "heavily used" means. "Used" may be a broad term, but at least it is a clearly defined term. Anyhow. Good to see things happen here. Curious to see what will happen. I do like the site as it is now. It may not look very modern, but I find it a nice user experience.

I couldn't disagree more. Both the motor and the battery box are hidden from sight perfectly well, I was genuinely surpeised when I saw how they were able to put the battery box so out of view in this model. The only way where 8265 is not realistic is that it uses LAs instead of air pressure (and, possibly, not using an LA for steering). The configuration of the rods is as in real life, and the fact they're precisely controllable (and non-compressible) is also true to reality. So I wouldn't pass off 8265 as unrealistic too soon.