Erik Leppen

I can't help it but for some reason I find this model quite bad looking... And yes, 8052 and 42000 definitely.

At least all models look technically interesting. Still not fond of the idea that an alternative model consists of two vehicles. I would much rather have seen one large vehicle, simply because now was the one-of-a-time chance to go all out. But at least the container handler is something new and it looks quite decent, function-wise. Although it makes me wonder, if there are LA's to control the container grabber, why are there gear racks? Are they just used as sliders (with pins 1/2 behind them? Probably.). Also it's too bad that rotation control is on the container grabber itself, rather than on the boom. Would have been quite a challenge. Also the container is an uninteresting build even though it contains 8 of the quite rare 3 x 3 L connectors with 4 pins. Also I like how both sets use mini LAs and large LAs. Anyone noticed the green trailer has a stand and highly likely a tilting bed? Not sure I'll be getting any of the Technic sets, even though both 42008 and 42009 look amazing, I still have to convince the wallet. And if I were to get one of those two sets, I'm still not sure which one - I'm a mobile crane guy, but the tow truck is cheaper and has more interesting parts I think (the color :D). But it's too bad it has only one pneumatic function. By the way, why does the mobile crane bottom-view picture have a gear at the very left end of the axle?

I have to correct you on this, because you are wrong in both the original review and in your explanation. The fit is exact. You can see the technique they used here: The red plates are spaced two, four or six studs apart and offset two studs sideways. The hinges are at the corners where the colored plates touch the red plates. As you can see, the distance between the hinges is NOT the length of the colored plate, but the length of the DIAGONAL of the colored plate. By using the other diagonal of the colored plate one can create a slanted edge. And because the diagonals of a rectangle are of the same length, this is an exact fit. In fact, in the series of numbered images you show when explaining the case, the fit is exact on images 0 and 2, and the offset is negative on image 1 - in that image, the distance between the hinges is shorter than the diagonal of the slanted section.

Interesting question, but I'm seeing a lot of sets I would consider flagship or high-range sets. 8109, the flatbed truck, might not be the biggest set of the year, but I consider it a high-range set. 8460, the crane, might not be the biggest set of the year, but I consider it a high-range set. And a very good one at that, it might just be my favorite studded set. 8265 is very good as well, but I consider it a high-range set as well. I'd go for 8069. It's only 600 or so pieces, but very versatile, masses of functionality and great parts selection. Other mid-range sets I really like, are 8263 http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=8263-1 for originality in subject and functionality 8294 http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?S=8294-1 Of sets I do not own, I guess 8067 http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=8067-1 8071 http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=8071-1 8048 http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=8048-1 8420 http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=8420-1 8453 http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=8453-2 are also all very good.

I actually like TLG's approach best - I think it has the best part usage, and suggesting a shape is often enough. You won't get it perfect either way, so use the artistic freedom :)

It is normal to feel that. However, can we expect proper attribution everywhere, given the astonishing rate at which information is being distributed anno 2013? This is the internet, where billions of people gather and spread information. Keeping track of what belongs to whom, is (becoming) simply impossible... And is it important, that others know those words are your words? And can we expect other people to find it important enough to let their readers know these are your words? Information is free these days. I don't know if I even agree with what I just posted, but it's a possibly interesting thought that crossed the mind... :)

It's a bit of a stretch to go from "it is not perfect" to "they are not caring". The first indicates the existence of (what could be) a problem - but you seem to equate that to Lego not wanting to solve the problem. Of course, you can't just say such a thing.

First and foremost you should do what you enjoy doing. You can't make something well if you don't enjoy making it. So, just do what you like most. What I personally love most about Technicopedia is reading your extensive writing on everything. Personally I don't even really care that much about the animations and computer images, although I understand they're there for completeness's sake (after all it is a -pedia). If you want to be productive (I do not say you have to be productive, but IF that is your goal), it's a matter of evaluating the added value vs. the amount of work, of every aspect of your site. Creating the digital files adds a whole lot of extra work, so do you think it adds the same amount of added value, in comparison to the text?

I think it will be quite different: 4-way gearbox on crane A. boom extend/retract B. boom raise/lower C. hook raise/lower D. goes to 2-way gearbox on left side of body 2-way gearbox on left side of body A: outrigger horizontal deployment B: outrigger vertical deployment Also, that monster truck is quite a cute little set. Good if you want the ball joint parts cheaply :) I probably won't get it though.

allanp. Why are you even here, if you dislike anything from TLG so thoroughly. Please. Take your rants about LAs and authenticity elsewhere. I'm getting sick of reading them every time. Seriously. Go away.

Don't count on it. Real cranes don't have double wheels and this model is clearly inspired by real cranes.

