BDP10: Polar Nomads: Crawler Convoy

So this is not a set, but a MOC which is not even built in reality? Why is it different to 123456789 other MOCs on the internet?

I love the guy rocking out with the boombox.

@Goujon said:
"I saw this on the design page the other day, and im a massive fan of the concept of a giant tandem arctic mobile base. Unfortuently though, Im not the target demographic here. This is clearly designed to echo the older style of lego sets that are before my time. I think it's a good idea to post about it here on Brickset though where I feel the average AFOL age will be more in favour of this sets design style. Great concept, execution just isnt for me (selfish I know!)
I wish you luck in the coming week to see if it makes the cut! "

It’s good to hear the mindset of younger LEGO fans, I myself and 29 so I feel most of what I played with was modern Lego.

Have you owned/played with any vintage Lego sets before? Like I said, after discovering classic Lego sets in person, I really felt the aesthetic deserved a spot at the table in the designer program, however, I must admit most feedback seems negative on the Studds out and simplistic style.

In that case, maybe PM me or if you’re able to describe here what would change this set into a more modern style let me know so I can consider the option, thanks!

@daniellesa said:
"This set has a very vintage aesthetic, but not for me I'm afraid. "

Thank you, I felt the vintage Lego aesthetic would really pop in appeal to classic LEGO fans, would you mind elaborating where the style didn’t exactly interest you? Can it be modified to meet your interest? I have to ask if I want to improve, thanks!

@StyleCounselor said:
"I love the guy rocking out with the boombox. "

Thanks, he’s definitely playing something that sounds like this as everyone gets to work:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o4uOslXvRUg&list=PLM81TTUeHAFAIaIdKPD1EJ1El29_GbROz&index=2&pp=iAQB8AUB

@Lamarider said:
"Love this, exactly what you as a kid in late70's/early 80's use to build, perhaps not the most aesthetically pleasing sets but purely built for having fun."

Thank you so much, that’s exactly what I’m aiming for! The question now is are there enough classic LEGO fans who want this? I see most models that pass are completely tiled over and built for display instead of play, so curious if the BDP team selects a playset in the classic style like this

I must admit that I love the aesthetic! It makes me want to create MOCs only with the limited range of parts and colors of my childhood (the early 90s).

I love everything about this ......but would I actually buy it? Probably not. Maybe because I have no nostalgia for those Arctic sets, and this despite the massive size still feels like more like a play set for kids. Or in thise case, more like an entire play theme in a single set.

But despite my reservations, kudos to Denmark_Dragon for this awesome design!

This is a fun design and I dig the studsy retro look, but I think it would need a few more iterations before it becomes a viable set. I'm not sure you'd have enough time to do those iterations with BDP, unless you're actively working on it right now. For instance, the tiny treads on the mini vehicles aren't going to turn very well. I think this is a good idea that needs the bugs worked out with physical prototyping, not digital design.

Also, like @WizardOfOss mentioned, a lot of BDP entries, including this one, seem like an entire theme in one box, which makes it huge and expensive. I understand the incentive to do it all in one, but the huge size makes me more likely to vote "Not For Me" than "Like It" or "Love It". I think you'd get more positive votes, and a better chance at production, with something half the size. I like my play sets to be playset sized.

For comparison, WALT comes in at a svelte 646ish parts and $40 instead of being just one robot in a mammoth box of similar robots TOM, RICK, and JERRY like it could be if the creator had decided they needed to put in every variation of the build they could think of because they only got one shot.

@iwybs said:
"This is a fun design and I dig the studsy retro look, but I think it would need a few more iterations before it becomes a viable set. I'm not sure you'd have enough time to do those iterations with BDP, unless you're actively working on it right now. For instance, the tiny treads on the mini vehicles aren't going to turn very well. I think this is a good idea that needs the bugs worked out with physical prototyping, not digital design.

Also, like @WizardOfOss mentioned, a lot of BDP entries, including this one, seem like an entire theme in one box, which makes it huge and expensive. I understand the incentive to do it all in one, but the huge size makes me more likely to vote "Not For Me" than "Like It" or "Love It". I think you'd get more positive votes, and a better chance at production, with something half the size. I like my play sets to be playset sized.

