| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Before reading any more of my reply, remember, I **agree** with you,
Of course you do... why wouldn't you? ;)
Don't worry Larry, I'm not interested in making this into a federal case.
You make good points and I am not going to just pretend that my opinion is
the only one. I certainly don't want to offend anyone who does like this
design. I'm just a tradtionalist when it comes to fire trucks... like we
didn't see that coming. :)
> Although... Nik likes it better than the backhoe. But then, he's 10.
Understood.
> > The real ones are almost
> > painfully flat on their sides.
>
> How about this prototype?
>
> http://thunder.prohosting.com/~arff-2/arff/oshkosh/02.jpg
I can't get that particular URL to load... getting a 404 error.
> maybe they were going for the water tank look? No other explanation for the
> use of those incredibly duff panels I can fathom(1). But if they wanted
> water tanks what would be wrong with using the 1/2 round cylinder (ala
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/8250 in yellow) or the 1/4 round cylinder ala
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/10016 ) instead?
That was the sort of analysis I was hoping for. Just people asking questions
about why this design may have ended up looking like this.
> The lime green color does not stand out against
> > other traffic nearly as well as fire engine red, yellow or ambulance white.
>
> That's a perennial topic, so I hear, in the fire fighting fraternity. (I'm
> not a firehead like some so it's just what I remember) This layman agrees
> with you, red or yellow or white stand out better than lime green, at least
> they do to me. But supposedly studies indicate lime green is a good color.
> Beats me why. I just don't see it that way. And it sure is horrid!
>
> > I think LEGO should have stuck with at least a traditional color when trying
> > out a new design like this.
>
> I agree. Like this design: http://guide.lugnet.com/set/8280 ... an oldie but
> a goodie. (and one I just happen to still have good stocks of in my store)
Here's something I'll bet you never thought you'd hear me say Larry.... I
think this design looks dated. Too old and clunky. It needs to be more
modern looking if you ask me. :)
> > > But as a model, this crash truck... it's nowhere near as good a model as the
> > > backhoe, I'd opine. That one's magnificent. So ya, I agree.
> >
> > It's hardly in the same league. That was why I wondered how it came to be
> > released at the same time as the backhoe. Surely this didn't come from the
> > same design department.
>
> Well, maybe, maybe not. Maybe that design's been in the can for a while and
> just got approved. Maybe their marketeers think the two models (backhoe and
> crash truck) are targeted at different segments and should be at different
> realism levels? Who knows.
All very real possibilities.
> While we're ripping on designs, let's not leave that ore truck out either,
> OK? I'm glad they did an ore truck, mind you, but it's not up to the backhoe
> levels by any means. Sort of reminded me of Znap, actually, when I first saw
> it...
I saw it, but don't have the same feelings for dump trucks that I do for
fire apparatus. :) So I'm less interested in disecting it.
> 1 - except for the "you are going to use some of these parts so we can
> recoup tooling costs for them whether you want to or not" explanation, of course
Frankly... that makes the most sense of anything. This looks like a very
forced design... that is, forced by parts, not forced to meet a realistic
look and feel.
All the best!
Allan B.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: TECHNIC IS NOT DEAD!!!
|
| Before reading any more of my reply, remember, I **agree** with you, I'm not very keen on the model either. Although... Nik likes it better than the backhoe. But then, he's 10. (...) How about this prototype? (URL) (from the site you referenced.... (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jan-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.technic)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
