[REVIEW] 42070 - 6x6 All Terrain Tow Truck

[Jim]

SALES AND MARKETING 101
(for mediocre product)

Release a new product (42070) and overprice it (279 euro). Make sure there is enough margin for yourself and retailers.

Retailer offers product for 200 euro (that's 79 less than MSRP).

Consumer sees 200 euro and thinks "Wow, that's a 79 euro discount". Consumer buys product and is a happy camper.

What actually happened?
Consumer bought a product for 200 euro where he would normally not pay 200 euro for....AND he has a good feeling about it 

[kolbjha]

34 minutes ago, Jim said:

What actually happened?
Consumer bought a product for 200 euro where he would normally not pay 200 euro for....AND he has a good feeling about it 

Yeah, that's the oldest trick in the book.

However, I am going to get this set. Primarily for the parts (tires and dark azure parts), but also because I think it is a good model. If not thinking price, the main cons with the model IMO is lack of suspension and diff lock. The unfinished look doesn't bother me. IMO a great model for modding, and a lot of fun together with my son. Besides, I just bought the Lego Boost set, and I really like the combination of dark azure, orange and white used in this set. So, looking forward to get some more dark azure Technic parts.

[Saberwing40k]

I'm seeing some 42070 sets on bricklink for $215~, and that is almost worth it. If you want that set, that is an almost decent price for it. I still have no love for this set, and it is without a doubt in my mind one of the worst Technic sets ever. Why? I've got many a reason.

• It's luridly overpriced. Somehow, sets with only one motor and battery box don't cost any more than their non PF counterparts, but the second you even have a receiver, the set price balloons. Somehow, this turd costs more than 42030, while having half the motors. Furthermore, 42030 had one new, gigantic part, and a license to boot. I calculated the price of this set, and it should be ~$230, not $290. Am I the only one who wonders where the other $60 went?
• It's unfinished in some places, yet wastes parts in others. The front wheel mounts in particular come to mind, as they could have had it like the Unimog, but instead of using a single piece, the design includes an inferior solution that uses more parts, and is weaker. Less noticeably, there are places where 2 half bushes are used instead of a single full bush. But, they can't spare any parts to fill in the cab, or the crane, or anything else.
• There are several asinine design compromises, like the lack of suspension on the front axle, and the weird rear axles. Now, I was thinking, maybe that was because Lego would not allow U joints in the drivetrain, minus the steering axle, to give the set the ability to crawl, but that idea is undermined by the open differentials, the clutch gears in the drivetrain, the weird suspension again, the IR receiver, and the improper gear ratio. If Lego is not willing to make the set something with any degree of off road performance, then what's the point of those weird compromises? Also, the turning circle is obnoxiously wide for no particular reason, the crane arm is unfinished, and why have an RC set with a manual gearbox? Why not have something like 8043? Or, why not just make it a manual set, with good suspension, and good design? Also, why does a big, 6x6 truck have a 4 cylinder engine?
• There are no new parts, even though there are ample opportunities to have them, like stronger U joints and diffs for the drivetrain, so maybe the truck could have actual suspension, or new concentric pieces so that 3 functions could pass through a turntable, and others.
• Color barf. The chassis has so much color coding, that is needless. Lego only does color coding like this in Technic, not in any other theme. Even other System or Creator sets that are in the 11-16 age range don't have color coding. And, if this set is more aimed at younger kids, why is it labeled 11-16?
• The designer should have known better. Uwe Wabra designed 8258, one of the best Technic sets ever.
• The design is simple, and boring, even ignoring the parts that aren't finished.
• Finally, all the above would be bad enough, but Lego let the fans down in a major way by releasing this turd of a flagship on the 40th anniversary.

Oh well, there's that off my chest. I actually posted several rants about this set, as it is bad, and my only question is why? Why did Lego rush this out? Why did they make the design choices they made? My problem is more with the unanswered questions than anything else, but that's just me.

But, this is Lego. I think I'll put my money where my mouth is, and prove that I can build a better flagship.

[TechnicRCRacer]

I just got mine and I really don't think that it is half bad! (besides price)

[Iloveazure]

23 hours ago, kolbjha said:

Yeah, that's the oldest trick in the book.

