Does 75413 Republic Juggernaut fall apart when handled?
Posted by CapnRex101,
The summer LEGO Star Wars has proven rather contentious, partly because of possible stability issues with 75413 Republic Juggernaut, which is obviously a major concern.
The problem was originally raised in Solid Brix Studios' review of the set and has been widely discussed since, so I thought I should check for myself and examine why this might be the case, ahead of a full review later this week.
To answer the title question, the Republic Juggernaut definitely has stability issues. I think the best way to describe the issue is not necessarily as a fundamental flaw with the model, but an annoying weakness. Handling the vehicle by the side panels or roof is likely to cause problems and I can easily imagine children trying to grip it from the roof, in particular.
The causes are fairly obvious once the model is assembled. Sets like this often incorporate a layer of Technic bricks beneath the floor and another under the roof, connected using Technic beams to create a rigid box. All three older iterations of the Turbo Tank at this scale have used essentially the same technique, shown in their instruction manuals below.
However, this design lacks the layer of Technic bricks underneath the roof. There are a pair of vertical Technic beams behind the cockpit, reinforcing the pillars towards the front, but they do not reach the roof. As a result, these pillars generally remain intact, but those further back tend to break if you lift the model around the opening panels on the sides.
Having said that, many people would probably be drawn to holding the Juggernaut around the middle or from underneath, in which case, it seems quite strong. Even so, the roof is unusually thin and made even more fragile by a removable panel in its centre.
7261 Clone Turbo Tank
8098 Clone Turbo Tank
75151 Clone Turbo Tank
Like so many things in the world of LEGO, there have been hyperbolic reactions to the tank's fragility, but I do think this is a concern worth raising. Although it is far from a disastrous issue that could result in the model being recalled, I can see this set undergoing some changes mid-production.
I am reminded of 79104 The Shellraiser Street Case, a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles set from 2013. The titular model had a major stability issue and received a running change between its launch in January and July, shown in the differences between the first edition of the instruction manual and the second version.
Personally, I think the problems with the Shellraiser were much worse than those with the new Turbo Tank, at least where its structure is concerned, but I do still see a need to strengthen the vehicle, so I hope LEGO considers making a few upgrades.
156 likes
90 comments on this article
I remember when I got my Lego shellraiser, I was fanatical about getting the revised edition of it. It’s disappointing that a literal tank is so fragile; I’m pretty surprised such an unstable design made it to market.
Good on LEGO for trying their best to get some healthy competition going.
The justification of so-called "shrinkflation" is supposed to be that builds are now denser and more sturdy than 20 years ago, making them more durable for play. It's disappointing that a set which is markedly downsized from previous iterations despite the high price still has significant structural weakness, particularly in an area where it is likely to be played with.
@Juggernaut said:
"NOTHING CAN STOP THE JUGGERNAUT!"
@Doom said:
"That appears... untrue."
I don’t like the new boxes either. :-(
The cost of smaller set designs?
Certainly unfortunate. I would have to agree with @GirlWoman, I would imagine there wasn't much room for beams below the roof. I am surprised this didn't get caught during testing, or if it did, that they left it. Reminds me of sets from 20 years ago, rather than the rock hard assemblies we're used to today.
Thanks for the PSA Cap'n.
Shrinkflation, worse printing of minifigs, worse color-matching on pieces and stickers, inflated prices, and now, a retrograde to the early era of part-shedding..... combined with record sales and profits.
Not a good time to be a Lego Star Wars fan. :(
AT-AT 75288 falls easily apart during careful play and leg movement. When I reported it Lego wanted video proof.
I partly understand sending proof but just as with the case above: ‘how could they not know’.
They should have put 18+ on the box, then it becomes an adult collectable for display rather than a toy and the problem goes away.
The issue is not the handling, the issue is the fragility. I'm simply baffled by how fragile this seems to be. Not a good look (for € 150,- no less) and this thing will be remembered as the turd that it is.
@GirlWoman said:
"The cost of smaller set designs?"
Usually the smaller modern sets are more parts-dense and therefore more durable, e.g. 75312 which is actually annoyingly hard to break apart.
"Is a toy" when talking about quality and "actually an adult collectable" when talking about price
But yes, there's been plenty of similar sized sets that you can mess around with and they don't fall apart so easily. I got the latest AT-TE earlier this year and is so much more well designed to play with.
If you don't use technic pieces, make sure everything is fixed in place with conncted brackets. This is a bit concerning, why was this not detected in QA?
@xoddam said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"The cost of smaller set designs?"
Usually the smaller modern sets are more parts-dense and therefore more durable, e.g. 75312 which is actually annoyingly hard to break apart."
Which is true, but in this case the need to have a substantial interior in such a small space means there's not much room for any part density. I suppose less a cost of smaller sets in general but more a cost of a smaller set in this case.
