Erik Leppen

Thanks. This comment made me take the survey as well. I'm glad to let everyone know how much I hate Facebook

It's not up to us to find out what is "practical". Given we are a minority and (I believe) not the target audience, the team should not rely on visitors to seek the "practical" projects. What Lego wants to know is what we would want (cuusoo means wish, remember? ), and if something gets 10,000 it's up to them to convert it into something that's practical. And if it can't be made practical, then it shouldn't be allowed to gain votes (which would mean it would have to be taken down by moderators. They did it with My Little Pony and Tachikoma, for example)).

Shouldn't we do the same?

LIMITING YOURSELF, for me, is the whole point. That's the whole idea behind using Lego, instead of whatever metaterials hobby RC model builders use. Exactly - there are no written rules. So every fan is free to define his or her own rules, and live by those rules. And many happen to have a personal rule that says "Lego only". It's an acceptable rule to give a boundary to what you can do. And boundaries make things interesting. If there were no boundaries, then there wouldn't be problems. And without problems there wouldn't be problem-solving. And yes - having rules means that some things can't be done. So? Is that a bad thing? If everything was possible, wouldn't it become boring? I like - no, I love - the challenge of trying to build whatever I have in my mind, while keeping with the "Lego only" rule. I very much see playing with Lego as a game or a puzzle, and games and puzzles have rules that say what moves are allowed and what moves aren't. It's trying to come up with new ideas while staying within the rules that makes the whole Lego hobby interesting to me. We do not invent. We play with Lego. For me, the whole game is about "what is possible with Lego". I answer that question by showing things that are possible... with Lego. If I use non-Lego anywhere, it's not anymore an example of what's "possible with Lego", it's merely an example of what's "possible". But that's not where the charm of Lego lies, for me. ...with existing shoes.

The former has a say in which new parts get designed

This. I think you can't present an instruction that contains a part that just isn't there. That's the good thing with Rebrickable - if I include a part that does not exist, it notifies me. Also, I want to prove what "could have been done" with the current existing set of parts. That's why I try to be even stricter: I try to not use obsolete parts (parts that are official Lego, but are not in production anymore). Also I'm relucatent to using rubber band, because their characteristics can change over time, so, in my opinion, should not be depended on. True as well. Not sure the solution is always "even better" in any meaning, but it's better because it's actually possible (i.e. because it's 100% Lego) ;) I do tend to make an exception for string though. Making your point in big bold red letters doesn't make it any more valid Lego battery packs are meant to put batteries in. We're using a Lego part as intended. Surely that's allowed, right? Of course common sense should govern, but my common sense is, Oh, there's one part I don't have in black, so I have to find another solution. Either make the car in red, or replace the part by someting that's available in black. That's my common sense ;) I think the rules for virtual models are very different. That's the whole idea of virtual models - that you can do things you can't do with physical bricks. E.g. Blakbird's render of the orange Countach. That (probably) can't be done in real life, but it's still interesting to see how it looks in a render. Coloring a virtual MOC does not damage Lego parts. It's reversible. That's for me a deciding factor. If someting is reversible, then it's allowed. For example, this:[image] is not reversible. So it's not allowed. Even though it's 100% Lego and everyone can acquire the parts and build it (imagine for the moment that the axle joiner is in a color that actually exists). And in fact - I think chroming is against my rules as well. But I do ignore the height difference between Technic holes and studs-on-side (0,12 mm), because I think this height difference has no reason to (still) exist. Is it? In my memory it was hinged. Edit: I looked it up, and technically you're right. It is an illegal construction, but it is not a construction that's forced. But it's nothing I worry about - it fits with no problem, because there's always a little play. If you wouldn't allow that, a lot of ths tuff with angles wouldn't be possible. E.g. 8880 would then also contain illegal constructions - no way that body is an exact fit.

Yeah, i was also thinking of stuff you could add, but it looks like I'm kind of too late for that. Anyhow, the project sounds awesome and I'm curious to see what the end product will look like. Isn't "studful" with one L, like "useful"? Can a native English speaker clarify?

Love this thing. I like all the little details (lol @ gear stick ) and the bright color scheme. Also they're very good photographs :) Only one thing... why is it that in such a beautiful model you chose to put such ugly seats? I would have used some tiles or slopes, rather than the overused double-bent Technic beams for those.

