[REVIEW] 42043 - Mercedes-Benz Arocs 3245

[Erik Leppen]

It's funny what happens, really.

In the past, no model had electrically driven double-acting outriggers.

Then, after almost 40 years of Technic, 42009 comes along and shows that it's finally possible to have electrically driven double-acting outriggers. A special new 8t gear has even been designed for the purpose.

And now, when a model doesn't have this technical marvel of engineering, it's considered "ruined".

It shows how spoiled we are with the quality of modern Technic sets.

But to answer your question about why they have't used the 42009 system: because there is no freaking room for it. Haven't you seen the photos in the review?

[TheItalianBrick]

It's funny what happens, really.

In the past, no model had electrically driven double-acting outriggers.

Then, after almost 40 years of Technic, 42009 comes along and shows that it's finally possible to have electrically driven double-acting outriggers. A special new 8t gear has even been designed for the purpose.

And now, when a model doesn't have this technical marvel of engineering, it's considered "ruined".

It shows how spoiled we are with the quality of modern Technic sets.

But to answer your question about why they have't used the 42009 system: because there is no freaking room for it. Haven't you seen the photos in the review?

One could;t say better!

in a way they could have put the outriggers in the same position of normal foldable cranes keeping the manual funcitons. But again the 42043 it's full/plenty of funtions/features....let's appreciate them!

P.S. about outriggers it's a shame we don't have anymore the old pneumatics with the square base otherwise a full pneumatic model would have been another way to make them! Mine will have only pneumatics!

[Emmi]

Did someone else notice how in the LEGO 3D catalogue app - in the Technic section - there's a promo picture of the 42043 Mercedes Benz Arocs 3245 without the crane arm? Is it a mistake from LEGO or is it on purpose?

Edited July 5, 2015 by Emmi

[allanp]

As soon as I can buy extra cylinders I'm adding full pneumatic outriggers. 1x11's for extending and standard ones for raising/lowering. If they had this in the set to start with it would have been even more expensive, which I personally don't mind but but I can see why they didn't make then fully working and at least this model gives us the new parts needed to make this modification. I might try to move the outriggers to directly below the turn table and re-route the slewing drive.

[Richard Dower]

I think softer springs would have been better.

And possibly the harder springs in the rear.

so basically reverse the springs assigment?

One could;t say better!

in a way they could have put the outriggers in the same position of normal foldable cranes keeping the manual funcitons. But again the 42043 it's full/plenty of funtions/features....let's appreciate them!

P.S. about outriggers it's a shame we don't have anymore the old pneumatics with the square base otherwise a full pneumatic model would have been another way to make them! Mine will have only pneumatics!

i dont understand why it was not possible to have both outriggers in line?....why are they a couple of studs distant from each other?....42009 had the outriggers in line.

Great review, excellent pics and video!

I like the model a lot BUT what about these outriggers??? manual?? why haven't they used the 42009 system? It's the same problem, for me, of the 8258, the make a perfect model but then "ruin" it with outriggers that aren't completly motorized (as 42009).

And then why they are out of truck shape?? usually outriggers disappear inside and stay in line with the truck shape.....

Despite that small thing, it's a must buy model!

THIS!.....quoted for truth, it would have been a 10/10 set had the outriigers been powered AND in line like 42009....they go and design new parts specifically for the outriggers but cant even make the line up?

[Dafgek81]

That is just the problem with making parts that will have to be used in multiple places and sets, sometimes they will have to compromise on certain things.

But in stead off complaining about a, in my eyes, great set, with lots of playability, make a good mod yourself when you get the set.

I ain't a good designer myself, so building MOC's and mods, I would love to see what you guys and girls come up with.

[Richard Dower]

That is just the problem with making parts that will have to be used in multiple places and sets, sometimes they will have to compromise on certain things.

But in stead off complaining about a, in my eyes, great set, with lots of playability, make a good mod yourself when you get the set.

I ain't a good designer myself, so building MOC's and mods, I would love to see what you guys and girls come up with.

i think people have noted/pointed that the new outrigger parts seem very single purpose....i dont think we will be seeing these new elements in multiple sets over the coming years.

i think the only part that could be used in other themes outside of techic are the new bucket scoops....sure city sets will use them.

the new outrigger elements are just too specialised to be used outside of techinc, and even then only for sets that feature extendable booms or outriggers.

[andythenorth]

it would have been a 10/10 set had the outriigers been powered AND in line like 42009

Yeah, for me this set is a 3/10. It's basically rubbish, and Technic is dying.

