Jim

[REVIEW] 42082 - Rough Terrain Crane

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Shurik said:

What is wrong with the drive? Why should axles feeding the LA be reversed? Why is it a flaw at all?

A 12-tooth double bevel gear takes its place right between 2 20-tooth double bevel gears and everything works just fine. 

 
If you just move the LAs without touching the gears, you can see one LA retracting while the other one deploy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fred-eric said:
 

If you just move the LAs without touching the gears, you can see one LA retracting while the other one deploy

Yes, exactly. I spent two more minutes to make a proper assemble in Photoshop, as I don't have this set. Here is:

800x781.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

 

Thanks for your review and marvellous pics! I got this one as soon as I could get my hands on it, for 200 euros, which I consider a plenty good enough deal. Still building though... it's quite large.

One small remark: in the list of functions you seem to have forgotten the motorized slewing of the superstructure (just the one 42009 didn't have...;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 60 degrees movement of the boom means one LA advances 60 degrees around the 20t - imagine keeping the 20t stationary and rotating the LA around its axis, its the same as moving the 20t and keeping the LA stationary. The other LA does the reverse, so from fully down to fully up, it introduces 120 degrees of offset between the 2 LA, and since its a 20t driving a 12t, its nearer 200 degrees.. though less than one turn on a LA isn't going to break anything, its not technically ideal

Not sure thats any clearer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, fred-eric said:
 

If you just move the LAs without touching the gears, you can see one LA retracting while the other one deploy
5 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

The 60 degrees movement of the boom means one LA advances 60 degrees around the 20t - imagine keeping the 20t stationary and rotating the LA around its axis, its the same as moving the 20t and keeping the LA stationary. The other LA does the reverse, so from fully down to fully up, it introduces 120 degrees of offset between the 2 LA, and since its a 20t driving a 12t, its nearer 200 degrees.. though less than one turn on a LA isn't going to break anything, its not technically ideal

Not sure thats any clearer!

Ah, got it! Yes, you’re both right. But obviously 60 degrees isn’t something that can cause problems during play. Moreover, @fred-eric once the tower is assembled and all gears are in place, you won't be able to move LAs without involving gears. LAs can only be activated through gear movement, so I would disagree with @Jim about this being a flaw at all.

Edited by Shurik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the review! Beautiful photos as per usual.

By the looks the 16T and 20T gears where the outrigger modules connect can be swapped around pretty easily (just requires 2x extra 16T gears) which should make them 25/16 times faster than they are now. They don't seem to really lift the chassis now, so the reduced torque shouldn't be a problem?

Edited by JonathanM

Share this post


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

Ah, got it! Yes, you’re both right. But obviously 60 degrees isn’t something that can cause problems during play. Moreover, @fred-eric once the tower is assembled and all gears are in place, you won't be able to move LAs without involving gears. LAs can only be activated through gear movement, so I would disagree with @Jim about this being a flaw at all.

This will also happen when you will raise or lower the boom. I took the exemple without moving the gears because I think it is easer to figure

 

1 hour ago, Yann FOURE said:

Is it the big lego technic crane ?

yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this review Jim.  Pics are excellent, and overall I enjoy your take on things as they tend to be a little less pessimistic than others  :wink:

I don't mean to sound like a broken record..... I think I brought this up back when the Porsche was new.  There was a ton of hubaloo about price per piece in that set.....

But I suspect dividing price by piece count, giving us a price per piece is not the most accurate way to measure a set's value.  It is by measuring the amount of plastic that is in a set, or overall Lego (which includes booklet, etc) and dividing price by that figure. 

Years ago, and I need to dig up the data set, I compared the associations between piece count and price and set weight and price.  I looked at like several hundred sets (my own curiosity) and weight of set easily had the greater relationship with set price.  Overall correlation value was greater and there certainly was less variance.  When I regressed price onto set weight versus piece count I also got a better prediction value with weight and price than piece count and price.  Piece count is an indirect measure of ABS in a set, but set weight is a more direct measure (certainly not perfect.....as it also contains box weight, instructions weight, etc. but it is a better predictor).  

