Quick look: 42163 Heavy Duty Bulldozer

Typo at the end @Huw -picked-money and not pocket-money.
Great little set though, a classic of the Technic line, and enough function to give the idea of what Technic is all about

Picked this up in the USA, and the box is slightly smaller than for comparable sets such as 42148 . I don't know if that's just how American packaging is, or if 2024 is ushering in a move to less packaging perhaps...?

@Banners said:
"Picked this up in the USA, and the box is slightly smaller than for comparable sets such as 42148 . I don't know if that's just how American packaging is, or if 2024 is ushering in a move to less packaging perhaps...?"

That's a very small box.

@Banners said:
"Picked this up in the USA, and the box is slightly smaller than for comparable sets such as 42148 . I don't know if that's just how American packaging is, or if 2024 is ushering in a move to less packaging perhaps...?"

Noticed the same here. Looking across the January wave of sets, it seems a few boxes in same price ranges are downsized/upsized. Saw more variety than usual

It looks good, but i think last years Dump truck just looks better overall.

A question: if you like a small model like this but you have all of its parts already in your collection, do you buy the set anyway or do you download the free instructions and build it from your parts?

@thor96 said:
"A question: if you like a small model like this but you have all of its parts already in your collection, do you buy the set anyway or do you download the free instructions and build it from your parts?"
I could actually see myself do both :-)

I should have all of the pieces to build it, though maybe not all in the right color. But even when I said earlier it looks closer to a polybag than a €10 set, just looking at the parts inventory it seems like a pretty decent deal. Especially for those 48 track pieces, you can never have too many of those. So while this by no means seems like a must buy to me, I might just grab one (or a few) whenever I see it at a discount.

This set is a disgrace compared even to last year's 10 euro sets, especially the similar 42148 Snow Groomer. It looks like a polybag set, it has only one function (there is not even a ripper) and it is the one that killed the Technic B-model for good, which I am particularly bitter about. I even managed to make a better bulldozer MOC out of the snow groomer than this (check Rebrickable).

Not a big fan of Technic, but these tiny Erector-set type models I could get behind

Looks quite nice enough to possibly convert to a partly brick built configuration so a minifig could sit on it.

The last Yellow dozer for minifigs was 60074 : Bulldozer , that's 9 years ago.

@thor96 said:
"A question: if you like a small model like this but you have all of its parts already in your collection, do you buy the set anyway or do you download the free instructions and build it from your parts?"

So far I've only had that happen once - with 30465. I marked that one as "do not buy". I expect I'll do the same if/when I find more sets I can build from spares, unless there are some rare pieces I really want to have more of.

I bought this one largely because it gives me a whole bunch of technic pieces to add functionality to my system builds. It was a fun quick build, but will be parted out soon!

Is it weird that I want to pick it up and cuddle with it? :D This is the cutest bulldozer ever!

This is on my to-buy list but I think I'll wait for a 10-20% drop, which some stores in the UK do relatively often. I'm not too thrilled by the idea of putting the tracks together and it looks a little weaker as a model than a lot of the other £9 Technic sets we've had in recent years.

I also bought the £13 off-road buggy from this year's range and that is just an absolutely stellar set and a much better buy than I imagine this would be.

Every year there's a small Technic set with these track pieces.

@HOBBES said:
"Some Lego enthusiasts might not be aware of this, but there is a site called: Rebrickable."
I think most people here are aware of that. But would the average Lego customer be?

It's a nice little set, but it should cost 30-40% less if the B-model is not included, right? Maybe next year they will skip the paper instructions too. Or even better, sell the parts in a plain white paper bag with some minimalistic pictograms. That should maximize their profits.

@WizardOfOss said:
" @HOBBES said:
"Some Lego enthusiasts might not be aware of this, but there is a site called: Rebrickable."
I think most people here are aware of that. But would the average Lego customer be?"

The average consumer either doesn't know about b-models or doesn't care.