Maybe because the theme lives? No need to ridicule the fact a new thread has been made to try to separate the opinions from the facts/news. Anyhow. I think the F1 car is great, the tow truck is great, and the crane is great. I'd love to have all three. That hasn't happened in a while. 2013 seems to be an awesome year for Technic.

World news: a Lego set that looks like a toy model. Revolutionary! Posts like this say absolutely nothing unless you actually stop buying Lego and start puchasing Toys R Us remote control toy bulldozer models. I say, have fun with them, and have fun discussing their building techniques, parts packs, alternative models and whatnot on remote control toy bulldozer model forums. Plaese, no argument-on-authority fallacies. Your opinion doesn't suddenly become more important if you've enjoyed higher education. Lego Technic has had some astonishing sets in the past, for sure. But I think they still have absolutely awesome sets in the present (for starters, 8043). They might not teach about pneumatics, but that's really kind of the only lacking point. 8043 still teaches about the movement of an excavator arm and why it's shaped like that, and teaches a lot about gearings and how to create a strong framework that doesn't fall apart when it is played with. Also, the simple instructions make Lego accessible to a wider audience. As Lego fans, we should applaud that.

The long axles in 8421 and 8285 are 32L. These in 42009 certainly aren't. They look like 16L.

Looking at This picture of the new crane with its red 8t gears, it looks like those gears are on axles of length about 16L or maybe 18L. Black 16L axles, those would be new parts as well, right?

Wow, I could have thought of that myself...Thanks!

Wait, where do you download those instructions? I have never seen them...

This could very well become the best Technic set since the existence of the theme... Also interestingly, the switchbox is placed sideways. Could make for some interesting techniques :D By the way, can anyone read the icons on the switchbox?

I think the 8265 (front loader) is still one of the best looking studless sets and it's pretty complex as well. That one was quite brilliant. Others which I found pretty good, are 8069 (back hoe) and 8294 (the red excavator).

So, what do you find more important in your LEGO hobby? Buliding MOCs, or the idea that you might decide to sell a few sets? Only you can answer that question. But I can't even imagine this is a tough call for anybody, especially given the fact that all set inventories are simply available.

Yep. This "thing" started the mobile crane frenzy (More in the Brickshelf: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=215574) PS I love seeing all those MOCs here :D Great to see we all actually improved!

The last question starts with "If you are interested" - so I can't answer because I am not interested. So the results of this question are skewed. Anyhow, I'm not really interested in Mindstorms as a system because it doesn't seem very technical except from the programming, and I think programmability makes models less interesting than gear systems. also, the motors are way too large to be of any use: the shape and scale of MOCs is defined by the motors, and that limits freedom too much for me to like. Also, the current power functions system with remote control can do the same minus the programmable aspect (which I don't really care for. I love programming, but I find that programmability does not combine well with LEGO).

Of course I'm joking. I love 8258, it's one of my favorite sets. My post was meant to show that the argument is flawed.

8258: Waste of 1880 pieces, 9397 Logging Truck does the same with less than 1400.

I'm one of those people who have a dislike for 8454, but it's not because of the appearance. My main gripe with it is that it lacks coherence in functionality. It doesn't really have a main function. It's just, steering, an engine, doors and some manual-controlled hose thingy. It just seems kind of thrown together from small modules without anything technical to make it really interesting. Oh, and the fact I paid EUR 85 for it, which is insane. It should have cost EUR 45 - that's what I'd value it at given it's about 600 parts with no electrics or otherwise very special parts.. Maybe my hatred towards 8454 is mainly because of the fact I simply paid double what I think the set is worth. At the time, the whole studless system was new so I wasn't so critical back then... I do not own 8446, but it has long been one of those sets I always wanted, partly because of the odd design, but partly because it was green. I think 8462 is a great Technic set. For some reason I always kind of liked the open frame structure used in it. Yes. I kind of liked 8465, partly for the color, because I had 8466 and the 8465 added some more green panels. Too bad those panels and that color are now outdated though. Anyhow. A more recent set that left me relatively unimpressed was 8052 (the blue container truck). It had only 2 functions, almost no gears, relatively few blue parts, very few interesting parts at all, and a awfully ugly alternative model. Also it doesn't actually even look that good (in contrast with 8264 Hauler, which is also not very interesting functionally, but at least it looks good (in my opinion). Another set that I have some problems with is 8285, the huge tow truck. It's nowhere near a bad set, but it has a lot of empty space and the functions seem relatively simple in comparison to the huge amount of unused space. However it looks very nice, has double rear tyres, and it was awesome value-for-money. In contrast, set 8289 which I see many people dislike, is a set I like a lot because it has nice functionality of reasonable complexity and looks quite nice.