1H2017 Technic video reviews by Sariel

[M_longer]

55 minutes ago, rollermonkey said:

Just finished watching the two new reviews, when YouTube offered up someone else's reviews of the last set (the ship)...

I clicked on them, and after 10 seconds decided I'll just wait for Sariel's review of that one, too. 

:) 

Was it that "hey look I have it FIRST!" type of review? ;)

[jfbat]

On 23-12-2016 at 1:13 AM, allanp said:

Considering it has the flat twin engine, shaft drive, soft suspension and suspension setup of the real bike I think it deserves one or two more stars for authenticity. 

I agree. Yes, when compared 1:1 with the real model, a few details are missing (handguards and if we're nitpicking any levers and switches on the steer, come to mind too) or wrong (honestly, in general the shaping of the tank is way off, though the tires are a viable option on a bike like this, especially if you want to go out adventuring). But on this size and more importantly: at this price point there are limitations to what's possible and to be expected.

I think that without the logos and maybe even the iconic headlight arrangement any motorbike enthousiast would still immediately recognize this bike as the model it represents.

Still: thanks for the otherways - as always - entertaining reviews! Should've watched the one for the roadcrew before I ordered is because I do agree with you about that set: it's a bit underwhelming. My girlfriend liked it a bunch though.

[AkiyamaWataru]

What I'm wondering is how accurate the engine is. Is it a 180° V2 or a real Boxer-Engine with a crankpin per conrod? Sariel can you enlighten me please?

[efferman]

not a real boxer. it has the standard motor parts

[Richard Dower]

2 hours ago, efferman said:

not a real boxer. it has the standard motor parts

You should come up with a new type of engine block....the Technic part has been around since the dawn of time.

[efferman]

https://www.shapeways.com/product/5WPFQR4DB/narrow-fake-cylinder?optionId=40616657&li=user-profile

[brunojj1]

On 21.12.2016 at 8:35 PM, Sariel said:

42065 RC Tracked Racer.

.....

Being able to build this set from spare parts for my kids (in other colors), unfortunately I can´t find any online instructions for it, neither at the official Lego.com instructions website, nor does the new app contain it, although this set is released already. Can anybody help?

[Jonfensu]

@brunojj1 you could follow the speed build video from AustriaLegoFan 

[februar88]

29 minutes ago, brunojj1 said:

Being able to build this set from spare parts for my kids (in other colors), unfortunately I can´t find any online instructions for it, neither at the official Lego.com instructions website, nor does the new app contain it, although this set is released already. Can anybody help?

well, in this case it's very easy to follow Sariel's speed build. 

[brunojj1]

I will follow some speed build then even if it´s not as interesting for my son (7 years old), but thank you guys ! Anyway, can´t understand why instructions aren´t online on pair with the other new sets.

[DarkShadow73]

On 12/14/2016 at 6:45 PM, Richard Dower said:

IMHO....i am very meh on the sets thus far, i think the bike and search ship are the only ones i will get. I like parts of the small sets....i like the Orange vehicles but meh on the rest. As stated, i think i will just part out and build the bits i want. Also...these small sets seem more aimed at the City theme.

I agree, the 42060 and 42062 look very City-ish, I've been into Technic since 2003 or so, and have never seen so many of these pull-back racers (which are great, but should be in either Racers or Speed Champions themes like 1 poster had said, and these smaller sets this year, mainly the 42060 and 62 honestly belong in the City series, more and more in the past several years they have been using what was exclusive Technic parts.  I'll likely eventually buy them if they go on sale somewhere, like Amazon, but just for play value.  42061,63,64 and 66 look great for display value and the 42065 would be a load of fun to play with being RC.   

@Sariel - just a note about your video reviews, they are superb and cover about everything.  I was on the fence about a couple models but you sealed the deal whenever they are released to the US.  I very much would enjoy buying the 42066, but really I'll probably wait until you do get the set and review it first.  I like fighter planes a lot, but the next best thing was the 9394 kit from 2012.  A great model by itself, but the 42066 is so much larger.  

Anyway, keep up the great work, I am really glad I found your video reviews on youtube.  Now, I must go backwards to a few models from past couple years and check out your vid reviews of those kits.  