@Goujon said:
"Absolutely love this this set, small, cheap and a decent looking build. just a shame that we dont get alternate builds anymore, im excited to see what the technic MOC community comes up with. "

Had the same thought--my first Technic set was 8020 and I absolutely loved that set. This set is very cute, but in the end only has one function (two if you count the caterpillar tracks). 8020 was simpler and yet had a ton more functionality and play value.

@ra226 said:
"Had the same thought--my first Technic set was 8020 and I absolutely loved that set. This set is very cute, but in the end only has one function (two if you count the caterpillar tracks). 8020 was simpler and yet had a ton more functionality and play value."

That was my first Technic set too. I never understood why they stopped making such Universal sets. I mean, just 119 pieces, but look what you could make from it. Then also got the 8055 , and only after those as a solid base I got a few bigger sets, like 8853 and 8865 . Notice the color pattern? ;-)

@DaBigE said:
"The average consumer either doesn't know about b-models or doesn't care. "
Isn't that just sad? More and more it seems like Lego is just testing how far they can go with cutting corners without too many customers running away.

I'm very sad that they stopped doing the 2 in 1 on their technic sets.

B-model was free.
Rebrickable isnt (for the good ones)

@johnnytifosi said:
" @DaBigE said:
"The average consumer either doesn't know about b-models or doesn't care. "

The B-model was on the back side of the box, it was hard not to know. And I cared a lot about B-models, pulling random arguments about the "average consumer" without any proof is just condescending."

I never said it was hard to know it was there. It's not some "random argument" (especially when it's been brought up time and time again on these forums); calling it condescending is a tad melodramatic, just because my observation doesn't match yours. More often than not, I see people grab the box off the shelf without giving the backside another thought. Parents are trying to appease their kid -- as was the products' original intention.

I admitted earlier on that I may be an outlier about the lack of an official B-model being no big deal. You have to agree that AFOLs on this forum are not the same as the average consumer.

@R0Sch said:
"Can you find the mistake here? And this is taken from the digital catalog...
https://i.imgur.com/3I7XP9H.png"
Heh. The 2-in-1 logo has been applied to the secondary pic, even though there is no B-model.

Most buyers just build the main item as a fidget set or to display, as difficult to vary that much with around 48 of the pieces just for the track. I can see potential for the tracks to be used as a conveyor belt when included with a larger set, and some useful beams and connectors.

@WizardOfOss said:
" @DaBigE said:
"To me personally, no, it's not sad. Outside of the AFOL world, it's not likey that big of a deal. Apparently I am an outlier, but I've never bought a Technic set based on the B-model. I never have nor never will understand all the anguish about this issue. The whole point of Lego is to spark imagination, yet the sky is falling if there aren't official instructions/photos for a B-model. Can people not think for themselves anymore? Need inspiration? Look out the window, take a walk, surf the web. Still upset? Let Lego know with your wallet."
Then I wonder: would you mind if they would skip the A-model too and just sell you a big box of pieces?

As a kid, I always built every B-model. And tried to replicate all of the alternate builds shown on the box. And then take it apart to probably never build the official build again. Especially for Technic, I didn't pick most sets for the actual builds, but mostly because of specific parts I wanted to have. This was obviously long before Bricklink. Or internet in general....

Also, as with everything there's a learning curve. With Technic even more so, especially since they went studless. Give a 7yo kid with zero Technic experience just some Technic pieces, and I doubt it would result in a properly working mechanism. Building according to instructions helps to learn the basics. No B-model means half of the learning material.

But in what way does Lego themselves actually "spark the imagination"? Apart from Classic and Creator 3-in-1, everything they do is about one specific build and that one specific build only. 4+ sets might even be the worst offenders, often build around a big, highly specialized base piece, which makes it nearly impossible to build something truly different from those pieces. And that's where it all starts with kids. No more alternate builds, no more B-models, no more ideas books. You want something else? Just get another set. Selling inspiration doesn't make Lego any money.

If I want to annoy my youngest nephew (8), I take one of his Lego trains that haven't been taken apart from the moment he got them a few years ago, and then make just a tiny modification to it. "That's not how it's supposed to be!" And how dare I even think of taking it apart and making something else of it? And his older brother and sister are even worse. Kids acting as collectors, not builders. Whenever I visit them they always want me to build something for them. But help me, or build something themselves? Forget about it...."

