Just basic maths people. Double it, you get 8 times the volume (2^3). Quadruple it, you get 64 times the volume (4^3).

31 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Just basic maths people. Double it, you get 8 times the volume (2^3). Quadruple it, you get 64 times the volume (4^3).

My problem is to explain it in a foreign English language :)

 

5 hours ago, TeamThrifty said:

Exactly!! (doh!.. not had any coffee). I even used the word volume and still didn't notice... well spotted!

Yea, i realised my typo earlier.. it was very early!

Here is my video on this crane:

 

@Black_Belt_Titan, I was amazed at first when I saw how you organized the parts... now I see you jumbled them together first!!!  

You are a god...

2 hours ago, Magical Duck said:

@Black_Belt_Titan, I was amazed at first when I saw how you organized the parts... now I see you jumbled them together first!!!  

You are a god...

Jumbling the pieces together is the best part!

3 hours ago, Black_Belt_Titan said:

Jumbling the pieces together is the best part!

Just wondering, is that possible to add 1 more Lever to control 2 functions at one time?(like rising boom while lowering the hook?)

1 hour ago, Dylan M said:

Just wondering, is that possible to add 1 more Lever to control 2 functions at one time?(like rising boom while lowering the hook?)

The levers have axle holes not pin holes, so you’d end up engaging multiple functions at once, with no choice over the direction over one. You’d have better luck looking for an alternative to the levers. If you successfully do that then sure I don’t see why it shouldn’t work. Only thing is that you’ll have more friction in the system so the functions will run slower and the clutch gear may be more likely to slip.

Just finished book 1 in my build of it... ok I understand all the comments about repetitiveness due to symmetry, and yeah, it does get a little boring doing all “x2’s” .  Overall, I like the lower carrier, but the open engine compartment is very unrealistic in my view, but then you wouldn’t see the pistons working otherwise, but that didn’t stop them from putting the engine of the 42030 behind panels, did it?

 

2 hours ago, Bublehead said:

the open engine compartment is very unrealistic in my view, but then you wouldn’t see the pistons working otherwise, but that didn’t stop them from putting the engine of the 42030 behind panels, did it?

That is unusual practice for TLG, given that the near entirety of recent engines in large models have been hidden under hoods or completely buried under structure, never to be seen again. This H2 has been somewhat subversive, what with 42079 and 42082's engines being clearly visible.

4 hours ago, Bartybum said:

The levers have axle holes not pin holes, so you’d end up engaging multiple functions at once, with no choice over the direction over one. You’d have better luck looking for an alternative to the levers. If you successfully do that then sure I don’t see why it shouldn’t work. Only thing is that you’ll have more friction in the system so the functions will run slower and the clutch gear may be more likely to slip.

Okay tnx Men, just wondering if 42082 can do the same of 42042

2 hours ago, Bublehead said:

Just finished book 1 in my build of it... ok I understand all the comments about repetitiveness due to symmetry, and yeah, it does get a little boring doing all “x2’s” .  Overall, I like the lower carrier, but the open engine compartment is very unrealistic in my view, but then you wouldn’t see the pistons working otherwise, but that didn’t stop them from putting the engine of the 42030 behind panels, did it?

 

Yap! Because its a license Model, they have to build it same as the Main model!

On 1/30/2018 at 11:39 PM, degenerate said:

This set will have one single motor, and it will be used to control the crane functions.

Having the drive and steering motorized would be nothing but idiotic as it is not a remote controlled set, I'm guessing it will be similar in functions to 42009  maybe except motorized outriggers.

And honestly, anyone saying 42009 was great has probably only built it and put it on display, the lift capacity is far from good, and the structural integrity is a mess as lifting pretty much anything will make the whole upper structure bend due to the poor structural integrity of the turntable, it looks awesome but that's about it.

I think this set will be great, especially if we're right about using the BWE gear quadrants to support the upper structure, and there is absolutely no way LEGO would straight out lie about the part count, nor is it a mistake, this is a recurring thing when they announce new sets and "experts" take a look and debunk the part count right away, the same was true for 42053 where a lot of people on here claimed there was no way it had more than 700 pieces, rather than the 1066(?) claimed pieces.

I honestly believe that this crane will be awesome and I will buy it as soon as I can, first thing I'll do is count all the pieces and post the result on here so the "experts" can read em' and weep 

 

that is probably the only advantage of having this type of gearbox

but i like it more if you have 1 lever for the direction and other levers for the function

its just a lot of gears just to move and reverse 1 function

b.t.w. an interesting idea for a alternate c-model would be a manitou

just editing the super structure should not be so hard, i mean the base of the model is a perfect starting point  

7 hours ago, Dylan M said:

Just wondering, is that possible to add 1 more Lever to control 2 functions at one time?(like rising boom while lowering the hook?)

