Erik Leppen

62.4 tyres won't come back, is my prediction. Over the last years, Lego has been moving to a system of rims fitting multiple tyres, and the 62.4 tyre/rim combination cannot be used with any other tyre or rim. The 68.7 tyre fits a standard rim used for years with other tyres and that exists in multiple colors, and I interpret it as being the replacement of the 62.4 tyre. But it's still pretty rare. A 2400-part creator offroad car would be a great opportunity to use these tyres.

Except that I would think that storing boxes filled with Lego is a pretty darn expensive way to enjoy boxes. I mean, if OP wants to enjoy boxes, sure go ahead, but why then not just buy empty boxes on Bricklink for a fraction of the cost, or open their boxes and sell the contents to get most of their money back and make their hobby an order of magnitude cheaper? I think if someone buys a Lego box, and then doesn't use the part that has the value for everyone else - the contents - then I would say this person has a problem judging the value of things and a really expensive way to enjoy boxes. Of course I can't look into their room to see if we're talking 10 City sets or a room full of exclusives, but in any case they're not using 90%+ of the monetary value and could save a buttload of money by making a rather small change to their hobby. In any case, there's lots of unused bricks lying around waiting to be built with... At least you (peppermint_m) are actually using the cars - not just their packaging.

Have you seen the crane? As far as I know, there haven't been images around, or did I miss something? I'm asking, because if you haven't seen it, you cannot comment on whether it's better or not (and you're much better off taking your example from the plethora of sets we know how they look and work - because there are plenty. The 10303 roller coaster for example.). For all we know the new crane will be fantastic. For example, 42082 was a really nice set. It's big, but the size is justified by all the gearing and function switching going on inside. There wasn't much empty space. Who knows what the crane will be able to do. I really understand the appeal of size, @Jundis. I too liked the BWE 42055 or the huge 42100 Liebherr digger (even though I can't justify the price and don't care for electronics). I just don't understand the appeal of size alone, so if someone could explain that :) Sorry @ moderators by the way if this is hijacking the thread. (But we don't have much info anyway, so it's either speculation or discussion :) )

Which raises the queston why "bigger" would be a good thing. All "bigger" does is consume more space (and make builds harder because big is more prone to bending and needs more structure). Sure, if bigger is used/needed to sculpt a better shape, that's all good. But "bigger" by itself has only drawbacks. Let's as an example compare the white Technic Porsche 42096 (1580 parts) with the Cretaor Expert Porsche 10295 (1458 parts), which have a very similar part count. Reasons I can think of why anyone would want the large Technic one, are it has suspension and a fake engine to re-use the pieces as a base for modding or moccing These reasons mostly have nothing to do with the fact that it's a car, rather than some other 1500-part Technic set. Reasons I can think of why one would want the small Creator one, are It's much better looking, making actually worth putting on a shelf and look at It's much more recognizable as a Porsche to probably most people, proving that bigger is not needed to sculpt a better shape. I think system building is more varied and more "fun" to build A system build looks more "Lego" to most people including almost all non-Lego-fans It takes way less space in a room. Maybe I'm an outlier, but to me, "big" is mostly a negative property. The best Technic sets are those that are not bigger than needed to host their functions. Both 42128 tow truck and 42145 helicopter, the two universally praised Technic sets from these years, are as small as possible given their functions.

I see the Racers lineup has been announced. The plane seems a bit of an outlier though. As if it's in the wrong list... Wonder when info on Technic will come. ... But in all seriousness... overall feeling: Oh well. At least we can bricklink the pieces.

Come on, use your creativity ;) connections with the bevel gear may have more friction connections with the bevel gear may have a tendency to slip the ends of the teeth were rubbing against the surface below when turning a spur-only gear may be easier to mold, or cheaper the spur gear may allow chain drive (or so I hope) they were remolding anyway for other reasons, and figured they didn't need the bevel gear It's easy enough to "think of a reason to make this change". Which reasons are the actual reasons, we cannot know, but there's plenty of possible reasons.

