allanp

Cool teaser. Very much looking forward to the proper reveal. I must say that in these teasers they are pushing the lights very heavily. People might be forgiven for thinking that they actually do light up on the model.

First moc I thought of was a UK police car, which I shall call the blanket, I'll leave you to guess why

Never had this issue with my 42043 with the crane in place. How do the individual teeth on the gears look? Does it turn freely when in neutral or do you still feel some crunchyness?

Ah yes, that explains the lights! That's very clever

Yeah, maybe I missed something but I still have no idea what it does, except for maybe hold your smart phone so you can watch youtube videos while your in the bath or something?!

I think the extra moulding is just to space the disk out to be 1 full module thick at its hub.

It can be done if you offset one of the shafts to the side. But really the biggest problem is the overall length of the gearbox, it becomes really long with the 3 module long drive rings (at least 20 studs for an 8 speed transmission, which I guess isn't that improbable considering the Criron gearbox was also crazy long when you include the forward/neutral/reverse section, which this gearbox wouldn't need). A redesign of the whole drive ring system would be beneficial to bring them down to ideally 1 module in length (so for an 8 speed you would have 8 gears and 4 drive rings within a 12 stud length) which is actually possible believe it or not. Or if the drive rings were 2 module in length an 8 speed would be 16 studs long, which is still manageable. It's not what I expect from the Sian but it's just what I would do if I were designing it. I would rather have a long but accurate gearbox than a bunched up inaccurate one.

With Lego's capability of releasing new parts why are they limited to 2 ratios? For the investment in new parts they get gearboxes that are more realistic, more reliable, more robust, have less friction, have less backlash, are easier to build and require less parts making it cheaper in the long run. I don't see why they wouldn't do this, apart from TLG's well known fascination for making choices that make no sense Honestly, why do they insist on making gearboxes that are more complicated than the real life car with all the problems that come with that and the higher part counts required? Perhaps they couldn't do it all in one set but with each subsequent UCS car release I would expect to see 2 or 3 new pieces to steer their transmissions in a more realistic, less complex direction.

Considering the real Sian gearbox is like this: I think that would be much easier to build and have far less backlash.

You're off to a great start with those 3 sets. 42100 might be a better source for parts than 42082 as you'll get the new linear clutches, some new size gears and a bunch of pneumatic tubing to help with pneumatic MOCs, plus the larger track sprockets and a bunch of PU components. TBH I've been here for many many years and I still don't fully understand the whole bumping topics thing. If you bump a topic people complain, if you start a new topic they complain you didn't post in the existing topic.

I'm actually fairly confident it'll have push-rod suspension if the real car has it. TLG have done it before with their F1 cars.

Yup, they seem to have nailed number 1. They only other thing they could do with the bodywork to make it even better would be to make it removable in one piece so we can see the internal mechanisms. But as your points 2 and 3 allude to, there's plenty of improvements that can be made on the inside, which can be split into 4 main areas. Engine: The engine in the Porsche was completely enclosed and pretty basic, with only minor detailing. The Chiron improved the detailing but lost some realism by having 3 crank shafts. The Sian could take things up a notch by including some timing belts/chains to the front of the engine, and maybe some cam shafts perhaps? I dunno, without the valves this might just block the view of the engine for not much reward, but having the timing belts would be a good detail to add. The engines in these cars also turn over way too slowly. The engine in 8868 would spin fast enough that you could actually hear it spinning, that's what I want. The new diffs would help with that, as well as: Gearbox: The Porsche added sequential paddle shift, and the Chiron added a second size of clutch gear and the wave selector. The Sian could make some vast improvements hear by adding more sizes of clutch gear and greatly reducing the complexity of the gearbox to bring it more in line with the real Sian gearbox: Steering: The steering in both the Porsche and the Chiron didn't feet that great. The Sian could make improvements here with longer steering arms and ackermann geometry to make the steering feel less spongy. They could also utilise the new CV joint design from 42099 to increase the steering angle. The steering wheel should be tilted upwards towards the driver (unlike the Porsche or Chiron) and improve access to the steering wheel, or include a small, discreet HoG somewhere. If you want an example of how the steering should feel, look at 8865 test car, or 8880 for 4 wheel steering, as they felt good and solid, not spongy at all. Suspension: A lot has been said about the Chiron suspension already, but for the sake of making this a more complete list, The Chiron suspension was way too soft, even with having 2 hard struts per wheel. However to get this right is very difficult due to the 1 stud suspension travel these cars would have. Normally I would again direct you to the 8865 test car for perfect feeling suspension, with the weight of the car compressing the springs just a little bit (as 8880's suspension was way too hard) but getting that same feel from such a small suspension travel is near impossible. Maybe the answer is to increase the suspension travel of these cars so you have 1 stud or more of travel left after it has been compressed slightly by the weight of the car. This may require new much stiffer springs to be made and a very small compromise on the look of the car as it would have to ride just a little higher, like only half a stud higher. But as I value technical functionality over looks it's a small compromise I would be very happy with. Of course bringing in some more complex suspension geometry for the sake of realism would also be welcome.

