42114 - 6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler

[valenciaeric]

1 minute ago, Bartybum said:

Wtf hold up, the only egregious thing so far is that its proportions are off.

That´s a pretty poor start considering it´s all we can see so far! The omens are not good when the only feature apart from RC forward back and turn is the tipper.

[Maaboo the Witch]

5 minutes ago, I_Igor said:

Well Control+ parts are not perfect for MOCing so far, so I'll wait few another months to see how it will look at the end...but then again I would be happier if this would be manual version

Well, it isn't.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

I have a feeling that this flagship is gonna be more poorly rated by Sariel and by fans in general than even the 42070.

It's a new low.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Ngoc Nguyen

[Gimmick]

Just now, Ngoc Nguyen said:

I have a feeling that this flagship is gonna be more poorly rated by Sariel and by fans in general than even the 42070.

It's a new low.

I little early for judgment.

[valenciaeric]

Just now, Ngoc Nguyen said:

I have a feeling that this flagship is gonna be more poorly rated by Sariel and by fans in general than even the 42070.

It's a new low.

Yes +1.

If you are going to have the same mechanical underpinnings with all open diffs then it will be just as useless off road and there don´t seem to be any wow factor extra functions to compensate. I guess this will boost sales of the Liebherr as its price goes closer to 250 euros.

I guess I am down as the backhoe would have been way more exciting and this particular truck was already done as the 42030 B with 2 less wheels 5 years ago.

[Bartybum]

1 minute ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

I have a feeling that this flagship is gonna be more poorly rated by Sariel and by fans in general than even the 42070.

It's a new low.

You’d better justify this. I think you’re exaggerating immensely.

7 minutes ago, valenciaeric said:

That´s a pretty poor start considering it´s all we can see so far! The omens are not good when the only feature apart from RC forward back and turn is the tipper.

What did you think of 42030?

Edited January 30, 2020 by Bartybum

[Ngoc Nguyen]

14 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Please justify this. I think you’re exaggerating immensely.

Well Sariel blasted 42070 mostly for

- Unnecessary high price
- Poor RC and off road capabilities
- Crude appearance
- Ugly B model

Then 42114 has:

- Same price
- Only 1 XL motor for drive, which is 1 motor less than 42099, and Sariel didnt rate 42099 RC capabilities highly. However this point deserves actual testing, so any judgement now is premature.
- Off proportion
- No B model.

Pretty comparable to me.

In addition, 42114 also has:

- 3 RC functions, which is 3 less than those in 42070. 42070 has 6 RC functions.
- Apparently no novel technical system. 42070 has a system which combines RC with switchable gearbox. 
- A repeated subject. An RC off road tow truck with Claas tires is a never done before in Technic, but an RC Volvo hauler is not.

More grounds for complaints then.

Just to be clear, I dont harbor negative feelings for this set, and do have intention to buy it. And I really like 42070, both A and B. I just stated my prediction based on the admittedly narrow pool of reactions I saw here.

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Ngoc Nguyen

[valenciaeric]

Just now, Bartybum said:

 

What did you think of 42030?

42030 is the only flagship since Unimog that I haven´t owned as a personal build. I had one half price but sold it to buy another set.

I feel 42070 and this one are under par offerings compared with Arocs, BWE, Unimog, MK2 and Liebherr. 42030 and 42082 sit somewhere in the middle.

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, Ngoc Nguyen said:

I have a feeling that this flagship is gonna be more poorly rated by Sariel and by fans in general than even the 42070.

It's a new low.

We could have had a JCB... 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

The model on the box shows a certain degree of nonalignment between the cab and the dump bed, so I think there's at least a type of rotation suspension at the joint between the front and rear halves.

[Gimmick]

21 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

In addition, 42114 also has:

- 3 RC functions, which is 3 less than those in 42070. 42070 has 6 RC functions.

 

To be fair: 42070 only has 3*2 RC functions ;)

What I have learned from 42070 is: If there is a center differential -> remove it :D Improved offroad capabilities immediately. An the "RC capabilities" of the 42099 are fine, it's always speed or torque and the drivetrain is built that way, that you change it easily -> good solution.

For me it stands and falls with the rear suspension and the rotation of the articulated joint. It can be a realy fun model, but it can also be realy boring. If it disappoints I will build the 42030 mod from custombricks (efferman?) I think. :D

[Vectormatic]

1 hour ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

If LAs can be put in a V shape, and suspensions can be squeezed into 42043, then there's no technical reason the real leaf spring in A60H can't be put in 42114. Ofc considerations of other kinds might dominate.