I get it.... there is a lot in a set that is not ABS.  Does not matter.  Over hundreds of sets, that all evens itself out.  The key here is yea, the price per piece may only be like 7.5 cents a piece, but if they are all pieces that use little ABS then they do not cost TLG much.  Pins, all the black rounded tiles for the hubs etc - they all don't cost TLG much.  I am not saying this is the case with this set.... looks like there are plenty of liftarms that carry quite a bit of ABS, .....just something to think about.  I really wish people would rethink the PPP argument.  Perhaps I should look into publishing something formally. 

Another thing that I suspect goes into the formula is the amount of new molds that need to be created for a set.... or even the amount of different (even if used before) molds per piece overall.  As you mention, there are only two pages to the inventory.  So, per lot there are tons of pieces but relatively few lots (molds).  This can be demonstrated with a piece count per lot.  Sets with high piece count per lot are less unique (not overall, just in terms of piece use) than sets with much less pieces in each lot.  Overall, high piece count per lot is a measure of redundancy (pieces used over and over and over) and the more redundant a set is, the cheaper it is for TLG to produce it. 

So.... with the above, I am not certain this set is the outstanding value everyone may think it is based solely on price per piece.  Maybe.... I really need to look at its weight.  But according to the redundancy value I mentioned, there certainly is a lot of it. 

But, I do like the set, I think I will get it.  Just wanted to point out the above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic review once more Jim, thanks a lot! I love the looks of the crane very much, but I have to go with Sariel here in terms of "you can already build it with the parts you have". Maybe not in the same colours but with some minor changes on the body here and there, definitely. This is probably the main reason for me to skip it. But I would like to build it, so my question is, do we know TLG's policy of publishing the pdf instructions? Does anyone know when can we expect them?

Now off to another read-look-through the review :-)

Best regards,

Miha

Share this post


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

...do we know TLG's policy of publishing the pdf instructions? Does anyone know when can we expect them?

Right here

https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/buildinginstructions/search#?search&text=42082%20Rough%20Terrain%20Crane%20Technic

So far as I know the instructions are published online about simultaneously with release.

Edited by conceitedguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I've missed this somewhere but, where do the outrigger spreader plates get stowed when not in use? 

Share this post


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

Forgive me if I've missed this somewhere but, where do the outrigger spreader plates get stowed when not in use? 

There's a storage area on the front of the crane chassis in front of the turntable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maaboo35 said:

There's a storage area on the front of the crane chassis in front of the turntable.

Thank you.  It's obvious now you point it out.  I can also make them out on the box now I know where to look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great review Jim. I appreciate the time and energy you put into these.

I was wondering though if the rubber bands serve a purpose. I’ve read a couple of things, resistance for a mechanism and that they are purely cosmetic. 

Sorry if I’ve missed an earlier discussion about this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

But I suspect dividing price by piece count, giving us a price per piece is not the most accurate way to measure a set's value.  It is by measuring the amount of plastic that is in a set, or overall Lego (which includes booklet, etc) and dividing price by that figure. 

The issue is that there is far more to a set's value than 'more ABS' = 'better than'. AFOLs aren't trying to extract as much undifferentiated ABS from TLG as economically as possible (or maybe they are :laugh:) - 1/2 kg. of multiple elements seems far more valuable than one element that weighs 1 kg. 

Anyway, great review Jim, both in photography and details on construction and parts. Nice catch on the linear actuator issue discussed above. I usually focus on System sets but this year's Technic offerings are really attractive. I find this model quite impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

Thanks for this review Jim.  Pics are excellent, and overall I enjoy your take on things as they tend to be a little less pessimistic than others  :wink:

I don't mean to sound like a broken record..... I think I brought this up back when the Porsche was new.  There was a ton of hubaloo about price per piece in that set.....

But I suspect dividing price by piece count, giving us a price per piece is not the most accurate way to measure a set's value.  It is by measuring the amount of plastic that is in a set, or overall Lego (which includes booklet, etc) and dividing price by that figure. 

