Jump to content
THIS IS THE TEST SITE OF EUROBRICKS! ×
THIS IS THE TEST SITE OF EUROBRICKS!

Recommended Posts

Posted

I don't understand your reaction... I said that truck is good but the doors would I make normal size so as they should be... Look at the real truck... The doors are going down to the mudgards... There is no reason to remain 2 lower liftarms attached to the cabin...

That's not criticism... that's just my opinion... we are today in days of Arocs which set the standard very high...

Max...

I guess the point of that post was to highlight that considering this is ALTERNATIVE model (thus with critical part restrictions) your notes were quite irrelevant. And I have to agree with that. Being a C model, this truck looks absolutely amazing, no matter what. Comparing this to the Arocs, which was purposefully designed to best match the real truck is absolute nonsense.

Posted

The great thing about Lego is that they don't force you to adhere to an idea of what a set should be. If they make a set based on a license, then they adhere to a license, but that's it - the Star Wars sets even stopped putting MOCs on the backs of the boxes a few years ago. But that's not to say outside ideas aren't welcome - sets based on movies have nothing to do with the movie's plot sometimes.

Technic sets in particular don't match exactly to a particular real-life vehicle, but in recent years they have begun to accommodate demand for such realism while not trying to over-stress the average consumer with too many parts or too-complex designs. In this set the focus is on TWO Arocs vehicles, so the cab stays largely the same between the two models.

It seems to me the message is - if you want to go for maximum realism, then you do so. if you want to create your own brand of vehicle, then you do so. Neither is wrong or invalid.

It might be interesting to some to even go back in time for a bit and check out how things were done in Technic several years ago, by examining a set that seems to be a predecessor to 40243. A set that contains quite a bit of the same functionality and even has the turntable-as-suspension idea (but in its B-model) - 8273. Is that set any less valid as an "Off-Road Truck" ?

Posted

I completely agree with that! For me first of all LEGO is a toy! Then comes the realism which is also very important to me but secondary. In the studless era the realism is getting better with the time, although the studded Model Team trucks were very pretty and realistic looking - 5571 black cat is the best example. The playability of the 42009 crane is - let´s say limited and the handling a bit difficult even for adults.

Á propos, on my opinion Han´s dump truck (which he had built almost a decade ago I guess) looks much more realistic compared to the Ginaf truck which it is based on than the Arocs is looking "realistic".

dumptruck%20photo%201.jpg

dumptruck%20ginaf.jpg

19200282962_09f25877ac_c.jpg

TBs_20150102_1a.jpg

Thank you Han for the instructions which I will buy soon!

Posted

Á propos, on my opinion Han´s dump truck (which he had built almost a decade ago I guess) looks much more realistic compared to the Ginaf truck which it is based on than the Arocs is looking "realistic". :blush:

Software used is Lpub, POVray and MLcad. Then powerpoint and finally converted into pdf.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

Just started thinking about this thread again, today. How close to the 8258 is your Crane Truck? Thinking I would like to assemble the 8258 again, but info longer have it. But with your resurrection using the 42009, it just may be a possibility. I noticed yours is not motorized, I want to incorporate motorized functions as they were on the 8258.

Thanks, Andy D

Posted

to Andy D:

Only the wheel setup and the swing panels for access are familiar with the 8258. The inner side is totally different as the Crane Truck differs from the 8258 with a steered rear wheel, twin wheels on axel 3 and outriggers between the front wheels (whereof 8258 has them above the front wheels). As the steering mechanism and outrigger functions had to pass the 2nd steered wheel to the rear side of the truck (remind, the crane truck is steered from the backside) there is no space left for an advanced gearbox as the 8258 had. Therefore, I had to lead go the motorization.... but as I already explained on my website, neither my kids nor myself like the PF driven functions. Always hassle with the battery switch box to move the functions in, or was it out... was it up, no, it was down... I really see the PF switch being more frequently used for proper usage of the functions.

Posted

@Sunny45, no thanks... Enjoy the build, and just for your information. If tomorrow is the 19th of Oct, it is actually my birthday so nice to know that someone is building my MOC at that day :-)

Posted

Happy Birthday and thanks for a great model.

Currently building it and up to step 21.

Is it possible to add the L length of beams where the parts for each stage / step are shown on the instructions ?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...