LEGO 42129 Zetros VS custom-built LEGO trial trucks

[Gimmick]

5 hours ago, Akassin said:

But lego made a trial truck. So they believe that this configuration is the most effective for off-road driving.

 

5 hours ago, syclone said:

Well, I don't think that being "too light" is a problem for competition, rather incompetence in making a proper trial truck from TLG.

Are you serious? You look at the model and your conclusion is: "They clearly wanted to build the best trail truck possible, but they were too incompetent?" With your years of experience with Lego(tm,R,c,..) models, is this your educated guess? xD

[Akassin]

29 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

 

Are you serious? You look at the model and your conclusion is: "They clearly wanted to build the best trail truck possible, but they were too incompetent?" With your years of experience with Lego(tm,R,c,..) models, is this your educated guess? xD

I did not write that I have many years of experience in creating Lego models. I value this toy as a consumer. I'm not going to buy a RC model to put on a shelf and watch. I want to play with this. Now I see that this model is more suitable for demonstrating the principles of the chassis of a car than for a fun game.
And I see no limits for LEGO to make a trial truck with the same capabilities as these MOCs. They do not violate any of the rules and principles that Lego uses (previously, LEGO did not have locked differentials, but not now). For example, I know that we will never see an official Liebherr LTM 1750 set because the plastic is not strong enough to create its boom (yes, AFOLs do it, but it does not meet the LEGO requirements).

[Sariel]

7 hours ago, allanp said:

when you consider that the others would surely be more expensive and have the freedom to look and be proportioned like however they want (hot garbage apparently), while the Zetros has to look and be proportioned like a Zetros, well I think that explains it, and also explains why an argument can be made for this being an unfair comparison.

Sorry, but this isn't true. All our trial trucks are required to be models of real trucks at a fixed scale. They may not be as detailed and aesthetically polished as Zetros, but they are absolutely not allowed to be proportioned however they want. Actually, the opposite is true: our competition requires one fixed scale for all trucks so the size of your model is predetermined, whereas LEGO was free to build Zetros at any scale they liked.

7 hours ago, allanp said:

but looking at things as a whole, with all other factors considered, the Zetros is the clear winner.

Yeah, I didn't mention this but this "winner" required rebooting my phone for the Control+ app to connect and start driving at all...

To sum up: I agree that this comparison isn't fair, but I don't see any way to make it fair. These are our current top-of-the-line custom trial trucks, what else can I compare Zetros against? Only 4x4 trucks with the same wheels, same proportions and so on? Pardon me, but that's just silly. The point here is, nobody forced LEGO to use small wheels in this set, to make it 4x4 that's as long as 6x6, to keep ground clearance minimal and to waste time on differential locks that just don't really change much. Unlike MOC builders, LEGO can make any new part they want. New tires? Sure. Limited slip differentials? Not a problem. New suspension pieces that allow building compact axles with decent ground clearance? Absolutely. Instead they've given us a $300 set with tires borrowed from a tractor, flimsy doors held by like a single pin, turning radius of a bus, hood that won't stay closed, and ridiculously bad weight distribution (literally the only way to make it worse would be to put the smart hub on the roof). And then they've called it a trial truck. This is where LEGO gets to manage our expectations, because if it was, say, a $150 set (don't tell me it can't be, there are barely any new pieces and zero new electronics in it), or if it was just called a Zetros truck, nobody in their right mind would compare it against custom-built trial trucks. Our expectations would be different. Different than they are now, when we're told "this is the official LEGO trial truck and it's worth $300". There is literally nothing about this set that would explain its price, not the license, not the parts, not the functions, NOTHING. And there was hardly any need to insist on calling it a trial truck, since Zetros trucks aren't really much associated with this particular sport, unlike for example Tatra trucks - should LEGO ever try the Tatra license, the "trial truck" part would come much more naturally.

Edited July 25, 2021 by Sariel

[Igor1]

@Sariel Hehe. Lego toys are primarily made for toddlers, not for AFOL. Did you get hooked by the advertising word "trial"?

Edited July 25, 2021 by Igor1

[Sariel]

7 minutes ago, Igor1 said:

@Sariel Hehe. Lego toys are primarily made for toddlers, not for AFOL

Pardon me, were you in a coma for the last year while LEGO was busy putting "18+" on every other set they make? I mean as of today I'm seeing 109 LEGO sets in the "18+" age category: https://www.lego.com/en-us/categories/age-18-plus-years

Edited July 25, 2021 by Sariel

[Igor1]

I think 18+ is just marketing. And the set under discussion is marked 12+. I thought you were older. Yes, these are toys for children. The fact that adults play them or build their MOC doesn't change anything for children.

Edited July 25, 2021 by Igor1

[Gray Gear]

Well the 18+ logo often comes with an 18+ pricetag, so it does change something for children.

[Sariel]

Well, if seeing a fancy $300 licensed RC truck makes you think "made for toddlers", then congratulations to your toddler, I guess..

[Igor1]

@Sariel Thank you! Yes, my daughter is 12 and this set will be bought for her. For my baby.