I wouldnt know how to implement a leaf spring with current lego elements without getting well into "this might break in kids hands" territory, and for custom new parts i think the business case is quite difficult. The current small shocks share sub components through various hardnesses, and are easier to tweak into specific loads by changing the length of the arm from the fulcrum. leafsprings would be very much tuned for a single load/springrate and making it out of modular subcomponents so they can be changed seems quite difficult to do without it getting either very large, or quite fragile.

[Maaboo the Witch]

15 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

The model on the box shows a certain degree of nonalignment between the cab and the dump bed, so I think there's at least a type of rotation suspension at the joint between the front and rear halves.

Oscillating suspension is nothing special. Philofred's 42004 Volvo hauler C-model implemented it using a simple turntable.

I should also add here that Philofred's model looks better than 42114. 

[TeamThrifty]

11 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

Oscillating suspension is nothing special.

Correct, my Case IH moc had it with a proper tri-axis geometry. My main hope isn't around that, its the rear axles... they have a nice setup IRL, i'm hoping its that thats been replicated. The oscillation is a given, or better be.

[mysiopysio84]

I'll pray for alpha model at the moment, because now is ugly as hell..

If Lego wont change proportions of this hauler, in my opinion better will be buy it only for parts to build something like this: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-0231/Designer-Han/articulated-hauler-6x6/#comments

Anyway I really count on proper model of this Volvo which could be a fantastic addition to 42030.

Edited January 30, 2020 by mysiopysio84

[aminnich]

Come on, how did Volvo approve of that model?  The proportions of it so so off.  Why couldn't it look more like this MOC... with the new fender flare panels and the longer LAs.

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, aminnich said:

Come on, how did Volvo approve of that model?  The proportions of it so so off.  Why couldn't it look more like this MOC... with the new fender flare panels and the longer LAs.

Great, now 42114 looks like even more of a sick joke. 

[Magical Duck]

4 hours ago, Bartybum said:

I don't recall ever seeing a design change for large Technic sets, except for the Le Mans racer

42054 CLAAS also had some design changes after the prelim pics were released (cabin, crane, and hood)

[JimDude]

Has anyone already tried to guestimate the hight - in bricks, d'Uh! - of this thing?

Allow me to rephrase my own question: I'd be bitterly disappointed if this thing can't be loaded by a 42030 loader.

Speaking of loading: I'm assuming the piece count will include 'payload', i.e. round bricks? I can't see them on the box, but then again, the all important bottom right corner of the box is obscured.

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, JimDude said:

Speaking of loading: I'm assuming the piece count will include 'payload', i.e. round bricks? I can't see them on the box, but then again, the all important bottom right corner of the box is obscured.

Aside from 42023 and 42094, I don't think a Technic dumper's ever come with a payload, and certainly no hauler has.

[JimDude]

W.r.t. the windscreen being tilted the wrong way. It looks "better" - albeit not yet perfect - on the box (look at the angle it makes compared to the orange safety barriers). In fact, even the slope of the engine cover seems to look better on the box.

Surely the demo-unit wasn't incorrectly assembled?

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Just now, JimDude said:

the windscreen being tilted the wrong way

I still dont understand and cant see this. Can you highlight it in the photo?

Edited January 30, 2020 by Ngoc Nguyen

[Maaboo the Witch]

3 minutes ago, JimDude said:

W.r.t. the windscreen being tilted the wrong way. It looks "better" - albeit not yet perfect - on the box (look at the angle it makes compared to the orange safety barriers). In fact, even the slope of the engine cover seems to look better on the box.

Surely the demo-unit wasn't incorrectly assembled?

There's no discernible difference.

[Aerolight]

The bed is too big causing the cab to be bigger to balance it - reduce both and it would improve a lot. The only reason I can think the bed is so out of scale is to hold something but idk what that could be. Still look forward to the use of this a base for the next-gen artillery system used by Sweden(which also has a crew cab configuration). Or under the bed might be all the electronics causing the bed to just sit out of scale height, but the bed looks to protrude far past the wheels anyway.

[aol000xw]

That cabin can't be unseen...

So do you think this is final? I remember 42039 worsened so perhaps there is still time for improvements...