42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

[Jim]

Just now, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Maybe Jim can just dig around for comments about a particular set and staple them together, and add some professional-grade pictures, and voila, detailed review with no writing  

Hehe sounds like a plan. I will copy all the pages from the discussion topic and add some photo's 

[fred-eric]

2 hours ago, Jim said:

The embargo is set by one department in TLG, while another one probably struck a deal with certain retailers. It's strange, I agree. There is a lot of discussion about it on the LEGO Ambassador Network. We hope that this setup will change in the future.

It is difficult to control all the retailers but the set was available at Billund

[Jim]

Just now, fred-eric said:

It is difficult to control all the retailers but the set was available at Billund

I know. But Legoland is not owned by LEGO, so it's not released by TLG themselves. They have struck a deal to release the set early.

[TeamThrifty]

2 hours ago, Jim said:

I am definitely not such a person. That's probably the reason why I am seldomly very negative in a review. I take things the way they are. So the boom doesn't go horizontally. Why should that bother me?

Perfectly summed up. You hit the nail better than i did.. i see 99 good things, not the 1 bad. My cup is always at least half-full, and for me this set is full of positives.. 

 

1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

...which generate most of the complexity we like so much :) Also, I think it looks splendid

[Ngoc Nguyen]

The slope behind the cabin that has 4 3x7 panels in red look unusual. Any idea what it is supposed to represent? In the quick build, that slope turns out to be attached with one end only, and the other end is left inclining because of gravity. Not sure if it will wobble.

[fred-eric]

1 hour ago, Jim said:

I know. But Legoland is not owned by LEGO, so it's not released by TLG themselves. They have struck a deal to release the set early.

Thank you Jim for this information. I understand better now ;-)

[suffocation]

3 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

The slope behind the cabin that has 4 3x7 panels in red look unusual. Any idea what it is supposed to represent? In the quick build, that slope turns out to be attached with one end only, and the other end is left inclining because of gravity. Not sure if it will wobble.

Probably because it looks good. Cranes usually aren't masterpieces of aesthetics, so if you want to turn one into a marketable toy in 2018 then you'll have to take the odd poetic license. I for one think it looks great and I hope it wobbles like a bowl of jelly in a seastorm because then even more humanure is going to come out of the woodwork and put on yet another hilarious show of social anencephaly.

Edited July 28, 2018 by suffocation

[Aventador2004]

Anybody seen this? Look at the licence plate at 13:01 (OK 42082!)

Maybe a joint venture between Marcus Kossman and Milan Reindi?

 

[Maaboo the Witch]

1 minute ago, Aventador2004 said:

Anybody seen this? Look at the licence plate at 13:01 (OK 42082!)

Maybe a joint venture between Marcus Kossman and Milan Reindi?

 

No, I think it's Olav Kroigaard.

[Aventador2004]

Just now, Maaboo35 said:

No, I think it's Olav Kroigaard.

Maybe, but it was also stated Milan uses those initials too.  

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, Aventador2004 said:

Maybe, but it was also stated Milan uses those initials too.  

Only on aircraft. Look on the Mack and you'll see MR on the licence plate. OK is the Czech Republic's aircraft code.

[Aventador2004]

Just now, Maaboo35 said:

Only on aircraft. Look on the Mack and you'll see MR on the licence plate. OK is the Czech Republic's aircraft code.

Alright then. didn't know that.

Also the white 3L connectors are in a different bag then the superstructure.

[jorgeopesi]

I never saw such a big wasted of pieces this cracy thing can be build it with 1000 bricks less without think a lot neither lose efficiency, rigidness or playability.

[BrickbyBrickTechnic]

6 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

I never saw such a big wasted of pieces this cracy thing can be build it with 1000 bricks less without think a lot neither lose efficiency, rigidness or playability.

I agree to a certain extent. With 4000 pieces, more features could have been added. On the other hand, size sells.

