42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

[nico71]

No this is completely different regarding the chassis (also different from the big volvo loader) :-)

[Aleh]

19 hours ago, Ivan_M said:

This is proof how lazy TLG has become with B models

True mate!

BTW this C-model is Absolutely incredible! Does @nico71 planning to create BI?

1 hour ago, nico71 said:

No this is completely different regarding the chassis (also different from the big volvo loader) :-)

Just was thinking about comparison to the 42030, lol 

[TeamThrifty]

B models are super-low priority for me too.. never built one either. This is a great C model - when is it a C model and when is it a MOC, i know technically its cos its only using the pieces of 1 set, so its a C. But in reality, C is just a special-case MOC... and MOC's are what its all about for me... I digress! Its a great C / MOC either way!! And i'm loving seeing Red moc's, there were many orange one's following porsche, but red looks better in my eyes.... Where are all the blue ones by the way? Are all the chiron's sat on shelves gathering dust! get them stripped down and get some blue moc's!! 

[Aleh]

1 hour ago, Jim said:

It cannot be that many weeks, right? Three maybe?

Or perhaps we simply don't know something about Nico 

1 minute ago, TeamThrifty said:

B models are super-low priority for me too.. never built one either. This is a great C model - when is it a C model and when is it a MOC, i know technically its cos its only using the pieces of 1 set, so its a C. But in reality, C is just a special-case MOC... and MOC's are what its all about for me... I digress! Its a great C / MOC either way!! And i'm loving seeing Red moc's, there were many orange one's following porsche, but red looks better in my eyes.... Where are all the blue ones by the way? Are all the chiron's sat on shelves gathering dust! get them stripped down and get some blue moc's!! 

Totally agree about TLG B-Models. 

Assuming in the nearest future we'll get more MOCs from Chiron except McLaren

[WvG_853]

On the contrary, I think B-Models are essential: they provide inspiration and show newcomers to Technic what you can do with a set. They are a first step to MOCs. For others like me it is just the pleasure of building an additional set. A good B-Model can actually be the reason to buy a set: I’m thinking of 8053, 8485, 42078. Luckily there a brilliant Lego builders like @nico71, @M_longer, @jb70, @Tomik And others who create C-Models with instructions when Lego lets us down ...

Edited August 1, 2018 by WvG_853
Added @tomik and 8485 set

[Vectormatic]

I think B-models can be very helpfull in showing what can be done with technic, in my younger days i think certain sets i must have switched between A and B models dozens of times, depending on whether i wanted a hovercraft or a helicopter to play with that week.

 

More recently though, i tend to be pretty critical of A-models to begin with, every single technic set i have on display has been modified to some extent because i find small flaws in them. B-models tend to be much worse in that regard, and the models in general dont really speak to me, they usually end up looking decidedly more awkward and limited from a technical standpoint then the A-models, so my interest for them has dropped off.

That said, i actually bought 8041 for the B-model, as it appealed more to me then the A-model. It did dissapoint enough "in the plastic" that i just chopped it up for the parts bin though...

[1gor]

4 hours ago, Jim said:

If I am not mistaken @nico71 used the same chassis as the main model for the front loader.

It looks like 42030 chassis indeed

[mortenm]

3 hours ago, I_Igor said:

It looks like 42030 chassis indeed

It definitely doesn't look like the chassis from 42082!

[1gor]

45 minutes ago, mortenm said:

It definitely doesn't look like the chassis from 42082!

Yes that crossed my mind 

[M_longer]

18 hours ago, nico71 said:

Here is my result after many weeks of work. 

Weeks? When did you got that set?

[Anio]

28 minutes ago, M_longer said:

When did you got that set?

This information can't be revealed for now.

[pleegwat]

For the superstructure rotation, I've noticed in the reviews it is driven on the inner turntable. The BWE had superstructure rotation driven on the outer gear ring, which is not easily possible in this model due to the roller bearing structure.

I believe some have described the superstructure rotation as jerky. Would the place it's driven from contribute to this?

[RonnyN]

(UPDATED: Now that all are available except the Bugatti, which is 6245724/6245725 - just add the numbers to the URL)

I was running a script that was looking for the new models’ instructions, and minutes ago I got a hit.

These are still not available when you search for the models via LEGO’s Building Instructions site :)

I will update the post when more instructions are available.

Enjoy!

42079:

A-Model: https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6245448.pdf

B-Model: https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6245450.pdf

 

42080:

A-Model: https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6245455.pdf

B-Model: https://www.lego.com/r/www/r/service/-/media/franchises/customer service/technic/08-2018/42080_b_web.pdf

 

42081:

A-Model: https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6247379.pdf

B-Model: https://www.lego.com/r/www/r/service/-/media/franchises/customer service/technic/08-2018/42081_b.pdf

 

42082:

A-Model (Book 1): https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6245502.pdf

A-Model (Book 2): https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6245458.pdf

B-Model: (Book1): https://www.lego.com/r/www/r/service/-/media/franchises/customer service/technic/08-2018/42082_b_part_1.pdf

B-Model: (Book2): https://www.lego.com/r/www/r/service/-/media/franchises/customer service/technic/08-2018/42082_b_part_2.pdf

Edited August 2, 2018 by RonnyN

[Bartybum]

4 hours ago, pleegwat said:

I believe some have described the superstructure rotation as jerky. Would the place it's driven from contribute to this?

