I agree with you. I think that building a C+ set is less interesting because we can't move the gears freely to see what gear does what.

C+ could be better for a vehicle going "fast" but I don't see why we would need it for a crane.

2 hours ago, Akbalder said:

I agree with you. I think that building a C+ set is less interesting because we can't move the gears freely to see what gear does what.

C+ could be better for a vehicle going "fast" but I don't see why we would need it for a crane.

42082 is also motorized, so you "can't move the gears freely," yet people seemed to like it a lot.

7 hours ago, Bartybum said:

I'm very likely in the minority here, but damn I wish the upcoming Liebherr wasn't Control+, especially given how slow it'll undoubtedly be. Not only could it be far more affordable, but I also love when huge and slow models have gearboxes that require levers to operate them, like the BWE. You have to get your hands on the machine and physically interact with it to make it work. Kinda feels like a missed opportunity for my tastes, but I could understand why others may disagree.

If you imagine they were to release two versions of it, one with single motor and gearboxes and the other with C+ and full RC, each priced accordingly, I wonder which one would sell better...

46 minutes ago, howitzer said:

If you imagine they were to release two versions of it, one with single motor and gearboxes and the other with C+ and full RC, each priced accordingly, I wonder which one would sell better...

You know which one would sell better!

14 hours ago, Jim said:

Rumors tend to be true quite frequently, so it’s not that pointless.

 

14 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

Agreed. This forum runs on rumours!

I understand what you mean, but what I meant was that refering to a previous rumor and say "if this was true then..." when said rumor is confirmed not to be true, is pointless. But I understand that we probably still haven't got confirmation that the Liebherr crane indeed includes 2 hubs and 7 motors so I realize it is too early to say.

Edited May 14, 20231 yr by zoo

51 minutes ago, zoo said:

 

I understand what you mean, but what I meant was that refering to a previous rumor and say "if this was true then..." when said rumor is confirmed not to be true, is pointless. But I understand that we probably still haven't got confirmation that the Liebherr crane indeed includes 2 hubs and 7 motors so I realize it is too early to say.

Fair enough 

7 hours ago, kbalage said:

42082 is also motorized, so you "can't move the gears freely," yet people seemed to like it a lot.

It's not the same: With 43082, it's possible to not engage a gear to move things freely. With C+, the motors are directly connected to the functionnalities or to the gearbox. It's not possible to move things freely.

7 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

You know which one would sell better!

I'm not at all sure that the answer is the same for Technic enthusiasts and general public...

The Leibherr (the real one) uses two engines to drive multiple hydraulic motors to drive all the functions. Currently there isn't a way to replicate this accurately in Lego (unless they release a pneumatic motor....or hydraulics!) but having multiple drive motors drive it's multiple functions feels closer to reality than having a multifunction gearbox, which is never realistic. So I guess I prefer the Leibherr as is, I certainly prefer it over 42082. However, 700 Euro?! I wonder if it would be possible to follow the example of other RC manufacturers, which often give you the option to buy a model without electronics, in case you already have your own (as I do since I own 42100) or decide you want to add something different to what the original model comes with. Would that ever be possible? Or would Lego get too many complaints from customers buying the wrong one and wondering why there aren't any electronics included. But as the PU components are already packed in their own separate box, all Lego would have to do is sell a version that doesn't have that box.

Edited May 14, 20231 yr by allanp

On 5/14/2023 at 8:35 PM, allanp said:

The Leibherr (the real one) uses two engines to drive multiple hydraulic motors to drive all the functions. Currently there isn't a way to replicate this accurately in Lego (unless they release a pneumatic motor....or hydraulics!) but having multiple drive motors drive it's multiple functions feels closer to reality than having a multifunction gearbox, which is never realistic. So I guess I prefer the Leibherr as is, I certainly prefer it over 42082. However, 700 Euro?! I wonder if it would be possible to follow the example of other RC manufacturers, which often give you the option to buy a model without electronics, in case you already have your own (as I do since I own 42100) or decide you want to add something different to what the original model comes with. Would that ever be possible? Or would Lego get too many complaints from customers buying the wrong one and wondering why there aren't any electronics included. But as the PU components are already packed in their own separate box, all Lego would have to do is sell a version that doesn't have that box.

