42114 - 6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler

[mkbryant]

I agree about the handrails, but what is another option (seriously asking options, not being snarky)? I've always felt that, being technic, there will be some compromises based solely on the available parts and function. And I definitely prefer my technic models to stay mostly (almost completely) technic, with very few system parts, and only as minor accents.

[pleegwat]

Alternative to handrails would probably be rods and tubes instead of axles, but I'm only aware of a limited inventory of similarly slim connectors for these.

I also think the base of the LAs is too large, and this contributes to me getting the feeling the wheelbase is too short.

[Gimmick]

so much criticism just because you have a real template to compare ...

The curse of licensing...

[TheRacker]

It looks like a chibi version of the real thing imo.

[mkbryant]

4 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

so much criticism just because you have a real template to compare ...

The curse of licensing...

I'm trying not to criticize as much as just point out the differences, and I definitely never said I didn't like it. It is 100% on my buy list, but I do also plan on attempting to make some cosmetic changes to make it closer to actual proportions. I think it looks good and I'm excited to see how they actually implemented the features, and I really hope they have the pendular suspension from the real thing.

[astyanax]

On 1/28/2020 at 2:55 PM, Ngoc Nguyen said:

 

 

Piece count 2193. Price 249.99 EUR.

Special part and features:

- New C+ motor with horizontally driven axis (like LEGO ® Spike 45602 (Large Angular Motor)
- 2 Control+ XL motor
- Control+ Hub
- 2 Land Rover mudguard 15 x 2 x 7 46882 in yellow for front wheels
- XL linear actuators
- 1 Corvette mudguard 42531 in LBG for dashboard
- 3 new differentials, 1 old differential for center diff
- Small panels #21 and #22 in yellow
- Panel 3x7 in yellow

Functions:

- Driving
- Steering
- Lifting and lowering bed
- Hood can be opened manually

 

Go nuts

I also see a 3 x 13 panel in Yellow, which could be added to your listing of special parts.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Just now, astyanax said:

I also see a 3 x 13 panel in Yellow, which could be added to your listing of special parts.

Ah yes thanks

[Maaboo the Witch]

It's the underbite on the front that irritates me the most. It looks sloppy and gappy.

[Ivan_M]

I don't like the solution of the steering at all. It feels so cheap to use chunky motor directly coupled to steering, just what technic really needs, larger motor.. . Two mLA powered by M or L motor, slightly geared up, would steer fine and would be much more realistic. But in the end I wouldn't buy it either way so I just might shut up. The amount of yellow recolor is very nice tho, that is always good news

[TeamThrifty]

1 hour ago, Ivan_M said:

Two mLA powered by M or L motor

I agree that it would have been a more interesting technic solution, and more true to life... but the motor is an interesting part to add to the collection

42030 used a servo motor too..

[Rudivdk]

1 hour ago, Ivan_M said:

It feels so cheap to use chunky motor directly coupled to steering

Exactly my thoughts as well. The 1-motor-1-function-RC-thing is estranging me a bit from (motorized) Technic at the moment. All this RC does not feel necessary to me, at least not straight from the box. But like you said, I probably won't buy this (or any C+ actually) so why do I even complain. I like all the yellow as well, finally some gaps in the panel line-up are filled. I'm working on a MOC that desperately needs those new yellow parts...

 

5 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

42030 used a servo motor too..

and was blamed for the jerky unrealistic steering IIRC, until people started using the train remote to fine-tune the servo's movement. Let's hope TLG has fixed that with their app profile this time...

[suffocation]

14 minutes ago, Rudivdk said:

The 1-motor-1-function-RC-thing is estranging me a bit from (motorized) Technic at the moment.

Same here. Incidentally, three motors are enough for (at least?) eight RC functions.

[Rudivdk]

1 minute ago, suffocation said:

Same here. Incidentally, three motors are enough for (at least?) eight RC functions.

So true... And the Volvo actually seems to have the perfect set of motors to do so. Now if it only were PF and not C+...

[Magical Duck]

6 hours ago, Rudivdk said:

Now if it only were PF and not C+...

In my mind, PF will always be superior, it just feels so unlike LEGO to operate it from your smartphone.

[allanp]

7 hours ago, Rudivdk said:

Exactly my thoughts as well. The 1-motor-1-function-RC-thing is estranging me a bit from (motorized) Technic at the moment. All this RC does not feel necessary to me, at least not straight from the box. But like you said, I probably won't buy this (or any C+ actually) so why do I even complain. I like all the yellow as well, finally some gaps in the panel line-up are filled. I'm working on a MOC that desperately needs those new yellow parts...

 

and was blamed for the jerky unrealistic steering IIRC, until people started using the train remote to fine-tune the servo's movement. Let's hope TLG has fixed that with their app profile this time...

It's not a complaint, more of an explanation as to why you, as a Lego fan with some spending power, won't be spending your money on a particular Lego product, which is something that they should find useful.

[AussieBrett]

8 hours ago, suffocation said:

Same here. Incidentally, three motors are enough for (at least?) eight RC functions.

Like the 8043 Excavator? Pass.
Like some of the modded 42070s? Pass.

