42167 Mack LR Electric Garbage Truck

[R0Sch]

35 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

Again another confusing title for a model. "Electric" let new and inexperienced customer assume that it comes with electric.

No big deal. It's not like we have product names labeled "4WD" that are not actually 4x4... Looks at 42136. Oh wait...

[Timorzelorzworz]

Its misleading marketing. Product says electric in the title for construction toy but it comes without that. Imagine how many disappointed childs building for the first time are sitting under the christmas tree and crying that there is no electric in it. Yes, children are the role model for TLG. Maybe customer should contact the customer service and asking for the missing electrics that the box is promising, so that people at TLG marketing should finally use their brain...

[Maaboo the Witch]

7 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

Its misleading marketing. Product says electric in the title for construction toy but it comes without that. Imagine how many disappointed childs building for the first time are sitting under the christmas tree and crying that there is no electric in it. Yes, children are the role model for TLG. Maybe customer should contact the customer service and asking for the missing electrics that the box is promising, so that people at TLG marketing should finally use their brain...

That's why TLG uses icons and logos for the box art. Any set that's motorized or pneumatic has that functionality specified on the box. This set is clearly based on a Mack electric truck, so I don't think the name is misleading at all.

[howitzer]

I kinda understand the worries about misleading title. Would've been cool if this set had been released as a fully motorized flagship-level set or at least partially motorized mid-size set.

[R0Sch]

2 hours ago, howitzer said:

I kinda understand the worries about misleading title. Would've been cool if this set had been released as a fully motorized flagship-level set or at least partially motorized mid-size set.

You mean like this lovely Mack LR? Remember when B-models in licensed sets used to be a thing? Kudos to @grohl for designing both the semi-truck and the alternate model at the time. Maybe he had something to do with 42167 too?

 

[howitzer]

32 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

You mean like this lovely Mack LR? Remember when B-models in licensed sets used to be a thing? Kudos to @grohl for designing both the semi-truck and the alternate model at the time. Maybe he had something to do with 42167 too?

 

Did I miss something, I thought 42078 was purely manual model...

[Maaboo the Witch]

@R0Sch Well of COURSE this set is gonna pale in comparison when you bring up that set.

[R0Sch]

42 minutes ago, howitzer said:

Did I miss something, I thought 42078 was purely manual model...

Yes, it was a manual set, but a flagship Mack garbage truck so to speak. You could also motorize it if you wanted...

[howitzer]

1 hour ago, R0Sch said:

Yes, it was a manual set, but a flagship Mack garbage truck so to speak. You could also motorize it if you wanted...

Yeah, but I meant that having the garbage truck motorized would be great in relation to the source material which is electric truck. That way there would be no disappointments over the name, which I'm sure many kids will think means that the set has electric motors in it.

On an unrelated note, we really need a properly functional large scale garbage truck in Technic and this would have been an excellent opportunity to have one...

[Auroralampinen]

https://youtu.be/Y-2jZO36z0w?si=TIytb__LYKaDM1s9 sariel has maked review today of this mack truck 

Edited December 17, 2023 by Auroralampinen

[R0Sch]

Corrected my digital model based on the above speed build+part list, including the new 45° knob gear from Ldraw: 42167.io

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Hi everyone, this a review from RacingBrick 

 

[JaBaCaDaBra]

Hmmmm those remarks about a stolen idea.
Its not logic, its small money to compensate an idea vs millions sales

[AVCampos]

It could be argued that that Ideas project's author was the one who stole the idea from LEGO: that kind of grab-and-lift mechanism was already present at least in 8094, 8479 and 9736.

The most likely thing that happened is that the author came up with the mechanism on their own, as did the LEGO designer(s) responsible for the Mack truck, and this is a case of similar solutions to a similar problem.

[JaBaCaDaBra]

51 minutes ago, AVCampos said:

author was the one who stole

but that was from 2019

[Maaboo the Witch]

3 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

but that was from 2019

8094 is from 1990. What's your point, exactly?

[JaBaCaDaBra]

12 minutes ago, Maaboo the Witch said:

8094 is from 1990. What's your point, exactly?

No I'm referring to the mentioned automated garbage truck form idea's

[Maaboo the Witch]

7 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

No I'm referring to the mentioned automated garbage truck form idea's

Yes, but AVCampos was making the point that TLG thought of the mechanism first, using the listed sets to illustrate the argument.

[AVCampos]

Exactly. Also that I believe that the Ideas author came up with the mechanism independently, and that so did 42167's designer.

[TeriXeri]

https://www.heil.com/bodies/revamp-electric-side-load-garbage-truck/ exists, and that's pretty much the exact truck LEGO based it on.

Edited December 22, 2023 by TeriXeri

[JaBaCaDaBra]

ohw that way.

[Alexander Hamsterton]

On 12/22/2023 at 7:20 AM, AVCampos said:

It could be argued that that Ideas project's author was the one who stole the idea from LEGO: that kind of grab-and-lift mechanism was already present at least in 8094, 8479 and 9736.

