allanp

I don't think so. Value is relative and without knowing much more about the product then we can't yet judge value. I'll resist the temptation to write all the new novelties it could have to justify the price, but I don't have to try very hard to think of them.

I was also very temped to put 42055 on the list as it does feel like a modern day legend. 8480 and 8880 are great building experiences, and their historic importance can't be understated when it comes to Technic. But if you do ever get your hands on them I wonder if you'll find them as great as we sometimes make out. 8880 vs Sian. 8880 has better, much more solid feeling steering and the best feeling gear shifter ever. But the suspension is very high and stiff, and while some love it's appearance, others might say it's lines are too straight and it sits way too high for a supercar. The Sian on the other hand is low, sleek and curvy, but it lacks HOG and the steering feels horrible. But when you consider that 8880 is 28 years old and contains little over one third of the pieces of the Sian and yet still achieves the same functions with the addition of pop up headlights, HOG and 4 wheel steering, 8880 is still looking like the winner. 8480 vs 42055. 8480 was the first to introduce the drive ring based function switching gearbox, and 42055 is probably the best modern era example of such a set. This is much closer, and I'd say 8480 again does vey well, achieving almost similar levels of complexity in a much smaller package, and a more challenging build experience. It also has a greater variety of mechanisms using gears, belt drives and interesting linkages in it's functions, and it even has spinning fibre optic lights and an additional micro motor and a battery box coloured white to blend in with the model! I also find the studded build experience to generally offer more variety than the endless beam stacking of studless. 42055 however is a more imposing and impressive looking thing, it's large size is justified by what it does and it has even more complexity than 8480. 42055 was the first set I felt was a real modern day equivalent to the monstrous Meccano set 10s of old. It's tough so it depends what you prefer. 42055 is more forgiving and gives you lots more pieces, but 8480 offers more challenge and almost as much complexity in a smaller, denser package, with greater mechanical variety.

Question 1: Yes I do get tired but it's NOT because they are the same type of vehicle but because there is usually very little innovation from one to the next. The 1:10 scale supercars are basically all the same mechanically, and also the past 3 flagships are beginning to feel like it's the control+/LAs slot! Question 2: Well of course there's the legendary sets that need no explanation like 42043, 8880, 8868, 8455, 8480 and the modern day legend 42128. There are other legends like 8858 dakota wrecker, 8459 front end loader and so on, but I'd like to dedicate the rest of my list to the probably not so obvious sets I think every Technic fan should probably own and build. 8064 universal building set. A small set with not many parts, it comes with an ungeared motor and lots of gears and belt drives and packs a lot of mechanical fun into a relatively small set. You can build 100 b-models of this kit! It's small but there's no filler, just concentrated good stuff. 8485 control centre 2. This was also kind of a universal set. I'm not entirely sure if the helicopter is the A model or the Dinosaur (I think it's the helicopter), but there was also a hovercraft. Over the 3 models there's lots of fun gear trains with high gear ratios (like 648:1), those lovely very fast spinning yet quiet and smooth belt drives and the flex system in the T-rex to build with this one. 42115 Lamborghini Sian. Has Allanp gone mad? What about the unrealistic gearbox, poor steering and all that? Well I think the Sian was a disappointment to me mostly because the drivetrain and steering (arguably the main functions of a car) weren't an improvement over the Chiron which I already owned. It was still an unrealistically laid out 16 speed 8 speed gear box with only 2 different clutch gears! Not like a real gearbox at all. However, at least it has a gearbox, and if you are one of the few that doesn't own any of the 3 UCS 1:8 scale supercars, then you probably should get at least one, and if you don't have any then the Sian is the most recent, most refined (the suspension works for example) and best looking out of the 3. I just hope they sort the colour issues, because that really does spoil it's good looks. Put more bloody pigment in! They never used to have this issue in the 90s! 42080 forest harvester. Only a mid sized set but there's good stuff everywhere. The nifty steering mechanism, the motorised pneumatics, the 8 wheels, the pendular suspension. Many modern sets can feel like tedious beam stacking but this set feels like you're always building some interesting mechanism. Often overlooked I think because it looks so weird and the colour choices.....well....choices were made! If you can get past the strange look it is a great mid sized modern era set.

