Erik Leppen

CUUSOO is not about how nice mocs are, how much effort was put in advertising them and how long it takes to reach 10000.Cuusoo is about IDEAS. That would change the IDEA of the project. 10000 people voted for a modular western town, not for a modular western building. That's what I am wondering as well. If you're gonna say no, why not say no a bit sooner? Anyhow. Its disappointing to see models not pass, but let's not forget that Cuusoo is a marketing tool. It's not a we-make-what-you-wish platform (even if it tries to present itself as one). I think it's too bad we're not seeing cool EVE spaceships as well, but from a company perspective I think the Back to the Future idea had the most potential.

Cool to hear! I'd love to see a picture when it's done :D

Nice review of a great set. I got this as it came out originally, as a kid and I loved it back then. It has problems though. With the old power system I always had problems with contacts being very sensitive, which is a problem with the first touch sensor hidden deep within the model. If that one doesn't contact well, you're kind of screwed. But aside from that, on a technical aspec this set is as close to perfection as things get. As a kid I always kind of loved the long gear trains, it "looks" technical when in motion, and I think it is more fun to build. Also, using a driving ring to switch functions wasn't that common back then, so that made it even more interesting. By the way, what your review doesn't really highlight is that the handles on the sides of the base of the truck, control both the driving ring, and the inner touch sensor. This way, by reading the sensor, the system "knows" the position of the driving ring. What's also interesting is how the same motor motion is used for both functions (the grabber arm and the container), meaning both have to take the same time. This might also explain the gear trains - it might have been the simplest way to get exactly the right relative speeds for those two functions. Also, let's not forget this model has a working steering wheel. I always found that a nice finishing touch. By the way, it's also interesting to note that the set contains a 40t gear, used in only one of the four models - the buggy with backdrive mechanism. A brilliant little model. The other alternative models never really did it for me, but the buggy was cool. Although none of the alternative models come even close to the main model in my opinion.

I don't believe I have seen a Lego F1 car with slicks like, ever :P (maybe in $3 promo sets though) Also, the audience won't even notice. In fact, I didn't even think about it ever before...

Question: when using plates, do the studs of a plate touch the horizontal wall of the plate above? If so, I'd go for 16x16 plates :D

I have read somewhere that blue text on a light-yellow background is considered to be the most easily readable for dyslectics. I have no idea why, and how accurate that is.

Although I never owned this set, I borrowed instructions from a family member and built it with those. It's a great set, wonderful gearbox of the days before the driving ring was invented, and I love the pop-up headlights. Also the suspension is very smooth (unlike 8880's), and I like how it has only 900 parts against almost 1400 for its successor. I have always liked the squarish body shape, it reminds of real supercars of the older ages (some Ferraris for example).

That's not an argument. Cuusoo is about ideas. There's no use in having two projects represent the same idea. Two such projects would be competing, where one would expect cooperation to work better.

Can anyone owning this part test how it behaves on top of a technic plate 2 x 4, 2 x 6 or 2 x 8 using a vertical axle? I'd like to know if it rotates smoothly.

Gear up, then go around the corner, then gear down. That way, there is less torque on the bevel gear transmission. Spur gears can handle more torque, if they're not 8t's ;) ...just to give an idea that hasn't been mentioned before in this topic :)

Of course, with this part, that is the entire point The idea of new parts is that they either enable constructions not possible before, or making things that were already possible, easier. This is an example of the first case.

So, it's almost like this one: I see potential... (please consider this version as well. I think it has more potential than the version you are describing)

I used to honor the sorting in the original bags in the set - I kind of liked that. More recently (however that was with 10220 which is not a Technic set) I decided to not use bins at all - I just put all the bricks on the table, unsorted, but kind of small to large from left to right (still honoring the assortment as they come out the bags). The build might take a bit longer - but building this way has a certain charm to it. And you don't have the disadvantage of having to reach over the edges of bins to reach parts, and the daylight falls on the parts better. I found it much easier, and more enjoyable. Also - fast building is not a goal. In fact, if building the set it takes longer, it means the fun takes longer :D

I would appreciate it if we wouldn't muddle a discussion about unwritten rules with a discussion about the discussion. Moderators can discuss the discussion by themselves, and if you want to have a say in that, use the report button, so that members who actually want to discuss the topic at hand, writing the unwritten rules, are free to do so. Edit: let's also not forget that we're Eurobricks, not Anglobricks. There are a lot of non-native English speakers here, so misformulation and misinterpration can easily occur. Let's start by assuming that none of us mean harm.

I didn't say that. I didn't talk about thinking not being able to reach the top. I said that satisfaction is probably a main goal for many.

Same here! It was my first Technic set as well. If only my parents knew what they started And yes, they're both worm driven. It's a great set, I like how the tilt and lift are independent - if the bucket is horizontal, it stays horizontal because of the linkage. It's trivial today, but it wasn't when I was a kid

Well...let them "take their ball and go home", just to find out that that's actually not very fun (PS I'm not speaking from experience. I'm not a parent. Also, sorry for offtopic ) Actually, I think almost every AFOL builds for him- or herself. That's the key defining principle of a hobby, if you ask me ;)And actually, even if someone were to build for the reactions, he's building for himself, because then he's probably building because he gets a good feeling reading the reactions.

