Erik Leppen

I can remember starting simply in the morning, e.g. around 9:00, and not being done before about 16:00, so that's seven hours minus the time taken for lunch :) (all in one go). And I usually go at a relaxed pace. Especially at the beginning I'm taking my time :) And I never sort the parts before starting, I just open the bags in separate boxes and get right to building. By the way the numbered bags help making the total time a little bit less than usual.

Surely you're gonna tell us why I mean, which you prefer is not going to help the original poster make his decision. However, if you tell us a reason shy you prefer the offroader, this can be of help for the original poster to decide whether your reason applies to him as well

One large disadvantage about the large shock absorbers is that they're wider than one stud. The small ones are exactly one stud wide so they are quite easy to fit into your models. The diameter of the large ones is about 1.3 studs so they effectively need at least 2 studs of open room to fit. This can be a drawback, although for offroaders you might have enough room anyway. If you already have other large shock absorbers (8466, 8880, some motorcycles) you can try and fit these and if that fits, go for the stiffer ones. Also I don't have the idea that the 8110 ones are really that much stiffer than the all-yellow ones from 8466. When compressing them by hand, they feel about the same. The 8110 ones seem to feel a bit smoother but that can also simply be because they are newer. So maybe you should go for the 8466 ones instead. About the tyres, the width is 5 studs. And I also noticed they can carry a lot of weight. Much more than the huge 8466 offroader tyres, and probably much more than most balloon tyres. I can't really compare as I don't have the 8297 tyres.

That can be a difficult decision indeed. Both have the Technic panels in a quite rare color: metallic silver vs. metallic green. Both have relatively rare wheels, the large offroad tyres vs. the large racing tyres. Both have realistic suspension and nice technical functions. 8466 has a gearbox, although it is identical to that of 8448, so if you already own 8448 this might not be very interesting. 8466 has all wheel drive. In my opinion 8466's wheel assembly feels a bit flimsy given the huge tyres, because it is connected with the frame with only a few 3 x 3 x 0.5 liftarms. 8458 has an intricate and ingenious suspension system. Also it has the long suspension arms. Also my personal opinion is that 8458 is a better looking model. Also I think the silver panels are easier to combine with other colors than the metallic green panels. I have to note that I don't own 8458 but I have seen it once at someone else's place. I'm afraid I can't help you with this decision. It depends on what interests you mosts (parts? model? functions?). I mean, it matter whether you want to build up the model and showcase it, or just build up the model once and then use the parts in MOCs. I also don't know about current pricing for either set. Have you looked up the inventories of both sets yet?

Parts like have the same problem at the bush-like parts as bushes... So it is - unfortunately - not a problem of just bushes!

I'm tempted to say the same thing, however for build experience 8421 did a very good job too. It was one of my earlier really big studless sets (previous were 8436, 8435 and 8454 which were all not really complex compared to 8421), and moreover it was the last one they had in the local toy store and I had it for 20% off. I was so happy I finally got that one :D Another very satisfiying Technic build was 8479. Partly because of all those gear systems, but mainly because it's just such a nicely shaped and detailed model (except for the container actually, which is in comparison a bit lame.

Other way around

If you have the room, maybe you can replace the 8/8 and 12/20 gears by a pair of 12/36. This way you need less gears and you can also get away with the 8/8 combination. Alternatively you can use a 24/24 combination or even a 8/40 combination.

Yes! At first I thought, why square, because if you rotate, the square holes will not line up, which would nullify their effect. However now it's of course clear - the LA head won't fit through a round hole. Finally, a part that has been thought through :) It's a much stronger rotating connection than just an axle, and it's much more compact than the large turntable. It's ideal for strong rotating connections in smaller spaces. I foresee this being used a lot in walkers.By the way it can even be used on trial trucks as a wheel bearing/hub part. Fix one side to the frame, the other side to the axle, and use the 28t gear to drive the wheel. In essence, it makes the 8110 wheel hub part obsolete - already