Another idea perhaps? Sorry I see you added another image You don't need to double up the light grey and dark grey pieces, just added them to make it easier to see.

Is the drive motor level with the top of the hood? Maybe post an image showing only the lights, drive motor and front wheels so we can see what space you have available. It might not need a linkage, just a cam or something to push the lights up and let gravity drop them down.

Well, y'all probably already know my thoughts about the HUGE gearboxes (insert the often cried we need more clutch gear sizes and reduced length driving rings to make gearboxes realistic and better in ever way!) Brakes would be very cool. I'd love to see that (done properly, with disks and calipers inside the wheels!). The other functions mentioned however wouldn't make up for lack of engine and transmission.

Just please no electric car in general. It'll just steer, rattle and roll....I said steer, rattle and roll....

Ill take number one please. A 4000+ piece working pneumatic flying Scotsman with new low friction linear spool valve for pneumatic engines (would also be great for detailed traction engines and steam powered rides and such). How's that?

Niiiiice!!!!!

Nice trick! And assuming you have a Gibson guitar to go with the Gibson cleaner, you have good taste sir!

Starwars has lots of hand amputations, people sliced in half, characters being eaten and so on. One could make the argument that Avatar is pretty tame in comparison, especially to Alien. It only feels more violent because of how good of a story teller Cameron is. But there really isn't that much blood or graphic content shown. Indiana Jones temple of Doom is waaaaaaaaaaay more graphic if you've seen the uncut version.

Fictional military is allowed, hence starWARS

WOW!!! This is insane in the best way, very impressive!

I think that was a pre production version.

What about Allanps dream pneumati......ah you already know the rest! 2 hubs, 8 motors, 3 years in development probably! JCB 3CX (the brand so iconic, that when people see any brand of backhoe they call it a JCB, at least in the UK they do) 1 port used for auto compressor, 1 port used to switch between front and rear controls (which could also rotate the seat so you can see which control mode you are in) front controls: 4 wheel drive with fake engine, steering, RC valve control for bucket lift, bucket tilt, bucket open and close, rear stabilisers rear controls: RC valve controls for back hoe side shift, slew, arm up/down, boom up/down, boom telescoping, bucket. Of course Howitzers non RC version of this would also be great. 12 pneumatic functions plus 4 wheel drive, fake engine and steering. Would be a record 15 major functions (plus any other minor details such as opening doors, tilting front axle and such). But one of the many big challenges with a back hoe is it's weird shape, leaving not much room for anything. The tiny front hood would be taken up by the engine and possible compressor, the main body has about half it's volume taken up by the rear wheels, so the 2 hub 8 motor full RC version really would have to be massive, minimum zetros wheels (maybe Claas wheels) at the front with bigger than Class wheels at the rear. The only set so far (other than the BWE) that really needs to be over 4 or 5 thousand pieces. In this future set wishes and speculation topic, of everything TLG could ever produce, a huge RC fully pneumatic JCB 3CX is my biggest wish. Out of everything this is the one I want them to spend the time to get right more than anything else. But imagine a model possibly bigger and heavier than 42100 being able to do this! I'd by 4 so I can do this!

This is the gear path for first gear, hope this helps.

Agreed, with proper cyclic/collective control and a nice new swash plate. I know this functionality is doable with current parts, but the best we can do right now is turntable based and other such solutions, which always look cluncky and unrefined compared to the real thing. Maybe have pitch control of the tail rotor also, with osprey battery box and motor? This would be nice osprey replacement: https://youtu.be/n9w2V5a-3m8

Does it drive in the other gears? The orientation of the limiter is correct but is the orientation of the wavey gear selector piece correct relative to the limiter? If the answer is yes to both you may have missed out a gear or something somewhere, do you know which pieces you had left over after the build?

Would they release two telehandlers in the same year? Handler could mean an articulated log handler, on wrangler wheels, maybe like 8443 from way back in 1996. Would compliment 42080 nicely.

