1H2017 Technic video reviews by Sariel

[mattthewise]

Sariel, the "extra" two-unit axles and two of the three red spacers go on the remote. They make little mini joysticks.

[WvG_853]

Really very short-sighted of Lego not to provide you with all the Lego Technic sets of H1. Your reviews are always very informative and thorough. I cannot think of better free publicity. There are sets that I had not considered buying, but your reviews made me reconsider.

[Sariel]

4 hours ago, Tommy Styrvoky said:

All it's missing is 2 RC motors, and some simple suspension... I bet with that the model would be even more mental with a robust suspension setup.

From what I heard, Lego is barely making any revenue on this set. It's a great starter set, I mean the next Lego set that gives you RC PF stuff is in the $200 area.

Yeah, I missed the joystick pieces. My bad.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Sariel

[JGW3000]

You sold me, LEGO should be giving you commissions on each sale as a result of your video reviews  .  By the way, why were those two people walking slowly away, backwards, around 9:20 into the video??? 

[Sariel]

1 hour ago, JGW3000 said:

By the way, why were those two people walking slowly away, backwards, around 9:20 into the video??? 

Wouldn't you be walking slowly away if you saw a strange grown-up dude playing with some Lego set? ;)

[N-4K0]

I would not  

[Tommy Styrvoky]

7 hours ago, Sariel said:

From what I heard, Lego is barely making any revenue on this set. It's a great starter set, I mean the next Lego set that gives you RC PF stuff is in the $200 area.

Yeah, I missed the joystick pieces. My bad.

I don't mean TLG producing RC motors, as we all wish our dream would come true, but it probably won't. I think this model would be a good platform for putting RC motors into, and it would be interesting to test, as it is a barebones robust design, and would probably be have very impressive performance.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Tommy Styrvoky

[Saberwing40k]

9 hours ago, Sariel said:

From what I heard, Lego is barely making any revenue on this set. It's a great starter set, I mean the next Lego set that gives you RC PF stuff is in the $200 area.

Yeah, I missed the joystick pieces. My bad.

Another thing you missed is that the B model does not have suspension either. By the way, where did you hear that Lego was barely making any money? I seriously doubt that Lego would be. I mean, in Euros, the PF parts cost 53,50, and the set costs 79,99. In the US, the difference is even larger. So, are you telling me that Lego makes no profit selling individual PF components, or that it costs them the same price to include PF parts in a set as it costs to buy? I don't think that's the case, at all. Also, I think you were being a bit biased this time, which is a bit odd. I think you should have added an additional statement to people who won't like this set, and that's anyone looking for something that is technically interesting to assemble. It feels rather bare bones and boring, and I'm really surprised that you gave it 4 stars for building experience. And, I'm not so sure that it's that good a starter set. I'd say it would almost be better to buy the PF parts and a $30 set instead, because with this set, the extra $30 gets you no gears, and no suspension. I mean, at this price point, could they have not included a subtractor? But, that's just my opinion. Or, maybe you want people to get this set, so that Lego makes some more simple RC sets?

Edited December 22, 2016 by Saberwing40k

[Sariel]

1 hour ago, Saberwing40k said:

Or, maybe you want people to get this set, so that Lego makes some more simple RC sets?

Cut the conspiracy stuff, I talk to folks at TLG privately and there was a comment that 42065 is basically TLG donating to the market. I don't know where you got the price of PF parts from, but I strongly suspect it's higher than that - it's 2016, remember, and the original PF prices come in some cases all the way back from 2007. The track links alone are worth at least another $8. Seriously, this is disheartening to me and to designers as well. They went and made a cheap PF starter set so you don't need to spend $200 on Volvo or something, but no, some people just won't be pleased. Because of course a $80 set should come with 10 kg of pieces included.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Sariel

[J_C]

I think were are at the same spot like before with 42060. We discussed audience, targets, design goal, price and expectations deformed by us being AFOLS. 

Here with 42065 it is similar. It is for playing,driving. And it seems to be great for it. It does not look like some building marvel. But it is obvious it is not supposed to be. Design goal and marketing goal was obviously different. And after seeing the video (Thank you Sariel) I think it is terrific for the job.

I will not buy it, because it is not what I expect from Technic. But I understand why it must be perfect for others. We all want different things from Lego and that is why it is great there are so many choices. Am I wrong? 

Edited December 22, 2016 by J_C
typos

[Ngoc Nguyen]

When I first played the 8043 B model (RC tracked front loader) I had some great fun just driving a RC tracked vehicle around and bumping into things. There's a joy in doing such a silly thing. So the 42065 is a perfect set to enjoy that.

