2 hours ago, kbalage said:

In the case of the XL motor, it's totally alive on the Australian LEGO site for example. 

It is, but it's at a 40% discount, which suggests to me they're trying to clear out remaining stock

Since I have crappiness of the eyes and silliness of the brain, can someone tell me whether the counterweights are more likely brick-built or just big lumps of (metal-filled?) ABS?

1 hour ago, Zerobricks said:

Maybe the PU XL motor is also getting a CE symbol, hence new ID and old one retiring.

Anyway back to the set, I think the counterweights increase the price a lot, especially if you take in account that price per gram is more reflective of true value. 

Just for fun, i checked my collection of PU XL motors, and all 10 of them has a CE symbol on (from 2x42099, 42100, 42109, 42114, 88014, some bought years ago)..so it must be something else, unless it really is retiring :)

1 hour ago, Aleh said:

And there have nothing common with Liebherr LR13000, even talking about only chassis

I know. I was lucky to see some of them in live action :) 

37 minutes ago, suffocation said:

Since I have crappiness of the eyes and silliness of the brain, can someone tell me whether the counterweights are more likely brick-built or just big lumps of (metal-filled?) ABS?

The counterweights are not brick-built but most likely overmoulded metal pieces.

Big Blue was my first Technic set ever, coming out of a prolonged dark age, so I feel I have come full circle. While I like this set, I do think it quite ridiculous looking, having all those extra booms, jibs and rigging, for such a relatively short main mast.

Hopefully it won't be hard to reconfigure, to make it look a little more like it should. It was a bit problematic extending the main boom on big blue more than just one segment.

Stonewars.de recently updated the official price to 679€ 

Usually they are well informed. 

Looks nice, but are they really going ahead with that price? BIIIIIIG discount buy me thinks.

And gotta love the talk about the CE logo. To me CE stands for Check Everything, every machine I have worked on in industry has a CE stamp somewhere and every machine falls short of PUWER regulations. CE doesn't mean much in reality but everything has to have it so......it's a sign of the times. I just had to buy car insurance for an RC car! The times we live it!

 

Those proportions
Really Lego?
Did you hire your designteam in a circus or so?
And was it too much work to mould yellow pointed frames?
Whats the red ridiculous thing doing on top? Where are the correct frames?

And then there is something like the modular construction of this crane.

Try this
Not the for size but for the proportions...
This giant crane is a real beautyfull construction while that THING from Lego is an ugly thrown together clumsy thing.
 

 

Edited June 28, 20231 yr by JaBaCaDaBra

£500 is a long way north of what i feel is my limit for a single set.. I paid 300 ish for the Cat and 42100, but 500?! TLG have a different target audience in mind.. Its a shame. I've been getting technic sets since 1978 and they just priced me out of the flagship-game.

Can't help but feel they've shifted their core principles. I know i'm only one person, but i have a 40 yr love of lego. I should be very hard to alienate.

We're in a world of Statement Models, displayed on shelfs it would appear. I'm in a world of playing and building mocs. Not sure this trend caters for the MOC-ers... It feels a bit non-lego. 

1 hour ago, TeamThrifty said:

£500 is a long way north of what i feel is my limit for a single set.. I paid 300 ish for the Cat and 42100, but 500?! TLG have a different target audience in mind.. Its a shame. I've been getting technic sets since 1978 and they just priced me out of the flagship-game.

Can't help but feel they've shifted their core principles. I know i'm only one person, but i have a 40 yr love of lego. I should be very hard to alienate.

We're in a world of Statement Models, displayed on shelfs it would appear. I'm in a world of playing and building mocs. Not sure this trend caters for the MOC-ers... It feels a bit non-lego. 

Could not agree more 

18 hours ago, M_longer said:

We are talking bout 42131 again? :P

Nope, about upcoming crawler crane with Liebherr stickers))

14 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Did you hire your designteam in a circus or so?
And was it too much work to mould yellow pointed frames?
Whats the red ridiculous thing doing on top? Where are the correct frames?

While that’s your opinion I’m pretty sure a design team has a lot of constraints on them (we know it)

I like the contrasting colour scheme 🙂

Not going to buy it ($$$) but I like it.

15 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

And was it too much work to mould yellow pointed frames?

That one caught my eye too. Probably, they wanted to make it in a neutral color, so that they can reuse these somewhat special parts in other sets as well. Interestingly, the John Deere skidder has these in black, so now they exist in two neutral colors. Wonder if they actually needed the DBG for some future plans..

