Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

One small gripe I have for this set is that it takes the set-with-most-pieces title from the BWE.

Look at it this way - compared to the red crane, the BWE has far, far more necessary parts. The red crane could've easily been pulled off just as well or even better with at least a thousand fewer pieces - but astronomical part counts are an irresistible marketing gimmick, so there you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, suffocation said:

Look at it this way - compared to the red crane, the BWE has far, far more necessary parts. The red crane could've easily been pulled off just as well or even better with at least a thousand fewer pieces - but astronomical part counts are an irresistible marketing gimmick, so there you go.

Indeed. During the build more than once I felt that some certain subassemblies can be created with less parts. It's like the designer intentionally overcomplicate things to increase part count.

Share this post


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

. BWE to me is the true holder of that title.

...true holder of what title?  

For being the largest sets as for pcs counts? Or scale? 

Is for pcs counts I doubt that, how many pcs goes to Dumb truck? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dylan M said:

...true holder of what title?  

For being the largest sets as for pcs counts? Or scale? 

Is for pcs counts I doubt that, how many pcs goes to Dumb truck? 

Yeah I know. But it still feels like that to me. And also of largest scale.

And by the way are you intentional at the "dumb truck" hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Yeah I know. But it still feels like that to me. And also of largest scale.

And by the way are you intentional at the "dumb truck" hahaha

😄😄😄 sorry for typo error 😊 

 

Well anyway the BIG one is on his way to my country so untill then 

I want also to experience what you have experience and tell my story to... 

-Shalom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But back to the comparison between BWE and RTC, I don't really recall the time when I felt that something was overcomplicated and can be simplified when I built the BWE. Probably because the BWE has more structural bracing subassemblies than the RTC, so nothing feel redundant for the BWE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1496795270_42082A1100.thumb.jpg.4364ce589426f3b407dc30fdc13705a4.jpg

 

This is one of the subassemblies that feels overly complicated and redundant. It can be done with a 5x7 frame, 4 pin with pin holes in the inside, 2 pin with pinholes on the outside, and 2 pins.

Edited by Ngoc Nguyen

Share this post


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

But back to the comparison between BWE and RTC, I don't really recall the time when I felt that something was overcomplicated and can be simplified when I built the BWE. Probably because the BWE has more structural bracing subassemblies than the RTC, so nothing feel redundant for the BWE.

May i ask how heavy the RTC is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dylan M said:

May i ask how heavy the RTC is?

I don't have a scale in my house so I can't weigh it. According to Sariel's review, the model weighs 3.418 kg.

But it is much heavier than it looks. I remember trying to lift it from below with one hand, and I was surprised at how heavy it is. 

7 minutes ago, Akbalder said:

Could the crane have more parts to be heavier and be able to lift more things without leaning?

I think whether the crane leans or not depends on the structural bearings and the position of the center of gravity in relation the ground contact base, not the density or weight of the undercarriage.

Edited by Ngoc Nguyen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

According to Sariel's review, the model weighs 3.418 kg.

 

That says a lot about how many pointless tiny pieces have been thrown in to bloat the part count. My crane weighs more - eight motors ain't peanuts - but is just over 3000 parts and is structurally more sound than 42082. More O frames and dogbones would've served a far better purpose than those handfuls of white 1L beams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of observations:

- The inner section of the boom does not have a block at the inner end, which means when the arm is being pushed out and reached the end, if the 12z gear that does the pushing keeps rotating, theoretically it will roll outside the rack. But because of the clutch gear at the lower end of the boom, the transmission is stopped before it can reach the 12z gear.

- There are four walls: two big ones, A1 and A4, and two small ones, A2 and A3. The cool thing is that they are designed so that they can only be fitted together in a certain order. A1 first, then A2 and A3 on top of A1, then A4 on top of A2 and A3. A4 is the wall that has the chains. This also means if you want to lift the whole house, you can only do so when grabbing the A1 wall.

- The crane does not topple even when the outriggers are not deployed AND the boom is fully extended AND fully raised AND rotates around AND is attached with the WHOLE HOUSE at the highest position of the hook. This thing has an impressive load balance and structural integrity.