[Huaojozu]

45 minutes ago, Sariel said:

Cut the conspiracy stuff, I talk to folks at TLG privately and there was a comment that 42065 is basically TLG donating to the market. I don't know where you got the price of PF parts from, but I strongly suspect it's higher than that - it's 2016, remember, and the original PF prices come in some cases all the way back from 2007. The track links alone are worth at least another $8. Seriously, this is disheartening to me and to designers as well. They went and made a cheap PF starter set so you don't need to spend $200 on Volvo or something, but no, some people just won't be pleased. Because of course a $80 set should come with 10 kg of pieces included.

Why are you being immediately aggresive and hyperbolic when Saberwing's comments were relevant? The previous RC sets were huge, creating a barrier for entry to Lego RC unless people wanted to spend that much. This set solves that problem, but at the expense of complexity. No one wants 10kg of pieces, but another 100 (or heck, 50 if it were the right ones) would have made the building experience a bit more interesting and the finished product a bit more playable. As it is, to me, it looks unfinished with lots of gaps and the body not being firmly attached.

Also, I think you are being naïve thinking Lego would sell it at (or below) cost. Of course, I have nothing substantial to back up my argument (and yours is hearsay) so there is no point in arguing, but I just don't see the benefits for Lego. You make a set to sell below cost so that you do what? Introduce more RC parts into your market? What good does that do you? If anything, it makes people less likely to buy the next big RC set, since they would already have the most expensive components.

It's a nice set for kids, but other people who already have the RC parts are better off just building it on their own, especially since it uses no entirely new parts. 

[Sariel]

36 minutes ago, Huaojozu said:

Why are you being immediately aggresive and hyperbolic when Saberwing's comments were relevant?

Because I've been hearing how $80 is bad price all night since this review got live and I'm tired. Look, if you went out today to buy all these PF parts separately, I very much doubt you would make it under $70. So at $80 for the whole set it's a steal. And that's it - whether this set is targeted at you, whether you like its looks or not, this is not my point. My point is, it's great value for $80. Which doesn't mean it's perfect a set for you. And I'm not saying Lego is selling this set below their costs, because that would obviously be crazy. I'm saying they are probably close to breaking even on it, with a very slim profit. 

Every single time I publish a review, there are complaints that make no sense, and honestly this is exhausting. There are people who see one 2017 set and they already know all 2017 sets are bad. There are people who expected 42065 to cost $10. There are people who won't be satisfied with any set that doesn't come with a Rolls-Royce and a personal assistant included. There are people for whom Lego sets were best back in 2000BC, when they were made with sticks and mammoth's poo. I mean come on...

Edited December 22, 2016 by Sariel

[DaFokka]

Quote

Also, I think you are being naïve thinking Lego would sell it at (or below) cost. Of course, I have nothing substantial to back up my argument (and yours is hearsay) so there is no point in arguing, but I just don't see the benefits for Lego. You make a set to sell below cost so that you do what? Introduce more RC parts into your market? What good does that do you? If anything, it makes people less likely to buy the next big RC set, since they would already have the most expensive components.

There might be plenty of reasons. For instance: It might be a loss leader. I do get @Sariel's frustration, it looks like some people expect LEGO to operate like a charity. They won't and neither should they be expected to; they are a for profit company.

Edit: Another awesome review by the way, keep up the good work!

Edited December 22, 2016 by DaFokka

[thatrabidhobo]

This set looks like a good idea to me. It intices adults into buying a child a cool RC that is also Lego while The Technic team just got a possible new future technic buyer. Isn't that the whole point of 1H Technics? And, as Sariel said, AFOLs now have another means of getting RC.

Perhaps 42065 will be a hit and will be a means for new RC models. Perhaps it will be a flop and no one will care but a select few AFOLS that the set wasn't really targeted for anyway.

 

[GBTechnic]

29 minutes ago, thatrabidhobo said:

This set looks like a good idea to me. It intices adults into buying a child a cool RC that is also Lego while The Technic team just got a possible new future technic buyer. Isn't that the whole point of 1H Technics? And, as Sariel said, AFOLs now have another means of getting RC.

I agree with you 100%.  I buy sets all the time as a 40 year old AFOL and was drawn to Technic because of its robust build quality and engineering/mechanical complexity... BUT it's still a toy and my eight year old son is often turned off about Technic because of a lack of attention span.  As a parent who wants to enrich my child's life with as much S.T.E.M. (science, tech., engineering and math) the RC tracked Racer 42065 will be one of the few sets I buy ASAP (I usually wait for deals) because my son WILL want to build it, play with it and... it's a steal at this price.  

My niece has a couple Technic sets but has a mother (my sister) who hates the cost of these sets AND has an ignorant belief that this hobby isn't for girls.  She has desperately wanted RC parts but cannot afford it at 10 years old...  I'll be gifting a second set to her at these prices.