What I can't wrap my head around is the use of bricks as wheels.
I know TLG has used ABS plastic for wheels — like cart wheels, and 'space wheels' 2515, 6118, and small wheels like 55889 — but to use a significant amount of regular bricks for wheels, which will get scuffed during play and then nearly unusable in any other way, is a serious lapse in design, IMHO.
I used to put sticky tape on inverted round curved plates sometimes used on the bottom of sets, so they wouldn't get scratched — kids will have to put short elastic bands around all of the tyres of this set.
8098 and 75151 also had retractable handles to use for picking them up.
I'm sad that kids will never be able to experience the scale of the 2010 model and have to settle for overpriced, poorly designed sets like this.
@VictorvanSchagen said:
"What I can't wrap my head around is the use of bricks as wheels.
I know TLG has used ABS plastic for wheels — like cart wheels, and 'space wheels' 2515, 6118, and small wheels like 55889 — but to use a significant amount of regular bricks for wheels, which will get scuffed during play and then nearly unusable in any other way, is a serious lapse in design, IMHO.
I used to put sticky tape on inverted round curved plates sometimes used on the bottom of sets, so they wouldn't get scratched — kids will have to put short elastic bands around all of the tyres of this set."
Presumably that depends on your flooring. Playing on carpet is different to playing on a hard floor.
Sorry, @CapnRex101, but I've read your article first, then watched the video you are referring to and I must say, I'm ultimately with Solid Brix Studios. He has points there, and his conclusion is reasonable after just what I have watched. Please don't be too apologetic when writing your review; making up excuses for a set that already destroyed itself by the price alone wouldn't look good.
@Broken_Cheese_Slope said:
"I'm sad that kids will never be able to experience the scale of the 2010 model and have to settle for overpriced, poorly designed sets like this. "
I feel the same way about 6211, 7662, and 75243.
I'm just happy that I have 75151.
So much better imho - in just about every aspect.
The alternate universe UT-AT is looking pretty good now. No denying that downsizing and choosing aesthetics over durability has cost them. They could be forgiven if this set was appropriately priced at $120 (because its unrealistic to expect $80 when lego have clearly poured all their minifig spunk into these summer sets)
@jkb said:
"Sorry, @CapnRex101 , but I've read your article first, then watched the video you are referring to and I must say, I'm ultimately with Solid Brix Studios. He has points there, and his conclusion is reasonable after just what I have watched. Please don't be too apologetic when writing your review; making up excuses for a set that already destroyed itself by the price alone wouldn't look good."
I agree with him, so I am not sure what the problem is.
My point expressed in the article is that there is definitely a stability issue that needs fixing, but not one so terrible that the set should be withdrawn or anything that dramatic. 79104 The Shellraiser Street Chase was worse and that received a running change, so I think this model should as well.
Keep in mind, the bar for a set to be withdrawn because of construction problems must be extremely high because I cannot remember the last time it happened.
So this used to be a 1,500 piece set. And then Lego thought: what parts can be removed without it falling apart just by looking at it?
@merman said:
"So this used to be a 1,500 piece set. And then Lego thought: what parts can be removed without it falling apart just by looking at it?"
Not really, as this would have been designed from scratch and presumably to meet a specific price point rather than taking an existing model and removing parts.
@xoddam said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"The cost of smaller set designs?"
Usually the smaller modern sets are more parts-dense and therefore more durable, e.g. 75312 which is actually annoyingly hard to break apart."
Yeah this is the other side of the coin which I also don't really appreciate about modern lego set design. This rock-solid construction of hundreds of tiny bricks does not encourage taking sets apart and re-assembling and moc-ing your own creativity.
@CCC said:
" @merman said:
"So this used to be a 1,500 piece set. And then Lego thought: what parts can be removed without it falling apart just by looking at it?"
Not really, as this would have been designed from scratch and presumably to meet a specific price point rather than taking an existing model and removing parts."
I was being sarcastic
Considering the combination of absurd pricing, downscaling, stability issues as well as some minifigures that leave quite a lot to be desired this must be one of the worst LSW sets in quite a while.
I am actually surprised this set has not received more negative press than it has at this point.
@GirlWoman said:
" @xoddam said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"The cost of smaller set designs?"
Usually the smaller modern sets are more parts-dense and therefore more durable, e.g. 75312 which is actually annoyingly hard to break apart."
Yeah this is the other side of the coin which I also don't really appreciate about modern lego set design. This rock-solid construction of hundreds of tiny bricks does not encourage taking sets apart and re-assembling and moc-ing your own creativity. "
I agree. When I was a kid I did a lot of creative play. I used to break off engines and wings as if a ship had crashed, separate cockpit modules as if they were escape pods and add extra guns to make ships more powerful. You can't do that with a lot of the builds we get these days.
