42100 Liebherr R 9800 hands-on review [VIDEO]

[Gray Gear]

33 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

I'd say 42100 is impressive, but 8043 is a design marvel.

 

NO. 8043 is far from Perfect as well. The way you had to switch between functions is terrible. Nonono. 1Motor, 1Function, thats the way to go.

[suffocation]

19 minutes ago, Gray Gear said:

NO. 8043 is far from Perfect as well. The way you had to switch between functions is terrible. Nonono. 1Motor, 1Function, thats the way to go.

I think you're missing Erik's point - 8043 accomplishes a lot with few parts and very little space; 42100 accomplishes little more (barring the app which, as Erik pointed out, is IT, not Lego) with four times the parts and enough space for a whole family of morbidly obese hamsters. 8043 is a showcase of creative ideas; 42100 is a showcase of parts and IT.

Edited September 26, 2019 by suffocation

[jorgeopesi]

In which set did those two grey gears appear for the first time please?. Talking about sets for me the 8043 is the perfect example of a Technic set far away from this one.

Edited September 26, 2019 by jorgeopesi

[Ngoc Nguyen]

12 minutes ago, suffocation said:

enough space for a whole family of morbidly obese hamsters

[allanp]

29 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

In which set did those two grey gears appear for the first time please?. Talking about sets for me the 8043 is the perfect example of a Technic set far away from this one.

I think those gears first appeared in the boost set, but this is the first Technic set that they appear in.

As for this set compared to 8043, it's an interesting comparison intended to highlight how much you can get out of not many parts but for me it's not a very compelling argument simply because 8043 never excited or impressed me at all. For me personally 8043 got nothing from it's very few parts. It had no new parts, complex gearboxes had already been done numerous times before, IR control wasn't new, it had no mechanical authenticity, no lifting capacity, the boom and stick looked awful, the bucket was entirely wrong, the base was a big square (instead of a "H" like real excavators of that type) and you couldn't operate the arm and slew at the same time which didn't make it fun to control as an excavator. The build was OK but only because it was mercifully short! They also had to redesign the LAs because it couldn't even lift it's own boom! Yes it had 6 motorised functions for way less parts than 42100 but then I could make some very unimpressive contraption (like 8043) with 6 motorised functions with less parts than 8043, doesn't mean it would be any good. I do see a lot of praise for 8043 on Eurobricks but I still haven't figured out why! 

But what if they released 42100 with 2 onboard computers and 7 motors but at only 1500 pieces (and rather small) for $350. Would that be better? Would the complaining be any less? I think it's reasonable for them to want something big and impressive with thousands of parts to show off their all new control+ system. I don't think it's like 42082 which really didn't need to be 4000+ pieces.

[Bartybum]

They key difference between 8043 and 42100 is that the former didn’t allow you to use multiple functions at once, whereas the latter does. That’s a big bonus for playability.

For those complaining about the empty insides, I’m not exactly sure what you were expecting from a set based on a model with a tall superstructure.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Bartybum

[jorgeopesi]

1 hour ago, allanp said:

I think those gears first appeared in the boost set, but this is the first Technic set that they appear in.

As for this set compared to 8043, it's an interesting comparison intended to highlight how much you can get out of not many parts but for me it's not a very compelling argument simply because 8043 never excited or impressed me at all. For me personally 8043 got nothing from it's very few parts. It had no new parts, complex gearboxes had already been done numerous times before, IR control wasn't new, it had no mechanical authenticity, no lifting capacity, the boom and stick looked awful, the bucket was entirely wrong, the base was a big square (instead of a "H" like real excavators of that type) and you couldn't operate the arm and slew at the same time which didn't make it fun to control as an excavator. The build was OK but only because it was mercifully short! They also had to redesign the LAs because it couldn't even lift it's own boom! Yes it had 6 motorised functions for way less parts than 42100 but then I could make some very unimpressive contraption (like 8043) with 6 motorised functions with less parts than 8043, doesn't mean it would be any good. I do see a lot of praise for 8043 on Eurobricks but I still haven't figured out why! 

