syclone

You haven't fully inserted the rim into the tyre... Please check my video on how to assemble the wheels.

I suggest adding a few pictures then, as right now I've no idea whether TLG made sudden changes to rims or tyres, something is not being done correctly (which being all 20 of them would, in fact, be strange) or something else. Here's what they should look like, both on modern and old rims:

Now the standard building session shall also include a stress analysis for all the connections hahahah

Hmmm, interesting concept, I wonder if some of it could actually be dismantled due to how flexible the largest frames can be (ehem, Flexari, ehem). Albeit I do not own the parts to verify how much actual deformation they can have. Though nothing a pair of tweezers, razor blades and needle-nose pliers can't dismantle)))

I do have an OCD to orient all slots on bushes the same way (and according to adjacent connectors with slots if they have them) , pins on the other hand not so much, only exceptions is when it's a 2Lpin+axle inserted into a 2pin+bush, always alligning the slots. But I know who will be the responsible if now I'll start orienting every single pin a certain way

Well, the tyres are symmetrical, so are you sure you've placed the rubber flanges of the tyre correctly into the outer grooves in the rims? Another possibility is that the tyres got slightly squished in the box. Btw, these are internal LEGO codes, it's eaier to use 55976 and 56145 on Bricklink, Rebrickable, LDD...

I've disliked it when it was first made mainstream (once it was used in the supercar sets, many builders started adding it and emphasizing that the model is modular...). Nonetheless ended using it once myself - by accident - while making the instructions for my autozam (the rear section with the motors was pretty much a self-contained unit, and due to my inefficient building, the only way to build it was separately, and then "marry" the front section with the cabin floor to the rear section) However, I've seen no reason to specifically add modularity into a build - it's going to get covered up anyway, and unless you're going for a fully modular experience with elements that you can substitute (like Sheepo's offroader platform, or the glorious 8448 "Street Sensation") it's the same as building it the normal way. Perhaps as pointed out above, some will prefer to have an experince of building X component and then adding it to the build, then making next component and adding it to the build... but that is for one to decide when making instructions, I don't have enough experienc to be able to make a solid chassis using separate modules, so I'll stick to prioritising functions and rigidity before modularity.

Very nice idea! Another way of doing this would be using the connector 57585 and a pulley wheel with three pins (I've seen it in one of Zerobrick's insane offroaders I believe, used various times since then and they work great). Though perhaps your method with the knob wheel will help to distribute the forces better (since it has 4 prongs), making it stronger?

Thank you Piterx for such a great model! Had a blast driving it around (even with a "dumb" 90-0-90 servo and a crappy touch screen). From reverse-engineering the model off the renders: impressive rigidity from such few amount of parts, really incredible what has been accomplished - and everything fits like a glove, from the XL motor to the panels. Sorry for crappy photo and boring colour-sheme, but already took it apart, now experimenting with a bike basing it on your ideas

I don't have the motivation nor desire to solve integrations and derivatives in uni, but gotta do it I mean, the set's A and B models can have instructions, but perhaps providing an idea(s) for other stuff from the same set could be nice - nerdier people can try and build it, those who don't want to needn't do it))) I am of the opinion that if one picks a Technic set not expecting to learn anything about even the simplest mechanics is in the wrong theme You won't become an engineer, but at least will learn the basics of how a suspension works or that two meshing gears rotate opposite of each other. The CAT manual could've included some explanations of mechanisms if it's really made for those who have no Technic experience, or are simply CAT fans. It also could've been accompanied by some renders/photos of the real thing's insides - but for that to occur they'd first need to fix the drive (top sprocket instead of bottom) and add the ripper tilting so as to make it more accurate. But apparently showing off the useless-in-lego-form "modularity" (as mentioned by Sariel, we haven't got anything to transport it on, so what's the point?) and some photos with mismatched colourschemes (black blade vs yellow blade) was much more necessary. Well, thanks to the review I'll be looking for 8043 or 8257 if ever have the moneys. PS. as far more nerdier sub-themes: I doubt we'll see one considering the flow of things.