Funnily enough, sets getting stronger and stronger - and thus harder to take apart - is actually one of the things I *don't* like about modern sets so much. I feel like they discourage taking something apart to build something new.
This isn't quite what I had in mind though. But it's very surprising to have a set be so fragile at its core. The odd bit falling off easily is one thing, and even that's rare enough. I can see how technic beams might limit access to the interior, but they've never shied away from that in the past.
TONS of todays sets are fragile and I am REALLY tired of it.
I owned 7261 in my youth and remember it being similarly fragile when not picked up from below - specifically from between the main troop bay floor and the wheels - despite it having a technic frame like the article says
well this is a rather unusual situation.
"What a piece of junk!"
- The LEGO Fan Community, apparently.
I don’t want to hear any more complaints about BLDP sets.
@GirlWoman said:
" @xoddam said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"The cost of smaller set designs?"
Usually the smaller modern sets are more parts-dense and therefore more durable, e.g. 75312 which is actually annoyingly hard to break apart."
Yeah this is the other side of the coin which I also don't really appreciate about modern lego set design. This rock-solid construction of hundreds of tiny bricks does not encourage taking sets apart and re-assembling and moc-ing your own creativity. "
I have to admit, when I was a kid, handling LEGO sets meant to be super careful. One could, If one wanted, interpret it as another thing modern LEGO doesn't teach kids anymore. Other examples: simple instructions and colour blocking = not teaching attention, pre-sorted bags = not teaching patience, specialized parts = no creativity etc. pp. But there are always two sides.
The last time I had REAL problems handling a model - as an adult - was 31131. Always forgetting to grab it by the base and by the base only X).
For me this was a starship collection set due to its size and structure priced at 100 dolars. Than lego decides to include some minifigures and double the price.
Now there is a chance they recognize their fault and retire the set from shelves. Than it will become a rare and overlooked set in the secondary market.
This is such a laughable set, I'm sry. I was so hyped up when this set was 1st rumored b/c I missed out on the older versions. Then I saw the leak, was let down by it but still wanted to give it a fair chance. But upon seeing David's review the other day, my opinion on this set has completely soured. So much so that what was once going to be a day 1 purchase is no longer a feasible purchase for me. This set is a scam by Lego. The interior and stability proved that. Shame on Lego for trying to pass this off. This makes 75151 look like a top 10 set of all-time.
The Jugger-not
@CamberbrickGreen said:
"AT-AT 75288 falls easily apart during careful play and leg movement."
I actually grabbed mine the same way turbo tanks are held in the reviews, by the side panels, and it held very well, even when shook.
I do normally carry the set by the underbelly, but the legs give you plenty of opening. If a kid is picking up the tank from the floor I see them grabbing it by the top panels.
@TheBrickBulbasaur said:
"I actually grabbed mine the same way turbo tanks are held in the reviews, by the side panels, and it held very well, even when shook. ."
I couldn’t decide what to go with here.
A) It’s not yet released so…
2) if you shake it too often, you’ll go blind
So Lego going to cancel and recall all stock? Another 42113 in making....Price for 75413 going to be 1000 USD.
This set’s fragility is not an aberration but the culmination of a very long trend. Over the decades, LEGO has gone from making toys to making ‘models’ (to use LEGO’s own term) even in sets aimed at kids. The level of detail has increased significantly with larger numbers of smaller pieces, so the product looks great in marketing and can be priced accordingly. The problem is that it isn’t fit for purpose, i.e. play.
I'm convinced that this set was originally a UT-AT, and something went wrong partway through development. This feels like a rushed design.
@yellowcastle said:
" @TheBrickBulbasaur said:
"I actually grabbed mine the same way turbo tanks are held in the reviews, by the side panels, and it held very well, even when shook. ."
I couldn’t decide what to go with here.
A) It’s not yet released so…
2) if you shake it too often, you’ll go blind"
They were responding about the 75288 AT-AT
Dark "Side" Ages for me since 2023. The franchise is over, IMHO. They killed the goose that lays the golden eggs.
It also, y'know, costs twice as much as similarly-sized sets currently on shelves
Perhaps if it weren’t so small, they’d be able to reinforce the structure better and still have a usable interior. Just a thought.
@560heliport said:
"8098 and 75151 also had retractable handles to use for picking them up. "
at least for 8098, the handle could be used to be picked up by 10195 as well (so could 7675 as well). I can't remember, but maybe you needed to move the pin down one hole first.
