42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

[Shiva]

Someday, when I can afford this, I will buy it. I think 42082 looks nice and interesting.

[Jim]

59 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

You know time has gone by when 5 years ago what you've got is only this:

Let’s end the 42009 discussion here please. Enough has been said.

[Aventador2004]

4 hours ago, Jim said:

I was in the 3x11 camp for the full 100%, but then I got doubts and switched to the 5x11 camp, then to the 3x11 then back to 5x11 LoL  So it's indeed 3x11 after all. That took a while to sort out.

I like what I see guys. I'm pretty sure this set will be packed with lots of gears and interesting constructions. After a couple of miss hits (BWE, 6x6) I am convinced this set will definitely be worth it.

So, are the pictures staying?

Are we allowed to post the other three models when they are revealed?

I think the crane is going to be a hit! It looks great.

I spotted a red 5x3 panel!

Edited May 10, 2018 by Aventador2004

[TeamThrifty]

either you guys have higher res images than me, or higher res eyes  ...i can't see half the detail thats getting discussed!! i'm not as young as i used to be... 

 

[Cumulonimbus]

7 hours ago, agrof said:

I have mixed feelings about what I see. I am happy about the rough terrain crane as product.

I am puzzled, as it looks like unnecessarily big for what it does, seems like biggest=best is the new calling everywhere... [...]

I am very interested for the insides

I'm with you. I really like the fact it is big scale rough terrain crane, such a model has been on my MOC list for years. For me, it has a 8854 vibe to it, a model which I drooled over as a kid. Including the house modules and the spreader plates are a really nice touch and the first time any significant load was part of a Technic set as AFAIK.

But on the other hand, the scale in relation to its features is a bit surprising. I wonder what mechanisms are on the inside, but it might feel empty inside. When I was thinking about building a MOC rough terrain crane, I was building prototypes on 49,5 or 62,4 tires, but never considered the 94,3 wheels because I didn't need the interior space. I think the BWE rings (possibly with new bearings) might be the element which dictated the scale. This size has some potential though. I forgot what features were in the description, but I'm hoping for four wheel drive and steering and suspension on at least one axle. The clearance between the wheels and the fenders don't suggest any suspension I'm afraid. I'm also not convinced by the stacked panels on its right side, it looks messy.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Cumulonimbus

[Bartybum]

@Cumulonimbus You see I really like the panels on the side. The sloped one gives it this modern downwards sweeping contour that I think suits a modern crane design really well.

@Jim I want to bring 42009 back up BUT ONLY because this is super relevant to 42082 (if it’s not acceptable then by all means please delete this paragraph) By now I’m borderline beating a dead horse about the suspected lifting capacity, but I just noticed that from the close up of 42082 the gear ratio between the clutch gear and the winch appears to be the same as in 42009. This has me worried that we might actually not get good lifting capacity . Thoughts anyone?

Edited May 10, 2018 by Bartybum

[Ivan_M]

9 minutes ago, Cumulonimbus said:

...

 

Exactly my thoughts. On the other hand I like the color consistency (and usage of "basic" colors) and small amount of stickers. I'm more interested in new parts rather than models so I'm quite happy so far (red 3x11 panel, black bwe rings, other red panels, etc.)

[Aventador2004]

33 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

This has me worried that we might actually not get good lifting capacity . Thoughts anyone?

Take out the clutch? That or gearing additions.

[Timoonn]

43 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

@Cumulonimbus You see I really like the panels on the side. The sloped one gives it this modern downwards sweeping contour that I think suits a modern crane design really well.

Real modern cranes are the exact opposite actually:

The turret on the Lego model is too large, too massive, too bulky.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Timoonn

[aminnich]

Motor function wise is see; single stage outriggers, superstructure rotation, boom up/down, and boom extension. 

Am I missing something?? Because 4 functions doesn't seem like a whole lot for a massive model like this. I do not see a receiver to make the model RC, so I do not count drive and steering as functions in this case. 

As for functions that might be there that we can't see; suspension, cab tilt second stage outriggers? 

I feel like there is something more in the chassis. The model is huge, so something has to be in there that we aren't seeing, right?

[Ngoc Nguyen]

I also feel that the sloped panels on the right feel like sloppy patchwork...

[Timoonn]

Just now, aminnich said:

Motor function wise is see; single stage outriggers, superstructure rotation, boom up/down, and boom extension. 