Anyone else noticed how some of those Technic models are intentionally a tiny bit different, I guess so they cannot be accused of "just" copying? The excavator has a windscreen and an extra linkage on the arm, the yellow truck has a weird closed windscreen , the red monster truck has a front wing, the red buggy has other rear wheels, I don't know about the white quad, the helicopter has a smaller main rotor. I haven't seen differences to the two Nitro models Also it looks like "firebolt racer" is their own design. The unprecedented beauty of the alternative model proves that

Great topic. I think before looking for solutions, the question is, what is the actual source of the problem. Now I don't have much experience in trying to collect parts for a MOC through Bricklink, I think the problem is that some parts are rare and much demanded. The only way to solve this problem is to get more of those parts produced and somehow ending up at people willing to sell them. There is only one company who can produce those parts, and that is the Lego company. So, any solution that will work in the long-run, has to involve TLC somehow. Now of course it has to be worthwhile for TLC - or they won't be doing it. TLC can set up a parts store - but prices will have to be so that all costs are covered. This will only work for the really rare parts. TLC can sell separate parts packs. But the specific part collections these packages contain has to be very carefully selected so the ratio of useful parts vs. extra parts is good enough for people to actually buy those. With this I mean that if a parts pack contains 100 parts, but I only need three and know I won't be needing the other 97, then I'm better off with a Bricklink - even if BL supplies run out. I think Bricklink sellers however, would be interested in all those parts. But this has to be profitable for both TLC and the BL sellers. This means there have to be two profit margins, which will eventually be at the expense of buyers. Also, the demand of parts is very much fluctuating. The white Gallardo idea popped up randomly and suddenly there was a very sharp spike in demand of very specific parts that are normally not at the core of attention. Whatever the solution will be, it has to be able to adapt to totally unexpected very sharp rises in demand. I think the parts packs solution, for example, isn't. Only a parts store where anyone can buy any part they want, will suffice. But that would require a huge stock of parts to fulfill (almost) every possible demand (i mean, who expected the sudden demand for white Technic?). There is only one company that can have such a large stock - and that is TLC. Also, it has to be asked whether this problem is even solvable. Maybe the AFOL community shouldn't go all out to try to build three white Gallardos at once. It might be a much better solution to collect one package, and then have that one package sent along to various builders wanting to have that experience of building a white Gallardo, then disassembling it and passing the package on to the next person. That way, you are in fact recycling the parts.

Let me give my fairly unpopular opinion on this matter... 1. Minifigures. For me personally, all they do is jack up set prices. I don't care about them, I don't build with them, I think they're outdated, non-posable, too "symbolic" and not enough "human-like", and I reckon they take up a considerable amount of Lego's new parts budget, with all the detailed printing. Would there have been no minifigs, there would probably have been place for a lot more interesting new parts or existing parts in more different colors so there would be more "complete" colors to build with. Also, using a minifigure means the scale is fixed. To me, that's an unwanted limitation. Also, using a minifigure means the scene somehow has to be "credible". It reduces the "artistic"-ness of a build, because it's hinting at real-world stuff. I like to "suggest" things with the regular parts. I very much see Lego as an art medium. I think detailed minifigs don't fit in that perspective. And, if you think of it, minifigures satisfy almost all characteristics of "oversized specialized parts"... By the way, Technic figures are a lot more interesting. They actually look like little people because they have the right proportions, and you can actually seat them on a chair with their feet touching the ground. You can use their limbs in ways I can use mine. They're just so much more "lifelike". I still rarely use them because of the scale problem, but at least they are good figures. Creating something for technic figures feels like designing something for actual people. 2. Stickers and printed bricks. For the same reasons as minifigs, stickers and prints hint to real-life situations, which reduce the artistic-ness of a model. 3. Polybags. I always have an uneasy feeling when having opened a large set and at the same day, having to throw away all those empty plastic bags I have just opened. Can't that be done a bit more environmentally friendly? 4. Pearl colors They're generally ugly, in my humble opinion. I like the metallic colors, but the pearl colors never did it for me. 5. Licences Almost all licences are "good vs. bad" types of franchises. I just don't care about those. But there are licences I like - Ferrari, Architecture, Volkswagen come to mind. Again - Lego used as an art medium. 6. Mosaics Everyone can use a computer to reduce an image to a grayscale pixelated image and grab a box of 1 x 1 plates. But for some reason, actually interesting mosaics are much rarer.

I like this! This is a mod that should just have been in the original set Only think I don't like is the combination of worm + 12t. It doesn't "fit", officially. But I assume that worm + 8t would slip? I do prefer the gear setup to the universal joint setup by the way. Also in that last picture there's something really wrong with the rigidity of the whole thing ;) And I'm sure there is some way to correct that, e.g. by replacing the black 2x4 liftarms by 3x3 T-shaped liftarms, to have a way to join them to the gray 15L beams that hold the turntable. Also, purely aesthetically, I would use 12L axles instead of 5L + 7L on the outriggers.

