42131 - CAT D11 Bulldozer

[AVCampos]

Yes, the Raptor's manual also shows a prototype model, and one without the new part colours introduced in the set.

[Dylan M]

7 hours ago, 1974 said:

 

Luckily there are still some hardcore nerds left at TLG, hence the new two truck

 

 

Amen to Mr. MK, my Favorite designer,  (please stay for much longer year)  teach the newbie Designer on what TECHNIC  is all about... 😉😉 

Nonetheless i will definitely buy this set..✌

[howitzer]

4 hours ago, Dylan M said:

Amen to Mr. MK, my Favorite designer,  (please stay for much longer year)  teach the newbie Designer on what TECHNIC  is all about... 😉😉 

Nonetheless i will definitely buy this set..✌

I'm sure all the designers are capable of producing interesting and high quality technical sets. It's the marketing and finances departments which set the limits and forces the designers to make sets that are sometimes absurd and lackluster. For example, I believe 42069 was originally designed with proper off-road wheels, but the marketing department thought tracks would look cooler, even if they made no sense at all. And then there was the 42112, which wasn't a bad set but had some really obvious cosmetic flaws, such that could've been fixed with only a few additional parts, so that I can only assume the designer had to work with a very tight parts limit constraint which forced those omissions.

[XenoRad]

On the one hand I kinda like it. On the other, excluding the price which I feel not many will pay without a significant discount, the function to motor/gearbox distribution looks less than ideal.

I wasn't very pleased initially to know that blade raise and tilt are handled via a gearbox, but it might not be such a big problem since I doubt both will need frequent and simultaneous adjustment during operation. However, it would have been much better to have manual actuators for the top of the ripper instead of the fake ones. This is a significant miss if you ask me, especially since we do have manual adjustment of the track tension.

The motorized ladder looks gimmicky, but I'm sure that's why it was put there. So you could deploy it with the model not moving and wow your guests at house parties.

Personally I would have left the ladder manually operated and used the slot on the HUB to have some LEDs instead. The model already has fake lights above the blade and around the cabin. Certainly, lighting some of those up would have been much more impactful and ultimately useful, instead of the ladder.

So all in all, I don't know... Even excluding the price, I think more could have been done in terms of functions, also considering the size. I think many would accept fewer motors and HUBs if instead we get many, smaller manual functions that would make operation more involved.

[howitzer]

5 minutes ago, XenoRad said:

I wasn't very pleased initially to know that blade raise and tilt are handled via a gearbox, but it might not be such a big problem since I doubt both will need frequent and simultaneous adjustment during operation. However, it would have been much better to have manual actuators for the top of the ripper instead of the fake ones. This is a significant miss if you ask me, especially since we do have manual adjustment of the track tension.

Indeed. I can see why they wouldn't have wanted to include another hub for more motorized functions, but in that case a manual adjustment of the ripper would've been nice. Even having something that wouldn't pretend to be an actuator (liftarm or something) would've been better, those fake actuators just look really cheap in the place of proper ones.

[Polarlicht]

9 hours ago, M_longer said:

It shows model in prototype stage. Just for looks.

 

10 hours ago, R0Sch said:

Strange. Wonder why a prototype model (old tracks, actuators, motors, etc.) and app is shown on the back of the package instead of a newer lifestyle pic. It's the first time I see something like this on a box.
 

Or maybe they change it on the final box?

Edited August 28, 2021 by Polarlicht

[Bricktrain]

My progress so far, I intend to use 3 motors for the blade control and 2 for the rippers so will add a second hub and extra motors instead of the gearbox.

238595089_2891226211207577_5941108450366273354_n.jpg (960×720) (brickshelf.com)

240751288_2891226274540904_1336430441631788806_n.jpg (960×720) (brickshelf.com)

238472493_2891226317874233_8701317014847359554_n.jpg (960×720) (brickshelf.com)

240291981_2891226364540895_3408723853984334086_n.jpg (960×720) (brickshelf.com)

15 hours ago, M_longer said:

V12, trough differential. It's just and overscaled 42028 ;)

I was thinking about this and thinking that the V12 engine should be run by a separate motor, as the real engine runs constantly, not just when the dozer is moving.

[Polarlicht]

26 minutes ago, Bricktrain said:

I was thinking about this and thinking that the V12 engine should be run by a separate motor, as the real engine runs constantly, not just when the dozer is moving.

Eh. Bit overkill.

[jorgeopesi]

I want to say too that I understand that the designers have to fight with a lot of things we do not know, nobody who likes functional things do these sets on purpose, my problem is with the direction that Lego is going. 

[gyenesvi]

23 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

my problem is with the direction that Lego is going. 

My problem is more the direction where Lego is NOT going. This behemoth could have been a good opportunity to release for example a 6-port hub, like the Mindstorms one (or even just reuse the yellow one from the Spike prime set). Then two more functions could have been added, like a ripper tilt and some lights (which could have been a really nice addon to a construction machine). I guess the ripper tilt was excluded because it does not add too much to the play experience, and the fancy ladder is probably going to attract more 18+ buyers..

[jorgeopesi]

19 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

I guess the ripper tilt was excluded because it does not add too much to the play experience, and the fancy ladder is probably going to attract more 18+ buyers..

I think the opposite, it is just a dozer for display not for play so it deserved all the possible functions, I bet that if this dozer is used to play will have problems with the weight and with the batteries you will have to buy. In the end it is not something new, this is like a Technic supercar, I do not think they are being used to play.

[Maaboo the Witch]

30 minutes ago, jorgeopesi said:

I think the opposite, it is just a dozer for display not for play so it deserved all the possible functions, I bet that if this dozer is used to play will have problems with the weight and with the batteries you will have to buy. In the end it is not something new, this is like a Technic supercar, I do not think they are being used to play.