The discussion about some other brand with marble runs offering alternatives that you have to solve (kbalage's CAT topic) has also reminded that B-models have died (I think none 2021 sets have one?) - effectively halving the "value" of the set, since only one model is offered, and having such "easy-to-follow" means that the end user most likely hasn't learned anything and won't even bother dissasembling the set since there's no incentive to reimagine how the parts can be used to build something different (ironic, considering that this was the whole point of "The LEGO Movie") . Instead of showing a trillion images of a set you already own in the instructions, place a bunch of possible alternative model ideas, mechanism explanations/ideas... Or heck, you have a whole app, instead of stewpid "challenges" (omg, I can drive x meters forward, I'm so kewl, ooooh a golden medal for me) add mechanism explanations, or challenge to complete x mechanism with such and such parts from a picture (or a 3D model). Like they did a decade ago with official Flash games (IIRC there was a Tower challenge where you had to progress floor-by-floor comlpeting gear combinations to open doors, and another game had different sets where there you had to actuate functions by making fictitious mechanisms work), just with proper challenges. As Sariel pointed out, even on the outside of the CAT box there's no explanation of what it is capable of - compare that to old boxes where some even had flaps with detailed function demonstrations inside. At least include a QR code linking to a promo video where the model is shown working or something... But apparently making a Tik-Tok knockoff for little kids is much more educative Considering this, I wholeheartedly agree with Erik Leppen - be it parts or not as a model in itself the value of some sets has become quite low, especially when important functions of the real ones are left out (Raptor, CAT...) and the rest have been done before and sometimes for better price-value.

Even if I'm not an experinced builder, trying to solve a problem will develop your skills. In the 80s there were Universal building sets, often offering nothing more than a few images of the "idea" to build (similar to what @J159753 is mentioning). While it is true that back then making a detailed instruction booklet would've been a much more complex task comparing to today when anyone could do it, it's still a much more educative experience than tapping on your phone screen (Zetros app functions). I personally enjoyed reverse-engineering several MOCs, and it was a great experience, learning much more than following dumbed down instructions (that's how I finally understood how lego gearboxes worked). Most recent example is Piterx's bike - it really made me appreciate how it is put together while rebuilding it from the renders. Track tensioning is cool and all, but they omitted a much more important function - ripper tilt

Such a wonderful unique RV, even if not-to-scale, it definitely belongs here with that mechanics underneath. I'm also not entirely sure whether electric mechanisation is necessary - nonetheless there seems to be plethora of space in the lower rear section for it. As far as PF vs PU: I'm inclined to say PF. There doesn't seem to be a need for anything fancy with programming.

Haven't seen a single function that needs programming in any sets - a gearbox can use a simple 90 deg stepper just like the supercar sets and one could even reduce the costs by using a dumb motor instead of the "smart" ones to actuate said stepper. It would be justifiable if for example the differential would lock automatically whenever a certain condition was triggered, or there were LEDs programmed to blink automatically when steering... but right now the peak is using the tilt sensor to display the current angles the model is at - a gimmick at most. Even if programming were required, if the hubs could store the programs, one could use the phone to configure the control scheme and add pre-programmed behaviours/sequences as well as map each joystick button to an output/action, store the program on the hub and connect the controller directly to the hub, booting into the program. Not rocket science, basically BrickController2 except with the behaviour of CADa remote-directly-to-hub connection. EV3 already did it 8 years ago with the included remote... and RCX ~20 years ago (with the IR remote expansion kit). If they intent to add programming capabilities, then do it right, not worse than the predecessors from 2 decades ago.

Eeeeeh?! Welp, the Tow Truck does need a better colourcheme, but considering all other sets, it has a pretty good value + good functionality Well, that's true. Let's wait to see the app. I'm pretty sure the LA's start bending pieces when in top-most position, so they should be more than capable to lift the blade at faster speed IMHO. That's what I hate the most about the current lineup - there's no offering for those who want a challenge rather than being guided step by step (which personally is way more annoying as you're constantly turning a page after page after page, adding barely any pieces, whereas a callout could contain several of them and just point out the places they go with a red circle or something if it's that "hard") . Such overly detailed instructions are a waste of ink and paper as well - they seem to be twice the necessary size. Adding to it - the "18+" still makes no sense to me, just put a big "Technic STARTER" tag on the box and be done. It just loses sense compared to EVERY other age indication on the boxes - what does 5+ then mean? Or 12+? Are those for starters or not? Or those are actually the sets for more experienced builders? Why is only those who can't build taken into consideration, how hard is to make at least 1 damned set that presents at least a little challenge to build???? At this point just have someone build the set for you, as the instructions are getting onto that level of dumb. If someone wants a decoration, they can go to home improvement store, place a plant or order a pre-assembled scale model that'll be MUCH more detailed probably at a smaller size and pricepoint. Not butt into a hobby expecting to be able to do everything with NO previous experience. I'm not gonna drive a car if I don't know how to use it, right??? -------------- Back onto the CAT - is there any purpose in track tensioning in this model?