Grown guys build real cars. For some like me toys may remain a hobby, but I will not go to war with Lego because the word "trial" was written on the toy box and it cannot even win the Dakar rally.

Edited July 25, 2021 by Igor1

[J159753]

My 4- and 6-year old spent a happy afternoon today setting tasks and competing with each other using 9398 and an in-progress 4x4 MOC around the garden. it's not going to be too many years before they're building them as well... (6 year old is getting quite proficient and slipping cogs back into my MOC's differential! I've got some more bracing to do there...)

[TeamThrifty]

So you took the off-the-shelf toy into the woods, outside of the its intended environment and proved it wasn't as good as purpose built 6x6 mocs. Mmm....

I presume for a valid test the Mocs will go through TLG's internal release program to see if any can compete in the commercial viability sector?? Because unless you do, the test is heavily biased to the point of irrelevance.

The only fatal flaw here is the ill-conceived test.... TLG bashing with no valid basis of comparison.

 

[Sariel]

12 minutes ago, TeamThrifty said:

 I presume for a valid test the Mocs will go through TLG's internal release program

Is it the same program that greenlit a truck whose rear axle starts falling apart after a while and stops driving, as demonstrated in my video? Because it looks like a fatal design flaw, similar to the one in the Osprey set, and I've heard that LEGO is already investigating it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a product recall or redesign here, but you are, of course, free to defend it to the bitter end, my friend. Just keep in mind that perhaps you should get this set and test it first. I did.

[gyenesvi]

4 hours ago, Sariel said:

New suspension pieces that allow building compact axles with decent ground clearance?

Sadly, I have to agree with this. Slim live axles are pretty hard to build with lego, especially with the planetary hubs, exactly where it would be most useful, and this would have been a good opportunity to innovate something in this area. I mean the new CV joints are useful and all, but when watching the review videos, I though those axles are huge. It's surprising that it falls apart, it seemed very solid..

[Johnny1360]

1 hour ago, Sariel said:

Is it the same program that greenlit a truck whose rear axle starts falling apart after a while and stops driving, as demonstrated in my video? Because it looks like a fatal design flaw, similar to the one in the Osprey set, and I've heard that LEGO is already investigating it. I wouldn't be surprised to see a product recall or redesign here, but you are, of course, free to defend it to the bitter end, my friend. Just keep in mind that perhaps you should get this set and test it first. I did.

Thanks for mentioning that as I was totally unaware, may have to wait a bit to see what TLG does to address this problem, if anything, before I buy this set.

[keymaker]

And I, instead of arguing if it is ok or not ok to compare Zetres to MOCs, I would sit, watch and enjoy nice prepared video :)

[MAB]

Most MOCs published on Eurobricks are saying if you take a load of parts designed by lego and put them together in a different way then you get something better than what lego put in a set. This is no different,  here are different vehicles using standard lego parts with some great performance.  An obvious question is how do the MOCs compare to an official lego design, and that was answered here. There may be many other reasons the MOCs would not make it as official sets but outdoor performance is clearly not one of them.

I'm sure the lego one tested very well by the design team, driving it around a flat office floor and overcoming common barriers / objects such as pencils scattered on the floor. Which is probably what many people would do with it, not driving it outside as it would get dirty. Because people don't drive expensive lego kits outside in the dirt, do they ...? Videos such as this showing what can be done if you don't mind getting your expensive collectable toys, which must remain in excellent condition to retain their value, a bit dirty really show how much better performance can be achieved using the same parts as lego has available. I think they are great.

[syclone]

6 minutes ago, MAB said:

Most MOCs published on Eurobricks are saying if you take a load of parts designed by lego and put them together in a different way then you get something better than what lego put in a set. This is no different,  here are different vehicles using standard lego parts with some great performance.  An obvious question is how do the MOCs compare to an official lego design, and that was answered here. There may be many other reasons the MOCs would not make it as official sets but outdoor performance is clearly not one of them.

I'm sure the lego one tested very well by the design team, driving it around a flat office floor and overcoming common barriers / objects such as pencils scattered on the floor. Which is probably what many people would do with it, not driving it outside as it would get dirty. Because people don't drive expensive lego kits outside in the dirt, do they ...? Videos such as this showing what can be done if you don't mind getting your expensive collectable toys, which must remain in excellent condition to retain their value, a bit dirty really show how much better performance can be achieved using the same parts as lego has available. I think they are great.

When I was a kid, I didn't really care if my toys got dirty while taking them outside, specially if it's an Offroad Vehicle that is pictured travelling trough dirt on the box itself... In fact I had two cheap (30-40€ or so) RC cars that performed similar to this abomination... 

Can't really understand why people are defending a poorly performing set by saying that it's not meant to be an offroader while it is clearly a model of an offroader with promotional images explicitly suggesting so. Perhaps Technic's "Build for real" marketing should be changed to "Built for sterile environments"? 

[Bartybum]

I'm gonna throw fuel on this bonfire bc screw it, why not?

