Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

Your responses seem to contradict themselves.  You start by stating the scale does not matter, continue with this thinking for most of the post, but then end it with "if the end product is around...." (i.e. talking about how the scale DOES matter). 

:grin: I was thinking in the mindset that if one was trying to base a model off a different crane that the same size would be a different scale. You're right, I did contradict myself.

26 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

I could be really off here, but it looks like you are going with the 68.7mm balloon tire?  Is that correct?  Or the 81.6? 

No, I am going with the 91. The 68.7s are for testing. I have replaced them already.

26 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

Your build, I have no doubt, can be better than 42082.  And probably will be.

Thanks :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, suffocation said:

My RTC is more or less the same size as 42082 but, based on the (almost) complete LXF file I'm having compiled, it's barely over 3000 parts, probably due to the high number of motors, frames, panels and large turntables. Obviously, my model looks like codswallop compared to 42082 but, given the very low number of system bricks in 42082, I don't think aesthetics account for much here.

And if we erase the 3-400 "fluff" pieces that we have already discussed, that are not really part of the set (hub caps, tool box, building walls) then we really don't have too much of a piece count gap. 

I don't dispute that TLG engaged in piece-gouging to inflate the piece count in this set.  One only needs to look at the hubs, the battery box, etc. to see this as the case. I just don't think it is as bad as everyone assumes.  Also, I don't think it has so much to do with poor design as it does with the obvious "fluff" they added to the set just to inflate the piece count. 

Important distinction here is inflated piece count because of design flaw (one build) versus inflated piece count because of multiple vehicles, entities, etc.

17 minutes ago, BrickbyBrickTechnic said:

:grin: I was thinking in the mindset that if one was trying to base a model off a different crane that the same size would be a different scale. You're right, I did contradict myself.

No, I am going with the 91. The 68.7s are for testing. I have replaced them already.

Thanks :classic:

then you are on your way!  Eager to see your results....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

And if we erase the 3-400 "fluff" pieces that we have already discussed, that are not really part of the set (hub caps, tool box, building walls) then we really don't have too much of a piece count gap.

There's a 1 kg weight gap, though (3.5 vs 4.5) - but then again, that's always going to happen when you pile on the motors. Kinda like 42030.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2018 at 3:35 AM, Bartybum said:

What happens mechanically is that the input rotates until the torsional energy in the axle overcomes frictional effects, and the output begins to rotate. However, it doesn’t immediately rotate at the same speed as the input (because of intertia), and so even more torsional energy is built up in the axle. What ends up happening is that the output then speeds up until it’s faster than the input, and then due to excess torsional energy in the opposite direction it slows down again.

I hadn't thought of that. You're probably right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, adigyran said:

is it possible to replace actuators with pneumatic cylinders from 42080?

The problem is where to install the pump only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I think a lot of the beef with this set boils down to it's not very innovative. 42009 pushed Lego cranes forward, whereas 42082 is a giant step backwards, with the single section boom and unrealistic outriggers. 42082 just isn't exciting in the same way some other flagships were. It's not a bad set, but it is not exciting. Also, I feel as if both the scale and number of parts are wrong. Lego seems to have focused on making the set as big as possible, instead of as big as it needs to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

You know, I think a lot of the beef with this set boils down to it's not very innovative. 42009 pushed Lego cranes forward, whereas 42082 is a giant step backwards, with the single section boom and unrealistic outriggers. 42082 just isn't exciting in the same way some other flagships were. It's not a bad set, but it is not exciting. Also, I feel as if both the scale and number of parts are wrong. Lego seems to have focused on making the set as big as possible, instead of as big as it needs to be.

You have hit the nail on what is wrong with this set. I think we will see repetitions of cranes, trucks, etc. every 5-6 years because that is logically the “lifetime” (8-14 years old) of a young Lego Technic client, the primary target group of Lego. Current 10 year olds do not know/cannot obtain the 42009 (released in 2013) and previous cranes, so they will logically be excited with 42082. But Lego should indeed aim to at least improve/innovate and realise that bigger is not necessarily better.

What bothers me personally most with this set is that the scale is off and that the boom contains only one extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with @Saberwing40k and @WvG_853 on this one all the way. This set is too big for its purpose and, aside from some slabs and an opening cab door, does little more than 8270 from 2007 - which has faster outriggers, by the way! :grin:

Edited by Maaboo35

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least 8270 has a proper B-model :grin:

19 hours ago, adigyran said:

is it possible to replace actuators with pneumatic cylinders from 42080?

To be honest, to raise the boom properly I'd use 4 pneumatic cylinders, 2 side by side, 2 "in series" (as on 8460). That would also probably increase the range of the boom, and solve the "non-horizontal boom" problem.

Then, while you're at it, you could even think of using pneumatics for the outriggers. The easiest way would probably be to just replace the small LAs by old large cylinders, one per outrigger. That would probably require only little change to the geometry and mounting points, and would probably make them move faster too.

Using pneumatics for these 2 functions would eliminate two complex gear trains, freeing up space on the inside to simplify things. But you would loose the unlimited rotation (as is always the case when a pneumatic hose goes through the turntable.

And using pneumatics, it may even work to tuck in a tilting cabin as an extra function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello. Am not sure if you guys have a YouTube search but a new video by someone called ‘Takwoonken YU’ has been uploaded and it shows a full RC 42082. Very impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2018 at 3:50 PM, suffocation said:

Looks like 42082 already has an awesome C model, courtesy of - I think! - @nico71 (can you confirm?).