Every since I saw the pics of this set, I knew it was a winner for kids, RC lovers and AFOL fans who still "play" with their sets too (vs just displaying or admiring the engineering).  

As a relatively new Technic collector I have RC parts but still want more for "ultimate Mocs" and also because I hate taking apart big builds just to build new RC creations.  Many newbies were fascinated with 42030 bc it was RC and they'll love this too.

@Sariel  Love ❤️ this one and all of your videos (including the 360 degree ones).  Keep up the excellent work!

Edited December 22, 2016 by GBTechnic
Spelling

[Ngoc Nguyen]

5 hours ago, Sariel said:

 There are people who expected 42065 to cost $10.

And even if TLG sell it at $10 they'd probably want it at $5 or something

[N-4K0]

I understand your frustration, Sariel.

I think most of us do understand that the plastic, molding and production has a certain cost, and TLG is a company who needs to make profit, or else there's no point to keep doing what they do. Some sets are a bit on the pricey side, like the Volvo loader when looking at the number of parts, but the PF stuff costs and therefore the set has the price it has.

I gladly accept that the prices are what they are. If I want a set, I buy it. If I can't afford it at the moment, I can wait, or I can just BrickLink whatever parts I need to build it with the parts I already have.

I understand that TLG's prices might be too much for some people, but the prices probably are what they need to be.
As you said, TLG isn't a charity organization. They are a business and no matter what they do to give kids a fun time building, they can't give away the sets they make.

[Saberwing40k]

How do my complaints not make any sense? I'm not saying that 42065 should be cheaper, my main gripe is the lack of technical complexity. Also, where are you getting the $70 for PF parts? I went on the Lego website, and added up all the prices, and I got about $50. I honestly don't believe that 42065 would be a loss leader, unless it somehow magically costs more to include PF parts in a set than to sell them seperately. Even so, since we don't know about the complexities of Lego's production system, it's impossible to say for sure. As a fan, I want a Technic set to be at least somewhat technically interesting, to show me new things, but this set isn't for people like me. It's more for kids who just want something to drive around, or people who are just getting into Technic and want RC parts. So, it's not a bad set, for some people.

[Sariel]

1 hour ago, Saberwing40k said:

Also, where are you getting the $70 for PF parts? I went on the Lego website, and added up all the prices, and I got about $50.

Sounds strangely cheap to me, I haven't seen these prices. But even if, that's $50 worth of PF parts, 8$ worth of tracks, and you still get 300+ pieces for the other $12. I understand that people may like or not like this set for a variety of reasons, but complaining about its price is weird, to say least.

[BusterHaus]

1 hour ago, Saberwing40k said:

but this set isn't for people like me

There is no Lego set that will appeal to everyone.  Someone will always rise up and find a reason why it's not valuable to them.  Sariel's point is very valid - this is a very inexpensive way to get PF parts - regardless of the profit that Lego is making on this set.  If you have enough PF parts and are looking for gears, more functions or more complexity, Lego makes a lot of other sets that will please you.

[thatrabidhobo]

2 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

I want a Technic set to be at least somewhat technically interesting, to show me new things

While I used to agree with this sentiment for all 1H sets I've come to realize that simpler sets are needed for kids so they do not become frustrated and give up. 

My four year old, for example, does not have the ability to put more than a couple of technic pieces together because he doesn't yet have the dexterity. In a year he might be able to do a small set, but it was a bit of an eye opener to watch him struggle even though he understood the instructions and basic concepts well enough. 

Edited December 22, 2016 by thatrabidhobo
Grammars

[JGW3000]

This is one set I'd give my kid at let him modify it to his heart's content, and hope my other kid gets interested in it also.  Will be looking forward to what they come up with.  On the other hand, I don't let them modify the $200 or greater sets.

[Blakbird]

18 hours ago, Sariel said:

Wouldn't you be walking slowly away if you saw a strange grown-up dude playing with some Lego set? ;)

I walk slowly away from all humans.

8 hours ago, Sariel said:

There are people for whom Lego sets were best back in 2000BC, when they were made with sticks and mammoth's poo.

You have to admit, those mammoth poo sets were pretty cool.

[allanp]

Another conspiracy theory here 

Maybe TLG want to sell off their excess PF components in a bargain, small but relatively PF heavy set so they can release PF 2.0! 

But seriously, the fact is that 42065 wasn't designed for AFOLs as far as I can tell. It's a simple easy build for younger kids. This is the first set aimed at younger kids to have remote controlled PF and it is good value. It has a clear design goal to be a quick, simple, easy build for younger kids while also offering lots of PF parts and it forfills that goal. I hope TLG can make a profit on it. It's only a 1st half set, picking on it for being simple and unrealistic would be like picking on a puppy for crapping on the carpet (being a puppy!).