However, I am going to get this set. Primarily for the parts (tires and dark azure parts), but also because I think it is a good model. If not thinking price, the main cons with the model IMO is lack of suspension and diff lock. The unfinished look doesn't bother me. IMO a great model for modding, and a lot of fun together with my son. Besides, I just bought the Lego Boost set, and I really like the combination of dark azure, orange and white used in this set. So, looking forward to get some more dark azure Technic parts.

Actually i'd like to see dark azure parts in every category, it would be great to build a totally dark azure moc.

[N-4K0]

I ordered this set last week along with the BMW bike and received it yesterday. I built the BMW bike last night and might start with this set tonight.

As usual I enjoy having the large box nearby, lol.

[DoomedACE]

me thinks, maybe 42070 was created in a very short timefame.

As if they had not planned to to have it originally, but then changed their minds and requested it very late.

Don't know, just a thought.

[DarkShadow73]

On 7/17/2017 at 7:53 PM, Jelo said:

I agree with a lot of the sentiment about this set, could (should) have been better especially for the price. I think all the technic sets this year are overpriced though so far...

Hopefully 42067 exists and is actually something good or 2017 has been a big fail for technic in their 40th year :(

As for colours, in my opinion it is rather difficult to build a moc without colour vomit in only black, red, yellow and in the last few years now white, so lego should maybe try to minimise the range a bit

I think 42068 is on par price-wise.  Just my opinion...

 

[DarkShadow73]

When comparing all the towing vehicles Lego has (besides the futuristic-looking 8462 which did have its perks, pneumatic w/ 2 air tanks but hardly any gearing as a result, plus it was model year 1998, Technic was quite different back in that era), I believe the 8285 from 2006 was the finest looking and functioning tow truck, and about on par scale-wise with the 42070, but with more of a finished look.  Others had their querks.  I loved the 42008 but it had the low-profile tires and small rims on it, not exactly fit for a vehicle like that.  The 8052 Container Truck from 2010 also had those 'tiny' tires on it as well as the 8109.  Then comes along the 42024 with more beefy tires.  I since have converted my 8109 Flatbed Tow Truck with the taller tires, looks a lot better.  I realize I'm going off topic here a bit.  The 8285's boom didn't have extensions on it like the 8421 Crane or 42009, both of which are incredible in their own right.  But, one quirk with the 8421 is that if you left the boom up and extended overnight, the pneumatic valves would not hold it up and by morning it would be sunk down.  

I guess point I'm trying to make is every model has its own issues, but after looking at Jim's pics and other replies here, there is much colour vomit here on the inside and I hate that.  Its like a 6 year old putting together a building and using tons of different colour pieces (yes that was me in 1979).  Back then things weren't <insert that tiresome argument> the way they have been for the past +/- 20 years on System sets.  Since coming back to Lego in 2004 after a long hiatus and 'finding' the Technic series, I have owned or own just about every set made since 2003, and many older Technic sets.  But, I hate colour vomit.  I cannot understand why there a few or several parts in a build, especially on the large builds which I love, that are totally out of character for said set.  Makes you wonder why the designer put in a few white parts, that like the 42070's innards aren't seen visually on the outside, instead of in keeping with the set's major colors.  8109 comes to mind also, lots of different colours on the inside.  Did they 'run out' of the right colour parts, and just improvised using a totally different colour?  

All that said though, the price for the 42070 is a HUGE hinge point and unless the set goes on deep discount, I highly doubt they are going to get many buyers.  Could be wrong, maybe ones with tons of extra cash will buy it, or as always the collectors of every set, me included, but I'm not flush with ready cash by any means, and the MSRP on this one definitely shocks me.

As far as the many shades of blue that have arisen since 2015 first introduced the 42036 and 42037 in the 'new' medium blue colour, then the 42050 in 2016 with medium azure blue (which I really do like), the blues have kept coming.  The 42066 is a bit blah, a great plane no doubt (both A and B models), but the boring colour kind of muted it for me.  Wish they had just gone with standard blue.  However, I do like the dark blue used in 41999 and 42064 and in one of the pull-backs couple years ago.  That was a great blue colour.  Haven't built the 42070 yet, so not sure what the dark azure blue will look like, its so hard to tell from the box art or even from pictorial reviews, guess I'll see.   