Years ago, and I need to dig up the data set, I compared the associations between piece count and price and set weight and price.  I looked at like several hundred sets (my own curiosity) and weight of set easily had the greater relationship with set price.  Overall correlation value was greater and there certainly was less variance.  When I regressed price onto set weight versus piece count I also got a better prediction value with weight and price than piece count and price.  Piece count is an indirect measure of ABS in a set, but set weight is a more direct measure (certainly not perfect.....as it also contains box weight, instructions weight, etc. but it is a better predictor).  

I get it.... there is a lot in a set that is not ABS.  Does not matter.  Over hundreds of sets, that all evens itself out.  The key here is yea, the price per piece may only be like 7.5 cents a piece, but if they are all pieces that use little ABS then they do not cost TLG much.  Pins, all the black rounded tiles for the hubs etc - they all don't cost TLG much.  I am not saying this is the case with this set.... looks like there are plenty of liftarms that carry quite a bit of ABS, .....just something to think about.  I really wish people would rethink the PPP argument.  Perhaps I should look into publishing something formally. 

Another thing that I suspect goes into the formula is the amount of new molds that need to be created for a set.... or even the amount of different (even if used before) molds per piece overall.  As you mention, there are only two pages to the inventory.  So, per lot there are tons of pieces but relatively few lots (molds).  This can be demonstrated with a piece count per lot.  Sets with high piece count per lot are less unique (not overall, just in terms of piece use) than sets with much less pieces in each lot.  Overall, high piece count per lot is a measure of redundancy (pieces used over and over and over) and the more redundant a set is, the cheaper it is for TLG to produce it. 

So.... with the above, I am not certain this set is the outstanding value everyone may think it is based solely on price per piece.  Maybe.... I really need to look at its weight.  But according to the redundancy value I mentioned, there certainly is a lot of it. 

But, I do like the set, I think I will get it.  Just wanted to point out the above. 

Just saying I am really interested in this. People have charted legos average price per piece over time but it would be really interesting if we could find out price per graham of ABS. I have a feeling its risen rapidly over the past 10 years, more than inflation.  And maybe even convert that back into a brick and say "this set is on average .7 cents for a 1x3 brick". If you ever find that data make a thread please! 

Edited by chezzymann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the great review just in time. We all have waited for the new 42082.

 

I believe you made a small mistake in the outriggers shown on the Picture. the 12 T bevel gears should not be positioned symmetrically. In the way they are shown in the picture, one outrigger will be raised while the other one will be lowered.

 

Just one addition to the interesting discussion about the big LAs which already was an issue in 8043. The axles feeding the LA don't have to be reversed. The 20T grey bevel gears are idlers. Their positions do not have any effect on the turning direction of the LA feed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh interesting insights. I will take a look tonight. I do think the outriggers are mounted the way they are shown in the pic. 

But I will have to check :wink: 

1 hour ago, chezzymann said:

Just saying I am really interested in this. People have charted legos average price per piece over time but it would be really interesting if we could find out price per graham of ABS. I have a feeling its risen rapidly over the past 10 years, more than inflation.  And maybe even convert that back into a brick and say "this set is on average .7 cents for a 1x3 brick". If you ever find that data make a thread please! 

Basically price per weight? That’s not very hard to calculate.

But that is generic since that would also include PF etc. Maybe too generic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure weather to start new topic for this, but here's an interesting video on price per piece Vs weight

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, folks. I was wrong with my comment about the outriggers' movement in 42082. The way shown in the picture is correct, of course. Both outriggers will move simultanously. My fault - blame it on the early morning and my night shift. ;-)

But I stick to my opinion about the idle gears feeding the large LAs... I'm curious about your comments and ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great review, as usual!

On 8/2/2018 at 11:03 AM, JonathanM said:

By the looks the 16T and 20T gears where the outrigger modules connect can be swapped around pretty easily (just requires 2x extra 16T gears) which should make them 25/16 times faster than they are now. They don't seem to really lift the chassis now, so the reduced torque shouldn't be a problem?

That was exactly my thought, when looking at the icture. I don't understand, why they did not do that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, tripletschiee said:

Great review, as usual!

That was exactly my thought, when looking at the icture. I don't understand, why they did not do that.