I realize I'm in the minority here, but every review I see of the CTT just makes me want it more. The base model makes a terrific Classic Space Moonbus, and perversely, even the fragility of that model makes me want it more. You see, Bricksie just posted another video where he gives it a pretty good shake and the whole superstructure falls off, but the base section stays pretty firmly attached to the wheels. I look at that and I think: take that base and the superstructure parts that fell off and you're 90% of the way toward a nice big flatbed cargo vehicle for a CS Moonbase. Imagine a two-vehicle convoy of these things heading over the lunar terrain to a dig site where they're excavating a Monolith. One CTT is the base model, carrying a full crew of scientists and engineers. The other CTT is the flatbed cargo vehicle, carrying a load of scientific equipment and digging tools. Now I've talked myself into wanting TWO of these ... IF AND ONLY IF I can find them for half-price or less without minifigures!
@iwybs said:
"I realize I'm in the minority here, but every review I see of the CTT just makes me want it more. The base model makes a terrific Classic Space Moonbus, and perversely, even the fragility of that model makes me want it more. You see, Bricksie just posted another video where he gives it a pretty good shake and the whole superstructure falls off, but the base section stays pretty firmly attached to the wheels. I look at that and I think: take that base and the superstructure parts that fell off and you're 90% of the way toward a nice big flatbed cargo vehicle for a CS Moonbase. Imagine a two-vehicle convoy of these things heading over the lunar terrain to a dig site where they're excavating a Monolith. One CTT is the base model, carrying a full crew of scientists and engineers. The other CTT is the flatbed cargo vehicle, carrying a load of scientific equipment and digging tools. Now I've talked myself into wanting TWO of these ... IF AND ONLY IF I can find them for half-price or less without minifigures!"
Star Wars fans will scalp it for the figures and I am sure will sell the build itself for $50 on Bricklink used. $100 for Bly, $50 for Aayla, $25 per Commando droid; and only $50 for the bricks themselves! :P
@FARLANDER said:
"Dark "Side" Ages for me since 2023. The franchise is over, IMHO. They killed the goose that lays the golden eggs."
They haven't killed it though. LEGO Star Wars (and LEGO in general) is incredibly popular which is why they can get away with charging high prices.
The only good things in the set are the minifigs and the return of transparent plates larger than 1x2s. The price, size, and critical weak spots are an embarrassment.
@DoctorZander said:
""What a piece of junk!"
- The LEGO Fan Community, apparently. "
Hey! She'll do .9 past light speed and the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs.
@NoOneOfImportance173 said:
" @yellowcastle said:
" @TheBrickBulbasaur said:
"I actually grabbed mine the same way turbo tanks are held in the reviews, by the side panels, and it held very well, even when shook. ."
I couldn’t decide what to go with here.
A) It’s not yet released so…
2) if you shake it too often, you’ll go blind"
They were responding about the 75288 AT-AT"
No sweet doggies or their mechanical equivalents (AT-AT) were abused during this test. However, apparently Peely 77072 Bone lost a good portion of his peel.
And.... it's possible one AFOL lost his sight.
Yeah I'm convinced that the model was a rushed replacement for the rumored UT-AT - whether because of its tank profile, kid disinterest, or whatever. It makes sense, with the model not implementing any parts not actively in production like the big wheels or suspension pieces.
That smaller Sandcrawler from a while back has a similar issue. I have it on my desk and whenever I clean I always forget to pick it up from the bottom and end up squeezing the side panels off. It makes a mess.
On the other hand, that light cruiser from the Mandalorian is stout! You can pick that up and bang it around like a madman.
And let’s not forget Exoforce, Mars Mission, and others with shockingly fragile builds. I am surprised LEGO is still dealing with this issue, but I don’t think it’s a negative trend.
@CapnRex101 said:
" @jkb said:
"Sorry, @CapnRex101 , but I've read your article first, then watched the video you are referring to and I must say, I'm ultimately with Solid Brix Studios. He has points there, and his conclusion is reasonable after just what I have watched. Please don't be too apologetic when writing your review; making up excuses for a set that already destroyed itself by the price alone wouldn't look good."
I agree with him, so I am not sure what the problem is.
My point expressed in the article is that there is definitely a stability issue that needs fixing, but not one so terrible that the set should be withdrawn or anything that dramatic. 79104 The Shellraiser Street Chase was worse and that received a running change, so I think this model should as well.
Keep in mind, the bar for a set to be withdrawn because of construction problems must be extremely high because I cannot remember the last time it happened."
I recall 42129 had been fixed because of wobbling hood and doors. Okay, that was an RC model, but under certain circumstances were these problems apparent.
Current state Lego Star Wars is such a funny concept to me. You pay double the average price for some ugly, unrecognizable background vehicle that’ll fall apart if you look at it wrong. And people somehow can’t get enough of it.
@Studnotontop said:
"Current state Lego Star Wars is such a funny concept to me. You pay double the average price for some ugly, unrecognizable background vehicle that’ll fall apart if you look at it wrong. And people somehow can’t get enough of it."
Unrecognizable background vehicle? You're likely just not as much of a fan as other people.
