Erik Leppen

Beautiful rendition of a beautiful car, instantly recognizable! Also great choice of car because you don't see those very often. All in all magnificent model!

Sorry for offtopic, but where do you get those prices?

I own both but I very much prefer 8258. The tow truck 8285 had an unusually good value for money but the model itself had too much open space for my taste. Also I don't really fancy tow trucks in general. 8258 was much more technically interesting and the gearbox is simply fantastic and the whole set is much more "filled" with functionality. For example the four wheel steering or or the four outriggers. Also the folding crane is a great piece of design. Also I think the frame is better designed, partly because of the new 5 x 7 and 5 x 11 liftarms. The only drawback of 8258 is that it is a lot more expensive. In conclusion, in my opinion 8258 >> 8285.

8043 is much more complex. More generally, the pneumatic models are not the most complex sets. You know what he means right?

I fear that Nazgarot is wrong... If you look at the top picture in his post you can see the same assembly as in the bottom picture to hold the near gear reduction part, and it looks like it's under an angle. Also if there were something outside of the gear reduction part that's meant for steering, then why is there a short gear rack used and not a long one, and how is it connected? Also the bottom picture suggests there's an universal joint behind the vertical red pin with bush. And I think the black 11-beam that's connected to that pin, is not fixed to the frame but acts as an extra steering rod. By the way I'm happy to find so many of those new split axle joiner pieces from 8069; looks like there are six of them in this whole steering assembly. By the way, what part is at the very distant end of the close-up picture? A bit to the left of the differential, below the gear rack? Edit: if I have to guess, I think the new wheel hub part will be able to contain 8 : 24 :)

I don't expect any other Mercedes sets. Why? The Unimog is a celebration set. I don't expect Lego to use this "opportunity" to "stick with Mercedes" and continue the licence. However, maybe if the Unimog will be the success it is anticipated to be, we might see more large licenced Technic sets in the future - from other licences that happen to celebrate.

Let's hope not!

I do not expect a working steering wheel. My reason to believe that is that I think a working steering wheel does not add "play value" to the finished model, because the steering wheel is usually hard to reach and kids will simply use the hand of God wheel on the roof because it's much easier to access. The only moment the working steering wheel adds play value is when building up the set. For a lot of Technic fans, the build is the play, but I don't expect that that is also Lego's reasoning. Edit: but I hope I'm wrong :D

Looks pretty daring to put a power functions driven thing on water like this. About the video; loved the "captain's view" - very calm actually (at least, with sound disabled). Great video overall, but the model in itself is actually not even very interesting. ;)

While Eurobricks may not have a post about this, the TechnicBRICKs weblog has an excellent article on the Flex system from a few months ago. Should the Flex system return? on TechnicBRICKs.

How on Earth does this boom lift with only two LAs??? For the rest, great looking model. I particularly like the pneumatic outriggers.

New hobby, Dluders? Joking aside, thanks for all the PDFs

Thanks for the compilation! I downloaded it too, it's much easier to handle than 200 individiual photos :P And man, I was a bad photographer back then

Actually there's a lot of truth in this. Model team doesn't really seem Technic (apparently). I'd say Technic would mean functional models. Whether they're finished off with a Model Team style exterior or not, doesn't make them any less functional. However sometimes MOCs come across that are not functional models, but are purely aesthetical, more within the Sreator/Model Team spirit. E.g. Grazi's tow truck is surely a Technic model. Maybe non-functional models can be split from functional ones. Problem is that the line between them is not clearly defined. I mean, is a car whose wheels can roll a functional model? Is the recent Creator fire truck a functional model? It has a raising ladder and I believe it has steering. All in all, while splitting can have advantages I'm not sure whether these outweigh the problems. E.g. Model Team fans won't want to miss on Grazi's truck because the exterior is of Model Team quality. Putting this MOC into any separate section would mean people who only visit the other section might miss out on it. Edit: I do think there should be some sort of index for MOCs. Indexes don't really have drawbacks in my opinion, except them costing time to maintain.

I'm guessing they just had some parts left over...

I tend to agree with Blakbird that the Technic forum in its current form has too little traffic to justify splitting it into subsections. I think right now it is good enough as it is now. You could split between studded and studless constructions but I don't think it would help very much. Also, why search for a "solution" if right now there's no problem However what I do think could be improved is the fact that right now the themes seem to be very much separated from one another. The Dutch LUG for example has a specific board for "MOCs". This means all mocs by everyone, of all themes. This would mean Technic MOCs go into the MOCs forum and not in to the Technic forum. So if I want to see Technic MOCs I look into the MOCs forum. However because everything is together there, I sometimes stumble across MOCs from other themes that look great as well. If all themes come together I think more people would see each other's MOCs even if they're from different themes. I'm not sure this method would work for Eurobricks as it's pretty large but it might be worth a thought. Edit: also the Dutch forums have a separate section for sets. Reviews are a whole different type of topic than questions or discussions about techniques. Those could more easily be separated because the border of what is and isn't a "review topic" is more clear, and because I think people would want to read reviews anyway, even if they're a bit more hidden from view. So I think, if anything could be split, then it's topics related to sets. In the first place reviews, but also questions like "my 8043 is not working". Adaptations to sets like "the ultimate 8043" are much more doubtful...

