42078 - Mack Anthem

[aminnich]

2 hours ago, I_Igor said:

I'm a bit confused, but can you please explain 64 tires? Thank you.

Sorry for a bit off-topic

42043 size tires 

[1gor]

2 hours ago, aminnich said:

42043 size tires 

Well my set 42043 has 62.4 tires so I was a bit confusef. thanks

[Freekysch]

I too wished this set was in the line with 8258, 8285 and 42043, but still it looks very good. Any idea when it should be in stores for us to buy ?

[aminnich]

17 minutes ago, I_Igor said:

Well my set 42043 has 62.4 tires so I was a bit confusef. thanks

I am just guessing that is what they meant.  

[1gor]

3 hours ago, aminnich said:

I am just guessing that is what they meant.  

Thanks anyway. Good intentions are important 

[aminnich]

I do not know why the MACK truck is not on the same scale as the Mercedes truck.  I think it would have been cool to have them on a shelf together, but now I think it would look dumb.  

If someone were to recreate the model using the larger wheels and tires, I think that you could really get some nice curvature, sure the LEGO model does a decent job at getting the right curves, but on a larger scale, you can get even closer to the real model's features.  

[1gor]

8 minutes ago, aminnich said:

I do not know why the MACK truck is not on the same scale as the Mercedes truck.  I think it would have been cool to have them on a shelf together, but now I think it would look dumb.  

If someone were to recreate the model using the larger wheels and tires, I think that you could really get some nice curvature, sure the LEGO model does a decent job at getting the right curves, but on a larger scale, you can get even closer to the real model's features.  

Perhaps it would be to expensive, 18 wheels with suspension, engine...parts almost as BWE, long as almost 2 42043 sets...that would be real beast

[bonox]

12 hours ago, brickless_kiwi said:

I'm finding this discussion quite funny, ( and for the record I drove trucks in Canada and the states and Australia and currently do in NZ ) don't get me started on pivot points and rear overhang, axle set and other shite that seriously you will toss your cookies over.. but anyway using the mack anthem if you wanted more weight on the front axle you simply move the fith wheel forward the basic rule of thumb was every notch would move 500 lbs  ( the difference between a cab over and a long nose is bull!@#$ ) your axle groups are the same and so is your axle spacing the only difference would be the fifth wheel setting ... as for a cab over giving you more cargo length sorry the trailer rules, over hang and pivot point  come into play.

Nice to know i'm not the only one driving the things, however you've missed the point of my comments, particularly in regard to the US class 8 design rules - the point of a cab over IS to change the axle spacing, not to keep it the same. This is mostly due to design rules about overall length and length of cab/length of load bed ratio. Yes, you can manipulate loading in a minor sense by moving the kingpin, however this doesn't alter the design length rules. The reason the long noses cam back in the US was because the design rules changed in '76? to allow an extra 9' total length, which made the cab over length compression unnecessary. It's still a factor in europe though, where the max length regulation of 16.5metres, improved turning circle (plus a regulation) and visibility of the cab over-rule the long bed US truck philosophy. You'll also mis-note that I was referring to the axle-fwd and axle back configurations raised by cumulo and saber.

Your comment about the load difference (presumably on the front axle) between a cab over and a long nose being  bull!@#$ isvery funny to me. They should be identical if i'm doing my job correctly as a designer, because that's how I get maximum performance from it. What you need to consider though is the change in tare weight and dimension as a result of the difference in choice between the two designs. And as previously noted, the yanks don't have an real restraints on total length anymore - the trailers are pretty much fixed and they've got enough total length to build the prime movers however they choose - the long noses make more sense for them for a multitude of reasons, one of which is huge inter axle spacing design load bonus if you use a road with a bridge in it somewhere.

[degenerate]

5 hours ago, Freekysch said:

I too wished this set was in the line with 8258, 8285 and 42043, but still it looks very good. Any idea when it should be in stores for us to buy ?

You should be able to see this in stores a couple days before Christmas, the idea being that TLG wants to sell as many sets as possible and Christmas is the biggest time of year for selling their sets.

[bonox]

1 hour ago, aminnich said:

I do not know why the MACK truck is not on the same scale as the Mercedes truck.  I think it would have been cool to have them on a shelf together, but now I think it would look dumb.  

The prime mover would look great at the same scale. I think Igor is correct with an assessment of the total parts count with the trailer being huge. As the scale modelling forum has shown though, you can achieve some amazing results at smaller scale and i'm personally happy to see a range of different scales at more or less the same level of detail. It gives a sense of flexibility of the system for the target audience.

[Cumulonimbus]

Interesting observation: based on the proportions of a a real 20ft container and the width of the Anthem (about 15 studs), the container should be considerably longer and higher than the one in the 42078 set (on the right in the image below): Interesting observation number two: at this scale 1ft=2studs, so a trailer filling 40 ft container should be about 80 studs long in Technic.