LEGO would be wise to hold off on the release of this until rectifying the issue. The fact it’s already in Production and ready for shelves with this problem it’s pretty upsetting, but now that they’re seeing how much of a potential problem this is going to be with fans, they really should be be on this immediately
The bow of my jaws boat falls off if I even look at it. Either one side or the other.
@StyleCounselor said:
" @NoOneOfImportance173 said:
" @yellowcastle said:
" @TheBrickBulbasaur said:
"I actually grabbed mine the same way turbo tanks are held in the reviews, by the side panels, and it held very well, even when shook. ."
I couldn’t decide what to go with here.
A) It’s not yet released so…
2) if you shake it too often, you’ll go blind"
They were responding about the 75288 AT-AT"
No sweet doggies or their mechanical equivalents (AT-AT) were abused during this test. However, apparently Peely 77072 Bone lost a good portion of his peel.
And.... it's possible one AFOL lost his sight."
I need to retract option A as I failed to realize that we had pivoted to the AT-AT.
I stand by option 2 but am having a difficult time reading it.
@iwybs said:
"I realize I'm in the minority here, but every review I see of the CTT just makes me want it more. The base model makes a terrific Classic Space Moonbus, and perversely, even the fragility of that model makes me want it more. You see, Bricksie just posted another video where he gives it a pretty good shake and the whole superstructure falls off, but the base section stays pretty firmly attached to the wheels. I look at that and I think: take that base and the superstructure parts that fell off and you're 90% of the way toward a nice big flatbed cargo vehicle for a CS Moonbase. Imagine a two-vehicle convoy of these things heading over the lunar terrain to a dig site where they're excavating a Monolith. One CTT is the base model, carrying a full crew of scientists and engineers. The other CTT is the flatbed cargo vehicle, carrying a load of scientific equipment and digging tools. Now I've talked myself into wanting TWO of these ... IF AND ONLY IF I can find them for half-price or less without minifigures!"
Yes, we know. You keep posting about your nothing moon bus idea on every forum, thread and press release about the new wave. News flash, no one else gives one about your idea. Its not as funny of a bit as you think it is. The most it was and will ever be was an interesting idea the first time you posted it, but you have run it into the ground. How many more times are you going to copy paste the same comment 90 different places across the internet.
Most of us are just gonna put it on a shelf and never touch it again anyway, so why be so worried?
@KyloBen1012 said:
"The alternate universe UT-AT is looking pretty good now. No denying that downsizing and choosing aesthetics over durability has cost them. They could be forgiven if this set was appropriately priced at $120 (because its unrealistic to expect $80 when lego have clearly poured all their minifig spunk into these summer sets)"
Someone already made a moc using the pieces from this set
@TheMikeStrikesBack said:
"I'm convinced that this set was originally a UT-AT, and something went wrong partway through development. This feels like a rushed design."
I wish it had been the UT-AT that was in the original buzz. I was super excited for that, but this has been ugly from the reveal.
@Dean_Dingus_2000 said:
" Yes, we know. You keep posting about your nothing moon bus idea on every forum, thread and press release about the new wave. News flash, no one else gives one about your idea. Its not as funny of a bit as you think it is. The most it was and will ever be was an interesting idea the first time you posted it, but you have run it into the ground. How many more times are you going to copy paste the same comment 90 different places across the internet. "
Sorry, man - the moonbus bit wasn't new this time, but the flatbed truck bit was. I've actually commented about this idea only three times on Eurobricks and twice on Brickset and nowhere on Reddit, and it hasn't been the same post each time because I've been having more ideas to add. I'm sorry to have annoyed you, but I think your threshold for getting annoyed by someone else's ideas is pretty low. How many more times will I talk about my CTT Moonbus idea in an online comment? I dunno - maybe as often as I have another idea, but maybe never. If it annoys you that much, I suggest you "Hide comments on news articles posted by this user".
I admire David from Solid Brix Studio for speaking out.
@CapnRex101 said:
"Keep in mind, the bar for a set to be withdrawn because of construction problems must be extremely high because I cannot remember the last time it happened."
I think it was the 42113 Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, although the design issue (solved by Huw in the article https://brickset.com/article/52890/fixing-the-osprey) was not declared as the official cause for the cancellation.
@iwybs said:
" @Dean_Dingus_2000 said:
" Yes, we know. You keep posting about your nothing moon bus idea on every forum, thread and press release about the new wave. News flash, no one else gives one about your idea. Its not as funny of a bit as you think it is. The most it was and will ever be was an interesting idea the first time you posted it, but you have run it into the ground. How many more times are you going to copy paste the same comment 90 different places across the internet. "
Sorry, man - the moonbus bit wasn't new this time, but the flatbed truck bit was. I've actually commented about this idea only three times on Eurobricks and twice on Brickset and nowhere on Reddit, and it hasn't been the same post each time because I've been having more ideas to add. I'm sorry to have annoyed you, but I think your threshold for getting annoyed by someone else's ideas is pretty low. How many more times will I talk about my CTT Moonbus idea in an online comment? I dunno - maybe as often as I have another idea, but maybe never. If it annoys you that much, I suggest you "Hide comments on news articles posted by this user"."
