September 10, 20213 yr 2 hours ago, jorgeopesi said: You are right at least the dozer is good as an ornament. What are you talking about? This set has issues but none of them (save for the ripper) make it not work as a capable bulldozer.
September 11, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, Bartybum said: What are you talking about? This set has issues but none of them (save for the ripper) make it not work as a capable bulldozer. What are you talking about?, what dozer is not a nice ornament?, all of them are beautiful and I like to have any on my desk.
September 11, 20213 yr 4 hours ago, Maaboo35 said: Plus it has a better gearbox and it isn't reliant on an app. Control + isn't yet born in 2017 era...
September 11, 20213 yr To me the biggest issue is with the mountings for the blade lift actuators, relying on pins
September 11, 20213 yr Author 6 hours ago, Dylan M said: Control + isn't yet born in 2017 era... And your point?
September 11, 20213 yr 6 hours ago, Dylan M said: Control + isn't yet born in 2017 era... While not strictly related to 42070 but rather an extension of the set's underlying idea, you can easily build an efficient RC gearbox without Control+ or any other app. 8043 would be the most basic example, or this for something a li'l more complex. Edited September 11, 20213 yr by suffocation
September 11, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said: And your point? You can't compare them , they born on different ERA... PF to PU(control +) Bcoz PF is obsolete already
September 11, 20213 yr 2 hours ago, SNIPE said: So, how do we tilt the blade from side to side? I'm a little confused you modify the set, it isnt an included function. There is a lot of work needed to make it happen, all the blade mounting points have to be able to rotate in another plane as well as the actuators operating individually. I have made some progress with this mod but am making many others as well so its all still a work in progress.
September 11, 20213 yr Author 1 minute ago, Dylan M said: You can't compare them , they born on different ERA... PF to PU(control +) Bcoz PF is obsolete already They're both Technic sets. That's basis enough for comparison. And PF is far superior in terms of customisation and flexibility. Look at 8275 and compare it to... this.
September 11, 20213 yr 1 minute ago, Maaboo35 said: They're both Technic sets. That's basis enough for comparison. And PF is far superior in terms of customisation and flexibility. Look at 8275 and compare it to... this. No it's not. C+ is far superior in terms of customization and flexibility. PF is far superior in ease of use, both in construction and operation.
September 11, 20213 yr But they different in The sense of control its pretty obvious... Compare 42114 to 42131
September 11, 20213 yr About the change of the driving sprockets in contrast to the original: I think this surely has to do with the balance of the model. MK puts a lot of effort to get a really good steering in his models (42043, 42100, 42128 and now 42131). If the upper sprockets where driven, the whole model would be front-heavy. And maybe it would be too difficult to place the V12 engine in?
September 11, 20213 yr Author 6 minutes ago, howitzer said: No it's not. C+ is far superior in terms of customization and flexibility. PF is far superior in ease of use, both in construction and operation. PF is a perfectly functional and innovative system that could be integrated in a multitude of setups such as mechanical attachments, transmissions, and pneumatic compressors. C+ is simply a gimmick designed to capitalize on screen time.
September 11, 20213 yr 8 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said: PF is a perfectly functional and innovative system that could be integrated in a multitude of setups such as mechanical attachments, transmissions, and pneumatic compressors. C+ is simply a gimmick designed to capitalize on screen time. All of that is perfectly possible also with C+, in addition to programmability, sensor feedback, etc. It's true that C+/PU has its problems, but you don't have to go on to invent shortcomings that aren't there.
September 11, 20213 yr Author Just now, howitzer said: All of that is perfectly possible also with C+, in addition to programmability, sensor feedback, etc. It's true that C+/PU has its problems, but you don't have to go on to invent shortcomings that aren't there. No, TLG has me covered there. The steering bug, for one.
September 11, 20213 yr I miss bigger sets from other designers this year, for example what is with Uwe or Olav?
September 11, 20213 yr Author 1 hour ago, Timorzelorzworz said: I miss bigger sets from other designers this year, for example what is with Uwe or Olav? Olav's Facebook profile says he "worked" at TLG, so I'm not sure he's even there anymore.
September 11, 20213 yr Just to know out of curiosity and to add to this slightly off-topic (yet worthy enough), why Markus Kossmann has to do the duties for two important sets for the same quarter for Lego Technic? Has there been a recent releases from Lego Technic Design team? Don't get me wrong, MK's designs are awesome, it is just that why the same man for more than one set within the same H2 period just wonders me...
September 11, 20213 yr 3 hours ago, Timorzelorzworz said: what is with Uwe or Olav? Uwe appears in the designer interview for the McLaren, but so does Aurelien, so I don't really know who actually worked on that set. Maybe both of them did, but that is unusual because the McLaren is a small set. Olav seems to have left TLG, and his last set apparently is the 42097 Spider Crane. Maybe Uwe is working on the 2022 supercar... 1 hour ago, thekoRngear said: why Markus Kossmann has to do the duties for two important sets for the same quarter for Lego Technic? Has there been a recent releases from Lego Technic Design team? That is also really weird because one of the new Technic designer, Samuel Tacci, said in the live interview with Milan back in July that he didn't work on any set for the 2021 lineup. Edited September 11, 20213 yr by Ngoc Nguyen
September 11, 20213 yr Author 12 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said: Olav seems to have left TLG, and his last set apparently is the 42097 Spider Crane. I thought Alfred designed 42097.
September 12, 20213 yr It might be time for this thread to be closed as it's turned into a whinge-fest of 'it's too expensive because it's only got this many hubs/motors' - maybe 42100 was a bargain and now we are seeing the true price?, PF vs PU, designers who may or may not be working at TLG to name but a few. I really hope that the designer of 42131 doesn't read some of what has been posted because it's been flying pretty close to 'character assassination' of him and those who work at TLG and made the decisions regarding 42131. I wonder how some of you would stand up if the roles were reversed. Constructive criticism I get but that's been few and far between in this thread.... Edited September 12, 20213 yr by kiwimtnbkr
September 12, 20213 yr Does anyone have good images of the new track link and linear actuator yet? I'm working on the 2021 update to my book, and I'd like to include those. @Jim, do you think your review will have such images? Thanks
September 12, 20213 yr 3 hours ago, kiwimtnbkr said: I really hope that the designer of 42131 doesn't read some of what has been posted because it's been flying pretty close to 'character assassination' of him While there are some small things, the strongest criticism here is due to factors that we generally assume are beyond Kossman's control. Can you elaborate on which points you think people are blaming him personally for? Idk if anyone's mentioned/brought this up, but I'm happy to know that the rollers can in fact rotate and aren't fixed in place like some of us were worrying. Edited September 12, 20213 yr by Bartybum
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.