The most likely thing that happened is that the author came up with the mechanism on their own, as did the LEGO designer(s) responsible for the Mack truck, and this is a case of similar solutions to a similar problem.

I’m the father from the father/son team that designed and submitted the LEGO Ideas Automated Garbage Truck project. Your “it could be argued” accusation that we stole our idea from previous LEGO sets is simply untrue. Obviously we did not invent the idea of a lift and grab mechanism. Neither did LEGO. However, it took us over a year and 18 iterations to create and improve a design small enough to work as a minifig-scale side-loading garbage truck mechanism.

Achieving this miniaturization required real innovation in the manner of transmission and other aspects of the design. Please take a closer look at the sets you reference and you will notice clear and significant differences in size, method of actuation, and purpose from what we developed.

By way of contrast, since we’ve released our arm mechanism design on LEGO Ideas it’s basically been copied brick by brick by Lepin:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/363776222759 

And directly incorporated in several other cloner’s sets:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/314643787837 
https://www.bluebrixx.com/en/city/103711/XBA-18016-Garbage-truck-green-Xingbao
https://www.bluebrixx.com/en/city/103710/XBA-18017-Garbage-truck-orange-Xingbao

Thousands of sets have been sold and we’ve received zero compensation or recognition from any of these clone companies. Many people have praised these companies for their “clever design”. We are not the ones stealing.

Please note that I am not talking in any way about LEGO set 42167. We assigned LEGO all intellectual property rights for our Ideas submission until June 2024 as a part of our submitting to LEGO Ideas. We’ve heard nothing recently from LEGO. But until June 2024, LEGO owns the rights to our IP for the idea we submitted and can do whatever they wish with it.
 

[Alexander Hamsterton]

On 12/22/2023 at 8:43 AM, AVCampos said:

Exactly. Also that I believe that the Ideas author came up with the mechanism independently, and that so did 42167's designer.

If you watch any of the LEGO Designer Videos, you can see that the LEGO designers are passionate professionals. They do not do “clean room” implementations, but dive into their subject matter deeply and do extensive research.

So just to be clear on your position. You believe that a LEGO designer was assigned the job to work on a Mack side-loading garbage truck and had no awareness of any of:

1. Our original LEGO Ideas submission
2. The JK Brickworks video highlighting our bin arm mechanism
3. The Beyond the Brick video highlighting our truck project
4. The Lepin clone set using our bin arm mechanism
5. The Xingbao clone sets using our bin arm mechanism
6. The other clone sets using our bin arm mechanism
7. The intellectual property that LEGO owns (assigned by us) which includes the digital design and building instructions of our truck and mechanism.

And that they did no research once being assigned the project that would create awareness of any of those things? And then they created the set 42167 bin arm mechanism in a vacuum? 

Our position is: Although the coincidence is unintentional, LEGO set 42167 would not exist in the form it does today unless we innovated the automated side-loading bin arm and shared the idea on LEGO Ideas. As the LEGO Ideas terms clearly state, and as we knew at submission time:

Quote

You agree that if the LEGO Group introduces a product similar to your idea or contest entry, whether accepted to or rejected from the site, you understand and acknowledge that any coincidence is unintentional, agree to indemnify and hold LEGO harmless and release LEGO from any and all claims of infringement.

 

That has always been clear. So of course we have no claims of infringement. In any case we have assigned all rights worldwide to LEGO through June of 2024.

But I am interested to understand your position better.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Alexander Hamsterton
Edit

[AVCampos]

First of all, I want to congratulate you on the Ideas project: it was a neat idea and it's a shame that it wasn't approved for production.

When I wrote "it could be argued", I meant exactly that: that people could form that opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean that I share that opinion. And I expressed that opinion of mine in the next paragraph, where I said that the most likely thing that happened was that both you and 42167's designer(s) came up with the concept and mechanism independently. To me, it's a case of coming up with similar solutions to the same problem.

7 hours ago, Alexander Hamsterton said:

So just to be clear on your position. You believe that a LEGO designer was assigned the job to work on a Mack side-loading garbage truck and had no awareness of any of:

1. Our original LEGO Ideas submission
2. The JK Brickworks video highlighting our bin arm mechanism
3. The Beyond the Brick video highlighting our truck project
4. The Lepin clone set using our bin arm mechanism
5. The Xingbao clone sets using our bin arm mechanism
6. The other clone sets using our bin arm mechanism
7. The intellectual property that LEGO owns (assigned by us) which includes the digital design and building instructions of our truck and mechanism.

And that they did no research once being assigned the project that would create awareness of any of those things? And then they created the set 42167 bin arm mechanism in a vacuum?

Nowadays it's practically impossible to create something without researching first, or at least do a quick Google search. With the size and diversity of the LEGO fandom, it's also practically impossible to create a model that someone else didn't previously do (the mental image I have is of a dartboard with every space filled with darts), and, even if unconsciously, possibly draw some inspiration form it. So, I believe it's likely that the designer(s) came across your creation or a clone of it, even if unintentionally.

