Sumendar

Or maybe the 406L (~3.2m) pneumatic tube in the 8455 backhoe, granted, that one gets cut to pieces when you start building. edit: And of course there are two 500cm strings in the 8288 crawler crane, but I'm not sure if those count, as they don't connect directly to any other element.

Axles going through several axleholes in half-thick liftarms, the sticking power seems to rise through the roof once you get to four or more. Unfortunately, this seems to be a quite common construct in last decade's official models. In the worst cases, there's a 6+ long axle with one studlength for gripping and no room for pushing.

Readable from the box "Remote controlled driving, stearing[sic] and turning", so that's the last fear of only back-and-forth movement dissolved.

Ah crap, at that price it will only be available in TRU (highest Lego prices in the city) here, if even there (they do stock mindstorms, so I'm hopeful). Still, will be buying. We get the privilege to pay through the nose anyway, so what's another 50 euros on top of 180-190? (crane truck's MSRP is 189€ here) Of course, there's the possibility that the price hike was NA only, or at least won't be as bad here.

I had saved that picture, you're right. It is actually flipped towards the battery box, which would be consistent with a row of connected driving rings in front of motors under the battery box (I think you can see one of the motors in some of the pictures).

As someone on the technicbricks already commented, the batterybox is the other way around, the lid/base colours are clear in some of the photos, the switch behind the box.

I'm not quite sure about the increase in size as the studded -> studless change just exploded the amount of pins and axles in sets, which obviously raised the piececounts a lot. But even if it does happen, it's not enough that the largest flagships are so large that they should use a stronger version of an existing part: The molds aren't cheap, and a mold that would only be used for one set a year is not going to happen, it would drive the price up too much.

Well, giving Cafe Corner to a minor could lead to life-long addiction, must protect the children from that you understand.

Setting aside the unlikely ones to happen (bigger x, stronger y, longer z, the prime motivation for parts is a need in official sets, Lego just doesn't sell anything big enough to require these), here are some thoughts: -2x2 L-shape liftarm, thick or thin, whatever configuration of holes. -all axles notched and/or axle&pin removal tool, the current (official) constructions can be a pain to undo for an adult, let alone the target age group. -> Free to use design idea for the tool: crabclaw-like with suitable friction surface for grabbing axles at one end and halves of a pinhole on the side; small hole for pushing axles at the other end.

edit: nvm, exactly what you said already

There are two parts like that, This one didn't see much use, true, but this one sure did. It's the technic axle connector that was used for general purposes 1993-2007, but was replaced in 2008 by a smooth version for uses other than holding driving rings in place.

The comparison here should be to the 8275 bulldozer, which DID have 260 more parts, but a lot less functionality, meaning a lot less expensive parts (no LA/pneumatic, no driving rings, no turntable, 1 U-joint) and likely a lot less gears too. Yes, it did have two of the M-motors replace by XL-motors, but also one remote less. Do people think that was a bad buy at $150?

Nice to see new photos, but why, oh why, is it always the worst photographers that get such million-dollar opportunities of taking pictures? I understand that he's not a Technic-oriented AFOL, but why on earth did he take both of the excavator shots with the frigging box directly behind the exactly same coloured model? Now a lot of the details are buried in a jumble of yellow, especially in such a tiny resolution photo. More on topic, 1123 pieces on the excavator is a bit of a bummer, compared to the 8265 front loader we're getting 62 more pieces, including 1 linear actuator more, 4 M-motors, 2 IR remotes, 2 IR receivers and a battery box for a probable extra price of ~70USD / 60-90EUR. Cheaper than buying them one by one from S@H, but not a lot. Note that this estimate is based on the preliminary prices which put it at the same level as the 8258 crane truck, at the 8297 off-roader pricepoint it would be bargain. Still looking forward to this and definitely buying, if only for extra tracks and guaranteed newer firmware IR stuff (the firmware thing may become a problem at Bricklink if the single-pin mode catches on). For the crane, I'm a bit on the edge. If the boom extender is a good design and reasonably motorizable, then maybe. Depends a bit on the pricepoint too. Probably will be above 100EUR here, in which case definitely not buying at full price. The container truck looks like it might be the second most interesting model of the bunch, nice functionality at a lower price. Motorcycle will be a definite hit seller, the wheels are definitely not the ones from 8420, the spoke pairs widen towards the rim here, opposite of 8420 where they widen towards hub. The tyres look similar, not 100% sure of the size though. In any case, a street bike for a change.

The valve is closed when centered, so keeping it closed at low pressure might be a problem, as well as closing the valve once enough air has leaked.

Possibly an old idea, but I just successfully tested a pressure limiting valve made of a 2ml disposable plastic syringe and a rubber band. I made a small hole in the syringe body near the top of the scale, then wrapped a rubber band to hold the piston in. Now, when the pressure inside the syringe rises, the piston comes outwards until it passes the hole, at which point extra air starts leaking out. When the pressure drops, the force from the rubber bands overcomes it, and the piston moves back inside past the hole. Adjusting the rubber bands adjusts the pressure limit. As an added bonus the position of the piston gives an idea of how much pressure you have in the system compared to the limit, this could get helpful when deciding whether you need a higher-volume compressor. Comparison to pole-reverser solution: +Small by volume(my proof of concept piece is 13x3x2.5 studs long fully extended,) +Cheap (the usual system requires a pole reverser and a pneumatic cylinder, not exactly the cheapest parts around) +Doesn't require Lego connection +Motor runs continuously -> Less fluctuation in pressure due to acceleration and deceleration of motor -Large largest dimension (13 studs long might be too much for some uses, this can be reduced by stronger rubber band and lower hole location though) -Can't attach to Lego connection -Not Lego -Butt-ugly -Motor runs continuously -> heat can become an issue, part wear, battery lifetime