42146 - Liebherr LR13000

[nerdsforprez]

6 minutes ago, Oh_Hi_Mao said:

I am sure it will be strong enough to lift advertised weight (which is rumored to be 0.5 kg.)

I agree.  

6 minutes ago, Oh_Hi_Mao said:

Other than that, why do they need to overengineer it? It is a toy not heavy duty machinery. 

Lol.... ummm do I even need to answer this?   Technic sets have a storied history of customers pushing a set beyond it's designed limits.  This possibly can create a PR nightmare for TLG. 

Also, just because it can lift its designed target of 500 grams does not negate the fact it is a design flaw.  

[1gor]

1 hour ago, Oh_Hi_Mao said:

I am sure it will be strong enough to lift advertised weight (which is rumored to be 0.5 kg.). Other than that, why do they need to overengineer it? It is a toy not heavy duty machinery. 

Or Mercedes W123 

Perhaps kids would be dissapointed when they realize that crane is huge (in comparisson to other sets) and it can lift (lets say) only one bottle of beer (I must use simple comparisspn so my old buddy @suffocation could undetstand)

[aminnich]

Typically there is a safety factor included in engineering design. I wonder if they considered that for this model. In this case, the factor of safety wouldn’t be to lift more than advertised, but adding extra stability OR limiting the lift to a maximum of 0.5kg.
 

I think you guys have already noted that the boom isn’t structurally strong, so I think the stability factor isn’t the case.  So the crane has to have a limit as to how much it can lift… does that mean a new stronger clutch? I don’t think we have a clutch that would be able to hold 0.5kg. Maybe a bunch of stacked clutches? I highly doubt it, but maybe. OR did TLG forget that we like to push the limit of our models and omit the safety factor in this model?? 

Maybe I’m over thinking it

[BusterHaus]

@aminnich Maybe it's a software solution, instead of a mechanical clutch? You can detect motor stalls using the position encoder. 

[westracing01]

Sigh... I had so looked forward to this when I first heard of it. I'd have gladly slapped down the money had it met reasonable expectations of scale and looks. 

Unfortunately, what we've been given fails miserably in comparison with the real thing...

[Oh_Hi_Mao]

4 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

I agree.  

Lol.... ummm do I even need to answer this?   Technic sets have a storied history of customers pushing a set beyond it's designed limits.  This possibly can create a PR nightmare for TLG. 

Also, just because it can lift its designed target of 500 grams does not negate the fact it is a design flaw.  

Try to be respectful while answering to the comments. Design flaw of a toy? It is not defined by ISO standards. How can you call it a flaw? By your visual observation? In engineering it is usually relied on numbers. Can you provide any? Or it is just your assumptions which has to be taken as a facts?

[suffocation]

2 hours ago, 1gor said:

only one bottle of beer (I must use simple comparisspn so my old buddy @suffocation could undetstand)

Thanks, Igor! Yep, I hope it can at least lift a chilled brew from cooler to desk. Given the price, I also hope the counterweights turn out to be made of never-ending chocolate.

[R0Sch]

The good old days when black boxes looked cool and actually showed the functions and had a cool B-model. You could easily change between A and B-model thanks to the modular jibs. I'd rather buy a second 8288 and double it's length than to look at the monstrosity that TLG calls LR 13000. They didn't even bother to add a weight or cable in the set to lift something with it.



P.S. 31.5 in = 80 cm, so only 100 cm for 42146 is ridiculously small.
P.P.S 8288 contained 11.55 m of string.

And they could have easily used these System pieces for boom and jib currently available in yellow thanks to 910008:

Edited June 29, 2023 by R0Sch

[aminnich]

3 hours ago, BusterHaus said:

@aminnich Maybe it's a software solution, instead of a mechanical clutch? You can detect motor stalls using the position encoder. 

Either an encoder or a load sensor could work if the PU motors have one. I think both are a stretch for a LEGO

[nerdsforprez]

40 minutes ago, Oh_Hi_Mao said:

Try to be respectful while answering to the comments. Design flaw of a toy? It is not defined by ISO standards. How can you call it a flaw? By your visual observation? In engineering it is usually relied on numbers. Can you provide any? Or it is just your assumptions which has to be taken as a facts?

I am not sure if my comments warranted the label of disrespect, but if you were offended by them then sure, my bad.  I apologize.  As you have so kindly pointed out many times, we are discussing toys, aka hobbies, therefore one writes as if the audience is like-minded.  But sometimes a light-hearted writing style can leave some folks offended.  I will watch this and be more careful.  