And make a separate set of instructions and probably also change the structure for the motorless version, as motors and battery boxes are often integral part of the structure and not something you can just leave out. Also the driveshafts driven by motors would have to go somewhere else and have a knob for manual turning, otherwise there wouldn't be any way to control the movements.

If there was a motorless version, it would require a significant redesing of the set, to make it properly functional with no motors - though I'm not sure if that's even possible, this thing is going to have a long cable and having to reel it all in manually would be painfully tedious at the best...

30 minutes ago, howitzer said:

And make a separate set of instructions and probably also change the structure for the motorless version, as motors and battery boxes are often integral part of the structure and not something you can just leave out. Also the driveshafts driven by motors would have to go somewhere else and have a knob for manual turning, otherwise there wouldn't be any way to control the movements.

If there was a motorless version, it would require a significant redesing of the set, to make it properly functional with no motors - though I'm not sure if that's even possible, this thing is going to have a long cable and having to reel it all in manually would be painfully tedious at the best...

No I meant everything would stay the same (instructions, design, everything), the only difference is the box of PU electronics is left out of the box. This much cheaper version of the set is for those that already have those components or want to use PF or whatever. 

1 hour ago, allanp said:

No I meant everything would stay the same (instructions, design, everything), the only difference is the box of PU electronics is left out of the box. This much cheaper version of the set is for those that already have those components or want to use PF or whatever. 

The one that buys this set can't build it cause of the reasons you quoted and denied above.
Structural partts will be missing and the now obsolete Power Functions parts can't be used instead.

4 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

The one that buys this set can't build it cause of the reasons you quoted and denied above.
Structural partts will be missing and the now obsolete Power Functions parts can't be used instead.

@allanp makes a valid point here regarding us as long-term fans who may have the components available. But such a big model in my opinion need multiple motors and remote control, without it, it would be pointless. Even to push such a model doesn't really do the trick. Same goes for 42100, 42131 and the typical RC-models (42124, 42129, 42140).

The idea of add-on motorization of non-drive functions for medium-sized models (42053) is great. With the new counterweight pieces, I'm looking forward to a mobile crane with around 1000...1500 pieces and dumb battery box in 2024. 

2 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

The one that buys this set can't build it cause of the reasons you quoted and denied above.
Structural partts will be missing and the now obsolete Power Functions parts can't be used instead.

What I mean is that people that buy the bare set without electronics do so with the understanding that they will need to supply their own PU components in order to build the set as per the unchanged instructions or they will have to do their own modifications to use non PU alternatives. This is very common in the hobby RC world.

2 hours ago, allanp said:

What I mean is that people that buy the bare set without electronics do so with the understanding that they will need to supply their own PU components in order to build the set as per the unchanged instructions or they will have to do their own modifications to use non PU alternatives. This is very common in the hobby RC world.

This would be a cool concept and useful for people who have a larger collection and like to disassemble older models for parts, but based on the visible trends of the last few years, TLG isn't really targeting those fans, so I don't think it'll ever happen. If they cared about those people, we should have seen a lot more progress on the Powered Up app, for example. 

17 minutes ago, kbalage said:

This would be a cool concept and useful for people who have a larger collection and like to disassemble older models for parts, but based on the visible trends of the last few years, TLG isn't really targeting those fans, so I don't think it'll ever happen. If they cared about those people, we should have seen a lot more progress on the Powered Up app, for example. 

Indeed MOCers are not the main target for TLG. Powered Up app is the best exemple. But that's why I only use ControlZ app.

I think taking sets appart for pieces is the roots of Lego, but sadly it's not the way of the majority.

13 hours ago, allanp said:

What I mean is that people that buy the bare set without electronics do so with the understanding that they will need to supply their own PU components in order to build the set as per the unchanged instructions or they will have to do their own modifications to use non PU alternatives. This is very common in the hobby RC world.