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by DarkShadow73
Edited by DarkShadow73 on 12/29/16

[DarkShadow73]

On 12/22/2016 at 3:10 PM, J_C said:

 

I would agree on instructions. But it does not bother me. I just go through individual steps faster. Faster per step, with more steps. Experience is similar. I do not consider (and never did) instructions as some sort of code that needs to be cracked. Building according the instructions is easy. Do not kid ourselves.

My 7old daughter can build any of my Technic sets according to the instructions. When she is designing her own stuff, she struggles with Technic and only build simple stuff (gates for city, simple bridges for her city) and she sticks with Creator/city/friends system bricks. But with instructions, she can (and enjoys) Technic. Is that wrong?

But I find general building (when building according to imagination - now known as MOCing - this therm was not around in 80s  )harder and more brain engaging with studless system than old studded Technic. I think with studless you can do more, possibilities are wider, you can do more, build more complex stuff, be more compact etc, but it is not by any chance easier (and that is good! )

Off topic a bit, but I clicked on the links to your MOC bulldozer and forklift.  They really are amazing models, I assume built out of the 42042 kit.  The tracks instead wheels on the forklift I found particularly interesting.

[J_C]

13 minutes ago, DarkShadow73 said:

Off topic a bit, but I clicked on the links to your MOC bulldozer and forklift.  They really are amazing models, I assume built out of the 42042 kit.  The tracks instead wheels on the forklift I found particularly interesting.

Thanks. I am glad my C-models are appreciated. I only wished I would have more time for them. Forklift instructions takes me forever (it seems) to finish, meanwhile I work on one more 42042 C-model. And I work on C-model for 42025 (which I got as total surprise gift month ago - I considered 42025 totally sold out - apart from crazy prices from "investor sellers")

Sorry Sariel, for offtopic.

Edited December 29, 2016 by J_C

[Richard Dower]

It's the bike and search ship for me, best looking, best parts, best value.

4 minutes ago, J_C said:

Thanks. I am glad my C-models are appreciated. I only wished I would have more time for them. Forklift instructions takes me forever (it seems) to finish, meanwhile I work on one more 42042 C-model. And I work on C-model for 42025 (which I got as total surprise gift month ago - I considered 42025 totally sold out - apart from crazy prices from "investor sellers")

Sorry Sariel, for offtopic.

That bulldozer is awesome in Blue.

[Sariel]

Back to the salt mines!

42066 Air Race Jet:

And a 360°  speed build:

 

[schraubedrin]

Nice review, while i don't like the colors, the functions and build might make me buy this set

What about the "Intermission" at 22:37 ?

[Sariel]

Intermission was me putting the dashboard back in because of course it fell off again.

[J_C]

Thank you for one more brilliant review. 

I agree with all your points. I somehow feel flight controls should be mandatory on official lego plane - it seems like car without steering. Here it is painfully missing. Thumb up for X-32 reference - I like this plane. Other thumb up for comparing with real planes and pointing out missing elevators/stabilizers. I think proportions are not good - small F-104 lookalike wings. Rudders are way too vertical to be called ruddevators, they are rudders. With this angle there would be hardly any effect to work as elevators (they would have to be close to 45deg) to be able work as both and control the plane. Inside looks really nicely designed. 360deg video is super cool.

[Blakbird]

22 minutes ago, J_C said:

Rudders are way too vertical to be called ruddevators, they are rudders. With this angle there would be hardly any effect to work as elevators (they would have to be close to 45deg) to be able work as both and control the plane.

Agreed.  A plane with this shape would need to use elevons for pitch and roll control.  While this is perfectly possible, the center of pressure is just too far back so this plane would never balance.

[Dazenie]

After seeing all your great videos, Sariel , I think I will only get the BMW, the telehandler and the jet seeing as they have the best functions and seem reasonably realistic.

[N-4K0]

Well done reviews, Sariel.

The jet really interests me. I'm considering to buy it and modify it to some Star Wars-like starfighter.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Error404

[Rishab N]

I like the jet's functions and that VTOL looks very interesting, but not so much the bodywork. After seeing it compared to the F-35 it just looks odd especially with those tiny wings. 

[N-4K0]

It does look a bit off, but some modding can easily fix that.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

The jet is supposed to look odd in order to not resemble any military jet, I guess.

[Richard Dower]

That jet = parts pack.