The fact that the vehicle fails outdoors is absolutely relevant, because it'll be no different than failure in an indoor course that has obstacles of the same shape and sizes. Crossing tree roots should absolutely be trivial. The only difference will be dirt damage and loss of traction.

[Gimmick]

Hopefully no one ever dares to build a small RC-model with 42122 wheels and adds something like "offrad" in the name somewhere.

10 hours ago, Sariel said:

Is it the same program that greenlit a truck whose rear axle starts falling apart after a while and stops driving, as demonstrated in my video?

And that's so much more valuable information than all this gibberish about the scale/wheel-size. It's cleary a mistake in the design. Since there are some spacers on this "flip flop lift arm" it looks like they knew that this lift arm can move a bit, but underestimated the force generated by the black gear. Maybe it can be improved/fixed without taking the model apart by connecting some reinforcement to the frame and lift arm behind the frame.

34 minutes ago, syclone said:

Can't really understand why people are defending a poorly performing set by saying that it's not meant to be an offroader while it is clearly a model of an offroader with promotional images explicitly suggesting so. Perhaps Technic's "Build for real" marketing should be changed to "Built for sterile environments"? 

Ahh yep yep, like the 42062 is shown in water, the 42066 clearly flies and the 42055 obviously works in a real open-cast mining.

There is so much potential... I'm realy looking forward to all those videos of someone trying to dig a hole in the garden with a Lego excavator, throwing a Lego plane out of the window... and then just sais "I expected more for $XY" xD

[Bartybum]

47 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

Ahh yep yep, like the 42062 is shown in water, the 42066 clearly flies and the 42055 obviously works in a real open-cast mining.

There is so much potential... I'm realy looking forward to all those videos of someone trying to dig a hole in the garden with a Lego excavator, throwing a Lego plane out of the window... and then just sais "I expected more for $XY" xD 

I've never heard of anyone being disappointed that their Lego doesn't fly. It's almost as if different set types have different reasonable expectations. Off-road cars are not particularly demanding, compared to the extreme examples you've listed. Regarding 42064 (I assume that's what you meant), look to the bottom left of the box - Model does not float.

The set performs poorly: its turning circle is huge, its ground clearance is poor and the differentials and therefore diff locks serve no purpose. Nobody expects the impossible here, so stop acting like they do.

Edited July 26, 2021 by Bartybum

[Johnny1360]

It seems to me this set has all the shortcomings of most all previous LEGO sets, of course I have only been back into LEGO for the last six years so I may not be a great judge of that. Really was disappointed with the performance of the recent buggy and at such a high price as well, this set is no different, also that recent 4x4 left much to be desired as well but at least it was $50 less than this set.

Anyway, without defending TLG, it just seems like the same old issues, all of which have existed for some time, so what needs to change is not this one set, hell they need to change all of them. 

I guess the main reason I am not as disappointed as others, is I just assumed this set would be like all the others, overpriced, underperforming, parts pack. I didn't expect this set to suddenly deviate from the norm, so I will likely just buy it, normally don't buy such large sets either, hate to spend over $100 for a set, so this will be a first. I am almost glad everyone hates it, will make it easier for me to get one sooner, lol.

No hard feelings towards anyone and I enjoy hearing everyone's opinion, peace, out.

 

[Maaboo the Witch]

1 minute ago, Johnny1360 said:

overpriced, underperforming, parts pack

Now that's what should be on the box!

[dr_spock]

What's that old saying?  If you want something done right, you gotta MOC it yourself.

 

[Gimmick]

1 hour ago, Bartybum said:

I've never heard of anyone being disappointed that their Lego doesn't fly. It's almost as if different set types have different reasonable expectations. Off-road cars are not particularly demanding, compared to the extreme examples you've listed. Regarding 42064 (I assume that's what you meant), look to the bottom left of the box - Model does not float.

The set performs poorly: its turning circle is huge, its ground clearance is poor and the differentials and therefore diff locks serve no purpose. Nobody expects the impossible here, so stop acting like they do.

Ah yes 42064, thx :)

But they were expecting a Lego model with all types of new parts and only one goal: best possible real-life-offroad-action. Isn't that close enough to impossible? And then they say "but the picture on the box..."  sry :(

For me the set has 3.5 major flaws: turning circle, suspension not soft enough, the price and maybe the rare axle problem. But the turning circle is the main point for me. Bigger wheels and a bigger scale would make the model way to big for my taste, even at this scale it is almost too large. But the toy-ish feeling/handling get's completely ruined by the turning circle. If the steering can be changed without that much effort I would rate it much higher.

[apachaihapachai]

2 hours ago, Gimmick said:

Hopefully no one ever dares to build a small RC-model with 42122 wheels and adds something like "offrad" in the name somewhere.

But it's not that hard to build a good performing offroader using small wheels.

And speaking about the topic. I think the main flaw of the set is price tag. Nothing more, nothing less. Couple of mods definetely can make it drive way better.

Edited July 26, 2021 by apachaihapachai