Am I missing something?? Because 4 functions doesn't seem like a whole lot for a massive model like this. I do not see a receiver to make the model RC, so I do not count drive and steering as functions in this case. 

As for functions that might be there that we can't see; suspension, cab tilt second stage outriggers? 

I feel like there is something more in the chassis. The model is huge, so something has to be in there that we aren't seeing, right?

winch...

[Ngoc Nguyen]

2 minutes ago, aminnich said:

I feel like there is something more in the chassis. The model is huge, so something has to be in there that we aren't seeing, right?

4 wheel steering.

[aminnich]

1 minute ago, Timoonn said:

winch...

duh... i havent had my morning coffee, got up and read the comment first haha 

Just now, Ngoc Nguyen said:

4 wheel steering.

do you think we will get steering modes like the Claas?

 

[Anio]

18 minutes ago, aminnich said:

do you think we will get steering modes like the Claas?

 

Probably not.

In the chassis : engine with AWD, 4 wheel steering, 4 outriggers, rotating superstructure, and gearbox to control outriggers and superstructure. That's already quite a lot, isn't it ?

What more do you want or can think of ?

[jwarner]

1 hour ago, Cumulonimbus said:

The clearance between the wheels and the fenders don't suggest any suspension I'm afraid.

 

Oh the irony, a rough terrain crane with no suspension!  Unfortunately I've probably got to agree with you, I don't see it fitting in, and if it does there's very little freedom in it

[agrof]

These type of machines usually don't have any suspension other than balloon tires. Don't forget, they are not meant for bashing on rough terrain, but to be able drive (crawl) through with 4 wheel drive.

[Timoonn]

5 minutes ago, agrof said:

These type of machines usually don't have any suspension other than balloon tires. Don't forget, they are not meant for bashing on rough terrain, but to be able drive (crawl) through with 4 wheel drive.

Axles can often oscillate with hydraulics

 

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Timoonn

[Aventador2004]

1 hour ago, Timoonn said:

The turret on the Lego model is too large, too massive, too bulky.

Where else would functions go?

59 minutes ago, aminnich said:

Am I missing something?? Because 4 functions doesn't seem like a whole lot for a massive model like this. I do not see a receiver to make the model RC, so I do not count drive and steering as functions in this case. 

• 4 wheel steer
• Engine
• Outriggers
• Boom Actuator
• Boom Extension
• Boom Winch
• Slewing

With careful looking, it seems like outriggers are either two stage? Or functions are in bottom structure.

[agrof]

17 minutes ago, Timoonn said:

Axles can often oscillate with hydraulics

Those are for leveling the crane on rough terrain (slope, etc), not part of the suspension in the classic meaning. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by agrof

[Timoonn]

15 minutes ago, Aventador2004 said:

Where else would functions go?

8421, 42009: everything is more compact and fit into the turret, without garbage design

 

7 minutes ago, agrof said:

Those are for leveling the crane on rough terrain (slope, etc), not part of the suspension in the classic meaning. 

I know, just to mention that axles are not totally rigid and welded to the body.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Timoonn

[Aventador2004]

1 minute ago, agrof said:

Those are for leveling the crane on rough terrain (slope, etc), not part of the suspension. 

Being for; Rough terrain crane.

1 minute ago, Timoonn said:

8421, 42009: everything is more compact and fit into the turret, without garbage design

The first was pneumatic, second is the same as this.

[aminnich]

With the battery box in the superstructure, we can assume that we have an axle running through the turntable from the superstructure to power the chassis functions.  I am not usually a fan of this, it results in too many gears and too much friction. Ik the first thing I would do to modify it is to add a battery box in the chassis and have them run as independent components. 

[Timoonn]

7 minutes ago, Aventador2004 said:

 

The first was pneumatic, second is the same as this.

Not the same scale at all. There is way more room in the 42082. 

Why would I spend 229 for a crane which does not add anyhting new compared to my 8421 and 42082, except turret rotation and the way  functions are operated (not sure about that at the moment)?

Edited May 10, 2018 by Timoonn

[agrof]

7 minutes ago, Timoonn said:

I know, just to mention that axleq are not totally rigid and welded to the body.

I think it is not a big deal compromise - if they implemented the 3 mode steering with 4 wheel drive, like here:
(In this case I say, the size can be justified.)

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by agrof