[Richard Dower]

Yeah, for me this set is a 3/10. It's basically rubbish, and Technic is dying.

i never said that, i pointed to valid decisions made by the designers that are imo a negative toward the set, others have pointed out the same issue and picked up on others.

this happens with every technic release...people see ways to improve things, ergo MOCS....people question why the designers made this or that decision.

people dont suggest i am being overly negative just for the sake of it....not true, its an excellent set in many regards an has a few negatives.

[Josephiah]

i dont understand why it was not possible to have both outriggers in line?....why are they a couple of studs distant from each other?....42009 had the outriggers in line.

No, 42009's outriggers are staggered as well. This is pretty standard for (real) cranes/trucks with this kind of horizontally-out/vertically-down outrigger so as to get the feet spread wide enough. For a symmetric outrigger arrangement, you need either legs which go straight down, a shortened reach (up to half the width of the vehicle body), or are angled (like 8854, for example).

[Siegfried]

Excellent review and very cool photos! They are going to my wallpaper collection!

[allanp]

Yup, 42009's outriggers are also staggered, as they usually are in real life. I don't think the new telescopic parts are single use. They are used in two different places in the Arocs already, one powered pneumatically and two powered by gears. They are used to move/guide/extend something in a linear motion. There is more than one use for that.

[Jim]

so basically reverse the springs assigment?

Yup. I think it's worth trying.

[Victor Imaginator]

...They are used to move/guide/extend something in a linear motion. There is more than one use for that.

This parts can be used in drive shaft of heavy vehicles. Looks more robust than pulley wheels + axles solution)

[Balrog]

I already have an idea for the rack pieces, which would add another purpose.

[XAxles]

Yeah, for me this set is a 3/10. It's basically rubbish, and Technic is dying.

I give this quote the Burn of the Year Award.

[Richard Dower]

I already have an idea for the rack pieces, which would add another purpose.

it will be interesting to see what you guys come up with, for alternate uses of the new parts

:-)

[efferman]

a custom actuator maybe

[MSc Shobaki]

I don't get why you are complaining about the new outriggers. You said it yourself, the truck is 17 studs wide (or 19), doesn't matter. How many studs do you want the outriggers to extend? Simple... Lets say 10 studs, that would require minimum of 11 studs wide bracing to hold it up.

Wanna go lower? Lets say 8 studs, sort of half the trucks width, minimum of 9 studs of bracing is needed for it to be linear. Still gonna require more than half the trucks width. I think the new parts are good and really look forward to use them. Just imagine how easy this part could be used in forest machines, fire trucks etc. Cheer up guys!

[collinhuygen]

i hope it hits the stores in nl soon

can wait!!!

gr collin

[kieran]

I can't wait to pick this up, reading this has confirmed it to me. The photos are simply amazing, many thanks for your excellent work on this

[miguev]

Yup. I think it's worth trying.

How about this: soft spring in axles 1 & 3 and hard spring in axles 2 & 4. I'm thinking this would alleviate the load on the sort spring shocks by having an axle with hard spring shocks very close by, while at the same time allowing the first of each par of axles to hit a bump to react quickly to it. I won't get this set until January, so please report back if you try this

a custom actuator maybe

Exactly what I had in mind... can't wait to see how it can be done.

[allanp]

An actuator similar to the one used to raise the bed of the barcode truck?

[CP5670]

I'm a bit on the fence about this set. It seems very good, but not quite at the level of 42009. The new pneumatics are awesome but it doesn't actually include very many of them, especially given that it's likely to cost $250. I would have like to see the whole model designed around pneumatics and more of the functions powered by them, especially the dump bed and outriggers. The steering mechanism is quite impressive though and is probably my favorite part of the model. Lots of other new parts as well like the 60t turntable. From the pictures it looks like it's made of a glossy material (PC?) unlike the current turntable, but similar to the old studded turntable which also turned smoothly.

I definitely plan to stock up on the pneumatic parts in any case. Excellent review as well, I love the pictures in the construction site.

Great review, excellent pics and video!

I like the model a lot BUT what about these outriggers??? manual?? why haven't they used the 42009 system? It's the same problem, for me, of the 8258, the make a perfect model but then "ruin" it with outriggers that aren't completly motorized (as 42009).

And then why they are out of truck shape?? usually outriggers disappear inside and stay in line with the truck shape.....

Despite that small thing, it's a must buy model!

I agree, the outriggers are lousy. I never liked these mechanisms where the control knob is right next to the actuated function. Not a fan of the new parts used for them either, which seem too specialized.

Edited July 6, 2015 by CP5670

[efferman]

the outriggers would be in shape when the bodywork would cover the chassis. the chassis is 19 wide, and the body is mostly 17 wide. on the cab there is only the fender to make wider, but the tipper bed has to grow complete by 2 studs.