Besides new wheels and bucket, what new parts and innovations would there be? At the risk of diving straight into wish list territory , this is posted only as an example to make a point, but while we are speculating about a front loader, and what it could be, what about Allanp's ultimate dream pneumatic option?! With spike hub (a new Technic version, recoloured yellow and black and with high power output), new P(OWAH!) motor (matching buggy motors fast output power and speed but in standard form factor, not weird L shape) driving fake engine that's always on, but turned down to use less power when nothing else is engaged, 3 small motors for pneumatic valves (bucket lift, bucket tilt, steering), 1 small motor to automatically engage/disengage a new, high output compressor from the engine via a new friction clutch, final small motor to control new, more realistic transmission (also possibly utilising friction clutch via simple cam arrangement to make shifting easier). Also comes with new +o+ beam that's 1 stud thick with integrated metal bearing race in the middle hole to help handle the new P motor and friction clutch. This set would also help showcase two control+ supplementary accessories (not required but very nice upgrades sold separately), a high output 11.1v LiPo rechargeable battery pack and a huge playstation style physical remote with integrated 5.5 inch touch screen and bluetooth and wifi connectivity, giving you all the pros of PU, tactile feel and will continue to work for decades after PU/control+ is no longer supported or Legos current in thing. These would be very expensive items available separately from lego.com that you only have to buy once to use with all your PU (and beyond) sets. If control+/PU can't be cheap, then make it worth while with these accessories! Again, apologies for going into wish list territory. But after 3 control+ (and only control+) flagships in a row this is what I want, doesn't have to be exactly what I posted above that's just an example, but something new, not an existing set but repackaged in the shape of something else, something to get really excited about. But again, that's just 42030, the parts and instructions for that are all easily available, why do we need it?

What the car is doesn't matter to me, only what the mechanics and transmission is like. That won't be known for a while I guess. Regards the handler, would there be another telehandler after the small one in the first half? Could handler refer to a regular forklift? Or perhaps a log handler? Regards Air, I find planes fairly boring mechanically (unless it's a small scale), and it won't be a VTOL obviously. So hoping it's a helicopter, finally with realist cyclic and collective with a nice swash plate (no offence but the turntable based or other current solutions always look cluncky and unrefined to me, but it's the best we can do right now). Hopefully includes simple battery box from the osprey. Regards construction, could be anything. As much as I'd love a backhoe, at least the past two control+ leave a bitter taste, the addition of control+ would most likely spell doom for something that would otherwise be a pneumatic mechanical marvel with over a dozen functions. Even with multiplexing of functions that would be a 2 hub minimum. Front selection with drive, steering, bucket raise, bucket tilt, bucket open/close, rear stabilisers. Rear selection with boom up/down, arm up/down, rear bucket, arm slew, and potentially side shift and telescoping boom. That's 6 front functions and 6 rear functions (imagine that with two hubs and fully pneumatic with auto compressor! Best set ever!) And after 3 control+ construction flagships in a row already? It's very rare for me to not get the technic flagship, but so far I haven't bought the last two.

Isn't Lego getting an Avatar licence?

@howitzer lose the screw, or throw it away The regs aren't bothered about if you lose the screw or the threads strip. That's the fault of the customer not Lego. But still I don't see that screws are needed anyway unless I missed something.

Looks like 13.4.1 specifically, which calls out AAA and LR03 batteries but not AA batteries. Also it states that they must not be accessable without a tool. I didn't see anything that says that the tool can't be supplied with the product, that the tool has to be a screw driver, or that the retaining method has to be a single annoying screw let alone four. EN IEC standards usually forbid large flat slots that can be opened with a coin, however the technic axle hole wouldn't fall foul of that. So why not allow removal of the battery cover via a quarter turn of an inserted technic axle (as a tool), or having a shrouded little latch that can only be depressed by inserting an axle (tool) into a hole (this would remove the need for four screws, cost savings!), or some other such thing? As today's alkalines tend to leak if you look at them funny, I really wouldn't want to leave them in an expensive hub between uses. These 4 screws gonna be a PITA. Oh well, there's worse things in life to worry about

Does anyone know the actual specific regulation that requires batteries to be screwed into toys aimed at people who aren't toddlers?!