Then it's pointless.

[Interceptor]

To be honest, I like it overall, and I think it is a worthy successor of the legendary and rare 8275 bulldozer, which launched PF era back in those days. I still remember that Christmas Eve in 2007, right after my dark ages, when I felt like a happy child againg driving my new bulldozer around the Christmas-tree. By that time, I already had the 856 bulldozer, which was released earlier, but still a remarkable set. But back to 41131.

Based on the available information, in my opinion it was the right choice to stay with 4 motors - one hub solution and using a gearbox to operate secondary functions. Mechanically it has more realistic and authentic motorized functions than the 8275 had. It has even some fancy functions like the motorized ladder and the manually operated adjustable track. My only serious complain about this set is regarding the rear fake actuators - it should have had real actuators there with manual operation to tilt the ripper. Of course some real lights would have been nice but this would require more ports on a redesigned hub, so leaving this out is acceptable by me. And sure it would be better with physical remote controller but this is a generic problem of C+ sets and unfortunately won't change in the near future according to Markus Kossman, which is a pity.

Is it too expensive? Absolutely, as were all the LEGO Technic (and Train) flagship sets in my childhood. I will patienly wait for the 300 EUR price tag, like I did with 42100 Liebherr.

Is it still a desirable and "making you smile" type present for (adult) children? For me, defenitely.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Interceptor

[Polarlicht]

So ist it D11 or D11T now?

[Richombx]

D11, cat will debut the new D11xe in a few weeks so I’m surprised they didn’t label it as that.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Richombx

[Bartybum]

2 hours ago, jorgeopesi said:

I think the opposite, it is just a dozer for display not for play so it deserved all the possible functions, I bet that if this dozer is used to play will have problems with the weight and with the batteries you will have to buy. In the end it is not something new, this is like a Technic supercar, I do not think they are being used to play.

I have my problems with this set, but what is this noise you're making about it being unplayable? It's a bulldozer. It has angular motors AND planetary hubs, so it will have a hell of a lot of torque to push piles of Lego bricks, or any granular material around.

Technic bulldozers are one of the most mechanically simple vehicles when it comes to playability.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Bartybum

[Ngoc Nguyen]

So CAT is ignoring the T's like some of the Brits do, but I guess in the end it doesn't really ma'er. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Ngoc Nguyen

[m2fel]

I'd say that this set has the best solution for a RC Lego vehicle. Drive is powered directly thus should perform well and for the other functions there is a gearbox. To me this is a great combination and more technic like than 8285 or 42100 which had all functions driven by a single motor. And on top it's fixing the problem of 8043 for which the gearbox was at its limits or even beyond. I really like and own 8275 and 8043 and will get 42100 if I ever find a 2nd hand one for a decent price but often people complained about one motor for each function or the gearbox hardly being able to drive all functions -> problems solved, well done by the Lego designer

[KevinMD]

As technic is not the primary theme I purchase, I can either wait to purchase this at 30+% discount or not at all and build an MOC instead.  I do like the looks overall though and expect a few members here will sufficiently ’pimp’ this set to entice a purchase.

regarding cost and/or the one hub/4 motor complaints, I wonder how much supply chain issues factor into this. Costs of all materials and associated transportation are sky high, and electronic goods are having their own supply line issues.  It may be they wanted a second hub but couldn’t guarantee enough parts.  Prices are just a product of the times, I’m afraid.

[JaBaCaDaBra]

4 hours ago, m2fel said:

 best solution

well done by the Lego designer

Problem is NOT the design or the contruction with a gearbox

Problem is the absurd price.

Half the parts of 42100
Same price.

[1gor]

8 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Half the parts of 42100
Same price.

I agree on that, despite IMHO it looks very good (OK some proportions are off but IMHO it looks nice)

[Citromon]

I like this model a lot and I totally understand the complaints on price, but, from TLG point of view this is an 18+ set (don't know way, and no fancy box also), like the supercars, + it has the PU system, so it needs to cost more. Also, the "less hub and motors" problem it's an issue only for those who will use this set for mocs, cause... what would you expect from 2 more motors, for example? It has the needed functionality, after all.

The problem is, that as someone who buy other themes beside technic, I just have a list with other sets, that have the same appeal for me, as the CAT, but that are priced way more reasonable.        

[Rebel_Lego]

5 hours ago, KevinMD said:

Regarding cost and/or the one hub/4 motor complaints, I wonder how much supply chain issues factor into this. Costs of all materials and associated transportation are sky high, and electronic goods are having their own supply line issues.  It may be they wanted a second hub but couldn’t guarantee enough parts.  Prices are just a product of the times, I’m afraid.

I read an article the other day about the costs of containers. The price raised from 1300 to 13.000 euros, so I can Imagine extra cost for TLG. And of course also chip shortage. But still, this thing seems too bloody expensive

[m2fel]

1 hour ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Problem is NOT the design or the contruction with a gearbox

Problem is the absurd price.

Half the parts of 42100
Same price.

Okay, I won't buy it and think it is to expensive but the decision about the price is up to Lego. If it sells badly and  they are not making good money they might change something and maybe, just maybe change their pricing or stop making xxl-models. But only because we like technic Lego must not make things affordable...

By the way I also would like to drive a Mercedes but they are to expensive :/

[howitzer]

6 minutes ago, Rebel_Lego said:

I read an article the other day about the costs of containers. The price raised from 1300 to 13.000 euros, so I can Imagine extra cost for TLG. And of course also chip shortage. But still, this thing seems too bloody expensive

It's not just containers, but also things like cardboard used for packaging that's gotten more expensive and of course electronics too. Sadly the rising costs might be real reason behind the pricing of this thing, which puts TLG in a difficult position: they can't sell it for less but people think it's overpriced and won't buy it as much.