Erik Leppen

I have tried building this one, and it indeed works pretty nicely. Although his Brickshelf version does not have all wheel drive, I noticed it was possible to add it by moving things by a half stud, so that was what I did. I was sceptical about the 8t gears but they're not as bad as I expected.

Is that a bad thing? Isn't the entire purpose of play to retract oneself from "the real world"? I simply see Lego as a form of play. I think every person needs some form of play, to avoid depression and such from all "important things" that happen in real life. Be it watching movies, doing sports, travelling, playing chess, solving crossword puzzles, playing guitar, roleplay, programming, building with Lego, etc. The voluntary and in-control nature of play makes it suitable as a distraction. Why would that not be healthy? Why would imagining that those little thingies are, people and role-playing with them, stop being healthy as one grows up? I don't understand that. A sport can be a hobby too, they're not mutually exclusive ;) Anyhow, indeed one of the only possibly unhealthy things about the Lego hobby is that it requires a fixed position for a the most time. At least, when I'm building I'm usually just sitting on a chair at a table. In that respect a more physically intensive hobby would surely be better. "addicted in a reasonable measure" is kind of an internal contradiction. If it's reasonable I wouldn't call it "addiction". However different languages may differ in this aspect. In my view, "addiction" really means that it has such an unreasonable priority that it negatively affects someone's life. And then it's bad. However I'm not considering this scenario as it is trivial and hence not interesting to discuss. I'm only thinking about building Lego "within reason". I think it is a good thing!By the way, great topic!

What I'm hoping to achieve with this topic (in this specific forum) is that when the time does come (and it will) that four digit numbers are filled and TLC has to move to five-digit numbers anyway, I'd like them to do so in an at least somewhat ordered manner. After all, when the move does need to be made, having a logical system surely doesn't have real downsides I think. And yes, I do think a logical system would make remembering the numbers easier. If the system is based on the years like I suggested, the numbers are even easier to remember because they make more sense (thinks that make more sense are easier to remember). I mean, if Technic had been numbered like I suggested from 2000 now, I can look up the number of "that model from summer last year" by simply looking at 8101n. there are only a few digits left to even remember At least, I can't imagine that parents who buy their kids sets from the same theme each year, wouldn't notice whether the numbers of subsequent years are logical. And I'm saying this now rather than waiting until four-digit numbers do get filled up, 'cause it wouldn't surprise me if they 'd start cluttering the five-digit range all over the place already. Edit: yes, as a mathematician I can get pretty hung up on something as trivial as a numbering system

If that's the problem, then the problem is within early uploads to that website. Information that shouldn't be disclosed to the world, shouldn't be on that website. Simple as that. Otherwise it's "security through obscurity" and that is usually a bad thing, because all that has to happen is one person finding it, and with the Lego-building part of the world counting a billion people of not more, that is bound to happen. ;)

I've been wondering this for a while now, but Lego set numbering already lacked sense for quite some time but it seems increasingly random. Isn't it about time that Lego devises a set numbering system that actually makes sense? For example, the Technic theme has had 8xx in the beginning, followed by 8xxx for decades. We're running out of 8xxx numbering, so what did TLC do? Of course we pick 9390 up to 9395. Who would have guessed that. It seems they're filling the gaps now, but isn't it time to instead just leave the gaps for what they are, and just move to a whole new system? One that is actually thought out and leaves room for the future? I'm going to do a suggestion. Say Technic will have 5 first-half and 4 second-half models every year. Technic 2013 first half: 81301 - 81305. 8 for Technic, 13 for the year, 0 to indicate first half-year, 1 to 5 the set index within this half-year. Technic 2013 second half: 81311 - 81314. The 1 indicates the second half-year. Technic 2014: 81401 - 81405 and 81411 - 81414. ... Technic 2099: 89901 - 89905 and 81411 - 81414. At this moment, all numbers using 0 or 1 have been in use. Every century these increase by two. Technic 2100: 80021 - 80025 and 80031 - 80034. The 2 indicates first half-year, the 3 indicates second half-year So we have Technic 20nn: 8nn01 - 8nn05 and 8nn11 - 8nn14. Technic 21nn: 8nn21 - 8nn25 and 8nn31 - 8nn34. Technic 22nn: 8nn41 - 8nn45 and 8nn51 - 8nn54. Technic 23nn: 8nn61 - 8nn65 and 8nn71 - 8nn74. Technic 24nn: 8nn81 - 8nn85 and 8nn91 - 8nn94. If TLC were to start with this system, they can reserve all 8xxxx numbers for the Technic theme, and then use it for 500 years. Now that's a durable system. What they should not do is use other 8xxxx numbers for other themes, and actually reserve all those numbers for Technic, at once. Doing that is the only way to ensure that the system stays logical even after a long time. If they want to survive even longer, they can do it another way. Technic 2013, 80001 up to 80009. Technic 2014, 80010 up to 80018. Technic 2015, 80019 up to 80027. ... Done. This will save them for a millennium and will surely fill all 8xxxx numbers, leaving no gaps. Also the latter system leaves enough room for all other themes. Exclusive. 10000 up to 19999. (as we have started a relatively logical sequence of 101xx and 102xx numbers in there already) City. 20000 up to 29999. Trains. 30000 up to 39999. Kingdoms. 40000 up to 49999. ... Technic 80000 up to 89999. Star Wars 90000 up to 99999. A smaller theme or one that is considered temporary (most licenced themes) can reserve 1000 places instead of 10000 (e.g. 40000 up to 40999), or maybe even as few as 100. Even if a theme reserves 100 places and more are needed and there is no room, than at least we have 100 consecutive numbers, which is already a whole step forward from now, where it is difficult to find even five consecutive numbers that make sense. And seeing we have had four-digit numbers for a few decades now, we can be quite sure that the move to five-digit numbers will give us enough room for several centuries. I actually don't see any reason not to switch to something like this. It's one more digit to remember for customers, but this is a system that people will be used to quickly enough and then it can only be easier. So, why haven't they switched already?