- Pushing the lever to the front raises the boom, and pulling the lever to the back lower the boom. That is kinda counter-intuitive. I think it'd make more sense for the boom to raise when the lever is pulled back. A little mod can be done to reverse the directions, but they won't match with the functions on the stickers.

- I don't know if someone gets mistaken like me, but the set has 4 chains, two in the box in the side compartment, and two for the walls. Before building the set, I thought the ones on the walls are the same ones in the side compartment.

- Without the rubber band, tt doesn't take much strength to force the hook down or force the boom backwards, so the rubber bands are not useless.

- The slanting 3x7 panels behind the cabin are actually faithful representations of the way the real rear engine is located in the superstructure. I don't know why it is designed like that in the real crane though.Hình ảnh có liên quan

 

Edited by Ngoc Nguyen

Share this post


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

That says a lot about how many pointless tiny pieces have been thrown in to bloat the part count. My crane weighs more - eight motors ain't peanuts - but is just over 3000 parts and is structurally more sound than 42082. More O frames and dogbones would've served a far better purpose than those handfuls of white 1L beams.

I forget the reference, but someone said recently in a semi-official capacity that weight is a more reliable indicator of price than part count.  Perhaps, counterintuitive though it may seem, the bloated parts count and complexity of 42082 makes it more affordable/attractive/palatable to general buyers than a comparable kit that uses fewer parts and is simpler and more sturdy.  For example, suffocation's RTC has about 3000 parts instead of 4000 and is simpler, more functional, and sturdier, but it weighs more and has more motors, so it would be priced significantly higher.  If the RTC as released was suffocation's model, priced at $350 or $400 (accounting for the extra weight and motors compared to 42082's $300), how many people on this forum would balk at the high cost and perceived low value, and wait until it was discounted to $250 or $300 before buying?  By comparison, the 42082 at $300 for 4000 parts is perceived as good value, though of course $300 isn't cheap by any means.  Since the main idea behind the question "could the RTC have been executed at a much smaller parts count" is actually "could the RTC have been executed at a significantly lower cost", I wonder if anyone can build a comparable RTC at a much lower weight.

Share this post


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

This is one of the subassemblies that feels overly complicated and redundant. It can be done with a 5x7 frame, 4 pin with pin holes in the inside, 2 pin with pinholes on the outside, and 2 pins.

It could, but then the pin-with-pinholes could rotate slightly adding friction to the drivetrain and making assembling the whole assy's maybe slightly more difficult. This way all holes are fixated and friction in the drivetrain is minimized. Furthermore the middle hole in the top of the 5x7 frame would be blocked, whereas it is used to attached the lower bananagears to it.

I am not a big fan of this model, because I think a smaller model could have offered the same functions in a more interesting build. But I don't think this model is overly complicated just for the sake of complication. It is just big because of the choice to use the big bananagears to build a turntable with. That determines the scale and the partcount followed from that I think.

And with the size comes the need for sound structural design and especially smooth working geartrains. In that sense this model is really a step up from the 42009 and it is these seemingly overcomplicated solutions that are helping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 9:07 AM, Ngoc Nguyen said:

BWE feels magnificent

It does, you're totally right. I had no interest in a BWE set.... until i saw it. Its a truly awesome set and was an interesting build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No mater how you slice it, the big turntable construct from this model is a thing of frictionless beauty.  My implementation of it in my Trabant ride made me a firm believer... this construct is going to be used by a lot more builders in the future, and I look forward to seeing the MOCs that it inspires. The ease of motion in this turntable and it’s ability to handle weight is impressive.  That it came with a bunch of other parts that make up a RTC was just a bonus, but a little pricey. Wondering aloud to myself right now as to what MOC I would like to use it in next...

Edited by Bublehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bublehead said:

Wondering aloud to myself right now as to what MOC I would like to use it in next...

How about another crane? :laugh:

1280x857.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, erikhortsch said:

wait where were the rubber bands? I cant remember if i did or didnt put them in

 

Right in front of the battery box, between the two triangle thin yellow liftarms

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.