allanp

Wow, looks great. Really like the lighting. the Glad I could help

@Saberwing40k 41099 has a lot of expensive parts relative to its part count. 4 new hubs, 2 turntables, 4 big wheels and a lot of all new electronics (which should get cheaper for us in time). But still, count yourself lucky you don't have the Disney tax. The price of the new UCS set is.....questionable!

Thank you for the interview sariel (and Grohl) of course. Learnt a few interesting details about the set but mostly I'm glad to hear that he doesn't take a lot of criticism personally. It must feel weird to design something and have people pick it apart with a fine tooth comb where as a MOC usually just gets a bunch of praise. Of course the difference is that Lego wants customers to pay money for their designs but still I guess it must feel like it turns a hobby into just a job. This is why I do try (though not always succeed) to say what I like as well as what I don't like, and why I think Jim's topic about the recent attitude change on this forum is so welcome. There are some questions I would have liked to ask. Maybe useful for a future interview as you all seemed a little list for questions Why are Technic wheels so wide compared to their diameter. With Grohls particular talent for b, c and d models has there been any talk of, or is there any desire within the Technic team for bringing back universal sets. Like seriously what age does a builder need to be before we don't need colour coding  and with pieces still being hard to find (I seriously could not find the bloody hook in the purple tracked vehicle) and with Jim still putting his diff in 42070 backwards, wouldn't having more numbered bags (highest number of bag equals part count ÷ 200 or something like that, so you never have to search through more than 200 parts at a time) and specific note in the instructions saying "Hey Jim, the diff goes this way!!!!" be better alternatives? Interesting note BTW, if someone puts either the front or rear diff in backwards in 42110, the car will still roll but the middle diff will remain stationary. Something to look out for when the inevitable comments come in! Are there any parts or models that are on the designers wishlist? What do they feel is the biggest wish for parts or models amongst us AFOLs? (Someone is going to say a grader I just know it!) Are there any models that they have designed hoping to one day be released but was for whatever reason rejected that they could show to us? Pneumatics???????? I have some more but now I'm thinking it would be better in a questions for designers topic

I have noticed this too. Thanks for speaking up @Jim .

As a fellow resident of the UK I'm sick of it, but then it is needed so can't complain. I honestly don't know and it's a good question. It could be because it's not very dynamic. With a dump truck or excavator or whatever, you have these large structures like the bucket or digging arm that moves quite far, you can see it working from a distance. With a race car or off road pickup you can see it driving fast or climbing over obstacles like a badass. With a forklift you can see experienced operators moving loads around at some pretty crazy speeds. My point is that you can easily see even from a distance what jobs they are doing, and the power they have. You can understand why such things would excite the minds of Technics target audience of young-teen boys. Every kid knows what an excavator or a forklift is, but a grader? Now I could be wrong, maybe I'm just an ignorant graderist but with a grader, what do you see it doing? The blade moves up and down very little and swivels a little bit, and can tilt a little bit whilst it drives forward slowly. It just doesn't seem all that dynamic to me. But to be fair, you could say the same about a bulldozer or a tractor. However you can imagine a bulldozer or tractor being extremely powerful and unstoppable in a way that's difficult with a grader. But like I say, I really don't know why I find a grader to be less cool than most other things. I've tried to analyse (and possibly over analysed) something that's just a purely subjective opinion based on gut feeling. I know a lot of people here would love to see a grader and for that reason I'd love to see TLG release one (along with a 501st battle pack, whatever that is! Some star trek thing ) as a proper A-model. And if it has 6 new wheels like the claas but smaller (81mm say) and lots of pneumatics with hoses going everywhere like the real thing then you know I'm gonna be all over that! Fully RC and fully pneumatic at the same time with new smaller class wheels and planetary gear reduction hubs you say? Well now this grader is getting cooler and cooler.....to me. I'd buy that first day of release full price. But it's still a grader, and in the minds of TLGs target audience of teens, has a grader really been able to capture their imaginations like an excavator or offroader, where their power and movement is far easier to see? I think that TLG kind of relies on their target audience already being somewhat aware of the model subject matter and finding it cool to translate into their model of said subject matter also being cool. But with a grader I think it might have to be the other way round, where they see this cool looking model of some construction thingy that they know not so much about, and then subsequently finding the real life thing cool.

I'm not sure it really matters too much what it is, be it a pick up or bucket wheel excavator, it's what it can do and (for me at least) how realistically it does it. A super cool looking and mechanically authentic pick up is surely more desirable than a less than accurate sports car. Though of course there are limits. As much as this community would love to see a road grader, I think that's just a little to far down the cool factor scale to be a big main model. But then that's what B-models are for right? A 6 wheel grader would make a pretty good B-model to a pretty large (one set below flagship) mining dump truck.