It very well may be. There’s always a little bit of play in gears, so the effects of that can be somewhat magnified if the gear meshing involves fewer teeth per second.

That being said, it’s far more likely that the weird jitters are caused by the use of a really long drivetrain to power slewing. I see the same happen with heavy slow moving RC MOCs like trucks and cars. They lurch forward, then slow down, then lurch forward again and so on. It’s a product of using long plastic axles to transmit high torque at slow speeds.

What happens mechanically is that the input rotates until the torsional energy in the axle overcomes frictional effects, and the output begins to rotate. However, it doesn’t immediately rotate at the same speed as the input (because of intertia), and so even more torsional energy is built up in the axle. What ends up happening is that the output then speeds up until it’s faster than the input, and then due to excess torsional energy in the opposite direction it slows down again. Rinse and repeat. You can replicate that by swinging a weight on an elastic cord forwards and back.

It’s a really hard problem to solve using just plastic, and could be minimised by flipping the turntable upside down and driving rotation directly from the superstructure rather back up through a gearbox. You avoid less elastic torsional effects because you have fewer axles.

[adigyran]

i forgot gear for rotating and after building and attaching superstructure it moves like zero friction. How to fix undercarriage gearbox easely? Other functions works perfectly, crane is mighty strong

[TeamThrifty]

just on the colour vomit theme... if you look at the parts list, its 15 lift arms (green, orange, yellow) and 72 orange pins with bush that cause it. thats a tiny percentage of the whole model. Makes me doubt its the economics thats driving it.. but i suppose if you sell 10k sets, its 3/4 million orange pins.. if you apply that to all technic sales over a 2 or 3 year period, its potentially a very big number.

(incidentally, maybe this is a question for @Jim, what kind of unit sales does the average flagship get.. are those figures available?)

[Ngoc Nguyen]

The instructions for the B model also include two books. And book 1 is the exact copy of the book 1 for A model. Makes me wonder why include it at all when TLG can just reference the printed instruction book. The beginning of book 2 for B model already instructs the builder to take the superstructure and disassemble it.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Ngoc Nguyen

[nerdsforprez]

Couple of thoughts:

So - there have been quite a bit of complaints about the high piece count when a much less figure could have done just as well.  Valid argument here.  Especially when we see all too obvious evidence of an inflated value for this set (look at hubs, the toolbox, walls for building, etc. - and I will never understand all the pieces around the battery box switch). 

Many have even begun their own crane proving that something with all the same functions can be built at about 2/3 or 1/2 the pieces.  But I think I am missing something.  No one argues that the build could be done with much less pieces and the same functionality - but you gotta compare apples to apples.  Those that have came out thus far have used different scales.  If someone wants to prove that you can build something with similar functioning with much less pieces you also have to use the Unimog tires as your starting point.  I think the real question here, if people want to complain about inflated part count, is to see if you can build  the same model, of the same scale, same functionality and strength while keeping the piece count lower than the crane (not including the extras.  Pads, building walls,  etc.  TLG could have excluded these things as well, they simply had different goals).

I think if people focus on this they would find that building such a model would be more difficult than they anticipate. 

 

Lastly, I actually think the wheels are NOT big enough for this scale.  Now I know that for some cranes this is a good scale, but I would love to see a rough terrain crane like this with truly hulking tires....

 

https://rtlequipment.com/equipment/2007-terex-rt1120-rough-terrain-crane/

 

[BrickbyBrickTechnic]

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

Those that have came out thus far have used different scales.

I'm not sure how much this matters. I personally am looking to make a model of the same size. Adding more functions in a given amount of space is the goal. Plus, the models thus far have used a smaller scale, haven't they?

Lego could have used a different scale if they wanted to. In the end, it's a design decision. If optimizing the functions for the number of parts means different scale for people, then so be it.

Quote

I think if people focus on this they would find that building such a model would be more difficult than they anticipate. 

But the scale is not the focus. Functions are the focus. If the end product is around 76x21.5x28cm and has fewer pieces and more functions, IMO that crane would take the win over 42082.

[Lipko]

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

 If someone wants to prove that you can build something with similar functioning with much less pieces you also have to use the Unimog tires as your starting point.  I think the real question here, if people want to complain about inflated part count, is to see if you can build  the same model, of the same scale, same functionality and strength while keeping the piece count lower than the crane (not including the extras.  Pads, building walls,  etc.  TLG could have excluded these things as well, they simply had different goals).