9390 Mini Tow Truck: sounds like the alternative of 8067, probably even smaller. Guessing black, we haven't had a mini 8285 yet. 9391 Tracked Crane: A mini 8288? Would be cool, especially if it were white. Anyhow it'll probably be a nice source of the small tread links, like 8259 (the mini bulldozer) was. 9392 Quad Bike: Sounds uninteresting; not very inventive. But I hope they will surprise us. 9394 Jet Plane: Sounds interesting! Curious to what functions it will have, and how it will look. Guessing white with red, to fit with the recent helicopters. 9395 Pick-Up Tow Truck: Probably same size as 8069 (about 600 parts) given it's a first half-year model. Maybe something like the 8858? Or a smaller 8285? What is the difference between a pick-up tow truck and a tow truck? By the way where's the missing number 9393?

By the way what about the 1 x 2 plate?

Oh, thanks for the heads up because I thought I did, but it seems I didn't. Country added now :) Dutchie here too by the way :) Anyhow. Didn't we have a poll a whole while ago about this? If I remember correctly there has once been some sort of survey in a huge poll in this Technic forum somewhere, that, among other questions, asked for the country (it also asked things about MOC vs collector, sets vs loose parts, boy vs girl, studless vs studded, ... all those kinds of things. Now I just hope I can find it somewhere, and that we can see who voted what in that poll...

2005 Yellow 2006 Black 2007 Yellow 2008 Dark-gray 2009 Red 2010 Yellow 2011 Orange so... blue maybe:laugh: 2005 construction equipment 2006 truck 2007 construction equipment 2008 off-roader 2009 truck 2010 construction equipment 2011 off-roader so... truck maybe:laugh: I think we've got it. We're getting a blue truck...with wheels!

The Power functions make the set in 8275's case. It's remote controlled, so that is very cool. But the mechanisms are certainly simpler than those in some more recent sets like 8265. Don't expect intricate gear systems. But yes, it's sturdy looking and remote controlled. It's up to you to decide whether that is what you want or not. Edit: you can download the building instructions on http://us.service.lego.com/en-US/BuildingInstructions/default.aspx to learn more :)

Could you please put down your tone here? I believe Milan stating shows he does not have "elitist attitude". Don't make him out for having a different view than you. We may disagree on things and there may be two "sides" to the argument. But no one here is "elitist", OK? I think the main concern the "free" advocates are having is that when releasing the instructions for free, they'd reach a (much?) larger audience. It is up to the creators to choose between earning some money for their hard work, or let their hard work be used by as many people as possible (as you can see, both choices sound very logical). There are valid arguments for both options. Whichever they choose, we will have to live with it.

Oh what I'm forgetting, if it has to have wheels, then let it please be a mobile folding crane. (for those that don't know what I mean, google "Spierings") :) It's something Lego has never done yet lots of boys would love (I think) ('cause let's not forget who Lego actually makes the models for...).

For a moment I thought you let your Unimog roll off the table. Only when I looked better it was not a genuine crash

Now look at this. We have had people begging for a decent set with a compressor for years. Now Lego's finally got us one and then we suggest a hand pump is actually more convenient. The hilarity I love the pneumatic operation of this 8110. I have played with it a little and I found it no real problem picking up objects. Bty the way I do agree that the controls are a bit confusing. However I found the same on 8258, and I consider that a good thing. When you can't remember how to control the functions, it's a sign there are enough of them in the set A minor disadvantage on the controls by the way is that the axles from the levers leading to the driving ring selectors are very long so the controls are a bit wobbly and are somewhat difficult to dis-engage (put in neutral position). By the way I like how all controls are on one side... until one mounts the crane at the front

Anything that has no wheels or tracks will do :D An airplane of some kind? (sea plane) A helicopter? A space shuttle? (to follow up 8480 (same color please)) A submarine? (8480 again) A boat? (like 8839, but bigger and with more functions) A walking machine? Something organic? (the dinosaur) It's not like there are no options :) But I'd just like to see something that deviates from the norm. We sometimes see that, but not recently for a flagship :) Also I still don't get the PF-mania people seem to be having. All that PF does is raise the price, and 8265 proves that a set with no PF can be a great set too. I'd like to see a flagship without PF for once.