This will be hard. Chance is, I bought a few of those balls just a month ago, mostly because I was sorting out a lot of old system bricks and I was thinking, what could I do with those? and then I thoguth about someone on a meeting who told me "maybe you could try GBC one time, I think you'll enjoy it" so for preparation I bought a few balls and tried building something. But man, this is hard if you have never done this before! So I hope to enter, but I'm 100% a novice in this theme :D

I wonder what percentage of the general Lego (Technic) building public uses sites like Rebrickable... versus what percentage used to build B-models when they existed. To be honest I expect the usage to have already dropped significantly when they replaced the paper instructions by a downloadable pdf, but I expect a normal Lego (Technic) building person doesn't care about B-models, and probably doesn't even come up with the idea of rebuilding, if everything in the whole set is designed around it being 1 model and nothing more. At least in the past they hinted at the idea of recombining the parts into something else that was just as official, with leftover parts that invite doing something with them. One can wonder what value TLG places on creativity if B-models are apparently not worth it. That is a short-sighted idea. The question of course is what is the long-term effect. We don't know, but I would expect the effect of B-models on sales, if it exists, to be mostly long-term. More people may stick to lego if it has more longer-term value, and B-models create long-term value. But oh well. Us discussing this doesn't make B-models come back, so whatever. Probably I overestimate the effect. I just hate the fact that financial arguments are almost always the ones that survive and overshadow all the rest.

If you see it that way, then every problem in existence anywhere at any time is a "lack of resources" allocated to something by someone at some moment. That makes it a vacuous truth.

Can you link to the quote please? I also wonder lack of what type of resources. Didn't they turn record profits in 2020? So "resources" can't be money, but it can't be bricks or paper because they could make the B-instructions digital. So my current assumption is that resources must be people or time, or that lack of resources means it costs more than it earns.

That's why it costs € 300 without including motorization and a light source... (enough) people will buy it anyway.

No, because I don't dislike the coloring. To be honest, I sort-of build like that myself. I hate to build grayscale-only. So when I build, like, anything, I fill the interior with all kinds of stupid colors, usually trying to pick colors I don't expect to need anytime soon, or I simply pick a color I know I have good quantities of the given part. Or just the first color I find 4 of the same color, if I need 4 of something. Also, using more colors makes sorting less tedious. And you're completely correct that actually using color to code for certain functions would be really great. It would also be more educational for builders if color coding was used like that. However, I'm afraid that being educational isn't TLC's main goal... What I'm getting at is, we can complain, but it's going to bring us so little... Color usage isn't going to become more sensible, I'm afraid... I would also redesign the whole coloring for gears or pins or axles if I could redesign everything, but I assume TLC know what they're doing. So I try to see the bright side of it. That's why I keep saying, without the wicked colors we wouldn't have all those very useful parts. Now, I know I'm guilty of complaining about set's focus on looks, but I think it's a bit of a shame to see people spend their energy complaining about part colors, if it's something you can change (yes, I understand it can be cumbersome, time consuming, expensive, etc.) But most parts are available in more neutral colors. In the meantime, (to bring things ontopic a bit...) let's all get that awesome new helicopter. And then, people who hate the neon yellow can replace it with white or normal yellow, and then sell the neon yellow parts on Bricklink so I can buy them cheap :D

People complaining about color vomit often forget that without it, we wouldn't have all these shiny new parts, as TLC thinks the target audience couldn't tell them apart by shape alone. Same goes with all the different gears, now blue and green, yes it's a bit untasteful but would you rather had these or none at all? You should count the number of different pin molds we have today versus the different number of pin molds we had when 3L pins were black. You'd be surprised. Count your blessings - quite literally ;) Secondly, real-life machines also use color coding. It's not like all real-life machines are only gray from the inside, they also have color coded cables, functional bits or other elements that come in similar shapes but crucial functional differences. Usually not the chassis itself because that's mostly the same type of element (beams), but the principle is the same - parts that are easily confused but crucially different, are color-coded. It's only sensible. If you're on a desktop PC, just screw the lid off the casing and look at all the color vomit there! Don't complain about color vomit - just pick a black part out of your own collection if you're so concerned about it, and keep the lime part for when it comes in handy.

Decide on a fixed budget, and do not go over it. Then, everything you buy means there will be something else you cannot buy. Then, the choice becomes "A or B", which is much harder than "A or not A", because that last one is obvious (from a Lego fan's perspective). Of course, it's easier said than fone, so, to help yourself succeed, find some (cheap!) reward you only allow yourself if you stay within budget for a given month, trimester, whatever. (Also called reward substitution.)