If you read my original comments you will see that I did actually include numbers.  No, I am not quoting ISO standards here.  Actually quite surprised I have to specify this.  Only pointing out the difference in the width between the different masts.  As one who has built several heavy lifting cranes in Lego, this is something not advisable.  

5 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

......The bottom section of that mast is only three studs.  This is different than the lower mast (looks to me to be 5 studs in thickness for bottom half, three for top) (see yellow arrows).  This is a design flaw.  Thickness here needs to not only remain constant, but one stud of thickness (red arrows) surely will weaken the crane's lifting capacity....  

 

 

 

 

[1gor]

1 hour ago, suffocation said:

Thanks, Igor! Yep, I hope it can at least lift a chilled brew from cooler to desk. Given the price, I also hope the counterweights turn out to be made of never-ending chocolate.

I'm not particular fan of chlcolate Andrew, but a glass of dark beer I can accept 

[R0Sch]

@nerdsforprez I don't think it's a "design flaw" to use different cross sections for the boom and jibs. And I'm fairly confident the weakest link will be the motors and gears. Here are some examples of giant cranes made of LEGO from Fanwelt 2018 that also use variable cross-sections:

[Toastie]

25 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

But sometimes a light-hearted writing style can (...)

... add to the fun of reading. I absolutely enjoy your and other "light-hearted" comments, which are, when been here for a while, are readily discernible. From my perspective, discussions as these would suffer from severity when no light-hearted post show up here and there. We are on "page" 28 in this thread (on my laptop) - and I am still following this discussion, although I am not interested in cranes at all, nor that much in modern plastic technic sets. I am here because of light-hearted comments and writing style.

Just to make sure, that some members may actually enjoy that.

I find it also more appropriate to use a light-hearted writing style and then truly apologize to those who were offended, rather than not using it anymore.

No offense @Oh_Hi_Mao, this is just my personal take on such posts!

Here is to feeling good

Have fun + best wishes,
Thorsten

 

Edited June 29, 2023 by Toastie

[nerdsforprez]

14 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

@nerdsforprez I don't think it's a "design flaw" to use different cross sections for the boom and jibs. And I'm fairly confident the weakest link will be the motors and gears. Here are some examples of giant cranes made of LEGO from Fanwelt 2018 that also use variable cross-sections:

unfortunately, I cannot see the images here at work  (some type of security thing)  but thought I would clarify.  I understand there may be different widths of boom and jibs, masts, etc... but my comparison is specifically comparing the two masts at the top.  See my post.  I am not comparing the mast width to boom or jib width.  

11 minutes ago, Toastie said:

... add to the fun of reading. I absolutely enjoy your and other "light-hearted" comments, which are, when been here for a while, are readily discernible. From my perspective, discussions as these would suffer from severity when no light-hearted post show up here and there. We are on "page" 28 in this thread (on my laptop) - and I am still following this discussion, although I am not interested in cranes at all, nor that much in modern plastic technic sets. I am here because of light-hearted comments and writing style.

Just to make sure, that some members may actually enjoy that.

I find it also more appropriate to use a light-hearted writing style and then truly apologize to those who were offended, rather than not using it anymore.

No offense @Oh_Hi_Mao, this is just my personal take on such posts!

Here is to feeling good

Have fun + best wishes,
Thorsten

 

+1 Agreed!   

Edited June 29, 2023 by nerdsforprez

[Maaboo the Witch]

@R0Sch, seriously - issue a warning before posting such epic cranage!

[derekthetree]

11 hours ago, westracing01 said:

Sigh... I had so looked forward to this when I first heard of it. I'd have gladly slapped down the money had it met reasonable expectations of scale and looks. 

Unfortunately, what we've been given fails miserably in comparison with the real thing...

Love the (not actually that) mini-crane for loading the weights on

[howitzer]

I think the main problem here is that the trend in TLG's choice for flagship construction models has been "biggest in the world" with first the Liebherr R 9800, then Cat D11 and now this. The other two were easy enough to convert into Lego, but a crawler crane' proportion are so different that it's really difficult to make one that has at least somewhat correct proportions while also being stable, playable and safe. So yeah, the choice of source material puts designers into an impossible place, can't really have a good looking thing that meets the required standards.

[blondasek]

I do not know why it is so difficult for Lego to create combined set - remote control + pneumatic. If they are increasing the price any way, they could go fully complicated from time to time. I would kill for a nice model which can drive and also has a pneumatic - it does not have to be big. Still 42043 is far superior and I wish for a newer one.

[JaBaCaDaBra]

20 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

the lifting capacity on this model will be very weak

No it's capable of lifting $700 from your wallet.

