Ngoc Nguyen

42128 Heavy Duty Tow Truck

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Since TLG never goes all in and cram all possible functions into a model, especially for a non-flagship, I think this set will have 5 functions. If a 42008 can carry 5 functions, then 42128 should as well, especially given the price. We can see tow fork (1) and winch (6) are most likely guaranteed. And if it has a winch, it will have a crane arm as well, so (4) is also very likely. I think it will have either rear outriggers (2) or side outriggers (3) but not both. If it has (3), then it will have swiveling (7). If it doesn't have (3), then it won't need (7), but may have telescoping extension (5) instead.

You amazingly described two tow-truck types: Rotator (with crate swiveling and therefore side outriggers) and straight one, focused on towing only. Returning to US/EU types, American-"nosed" trucks are mostly rotators while European ones are 50/50, so everything is possible.

I would also add one more argument against the motorization - Control+ motors and especially hubs are expensive enough and, which is worse for 49.5-wheeled scale, are just HUGE. Really, I hardly can imagine that it may fit the hub and distribution gearbox. However, having multiple motors is even less likely, due to size and cost limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, may it be a pneumatic set?

All sets with PU motors in the similar price range have 300-400 parts, so I suppose or it is manual, or something else (pneumatic?)

A motor and hub would be welcome anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Void_S said:

Returning to US/EU types, American-"nosed" trucks are mostly rotators while European ones are 50/50, so everything is possible.

I think it's gonna be a rotator type. Aint heavy duty without rotator.

Share this post


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

God I absolutely hate this. It's such a massive waste of space. The way 42009 and 42043 do it is so much better

god, i love this - such a leap forward in playability... well, old style dispatcher gearboxes save space but are mostly much worse to use: you need always two hands, one on the battery switch for changing direction (with the additional pain sliding unintentionally over neutral position), one on the function-switcher...

Share this post


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

I would also add one more argument against the motorization - Control+ motors and especially hubs are expensive enough and, which is worse for 49.5-wheeled scale, are just HUGE. Really, I hardly can imagine that it may fit the hub and distribution gearbox. However, having multiple motors is even less likely, due to size and cost limitations.

It could be an opportunity to use the "dumb" technic hub that should be much cheaper, and maybe introduce the PU Medium motors to technic?

1 hour ago, mpj said:

All sets with PU motors in the similar price range have 300-400 parts, so I suppose or it is manual, or something else (pneumatic?)

A motor and hub would be welcome anyway.

Osprey was supposed to be 140 EUR set with PU and 1636 parts.

53 minutes ago, Kumbbl said:

god, i love this - such a leap forward in playability... well, old style dispatcher gearboxes save space but are mostly much worse to use: you need always two hands, one on the battery switch for changing direction (with the additional pain sliding unintentionally over neutral position), one on the function-switcher...

Agree, I also prefer this approach :)

Share this post


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

old style dispatcher gearboxes save space but are mostly much worse to use: you need always two hands

While you do need to jump between the battery box and the dispatcher (you don't literally need two hands, I can use 42043 with one and it's perfectly fine for me), I totally disagree that it's "much" worse to use, because I'm in camp "cram in as many functions as physically possible" so I'm happy with the compromise - I may not be able to flick a red selector, but I have twice the number of functions available to play with. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

1 hour ago, Kumbbl said:

with the additional pain sliding unintentionally over neutral position

This is really just an issue of old Lego sets not including a linkage for the switch to make it easier to control. It's quite easy to work around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andrzejl said:

Osprey was supposed to be 140 EUR set with PU and 1636 parts.

Ah good to know!
So let’s hope this is the same.

Share this post


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

Ah good to know!
So let’s hope this is the same.

Yeah, but hopefully TLG haven't blundered ahead with a military tow truck... :hmpf:

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


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

While you do need to jump between the battery box and the dispatcher (you don't literally need two hands, I can use 42043 with one and it's perfectly fine for me), I totally disagree that it's "much" worse to use, because I'm in camp "cram in as many functions as physically possible" so I'm happy with the compromise - I may not be able to flick a red selector, but I have twice the number of functions available to play with. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

This is really just an issue of old Lego sets not including a linkage for the switch to make it easier to control. It's quite easy to work around.