It's not just conflict based themes. I would have bought the Stratocaster guitar if it wouldn't have come with a stupid amp (which I understand subject-wise, but it's just not as interesting to build). I might have bought the huge Jurassic Park T-Rex if it wouln't have come with that huge gate. I'd probably buy an Atari set if it were just the 3 micro worlds. And why is that beautiful Bowser on such an ugly platform? So yeah, lots of cases where I withheld a purchase because parts I don't like inflate the price.

Isn't yellowing mostly related to UV light, or sunlight in general? I have some white parts that have yellowed, to varying degrees, but nothing serious IMO. But I normally don't let models stand in direct sunlight for long periods of time. But, as pointed out by @howitzer, it may depend on where you live. I don't know. In my experience, however, this problem is not really limited to just white. I have some LBG parts that almost look like they're old gray. But those are parts from I estimate somewhere around 2010. That all said, I do like the orange cabin on 42043! (The dark-gray version seems a bit dull to me, personally)

Very nice looking little truck, it looks like an official model (not even B-model, just an A-model), everything looks as if it belongs there, so well done with the parts limitation. Also, 100% agree with this comment:

I can't comment on the likeness with a real McLaren, but as a Lego model by itself, I think it's really nice. I much prefer this scale above the 1/8 scale which often feels too large. I think 1:10 is the perfect scale for Technic supercars. I love the modularity of this car, that makes it all the more realistic and is very hard to do well. Having the monocoque being a separate module is a bold move, making it harder for yourself than if you would have done a single-piece chassis. So kudos on that. I also like the transverse gearbox. I'm not sure with the suspension with the sideways-offset springs. That could induce some unwanted torsional forces when the suspension is compressed. Finally, the paneling is crazy with all the angles, I think the result is really beautiful (personally I don't really care it's a McLaren - it's just a really nice-looking Lego supercar). I never understand how people make those rounded shapes with a grid-based system of parts. Chiming in with Bruno above: i'd like to see some pictures of the underside, and of all the functions you mention (engine, gearbox levers, adjustable seats, doors) :)

This is great. Love it. There are two things I particularly liked. those outriggers! I love how they move down and out at the same time, and stand at an angle. There must be some clever geometry inside that makes this work. pneumatic extension! I didn't expect this one. The range is naturally limited, but the principle is there, and it's something very rarely (if ever) seen in Lego. And the third inner boom is of course an added bonus! I wouldn't know of a simple way to icnraese the range, beyond using string, but I believe you already used up all the set's strings for the winch and inner extension. But actually, I like many things. it looks like the steering radius is pretty small, which is good. Also, I believe the set has only one steering axle, so you must have used nonstandard ways to make the other axles steer. Also, the whole cabin lifting is also neat. I know some real cranes do it, but I don't believe I have seen many Lego cranes doing it. Also, considering this comes from one set, I think your color scheme is also still rather sane. There's no mishmash of colors, it looks quite organized with the orange boom and the blue cabin operation. The gray front and rear ends of the undercarriage look a bit messy, but it's functional enough, and you had to work with limited parts so it's understandable. There's only one thing I liked less, that is, that a single cylinder for the whole boom seems a bit too little. But I understand it's by the parts limitation, and seeing from the video, it seems to work better than I would have expected, I just would have prefered a double cylinder personally. However, you used the other cylinder for the extension, which is much cooler so yeah :) If you don't mind, I saved the source pictures of the white Liebherr crane to my "Lego inspiration" folder, as it looks like a fun subject to build in the future, when I'm in a crane mood again :)

Now this is what they call "opinions". Apparently, people disagree. And that's fine. Not everyone who disagrees is "obsessed" with anything. They simply have another idea about colorful models and color matching. And you can't argue about taste. Personally I'm very happy with the gray cylinders, because I always hate it how every pneumatic model has to cope with yellow suddently being a color in the model. Gray is much easier to combine with anything. Also, I wish pneumatic would find a use one day in a creator expert set ;)

The goal of suspension is to make sure enough wheels touch the ground on uneven terrain. So, the questions are: how uneven is the terrain you want your vehicle to drive on, and how much of a problem is it if wheels don't touch the ground. Wheels not touching the ground will become a problem if either your drivetrain uses differentials. If, in this case, one of the connected driven wheels loses grip with the ground, all motor power goes to that wheel, getting your vehicle stuck. not all your wheels are driven. In this case, during driving, on any certain moment, most of the weight could come to rest on undriven wheels and your driven wheels may lose grip. So, if you want to make suspension unnecessary, my advise would be to drive all wheels, and not use differentials. That said, suspension can simply be a fun design challenge, of course :D