800x459.jpg

800x522.jpg

800x495.jpg

Can you please provide the link for these models? @Jim has confirmed that they are from @nico71 but am not able search for these in Nico’s website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, rathodsandeep said:

Hello. Am not sure if you guys have a YouTube search but a new video by someone called ‘Takwoonken YU’ has been uploaded and it shows a full RC 42082. Very impressive.

It looks more like a very rough proof of concept - all those motors and receivers and battery boxes sticking out all over the place are a bloody eyesore.

As for the instructions to Nico71's brilliant C model, they'll probably be published here: http://www.nico71.fr/
 

Edited by suffocation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2018 at 4:15 PM, Erik Leppen said:

At least 8270 has a proper B-model :grin:

To be honest, to raise the boom properly I'd use 4 pneumatic cylinders, 2 side by side, 2 "in series" (as on 8460). That would also probably increase the range of the boom, and solve the "non-horizontal boom" problem.

Then, while you're at it, you could even think of using pneumatics for the outriggers. The easiest way would probably be to just replace the small LAs by old large cylinders, one per outrigger. That would probably require only little change to the geometry and mounting points, and would probably make them move faster too.

Using pneumatics for these 2 functions would eliminate two complex gear trains, freeing up space on the inside to simplify things. But you would loose the unlimited rotation (as is always the case when a pneumatic hose goes through the turntable.

And using pneumatics, it may even work to tuck in a tilting cabin as an extra function.

You wouldn't necessarily lose unlimited rotations if you have an axle running through the turn table which powers a second pump in the base. By separating the air circuits in this way you also have the benefit of not losing pressure when another function is activated. But if your going to that level of modding, may as well go one step further with 2 stage pneumatic outriggers. But powering 4 cyclinders at once? Make sure use have multiple pumps going at a decent speed to get the full benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, allanp said:

But powering 4 cyclinders at once? Make sure use have multiple pumps going at a decent speed to get the full benefit.

And make a very gradual valve opening mechanism, or else the boom will come crashing down whenever you open the valve, like what happens with the 8421.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see what valve travel limiters can be made with the new valves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2018 at 12:27 AM, WvG_853 said:

You have hit the nail on what is wrong with this set. I think we will see repetitions of cranes, trucks, etc. every 5-6 years because that is logically the “lifetime” (8-14 years old) of a young Lego Technic client, the primary target group of Lego. Current 10 year olds do not know/cannot obtain the 42009 (released in 2013) and previous cranes, so they will logically be excited with 42082. But Lego should indeed aim to at least improve/innovate and realise that bigger is not necessarily better.

What bothers me personally most with this set is that the scale is off and that the boom contains only one extension.

Perhaps from a AFOL POV.  There are plenty, perhaps younger folks in the target population for this set, who will see this set as a huge set forward.  Many will view using the new ring gears (first introduced by BWE) for the turntable as a step forward.  Remember, that was one of the biggest complaints for 42009.  Couldn't lift anything without looking like it was going to topple over.  The problem wasn't so much in the boom but rather in the turntable.  This set, while still with its flaws - resolves that issue. 

Its funny how sometimes we define "function" - it seems like it is uniformly defined as doing tons of different operations - even if those operations don't perform all that well.  Hell, we even consider opening doors, etc. as "functions."  In real life cranes, supercars, and many other vehicles don't have many diverse operations.   Supercars, they just go really fast.  Cranes, they lift stuff.  Their "function" comes not so much in the operation itself, but in the manner in which they do it.  There is alot of interesting engineering behind this - don't miss it.  Not saying this crane matches that, but sometimes I do think we need to scrutinize our definition of "functional"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

(...)

^-- This.

What I think was the focus of the 42082 from the 42009 was, instead of having more functions, having better-working functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been baffled by the frequent cries for more functions. A mobile crane only does a certain number of things, what else do people expect? For the same number of functions, for me 42082 do them better than 42009.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, the wheel loader alternate of 42082 is not yet published, I hope in the next week, you can take apart the whole 42082 because everything is new on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, nico71 said:

Hello, the wheel loader alternate of 42082 is not yet published, I hope in the next week, you can take apart the whole 42082 because everything is new on it.

Thanks for the update @nico71. I’ll be receiving the set by then and might build your model first :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

I've always been baffled by the frequent cries for more functions. A mobile crane only does a certain number of things, what else do people expect? For the same number of functions, for me 42082 do them better than 42009.

3-stage instead of 2-stage boom, better outriggers, pendular suspension, steering pivot points that aren’t halfway into the chassis, that kinda stuff.

It’s not more functions that peeps want, but better versions of what’s on offer. I’m certain that almost all of us realise that there’s only so many functions a crane can have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crab steer, raisable cabin, detachable counterweight, separate jib. suspension. All of these are possible, maybe not all in the same model, but I have used each of those in one of my cranes (whether finished or not :P); all models that are less than 4000 parts.

Some people have built elaborate Y-frames, or how're they called, on their crane's booms, which would also be a nice function.

So it's not like there's a lack of functions not yet seen in recent official crane sets. Especially a crane with only 4 wheels, as opposed to 8 or 10, would have been a good opportunity to introduced for example pendular suspension or crab steering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.