20 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

The only real benefit to this set, IMO, seems to come from the new lattice sections of the boom.  Frame parts if you will.  But have we sufficiently discussed these? I have already mentioned how the triangular "V" sections appear too thin to me, but what about the overall benefit of these new section parts over what can already be done with existing lift arms.  i mean lattice sections with proper inner "V" triangles have been around for a very long time, and can be done, more or less properly with existing parts.  42042's boom was strong, it was not the set's weak point (turntable was).  What real benefit do these new elements even provide? 

Also, not sure this has been pointed out yet, but the upper jib mast is only one stud in thickness (top section) (see red arrows).  The bottom section of that mast is only three studs.  This is different than the lower mast (looks to me to be 5 studs in thickness for bottom half, three for top) (see yellow arrows).  This is a design flaw.  Thickness here needs to not only remain constant, but one stud of thickness (red arrows) surely will weaken the crane's lifting capacity.  As everyone on here knows, one weak point in the lifting structure of a crane can cripple the entire system.  The tiniest lateral movement at this juncture will send the crane reeling.  So, despite the new frame elements, I think the lifting capacity on this model will be very weak.  

 

something like a cockscomb flapping back and forth

[JimsBridges]

Have loitered in this forum for months waiting for updates, posting for the first time (ever) to throw a few different opinions into the mix.

Firstly, have played with some big cranes in my job, and will 100% outlay the cost to have this model on my desk at work. No, I can’t really afford it, and am acutely aware of how different it looks to the real thing, but there is a (surprisingly large) community of people who are super stoked to have Lego build something so close to what we love doing (building things and lifting heavy stuff). Its a niche flagship model that’s for sure, but it’s the kind of thing I think a few people will happily pay for (already thinking about how to remove the fly jib and run it as a single boom).

Secongly, much like real cranes I’m certain that 500g is the safe working limit for stability, not part failure. Lattice booms are ultra strong, and at low radius can lift eye-wateringly heavy loads. For these cranes it’s all about stability limits, and my guess would be that both height and boom operation have been cropped here to keep it within extremely conservative limits. Real crawlers are very easy to tip without an experienced operator, Lego would have been fielding a tsunami of complaints if they’d delivered a model with realistic geometry and performance.

Overall, I think it’s not quite as realistic as I’d like, but still a model i’d love to own and build. It’s a great base from which to build a lot of modified crane configurations too, so it’s a hard yes from me.

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by JimsBridges
Typo

[Maaboo the Witch]

36 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

No it's capable of lifting $700 from your wallet.

[Saruzeufel]

3 hours ago, howitzer said:

"biggest in the world" with first the Liebherr R 9800, then Cat D11 and now this

That is not true. The O&K RH400 (after beeing renamed due to beeing bought from one company to another like 20 times now called "CAT 6090") is still heavier and has a larger bucket volume than the Liebherr R9800, with CAT working on an even larger prototype. Also the Komatsu D575A is a larger bulldozer than the CAT D11.

This crane is is the largest in the world, the other things are not.

[howitzer]

6 minutes ago, Saruzeufel said:

That is not true. The O&K RH400 (after beeing renamed due to beeing bought from one company to another like 20 times now called "CAT 6090") is still heavier and has a larger bucket volume than the Liebherr R9800, with CAT working on an even larger prototype. Also the Komatsu D575A is a larger bulldozer than the CAT D11.

This crane is is the largest in the world, the other things are not.

Well, near-largest anyway. Much larger than one would see in a typical construction site.

[Maaboo the Witch]

21 minutes ago, Saruzeufel said:

That is not true. The O&K RH400 (after beeing renamed due to beeing bought from one company to another like 20 times now called "CAT 6090") is still heavier and has a larger bucket volume than the Liebherr R9800, with CAT working on an even larger prototype. Also the Komatsu D575A is a larger bulldozer than the CAT D11.

This crane is is the largest in the world, the other things are not.

Funnily enough, as the standout in that list, the LR 13000 is also the only machine of the three not primarily designed for mining. It's designed for constructing power plants, refineries, and offshore platforms.

[allanp]

I don't think limiting the weight it can lift is the best way to prevent it tipping over due to the different radii it can operate at. I wonder if it could use the inbuilt tilt sensor to sense if the superstructure is tipping too far. This could then disable winching up or any other functions that increases the working radius, whilst allowing winching down and functions that decrease the working radius, whilst also sounding an alarm and flashing a red warning ⚠️ icon in the app. That would actually be a fun thing to play with. Though I don't know if the real crane has that function.