[REVIEW] 42129 - 4x4 Mercedes-Benz Zetros Trial Truck

[Citromon]

4 hours ago, Johnny1360 said:

One thing that has been bothering me about people's criticisms of this set is the high price.

Talking about prices - I remember when 42030 came out, and for some reason, it was not selling in our country. So I had to order it with international shipping and pay an extra $60 for it, but I didn't care about that, because I just fell in love with the set. Therefore, it is more a matter of taste, people who like this set will buy it even for $300. But I still think Lego charged a "no reason" $50 more for this one. They could easily make it a $250 set, and a lot of people would buy it without hesitation.

[Johnny1360]

 

8 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

I very much disagree. To me, the set is comparable to the 42114 Volvo Loader. $150USD for a hub, three smart motors and one dumb motor is far too much for the electronics, considering that electronics are generally cheaper when in sets. PU in general is too expensive for what playability the sets offer.

Seems to be a very popular opinion, hopefully TLG takes note.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Johnny1360

[kbalage]

52 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

I very much disagree. To me, the set is comparable to the 42114 Volvo Loader. $150USD for a hub, three smart motors and one dumb motor is far too much for the electronics, considering that electronics are generally cheaper when in sets. PU in general is too expensive for what playability the sets offer.

Out of curiosity I compared the price of the set to some previous fully RC LEGO sets with Power Functions and the difference is surprisingly small, that's why I don't really see why sets with PU are suddenly considered too pricey. RC LEGO sets in general are and were significantly more expensive than the others. 

Even small and "cheap" sets like 42065 had an RRP of $99 with only 370 pieces! 42080 with a single motor, battery box and a few pneumatic parts was $150, same as 42128 that has double the piece count and has way more pneumatics. 

As @Johnny1360 said, if you want something RC and don't really care about the building experience or don't want to make MOCs, then LEGO is clearly a bad choice. The key factor for LEGO is the ability to change, upgrade or build whatever you feel like using the motors and controllers from those expensive sets, and this is where PU currently still fails compared to PF - if you don't want to configure your controls in an app then you're out of luck. 

[Scoar Sonander]

Now this is weird: When I search for "Lego 42128" it comes up with a link to the official Lego site for the Tow Truck. But when I go to the Lego site and click on Technic, nothing in the range of the Tow Truck or the Zetros appears...

[allanp]

4 hours ago, kbalage said:

Out of curiosity I compared the price of the set to some previous fully RC LEGO sets with Power Functions and the difference is surprisingly small, that's why I don't really see why sets with PU are suddenly considered too pricey. RC LEGO sets in general are and were significantly more expensive than the others. 

Even small and "cheap" sets like 42065 had an RRP of $99 with only 370 pieces! 42080 with a single motor, battery box and a few pneumatic parts was $150, same as 42128 that has double the piece count and has way more pneumatics. 

As @Johnny1360 said, if you want something RC and don't really care about the building experience or don't want to make MOCs, then LEGO is clearly a bad choice. The key factor for LEGO is the ability to change, upgrade or build whatever you feel like using the motors and controllers from those expensive sets, and this is where PU currently still fails compared to PF - if you don't want to configure your controls in an app then you're out of luck. 

I'm not sure that it's accurate to say "suddenly considered too pricey" if, like me, you considered the previous PF fully remote sets as being also too pricey. But the Zetros, possibly for the first time ever, doesn't contain completely unrealistic mechanisms. LAs in place of hydraulics? Not authentic. Drive (not steering) motors mounted directly to the axle? Not authentic. As the Zetros doesn't have these "illusion of reality only smaller" killers, I find myself wanting to defend this set more than previous fully RC sets. Okay, It's not totally realistic, a diff locking mechanism doesn't usually use any gears (it would be electromechanical or hydraulic/pneumatic), and the drive motors would be better under the hood where the engine would be, but it's a step forward having the motors linked into one "engine" located in the chassis driving the suspended live axles via extendible prop shafts. There's also realistic planetary wheel reduction, the much better differentials, a panhard rod and Ackerman steering geometry. Maybe the previous fully RC sets wasn't actually too over priced, but what I saw was always a high price for zero mechanical realism, so it always seemed too over priced to me. 

Edited July 19, 2021 by allanp

[kbalage]

32 minutes ago, allanp said:

I'm not sure that it's accurate to say "suddenly considered too pricey" if, like me, you considered the previous PF fully remote sets as being also too pricey.

Well let's say that ever since sets with PU components were introduced, a lot of people labelled them "outrageously expensive" compared to previous sets with PF.

[Jim]

6 minutes ago, kbalage said:

Well let's say that ever since sets with PU components were introduced, a lot of people labelled them "outrageously expensive" compared to previous sets with PF.

Which is actually weird, because these sets aren't so much more expensive, if more expensive at all (I have seen your comparison video).

The Liebherr can be considered cheap for what you get in return 

[Citromon]

34 minutes ago, kbalage said:

Well let's say that ever since sets with PU components were introduced, a lot of people labelled them "outrageously expensive" compared to previous sets with PF.

I think the deal is that previously we had like 1 fully RC set in a couple of years, and with flagman sets like the Arocs or 42082, we just had "a lot of stuff" for the price. Now instead, all big sets are Control+, and they are expensive, and there is no alternative if you want a proper technic set and don't want to pay for PU components. The Tow Truck is the first "old technic" set in 3 Years! I just don't want Technic theme to transform in a Control+ theme.

[J159753]

It might help perceptions if they released the odd set with a single dumb motor and PU battery box (i.e. equivalent to the majority of PF sets) with only modest markup for the electrical components. Current pricing for 88015 certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouth compared to PF.

[kbalage]

4 minutes ago, Citromon said:

I just don't want Technic theme to transform in a Control+ theme.