When Lego offered parts packs, yes I bought those. But you're also taking things to the extreme case. Learning curves aside, children learn, by trial and error. Spoon-feeding them everything is not going to help, and your example of your nephew proves that. Unless you're breaking pieces on a regular basis, saying there's a right and wrong way to build is silly.

There's nothing wrong with B-models, but constantly bemoaning their lack in this day and age is getting old. In the days before the internet, sure B-models were much more relevant and arguably necessary. But with so many other resources at your fingertips (if you can regular afford Technic sets, you can afford an internet connection), its need is not that prevalent, at least from my perspective.

You have a point with Juniors sets, but then again, they're intended to get children into the basics of Lego (a step or two away from Duplo). Even with the rest of their lineup, there's no law that says you have to maintain the original build at all times and forever. I've never seen a final instruction say that. There isn't a regular set that I haven't modified in some way, and I've been doing that since I was ~10. If sets weren't intended to be taken apart and rebuilt in another form, Lego would be sending model kits with glue. MOCs wouldn't exist.

@R0Sch said:
"Can you find the mistake here? And this is taken from the digital catalog...
https://i.imgur.com/3I7XP9H.png"

There you have it! With the blade down it is model A and with the blade up it is model B. Solved!

@DaBigE said:
"When Lego offered parts packs, yes I bought those."
Ah yes, another type of product purely aimed at using your own imagination, gone.

"Learning curves aside, children learn, by trial and error. Spoon-feeding them everything is not going to help (....)"
So all can and should be learned from one single "lesson", everything beyond that is "spoon feeding"? I think there could (and should) be a middle ground. Learn the basics, then use those (indeed by trial and error) to do your own thing. But without knowing the basics, things tend to get frustrating quickly.

"(...), and your example of your nephew proves that."
How?

"Unless you're breaking pieces on a regular basis, saying there's a right and wrong way to build is silly."Nothing is breaking, it's just different from what the box says it should be. I don't know how much experience with kids that age you have, but they're rather stubborn little creatures....

"There's nothing wrong with B-models, but constantly bemoaning their lack in this day and age is getting old. In the days before the internet, sure B-models were much more relevant and arguably necessary. But with so many other resources at your fingertips (if you can regular afford Technic sets, you can afford an internet connection), its need is not that prevalent, at least from my perspective."
That's the other thing with kids: You don't want them to be watching a screen all day.
(and don't say just print it.....kids look straight trough that)

And if Lego really thinks B-models are obsolete because something like Rebrickable exist, than they could at least (like HOBBES already suggested) mention them on the box or in the instructions.

But just because things are "getting" old doesn't mean they stop being bad. I mean, many AFOLS have accepted (or even defend!) other issues with nowadays Lego like their overuse of stickers or color inconsistenties. I will keep complaining about things I don't like. And it will prevent me from buying some otherwise pretty good sets.

It's just another bit of penny-pinching by Lego while prices generally keep going up, and I don't like that.

"You have a point with Juniors sets, but then again, they're intended to get children into the basics of Lego (a step or two away from Duplo)."
Except they hardly do. The building process of any 5+ set is wildly different from those 4+. And in complexity well beyond what kids that age would come up with themselves.

I still think that was one of the good things of the 4-wide era: Those sets were just like a kid that age would build themselves. And would build on from there. Learn the basics, then apply that to their own creations. It wasn't particularly fancy, but it was like a system.

If you'd ask my, I'd say the 4+ range should be all about building with mostly pretty basic elements, preferably even in a limited range of colors. And expand from there for older ages, with more unique pieces, colors and building techniques.

"Even with the rest of their lineup, there's no law that says you have to maintain the original build at all times and forever. I've never seen a final instruction say that."
Absolutely. But there's also absolutely nothing even suggesting that you should. There's only those annoying adults that keep saying that. And what kid listens to adults?