 

 

On 8/9/2017 at 0:26 AM, TechnicRCRacer said:

I just got mine and I really don't think that it is half bad! (besides price)

That's kind of why I bought it as well, I like to own everything now, although I admit I'm on the fence about the 42064 boat and think the 42065 RC racer.  $99 for an RC racer with only 370 parts seems nuts, I'd rather go to a hobby shop and buy a real RC car or truck that can be used outside.  The boat, like many have said, has very little function, except being a great display model, and City(sorry)boats of the same type are more refined looking and have the same functions.  I'm not anything but a Technic fan since I got back into Lego, so I like function AND form.  I was a bit disappointed that there was no ability to add on PF to 42069, and that model shines for 2H2016.  I also really like the 42068.  But, I did buy a 42070 on impulse really, but like you @TechnicRCRacer I wanted to own it even though it cut deeply into my pocket. 

Edited August 12, 2017 by DarkShadow73
Added comment on colour

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Come to think of it, this 42070 could have had like 4 motors in the spectrum (M, L, XL, Sv) like the 42030 and then had 6 functions with 3 motors an the Sv for switching like 8043. That'd be way better.

[Jim]

Anyone made an LDD file for the 42070 already?

Never mind, found it in the MOD topic.

[Sazan]

1 hour ago, nguyengiangoc said:

Come to think of it, this 42070 could have had like 4 motors in the spectrum (M, L, XL, Sv) like the 42030 and then had 6 functions with 3 motors an the Sv for switching like 8043. That'd be way better.

The person who set the price for the 42070 probably thought that all this is actually included.

[N-4K0]

After having built this set I can't but agree that despite whatever positive sides it has, the negative ones by far outweigh them, like the incomplete (or poor if you like) bodywork, open bed area at the back, seemingly frail crane and what not.
I don't mind the Dark Azure color, it's alright although I think it's a bit too close to regular Blue to really justify bringing it into Technic, especially when there's already medium Blue and Medium Azure which both are incomplete when it comes to the range of parts available.

As a parts pack I think it's alright if you find it at a discount, but I can't give it more than an average rating.

As a side note, I found myself last night fiddling with building a handle for the remote, lol.

[1gor]

On 8/8/2017 at 10:55 AM, Jim said:

SALES AND MARKETING 101
(for mediocre product)

Release a new product (42070) and overprice it (279 euro). Make sure there is enough margin for yourself and retailers.

Retailer offers product for 200 euro (that's 79 less than MSRP).

Consumer sees 200 euro and thinks "Wow, that's a 79 euro discount". Consumer buys product and is a happy camper.

What actually happened?
Consumer bought a product for 200 euro where he would normally not pay 200 euro for....AND he has a good feeling about it 

It is all psychology 

(sorry for late reply, but on 8.8.2017 I was with my eye below surgery knife...cataracte surgery) 

[Appie]

On 8-8-2017 at 10:55 AM, Jim said:

SALES AND MARKETING 101
(for mediocre product)

Release a new product (42070) and overprice it (279 euro). Make sure there is enough margin for yourself and retailers.

Retailer offers product for 200 euro (that's 79 less than MSRP).

Consumer sees 200 euro and thinks "Wow, that's a 79 euro discount". Consumer buys product and is a happy camper.

What actually happened?
Consumer bought a product for 200 euro where he would normally not pay 200 euro for....AND he has a good feeling about it 

Which is exactly why I didn't buy it when it was 'on sale' at Toys'r'us the other week for 190 euros. 

[LucyCol]

Thanks for the review Jim excellent as always. 

Finally finished building this set (Brought it as part of a 3 for 2 offer, so that offset some of the cost).  I have to agree with a comment the others have made here in that it feels rushed, but we first saw this back in February so they had plenty of time to get it right.

I enjoyed the build but it was not (for me) without problems as the instructions were poor in places with you having to guess where a piece went as it was on the opposite side to that illustrated, as an example look at page 284 and then 285 and spot the missing pieces.

Build the ‘B’ model – I think not, buy a 2^nd set for parts, only if it is half price.

On a lighter note – I don’t what this new string is made of but my cats love it and I had to fight to get it back. 

[Aventador2004]

3 minutes ago, LucyCol said:

Build the ‘B’ model – I think not, buy a 2^nd set for parts, only if it is half price.

On a lighter note – I don’t what this new string is made of but my cats love it and I had to fight to get it back. 

Maybe make 42066 out of it . I will remember the string thing, my dog loves string... And lasers... 

 

[TechnicRCRacer]

Just built it, very fun! The XL motor sounds stressed while driving and it is hard to change modes, but otherwise it is a great set!