So, to be clear:

• I don't believe you copied the design from LEGO.
• I don't believe LEGO copied your design.
• I'm not accusing you of anything.

[Alexander Hamsterton]

On 12/24/2023 at 10:28 AM, AVCampos said:

With the size and diversity of the LEGO fandom, it's also practically impossible to create a model that someone else didn't previously do (the mental image I have is of a dartboard with every space filled with darts), and, even if unconsciously, possibly draw some inspiration form it. So, I believe it's likely that the designer(s) came across your creation or a clone of it, even if unintentionally.

Thanks for your reply and kind words about our project.

I’m interested to better understand what you are saying in the specific context we’re talking about. I think it is quite an important point. I want to be clear that all I have been talking about in terms of innovation and inspiration is the bin arm mechanism from our design. Obviously there have been lots of LEGO garbage trucks, and we did not innovate the idea of a LEGO garbage truck. But there have been no functional side-loading arm mechanisms prior. Can you help me understand some of the darts on this metaphorical dartboard in your mind? You’ve pointed out three previous sets:

Set 8094 “Control Center” “The Picker” mode: 
https://youtu.be/8W4vrKUAbMA?t=228
https://lego.brickinstructions.com/en/lego_instructions/set/8094/Universal_Set_with_computer_control (around page 27 to see the mechanism).
Released in 1990. This is not a “grab and dump” mechanism, but rather a robot arm “grab and lift” mechanism using a base of parallel beams with a very limited range of vertical motion and no change in the orientation of the grabbed object. The mechanism is about 40 studs in size. The mechanism uses about twice as many gears as our design to actuate the grabbers.

Set 8479 “Barcode Multi-Set”:
https://youtu.be/svojnVCSXpM?t=173
https://www.lego.com/cdn/product-assets/product.bi.core.pdf/4108410.pdf (around page 47 to see the mechanism)
Released in 1997. This is a “grab and dump” mechanism for the front of a truck. The mechanism takes a completely different approach to transmit the force to actuate the grabbers (flexible cable-like linkages) rather than a gear train. The mechanism is about 25 studs in size.

Set 9736 “Exploration Mars“ “Robotic Arm” mode:
https://youtu.be/Zrwqme9tVP4?t=437
https://lego.brickinstructions.com/en/lego_instructions/set/9736/Exploration_Mars (around page 36 to see the mechanism)
Released in 1999. This is also not a “grab and dump” mechanism, but rather a “grab and lift” mechanism for a robot arm with a very limited range of vertical motion. It does not use a gear train to transmit force to the grabber, but rather rigid linkages. The mechanism is about 20 studs in size.

So you can see the key and substantial differences and how huge and clunky all of those mechanisms are. It has been 24 years since the most recent of those sets. So back to your dart board metaphor, you could argue maybe these three are sticking in the wall next to the board. Shouldn’t there be many examples of visible intermediate work leading to our design? 

From my perspective there are actually only two darts anywhere near the center of the board (not counting the clone copies of our design of course): our design and LEGO set 42167. And those two darts do seem to be quite close to one another. For comparison purposes here are views of each mechanism:

Our IDEAS project (2019): https://youtu.be/r91TR5qNIhA?t=108. That specific timestamp from the JK Brickworks video shows his standalone model of the arm, but you can see from other parts of that video that the arm is driven from the other side of the truck using an axle through the truck to a bevel gear, just as the set 42167 designer chose.

LEGO set 42167 (will be released in 2024): https://youtu.be/S7Ut0gydPjw?t=280

And let’s see both in action. Our design: https://youtu.be/e8N1L0g-lEU?t=33 and LEGO set 42167 https://youtu.be/Y40slDYIllA?t=282. 

There are certainly differences in the mechanisms. Set 42167 uses the new 45 degree knob gear, adds a rubber band (this seems awesome and clever!), and the driving axle is in the middle of the arm versus the front in our design. But all-in-all I think the similarities are very obvious. 

We know from our perspective where we started on the bin arm mechanism and the hard work it took to innovate to get to what we released via LEGO Ideas. We are earnestly interested to understand what designs other than ours you think contributed to the supposedly packed dart board of ideas leading to the bin arm mechanism in LEGO set 42167. LEGO set 42167 and the cloned sets show there has been plenty of market demand for a functional bin arm design if one had existed. Although we're always standing on the shoulders of giants (especially the LEGO System and Technic designers when we're playing with LEGO), Levi and I currently have no awareness of any similar side-loading mechanism and had none when we were designing the bin arm mechanism.

I want to remind everyone that we have assigned worldwide rights to our idea to LEGO. As they have clearly stated in the terms that we agreed to, they can do whatever they want with our design. What they have done is well within their rights. We are not trying to make any claims of infringement or anything of the sort. 

We’re just trying to set the record straight to the people that claim things like “any designer given this task will come up with something like this design”. To restate our position: Although the coincidence is unintentional, we believe LEGO set 42167 would not exist in the form it does today unless we innovated the automated side-loading bin arm and shared the idea on LEGO Ideas.