@Gimmick well it sounds more like a philosophical question, what is really stuck there?  

At that point the driving ring meshes with the red gear, the red gear drives a 16T gear that is connected to the output. The output is under tension, the 16T gear holds the red gear and the whole axle is bent slightly, it's enough for the driving ring to become stuck under the red gear and the orange wave selector is not powerful enough to move the driving ring, so it rather jumps out of the groove and slides below it. 

 

2 hours ago, kbalage said:

Since we are talking about Powered Up, how would the system know in all cases what was the previous direction to drive it the opposite way? :) Btw as I tested, this simple opposite movement does not remove the tension in all cases. In some cases it helps, but apparently the movement performed by the Control+ app is more effective.

Thanks for the tests, interesting conclusion. Out of curiosity, and also for designing future MOCs, it would still be good to understand those cases for which the reverse movement is not effective enough..

Just now, gyenesvi said:

Thanks for the tests, interesting conclusion. Out of curiosity, and also for designing future MOCs, it would still be good to understand those cases for which the reverse movement is not effective enough..

It's all about the amount of tension and the length of the reverse movement. A short (1 sec) reverse movement might not remove the tension completely so the driving ring might be still stuck, but 2-3 quick forward reverse changes together with the slight rotation of the wave selector can make the driving ring free. You might as well do a longer reverse movement, but you will end up with a similar procedure length and I guess it's more simple to do the wiggle than to verify every time what is the proper reverse direction :) 

3rd part of the review with another take on the controls (makes more sense now), a closer look at the reasons behind the 4 second function swap (seems to be necessary), and my final verdict about the set (Liebherr still wins for the same price):

 

@gyenesvi The extended drive ring makes the connection more flexible. The hauler has some problems with axle bending in this area, too. If there is enough space (double the length) in a MOC it's maybe better to split the gearbox in two parts with two wave selectors. Kind of interesting problem and solution, shows the limit of plastics I guess.

@kbalage Nice. But how is it possible not to be a fan of huge construction machines? ;)

Thank you for the showcase of the gearbox and explanation of why the wiggle is necessary. I sent this to our app developer in hope we can implement such a shake option in the upcoming gearbox module. Regarding the verdict, I agree that 42131 seems to be big for the fact of being big. Even with the gearbox I'm sure the model could be reduced to some 75% of the current size and half the pieces. But on the other hand we do not know what kind of requirements/expectations the CAT had, so who knows...

@Gimmick I'm a fan of huge off-road trucks instead 

@Zerobricks I assume the expectations were like:

• Should be a bulldozer
• 4k parts
• 1 hub & 4 motors maximum
• yellow

 

@kbalage I think it was more like: The Liebherr was full RC -> so this won't. Just for the sake of being different. Would not be the first time.

Big crane, big excavator, big bulldozer and now you complain about the size? - I have a bit of the impression that I missed the moment when big machines are no longer cool. But this cannot be, because that would be a contradiction in terms :D

@Gimmick big machines are cool when the size makes sense and it has a purpose. Here it is clearly visible that even more functions/electronics can be squeezed in a much smaller design, and the size does not have any added value as it only causes problems. If the CAT had the size of the Liebherr MOC with ~3k parts then it could have been more agile, and even if they used the same amount of electronics the price could have been around $350-375. That'd make it more acceptable compared to the Liebherr, even if that set with that amount of electronics and parts is actually cheap compared to TLG's average. 

@kbalage

pricing is a total different story. Even for the size and partcount I still think it's too expensive. But I also think, that you are overthinking the design by itself in terms of its size and purpose. Higher crane, bigger shovel, larger dump bed or blade, bigger construction in general.... it always causes problems, it's just 'more' and it never adds something new just because of its size :). And it's of course not efficient in terms of functions/size. Never was, never will be.

But if a reason for size is neccessary: It's 1:17.5  ;-)

Edited September 23, 20213 yr by Gimmick

It would be nice to see how much the size of large official sets could be reduced without compromising functions or looks. For example, some argued that 42082 was unnecessarily large, but could it be made significantly smaller without removing or completely redesigning some functions? For example the outriggers were driven from the motor in the superstructure which also had gearbox inside for driving all the functions as needed, could it be made much smaller?

@Gimmick I might be overthinking, but I still see a difference and a tendency that I don't like. If we check the top 4 Technic sets this is how I see them:

• 42055 is huge, but the original is huge as well and I don't think the conveyor belt and other elements could be made with similar functionality in a smaller scale.
• 42082 is big and tall, but for a crane size actually matters a lot  It did not feel either unnecessarily big with empty unused spaces inside.
• 42100 is already different as it has tons of empty space inside, but I felt kind of compensated with the amount of electronics that came with it, it's a real PU starter pack.
• 42131 is again big, but what is the point? Does a bigger blade add much to the playing experience? The amount of electronics does not require this size, I don't think it works any better due to the size, it's big because it wants to look big and expensive to justify the price tag.

And with this we arrive to the price question. From 42055 to 42100 the price was increasing significantly, but at least we could say that we got more (electronics) for the money while the overall piece count was similar. Then came 42131 with significantly less PU parts, same price as 42100 and a 18+ tag that underpins the emphasis on the look and not on the play experience. I assume next year the 1:8 supercar will steal the show and we get a sub-3000 piece flagship, but I'm a bit afraid what 2023 brings 

12 hours ago, kbalage said:

@Gimmick I might be overthinking, but I still see a difference and a tendency that I don't like. If we check the top 4 Technic sets this is how I see them:

• 42131 is again big, but what is the point? Does a bigger blade add much to the playing experience? The amount of electronics does not require this size, I don't think it works any better due to the size, it's big because it wants to look big and expensive to justify the price tag.

And with this we arrive to the price question. From 42055 to 42100 the price was increasing significantly, but at least we could say that we got more (electronics) for the money while the overall piece count was similar. Then came 42131 with significantly less PU parts, same price as 42100 and a 18+ tag that underpins the emphasis on the look and not on the play experience. I assume next year the 1:8 supercar will steal the show and we get a sub-3000 piece flagship, but I'm a bit afraid what 2023 brings 

No it doesn't add much (but a bit), as it doesn't add much to the other models. :) Except 42055 I think. I could for sure construct some "arguments" for the size, like "V12 + mechanics + scale + blablabla" :D But in the end it's just: It does some things that others don't - probably because there was no space left... and the weight of each property is basically always subjective and therefore I do not see much value in a discussion about the decision it self - I'm not the taste-police. There are multiple totaly different but great dozer models available - I will not rank them with the claim of absolute objectivity.

For me the main bummer of the 42131 are the not simultaneously useable blade functions. -> If I can change that, but keep the fake-motor and gearbox for the other functions -> perfect set for me :D (with the right discount). Maybe a motor will fit right at the front above the fake motor and a second hub between the two driving motors, but maybe not, we will see...

And I think I would replace the ripper with an attachable heavy counterweight, the ripper doesn't ripp anything anyway. x)

@howitzer If you want to keep all the gears: Sounds very challenging. If not: There are a lot smaller models with more motorized functions. My argument against the 42082 was only based on the 'play features', not how they were created ^^.

10 hours ago, Gimmick said:

 

@howitzer If you want to keep all the gears: Sounds very challenging. If not: There are a lot smaller models with more motorized functions. My argument against the 42082 was only based on the 'play features', not how they were created ^^.

I think that I'd want to keep all the important functions and their basic layout: to have 4-wheel steering and fake engine in the chassis and boom functions (raise, extend, hook) and driveline to make the superstructure rotate and outriggers extend, all driven by a single motor with a distribution gearbox in the superstructure.