29 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Apparently Markus designed this beast.

Since TLG is skimping out on B-models, I'm not surprised he had the time to work on two sets.

1 hour ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Apparently Markus designed this beast.

Really?? 

Then it's must buy for me...👍

Called it, MK designed it

Hmm, sounds like a challenge to build it following the x30 speed build steps. It worth trying 

Just watched Sariel's video and was really surprised at how high the front and rear idlers have been mounted - I assume this is because it otherwise has difficulty turning?

Also a shame to see 6 bogies instead of 8 at this scale / cost.

2 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

Since TLG is skimping out on B-models, I'm not surprised he had the time to work on two sets.

Which other big set from this year did he work on?

I actually like the dumbed down instructions in principal because its easier to forget to place a part if theres a bunch of parts in one step. What's worse is lego constantly flipping or rotating the orientation which gets on my nerves big time since it isn't really nessecary. We will see if this models instructions are better in this regard or not.

8 minutes ago, AVCampos said:

Which other big set from this year did he work on?

42128.

I watched Racingbrick’s review, and it seems that it’s a pretty decent set. I like the idea of a RC bulldozer. But to me, it also seems that the bodywork is done with many panels, and on photo’s it looks like TLG thought let’s get this done quikly, and slamped the panels on. It looks rather bulky to me (could also be because of the size). For example, the Liebherr dozer from Eric Trax seems smaller, and the bodywork looks nicer IMO.

10 minutes ago, Rebel_Lego said:

it looks like TLG thought let’s get this done quikly, and slamped the panels on.

Actually there is some interesting and solid geometry used, for example on the blade and the ripper.

I thought that there would be more comments after the review like ripper does not touch the ground or slow blade but maybe people is running to buy the 42100 set which are a bargain right now.

Aren't these in yellow new as well?

28 minutes ago, suffocation said:

Aren't these in yellow new as well?

The older type yes, but the newer one with the slit on the top has already been used in the Creator Porsche 911 ;-)

34 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

I thought that there would be more comments after the review like ripper does not touch the ground or slow blade but maybe people is running to buy the 42100 set which are a bargain right now.

Combined with the spectacular underwhelming 6+ manual is showing us that the "premium" flagship sadly is just made to lure in new costumers with a bigger wallet.

I've watched both reviews. Leaving any discussion on price aside I do like it, but for its scale I think it has three main issues:

1. Not all functions are operable (ripper tilt), motorized or not.

2. Any attempt to change or mod the blade movement speed or the path drive from the motors needs to take to action upon it is going to be limited by the Control+ app which has preset gear ratios to track position of the blade

3. Has quite a few gaps, especially on the sides (this is easily observable in the side-by-side portion of Sariel's review).

For me I think the third would be the biggest. I get it that it's properly robust and that it's a more "purely" technic build. But if you search around there are smaller examples (albeit in system) that are way more accurate. Just look at Sariel's side by side comparison: the lower sprockets are higher,everything between the sprockets and the bogies has a different shape, the hood is flat while IRL it's slightly tilted downwards, the area beneath the cabin is one flat line instead of having a cutout for the top sprocket. I was even going to mention the ripper carrier but I see picture where it has the same overall shape as the Lego version so that's a pass.

All in all this set could have really benefited from a few more parts, even system to increase the accuracy and reduce gaps.

 

 

@XenoRad

Just ignore the C+ App, if you want to change something.

Edited September 10, 20213 yr by Gimmick

Do you think it does have preset coding to know the position of the motors? In past PU sets I thought it determined it when the set was turned on by running until it found both limits to its motion.

Is there a thread for which is the worst flagship until now?, and I do not even talk about the price for once.

So... it has one Technic hub, four engines and a gearbox. What a plot twist.

30 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

Is there a thread for which is the worst flagship until now?, and I do not even talk about the price for once.

Check 42070

45 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

Is there a thread for which is the worst flagship until now?, and I do not even talk about the price for once.

You might want to skip my review 

17 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Check 42070

Agreed 42070 is an insult to the technic name. Anniversary Model, yeah right...

I'd say the Cat was okay if for half the price, but function wise it isn't even that bad. Not great, but not as terrible as 42070 by a good bit.

24 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Check 42070

 

1 minute ago, Gray Gear said:

Agreed 42070 is an insult to the technic name. Anniversary Model, yeah right...

I'd say the Cat was okay if for half the price, but function wise it isn't even that bad. Not great, but not as terrible as 42070 by a good bit.

Ugh, I'm wading in again, aren't I? Sigh.

At least 42070's functions work at a decent speed. Plus it has a better gearbox and it isn't reliant on an app.

40 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Check 42070

You are right at least the dozer is good as an ornament.

 

26 minutes ago, Jim said:

You might want to skip my review 

Any review is always wellcome, even being free bricks for sure that it is a lot of work.

@Jim

Can we change the title of this topic (again) 

Will do