I think if people focus on this they would find that building such a model would be more difficult than they anticipate. 

 

I agree with that to some extent, I can only compare the model to my telehandler, which is about the same overall size (mine may be a bit longer), simliar level of visual details, the strenght of the chassis is the usual from me, and also the way it's motorized is very similar to 42082.

My model has 2300 parts, but no rotating superstructure, no fake engine and no rear outriggers. I has a few features the crane lacks (3 steering modes and pendular suspension, working steering wheel). But yes, I think the crane can be done with 3000 parts. If I had time, I'd take the challenge.

I think I'm going to buy the model by the way, and will try to design C, D, E etc models.

Edited August 2, 2018 by Lipko

[emielroumen]

14 hours ago, RonnyN said:

(UPDATED: Now that all are available except the Bugatti, which is 6245724/6245725 - just add the numbers to the URL)

I was running a script that was looking for the new models’ instructions, and minutes ago I got a hit.

These are still not available when you search for the models via LEGO’s Building Instructions site :)

I will update the post when more instructions are available.

Enjoy!

 

Ronny USAMember Posts: 76

June 9 in Everything else LEGO

Instructions for the Bugatti: 
https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6245724.pdf

https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6245725.pdf

For some reason, they are not showing through LEGO's instructions search function. I ran a script to search for them :)

 

See the original post: https://forum.brickset.com/discussion/28702/instructions-for-the-bugatti-chiron-42083

 

[WvG_853]

53 minutes ago, Lipko said:

I think I'm going to buy the model by the way, and will try to design C, D, E etc models.

That is great news! 

[fred-eric]

On 8/1/2018 at 7:37 AM, nico71 said:

No this is completely different regarding the chassis (also different from the big volvo loader) :-)

I also like your quick review of both models Lego Technic - 42082 A and B Quick Review and Improvement by Nico71

This is the first video I found with the B version and you are the first one to improve it

[nerdsforprez]

22 hours ago, BrickbyBrickTechnic said:

I'm not sure how much this matters. I personally am looking to make a model of the same size. Adding more functions in a given amount of space is the goal. Plus, the models thus far have used a smaller scale, haven't they?

Lego could have used a different scale if they wanted to. In the end, it's a design decision. If optimizing the functions for the number of parts means different scale for people, then so be it.

But the scale is not the focus. Functions are the focus. If the end product is around 76x21.5x28cm and has fewer pieces and more functions, IMO that crane would take the win over 42082.

Your responses seem to contradict themselves.  You start by stating the scale does not matter, continue with this thinking for most of the post, but then end it with "if the end product is around...." (i.e. talking about how the scale DOES matter). 

In my response, I think the scale certainly does matter... in regards to the complaint of too many pieces for scale.  4000 pieces means very little in difference scaling contexts.  1/20 scale?  Way too many pieces (if not impossible). 1/5 scale?  Probably too little pieces.  Scaling certainly matters. 

Your build, I have no doubt, can be better than 42082.  And probably will be.  More functions for less pieces - no doubt you will do it and kudos when you do (no pressure! ) But to say that it is proof that 42082 could be built with much less pieces will be a stretch if the scale is not the same.  And as we all know, best way to start a vehicle for proper scaling is with the tires (since there are so few official Lego options). 

I could be really off here, but it looks like you are going with the 68.7mm balloon tire?  Is that correct?  Or the 81.6?  Either way, you are a long shot from the size of the Unimog tire (91 or so).  So, if you model is the same dimensions than 42082 but you are using any tires I mentioned then your tires will be too small.  If they are the correct size, then the overall scale of your model will not be 42082-size.  

And before you think that small differences in scaling don't mean that much in piece count understand that the relationship between the two is not linear.  I have posted this before, but take for example Paul B.'s Vampire car and Sheepo's mustang.  Roughly 1/10 scale compared to 1/8 scale.  I have built both.  More or less equally dense and complex builds.  But with only slight differences in scale the piece counts are like around 1800 pieces compared to almost 4,000.  More than 50% as many parts for the latter with only a slight change in scale.  Sound familiar?  Yes.  Seems eerily similar to the complaints made about this model.  So scaling has a lot to do with piece count.  If you want to made something that is comparable to  82082 but of smaller piece count you have to make sure the scaling is spot on (i.e. just as big as 42082).  

But... if the argument goes something like this.... proving that you can build something at a smaller scale, with the same or even more functions than 42082 - well, that is a different matter altogether.  And I think you are well on your way 

[suffocation]

My RTC is more or less the same size as 42082 but, based on the (almost) complete LXF file I'm having compiled, it's barely over 3000 parts, probably due to the high number of motors, frames, panels and large turntables. Obviously, my model looks like codswallop compared to 42082 but, given the very low number of system bricks in 42082, I don't think aesthetics account for much here.