But what if they released 42100 with 2 onboard computers and 7 motors but at only 1500 pieces (and rather small) for $350. Would that be better? Would the complaining be any less? I think it's reasonable for them to want something big and impressive with thousands of parts to show off their all new control+ system. I don't think it's like 42082 which really didn't need to be 4000+ pieces.

Thank you for the information. I know 8043 is unreal but It is my reference for building, less pieces as possible with gearbox and lots of gears, I have fun building the mechanical.part even being obsolete. My goal will be to build something similar with less than 2000 pieces.

[dr_spock]

Perhaps that empty space inside can be fitted with a LEGO hamster wheel or two for the family of overweight hamsters? 

[Jurss]

17 hours ago, grego18f said:

especially when they involve your pets! 

Yea, I was waiting, that he will put his pug inside that large empty space in main structure :) ok, at least hamster ...

[MangaNOID]

Thanks for the review! So much time involved surely.

i get a feeling it would take more time for me to learn the C+ app than building the model.

 

[rener]

7 hours ago, jorgeopesi said:

In which set did those two grey gears appear for the first time please?. Talking about sets for me the 8043 is the perfect example of a Technic set far away from this one.

That would be 10269 

https://brickset.com/sets/containing-part-6259270

[jorgeopesi]

Just now, rener said:

That would be 10269 

https://brickset.com/sets/containing-part-6259270

Thanks again I did not know this gear.

[hjxbf]

Great review as always!

However, I was kind of hoping for a test of its driving capabilities (climbing, obstacles etc) as well, not because the real machine does it a lot, but because TLG included some slope climbing footage in their promo videos, but not enough to assess the set's performance.

[TeamThrifty]

This is exactly was its intended to be - a showcase for control+ - and as such fulfils its brief. I wasn't expecting complex gearboxes, so i'm not disappointed. It provides a big parts pack for the new control systems. MOC friendly is on its way, so thats a none issue.

The smoothness and play-ability are better than i expected, and the looks are great.

Its what i expected, and a bit more. I love complex gearboxes like everyone, but that was never going to be the case here, so i find it an irrelevant argument. Its like moaning that it hasn't got double wishbone suspension.. its not what the set is intended to be. 

I'll be getting it once the retailers do the usual discount. Great set for me.

 

 

[Cumulonimbus]

@Sariel Thank you for another high-quality and in depth review. Your score was more positive than I anticipated.

10 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

... As for the set itself, I'm still torn between two thoughts. ...

Your comment captures my feeling the best. The smooth and simultaneous control of all functions is impressive, but the price for this is too high (both literally and figuratively speaking). I know for sure that I won't be getting this set, for a more elaborate motivation of this decision, see my post here.

[coinoperator]

5 hours ago, dr_spock said:

Perhaps that empty space inside can be fitted with a LEGO hamster wheel or two for the family of overweight hamsters? 

Liebherr 's new engines ?

[doug72]

4 hours ago, MangaNOID said:

Thanks for the review! So much time involved surely.

i get a feeling it would take more time for me to learn the C+ app than building the model.

 

Agree your comments Control +
I still have a EV3 unit which have yet figure out how to program it, so Control+ would be a big no no for me.

I won’t be rushing out to buy this set , mainly due to high cost and new control system.

Instead I intend to wait until the hype has died down and follow comments that are posted on this forum about problem issues etc.

Also I cannot see high sales of this set due the cost.

If there are good discounts in the future I may consider buying it BUT I would modify it to use PF Components and sell the Control + items or use them for GBC module control.

Touch screen control.

Recently two US Navy Vessels had collisions with other vessel which were blamed on touch screen controls which even highly train operators found confusing on to use them and complained there was no tactile feedback.
They are now converting their vessels back to tactile control, i.e levers, handles push buttons, dials etc.