16 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

That one caught my eye too. Probably, they wanted to make it in a neutral color, so that they can reuse these somewhat special parts in other sets as well. Interestingly, the John Deere skidder has these in black, so now they exist in two neutral colors. Wonder if they actually needed the DBG for some future plans..

Don't forget the reddish brown one from City Markets. And agreed, i think yellow would fit better, but maybe they wanted to emphasize the pointy bits? Also maybe Liebherr wanted such colors and red frame colors, as references where to take it apart or such?

This set would have worked better as an 8288-sized model. The boom proportions and track shaping would have been much easier to achieve at that scale.

Plus 8288 is waaaaaaaaaay overdue for a redo.

2 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

they wanted to make it in a neutral color

Thats an intresting point but I suppose it's no so much work to change the color in excisting molds.

This set is just an insult.

9 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

This set would have worked better as an 8288-sized model. The boom proportions and track shaping would have been much easier to achieve at that scale.

 

Plus 8288 is waaaaaaaaaay overdue for a redo.

I'm gonna submit 8288 as a joke TC25 entry.

12 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

I'm gonna submit 8288 as a joke TC25 entry.

The cab is on the wrong side. Still, that'd pale in comparison to the overabundance of inaccuracies in the actual model.

Do we know the official price on this thing yet? I keep seeing anywhere from $450-$700

11 minutes ago, Eaglefan344 said:

Do we know the official price on this thing yet? I keep seeing anywhere from $450-$700

It fluctuates from source to source. Nothing seems to be certain on that front right now.

58 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Thats an intresting point but I suppose it's no so much work to change the color in excisting molds.

Don't you think if it was that simple then many more parts would exist in many more colors? They've got other associated costs, such as storage and book-keeping I guess. Though I would have as well expected it to happen for this specific piece in this set, especially given that now I know it exists in reddish brown as well.. So maybe a better explanation is as above, that it was done on purpose for some reason.

18 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Don't you think if it was that simple then many more parts would exist in many more colors? They've got other associated costs, such as storage and book-keeping I guess.

Technically changing colour is trivial, but logistic costs must be also considered.

Personally the colours are ok for me.

The only real benefit to this set, IMO, seems to come from the new lattice sections of the boom.  Frame parts if you will.  But have we sufficiently discussed these? I have already mentioned how the triangular "V" sections appear too thin to me, but what about the overall benefit of these new section parts over what can already be done with existing lift arms.  i mean lattice sections with proper inner "V" triangles have been around for a very long time, and can be done, more or less properly with existing parts.  42042's boom was strong, it was not the set's weak point (turntable was).  What real benefit do these new elements even provide? 

Also, not sure this has been pointed out yet, but the upper jib mast is only one stud in thickness (top section) (see red arrows).  The bottom section of that mast is only three studs.  This is different than the lower mast (looks to me to be 5 studs in thickness for bottom half, three for top) (see yellow arrows).  This is a design flaw.  Thickness here needs to not only remain constant, but one stud of thickness (red arrows) surely will weaken the crane's lifting capacity.  As everyone on here knows, one weak point in the lifting structure of a crane can cripple the entire system.  The tiniest lateral movement at this juncture will send the crane reeling.  So, despite the new frame elements, I think the lifting capacity on this model will be very weak.  

 

50 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

The only real benefit to this set, IMO, seems to come from the new lattice sections of the boom.  Frame parts if you will.  But have we sufficiently discussed these? I have already mentioned how the triangular "V" sections appear too thin to me, but what about the overall benefit of these new section parts over what can already be done with existing lift arms.  i mean lattice sections with proper inner "V" triangles have been around for a very long time, and can be done, more or less properly with existing parts.  42042's boom was strong, it was not the set's weak point (turntable was).  What real benefit do these new elements even provide? 

Also, not sure this has been pointed out yet, but the upper jib mast is only one stud in thickness (top section) (see red arrows).  The bottom section of that mast is only three studs.  This is different than the lower mast (looks to me to be 5 studs in thickness for bottom half, three for top) (see yellow arrows).  This is a design flaw.  Thickness here needs to not only remain constant, but one stud of thickness (red arrows) surely will weaken the crane's lifting capacity.  As everyone on here knows, one weak point in the lifting structure of a crane can cripple the entire system.  The tiniest lateral movement at this juncture will send the crane reeling.  So, despite the new frame elements, I think the lifting capacity on this model will be very weak.  

 

I am sure it will be strong enough to lift advertised weight (which is rumored to be 0.5 kg.). Other than that, why do they need to overengineer it? It is a toy not heavy duty machinery. 

Edited June 29, 20231 yr by Oh_Hi_Mao
Removing picture