I, for one, like your Moonbus idea! Turning sets into something different is a beautiful thing and one of core tenets of LEGO. I've personally been whiffle-waffling over turning the 75311 Imperial Marauder set from 2021 into a Blacktron I vehicle for four years now. You may have just pushed me to finally pull the trigger! Thank you!
@DFX said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
"Keep in mind, the bar for a set to be withdrawn because of construction problems must be extremely high because I cannot remember the last time it happened."
I think it was the 42113 Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, although the design issue (solved by Huw in the article https://brickset.com/article/52890/fixing-the-osprey) was not declared as the official cause for the cancellation."
...and there was a close call with the 21337 Table Football in 2022, according to the LEGO Ideas Design Manager in this interview: https://brickset.com/article/82644/why-has-21337-table-football-been-scaled-down
"This is probably the most tested LEGO model of all time! We have been through some real highs and some very deep lows with the development, to the degree that we came close to cancelling it at times. (...)"
@DFX said:
" @DFX said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
"Keep in mind, the bar for a set to be withdrawn because of construction problems must be extremely high because I cannot remember the last time it happened."
I think it was the 42113 Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, although the design issue (solved by Huw in the article https://brickset.com/article/52890/fixing-the-osprey) was not declared as the official cause for the cancellation."
...and there was a close call with the 21337 Table Football in 2022, according to the LEGO Ideas Design Manager in this interview: https://brickset.com/article/82644/why-has-21337-table-football-been-scaled-down
"This is probably the most tested LEGO model of all time! We have been through some real highs and some very deep lows with the development, to the degree that we came close to cancelling it at times. (...)""
The one that got away. :o)
@Dean_Dingus_2000 said:
" @iwybs said:
"I realize I'm in the minority here, but every review I see of the CTT just makes me want it more. The base model makes a terrific Classic Space Moonbus, and perversely, even the fragility of that model makes me want it more. You see, Bricksie just posted another video where he gives it a pretty good shake and the whole superstructure falls off, but the base section stays pretty firmly attached to the wheels. I look at that and I think: take that base and the superstructure parts that fell off and you're 90% of the way toward a nice big flatbed cargo vehicle for a CS Moonbase. Imagine a two-vehicle convoy of these things heading over the lunar terrain to a dig site where they're excavating a Monolith. One CTT is the base model, carrying a full crew of scientists and engineers. The other CTT is the flatbed cargo vehicle, carrying a load of scientific equipment and digging tools. Now I've talked myself into wanting TWO of these ... IF AND ONLY IF I can find them for half-price or less without minifigures!"
Yes, we know. You keep posting about your nothing moon bus idea on every forum, thread and press release about the new wave. News flash, no one else gives one about your idea. Its not as funny of a bit as you think it is. The most it was and will ever be was an interesting idea the first time you posted it, but you have run it into the ground. How many more times are you going to copy paste the same comment 90 different places across the internet. "
Yeah, we should focus more on posting about things nobody's said before, like "Star Wars sets are expensive."
@DFX said:
" @DFX said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
"Keep in mind, the bar for a set to be withdrawn because of construction problems must be extremely high because I cannot remember the last time it happened."
I think it was the 42113 Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, although the design issue (solved by Huw in the article https://brickset.com/article/52890/fixing-the-osprey ) was not declared as the official cause for the cancellation."
...and there was a close call with the 21337 Table Football in 2022, according to the LEGO Ideas Design Manager in this interview: https://brickset.com/article/82644/why-has-21337-table-football-been-scaled-down
"This is probably the most tested LEGO model of all time! We have been through some real highs and some very deep lows with the development, to the degree that we came close to cancelling it at times. (...)""
Those are two good examples of close calls and I do wonder about 42113 Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey sometimes, though I see no reason for LEGO to mislead us about the reasons for its withdrawal. Besides, the issue was solveable, as @Huw showed, so I think the design would have been updated mid-production if the set had been released as normal.
However, I have remembered an instance of a stability issue delaying three sets: the Marvel mechs released in 2022. Their design was changed at a very late stage, to the point that I believe a few of the original versions made it to stores.
My son really, really wanted the 7261 for Christmas when it came out so we got him one. That set fell apart when you looked at it wrong. So much so he was genuinely sorry he got what he wanted. He still hasn't forgotten that experience. I'm not happy to see Lego still hasn't improved their build of this model 20 years later.