@Kumbblhas a point there in ease of operation. 42043 is quite hard to initially learn to operate smoothly, while 42082 is really intuitive and easy to operate. I don't like using the battery box as a direction switch, it somehow feels a cheap solution compared to using a gearbox for that.

Whichever it is though, the controls should be located in places such that they are logical to the function they operate. Again, 42082 shines here, while 42043 not so much.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore 42043, it's one of the best sets ever, but it's not without flaws either.

Share this post


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

@Kumbblhas a point there in ease of operation. 42043 is quite hard to initially learn to operate smoothly, while 42082 is really intuitive and easy to operate. I don't like using the battery box as a direction switch, it somehow feels a cheap solution compared to using a gearbox for that.

Whichever it is though, the controls should be located in places such that they are logical to the function they operate. Again, 42082 shines here, while 42043 not so much.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore 42043, it's one of the best sets ever, but it's not without flaws either.

As someone who has both sets, I totally agree. And it means more gears, and such, which is never a bad thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, MisteryMan said:

And it means more gears

Does it really though? By my reckoning it’s basically the same amount, plus or minus whatever amount depending on a set, which is pretty much random. You have the extra gears to carry the reverse gear, but you lose gears from the rest of the build because there’s fewer drivetrains leaving the gearbox.

Edited by Bartybum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42043 isn't perfect (needs a more powerful compressor) but I really like the controls. It takes a little practice and skill, but I love that. It's just like operating the real thing. But yeah, I think a more powerful compressor (meaning much more air flow at close to max pressure by having many more pumps) would help to make it easier to operate because it would make the controls more responsive. And I'm not sure that more gears is always a good thing. It's just complexity for the sake of complexity and often leads to unrealistic mechanics, too much friction and power losses and unreliability, for example the 42009 outriggers and the Sian gearbox. The motor of 42009 was really working hard just to get the outriggers to move down to even reach the floor. But flick a pneumatic switch and the same motor could lift the whole model off the floor quickly with no problem, no matter where the motor is positioned in the model.

Share this post


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

42043 isn't perfect (needs a more powerful compressor) but I really like the controls. It takes a little practice and skill, but I love that. It's just like operating the real thing. But yeah, I think a more powerful compressor (meaning much more air flow at close to max pressure by having many more pumps) would help to make it easier to operate because it would make the controls more responsive. And I'm not sure that more gears is always a good thing. It's just complexity for the sake of complexity and often leads to unrealistic mechanics, too much friction and power losses and unreliability, for example the 42009 outriggers and the Sian gearbox. The motor of 42009 was really working hard just to get the outriggers to move down to even reach the floor. But flick a pneumatic switch and the same motor could lift the whole model off the floor quickly with no problem, no matter where the motor is positioned in the model.

Designers of the real things aim (or at least they should) to make the controls as easy and intuitive as possible though, so unintuitive and difficult controls are a sign of either bad or heavily constrained design. I'd say it's the latter in the case of 42043, as I don't really see how they could be improved without redesigning the whole thing and compromising it elsewhere. So yeah, the controls don't make 42043 a bad set but 42082 still had it much better as it didn't have similar constraints in design.

Having more gears for the sake of having more gears is bad design too. For some reason the official sets sometimes seem to have many more gears than necessary but there might be other factors in play (marketing or whatever) beside optimizing the gearbox from engineering perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2021 at 12:31 PM, andrzejl said:

Osprey was supposed to be 140 EUR set with PU and 1636 parts.

Really?? Only 140?? I'd have bought that directly, too bad man.