1 hour ago, Magical Duck said:

In my mind, PF will always be superior, it just feels so unlike LEGO to operate it from your smartphone.

The only way PF is "superior" is the stacking of connectors. Aside from angle sensors, how is C+ superior to sbrick/buwizz?

What you should be upset about is the PU controller being so neutered with only 2 control channels.

9 hours ago, Ivan_M said:

I don't like the solution of the steering at all. It feels so cheap to use chunky motor directly coupled to steering, just what technic really needs, larger motor.. . Two mLA powered by M or L motor, slightly geared up, would steer fine and would be much more realistic. But in the end I wouldn't buy it either way so I just might shut up. The amount of yellow recolor is very nice tho, that is always good news

Agree on not needing another motor but I'd rather have return to center steering, with the bonus that the average person won't need to figure out why "it won't drive straight".

And if anyone still has such a love for PF then....buy set, convert?

Edited June 3, 2020 by AussieBrett

[Jundis]

17 hours ago, Frequenzberater said:

Anybody noticed, that there are obviously no blue pins? 

Whoa... *mindblown*

With the Lambo, there are also no (or very few) visible blue pins. This surely is on purpose, and very much appreciated :-)

11 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

It's the underbite on the front that irritates me the most. It looks sloppy and gappy.

The whole front somehow reminds me of Appa, where the gaps are the teeth. Yip Yip!

[TeamThrifty]

8 hours ago, Rudivdk said:

and was blamed for the jerky unrealistic steering IIRC, until people started using the train remote

Ha! You're right - i've been using the train remote for so long i'd forgotten what the original steering was like.. oops!!

[Parazels]

10 hours ago, Ivan_M said:

I don't like the solution of the steering at all. It feels so cheap to use chunky motor directly coupled to steering

It's normal when you connect a motor directly to a steering system.

SIMPLICITY - is an important rule of a high quality Lego Technic model.

I personally would like to experiment with the new motor in my future mocs!

[mysiopysio84]

9 hours ago, Rudivdk said:

and was blamed for the jerky unrealistic steering IIRC, until people started using the train remote to fine-tune the servo's movement. Let's hope TLG has fixed that with their app profile this time...

Train remote or just use efferman's modification with 2 mLA powered by M motor which in my opinion is the best mod for this set. 

[suffocation]

1 hour ago, AussieBrett said:

9 hours ago, suffocation said:

Same here. Incidentally, three motors are enough for (at least?) eight RC functions.

Like the 8043 Excavator? Pass.
Like some of the modded 42070s? Pass.

Not at all like 42070 and only somehow similar to 8043. The problem with 8043 is that to make it really playable you'd need prompt access to all of the commands simultaneously and not in groups of three. Other types of machinery, though, are quite playable with just two active functions at a time (tow trucks & cherry pickers come to mind), hence, if you combine two drive motors with a basic gearbox using the orange wave selector and throw in a third motor to drive the selector, you can easily get eight fully remote-controlled functions in a relatively small space and without spending bucketloads of money.

[Rudivdk]

1 hour ago, allanp said:

It's not a complaint, more of an explanation

Maybe so, but since there is already so much negativity, I do not want to contribute any further to it. Even when it is just a personal opinion or explanation of my standpoint...

[Erik Leppen]

1 hour ago, AussieBrett said:

The only way PF is "superior" is the stacking of connectors.

The problem with PU is that solutions are in "software" (programming) rather than in "hardware" (gears and axles and beams). This means we can't "see" the solution work, and, therefore, can't learn from it.

PF is superior because with PF the hidden parts are "dumb" and all the "intelligence" is in the build itself, which can be touched, handled, seen in motion, modified, ...

Said otherwise, PU removes part of the educational aspect of Technic.

[MangaNOID]

I really like this thing!

If it was properly scaled to the original I think it would loose its charm with such a small cab, steering wheel, seat area. This is possibly a good size for those technic figures?

and if they have 3L black pins... otherwise maybe its just some really clever building to only use 2L pins when visible.

 

[Gimmick]

9 hours ago, Rudivdk said:

Exactly my thoughts as well. The 1-motor-1-function-RC-thing is estranging me a bit from (motorized) Technic at the moment.

If you want to remote controll all functions simultaneously -> At least one motor for one function is the way to go.

General criticism from the past: There are so many nice ultimate version of XY where you can control everything at same time, why doesn't Lego .... ;)

1 hour ago, Parazels said:

It's normal when you connect a motor directly to a steering system.

SIMPLICITY - is an important rule of a high quality Lego Technic model.

I personally would like to experiment with the new motor in my future mocs!

Steering with actuators is pretty simple and much cooler :D

And with the new PU System you can use "servo like" behavior anyway.

10 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

The problem with PU is that solutions are in "software" (programming) rather than in "hardware" (gears and axles and beams). This means we can't "see" the solution work, and, therefore, can't learn from it.

PF is superior because with PF the hidden parts are "dumb" and all the "intelligence" is in the build itself, which can be touched, handled, seen in motion, modified, ...

Said otherwise, PU removes part of the educational aspect of Technic.

I don't think that's the case. In fact I think PU adds a lot to the educational aspect.