Erik Leppen

I can think of two better-looking solutions. Increase the scale Take another building I mean, it's cool and all that this is the tallest building as of now, but does this set do it any justice? I don't think so. I would guess that if the scale were doubled (and along with that the price increases eightfold), the resulting $200 set would recieve a lot more praise than the current design (Note: I'm not saying that it would be financially more attractive, because I don't know. I'm only talking about praise ;)). Also, I think Lego shouldn't pick buildings just because they are tallest or whatever, but pick those that are suitable for recreation in Lego. And this particular tower surely isn't. Personally I think the real architecture sets - Guggenheim, Fallingwater and that new house - are all much more interesting than those landmarks (but note I own neither).

Model Bugatti by joaodavid96 is a MOC by me; it is picture 008 on this Brickshelf folder: ErikLeppen/Cars/Bugatti. It is the same model that Blakbird has made computer images of, in his folder Blakbird/Renders/MOCs/Bughatti-EB110/. A post by Blakbird on Eurobricks posted last February, forms the proof that this model is older than the competition. So I don't know what has changed about the judging process, but surely judgement isn't perfect yet....

I just think it's an earlier prototype. I have seen the version with those wheels before :)

I think the question is not Do we want to pay, but Do you want to earn? You can make it as time-consuming as you like, but ask yourself why would you be doing it? Do you find fun in creating instructions? If so, please do. If not, then ask yourself: do I want to earn money on what is essentially a hobby? If not then don't, and don't create instructions. And if so, go ahead. But as a community that's all about sharing knowledge I'm personally against asking money for such favors. But that's just me probably. I personally think you can do the world a much greater favor by just taking the thing apart, taking ten good pictures of its insides, upload them to brickshelf and be done with it. That'll hardly costs time. Don't spend time on something you're not actually enjoying (that's what I would say). The model will get copied anyway. If you post any kind of building information, this can't be stopped. It's your decision if you want that or not. Remember that the AFOL world already knows it's originally your model, so they can't be fooled. And other people don't half understand how complicated these kinds of things can be But to answer your question, no I would not pay for instructions. Partly because it's a hassle. Also I would not pay money as a kind of "giving credit for the effort he/she has put in the model". I mean, you enjoyed putting together this model, right? It's a hobby, not a job. That would mean the positive feedback you've been flooded with is the greatest kind of credit you can wish for. [sorry for very suggestive wordings]. I personally think money should be involved in this entire AFOL thing as little as possible (for intellectual property. It's different of course for the bricks, and for example for web hosting that has to be paid).

I don't know about the steering. I mean, I like the fact they created an original mechanism to steer the vehicle. It's not like steering is essential here, so I think the originality wins over non-functionality. And I also think Lego is about using parts in different ways. This set's steering uses parts in unusual ways, showing what can also be done. That it doesn't work out very well is a pity, but in this case I don't think it's bad. Simply because, well, what's steering doing on a power puller anyway. Anyhow great review. Especially the fact that you show the build extensively, with such clean pictures. I have seen the instructions multiple times yet have never even noticed the motor mechanism that can let the axle run freely. Nice piece of innovative design there! As for the rest I agree the set is above all, actually just very weird. I mean, five V4 engines? :P If only Technic had more weird sets like this... Actually the only thing I have doubted is how much "power" actually comes out of those motors. I think a set like this would be way cooler with stronger motors. I don't have the set so I don't know, but I do have this motor and I suspect it's not very spectacular of a power puller. Am I right in this? How does a power pull with this set actually look?

Then don't take part in it. If we enjoy them, please just let us have pointless topics :) Anyhow. I don't think there's very many parts I'd like to see return. Mainly because Technic is now studless and nearly all old parts don't fit in the system. I can't really think of any part which did fit in the studless system that has been discontinued. So instead of wanting return of old parts, I'd like to see new parts that do fit in the system, replacing them. One of the few parts that hasn't yet found a studless equivalent is the 1 x 4 gear rack. Right now when you need gear racks of any length, you need the 1 x 4 gear racks which don't fit in the system very well. Oh, two parts I like to see return. The 24 x 43 wheel and tyre

You have to know that another forum I regularly visit, did this exact same thing... last year. So I was not that surprised when I found the pink forum :P But it's cool...provided it's gone tomorrow. By the way, that other forum has changed all text alignment this year to from-right-to-left (like Arabic). Now that's annoying. Remember for next year :P

Now THIS I admire! Perfect rendition of a very difficult model. It's one of my favorite supercars too, and you don't see a Lego version very often, and this one is very very good. I wish I were half this good of a 1:17 car builder

Because making it any longer will cause the crankshaft to wobble too much to be usable. :)

A working steering wheel is the only think I can think of. Although I'm not saying it should have had this. But it would have been very nice. Would it have been reasonably possible to add this?