I don't think that's snarky at all, of course you can have a different opinion and I can now tell you why it's incorrect . Seriously though yes, the real life machine is kinda slow, but still I think much faster than the Technic version. After all it has to be profitable and economically viable. If the real machine were as slow as the Technic version it would be quicker and cheaper to pay some guy to use a shovel! Well that might be an over exaggeration but you know what I mean

Well they probably didn't want the video to be 3 hours long to see the full range of movement

Well that is bad but one data point a pattern does not make.

Yes the tracks are independent. This is true. It seems people love a set and won't accept its flaws or hate a set and won't accept it has some good points. I am very impressed with this set and its functions but I'm disappointed (but not surprised) at the way it recreates its functions so mechanically unrealistically. So I'm on the fence. As a parts pack or a showcase for the new control+ system it's great. But as a realistic working model excavator it doesn't do it for me.

Of course it is, I forgot that

The "old" PF L motor is just a regular motor with some internal gear reduction. There is no internal electronics to deal with position sensing. So this motor isn't suitable for steering. There is a servo motor in the PF generation that's designed for this. However the new control+ L motor does have position sensing and so can be used for steering. 41099 uses a control+ L motor for steering. But to make things just a little more confusing, control+ is the name of the app only, which is used to control the Technic powered up sets, the motor itself is part of the powered up or PU generation. So I guess it should be called the PU L motor. But then what are the motors in the batmobile called? I dunno but yeah, the L motor in 41099 is used as a steering servo, but the older PF L motor can't be used as a steering servo, unless you have a mechanical return to centre mechanism or you aren't bothered about return to centre functionality, then sure you can use the PF L motor for steering. Is that clear as mud?! I'm not sure of the name for that type of steering, like a tank or a bobcat would use. I just call it tank style steering.

Sweet! Thanks for the update

I also doubt it'll use the planetary hubs. There's no need for them and the real life vehicle doesn't have them. What would be cool though is a hub which accepts the new larger CV joints.

Id say there is about the same, maybe a tiny bit more backlash with the new CV as compared to the old, but the universal joint has noticeably more backlash than both old and new CV joints. However, the old CV joint socket had a weak and easy to bend design, and was made of cheese, so the movement you get is much more. The new CV parts and bigger and the plastic is harder so in reality the backlash will feel much less with the new CV joints.

Next years entertainer perhaps?

That's just factually incorrect. If a part requires a more complex mould to be stronger then it will be more expensive to both design and manufacture the mould and in many cases to mould the part as well. And 8868 did require new parts, such as the motor pump and small pneumatic cylinder. Technic MOCcing may be about building with what you have, because you have no choice, but Technic sets have never been about that. Except for the worst years (where nothing was released) there have always been new parts released every year. It's what has allowed the theme to evolve past 853 auto chassis, or would you be happy for TLG to just have rereleased that every year?

Due to the geometry of a 4 pin design the mould would probably have to be split into more segments to release the part from the mould, meaning that with a 4 pin design it might not be possible to mould many pieces from a single mould, so each one would have to be moulded individually from a much more complex and expensive mould. All this for a piece that will not benefit from economies of scale like a regular axle or 2x4 brick. A better solution may have been to use the 8880 design for the CV ball, which I think can accommodate 8 pins if I remember correctly, and fits onto a regular axle. But then they would have to have made the hole slightly larger to accommodate it and I'm not sure there's room.

@Sariel nice. Then I can disagree with the final ratings again seriously though I'm intrigued by the land rover and the new app for 42100 so looking forward to it.

This is probably a very clever design from TLG. The expensive part is the hub, the cheaper part is the CV joint, so if there must be wear then it's better to have the cheaper part be the one that's intentionally made softer to avoid wear on the more expensive part. You see this in industry all the time and it's a good decision. And we are all adults here, supposedly, so if we want to use them in a more demanding application then we are free to apply a bit of lube! I do agree however that only two pins is a bit naff compared to having 4 to spread the load, but then it would be even more expensive, and would still wear. Not sure how a UJ would work, unless it was built it, there isn't room for a UJ. And I think most of the friction is from the hub itself, not the CV joint.

Might be a good idea to use some lubricant just on these parts. I normally despise using it as it covers all my pieces but just on these parts should be fine.

You're definitely not the only one.

Those are the plates on top. What about the box on the side above the passenger side (or driver side in the UK) rear wheel arch?

Could be a can for extra fuel or water maybe?

I wonder if it would be cheaper for Lego to introduce new springs that are assembled by the end user, with the central axle made from a regular axle (of which there are already many lengths to choose from). This way we can add springs and spacers to adjust the length and stiffness.