Share this post


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

Having more gears for the sake of having more gears is bad design too. For some reason the official sets sometimes seem to have many more gears than necessary but there might be other factors in play (marketing or whatever) beside optimizing the gearbox from engineering perspective.

well, maybe a little OT here, but lets talk about the gearbox of the Sian, because it is a good example for what i want to say: TLG often compromises a design for the sake being as easy as possible to build. i have build the Lambo Sian out of the box as guided by the official TLG instructions and i have build it a second time with the wonderful enhancements of @jb70 and @Didumos69 - of course the resulting gearbox of the "pimp up my Lambo", designed by @jb70and @Didumos69, is way better than the one designed by TLG: less friction, less gear mesh, more compact - BUT: the design of TLG is without any doubt easier to build without bad performance - not so well working as @jb70's one but still a reasonable performance - i for myself like the little challenges of designs like that one of @jb70, but i'm sure a lot of people out there, the key customers of the Sian, prefer the easier build - and the experts of a forum like EB are NOT the key customers of a model like the Sian... so my conclusion: The requirement specification for the TLG designers contain some goals which have nothing to do with the plain functions or looks of a model....

just my 2 cts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, howitzer said:

Designers of the real things aim (or at least they should) to make the controls as easy and intuitive as possible though, so unintuitive and difficult controls are a sign of either bad or heavily constrained design. I'd say it's the latter in the case of 42043, as I don't really see how they could be improved without redesigning the whole thing and compromising it elsewhere. So yeah, the controls don't make 42043 a bad set but 42082 still had it much better as it didn't have similar constraints in design.

Having more gears for the sake of having more gears is bad design too. For some reason the official sets sometimes seem to have many more gears than necessary but there might be other factors in play (marketing or whatever) beside optimizing the gearbox from engineering perspective.

I'm not sure I follow. With 42082, you move a lever one way and a function moves. You move the same lever the other way and the function moves the other way. The crane of the Arocs functions the same way. Each function has a lever (valve) that you move one way or the other. Both models also have an upper and lower section which requires you to have a lever in the correct position to send the power to the part of the model you want to operate. So in terms of control they are literally the same. Besides the proportional speed control you get with the valves (which takes only a few minutes to get used to and I see as a positive) I don't see any difference in terms of difficulty or intuitiveness. The proportional controls isn't a sign of bad design, it's just a different animal that doesn't take long to get the hang of. Oh wait, there is the non pneumatic functions of the Arocs, which unfortunately does require switching the battery box to change direction. I'll grant you that one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, allanp said:

I'm not sure I follow. With 42082, you move a lever one way and a function moves. You move the same lever the other way and the function moves the other way. The crane of the Arocs functions the same way. Each function has a lever (valve) that you move one way or the other. Both models also have an upper and lower section which requires you to have a lever in the correct position to send the power to the part of the model you want to operate. So in terms of control they are literally the same. Besides the proportional speed control you get with the valves (which takes only a few minutes to get used to and I see as a positive) I don't see any difference in terms of difficulty or intuitiveness. The proportional controls isn't a sign of bad design, it's just a different animal that doesn't take long to get the hang of. Oh wait, there is the non pneumatic functions of the Arocs, which unfortunately does require switching the battery box to change direction. I'll grant you that one!

I was personally referring to the non-pnuematic elements (turntable slewing, outrigger extension, and box dumping).

The crane arm had the pneumatic valves for direction, and was rather intuitive to control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2021 at 1:36 AM, Maaboo35 said:

Yeah, but hopefully TLG haven't blundered ahead with a military tow truck... :hmpf:

Something to tow the Osprey :laugh:

Share this post


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

I was personally referring to the non-pnuematic elements (turntable slewing, outrigger extension, and box dumping).

The crane arm had the pneumatic valves for direction, and was rather intuitive to control.

Agreed. The 42042 gearbox on the other hand is a delight, released same year. I’m surprised that there hasn’t been a reversing gearbox proposed for 42043 as it seems there’d be plenty of space, and it’d be relatively easy to do it within the gearbox and outrigger module I think. The technique used by 42054 for example is quite compact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JonathanM said:

Agreed. The 42042 gearbox on the other hand is a delight, released same year. I’m surprised that there hasn’t been a reversing gearbox proposed for 42043 as it seems there’d be plenty of space, and it’d be relatively easy to do it within the gearbox and outrigger module I think. The technique used by 42054 for example is quite compact.