For comparison, WALT comes in at a svelte 646ish parts and $40 instead of being just one robot in a mammoth box of similar robots TOM, RICK, and JERRY like it could be if the creator had decided they needed to put in every variation of the build they could think of because they only got one shot."

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I actually DID test the tiny treaded vehicles and they spin swimmingly. Part of my excitement for this design is being one of the first to offer these tiny treaded vehicles in a submission that actually roll great.

Yes, before submitting, I actually considered cutting off the second crawler and just having the one, it’s a question of scale and demand, you have to forgive me I went for the full theme experience, but like you mentioned, it may not be the most successful. Thanks for speaking, I’ll gather everything I hear in the comments and get back to the drawing board immediately for a submission in May for S 11!

I like it and would likely grab it. I really wish we could see some actual industrial buildings / factories. I don't know if TLG wants to see that type of structure, and I know the real solution it to make it myself, but I really would love to see something like a steel mill, with furnace and rolling mill or a chemical plant, a power station, a cement yard or a car factory. Somewhere that actually makes the machines and materials of the town.

@Denmark_Dragon: I'm glad to hear you did test the tiny tracked vehicles, that gives me more confidence in your submission. I think you could make your next entry stronger by showing pictures of working prototypes of the tiny tracked vehicles, or indeed a physical prototype of the whole thing.

With these big empty boxes for the main rovers and the intent that this should be a genuine playset for kids instead of a display item in a shelf or table town, I'm concerned about structural stability. The construction looks very simple, which allows maximum internal volume for storage and makes it easy to repair, but it also looks pretty fragile and not built to stand up to robust play. Photos or videos of a physical prototype could allay that concern. For example, the frigate in BDP 7 and the balloon in BDP 8 look fragile to me, but their creators included videos showing physical prototypes of their models holding up to a decent amount of shaking, which was convincing evidence that they're actually fairly robust.

Another way to improve your next submission would be to include some more of the illustrations in this article. The pictures of the features and contents in this article give me a much more complete understanding of how everything fits together for storytelling and play than the pictures of the features and contents in your BDP 10 entry page. However, you're still lacking a picture of how all the tiny vehicles and equipment pallets pack away inside or on top of the crawlers. It would give me a better sense of how it all fits together as a cohesive playset, rather than an oversized grab bag of this and that, if you showed how everything fits inside.

My last suggestion would be that you figure out how to split this into two or three smaller playsets, and then submit the smaller playsets separately and also submit the all-in-one set. Other BDP creators have done this. For example, one creator submitted a battle-in-a-box set with a Kraken knights longship and a medieval cog, but also submitted each ship separately. That would give a better understanding that this entry is "right-sized" for what it wants/needs to be, rather than being big for the sake of being big and throwing in the kitchen sink for the sake of throwing in the kitchen sink.

Maybe you could split it up this way:
1. The dogsleds, the small crawler, and the terrain builds.
2. The red crawler on its own, optimized to work as a standalone set at a ~$100-$120 price point.
3. The red crawler and the green crawler together, streamlined to fit a moderate mid-range (~$160?) price point as a standalone playset.
4. The all-in-one set with the dogsleds, the small crawler, the terrain builds, and the red and green crawler together with lots of accessories.

It's a fun and creative entry that's a breath of fresh air compared to a lot of very samey entries in other genres, and I wish you good luck, but those are my reservations about it in case you're interested.

I love it! This feels like a legitimately well designed playset with things like the cheater wheels, interiors, opening panels and all the small stuff that deploys. It reminds me of the old Space sets from the 80s and 90s.
I might be in the minority here but I like function over form, play over display and fun over prestige.

That said... it'll be big. Reaaaally big. I hope people will still like it at the price it might end up going for.

@iwybs said:
" @Denmark_Dragon: I'm glad to hear you did test the tiny tracked vehicles, that gives me more confidence in your submission. I think you could make your next entry stronger by showing pictures of working prototypes of the tiny tracked vehicles, or indeed a physical prototype of the whole thing.