 

Mini LAs have a small amount of internal friction even without any load applied to them. Maybe driving 4 of them simultaneously through a long, twisting gear train (including 2 gearboxes) at a higher speed would be a bit too much stress on the L motor, like in 42009? I haven't built 42082 so don't know if that's true. I guess its better (but still not great) to have them move slower than the growth of stalagmites and stalactites but reliably for everyone regardless of battery type used than slow for some and not at all for others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jim said:

Ahhh interesting insights. I will take a look tonight. I do think the outriggers are mounted the way they are shown in the pic. 

But I will have to check :wink: 

Basically price per weight? That’s not very hard to calculate.

But that is generic since that would also include PF etc. Maybe too generic.

It seems too generic.  I get it.  And like I said, doesn't seem to make much sense because it does account for non-ABS stuff. However, it doesn't matter.  Non ABS is still LEGO, or at least to them it is, and they are going to charge you for it.  And the thing is, like explained in the video below, it is much better related to price of a Lego set than is piece count.  Especially towards the tail end of larger Lego sets.  This is a statistical conclusion.  Not a personal one.  Someone may say "well, I don't care about packaging" etc. - that is fine.   I am not making the argument based on any type of preference. Simply put, the relationship to final price of a Lego set is better predicted by its weight than its piece count - which uncovers something about something about whatever formula TLG uses to determine price point of sets.  I assume what it uncovers is the cost/use of ABS (which is reflected in weight.  Indirectly in piece count yes, but more-so in weight).  Uncovers the use of other things as well, but mostly ABS since that is primarily what you are buying when you purchase a set. 

4 hours ago, allanp said:

Not sure weather to start new topic for this, but here's an interesting video on price per piece Vs weight

 

Yes.  This is exactly what I meant.  Excellent find.  Couple of things: (1) I would not have used the term "value" in the video.  This is too subjective and hard data points like those in the video often mean little to someone in terms of subjective value.  Those watching the video I would encourage to think of like "price point" or something every time "value" is mentioned.

(2) - the real story in the graphs I think was missed.  Yes - Set weight's relationship to price point is stronger than piece count was discussed, but the real story is the difference between small and large sets.  See on the graphs how the scatter of all the dots for smaller sets is relatively tight on both graphs?  for both piece count and weight?  But then for larger sets the scatter in the graph on piece count starts to go all over the place but for weight it remains the same?  This is likely means there is an interaction going on.  Can't tell completely,  but what this means is that yes, weight is a better predictor than piece count of TLG price point but only for large sets; and exponentially so.  i.e. the larger the set, the more this becomes the case.  So then one has to ask why?  I assume it has something to do with what I mentioned before with redundancy.  Redundancy, in this context, is amount of pieces per lot.   As any Bricklinker knows, it takes a lot of work to create a lot of "lots".   More "lots" of pieces = more work.  I would much rather have an order for 1000 pieces in one lot than an order for 1000 pieces but in 999 lots (999 different types of pieces versus only one). Large sets, through no fault of their own, (this is actually a natural law), will have many more pieces per lot (redundancy) than small sets.  And the relationship is not linear.  It gets more-so the larger the set is.  Just like in the graph on weight and price point.  

12 hours ago, GregoryBrick said:

The issue is that there is far more to a set's value than 'more ABS' = 'better than'. AFOLs aren't trying to extract as much undifferentiated ABS from TLG as economically as possible (or maybe they are :laugh:) - 1/2 kg. of multiple elements seems far more valuable than one element that weighs 1 kg. 

Anyway, great review Jim, both in photography and details on construction and parts. Nice catch on the linear actuator issue discussed above. I usually focus on System sets but this year's Technic offerings are really attractive. I find this model quite impressive.

Yes - you are right.  I think "value" was the wrong term to use.  Too subjective.  Perhaps a better term or phrase would be "price point".  As mentioned in my last post, I am not trying to make a subjective claim here.  I think I do a pretty fair job of stating when something is my opinion or not.  My original post was simply to point out the difference in statistical relationship between weight and price of a set versus piece count and price point of a set.  Everyone thinks that piece count is the "holy grail" of this measuring this relationship.  But I don't think this is the case.  I think there is a near just-as-easy-to-obtain metric (weight) that better accounts for the variance between Lego set price points.  Confirmed by the video posted by @allanp

Edited by nerdsforprez

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.