allanp

Wasn't 42051 in fact 42068? I might be getting my numbers mixed up. And AFAIK there never was a 42067, they don't have to use every number.

Thanks Another question. What ever happened to the universal sets such as 8064? Those were some of my favorite smaller sets with each one showcasing a particular aspect of technic such as a motor or pneumatics (while also offering a cheaper way to get and try out those parts) with a purely mechanical focus, not so much on looks, so that a greater variety of models could be made from the same parts. Was their relative lack of easthetic value the reason for their demise?

Thanks Jim Some follow up questions. The 5x7 and 5x11 frames are huge, easy to find and stand out like a saw thumb, so why do they only come in grey? Compared to 2015 and 2016, which are brilliant, the 2017 second half sets appear to have a different design approah. Compared to the authenticity of the Arocs, 42070 seems to be a step down in terms of mechanical authenticity. Is there a reason for this? For many years there seems to be a trend of complex flagship followed by simpler flagship (with the exception of 2015 and 2016 which were both quite complex). Do you see that and is it intentional? You made a lot of AFOLs very happy with the release of the v2 pneumatics. Can we expect to see more of them in future and will the range of pneumatic elements continue to evolve? In a previous QnA you say the reason for pneumatics always being yellow was because they have always been yellow, and also to differentiate them from the pump. They aren't part of the power functions system and they do have an easthetic appeal as well as being functional parts so as long as the cyclinder and pump are different colours does this mean there is no real reason not to have pneumatics in other colours? What other elements do you think fans would like to see? Is there any questions you have for us?

Awesome

So will the answers you've already received be posted before the 15th? Might be useful for thinking of more questions or follow up questions for the 15th.

Sweeeeeeeeet! Can't wait to read, would be useful to read the report before thinking of new questions.

Thanks, so that's the same as me then.

That sounds like an excessive amount of sheaves. With so many the weigh of the boom may not be enough to pull out so much string so fast. Can you post a link to a picture?

So, my question was how do you guys SPEED UP the process of sorting parts into their individual types?

Here is an old picture of my set up, it has since expanded a little but is mostly the same. Set ups like this, where all parts are sorted by their type (in draws like above or in any other kind of organizer) so that you never have to spend more than a few seconds looking for that part you only have a couple of in a pile of 100,000 parts are great, but they do take some maintaining to keep all those parts sorted. So my question is, what methods or strategies do you guys use to speed up the process of sorting parts? Lets say you have a box of 5000 unsorted random parts. Obviously just picking a part out at random one at a time then finding the right draw/compartment for them and doing that piece by piece takes many hours, and is soooooooo boring. So I tend to sort them by family first. For example I'll find out all the gears of all sizes then put them in a container. After that rough sorting I can then spill out the container on the desk and very quickly pick out all the 24t gears and place them into their final place. This method of sorting all the parts twice may seem to be counter intuitive, but I find it much quicker to rough sort, then final sort then to try to sort the whole pile of 5000 parts in one go. Another scenario is you have a set that is built. Do you go through the instructions in reverse and place each piece you remove into their final place, or do you tear apart the model onto your desk and sort the parts afterwards? As mundane as it may seem, due to the time it takes to maintain organised part collections I'de be interested to know what your strategies are for sorting parts.

Those differentials really can't handle much torque. Maybe you could trying adding some gear reduction after the differentials. Or you could remove the diffs altogether and use a 12t bevel driving a 36t double bevel gear.

Holy Grail? Hmmmm, I pretty much own all my holy grail Technic sets in excellent boxed condition (opened, built and put back of course, they are meant to be built after all!), so probably all of the modular buildings. I don't own any (yet) as I don't see much point in getting just one as I think they don't look that great on their own. But the whole collection of them? That might be something worth considering, but used prices of the discontinued ones are ridiculous. There are also some model teams sets that interest me. And although I am not a Lego starwars fan, the UCS millennium falcon is....well.....it's the UCS millennium falcon! Dream? I have so many wants, but I also would like more pneumatics in different colours as real life hydraulis are usually coloured the same as whatever it is they are attached to. Also stronger diffs, CV joints and hubs based off the larger 8880 ones to allow greater torque and steering angles but with much less friction, clutch gears in many sizes for more authentic, intuative and efficient and elegant gearboxes where gear>selector ring>gear fit in a 3M gap. So on the top shaft it would be gear>selector ring>gear>gear>selector ring>gear>gear>selector ring>gear totaling 6 speeds and 9 studs in length, wheel/hub combination with inbuilt planetary gear reduction and the ability to be driven/steered with the steering pivot within the wheel, 5x7 and 5x11 frames in other colours, leaf springs, truck wheels/tyres that have more accurate dimentions (larger in diameter and thinner, with deep hubs that extend past the wall of the tire so that steering pivots can be placed well within the wheel and so that two can be directly pinned back to back without the tires even touching, like real ones basically), ungeared PF motors with a separate planetary gear reduction unit (basically, take the current L motor and separate the motor and internal gearing into two separate modules). This way we can choose to make our own gearing down or we can use their prebuilt one. In fact you could stack them and use a few of them if you are really lazy. You can also place that gearing down anywhere in the drive train you wish, such as after a clutch gear, or you can use a belt drive. It's just much more versatile. As for sets, a pneumatic RC forklift with reeeeeeeeeeally long pneumatics and new RC compatible valves, a landrover with the the above mentioned gearbox parts, cv joints, leaf springs, new PF buggy motor and stronger diffs making up a realistic drive train layout (non of this motors mounted on the axles nonsense!) that has over 3000 parts, weighs as much as the BWE and yet can crawl over obstacles no problem, helicopter with full cyclic/collective control on the main rotor and pitch control for the tail rotor using new swash plate parts to achieve it in an authentic and elegant way (yes we have had many helicopters, yet not one that works like a real one does). Regrets? Not stocking up on a few 8455 sets when they were £70!