Weird to hear that it has a good building experience... with Duplo-style instructions that are ~x2 times longer than necessary yet still fail to clarify certain aspects? After watching both your and Sariel's reviews - no surprises taken. A strange half-baked set with missing/unrealistic functions (as mentioned by Sariel, the top sprocket is the one ought to be driven, otherwise the whole point of having it is lost. Although seeing an RWD raptor... not surprising), unnecessary complexity that hinders the play factor (speed of the blade elevation and the fact that one has to switch to the other end of the gearbox for functions relating to the same area) and all that under the strange 18+ branding... Welcome to Technic 2021 At least we all know that the true flagship this year is white,blue&orange

Ask Brunojj1 - he tested with BuWizz and said it works. The servos are definitely proportional - the pdf has photos of the dissasembled motors and it has an encoder similar to the LEGO one. I don't understand your point of 9V cables - CADa isn't a supplier of cheap copy parts - they're making their own stuff, and 9V never was a product they made. Perhaps it can be dangerous having two PF ports connect to each other, but it seems no one's that dumb. I'm aware of using the remote - but if you paid close attention, the lag is unbearable. I'm pretty sure you yourself own a Sbrick... that can be used with a gamepad... In any case I was referring to the fact that IR was no longer used, in favour of Bluetooth. As far as "elements are compatible" - yes, they have the same plug, but they don't work together. It's like saying thay your PC works even though you haven't installed an OS. Sure, the processor, GPU, PSU, RAM and HDD are installed and they fit together - but they don't work. Steering bug has en been brought up several times in different topics - basically it glitches and goes into an extreme position until you reset the hub. I never asked for a mini mindstorms (in fact, I've sold my NXT 2.0 because it was useless for me). I need plug&play, no fancy sensors and programming. It's Technic, not Mindstorms I'm buying. PF was simple and accessible, no fancy apps. Hence why I brought the issue with Sbrick+ and WeDo sensors - an extremely low amount of people used it. For all I know not everything is supported via 3rd party apps. Pretty sure the hubs weren't connectable?? Idk, nor do I care really. -------------------- We can go on and on and on about PF vs C+ endlessly m8, but as long as it is an expensive, barely working (via official apps/whatever it is) system with unnecessary features, I won't budge. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly like the way BuWizz and CADa receivers work either - one needs a phone, the other has a remote, but only on/off controls. Ideal situation is to use a proper RC remote and be done with it - like the russian RCbrick does. But that one isn't without faults either - it's built using individually sold parts, and is quite bulky and pricey for what it is. ------------------------- I think this topic is about pricing anyways. ¬_¬

Gorgeous design - the curved shapes are an absolute bliss The roof looks somewhat weird though - wouldn't using a 2L connector instead of 3L work better to bring the lime A-pillars towards the 9L links, as well as make the curved roof more uniform looking from the front? Or it'd be be too "sunken" in?

CADa pro series servos (and even the basic one ifI recall correctly) have proportional control (there's an encoder inside, similar to the LEGO one, I've posted a link to a chinese motor comparison made by BrickElectronic sometime ago) - the problem is, it's not compatible with PF receivers, but BuWizz and Sbrick do work (mine doesn't, but it's because my BuWizz is 1st gen and already faulty - pretty sure I fried something inside as it struggles to work the same way it did before, that or the app is buggy, since the new one doesn't even work properly with my unit). The 9V adapter wouldn't make sense whatsoever - it's not something they or anyone else uses. Even the buggy motors copies for better or worse use a fixed wire, and most 9V elements have direct substitutes. Broken 9V wires are quite cheap too, and can be easily spliced with a PF plug&wire to make a converter if it's a necessity. For the lights - depends on the revision of PF light - I have some older ones that have a yellowish tint, the newer ones have a more neutral colour, and CADa ones are extremely cold, which might be giving the effect of them being less bright (might be wrong, but that's the feel I had when choosing LEDs for headlights) PU limitations - no physical remote support, non-stackable connector, no fixed voltage output to use with switches, some stuff is not interchangeable in spite of using the same damned connector (apparently Mindstorms/Spike stuff can't be used with Technic/city hubs????), the Mindstorms hubs can't store the programs (besides 3rd party OS flash I think?), no backwards compatibility, the wires have a fixed length and there's NO way to extend them... Of course a major PF limitation was the antiquated IR control, but that was solved almost a decade ago. For sensors - WeDo had some with PF plugs, and Sbrick+ supported them, although I've seen only 3 Technic MOCs ever using it... CADa also offers a customer service - even if the customer bought it from some shady 3rd party reseller and was missing the electronics (works pretty much the same way as TLG, shoot them an email et voila). However it is also true that Lego's customer service is quite extreme - I doubt any company would send a replacement without much proof of it being broken, and even existing in the first place. Getting replacements/making claims for other, un-branded, products might have some issues, although I only had a good experiences so far, since I used dependable sellers on Ali, and the import online shops seem to have some sort of CS too (don't hold me on that though). I had thought we were discussing lego set pricing not reiterating the PF vs C+ war from various other topics It is true that it could still fit within price discussion - I mean, Bruno's full-RC supercar has the same price as the Flexari from TLG, and I bought it with a discount for the same price as the "Top Gear car". And it has 3k pieces... ---------------- Back on the topic of pricing: Thanks for the analysis Bartybum, hopefully the ~20% markup theory is true. At least that confirms that the sets are actually more expensive. They better start working then, the steering bug has been reported various times over the years (even I know about it already), their released communications protocol is so outdated, the 3rd party apps have dropped support and not all PU elements are compatible with each other. But yeah, someone gotta pay for that "feature" of seeing a 3D model of their 300€ Merc on their phone