In fact, if me and my brother had been telling them from young age that they *shouldn't* take their sets apart, that might have actually had more effect ;-)

"If sets weren't intended to be taken apart and rebuilt in another form, Lego would be sending model kits with glue. MOCs wouldn't exist."
Release the Kragle!

Funny thing: I've given my oldest nephew (11) a few Gundam kits now, which aren't glued but still aren't really meant to be taken apart after building. Yet he keeps doing that and mixing parts up between those sets, And well, often breaking parts in the process....

As for MOCs, when I returned from my dark ages, I was kinda baffled there was even a specific term for that. I mean, who in

@EtudeTheBadger said:
" @DaBigE said:
"When Lego offered parts packs, yes I bought those. But you're also taking things to the extreme case. Learning curves aside, children learn, by trial and error. Spoon-feeding them everything is not going to help, and your example of your nephew proves that. Unless you're breaking pieces on a regular basis, saying there's a right and wrong way to build is silly."

Including a B-model isn't about spoon-feeding anything to anyone. A B-model adds value to a set and increases its appeal. And no, I will never understand the whole "find a MOC online to build" argument. As I've said before, TLG relying on the fan community to devise alternates is the very definition of taking the easy way out.

Less investment, more profit all the way."

Bull. A second set of instructions is spoon-feeding you a new idea to build. Zero imagination involved. The only place I can slightly agree with you is on the amount of investment on Lego's part.

@WizardOfOss said:
" ...lots of words that completely miss my point"

Building the model teaches you the basics. Kids are free to use their imagination beyond that. A B-model helps reinforce the need for instructions on how to do anything. You said your nephew won't let you take anything apart because "that's how it's supposed to be". Your nephew either really likes the original model or is locked on the notion that how the instructions show is the *only* way. Having a B-model helps reinforce the latter mindset, which is not the intention of Lego as a TOY. Children aren't so tied up in the notion of what is the best value. The model included is meant as a starting point, allowing children to use their imagination to rebuild the bricks into what they want. Are B-models a bonus from a financial standpoint? Yes. But the angst about only having one set of instructions will always baffle me. Nothing that has been said will change my mind on that. Why not insist on Lego having B-models for ALL lines?

Instructions help guide the path for proper building techniques to prevent parts from breaking. As I alluded to earlier, you don't *need* a screen (or instructions) to come up with new ideas. Going for a walk involves ZERO screens (and is healthy exercise). The world is FULL of inspiration; no instructions needed.

@DaBigE said:
"Bull. A second set of instructions is spoon-feeding you a new idea to build. Zero imagination involved. The only place I can slightly agree with you is on the amount of investment on Lego's part."

B-models and MOCs aren't mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure that even with an official alternate, people would still find other things to build. Official alternates don't decrease creativity; if anything, they increase it by giving an example of how parts can be repurposed.

Case in point? 42004. Great B-model, and it has some cool C-models as well. But the C-models are there to offer an alternative to the B-model. They should not be the ONLY alternate.

I'd say having a cool B-model is a pretty good incentive to take the set apart after building it...

As for B-models for all lines.....yes, I still think it was a bad move they stopped showing alternate builds on the back of boxes. Ones that generally didn't really need instructions as even for the average kid it was easy enough to replicate that. Maybe not exactly, but the general idea. As inspiration. As a starting point, not as the finish line. Technic just tends to be a bit more complex, so I get why for decades they included some additional instructions.

I just don't see how showing alternatives would actually stop people from using their own imagination beyond that. At least no more than showing them just one single option and never ever even mention the possibility to do something different with it.

One of my favorite Lego themes nowadays, especially for kids, will always be Creator 3-in-1. Exactly because it is "spoonfeeding" kids the concept that from one single set they can make a bunch of completely different things. I just fail to see how that could ever be considered a bad thing.

@EtudeTheBadger said:
" @DaBigE said:
"Bull. A second set of instructions is spoon-feeding you a new idea to build. Zero imagination involved. The only place I can slightly agree with you is on the amount of investment on Lego's part."

I'm pretty sure that even with an official alternate, people would still find other things to build."

