Saberwing40k

Hmm, I've been having some thoughts about this with some things that are very much edge cases, that I nevertheless would count as being not vehicles. For instance, some dockyard, gantry and tower cranes can move a short distance on rails, but I don't think this counts as a vehicle, as the purpose is not really to move the machine from location to location, but move it within its operating envelope. Basically, the rails count as part of the machine. Trains aren't the same because they are used over much longer distances, and can have multiple directions they can go via switches. On the other hand, big ring cranes like Mammoet uses are unambiguously not vehicles. At the other end of the scale, what about trailer mounted equipment? I can think of some things that would fit perfectly in this contest, like trailer mounted fairground rides, or trailer mounted generators or boom lifts. I don't think these count as vehicles, as their primary function is fulfilled whilst static. Lastly, there are some lawn and other pieces of equipment that are self propelled, but not vehicles. Does a lawn mower count as a vehicle? A ride on mower absolutely would be, but what about a push mower? What about other things, like trenchers, tillers, or sod cutters? Now, obviously with a trencher if you make it big enough it's a vehicle, but what about smaller, walk behind ones? I ask because I used to work with them, and if pressed I'd say it absolutely isn't a vehicle. The operator has to walk behind it, and steer the machine manually, the machine has no steering mechanism. They are also really, really slow. Now, excavators are absolutely vehicles, even little ones. Same goes for skid steers. Even larger trenchers are vehicles, as they are basically small skid steers at that point. To me, a vehicle has to: Carry its own operator. Change direction under its own power. Travel extended distances. Have motive power onboard. Now, trains are kind of a weird edge case, because they can't change direction without switches, but that's where the distance aspect comes into play. The other aspect that comes into play is onboard motive power. Although, even with my criteria, there are still going to be edge cases. For instance, a gantry crane has onboard motive power, carries its own operator, and can be argued to change direction under its own power. However, they are not designed to move farther than a couple hundred meters, if that. So, I'd argue that that aspect trumps everything. But oh boy, defining what is and isn't a vehicle is hard.

I agree with this. My dad and I were talking about this last night. He was talking about the LoTR Rivendell set, and mentioning that it is $500, but has 5000 or so pieces AND lots of minifigs, AND is from a beloved movie series. The issue is not so much the overall price, but the lack of value. There are plenty of fans who will plonk down large sums of cash for a set (Hello, UCS Star Wars), but the value has to be there. If Lego were to reveal this set, and have it be a 7000 piece monster with amazing level of detail, I think a lot of complaints would go away. But as it stands, we are scratching our heads, and wondering what the €680 actually gets us.

Oh, okay. I get what you're saying.

Whoa whoa whoa, the price for 42146 went up again? To freaking 680 euro? Wow, if the rumors are true, and it indeed has gotten smaller, that makes it an even more poor value. Just for the sake of comparasion, right now I could get a 1:50 scale model of a Liebherr LR 1600 crawler crane for €100 LESS than the cost of 42146. And, that model includes everything, ballast carrier, derrick, luffing jib, everything. And, it's made completely out of diecast. Oh, and as a bonus, this is from the Mammoet web store, so it's a limited edition version in their iconic and slick black and red livery. 42100 was expensive, almost to the point of a diecast model as well, but it was a big, well detailed model AND included lots of electronics AND also was a 4000 piece set. How on earth do you justify a set with fewer parts costing 50% more? While that is true, if I wanted to get a bunch of pieces, why would I spend my money on a set with such terrible value? I could, for instance, but a lot of used parts off of Bricklink, or buy other sets that are better part packs. Also, I hate Hate HATE the expression "It is what it is". That basically amounts to saying, "yes, it's bad, but we're not going to try and fix it, and there's no way to fix it, so just suck it up." It is letting the world be a terrible place. But, I'm not going to rant too much about that.

I've been thinking, for a good long while, that the part count for this set makes no sense. Well, I think I figured out why. CranesEtc recently did a review of a 1:50 scale model of the Liebherr LR 11000, made by NZG. While this is not the exact same model as 42146, there is something on NZG's website that I found interesting. Apparently, their model is made out of 1557 parts. I refuse to believe that Lego could make a similar model from only 2800 parts. Like, even with all the big diecast parts, the NZG model is already at 1557. And, many of the parts of that model that are a single piece would have to be made out multiple parts in a Lego model. Plus, the last Liebherr model, 42100, had closer to 4000 pieces, and thus was actually a good value. This is what makes me think the part count is off.

I don't think so. You could argue that this would be Model Team, but I think this fits more under Special Themes than anything else.

Basically, yeah.

i was building something, and there are several parts I would find useful. Most prominent is a variant of 55615,LegoTechnic, Pin Connector Perpendicular 3 x 3 Bent with 4 Pins i think it would be great to have one that is 2x2 instead of 3x3.

Surprisingly enough, having a piston engine is not that weird in a spaceship. I heard of a design for an APU for a rocket that is an inline 6 cylinder engine. It uses hydrogen and oxygen that would otherwise be just boil off. It's made by Roush Racing, and is actually a really clever design to streamline systems in upper stages. Here's an article talking about it:https://jalopnik.com/a-nascar-team-is-building-the-first-internal-combustion-1783198912 Now, regarding the rules, what about having a spaceship with a deployable rover? Whether something like the real Lunar Lander where the rover has to really fold up to stow, or the Mars Mission 7692 MX-71 Recon Dropship, or any of a number of other space sets, I think it would be an interesting function. However, the emphasis should be on the spaceship aspect. As in, the rover should be less than half the size of the carrier ship. I don't agree with the rule about having no land mode. I think transforming spacecraft would make for an interesting function, but it becomes sticky really quick. Like, how do you delineate between a spaceship that has a land mode, and a flying space car? The Space Police set shown earlier in this thread definitely is just a flying car, as the flight form is clearly secondary. In the end, it may just be easier to exclude land modes entirely, otherwise this could degenerate into arguments pretty quickly. Come to think of it, what about legged vehicles? What about a spaceship that can turn into a legged mech/robot, Macross/Robotech style? Would that be allowed?

I'm not an expert, but I do know that transparent parts are made out of a different kind of plastic than the opaque ones. I think it's actually a kind of polycarbonate, versus ABS for the standard parts. Indeed, Lego actually has rules against using certain kinds of connections with transparent parts due to the amount of clutch power and friction the PC parts can have, especially against each other. As detailed in this presentation:http://bramlambrecht.com/tmp/jamieberard-brickstress-bf06.pdf So, your results fit with this. However, translucent plastic is more brittle than ABS, so that's something to consider. I know that some metallic Bionicle parts look and feel different than ABS parts, but I don't fully know what kind of plastic it is. It also seems to be a lot softer and bendier than ABS, but not rubber, or overtly flexible, like some spear elements. Pearl gold must also be a similar kind of plastic, but I can't name what it is.

Thumbs down. There are plenty of ground vehicles in Classic Space, like the Blacktron 6941 Battrax. i agree with avoiding cars, but I think ground vehicles should be allowed.

No limits, please. They can be good for some things, but I personally don't much care for size limits. Other limits, like excluding motors, are more interesting in my opinion.

This is my exact sentiment. If looks focused cars made out of Technic parts are that popular, just bring back Racers. I'm kind of sad that Lego is turning Technic into that. My dad thinks it's because they're running out of ideas for Technic, which I think is baloney. All in all, mighty disappointed.

Puffin? With the red beak, that's what it reminds me of.

That's exactly what the OP needs, a Microscout. It's even the right colors. Shipping from Germany to wherever might be a pain, though. Hope you guys can work something out.