With these big empty boxes for the main rovers and the intent that this should be a genuine playset for kids instead of a display item in a shelf or table town, I'm concerned about structural stability. The construction looks very simple, which allows maximum internal volume for storage and makes it easy to repair, but it also looks pretty fragile and not built to stand up to robust play. Photos or videos of a physical prototype could allay that concern. For example, the frigate in BDP 7 and the balloon in BDP 8 look fragile to me, but their creators included videos showing physical prototypes of their models holding up to a decent amount of shaking, which was convincing evidence that they're actually fairly robust.

Another way to improve your next submission would be to include some more of the illustrations in this article. The pictures of the features and contents in this article give me a much more complete understanding of how everything fits together for storytelling and play than the pictures of the features and contents in your BDP 10 entry page. However, you're still lacking a picture of how all the tiny vehicles and equipment pallets pack away inside or on top of the crawlers. It would give me a better sense of how it all fits together as a cohesive playset, rather than an oversized grab bag of this and that, if you showed how everything fits inside.

My last suggestion would be that you figure out how to split this into two or three smaller playsets, and then submit the smaller playsets separately and also submit the all-in-one set. Other BDP creators have done this. For example, one creator submitted a battle-in-a-box set with a Kraken knights longship and a medieval cog, but also submitted each ship separately. That would give a better understanding that this entry is "right-sized" for what it wants/needs to be, rather than being big for the sake of being big and throwing in the kitchen sink for the sake of throwing in the kitchen sink.

Maybe you could split it up this way:
1. The dogsleds, the small crawler, and the terrain builds.
2. The red crawler on its own, optimized to work as a standalone set at a ~$100-$120 price point.
3. The red crawler and the green crawler together, streamlined to fit a moderate mid-range (~$160?) price point as a standalone playset.
4. The all-in-one set with the dogsleds, the small crawler, the terrain builds, and the red and green crawler together with lots of accessories.

It's a fun and creative entry that's a breath of fresh air compared to a lot of very samey entries in other genres, and I wish you good luck, but those are my reservations about it in case you're interested."

Last I check it’s about $1,300 to buy the pieces on Bricklink to build, so that would be the holdup on doing full physical testing.

But thanks for laying this all out I will ponder the possibilities. Although the structure may seem simple, I had designed it with a fair consideration for stability in mind, however, yes, you’re exactly right, There may be improvements that come to light if a physical build is possible.

Many more thoughts, but it’s great to hear some detail them put in your breakdown, I’m very glad that it was a breath of fresh air, I wanted to bring something desirable and unique to the BDP and classic LEGO Arctic stood out to me.

Thanks!

@Binnekamp said:
"I love it! This feels like a legitimately well designed playset with things like the cheater wheels, interiors, opening panels and all the small stuff that deploys. It reminds me of the old Space sets from the 80s and 90s.
I might be in the minority here but I like function over form, play over display and fun over prestige.

That said... it'll be big. Reaaaally big. I hope people will still like it at the price it might end up going for."

Thanks so much! Yes, the Em, Ron’s MegaCorp magnetizer and its deployable vehicle. Vehicles was a huge inspiration for some of the small snow Rovers in the set!

You’re right, I may need to play around with the scale of the model to make it more affordable, or if people don’t want quite as big of a play set.

Classic LEGO always seemed to put function, play, and fun above all else, wrapped in a splash of primary colors

I think my biggest concession here is that all of the previous BDP finalists are very smooth, tiled over models in the modern Lego aesthetic, in other words, I’m not sure if the BDP program is suited to accepting retro LEGO builds. Thanks so much though!

@Denmark_Dragon said:
"Last I check it’s about $1,300 to buy the pieces on Bricklink to build, so that would be the holdup on doing full physical testing.

But thanks for laying this all out I will ponder the possibilities. Although the structure may seem simple, I had designed it with a fair consideration for stability in mind, however, yes, you’re exactly right, There may be improvements that come to light if a physical build is possible.

Many more thoughts, but it’s great to hear some detail them put in your breakdown, I’m very glad that it was a breath of fresh air, I wanted to bring something desirable and unique to the BDP and classic LEGO Arctic stood out to me.

