Ooooo, Harley-Davidson is gonna sue for stealing their technique on the engine block.
https://brickset.com/article/129754/vintage-set-of-the-week-harley-davidson-1000cc
In fact there are a number of similarities throughout. Something smells suspicious...

@MCLegoboy said:
"Ooooo, Harley-Davidson is gonna sue for stealing their technique on the engine block.
https://brickset.com/article/129754/vintage-set-of-the-week-harley-davidson-1000cc
In fact there are a number of similarities throughout. Something smells suspicious..."

As soon as I saw this, I had to go look at that article to see how similar it was beyond the engine.

Another example of how ahead of its time the Hobby theme was.

Those stamps, bother me every time. I lost so many (almost all) to rebuilds...

Got some real Déjà vu seeing this, thought it had come up before but suspect I’m thinking of this:
https://brickset.com/article/129754/vintage-set-of-the-week-harley-davidson-1000cc

Which is only similar in very broad strokes

Not quite as nice as the Harley already mentioned a few times, but still a pretty cool set, especially considering it's from 50 years ago.

As a kid I wanted this one so badly, very innovative for its time. I would be great to see a modern reimagining of this set.

@Brickalili said:
"Got some real Déjà vu seeing this, thought it had come up before but suspect I’m thinking of this:
https://brickset.com/article/129754/vintage-set-of-the-week-harley-davidson-1000cc

Which is only similar in very broad strokes "

This one came up in the comments on that one. I remember because I made a stupid Norton Antivirus joke.

The kick-stand in this picture is very different from the one the instructions have you build.
I wonder how many sets Lego made where the main product photo is not the same as the set instructions inside?

@haytor said:
"The kick-stand in this picture is very different from the one the instructions have you build.
I wonder how many sets Lego made where the main product photo is not the same as the set instructions inside?"

Interestingly, there are two instructions for this set on BrickFactory. The first indeed replaces the tile for the kickstand with a 1x2 brick and plate, whereas the "alternate" instructions does what the pictures show: Cram a 2x2 tile between the ridge and the antistuds of that plate at the bottom.

Interesting technique, never considered you could do that. Or maybe you actually can't without damaging the pieces, and that's why they changed the instructions....

EDIT: Just tried, and while a plate seems to work fine like that (fits easily without noticeable stress, but snug enough to not fall out), a tile sits way too loose and just falls out. Now I obviously tried with modern pieces, and thus a grooved tile. So I guess the change here had to do with the move to grooved tiles?

Having a closer look at the instructions, the one that used a tile were from 1976 (and no visible groove on the tile), the one with the brick and plate are from 1978. And that's indeed the year Lego transitioned to the grooved tiles.

@haytor said:
"The kick-stand in this picture is very different from the one the instructions have you build.
I wonder how many sets Lego made where the main product photo is not the same as the set instructions inside?"

See those 1x2x1 panels beside the pilot in 6531? There are 1x1 bricks behind them, and the instructions say to use 1x3 slopes instead of the bricks and panels. I gave that set to my brother as a birthday present back in the day, and the set included both the panels and extra 1x1s (I say "extra" there were 1x1s used elsewhere in the build) and the slopes.

@WizardOfOss said:
" @haytor said:
"The kick-stand in this picture is very different from the one the instructions have you build.
I wonder how many sets Lego made where the main product photo is not the same as the set instructions inside?"

Interestingly, there are two instructions for this set on BrickFactory. The first indeed replaces the tile for the kickstand with a 1x2 brick and plate, whereas the "alternate" instructions does what the pictures show: Cram a 2x2 tile between the ridge and the antistuds of that plate at the bottom.

Interesting technique, never considered you could do that. Or maybe you actually can't without damaging the pieces, and that's why they changed the instructions....

EDIT: Just tried, and while a plate seems to work fine like that (fits easily without noticeable stress, but snug enough to not fall out), a tile sits way too loose and just falls out. Now I obviously tried with modern pieces, and thus a grooved tile. So I guess the change here had to do with the move to grooved tiles?

Having a closer look at the instructions, the one that used a tile were from 1976 (and no visible groove on the tile), the one with the brick and plate are from 1978. And that's indeed the year Lego transitioned to the grooved tiles."

I know that groovy tiles sit lower than plates, allowing hinged walls to glide over them without scuffing the crap out of the surface. I've never owned any ungroovy tiles, but maybe they were thicker than their modern counterparts?

And that just gets into how messy the plate/tile cataloging is on Bricklink. There are then three different criteria by which you can differentiate a standard plate from a standard tile. Standard plates are thicker, have studs, and have ungroovy bases. Tiles are thinner, have no studs, and have groovy bases. But then you get stuff like the double-jumper plate, which has plate thickness, is effectively 3/4 stud-free, but has a groovy base. Or the 4x4 plate w/ studs on one side, where the exact same is true, except the base is ungroovy. It gets really irritating trying to find specific middle-ground elements in the catalog because BL assignments don't always agree with LDraw ones.

Does it come with the Utilities pre-installed?

Sorry, I had to say it. Well, not so sorry.