It's funny, really, because I never cared about baseplates and I think they're inconvenient, single-purpose, hard to arrange in any other way than a square pattern because you can't fill up the holes, always come in the wrong colors, and always lie in the way when not used because they're so large. I'm very glad baseplates are being replaced by plates so often. Normal plates are just much more versatile. I agree about the instructions. I'd love to see larger building steps. Not only that, but the tiny steps means I have two large boxes full of books I never use. There have been sets that came with six books! The piece callouts are heaven, though. Even as a kid I was annoyed that many alternative models came without piece callouts. It left me feeling unsure whether I had everything. And I don't think this is "exciting", it's just "unsure". I also agree about the licenced themes (franchise-based, not counting things like Volkswagen, Ferrari or Architecture). I don't care about them at all, but I simply don't care about stories in general. Fortunately there are still many non-licenced themes like Creator or Modular buildings. I'm not sure I care about the boxes - a box is just a box. It's the contents that count. But I'm not a child anymore, so I don't know if there is any difference in children's imaginations with modern boxes versus the old ones.

Really? As far as I know, it is only shown which numbers the bags have and which submodels are built from each number. How many bags have a certain number, is not mentioned, and nothing is known for sets whose bags are not numbered (as it the case with many Technic, Creator, Architecture and UCS sets).

I like what you did with the truck, but I find the trailer a bit simple. It simply doesn't do very much, it's just a block with wheels. As for the truck, I like the double rear tires and extra axle. You changed the front wheel arches as well, right? I like it. I'm not fond of the red frame though, would have chosen dark gray or light gray for that. But it's a matter of taste.

I love the "flex-centric" style of the red body. Great job!

Or Technicopedia.

95% for the parts. The parts is what I have left after I built the model, so the parts better be worth the money. And LEGO is simply too expensive to just display and then don't touch anymore. (That's why I probably won't buy the crawler. Of the 1300 parts it offers, only 100 or so are interesting. All the rest I already own enough of). But I don't completely disregard the model and building experience ;)

Carry out the following steps: 1. Go to www.lego.com 2. At the bottom left, you'll find "Building instructions". Click that 3. In the new window you find a search bar. Type 8109 in it 4. Click Search 5. Below the search block you will find links to the building instructions of the set you searched for. 6. Download and view building instructions with any application that can view a PDF. Nearly every computer has such a program. 7. Count the studs. Every stud is 8 mm, you can use that to convert to centimeter measurements, which you can divide by the measurements of a real truck to find out the scale. E.g. if a model is 12 cm wide and the real truck is 240 cm wide, then the scale is 12 : 240 = 1 : 20. 8. Let us know the answer

That's one of the best quotes I have read in a while.

8853 was my first Technic set! So it always holds a bit of a special place. I also believe it is the only set from the list I actually own. I liked the alternative model as a kid. I have borrowed my cousin's instructions for 8865 once and that's a great model as well, even if at the time I had already built 8880.

Well, that's why Really, I have never understood why people go "I don't understand why X has so few votes. I didn't vote for X though". How can you not understand why X has few votes, if you yourself are not voting on X, even though you could? Just assume people follow the same reasoning as you. First of all, I only voted for sets I own, because I can't really form an opinion from a set I have never actually built and played with. The cool thing about the 1990-1999 era is that I was a kid - so I actually played with the sets. Nowadays, I just build them and that's the play in itself. I think that plays part of the role of why many of the sets of this era are so amazing. My all time favorite of those, I think, is 8460, the mobile crane. It's such a complete set with many functions that work so well. Also it's one of the first mobile cranes that actually looked like a real mobile crane that you actually saw on the road (in terms of proportions). The earlier 8854 just didn't do it for me (it looks clumsy, to be honest). Anyhow: No: 1990: 8094: don't own. Yes: 1991: 8856: the best helicopter set (with the possible exception of the new 9396), and as a kid I had unlimited fun swooshing around the alternative model over the floor. Yes: 1992: 8868: the main model is great and looks great, but what really adds to the set is that the alternative model is also great. It's not the best looking, but the automatic pneumatic circuitry is beyond amazing. No: 1993: 8082: don't own. No: 1993: 8872: don't own. I have never been a fan of models that consist of smaller models. It always feels like a missed opportunity. The opportunity being that having a big set means one can build a big model. Having a result that could also have done with two smaller sets, feels like a "waste" of the "big set slot" for that year. No: 1994: 8858: don't own. Would have voted though, I think it's a very cool model. Yes: 1994: 8880: What I like most about the supercar is the rounded shapes of the body. It's surprisingly sturdy (allowing to lift the car by the roof, for example). And of course the 4x4x4 with steering wheel and HOG is a great achievement. The set had one huge disadvantage for me: it's not very playable. It's a car, and that's it, kind of. I think this was very much an AFOL set in that respect. Yes: 1995: 8460: My favorite, because it combines everything so well, and the crane is actually very strong, and the outriggers really work. I have had so much play fun with this set as a kid. Also the tiny turning radius fascinated me at the time. It's just a very good set. I'm surprised it's not very popular in the vote. No: 1995: 8485: don't own. Yes: 1996: 8480: This set is technically very complex, lots of functions in a small space, and has an unusual subject matter. And it's white - lots of white. The alternative model was not so interesting though - it has the same "empty space" problem as 8285. No: 1997: 8459: don't own. Yes: 1997: 8479: The code pilot idea is unique, but that aside, the main model is just a very solid truck with good proportions and nice functionality (the working steering wheel!). The alternative buggy model was ingenious as well. And it's green. Yes: 1998: 8462: I have doubted whether I should vote, but in the end I did vote, because I still think this is a very nice set. I like the open frame structure used in this set, and I think the functionality is OK. The blue color and air tanks add to the set. The alternative model is lacking though. Yes: 1999: 8448: What I liked here most was the modular build-up. Building this set from its original package felt most like constructing a real car. Building a module, and attaching the module to the frame. I liked that design feature a lot (also because of the huge contrast with 8880 which had a "continuous" build). Also, compared to 8880, I liked how the design of the chassis was very minimalistic (contrast to 8880 which has a much more "bulky" frame). And the body is very sleek (I particularly loved the wing doors). The 5+R is a great piece of Lego engineering as well. The lack of four-wheel stuff makes it less "special" among AFOLs, or so it seems, but to me, 8448 is "on par" with 8880. By the way, it's great fun reading all those opinions here. Just to let you know you aren't all writing just for nothing ;)