There is no space for a muti-direction gearbox in the Arocs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, allanp said:

I'm not sure I follow. With 42082, you move a lever one way and a function moves. You move the same lever the other way and the function moves the other way. The crane of the Arocs functions the same way. Each function has a lever (valve) that you move one way or the other. Both models also have an upper and lower section which requires you to have a lever in the correct position to send the power to the part of the model you want to operate. So in terms of control they are literally the same. Besides the proportional speed control you get with the valves (which takes only a few minutes to get used to and I see as a positive) I don't see any difference in terms of difficulty or intuitiveness. The proportional controls isn't a sign of bad design, it's just a different animal that doesn't take long to get the hang of. Oh wait, there is the non pneumatic functions of the Arocs, which unfortunately does require switching the battery box to change direction. I'll grant you that one!

The pneumatic switches in Arocs are indeed easy enough to use, but the same is not true for other controls. Remember, there's outriggers, crane slewing, dumper bed and pump to control too, and it's all too easy to get confused with them as the direction switch is at battery box which is bad design in the box itself as it crosses midposition too easily and starts to reverse when you'd want it to stop, and it uses the same reversing switch for multiple different functions. So unless you're using the pneumatic switches, you need to have one hand all the time at the battery box (which requires very careful operation) and the other must be turned around the model to use the other switches. This isn't just me, but it's a point that has been brought up in several Arocs reviews, and even Jim commented on this on in his review of 42082.

13 hours ago, Kumbbl said:

well, maybe a little OT here, but lets talk about the gearbox of the Sian, because it is a good example for what i want to say: TLG often compromises a design for the sake being as easy as possible to build. i have build the Lambo Sian out of the box as guided by the official TLG instructions and i have build it a second time with the wonderful enhancements of @jb70 and @Didumos69 - of course the resulting gearbox of the "pimp up my Lambo", designed by @jb70and @Didumos69, is way better than the one designed by TLG: less friction, less gear mesh, more compact - BUT: the design of TLG is without any doubt easier to build without bad performance - not so well working as @jb70's one but still a reasonable performance - i for myself like the little challenges of designs like that one of @jb70, but i'm sure a lot of people out there, the key customers of the Sian, prefer the easier build - and the experts of a forum like EB are NOT the key customers of a model like the Sian... so my conclusion: The requirement specification for the TLG designers contain some goals which have nothing to do with the plain functions or looks of a model....

just my 2 cts

This is probably true. I haven't built the Sian myself so couldn't comment from personal experience, but TLG really wants to make the gearbox build as easy as possible, because correcting mistakes later is extremely painful and they might not be apparent before very late in the build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@MisteryMan @howitzer Yes for the non pneumatic functions of the Arocs, using the battery box to change direction isn't as good as 42042 for example, I do agree with that.

39 minutes ago, howitzer said:

 

This is probably true. I haven't built the Sian myself so couldn't comment from personal experience, but TLG really wants to make the gearbox build as easy as possible, because correcting mistakes later is extremely painful and they might not be apparent before very late in the build.

We all know how they could make the gearbox much easier :laugh: but I think I've gone off topic enough already!

Edited by allanp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A heavy-duty, rotator version of 42008 would be great. They can easily cram at least eight motorised functions into a set like that.

Share this post


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

A heavy-duty, rotator version of 42008 would be great. They can easily cram at least eight motorised functions into a set like that.

Hm on that small (Mack like) scale? 

(And I struggle to put 5 motors in my telehandler; silly me *huh*)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Igor :purrr:

I was thinking more in terms of one motor driving eight functions through a gearbox. Even somebody as talentless as me managed to pull off something similar a while back.

1280x1022.jpg

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.