It looks like a pretty good set, having about the same functionality as 8258 but with much fewer parts. Nice to see the mini LA appear again. I don't like the too obvious resemblance to 8285 though. I do like the red chassis. The crane should have been orange :) What's also nice is that it comes with eight brown rims :P Sure, it's only one log, but as you can see 8868 came with none

You're da bomb, Jurgen! Really, superb model! I usually dislike front-engine supercars, but I might need to revisit that statement It was kind of funny though, when I had downloaded the instructions and started them I thought, huh, do I have the wrong one? It's all studs :P Nice how you used studs in the inside where it's better and fully hide them away. By the way, great use of system parts in all kinds of places. Great how you managed to get a HOG in there. Like the hidden 16L axle by the way Edit: by the way how many hours did it take to create those beautiful instructions?

This.

Is a paper book really more expensive than a CD plus the cost of multiple hours of computer on-time every time the set is built up? I mean, it's funny how we're trying to save the environment by suggesting putting books on computers instead of paper, but conveniently "forget" that computers need electricity to run. (Also, CDs are ancient. We're in the internet age now.) Is cardboard > cellophane? Isn't this effect temporary? As in, until a parent notices that those boxes feel a lot heavier for their size? I like that this discussion is held, but so far the only thing I read that would actually help is smaller boxes. Significantly smaller boxes. You know, those that can just fit the content. Oh, and reduce the number of polybags because that's also getting really out of hand in large sets (thirty for 8110! I mean come on.)

Depends on what you want to use the suspension parts for. The suspension of 8110 is off-road so better suited for those kind of vehicles. 8070 is a supercar so it has car suspension. What is best for you depends on what you want to do with it. By the way there's also 8297 which has the same suspension parts as 8070, although what 8070 has extra are the new CV joint parts. Personally, if it's only for the suspension parts, I'd pick 8070 above 8110 because the smaller shock absorbers are much more useful than the large ones because they are one stud wide. The large ones are a bit wider so they're a lot more difficult to use in small spaces.

Age: 25 Age you started building: Dunno, simply "as a kid". Country: Netherlands Occupation: Teacher Married: No Children: No Does your spouse or child/children build: N/A Do you have close friends who build: No Do you build together with your friends: N/A Do you regularly attend Lego conventions: Only LOWLUG meetings, about twice a year. How much money do you spend on Lego product a year: ~EUR 200 How much time do you spend building/playing a day: Varies a lot. Sometimes nothing over several weeks, sometimes entire days. Say it averages about 1 hour/day (more if you include MLCAD). Favored theme/themes: Technic Do you primarily collect retail sets, build MOCs, or both? MOCs. Did you experience a "dark age": No If yes, what age did you enter your "dark age" N/A What age did you exit your "dark age": N/A Other hobbies (other toy collecting, sports, drawing etc.): Programming computer games, visiting amusement parks, swimming In your own words what makes Lego bricks so special: You can build anything; you learn a lot from building. Building is a creative process. May I PM you with a request for a personal interview: N/A

Now this is an awesome set. When I saw the picture I really thought this was a MOC. It's that good And it makes the modulars a lot more affordable. Really, love this one!

I took the most obvious route...add a second box :D I mean it's not like I use them a lot, so why have a system anyway. In that rare case I need one I don't mind taking the time to dig it up from the bottom of the stack.

I've had this on one set only...8265, but then again I'm not letting sets in tact for very long (few weeks at the most). First it has balloon tyres which are more prone to this, second the tyres are quite light and therefore thin, third it is a quite large set with only four tyres, fourth it is quite heavy at the back. So yeah... One thing you can do is move the model a little bit every week or so. But yeah...no ideal solution if a lot of sets have it.