Fair enough! We definitely need more sets like the Tow Truck. Or sets like the Osprey that had the same price, a single battery box/motor and a gearbox to switch between the function.

edit - I see others share the same opinion :) 

[Citromon]

1 minute ago, kbalage said:

Or sets like the Osprey that had the same price, a single battery box/motor and a gearbox to switch between the function.

About that - I get it, the Osprey was canceled because of whatever issues, but why not to release another similar (battery box/motor) set? Why they stick with RC models?  

[Johnny1360]

And I agree as well, it's just this is the first large remote set I have even wanted recently, I do like it, shortcomings and all. The last PU 4x4 set I had thought I wanted, until I checked it out more closely, then I considered it too expensive and under performing and certainly less realistic. I do have the last PU buggy and feel like even though it isn't a great set it is better than the last two small remote PF sets, which I also own.

Still I have yet to get used to operating PU sets with a phone screen, I prefer an actual physical remote as with PF. Hopefully I get the hang of it soon, lol.

[J159753]

I always liked the approach when they released a manual model that had been intelligently designed for user to add a motor & battery box if they wished. In 4.5V, 9V and PF days this made sense. But right now noone has or is likely to want to buy appropriate PU components. What do people think a fair price for a 'DIY motor set' containing PU dumb battery box and large WeDo dumb motor would be? 8720 RRP was $36 back in 1990. Hey, that's $75 now (https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/). My immediate reaction is that that's extortionate, and above PU pricing! [yes, I know that PF was was distinctly cheaper, and largely way more functional/versatile, than previous technic motorisation options.]

Edited July 19, 2021 by J159753

[Johnny1360]

Yes and fortunately although discontinued, PF is far from dead. I expect to continue using mine for years to come. Possibly to motorize the pneumatics on the tow truck, not sure if is feasible or not and also is a topic for another thread.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Johnny1360

[Ngoc Nguyen]

24 minutes ago, Citromon said:

The Tow Truck is the first "old technic" set in 3 Years!

There's also the Os.. oh nvm 

[Citromon]

7 minutes ago, Johnny1360 said:

it's just this is the first large remote set I have even wanted recently,

Same for me. The Zetros, despite his price, is the first PU set I'm interested in 3 years. But I'll just wait to see what next summer flagman will have to offer. 

[Johnny1360]

Nothing wrong with waiting either, that is what I did with this set, I kind of wanted the 4x4 but decided to wait for this first, very glad I did.

And it's all Jim's fault, him and his damn review, lol.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Johnny1360

[howitzer]

The way I see it, biggest drawback of PU right now compared to PF is the lack of a physical remote. Yes, you can use third party solutions, but it's not the same as official out-of-the box solution. The pricing isn't really an issue, the core problem is that the touchscreen controls are usable, but they are not fun. When playing with a model I don't want to look at my screen, I want to look at my model and not lose my grip of controls while doing so.

I really hope some kind of physical remote is in the works, it would make sets like Zetros so much more appealing.

[Johnny1360]

Yep, I struggle to steer correctly without looking at my fingers, whereas I can focus on the actual model while using a physical remote, if that makes any sense.

[Bartybum]

Part of the perception that it’s more expensive is also that the components cost so much when trying to buy alone.

[Gimmick]

7 hours ago, howitzer said:

The way I see it, biggest drawback of PU right now compared to PF is the lack of a physical remote. Yes, you can use third party solutions, but it's not the same as official out-of-the box solution.

 

Well, if it's just about the physical controller like PF and not about general demonization of smart-devices: There is a out-of-the-box solution since 2019.

Just use the train remote and the PU App: One side for steering, the other side for driving and the red buttons for the diff-lock.

[howitzer]

5 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

Well, if it's just about the physical controller like PF and not about general demonization of smart-devices: There is a out-of-the-box solution since 2019.

Just use the train remote and the PU App: One side for steering, the other side for driving and the red buttons for the diff-lock.

That's not directly compatible with the Zetros though, is it? I mean, I see value in the other smartphone stuff like indicator gauges and even the challenges but the challenges are not fun to do with smartphone, and I don't think you can finish them while using any other remote than the C+ app.

[Gimmick]

@howitzer

Ah, now I got it.

No, you have to chose between the control-variants, there is no [Control+]-controller. The challenges must be done with the C+ app.

[Ullum Zurt]

9 hours ago, howitzer said:

The way I see it, biggest drawback of PU right now compared to PF is the lack of a physical remote. Yes, you can use third party solutions, but it's not the same as official out-of-the box solution. The pricing isn't really an issue, the core problem is that the touchscreen controls are usable, but they are not fun. When playing with a model I don't want to look at my screen, I want to look at my model and not lose my grip of controls while doing so.

I really hope some kind of physical remote is in the works, it would make sets like Zetros so much more appealing.

Fully agree with this.

Even though I use an xbox one controller via brickcontroller2 and a buwizz2, it still isn't as good as an out-of-box solution like the PF controller. And the lack of an out-of-box solution for PU is one of the reasons that I've yet to get any PU set. The other reason being getting PU motors/hubs separately is just not cost effective. True that the perceived high cost can be mitigated buying PU sets on discount, but the requirement of touch-screen controls is still a turn-off.

[VBBN]

Great review Jim,

2021 is proving to be a very good year for new Tires/sizes IMO. 

While the Control+ does it's usual job of blowing the price tag out of proportion, I do like the features here, and as someone ramping up in Technic interest, there's a lot of good & newer parts to be had. They are trapped behind a Control+ price barrier, but it also doesn't hurt to get more of those elements, it is cheaper than buying them separately through Lego anyway. 

 

The stickers continue to be as ugly, gaudy, and very non-AFOL looking as ever, though.