Ok, now that I can see it properly, I love it! The scaling is actually better than the original ideas modes model from what I can tell and the detailing, like those grill pieces round round the circumference is fantastic. Can't wait to get this one. I will get this either way, but I do still hope to see the rounded ends of the fuel tanks which are visible between stages.

I think there is beauty in the mechanical. The way a real life car gearbox works with two parallel drive shafts and many sizes of gears all arranged next to each other is a thing of mechanical beauty. The way a lego technic gearbox works is a mechanical abomination. I think to keep an interest in Technic requires that steady progress towards mechanical beauty and authenticity.

Looks pretty cool. For merely demonstration purposes I bet it could process breakfast cereal quite well! What kinda tips were you looking for?

I think there is too much thinking going on here! In this contest there were no weight catagories stipulated but there is a single size catagory of 45 studs, which all bots weredesigned to fit into. Therefore any bot can fight any other bot. As for buggy motors, in real life battle bots there is no consideration given as to what components the builders had available to them. Its all about who wins in a fight, not what parts they couldn't use, how close they are to size or weight limit or any of that. If it goes to a judges decision then they look at aggresiveness and control. Since we cant judge that we can only judge who we think would win in a fight and really thats it.

Could we at least change the title of the contest to battle forum members! seriously though that's for clearing things up

I have 3. It seems people either have them or want to have them. I have them and i want more, but i agree the form factor isn't the best. We need a PF extreme motor with the same internal motor as the buggy motor and fast output speed.

Ok, so a spinner is not allowed to rotate outside of the 45x45x45 cube but all other weapons like flippers, axes and hammers are allowed to do so. A diagonal brace can have have a side longer that 45 but a spinning bar cannot. As confusing as that might be, maybe the explanation is that it was simply a misjudgment. But that is the ruling that has been made and Jim has accepted partial responsibility for that. This close to the deadline it would be unfair to change it now and so it won't be changed. Right, now that that's settled once and for all, never to be mentioned again time to cause Jim another headache lol! My hypnodisk bot is 90% new, only the outer skin of the disk is the same as the old one, the internal structure is new to make it stronger than the old prototype. is there not other battle bots that has constructions that may have appeared elsewhere before, like the connection of a pin to a liftarm? Of course i'm only joking Jim

This version seems to have been included with the instructions whereas mine came on a separate sheet.

My first one came with white steering arms with the + holes for the grey towballs and black 16t clutch gears and an added amendment sheet for the instructions. My newer one came with white steering arms with O hole for the black tow balls with dark grey clutch gears.

I hope they dont skimp on the internal details and removable sections the delux version had to make it "swooshable". I think that'll be the deciding factor for me. The scale (and therefore the posibilities for internal details) appears noticeably smaller in the teaser than in the original ideas submission.

The arm of the original battle bot came down very slow but with many tons of force so it would slowly pierce through the opponent.

Nice work

It seems to me that a robot has to fit within a 45x45x45 cube. Maximum size is 45Lx45Lx45L (when not in battle mode) Once a battle has begun a robot can extend beyond that size limit. Maximum size is 45Lx45Lx45L (when not in battle mode) The exception to that is a spinning bar which cannot extend beyond the size limit when in use. For example, a spinning bar that is 55 studs long will fit inside a 45x45 cube if it is positioned diagonally, but when it spins as the fight begins, meaning the robot is now in battle mode, the ends of the blades will extend beyond the 45x45 limit and so it's not allowed. Is that correct? If so, there is no rule in the first post which states that clearly. It's also a little strange that all other designs are allowed to extend beyond the 45x45 limit however a spinning bar, for reasons yet to be explained, cannot do so. I believe this is where the confusion is coming from. If you wish to ban the use of a spinning bar that extends beyond the 45x45x45 size limit when in use (in battle mode) that's obviously your prerogative, but as this spinning bar exception contradicts (when not in battle mode) then perhaps it should be clearly stated in the rules?