42144 - Material Handler

[R0Sch]

1 minute ago, thekoRngear said:

BTW is this set having a differential or is it needed at all for a type of set like this?

No need for a diff in a set without a fake engine and even then it's not given (see the McLaren Senna).

[howitzer]

1 hour ago, R0Sch said:

Great. This set was supposed to cost 100€ and now it's 20% more expensive on release date. 42080 was 130€ and included a battery box and motor, 8 wheels, more parts... and 42053 126€ if you added the PF Motor set. And they both had B-models too!
This set cannot be motorized, looks very wobbly and stripped-down / basic.

42080 had a PF motor just when PF was being phased out, so I think they just wanted to sell their stock off cheaply. Same as 42095 which was really, really low price considering all the electronics it had in it.

Beyond that, all the materials, logistics and stuff are now considerably more costly than they were in 2018, thanks to recent world events. I don't think TLG is really making any more profit off of 42144 or other recent sets than previous sets - the increased costs just have to be passed at customers.

[Parazels]

I'm kinda disappointed this set doesn't have any secret sauce inside. Ordinary and predictable.

Also it feels like Lego was trying to save money on everything here: no coupled rear wheels; no B-model; no rotating mechanism...

Edited June 9, 2022 by Parazels

[nahpets]

Is it the Pneumatic Cylinder 1 x 5 with 2 Stepped Inlets the small yellow one in the model ? 

[Maaboo the Witch]

I like how this is clearly a scrap handler and yet TLG stuck it in a quarry.

[Jayden]

48 minutes ago, nahpets said:

Is it the Pneumatic Cylinder 1 x 5 with 2 Stepped Inlets the small yellow one in the model ? 

yes

I don't mind this set.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Jayden

[suffocation]

Building techniques and colours aside, does this look right?

[Erik Leppen]

I would have expected 4-wheel steering on this. Unless anything happens beneath the turntable, that looks like just extending one axle and making the build even more symmetric...

[suffocation]

3 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

that looks like just extending one axle

Should the track width be 9 studs instead of 11?

Completely misunderstood what you meant Sorry about that, Erik.

Edited June 9, 2022 by suffocation

[2GodBDGlory]

The set does look a bit bland, but it's got "real Technic"functionality. It seems that people like to complain about modern sets having too much focus on aesthetics and poor functionality, and that older sets were better. I think this set is a good example of that line of thinking, and I so I don't think we should complain too much about the looks.

The price does sound high for what you get, but I guess it is what it is...

[MangaNOID]

I think your comments are well spoken @2GodBDGlory

 Credit to LEGO when making a simple functional product.

I don’t build many sets probably as I get tired of stacking lift arms and panels, so right up my alley this one. 

 

[Jundis]

8 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

The set does look a bit bland, but it's got "real Technic"functionality. It seems that people like to complain about modern sets having too much focus on aesthetics and poor functionality, and that older sets were better. I think this set is a good example of that line of thinking, and I so I don't think we should complain too much about the looks.

The price does sound high for what you get, but I guess it is what it is...

But looks and function can go together really well, for example the 42082 looked superd.

Bigger scale, I know. Still, this one seemed rushed, at least the whole lower section. 

[howitzer]

Something I wonder about is the outriggers. Apparently they must all be operated separately (that is, 4 knobs) which is kinda strange as I imagine it would be very easy to connect them together for simultaneous operation with a single knob.

[Mikdun]

At least they seem to be design better that in 42053.

[Maaboo the Witch]

1 hour ago, howitzer said:

Something I wonder about is the outriggers. Apparently they must all be operated separately (that is, 4 knobs) which is kinda strange as I imagine it would be very easy to connect them together for simultaneous operation with a single knob.

Even the outriggers in 42053 (yes, I am going to continue using that set as an example) were individually controlled, so I'm not really bothered about that.

11 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

The set does look a bit bland, but it's got "real Technic"functionality. It seems that people like to complain about modern sets having too much focus on aesthetics and poor functionality, and that older sets were better. I think this set is a good example of that line of thinking, and I so I don't think we should complain too much about the looks.

The price does sound high for what you get, but I guess it is what it is...

Again, 42053. Looks and functionality in one great package. And an amazing B-model to boot.

29 minutes ago, Mikdun said:

At least they seem to be design better that in 42053.

I'm gonna ask for clarification here. Are you saying this set is designed better than 42053? Or the other way round?

[Mikdun]

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

I'm gonna ask for clarification here. Are you saying this set is designed better than 42053? Or the other way round?

42053 is worse. There you have to move one part and then second one. Here it seems to be just one knob to operate (per one outrigger).

[Maaboo the Witch]

2 hours ago, Mikdun said:

42053 is worse. There you have to move one part and then second one. Here it seems to be just one knob to operate (per one outrigger).

But since there are only two outriggers on 42053, it's the same amount of effort, isn't it?

[thekoRngear]

@Maaboo35 Also no badger or bear or squirrel

[Maaboo the Witch]

13 minutes ago, thekoRngear said:

@Maaboo35 Also no badger or bear or squirrel

No, the branding is rather dull.

[Maaboo the Witch]

Want a video of this 🐕? You know ya do!

Also, "operating cap". I think they meant "operating cab". Meh.

[The01]

I like the routing of those pneumatic hoses in the boom.

Now compare that to 42053 .

[allanp]

No complaints from me. Also has an old school vibe which I like!

[Maaboo the Witch]

Also, there's an "e" on the model designation which means this 🐕 is apparently electric. Nice follow-up from 42094. Soon there'll be a whole electric fleet.

[thekoRngear]

[Not a new matter] In this video TLG kept describing how awesome it would be for kids, kids, and kids when AFOLs and many adults are pretty much excited for the set. Sets like this (along with the Zetros and Airbus) despite being Technically advanced and challenging are mostly/strictly labeled 11+ with kids modelling. Except for D11(T) and 1/8 scales, the 18+ labeled ones on the other hand till now seem pretty simple (RWD Ford Raptor, nearly empty shelled F1, the Flexari) compared to these ones. So, it hits back with this age-old debate again, should not be the 18+ ones moar challenging than the 11+ ones? Yes, I get the whole super-average consumer level marketing thing and also matured adults being less quick to Technical terms [not my words, saw this point somewhere in the forum], but still not make much sense to me. It seems to me the adults which Lego targets as 18+ actually are divided into segments. Some of them like challenging builds and full on functions, building MOCs, creating MOCs. Some of them just love building and showcasing i.e., the F1 guys maybe become happy enough just by the appearance and branding by TLG. And, then there is also a sweet spot who like both challenges, display values and functions (I take the Defender for myself). I can (almost) see Technic most probably will get further official breakdown segments from TLG. Ah, the 11+ makes the adults more excited. The 18+ [except the exceptions] can be sweet little starting kits for kids age 8 or maybe 9.

This set looks purely Technic with AFOLs already being prepped to make the steering and axles beefy 

[J159753]

Random aside... I've had very little success getting my Lego-building children interested in Technic so far (ages 5-8). One built the gearbox from 42042 with ease but showed no interest in it thereafter. But a few days ago I got out a few pneumatic cylinders and they're all fascinated with them! I find them asleep in bed still clutching a pair of connected cylinders, I have to ban them from the dinner table, etc. Pneumatics *really grab their interest in a way that gears (or pull-backs) don't seem to, at the moment...