Yes, it is. A 2-way, seven-function gearbox, motor included, can be packed comfortably into a 7x7x15 structure, which in turn can fit snugly into the official superstructure.

I think the reason TLG didn't do this is that if you activate too many functions at once, the motor isn't going to be able to deliver enough torque.

Edited August 15, 20186 yr by suffocation

9 hours ago, Dylan M said:

Just wondering, is that possible to add 1 more Lever to control 2 functions at one time?(like rising boom while lowering the hook?)

Easier would probably be to do away with the current sliding lever and add separate levers for each of the three functions.

4 hours ago, suffocation said:

Yes, it is. A 2-way, seven-function gearbox, motor included, can be packed comfortably into a 7x7x15 structure, which in turn can fit snugly into the official superstructure.

I think the reason TLG didn't do this is that if you activate too many functions at once, the motor isn't going to be able to deliver enough torque.

Tnx Men?, so my thoughts ? is right 

same as 42042  

just change it to XL motor 

1 hour ago, pleegwat said:

Easier would probably be to do away with the current sliding lever and add separate levers for each of the three functions.

So, 3 movement at one ☝️ time ? 

Thats good just make it XL motor

Edited August 15, 20186 yr by Dylan M

3 hours ago, pleegwat said:

Easier would probably be to do away with the current sliding lever and add separate levers for each of the three functions.

Yes, replacing the single lever and axle with three levers and those thin bars that can fit through the axle hole would be how I would go about doing this. But then comes the issue of swapping out the motor...

I don't see what the big deal is about fitting the switches. I'm one of the worst builders out there and still managed to cram six (there was room for a seventh, not needed) on my tow truck, and another three on the crane:

Each switch is mounted on a 2L axle pin and works fine.

 

Did anyone else notice the forest machine's set number on 42082's engine?

(photo credits to zusammengebaut)

Maybe it's subtle marketing in case the eye catching color scheme didn't convince you 

Lol, that's funny wonder why they did it like that, it can't possibly be a coincidence or a mistake, I assume their quality control would have picked it up although it's small.

Subliminal messaging. I knew it would happen sooner or later. 

Nah, it's called upselling. Kinda like "Now that you've got the 42082, how about getting a 42080?".

Edited August 16, 20186 yr by Ngoc Nguyen

@Ngoc Nguyen, they didn’t have to upsell me, more like downsell... I just finished my build of RTC, now do I want any other 2H2018 sets? Probably. I first need to pay off the second mortgage I took out on my house to buy the Chiron and this crane though.

My take overall is I liked it. And if you compare to the 42070, I liked the RTC a LOT more.  Once you get past the carrier symmetry, the superstructure build and crane arm were pretty fun.  I agree with most about the outriggers not actually stabilizing, and I felt this was an issue they could have addressed.  What I really liked was that there were some nice sub module constructs.  I really enjoy non symmetrical adaptations and skinning the superstructure was an exercise in how do you make it look symmetrical on the outside when what’s underneath isn’t.

Although you can’t help but judge new sets by the standards of older models, on the whole, and as a stand alone model, (other than the kind of lame B model), I like this set a LOT.  It has some flaws, but as a model of an RTC, it hits all the right notes for a flagship Technic model:

Outriggers- check 

PF- check

String and winch- check

Fake engine and pistons- check

4x4 drive train- check

At least 4 monster tires and rims- check

HOG steering- check

Multi-function gear box(es)- check

$hitload of stickers- check

Cost > your budget- check

It’s BIG- check

Large(st) piece count- check

Throws you shelf space deficit into true perspective- check

So what’s not to like? 

Ok, the rubber band gee-gaw to fill the gap on the top, yeah, didn’t like that.

 

Edited August 17, 20186 yr by Bublehead

I just finished step 661 in book one, the last step before the wheel come on.

The carrier is sitting on the outriggers and is already sagging in the middle.

When I turn the carrier upside down, it is easy to bend the entire structure by pushing on both ends with a finger each.

It seems that they forgot an layer of long longitudinal liftarms at the very bottom to increase the stiffness of the chassis.

I've taken a few photos for size comparison and put it next to @Jurgen Krooshoop's Telehandler or @sheo's Terex (amongst others).
From a weight perspective the Telehandler and Terex (each modified to fit 2 AA battery boxes), it is the lightest though (3475 compared to 3365 grams).

More and larger pictures in here: https://bricksafe.com/pages/emielr/various

 

Edited August 18, 20186 yr by emielroumen
Changed links to EB forum members

Today mine arrived! Already got it. Oohoo!! 

Edited August 17, 20186 yr by Aleh