@xoddam said:
"The justification of so-called "shrinkflation" is supposed to be that builds are now denser and more sturdy than 20 years ago, making them more durable for play. It's disappointing that a set which is markedly downsized from previous iterations despite the high price still has significant structural weakness, particularly in an area where it is likely to be played with."
But it looks more like the CGI model that's in Revenge of the Sith for 15 seconds, so we all deserve to suffer for the sins of obsessive Star Wars fans who have spearheaded the charge in the change in Lego's design philosophy to favor pointless minutiae over fun and presence.
@oldtodd33 said:
"My son really, really wanted the 7261 for Christmas when it came out so we got him one. That set fell apart when you looked at it wrong. So much so he was genuinely sorry he got what he wanted. He still hasn't forgotten that experience. I'm not happy to see Lego still hasn't improved their build of this model 20 years later. "
The frame is solid but those walls…
So, it‘s small, extremely expensive and falls apart. Way to go, Lego. What a disappointment Star Wars Lego has become.
I am reminded of the stability issues (more of a friction/traction issue, actually, with the head being too loose) with 21303 "Wall-E." Brickset reported it here https://brickset.com/article/16465 and here https://brickset.com/article/17196. I had got two of 21303 back in the day, and LEGO later sent two sets of fixes for Wall-E's issue.
So, it's happened other times, too, where TLG has had to follow up on lack of quality control with a system-wide fix for those who had already got the problematic set.
Seems it happened again with some other issue regarding 10213 "Shuttle Adventure," slightly revised to 10231 "Shuttle Expedition."
@cflyg said:
"Seems it happened again with some other issue regarding 10213 "Shuttle Adventure," slightly revised to 10231 "Shuttle Expedition.""
That one is possibly the weirdest of the lot. Yes, there was a stability issue with SA, namely that if you picked it up by anything that wasn’t the orbiter, that thing would implode (and possibly drop the orbiter on your feet). So they made a patch kit you could request, which changed the color blocking on part of the stack (SRBs?). Then they stopped shipping SA and rolled out SE, which had a _third_ configuration with yet another color blocking. So, if you got two copies of the first one, patched only one of them, and put the new set next to them, it felt like a weird callback to the ever-changing look of the STS stack over the life of the program. All they really needed was one version where the external fuel tank was modeled in white instead of dark-orange.
Oh boy. Hopefully they will re-release the set and fix the issue like they did with the Shellraiser
@Maxbricks14 said:
"Most of us are just gonna put it on a shelf and never touch it again anyway, so why be so worried?"
Whether or not that was meant to be a joke. This is exact mindset is the reason for everything thats gone so wrong with lego in the last decade. This isnt just Adults intruding into what was and should still be primarily a kid centric space, pushing them out in the process. Its an even worse subset of people who view Lego as a model kit that only purpose is to be one and done. Meant only to go on a shelf forever until its sold to someone else.
The point of a playset is for kids to play with it, baring that the point of lego is to not just put a set together, but to modify it, tear it down, build something new, use your imagination to use the pieces for anything.
Permanent shelf display and dust collection are antithetical to what Lego is suppose to be. That the people who practice it have so heavily invaded the scene to the point theyve massively influenced what sets are made and how they are made is a travesty.
Sometimes my attempts at MOCs have a similar structural integrity, i.e. akin to that of a wet poppadom.
...but if LEGO is doing it in official builds, my MOCing skills are suddenly up there with the best!
@Dean_Dingus_2000 said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"Most of us are just gonna put it on a shelf and never touch it again anyway, so why be so worried?"
Whether or not that was meant to be a joke. This is exact mindset is the reason for everything thats gone so wrong with lego in the last decade. This isnt just Adults intruding into what was and should still be primarily a kid centric space, pushing them out in the process. Its an even worse subset of people who view Lego as a model kit that only purpose is to be one and done. Meant only to go on a shelf forever until its sold to someone else.
The point of a playset is for kids to play with it, baring that the point of lego is to not just put a set together, but to modify it, tear it down, build something new, use your imagination to use the pieces for anything.
Permanent shelf display and dust collection are antithetical to what Lego is suppose to be. That the people who practice it have so heavily invaded the scene to the point theyve massively influenced what sets are made and how they are made is a travesty. "
Thats because adults don't have as big of an imagiation as kids, so of course the sets will sit on shelves. When I was a kid, I almost always destroyed all of the new sets I got after I had built them, and I'm sure kids today would do that as well, so you needn't get worried over the fragility of this set as kids will likely wreck it anyway, and after all, it is Lego, it's meant to be pulled apart so if a couple panels fall off, whats the big deal?
@Maxbricks14 said:
" @Dean_Dingus_2000 said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"Most of us are just gonna put it on a shelf and never touch it again anyway, so why be so worried?"