To be honest I think the tyres from 8466 are way too heavy. The suspension of 8466 feels kind of flimsy compared to those huge tyres. The suspension of 8880 is a lot sturdier, and I expect that of 8297 as well (but I don't own that set). If there had to be one set for which I'd say the tyres are awesome, it's 8110 That's so true

I noticed the problem too. I think the shock absorbers are too stiff for this. But I think the main problem is within their design. The upper connection point is offset from the spring axle, which means the force exerted when pushing on the model is partly translated into a sideways (bending) force that increases the friction within the shock absorber. To me this is a design flaw in the shock absorber part. Fortunately there's an axle hole in the top of the yellow part that you can use too, but the sideways part shouldn't even be there. Compare to the smaller 6.5 length shock absorber which is straight and has only round holes so you don't have this problem. In fact I just dislike the large shock absorber part. The 6.5 shock absorber are much better designed and fit much better into the system (for example, they fit into one stud width). By the way the problem is made bigger by the way the shock absorbers have been connected to both the frame and the axle. The actual hinge point at the top (which is he center of the gray pin with hole) is again offset by a stud because the blue axle pin is sideways. At the bottom is another half stud offset. For some reason not yet known to me the back suspension behaves much better.

8258 Crane Truck. About the same price as 8043, but 30% more parts (which is my main reason for mentioning it). The reason for this difference is that 8043 is full remote controlled and all the electrical parts required for this are quite expensive. 8258 has just one motor and one battery box, the rest is all mechanics. It has four electric function on only one motor, the gearbox used for selecting them is one of the most complex in Technic history. Although 8043 is a technical wonder too so in that aspect they won't differ by much. However the 8043 seems to be a bit "closer to perfection" (less little problems). For example on 8258 the crane cannot really lift heavy loads and the outriggers are mainly cosmetic. Also note 8258 has two steering axles, but no functioning steering wheel. For play, 8043. For sheer size and impressiveness, 8258. For technical complexity, either. The best advice I can give is go to Brickset, open both pages and read the reviews others have given there. http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=8258-1 http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=8043-1

I must admit I never used the micro motor. I simply never needed it. Having said that, I didn't really use that many motors anyway in the pre-PF era... Edit: for an S motor I'd suggest a size of 3 x 3 x 3. Same to Medium, but 50% shorter. I do like the idea of an ungeared motor (mentioned by allanp above). Everytime I gear a motor up, I think: it's wasted energy... My guess is they did it just because it sounds cooler than just "L".

Aaahh! I tried multiple times creating exactly such a thing... I never succeeded, things got way too complex to work. So I know how difficult it can be to build this. Even though it looks very simple in the video... I like how the thing works so quickly and smoothly. Great job! I see how you did get the same idea of using the chain links to get ten sections on the cylinder Now combine it with my counting machine mechanism to get multiple digits so you can count to 99

I expected that already when seeing the instructions for 8070, that already did not show those little teeth. They would't make such a change if there were no reason to :) By the way, does the new 16t clutch gear fit on a normal pin the same way as the 20t free gear does?

I question the fun of such a challenge when people just take something out of their previously-built models and then enter that. That way people can circumvent the build time restriction. Not sure I'd count that as fair play. There's nothing that can be done about this of course, but I just wanted to note this...

What would hinder replacing the 3 x 3 L-shaped liftarm by a 3 x 0.5 straight one placed vertically? I mean, the gear holder part is closed at the bottom to this reinforcement seems kind of useless to me. Is this the same as "does not slip as easily"? Because I think the main reason for using knob gears is that they don't slip. For normal gears there would be enough play for them to slip because of the tilting cabin. Well, the teeth of the double bevel 12 and 20 tooth gears are somewhat rounded too. But indeed there is a big difference compared to the straight (spur) 8, 16, 24 and 40 tooth gears :) People owning 8865 (Test car) have probably experienced this Whatever the reason, I wouldn't want Lego to discontinue these parts as they have multiple good uses as Blakbird points out. E.g. in 8421 and 8053 they are used to align the left and right sets of outriggers. To be honest I have never seen this actually used (at least not in an official set), and in my experience this is a very bad spur gear, because they frequently get stuck in one another.

Now this one's interesting. I already have two possible ideas.

The audience for metal parts is way too small to justify the additional production costs. Also, wouldn't it take a way some of the challenge? ;)