Edited July 28, 2018 by BrickbyBrickTechnic

[TeamThrifty]

1 hour ago, jorgeopesi said:

never saw such a big wasted of pieces this cracy thing can be build it with 1000 bricks less without think a lot neither lose efficiency, rigidness or playability.

Not again! enough already!! Maybe you should apply for a designers job at TLG, let them know where they're going wrong...  ..or better still, rather then empty criticism, produce a C model with a 1000 pieces less. It would be great to see and would support your claim - and i'll be the first to congratulate you on it!! Let me know when its ready 

Others have criticised elements of other sets, but have backed it up by producing better versions that are peer reviewed on here, and thats awesome as its constructive - and a great learning experience. Throwing rocks from the side-lines is easy....

... i love it and i'll keep defending it, otherwise the balance of opinion isn't fairly represented. 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

I smell ad hominem around here *sniff sniff*

[grum64]

3 hours ago, Aventador2004 said:

Anybody seen this? 

Just watched this three times. More than ever it’s a must buy set   

[Erik Leppen]

2 hours ago, jorgeopesi said:

I never saw such a big wasted of pieces this cracy thing can be build it with 1000 bricks less without think a lot neither lose efficiency, rigidness or playability.

It would be cool to actually take on the challenge. I'm curious to see what you can come up with! 

And of course, we can build a model with the same functions with fewer parts. Probably even 1000 parts less, yes (3000 parts is still a lot of room to play with). But we probably can't provide the instructions to make it buildable by an 11-year-old with the same ease as the original instructions. (Also, I think the 3000-part model will have to sacrifice some of the looks or details. Not saying this is a bad thing per se.) As I said in my previous post, I think a lot of those 4000 parts go into making the model easier to build. (And yes, it does feel like no expense has been spared to create a good-looking model. 32 round 1x1 tiles on the wheels? Why not)

Probably my ideas to try to save the most on part count would probably be:

• Use studded bricks for a strong and stable chassis with few parts, similar to how studded bricks are used for booms in some cranes. I understand this might feel as cheating by some, but studded bricks are just as much Lego as studless parts.
• Replace the Unimog hubs by Claas hubs and simplify the steering arms. The axles seem to be more complex than needed right now.
• Change the geometry of the outriggers slightly, so that their vertical displacement is increased, so that the pads aren't needed anymore
• Simplify the wheel arches and other details in the undercarriage. Note they have been built from beams and connectors, instead of panels this time.
• Simplify the paneling of the superstructure
• Instead of 3, have 4 functions in the upper gearbox, the 4th one being for slewing. That would eliminate 1 gearbox in the undercarriage. This would simplify the undercarriage a lot. But, having the control for slewing on the slewed part isn't a good move playability-wise. Having the control for slewing on the undercarriage is much more sensible for operating the thing, because then the control doesn't move when the thing rotates. So I understand why they did it this way, and I think it's actually a very cool move.

I have 4 of those wheels lying around. So maybe...

Edited July 28, 2018 by Erik Leppen

[Maaboo the Witch]

The reason I'm not really into this set? Simply put, there's no horizontal surface in my immediate vicinity upon which I can place it.  But I think it looks good, it's a great concept and it seems really fun to play with.

[doug72]

10% off at Amazon and free delivery !

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LEGO-UK-42082-Terrain-Technic/dp/B0792RDN2Z/ref=pd_sbs_21_1?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B0792RDN2Z&pd_rd_r=b385c205-9295-11e8-97af-1df2029b9934&pd_rd_w=Fura0&pd_rd_wg=5vwm3&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_p=5179604776422437276&pf_rd_r=G0WRKPJG173JRM3VZ93T&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=G0WRKPJG173JRM3VZ93T

Edited July 28, 2018 by Doug72

[jorgeopesi]

4 hours ago, BrickbyBrickTechnic said:

I agree to a certain extent. With 4000 pieces, more features could have been added. On the other hand, size sells.