Most likely, because the system isn't that popular. It's like asking why does no one make a 900$ monitor stand like Apple does? because no one except hipsters needs that. Right now, every "copy" company uses PF since hundreds of thousands (assumption, perhaps the number is even higher) of people own PF components, it is as simple as plug and play, and they're basically now the only companies making them - having no competition, and making sales to those people who don't want to throw out their perfectly good electrics because they've been "phased out". The "brandnames" like CADa try making a better thing out of Lego's Technic system - not simply make a copy paste. MK is a pretty company due to all MOCers they screwed, but even they don't bother copying a system that is basically incompatible with anything and has quite severe limitations (honestly even basic arduino kits have much more options than a significantly more expensive C+/PU, and now many are compatible with Lego bricks...). As far as "precision", "quality"... all is relative. The oh-so amazing lego motors have wires that disintegrate within 2 years, the servos are notorious for their bad design of the rotor, and PU has had the steering bug from the first day that has still not been addressed yet, and who's to say the problem with the wires won't affect these expensive pieces of plastic too, except now they also have sensors inside, meaning even more points for a fault. We also haven't had the system long enough so as to know whether their rotation sensors/encoders are good or not in the long run. Certainy, people reported "melting plugs, exploding batteries"... on chinese stuff, but I'm pretty sure a significant number of those also bought those for ridiculously low prices with abysmal quality - though even my 5€ "dumb" servo is pretty good, only having some small visual defects on plastic surface, so I'm not sure what kind of garbage one has to buy... Now, don't get me wrong. Bad products do exist and are being sold. But we also cannot calssify a "premium" product as something good by default, since those have/can have defects too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, this is quite a quick derailment from price discussions already hahahh

As impressive as the other bike regarding the balancing, yet on a whole another level regarding looks and resemblance to a real bike. Might give a shot building it as have all the basic essentials Bravo

I think I can partially agree @HectorMB, PU might be the reason why a set is "expensive" . However then I don't understand the reason for said system to be so expensive - silicon shortage or not, other comparable electronics (like Raspberry Pi) are dirt cheap in comparison and are much more sophisticated when it comes to hardware specs (with even the 10€ Pi Zero being able to run an OS with monitor output) even factoring in a few motor drivers and other necessary electronic components still seems to leave quite a significant markup. Then, PF sets included a remote, which added to the cost, yet PU sets do not include one - so some savings should be seen there (surprise! there aren't any) Setting aside the remote control system itself, we are left with the issue whether the set is worth the money - the flagships such as Liebherr and now CAT look needlessly big with the former having huge open spaces inside and latter seeming to repeat the same trend - at least IMHO, having looked a bit at the photos. Even if the size were justified - what is the target audience? Spending such amounts of money on a toy most likely would imply an adult audience, and hardcore lego Technic fans would certainly appreciate it (parts/electronics source...) , yet they seem to be made for inexperienced builders in mind instead, while relying on said hardcore fans for marketing purposes (remember Sariel's video with the real Liebherr). Well, just my 2 cents, since I definitely can't afford something like this, nor have the desire to honestly.

Interesting concept for the "drift" mechanism, certainly reminds me of some toys I had, although there it was used to "automate" the movement, so that it would turn whenever it hit an obstacle (low-tech Roomba). This certainly has it charm though, and most likely quite fun to play too, not to mention much easier to control and reliable than "normal" lego drift cars The bodywork could use some refining though, but is very much recogniseable The wheel rims idea is great, might steal that one for future use

Not a fan of American longnose trucks, but the model is superb, with beautiful detailing at such scale. Ingenious use of the spanners as windscreen wipers For the steering, perhaps with the sacrifice of some underside detailing, a virtual pivot point steering could be fitted? From the looks of it the engine sits quite high with empty space under, so it should be possible. Though it is certain at least 1 stud depth of sleeper cabin detailing will suffer so as to link the steering to the spare wheel...

What a beautiful F1 car Engine detailing is fantastic to look at)) It seems your link is directed to some strange rebrickable url (direct file download?) and returns a 404 page. Here's a working one: Link