I hope you're wrong, as that would make it pretty but kinda pointless!

I'm senseing the parts list must be imminent, or some shots from instructions.

Don't you just love TLGs logic at times. Creates the most beautiful set ever....puts it on the back of the box!

I think if this was successful on Lego ideas they could do with releasing a low stiction spool valve. By doing that they could remove the internal flywheel, increase the range and make it move a little faster. They would also probably want to do it as a non-technic set. But for non modified parts this is very nicely done and really like the whistle

Yes, and hopefully there's some new goodies on the inside.

Cool idea for a quiz, was rather entertaining

Adults don't play, they operate Functionality is key but the functions only come alive when you play wit....ERM....I mean operate them. Some people like shelf queen's, some people like building a miniature version of the real thing mechanics and all, some people like playing, some people just want the parts, and some of us like a mix of all if the above.

To clarify, when I mentioned motorisation, I didn't mean that the set should come motorised, I don't think it should. But now they have a much stronger differential, and one half of the new stronger CV joint, they are not that far from being able to make the drive line strong enough to enable motorisation should the buyer want to motorise it, just by putting a motor directly onto, or in place of, the fake engine. Lego motors turn so slowly that a fake engine could easily cope with spinning about the same speed as a motor when pushed along the floor, so gearing isn't a problem, if it is a problem in higher gears then add a stage of reduction between the motor and fake engine. They just need to release a new wheel hub with the female part to match the new larger male part that came with 42099 and have a decent, more realistic gearbox, and maybe add a clutch from 42100 for protection. This wouldn't increase the cost of the model at all and would only represent the natural progression and improvements in part design that we see over time. You might not want the option to do that but there are others that might, and I think it would be a good sign of quality and robust engineering if the drive train was designed to this standard. Of course, I'm not expecting this of the Sian but it's a nice standard of engineering quality and robustness to aim for I think. And I think it would be quite cool to be actually able to see the gear box working. 8448 had the option of lifting the rear wheels off the ground and adding a motor so you could see the rear wheels spinning faster as you moved up through the gears. That would be a pretty neat display feature with a paddle shift.

My understanding is that it's ok due to there being no confidential stamp on it.

The leaker probably also doesn't know what else we'd want to see, like the parts list. It might also be that this is one that's going to go on the shelf so doesn't want to open it.

I wouldn't say never. The larger CVs allow for greater steering angles, and it would be better and cheaper to be able to use one part for both motorised and non motorised applications. And the gearing on the new diff is fine for non motorised applications also. So we could get to a point where the drive line is built well enough to allow us to just whack a motor onto the engine and boom, it's motorised!

Of course 8880 and the barcode truck had both hand of God and a working steering wheel, and I remember it working very well in 8880, best of both worlds.

Yeah, as most supercars have the same functionality it'll all be about the execution. If there's no improvement from the Chiron in terms of mechanical authenticity and how well they work then I would see poor functionality. But if those same functions are improved upon I would see it as having good functionality. So it's not about what functions it has, but how they are done.