Whether or not that was meant to be a joke. This is exact mindset is the reason for everything thats gone so wrong with lego in the last decade. This isnt just Adults intruding into what was and should still be primarily a kid centric space, pushing them out in the process. Its an even worse subset of people who view Lego as a model kit that only purpose is to be one and done. Meant only to go on a shelf forever until its sold to someone else.
The point of a playset is for kids to play with it, baring that the point of lego is to not just put a set together, but to modify it, tear it down, build something new, use your imagination to use the pieces for anything.
Permanent shelf display and dust collection are antithetical to what Lego is suppose to be. That the people who practice it have so heavily invaded the scene to the point theyve massively influenced what sets are made and how they are made is a travesty. "
Thats because adults don't have as big of an imagiation as kids, so of course the sets will sit on shelves. When I was a kid, I almost always destroyed all of the new sets I got after I had built them, and I'm sure kids today would do that as well, so you needn't get worried over the fragility of this set as kids will likely wreck it anyway, and after all, it is Lego, it's meant to be pulled apart so if a couple panels fall off, whats the big deal?"
Are you actually trying to be this reductive or is this a weird stunted character youre playing? There is a debate to be had about whether newer sets today are too sturdy to the point where its very hard to disassemble them in order to build something else. The problem with this set, and it is a problem, that is not up for debate. Is that specifically the top and side panels are so poorly done that the set will fall apart if you apply any amount of pressure to them. Which can happen say when youre trying to drive it around or move it at all really. Picking it up is also a borderline herculean task. This fails at being a toy because its cant be played with without breaking immediately. It does not fall on the debatable spectrum. That the dust collecting crowd is also having problems with it just in trying to move it from the table to the shelf is more then proof enough.
@Dean_Dingus_2000 said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
" @Dean_Dingus_2000 said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"Most of us are just gonna put it on a shelf and never touch it again anyway, so why be so worried?"
Whether or not that was meant to be a joke. This is exact mindset is the reason for everything thats gone so wrong with lego in the last decade. This isnt just Adults intruding into what was and should still be primarily a kid centric space, pushing them out in the process. Its an even worse subset of people who view Lego as a model kit that only purpose is to be one and done. Meant only to go on a shelf forever until its sold to someone else.
The point of a playset is for kids to play with it, baring that the point of lego is to not just put a set together, but to modify it, tear it down, build something new, use your imagination to use the pieces for anything.
Permanent shelf display and dust collection are antithetical to what Lego is suppose to be. That the people who practice it have so heavily invaded the scene to the point theyve massively influenced what sets are made and how they are made is a travesty. "
Thats because adults don't have as big of an imagiation as kids, so of course the sets will sit on shelves. When I was a kid, I almost always destroyed all of the new sets I got after I had built them, and I'm sure kids today would do that as well, so you needn't get worried over the fragility of this set as kids will likely wreck it anyway, and after all, it is Lego, it's meant to be pulled apart so if a couple panels fall off, whats the big deal?"
Are you actually trying to be this reductive or is this a weird stunted character youre playing? There is a debate to be had about whether newer sets today are too sturdy to the point where its very hard to disassemble them in order to build something else. The problem with this set, and it is a problem, that is not up for debate. Is that specifically the top and side panels are so poorly done that the set will fall apart if you apply any amount of pressure to them. Which can happen say when youre trying to drive it around or move it at all really. Picking it up is also a borderline herculean task. This fails at being a toy because its cant be played with without breaking immediately. It does not fall on the debatable spectrum. That the dust collecting crowd is also having problems with it just in trying to move it from the table to the shelf is more then proof enough. "
I think you're over reacting. As the Captain states in the article, it isn't a massive deal.
Anakin: "the new Turbo Tank is a complete embarrassment. it lacks previous features and they couldn't even make a stable build."
Padme: "they'll compensate for the shitty model they designed by dropping the price to the €/$/£80 it should have been from the start, right?"
Anakin: "…"
Padme: "right…?"
@Maxbricks14 said:
"Thats because adults don't have as big of an imagiation as kids, so of course the sets will sit on shelves. When I was a kid, I almost always destroyed all of the new sets I got after I had built them, and I'm sure kids today would do that as well, so you needn't get worried over the fragility of this set as kids will likely wreck it anyway, and after all, it is Lego, it's meant to be pulled apart so if a couple panels fall off, whats the big deal?"
Nah. I buy sets to keep as sets, and they stay as sets. Or I buy them with the intention of stripping anything useful out of them, starting with minifigs, and they never get built. Or I buy loose parts (and raid part-out sets) to build MOCs that I most likely designed in MLCad. I almost never, just a few times in my life, lose interest in a bought-to-be-the-set model and start cannibalizing it for parts. Somewhat more frequently I might borrow some pieces until I can get more, and then those go back in the model they came from.