While this is a good idea, what happens when the person who doesn't know better buys the less expensive set as a gift that cannot be built now?

The only way this would work without backlash would be as a Lego.com exclusive. And the amount of the reduction will not be equal to buying the electronics from the website.

 

The RC world is different. Everybody has their preference for electronics, and they can be quite expensive.  And chassis and bodies will break, so you need new ones, but not new electronics.

1 hour ago, R0Sch said:

Agreed, the adventure park seems to use more interesting and varied mechanics than the usual 1:10 scale cars. Heck, can't remember the last time I saw a Technic set use so many different and varied mechanism in a single build. You have axles and bevel gears in all directions, rotational movement, U joints, various oscilating functions such as waves and pirate ship movements, seems more of an essence of what Technic is really about.

Edit: Also, a function going through the small turntable!

 

Edited May 16, 20231 yr by Zerobricks

7 hours ago, deehtha said:

While this is a good idea, what happens when the person who doesn't know better buys the less expensive set as a gift that cannot be built now?

The only way this would work without backlash would be as a Lego.com exclusive. And the amount of the reduction will not be equal to buying the electronics from the website.

 

The RC world is different. Everybody has their preference for electronics, and they can be quite expensive.  And chassis and bodies will break, so you need new ones, but not new electronics.

Yes this was my concern for my own idea also. Making it a Lego exclusive, or even one you have to specifically ask for might help. You'd have to let the customers know it exists without unintended purchases. But I wonder how many people want the Liebherr but can't justify spending that much on Lego, but would buy this cheaper bare version? How many more sets would people buy if they could buy bare versions? I think TLG would consider it if it was a profitable idea. Lego sells two versions of the bolide, just in different colours, I guess it depends if there are enough potential customers to justify the extra logistics.

@Zerobricks while Technic still has interesting sets like the Mars Rover, John Deere skidder, American tow truck and airbus helicopter I can be happy, though it is a shame there hasn't been an equally interesting flagship for a while (excluding Liebherr as still undecided). The endless cars is annoying but if it helps to fund the Technic theme well let them have it. Buuuuuuuut on the other hand, they could make cars more interesting, the Peugeot did have some small novelty and the ford GT feels much better for being 1:12 scale. But, and I've said this before, there's a lot of other cool hot hatch cars that I think would sell well, at would give us something truly novel with front wheel drive, McPherson strut sustention and transverse engine etc. After all, Technic mostly make vehicles and it seems that front wheel drive family cars are the most common vehicle on the road in most places.

Edited May 17, 20231 yr by allanp

Wow, the adventure park set is pretty cool with all that technic functionality inside! This is a good example why it does not make sense to view technic in total separation from system. I hope there will be more and more such official sets that add more use cases of technic structures and mechanism and strengthen the theme.

3 hours ago, allanp said:

Technic mostly make vehicles and it seems that front wheel drive family cars are the most common vehicle on the road in most places.

Agreed that front wheel drive is an obviously needed but under-represented mechanism in official sets and there's a great lack of parts for building such mechanisms more simply and compactly, so it would be a great area for development.

Has there ever been a FWD car in Technic (not 4WD)?

And wow, that adventure park set seems seriously cool, why don't we have such stuff in Technic...

15 hours ago, Zerobricks said:

Agreed, the adventure park seems to use more interesting and varied mechanics than the usual 1:10 scale cars. Heck, can't remember the last time I saw a Technic set use so many different and varied mechanism in a single build.

 

4 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

Wow, the adventure park set is pretty cool with all that technic functionality inside!

 

36 minutes ago, howitzer said:

And wow, that adventure park set seems seriously cool, why don't we have such stuff in Technic...

Now you guys made me look at this adventure park 🙂

I couldn't care less about the line name, as long as the mechanisms are interesting and innovative. Sadly with Technic it's more and more cars these days, which I despise with all my heart.

I wonder why the 41737 set doesn't show up on bricklink.
are those megabricks in denial again?

Edited May 19, 20231 yr by JaBaCaDaBra

A German Lego catalog leaked some of the August Star Wars sets, I wonder when will we get more info about Technic.