I think that this is already happening. The UCS series and the exclusives, more recently the modular buildings and Architecture series (especially the non-landmarks), all seem to be targeted at us. Anyhow. I like the idea of standard parts packs but I think it is not doable. Sure, Lego could offer pre-sorted collections of parts through their website, but toy stores won't be interested in getting them, so this would be limited to web shops. Years ago by the way Lego used to have supplementary packages for Technic, e.g. one with connectors, one with axles, one with pneumatic parts etc. They could do this with bricks too. However I'd prefer packages of only one color each, including not only bricks but also plates, tiles, slopes and a few special parts like headlight bricks or other SNOT parts. I for one would like dark tan, but I'd also like to have lime. But one way or the other, I think the audience is too small. Kids won't get it. Parents won't get it for their kids. And AFOLs want full cotnrol over exactly what parts they're getting (hence Bricklink and the like). Most people won't go and buy 500 tan parts if they only need 80.

Using 8110's hub parts filled with an 8 and 24 tooth gear, it can already releave two thirds of the torque problem. Also there have been Lego truck trials for decades, surely the parts inventory available to TLC in 2012 has all the parts to create such a thing? I think that it can be done. And who knows what new parts there will be to make it even better.

No it's 3:4:5. When studless building you really need to get used to counting from the centers of the holes, and not the ends of the beams, as the actual pivot points are the centers of holes and these are 3, 4 and 5 studs apart. 3:4:5 is a right triangle because 32 + 42 = 52 (Pythagoras). Similar you have 52 + 122 = 132 and you will notice that if you build a 5:12:13 triangle it will have a right angle as well. And this means you need beams of 6, 13 and 14, but the distances are 5, 12 and 13. Get used to this way of measuring distances, otherwise the math won't work out ;) I also sometimes use 4:7:8 and 4:8:9 as those are almost right. Edit: another two cool things about the 3:4:5 triangle is that it has the same angles as the bent liftarm parts, and also it allows for an additional connection at the incenter of the triangle, like this: (click for larger image). This way you can recreate the angle without having to recreate the whole triangle.

Practice, practice, practice. I think that's all I can say... But, what skills? Is it about gear systems, about structures, adding detail, ....? Or just, studless building in general? Also, Lego has instructions of their sets on their website. Go to homepage, at the bottom below Customer Service choose Building Instructions. I always look at instructions of Technic sets I decide not to buy, just to see if there's interesting techniques I can use. If you do not own 8258 I think that one is very interesting.

2000: 8458. Do not own. Looks great and has nice functionality (no gearbox). 2001: 8466. Impressive and has all the functions you expect including 5+1 gearbox and damped wing doors. The tyres are praised but I can't do a lot with them because they're way too heavy. 2002: 8431. Re-issue of 8460, which is a favorite set of mine. 2003: 8455. Do not own. King of all pneumatics sets, lots of functions in moderate size. 2004: 8436. Kind of meh. 2005: 8421. One of the best sets in a long time; very complex, many functions, cool steering. Also good source of parts. 2006: 8285. Great for size and if you have an older version, the chrome parts (newer versions seem to not have chrome!). Magnificent source for parts! Biggest negative: a lot of empty space, some functionality seems a bit simple. 2007: 8275. Remote control is magnificent, also great source of parts including PF. Only negative: technical complexity is less than with other flagships 2008: 8297. Do not own, can't really say. Has a motor, but not for propulsion. If I had to choose, I think I'd say 8421.

A few things I can think of: A Creator supercar based on either the Pagani Zonda, a Koenigsegg or the Jaguar XJ220, in a scale somewhat bigger than the 1:17 Ferraris and Lamborghinis. So this would end up being a set of about the same size and price as the 10187 Volkswagen Beetle (~1300 parts). A Technic supercar based on any of those same cars, in a scale similar to 8070, but directly recognizable as the car it represents (and of course, in any color that isn't red, dark-gray or black. A good-looking scale model of a modern roller coaster. Does not have to be functional (as that is hardly possible), but it has to look like a modern wooden or steel roller coaster having a realistic track layout. Approximate scale: let's say it fits on a 64 x 32 stud base. A Technic folding crane! (google "Spierings"). The Atomium as an Architecture set.

You're sure you didn't miss the miniature ISD that comes with the build? Your review doesn't mention it and some of the spare parts look like they go into that.