I don't think this is the case. After so many years of correct modelling, suddenly they used another 3d-model in their software, by accident? I don't think so. I actually expect the ridges to disappear somewhere this or next year. After all, noone has ever used them as far as I know.

Actually this looks like a great set. The only thing it doesn't really deliver is an interesting parts pack. This is because of the choice for red as the body color. If it were any other color, that would have been a lot better and I would have reconsidered :) But the functionality seems great and the set looks pretty good (even though I usually don't like front-engine supercars). Thanks for the extensive review and the pictures :)

Building instructions of both models of 8070 are online at the Technic site: http://technic.lego.com/en-us/BuildingInstructions/default.aspx When looking through them, I immediately noticed the 16t clutch gears are shown without the ridges noone has ever used.

To do this you at least have to rebuild the model. (or be very good with Photoshop...) Most cheaters probably won't take that effort. Actually I like Parax's idea :)

Looks like someone has finally outperformed Grazi and his tow truck Anyhow... great work! I'd be confused before I'd be even halfway there, with so many motors and stuff.

it's not a one set moc. It's an addition to the original set to expand the model. The picture shows that pretty obviously, as it clearly shows "[picture of 8052] + [picture of trailer]". Similar to when sets to [set number] + [motor set number]. It's not meant to be an alternate model. It's just a trailer to put behind the original 8052.

This.

[quo te name=tmumme' date='16 February 2011 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1297888679' post='929246] Look like we get a white liftarm 1 x 13 thick. Yes and I believe this now completes the array of liftarms in white, except for the 1 x 2 liftarm. :) 1x7 and 1x11 are in the recent helicopter 1x5, 1x9 and 1x15 were in the tracked crane 1x3 is in the combine Also we have seen 2 x 4, 4 x 6/3 x 7 and 5 x 9 (double-bent) liftarms in the recent Technic fire engine. Only the 3 x 5 L-shape is missing. And also we have some of the new panels in white now. I hope this is an indication of more white sets to come in the future. The parts are there. :)

Without reading the other replies, my first guess is a trike. My second guess is a boat of some kind (probably a speedboat).

If you say "technic sub-themes", please do not come up with graders or dump trucks (mining or not). Please come up with something actually different. Like space shuttles, boats, clocks, printing machines, technic animals (like the Dinosaur), walking machines. Those kinds of things. We se plenty of vehicles in Technic already. :)

I suspect that the axle on the side of the cabin roof, the one holding three orange pin joiners, is an axle 11. And I really really hope this is true :D As for the rest, I don't have much to add expect what's already said by others. So I'll silently join the "must have" club :D

Because it makes more possible. I don't think we would have seen 8258 and 8043 like complexity in studded models (I think 8480 was kind of the best possible). Edit: but the topic is not about studded vs. studless. Sorry for offtopic... About instructions.

Pics or it didn't happen ;) Because I don't see how one could do this, so if you claim to have done this, I'm very very curious and I'd very very much like to see how you did it. :)

Exactly and I think this is the main reason. Studded building is simply easier. Studded building like in 8865 is mostly from the bottom up. Studless building like in 8069 is from the inside out. Parts interlock in all thinkable directions and angles. I really think it's nearly impossible to generate clear instructions for 8069 (about 600 parts) in 24 steps without substeps. Studless building is simply a lot more complex. However, if this were the argument, sets in other themes shouldn't see the trend. But they do. Compare a modern Creator set to a Model Team set and you see the same thing. So it can't just be the complexity of studless building. I do agree that bigger steps than currently used, are possible, and I do think the decreased attention span of the current generation plays a role here. I saw the same thing at a school I visited today - the electronic calculator destroys mental calculation skills. Similarly I think the computer has destroyed kids' ability to concentrate and motivate themselves on things that are even slightly challenging. With the amount of distractions today's world has, LEGO has a much harder time than previously, to keep the kids' attention. Everything is about serving their needs as quickly and short-term as possible. One drawback while building, and kids are already distracted by Pokémon... :/

As long as it takes less than one year to do one year, he'll eventually catch up