With tactile control you get feedback through your fingers, hand etc.

[Erik Leppen]

10 minutes ago, Doug72 said:

Touch screen control. [...] no tactile feedback.

The result of no tactile feedbcak is that to control the machine, you have to look at the controller, instead of at the machine.

This means that playing with 42100 will involve a lot of screenwatching, and constantly having to switch your view between controller and machine. I expect this constant switching to be very tiring, much more than when you can constantly look at the machine and feel the controller. This is a problem the good-old PF remotes didn't have. I find this a major downside for Control+, playability-wise.

I think this could be solved by creating a controller similar to those used by game-consoles, and then have the smartphone/tablet app act as an interface to programming the hub and controller (linking controller inputs to motor actions), with a pre-programmed setup for each official set.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Erik Leppen

[andythenorth]

17 minutes ago, Doug72 said:

Recently two US Navy Vessels had collisions with other vessel which were blamed on touch screen controls which even highly train operators found confusing on to use them and complained there was no tactile feedback.

I prefer tactile controls to those on glass.  But to be strict, in at least one of the US Navy crashes, the reported issue was that the controls can be moved between workstations, AND they were believed to have been moved to the wrong workstation causing a perceived loss of control over the vessel's steering, AND certain safeguards were disabled which are supposed to prevent these situations arising.

For Control+ the loss of tactility is a trade off against having very custom, very flexible control interfaces. 

PF bang-bang and train remotes are also pretty underwhelming as tactile controls go.  Bang bang has no proportional control. The train remote is borderline unusable as it's a continuous dial in both directions, but offering +/-7 speed increments, which is confusing, so it's hard to use even though it's tactile.

Swings <=> roundabouts.

Edited September 27, 2019 by andythenorth

[Foggy]

Perfect review as always, thanks. Looking forward to see the interview as many others.

Will buy this set but at sale price or a used one in the near future, no way gonna pay full price for it.

Really like the app even if I prefere the remote controls because they last forever while to run the app you need an advice and who kbiws what happens in 20 years with technology... but very very smooth movements, impressed. As you pointed out in the video, some details are out of place or could be done better but we know perfection doesn't exist!

[Jockos]

I think I found the answer for the big gap in the superstructure: to hold the bricks used for rocks when displayed 

[suffocation]

2 hours ago, Foggy said:

Perfect review as always, thanks.

[...]

... we know perfection doesn't exist!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Maaboo the Witch]

2 hours ago, Jockos said:

I think I found the answer for the big gap in the superstructure: to hold the bricks used for rocks when displayed 

That's what the bucket's for.

[Jockos]

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

That's what the bucket's for.

Then with the bucket opened

[nerdsforprez]

Thank you as always Sariel.  That which you consistently contribute to the Lego Community continues to benefit us all. 

Thorough and in depth.  For my 2 cents, I really enjoy this set and will likely be getting it. 

Something that I was going to keep quiet about, but it has come up from a consistent complaint from others as well is the complaint that the model can't dig.  In fact came up as a "con" on Sariel's review. 

I am not sure this is a fair complaint.  Relatively speaking, the pieces that 42100 are trying to pick up are like the real machine trying to pick up a few 2-300 lb boulders.  Just a few.  If the real thing tried that in this configuration, it would likely just push them around too  (especially if working on a hard surface that it could not "bite" into).  It also needs to bulk of other material to push back on itself in order to pick anything up.  The real thing works on mountains and mountains of rock, dirt, etc.  Not single stones.  If we really want to compare the digging abilities of the Lego model, it would also have to work out of mountains and mountains of material.  The material has to have the weight of itself to push back on. 

TLG obviously can't provide THAT amount of material.  Drive the price up even further.  Can't AFOLs find something of their own to solve this problem?  It's like if everything doesn't work exactly the way we want it to we fall apart. 

Others have complained that TLG has gotten "lazy."  I wonder if the same could be said of us as AFOLs sometimes.....