If you're going to go this big, I really recommend you pick up some studded Technic bricks. Yes, you can get a long way with frames, but in my experience, as far as stiffness goes, nothing beats good old stacked bricks. In my experience, even just plate-brick-plate-plate-brick-plate will get you a long way, and with 5x5 and 6x8 bricks you can achieve decent torsional stiffness between left and right side as well. Also, having the weight over such long axles won't work, I assume. I would probably go for unsprung suspension, where the weight-bearing linkage is as close to the wheel as possible. So, not in the middle of the axle - that would only lead to serious bending on the axle. (But I don't know if that's what you're trying to do. I assume so from the turntables.) Personally what I would try is add the well-known independent suspension parallelogram on each wheel, but replace the springs by a pushrod system where adjacent wheels are linked so that if one wheel goes up the other goes down. This way you still distribute the weight over the wheels and allowing for uneven terrain, but don't have to deal with springs allowing only a very specific weight range. You may also know that in real-life, those huge vehicles often also have inner wheels. Like those huge Mammoet moving platforms used to carry heavy objects like nuclear reactor housings and stuff, those things don't have axles running all the way from left to right. They have more than 2 rows of wheels. And lastly, absolutely make sure you test things in the reality of plastic parts. The bigger your project, the bigger the difference between the idealized digital build and the actual real-world build. All of that said, I really like you trying to take on this challenge and I'm looking forward to the progress (that's why I'm having so much feedback - because I really like the idea). Also, seeing you start from scratch is a real treat for the forums :) That way, it's not just about the result, but also very much about the process. :)

I wouldn't join any contest that would require "smart bricks" of any kind. I'm doing this Lego thing to get away from programming ;) Also, I feel that software programming isn't Lego. Lego, to me, is interlocking plastic bricks forming models that may move (in the case of Technic). That means mechanical "programming" (such as counting machines or clocks or whatever) is all fine and even great, but doing it in software feels like a cop-out. I'd probably be out immediately, because of lack of ideas. Right now, I can't think of any childhood cartoon that would contain anything that would inspire me to try to build it. I could think of a computer game though, that might contain vehicles that would be cool to build in Lego, and add enough functions to make it worthy of a Technic contest. So, maybe if you broaden this idea to "remake any vehicle from existing fiction", that is, build something that is recognizably from some existing cartoon, or movie, or game, or comic, etc. (including Star Wars) then I think it has much more chance of being broad enough to speak to enough people to have enough entries, yet still limiting enough as to provide a challenge and spark builds that we normally don't see. But you'll have to take care that it should remain a Technic competition. Now this would be interesting. "Build a walker" is probably already a cool challenge because it allows plenty of things but still challenges to build things we normally don't build. "Build a walker that can change direction" would be an interesting bonus challenge :)

And then to think that 8462 still have relatively little system building. It's mostly an open frame. I kinda liked its minimalistic build. Also, you might have noticed that those studded models are a lot sturdier and less flexible than modern studless builds, even with the addition of frames. Also, a set like 8462 is less than 800 pieces. One of the best Technic sets, system-build-wise, I think, was 8479. It had a lot of basic slopes to sculpt a nice-looking truck. To me it feels much more "Lego" than modern Technic, and I could imagine it to be less overwhelming to slowly move into from normal system building. To me as a kid, the way I remember it, the transition from Town/Miniland (or however the basic City theme was called back then) sets to Technic felt rather natural, and I could still use all my parts (our parts, because my brother was also still into Lego back then) to build stuff. Nowadays, they're mostly separate systems, even though they can be combined, and in my experience, system builds can benefit greatly from modern Technic beams for fixing things or connecting stuff at angles.

That's a pretty impressive dataset @Seasider and @Thirdwigg! Do you think you will host the data somewhere for us to view (read-only, of course)? I'm a sucker for numbers, so I absolutely love things like this. It must have been tedious to put together, and at the same time a lot of fun (part of it is digging up memories, after all :) ), and a blast to have all these data together in one place now.