Lime is not a color you see a lot in Technic. This set has the most lime Technic parts I know of. That only might make it interesting to part the set out to a Bricklink store - IF you're willing to invest the time, which can be a lot. If you want to sell the set, look at Bricklink's average prices: Bricklink Price Guide for 8649. As I look at it, prices are raising pretty high! If yours is new (not built) and complete (not sealed), without box, you might be able to ask in the range of EUR 80!

It looks like one of those Dakar rally trucks. Great job managing to cram all those cables away in the little space you had.

First of all, I only voted for models I actually own. If I would have owned 8458 Silver Champion I think I would have added that as well because I think it's a great set (a cousin owns it and I have seen the finished model once there) No: 2000 - 8458 - I don't own the set. I would have chosen it if I did though, because I think it has interesting techniques and is good looking with the silver panels. No: 2001 - 8466 - Not chosen because I don't like the subject matter of offroaders, the very rounded shape looks kind of weird to an offroader, and the techniques are not much different from 8448. No: 2002 - 8461 - Not chosen because it is basically a re-release (and I do not own it). No: 2003 - 8455 - Not chosen because I'm not much of a pneumatics person (and I do not own it). No: 2004 - 8436 - Not chosen because in retrospect the model is kind of average and actually not very feature-rich. Yes: 2005 - 8421 - Chosen because I love mobile cranes and this one is executed very well with many functions. The doubly extending boom is the function I like most, and the tiny turning radius. All the wheels close together also give a very "beasty" look to the model. No: 2006 - 8285 - Not chosen becuase the model has too much empty space that just sits there doing nothing, and the functionality is mostly fairly simple because there was no space restriction. Therefore the building techniques become less interesting. I mainly got the sets for parts - it was pretty cheap at only EUR 109 for 1800+ parts at the time. Yes: 2007 - 8275 - I doubted, but I chose the model because it just works so well, and looks so good. The techniques are simple, but it creates a coherent whole and it very playable. Also it looks like a monster, and the PF parts are put to very good use here. No: 2008 - 8297 - Not chosen because I think it looked like a mediocre set at first, and it still does. The variable suspension is neat but the rest is not very interesting (I personally do not care about the PF lights). And I do not own the set. Yes: 2009 - 8258 - Chosen because of the incredibly complex inner workings, the cool outriggers that actually work like real ones, and the doubly folding crane that is executed so well (even though it doesn't lift a lot). Also it's huge, and, again, looks very impressive. Yes: 2010 - 8043 - Chosen because of the great gearbox with six motorized functions, including motorized tracks, all crammed in very little space which makes the build very interesting. Yes: 2011 - 8110 - Chosen because it is a very versatile set which has everything - suspension, steer, drive, PF, pneumatics, winch, is very interesting to build and the final package is very playable and the crane is actually quite strong. No: 2012 - 9398. Not chosen, because besides the - obviously beyond awesome - RC drive and steer, the set actually doesn't have much (and I do not own it). Although if I had one, or the money to buy one, I might have added this because it is kind of cool (partly because of the colors). If I had to pick one favorite I think it would be 8258.