It is a joke that it hasn´t got tree steering modes for example.

 

1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

It would be cool to actually take on the challenge. I'm curious to see what you can come up with! 

And of course, we can build a model with the same functions with fewer parts. Probably even 1000 parts less, yes (3000 parts is still a lot of room to play with). But we probably can't provide the instructions to make it buildable by an 11-year-old with the same ease as the original instructions. (Also, I think the 3000-part model will have to sacrifice some of the looks or details. Not saying this is a bad thing per se.) As I said in my previous post, I think a lot of those 4000 parts go into making the model easier to build. (And yes, it does feel like no expense has been spared to create a good-looking model. 32 round 1x1 tiles on the wheels? Why not)

Probably my ideas to try to save the most on part count would probably be:

• Use studded bricks for a strong and stable chassis with few parts, similar to how studded bricks are used for booms in some cranes. I understand this might feel as cheating by some, but studded bricks are just as much Lego as studless parts.
• Replace the Unimog hubs by Claas hubs and simplify the steering arms. The axles seem to be more complex than needed right now.
• Change the geometry of the outriggers slightly, so that their vertical displacement is increased, so that the pads aren't needed anymore
• Simplify the wheel arches and other details in the undercarriage. Note they have been built from beams and connectors, instead of panels this time.
• Simplify the paneling of the superstructure
• Instead of 3, have 4 functions in the upper gearbox, the 4th one being for slewing. That would eliminate 1 gearbox in the undercarriage. This would simplify the undercarriage a lot. But, having the control for slewing on the slewed part isn't a good move playability-wise. Having the control for slewing on the undercarriage is much more sensible for operating the thing, because then the control doesn't move when the thing rotates. So I understand why they did it this way, and I think it's actually a very cool move.

I have 4 of those wheels lying around. So maybe...

If you eliminate the fake house and you rebuild a lot of steps overcharged of pieces... the fake house is the key to achieve 1000  .

[Bartybum]

I was confused earlier at why slewing was driven from an undercarriage gearbox, since the logical choice would be to drive it directly to the turntable from the H-gearbox. Instead, it goes through the turntable, through another gearbox, then back up to the turntable, which generates more energy loss/jitters from long axles.

I’m not much of a gearbox nut, but is there anything particularly difficult about an 8H gearbox instead of a 6H gearbox? Is there not enough space in the superstructure to accommodate the extra gearing?

I’d like to see someone tackle this, as I’ve seen people do good things to 42083’s gearbox.

[suffocation]

Two-way gearboxes are pretty simple. This is a very basic setup for seven two-way switches - I'm sure it can be adapted to the model.

 

 

[dr_spock]

22 hours ago, Yevhen said:

It's ridiculous that Sariel can't review the new sets until August 1 due to embargo, whereas the other reviewers have been doing that for a week!

Some times LEGO will include an embargo and other times they don't with sets sent to influencers.  It doesn't mean you can't start working on your review as soon as you received the box of goodies. Generally, it means you can't publish it until after the embargo has lifted.  It is not a big deal unless you don't like being scooped by other reviewers who didn't have to agree to the same Terms & Conditions.

 

On 7/27/2018 at 8:04 PM, Bricktrain said:

And for transportation ;-) 

Some cranes have a camera on the tip, but you cant see much. Mostly you rely on a Dogman

Since the boom can't go at least horizontal, it is going to be an issue loading it on a lowboy trailer and fitting under the Technic overpass bridge.  It might make a good bridge crash video though. 

[TeamThrifty]

17 hours ago, jorgeopesi said:

It is a joke that it hasn´t got tree steering modes for example.

Liebherr cranes don't seem to have multiple modes, but terex do, so its not a universal feature from what i can see... nice to have? Probably. A joke that its not there, not really. 

Have you started your version yet by the way? 

I notice @BrickbyBrickTechnic has started one which is brilliant (he's got the steering modes included), genuinely interested in following that moc.