Thanks!"

Your physical prototype doesn't need to be production-representative. It can have substitute parts and parts in different colors. It just needs to be something that'll let you work out the structural and stability problems with physical parts. Here are some specific concerns about stability:
1. For the small crawler, the hook end of the winch is reinforced but the reel end is not, so the line will come off the reel with a small tug.
2. The 3-wide tiny crawlers are cute, but the trailer hinges are off-center and that'll make steering them awkward. Also, the off-center seating makes them unbalanced. They're small enough that it won't make a big impact, but that still gives me pause.
3. The base decks of the large crawlers appear to be build on crosslinked Technic bricks, but I don't see any vertical links to tie the decks to the crawler drivetrain structure underneath or to the superstructure on top. I'm worried that the treads will just separate from the deck, and that the superstructure will just collapse.
4. The walls and roof are cleverly reinforced when the crawlers are closed up and under way, but not when they're open and stationary. When folded up with the outside lights plugged in, the side walls are pin-connected to the roof and the roof is attached to the front and back walls and rafters by studs. This seems fairly sturdy when it's all connected, but the connections still seem fragile. The outside lights have no other connection to the structure than the pin holes for the side walls, so when the roof is off and the sidewalls are down the lights are removed. That's not ideal for play; I'd prefer if the lights were still attached to the front and back walls so they can be used as porch lights for play. On either side of the roof, long rods of Technic axles joined by Technic axle connectors go between the front and the back walls so that the outside lights can go the plates with pin holes and plug into them, but those long rods don't seem to be attached to the roof at all. Instead, they seem to be floating in the air in several renderings. The roof should be redesigned so that these floating rods are secured to the roof by plates with pin holes.

@iwybs said:
" @Denmark_Dragon said:
"Last I check it’s about $1,300 to buy the pieces on Bricklink to build, so that would be the holdup on doing full physical testing.

But thanks for laying this all out I will ponder the possibilities. Although the structure may seem simple, I had designed it with a fair consideration for stability in mind, however, yes, you’re exactly right, There may be improvements that come to light if a physical build is possible.

Many more thoughts, but it’s great to hear some detail them put in your breakdown, I’m very glad that it was a breath of fresh air, I wanted to bring something desirable and unique to the BDP and classic LEGO Arctic stood out to me.

Thanks!"

Your physical prototype doesn't need to be production-representative. It can have substitute parts and parts in different colors. It just needs to be something that'll let you work out the structural and stability problems with physical parts. Here are some specific concerns about stability:
1. For the small crawler, the hook end of the winch is reinforced but the reel end is not, so the line will come off the reel with a small tug.
2. The 3-wide tiny crawlers are cute, but the trailer hinges are off-center and that'll make steering them awkward. Also, the off-center seating makes them unbalanced. They're small enough that it won't make a big impact, but that still gives me pause.
3. The base decks of the large crawlers appear to be build on crosslinked Technic bricks, but I don't see any vertical links to tie the decks to the crawler drivetrain structure underneath or to the superstructure on top. I'm worried that the treads will just separate from the deck, and that the superstructure will just collapse.
4. The walls and roof are cleverly reinforced when the crawlers are closed up and under way, but not when they're open and stationary. When folded up with the outside lights plugged in, the side walls are pin-connected to the roof and the roof is attached to the front and back walls and rafters by studs. This seems fairly sturdy when it's all connected, but the connections still seem fragile. The outside lights have no other connection to the structure than the pin holes for the side walls, so when the roof is off and the sidewalls are down the lights are removed. That's not ideal for play; I'd prefer if the lights were still attached to the front and back walls so they can be used as porch lights for play. On either side of the roof, long rods of Technic axles joined by Technic axle connectors go between the front and the back walls so that the outside lights can go the plates with pin holes and plug into them, but those long rods don't seem to be attached to the roof at all. Instead, they seem to be floating in the air in several renderings. The roof should be redesigned so that these floating rods are secured to the roof by plates with pin holes.

"

Valid inquiries, PM me and we can take a look at the studio model together and discuss ideas

Sorry but this is just... ugly and not polished.