If people want a 8,000 part set, they have to enter 800 USD in the price field. No one can realistically expect an 8,000 part model be put into production if one enters anything less than that. By the way, great post ShaydDeGrai It's very similar to my thoughts.

It is not a tank. It is a model of a tank. If it were a tank, then yes I understand why it should be able to move. But it's a Lego scale model. Why must a model of a tank at least roll? That's your opinion. And, you and I both being Technic people, I can understand why you think that. But someone who thinks otherwise isn't wrong.

Wasn't that exactly what my post already says?

I don't know if it's illegal, but I find it unreliable. Often when I have such a situation, when I exert some force on the gear train, it slips back into neutral position if the driving ring is not securely held into the offset position (which happens, for example, if the catch that put the ring there, is slid away to control another driving ring). Speaking of driving rings by the way, what I have once done is using a driving ring over a smooth axle joiner, instead of the ridged one, this reduces the friction of sliding the driving ring - it goes much smoother. I used that to be able to control the driving rings with e.g. a spring system, or a motor. Of course it is also much easier for the ring to slide back, so the construction has to keep it in position. I'm pretty sure that's an illegal construction, because it bends the little clamps on the driving ring (that normally do the clicking-into-position on the axle joiners).

This is a very valuable learning experience for children - finding out when they start finding something "too rigid". Or, in a border sense, finding out what they find fun. If you're speaking from experience of your own children, cherish it when it happens ;) By the way, I think that even the fight itself is a valuable learning experience. I'm sure none of the children actually wants to hurt any of his mates - after all he just had fun with them, so he likely wants to keep them his friends so he can have fun with them in the future. The fighting sounds like a regulation mechanism. If noone gets injured, let them fight their way out of it. They gotta learn that too. ;) If "rolling properly" was not one of the goals of the builder, that is not a problem. Let's look at a model to see what it can do, instead of focussing of what it can't. I think it's a beautiful model. Of course, it doesn't justify the broken links, which I find to be a horrible decision as well. But I don't like the idea of "it can't do X, and I personally consider X important, therefore it isn't good". Of course this whole topic is a matter of perspective. I think part of what makes this topic interesting is seeing all the different perspectives. I think getting to a consensus isn't the goal (or at least, shouldn't be).

That's the argument I have heard as well. I then always reply with the following rebuttal: Can someone explain how, in the light of the above theory, they managed to create this hole 1,6 mm lower than that in technic beams? Also I agree with the above gripe on pins on both sides of two to-connect beams, or larger constructions. And yes, I read it on some website as well. I almost didn't believe it ;) What I usually do is for all pins where it is possible, only add them after the beams are in place. However I can't remember sets doing this so often. Does someone have an example?

Well, just for fun, try to take apart set 9390 (the mini Unimog), and imagine you're in that set's target age. Often with those tiny Technic sets I have my concerns about how hard they are to take apart. I sometimes wonder if TLC even tests this on children. But I love the technique you describe. It's a very strong way to connect beams to create a rigid frame (see e.g. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2459880) Officially, there is a height difference between the height of a hole in a studded Technic brick, and the stud on the side of a headlight brick or brick-with-studs-on-side. Officially this is 0.12 mm, and as far as I know this has been a forbidden construction officially. Yet I use it extensively when snotting, partly because it simply opens a lot of new possibilities, but also because I think that height difference shouldn't be there. Some mention the illegal 3L pin construction in 8043 (same as this one: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5555724). Interestingly, I asked on another LUG "would you do this" and there overwhelming majority saying "yes, I would". I can understand it and the way DLuders things about it, and indeed - it's only a pin and I a thousand of those. But it somehow doesn't feel right if I'd use a construction like it in an instruction. The part is essentially being stressed.

i agree wholeheartedly with everything you say except that line. personally, i don't play with the stuff, i build with it, and i have witnessed invention made possible by the system (both and have invented solutions to a problem intrinsic to the arnfield escapement). You're right, there are exceptions. I was more talking "on the whole". (But I didn't know of these inventions, so thanks for the links!). Also you're right that there are inventors out there. There has been a Technic competition, I thought it was it TechnicBricks (?) that asked to create Lego device to "solve a real-world problem" that got some cool entries like a curtain-shutter or a cradle rocker. About the other half of your quote: we play with Lego ... by building with it. The build is the play, at least, for me. I do not "play" with a finished model in the sense usually meant, but I do play with the bricks, by building a model with them. It's not the role-play kind of play, but it's still play ;) (I use the word "play" in a very broad sense). I'm sure many AFOLs do the same. I also have only cut one part in my entire life. It was a Technic 1 x 8 plate with 6 studs with 2 holes at the ends. One of the rings that form the holes had broken off, so the part was unusable as a steering arm in that state. So I thought "well, I sure won't use it like this, so maybe if I make a 1 x 7 plate out of it, maybe it's of any use then. I never used the modified part. ;)