Actually, I'm not really a fan of the chosen subject matter. I think the set will be magnificent, it's just that Unimogs aren't my taste of things. But I'm determined to get this no matter what, because it looks like a very interesting build and has great parts (wheels, orange) and I'm just curious as to what's inside.

I believe this is the first time we see the alternative model, right? Anyhow, I think the primary is one good looking truck. I like the color scheme. Not so sure about the alternate yet, have to see it from the front, but the functionality looks interesting.

I like this :) I like the whole idea of custom alternative models and yours both look good and seem to have excellent functionality. Your telehandler looks great! It looks very telehander-like. I like what you did with the panels and the battery box, and with the outriggers at the front. Nice work on that one. I'd like to see more of how you did the steering. The airplane is good too. Unfortunately I don't own the set so I don't really know what is possible within the set. But I think this is a worthwhile alternate with interesting functions.

Am I seeing it right that the second and third gear have the same gear ratio? Anyhow, great MOC. Looks a lot like official TLC building style

5x5x6. :)

I think one of the things that can also help, is just building sets by their original instructions. Try to find the types of things you like to learn to build, also within other themes. Of course this takes a lot of money so will take years of time. If you want to do it a bit more cheaply, you can just download and study official instructions. You can find the set numbers at Brickset by theme, year, ..., and download them from the official Lego site (at the very bottom of the main page, look for "customer service"; below that is "building instructions". But of course, building, trying stuff, beats all, but is the most costly :)

This is indeed the argument in real mechanics. However this does not really apply to Lego gears. Lego gears are not designed to run flawlessly for years uninterrupted, their primary purpose is that they fit in the dimensions of Lego constructions and give many possibilities with only a few different parts. But you're right. I believe the two output axles on the RC buggy motor for example have a 17:23 ratio, for exactly this reason. Yes. The sum of the number of teeth = 16 times the distance in studs between the two centers. This is in fact very natural. The number of teeth is proportional to the gear circumference. The circumference is proportional to its radius. So, twice the radius --> twice the number of teeth. The distance between the axles of two gears is of course the sum of their radii. If this distance is kept the same, the sum of the radii is kept the same, and by proportionality the sum of the numbers of teeth is kept the same. One tooth more on one gear means one less on the other. So if you can mesh a 20t with a 16t, then you know you can also mesh a 24t with a 12t over the same distance. And if 24t fits with 20t, then you know 36t fits with 8t. And for Lego it is 8 teeth <-> radius 1/2 <-> circumference 2 * pi * 1/2 = pi. So each tooth is pi / 8 studs = 0.392 studs. On gear racks, 10 teeth = 4 studs, so each tooth = 0.400 studs. My guess: less play? Don't know actually.

I do somewhat agree with SM96UK; there's very few 24t gears in recent sets and I sometimes think this is a pity. I own only five of them in dark gray. I often have to take light gray ones in MOCs. As Splat, I also think this has a lot to do with the dimensions of the studless system. When building myself I notice this too. I use a lot of 12 and 20 tooth gears. They're very useful to gear up or down without having to save space for it. Also because they work in an angle you can do this nearly without needing extra space at all. And instead of 16 + 16 I take 20 + 12 or 12 + 20. Almost unnoticedly I can generate quite a lot of gearing down or up this way. If you follow the red axles on this image you'll see four times 12 to 20 after one another, to generate a 1 : 8 gear reduction without needing to make extra space for it. With 24 tooth gears you usually need more space because it's a fraction too big to fit in three studs. By the way something that is even more missing in recent sets than the 24 gear, is the 24 tooth crown gear. It was ideal in studded constructions, but it has pretty much been replaced by the 20 tooth gears (all types). The 8 tooth gear is also pretty rare but I can't regret that. I have never liked the 8t gear. Because of the shape of the teeth and the low number of teeth they often don't run very smoothly. They're good for gearing down to 24 or 40 from a fast motor, but gearing up from 24 to 8 is rarely a good idea in my experience. I'd much rather do 20:12 twice, or 36:12. Or a worm. What I do feel is missing too by the way, are the 36 and 40 tooth gears. I only have three of each, but use them quite often. The additional holes in those are sometimes useful too. The 36 tooth gear fits well in the studless system, and the 40 tooth gear is easy to mesh with a worm generating a 1:40 reduction in one go. Notice there is a 36 tooth gear in the image I linked to for example.