Thank you for proving my point. The lack of a B-model doesn't mean the sky is falling as some AFOLs make it sound like. Official B-model instructions only serve to satisfy the "without a B-model, TLG is ripping me off" crowd. Life goes on without a B-model.

@DaBigE said:
"Life goes on without a B-model."
Life goes on without Lego. With that in mind, can there even ever be a reason to criticize Lego? Or should we just praise everything they do?

I originally had zero interest in this set, but after reading all the comments arguing about B-models and throwing insults at Rebrickable, I decided to check out 42163's alternate models on there. Lo and behold, already there's 8 alternate builds, ALL FREE, and most of them look pretty nice.

Gonna pick up this set next time I'm out and about!

@DaBigE said:
"Thank you for proving my point. The lack of a B-model doesn't mean the sky is falling as some AFOLs make it sound like. Official B-model instructions only serve to satisfy the "without a B-model, TLG is ripping me off" crowd. Life goes on without a B-model."

No. You were postulating that the presence of a B-model squelches creativity - when it clearly does not. By your logic, the Creator theme... stifles creativity?

Moreover, TLG has even acknowledged that B-models exist to provide inspiration - see the B-model build and description for 42023.

@WizardOfOss said:
" @DaBigE said:
"Life goes on without a B-model."
Life goes on without Lego. With that in mind, can there even ever be a reason to criticize Lego? Or should we just praise everything they do?

"

Little bit of a leap, don't you think? Where did I ever say we can't or should never criticize TLG? The constant beamoaning of B-models is what's getting old (and the attacks on anyone who dares disagree on the topic).

@EtudeTheBadger said:
" @DaBigE said:
"Thank you for proving my point. The lack of a B-model doesn't mean the sky is falling as some AFOLs make it sound like. Official B-model instructions only serve to satisfy the "without a B-model, TLG is ripping me off" crowd. Life goes on without a B-model."

No. You were postulating that the presence of a B-model squelches creativity - when it clearly does not. By your logic, the Creator theme... stifles creativity?

Moreover, TLG has even acknowledged that B-models exist to provide inspiration - see the B-model build and description for 42023."

Stifle creativity? No, that's not what I said. It builds dependence on instructions. You can't lump the whole Creator theme in the same bucket... they're not all marketed the same way.

@DaBigE said:
"Stifle creativity? No, that's not what I said. It builds dependence on instructions."

Again, 42004, which I would define as the complete Technic building experience - official A and B-models, plus C-models; the latter would surely disprove any claim of reliance on instructions. One review even suggests that one could use the parts to build any kind of construction vehicle, with the main model and the alternate being used as jumping-off points. All this for £17.99. Incredible.

That's the problem with TLG discontinuing B-models, at least to me; sets without them feel incomplete. And that is a major issue with this set. It's a nice little dozer, but the back of the box needs something else.

@DaBigE said:
"Little bit of a leap, don't you think? Where did I ever say we can't or should never criticize TLG? The constant beamoaning of B-models is what's getting old (and the attacks on anyone who dares disagree on the topic). "

Well, if you consider it an attack, it was actually just a counterattack. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

But if this is a leap, please enlighten us: Which criticisms should still be allowed, and which are "getting old"?

@WizardOfOss said:
" @DaBigE said:
"Little bit of a leap, don't you think? Where did I ever say we can't or should never criticize TLG? The constant beamoaning of B-models is what's getting old (and the attacks on anyone who dares disagree on the topic). "

Well, if you consider it an attack, it was actually just a counterattack. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

But if this is a leap, please enlighten us: Which criticisms should still be allowed, and which are "getting old"? "

Yes, sir, keyboard warrior sir. [/s salute]

Again, twisting/putting words that aren't there. I only said getting old, nowhere did I ever insinuate something shouldn't be allowed. You apparently are incapable of someone's viewpoint not being lockstep with yours.

The pot calling the kettle black?

But sorry for "attacking" you. I will never ever question your viewpoints again. If "getting old" means no interest in arguments but just being pedantic, suit yourself.