 

 

[brickless_kiwi]

2 hours ago, bonox said:

Nice to know i'm not the only one driving the things, however you've missed the point of my comments, particularly in regard to the US class 8 design rules - the point of a cab over IS to change the axle spacing, not to keep it the same. This is mostly due to design rules about overall length and length of cab/length of load bed ratio. Yes, you can manipulate loading in a minor sense by moving the kingpin, however this doesn't alter the design length rules. The reason the long noses cam back in the US was because the design rules changed in '76? to allow an extra 9' total length, which made the cab over length compression unnecessary. It's still a factor in europe though, where the max length regulation of 16.5metres, improved turning circle (plus a regulation) and visibility of the cab over-rule the long bed US truck philosophy. You'll also mis-note that I was referring to the axle-fwd and axle back configurations raised by cumulo and saber.

Your comment about the load difference (presumably on the front axle) between a cab over and a long nose being  bull!@#$ isvery funny to me. They should be identical if i'm doing my job correctly as a designer, because that's how I get maximum performance from it. What you need to consider though is the change in tare weight and dimension as a result of the difference in choice between the two designs. And as previously noted, the yanks don't have an real restraints on total length anymore - the trailers are pretty much fixed and they've got enough total length to build the prime movers however they choose - the long noses make more sense for them for a multitude of reasons, one of which is huge inter axle spacing design load bonus if you use a road with a bridge in it somewhere.

What makes it more fun is driving a Canadian registered truck and being pulled up in Mexico on a nz license the rule book went out the window that day. 

10 hours ago, aminnich said:

42043 size tires 

Sorry very long day but yes your correct 

[aminnich]

@Cumulonimbus   Changing the length of the trailer to accommodate a longer container would be the first mod I would do. 

[bonox]

2 hours ago, brickless_kiwi said:

What makes it more fun is driving a Canadian registered truck and being pulled up in Mexico on a nz license the rule book went out the window that day. 

Sorry very long day but yes your correct 

I bet it did! 

[MegaRoi]

On 29. November 2017 at 9:12 AM, brickless_kiwi said:

... ( and for the record I drove trucks in Canada and the states and Australia and currently do in NZ ) ...

Good conversation, a lot of things I didn't knew. Above, only one state is written in lower case ... .makes me laughing instantly 

 

11 hours ago, brickless_kiwi said:

What makes it more fun is driving a Canadian registered truck and being pulled up in Mexico on a nz license the rule book went out the window that day.

And this one does it! 

The container comparison is very interesting.

[Cumulonimbus]

@shimon Do you have a lxf-file of your replica trailer? If so, could you share it so I can try and make the trailer a bit more realistic in its proportions?

[shimon]

2 hours ago, Cumulonimbus said:

@shimon Do you have a lxf-file of your replica trailer? If so, could you share it so I can try and make the trailer a bit more realistic in its proportions?

I do, will upload soon.

[mobi]

I do not know why the MACK truck is not on the same scale as the Mercedes truck. 

That's my question too. TLG seems to introduce models with scales all over the places.

I think among the trucks, Mercedes Arocs is still the best. I'd skip this Mack truck. Just can't get excited over it.

Hopefully 2018 2H would see more interesting Technic sets.

 

[1gor]

1 hour ago, mobi said:

Hopefully 2018 2H would see more interesting Technic sets.

 

I share your hopes

[Ivan_M]

1 hour ago, mobi said:

That's my question too. TLG seems to introduce models with scales all over the places.

I think among the trucks, Mercedes Arocs is still the best. I'd skip this Mack truck. Just can't get excited over it.

Hopefully 2018 2H would see more interesting Technic sets.

 

Because piece count would go beyond 4k with 62mm wheels and same level of detail.

[Cumulonimbus]

Too bad the 42009 B-model isn't to scale:

 

[aminnich]

10 minutes ago, Cumulonimbus said:

Too bad the 42009 B-model isn't to scale:

These are the kinds of things that TLG isn't thinking about, combining sets for scene or something on a shelf. That would have been cool to have the B-model handling the container from the MACK truck. 

I am sure there are other instances that could have happened, but none come to mind. 

 

[AndroTech]

On 30. 11. 2017 at 7:54 PM, Cumulonimbus said:

Too bad the 42009 B-model isn't to scale:

 

We can make some modification to grabbing arm, and the Mack container will fit. 

[Cumulonimbus]

11 hours ago, AndroTech said:

We can make some modification to grabbing arm, and the Mack container will fit. 

Yes, you could but in real life a reach stacker is a huge machine that dwarfs a container. So if you want to be true to the scale of the 42078 you would need to redesign the 42009B based on Unimog tires I think.

[1gor]

11 hours ago, Cumulonimbus said:

Yes, you could but in real life a reach stacker is a huge machine that dwarfs a container. So if you want to be true to the scale of the 42078 you would need to redesign the 42009B based on Unimog tires I think.

Based on Unimog tires it would represent some tires with 1900mm overall diameter if you want to make it in the same scale as Mack

Edited December 4, 2017 by Milan
Removed quoted picture.