[Ngoc Nguyen]

@Jim You said in the review its MSRP was 279 EUR. But I can't find that price anywhere in the list of prices in Brickset 

https://brickset.com/sets/42070

[Jim]

It probably has been changed to 269. I see 269 as the official Dutch price now.

42069 is also cheaper than the initial information.

[Jeroen Ottens]

I just built this set and the 42069 and I must say I enjoyed building this one more than I did building the 42069...

But the thing is, I enjoyed it more because it was following a lot of rules that I learned when I worked at LEGO (a long time ago). It has almost perfect colourcoding to keep parts apart. It uses a relatively small collection of different parts. It is a very 'efficient' design in that almost every element is used for more than one purpose (as a benchmark you can look at the ratio between 2L pins and 3L pins. The more this ratio skews to 3L pins the more efficient the design is since you typically use 3L pins to connect beams in more than one direction). It is an incredible clean design for the amount of functions it has cramped into it. When going through the build I noticed that most of the beams in the gearboxsection are yellow, which I liked as a concept. Unfortunately it was not executed to maximum possible extend even within this virtual ruleset.

However, is this what we (and I mean this wider than just AFOL's) really care about? Are these unwritten rules that are now obeyed really needed for customer satisfaction?

The 42069 on the other hand was a continuous search for parts. My guess is that the amount of parts/parttype is a lower on this one than on the 42070. Call me crazy, but I like designs that use a few parttypes in great numbers over designs that just use whatever part is available. This is apparently one of these unwritten rules that I picked up as well at the time. And Uwe is a master in this. For us that can be frustating (look how few different bright green parts we got with the 42039 24H racer), but there is an elegance in that way of designing that I can admire from an aesthetic point of view. It is a form of minimalistic design that I can relate to.

Having said all this, I also think the pricetag was wrong...

[Appie]

On 29-8-2017 at 0:15 AM, Jeroen Ottens said:

However, is this what we (and I mean this wider than just AFOL's) really care about? Are these unwritten rules that are now obeyed really needed for customer satisfaction?

Might be good for kids if they actually notice these rules, but I doubt it.

And reading your story about a small collection of different parts, means the price is even more absurd or it means the set has a hefty sum of R&D cost calculated into the MSRP for that efficient and almost perfect colour coding design, because a small collection of different parts also means the production cost of each set is most likely lower than something like the 42069 which has to gather parts in the factory from a wide variety.

I can appreciate a clean design alot, but if the R&D cost calculated into the MSRP is higher on this set than the average set because of it, it might have been better to be a little less clean and alot cheaper. Wages cost more than tiny plastic parts after all. 

[agrof]

50 minutes ago, Appie said:

I can appreciate a clean design alot, but if the R&D cost calculated into the MSRP is higher on this set than the average set because of it, it might have been better to be a little less clean and alot cheaper. Wages cost more than tiny plastic parts after all. 

It doesn't work like that, if the whole development cost (wages, material, etc) is more than 1% of the whole sales value, than something is fundamentally wrong.

I fully agree with @Jeroen Ottens, this is the best combination of practical design, and also part of the so called "Design to Cost". This is part of my daily job too, if every cents matters, it is worth to think 1-2 days more. So in the end such design will be more efficient in production / warehousing / logistics, and gains more profit - less costs.

It is not the design, where the pricing went so horribly wrong at this set, it must be the marketing or sales chart. Or they indeed applied that slippery marketing strategy, what @Jim described above...

[Appie]

I understand it is better for Lego to have a fully optimized model. I only questioned that Uwe's senior designer salary might have a negative impact on the cost of this set.

Most if not all sets are 2 years or more in development. Uwe's salary  of 2 years might be a waterdrop in the bucket in terms of costs for this set (especially since he's working on other sets in that time frame as well). However, I do not know, because I can't see his paycheck. I would think it would be just like you said, but on the other hand I am trying to find an explanation (besides Jim's solid marketing logic) why the set is so expensive as it is and figured crazy R&D costs might have been it.  

An efficient design and low production cost for a product can result in a company calculating these lower costs (partially)  into the retail price. Keyword being 'can' result in a lower price for consumers, companies of course aren't obligated to do so, which Lego clearly didn't with this set. 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Appie

[Ngoc Nguyen]

There's a deal for 42070 at 190 EUR on amazon.de by amazon warehouse deals, but it has been elusive. One moment it's there, another moment it's gone.