Lego Technic 2h 2013

[D3K]

I totally agree!

One has to make certain compromises, after all;no matter how you put it, Lego is a toy. However, it is a unique, educational toy, especially Technic, letting you create and understand complex mechanics,while letting you evolve creatively!

And when you're at it (allanp); it's not the EXACT same thing, whereas one uses an incompressible liquid, and the other uses a compressible gas. But this is one of the compromises I'm talking about! Yes; pneumatics better simulate the actual working system of many machines, but I for one would argue that LA's offer an equally educational mechanic solution to a similar problem!

This is one of the reasons I really like the new recovery truck, as it uses the best from two worlds!:-)

The argument over which is the best; pneumatics or linear actuators, will probably never be settled. I am a huge fan of both systems, and they both have advantages and disadvantages! And before you start talking "realism", keep in mind: NEITHER is used in real life heavy machinery! (at least not for the functions they are meant to replicate)

[davidmull]

Allan you seem very annoyed over this crane, it's not that bad,

Will u buy 42008 tho?

Also you say you hate la,s , did you not say 8043 was a great set before?

Edited February 1, 2013 by davidmull

[dr_spock]

Yeah, I'm a bit disappointed that the crane didn't have tracks and a space thruster on the back. I mean, obviously, it isn't based on a real crane so why not?

Nothing to say you can't MOD it after buying it.

It looks like it will be an expensive 2nd half for me. I'm getting the crane and I haven't even got around to building my 8053 yet.

[allanp]

allanp. Why are you even here, if you dislike anything from TLG so thoroughly. Please. Take your rants about LAs and authenticity elsewhere. I'm getting sick of reading them every time. Seriously. Go away.

I don't dislike everything from TLG, I don't think you are reading my posts properly. And you can always just not read my posts, easy as falling off a horse, you can manage that can't you :tongue:Take a chill pill man, it's ok if I don't like everything TLG does, really it is. It's ok. Wait a sec, are you one of the designers moms or something?

[allanp]

To anyone i'm annoying, you have my personal permission to not read this just in case you didn't know

And when you're at it (allanp); it's not the EXACT same thing, whereas one uses an incompressible liquid, and the other uses a compressible gas. But this is one of the compromises I'm talking about! Yes; pneumatics better simulate the actual working system of many machines, but I for one would argue that LA's offer an equally educational mechanic solution to a similar problem!

Pressure is built up in a sealed cylinder to move a rod, it's the exact same thing only with a different medium is use. And I agree there has to be compromises like this, you can't have oil in there. Richthelegodude already explained that (thanks rich!) Erik Leppen, again you have my permission to stop reading this now . Ok, but don't blame me or tell me to go away . I would argue that LAs are not as.....you know what, you know the reasons. It's Just not in any way educational to teach a child "this is what move these machines, screws!". Again I know air doesn't move them either but the pricipal is the exact same and so is more educational. To say they are not realistic cos they use air is about the same as saying they are not realistic cos they are not made 1:1 scale.

This is one of the reasons I really like the new recovery truck, as it uses the best from two worlds!:-)

I must admit the recovery truck is growing on me. Just really ircked me that they would go through the trouble of have the compressor and pneumatics already in there and then go and piss on my bonfire for no reason .

[allanp]

Allan you seem very annoyed over this crane, it's not that bad,

Will u buy 42008 tho?

Also you say you hate la,s , did you not say 8043 was a great set before?

I'm not annoyed in the slightest my friend, you'll probably notice that I use alot of s and s in my posts. I seem to be the only one round here lately, everyone really needs to chill. I'm not annoyed by this set or at anyone who says i'm annoying them. If they want to get annoyed because they chose to read my posts knowing it will probably annoy them well that's their problem . No I just think the crane is the same old same old just more expensive cos of it's higher part count which I can't seem to justify other than just to make it a bit bigger, and indicative of certain trends which I don't think are good for technic. I don't think i'll get 42008, I may have said it before but I don't want to spend a single penny on LAs I don't want. I have too many as it is, there is only so many CNC machines you can build! I think in reply to somebodies question I might have said it's a great set if you want lots of PF, or something like that, which it is. But it's not for me.

Edited February 2, 2013 by allanp

[gmshades]

(I still wait maybe lego will introduce some parts for pneumatics to move cylinders with much bigger accuracy in the future?).

I am just gonna have tons of 62.4 x 20 S wheels :) Maybe I'll build a real eighteenwheeler with a lego architecture house to be transported on a huge trailer? Come on ice road and oversize truckers :)

To answer your first quote, pneumatics will never act like the real thing of hydraulics because air compresses, oil does not.

And your problem with too many wheels, pm me and I'll send you money for shipping them to my house. Haha.

I'm starting to save $20/week and hopefully have enough for the crane and service truck in August. Both are a must buy for me.

[CP5670]

The new crane looks really nice, a great successor to 8421. It doesn't bring much new to the table over 8421, but I like the look of that model a lot in the pictures. That recovery truck should also be interesting. I'm guessing the motor is used to run a compressor, which should make it a lot more interesting than the typical medium-size motorized set we have gotten in the past.

Pneumatics are much closer to hydraulic systems than LAs and are more realistic. On the other hand, I only care about realism up to a point with Technic. What I'm really looking for in Technic models are interesting mechanisms. Some of my favorite Technic sets in the past (e.g. 8094) have had nothing to do with any real vehicle.

[GuiliuG]

Allanp : consider pneumatic lego models are less complex than model using Las. Isn't it also a good teachment for children to learn how work all these complex drive shafts?

Edited February 2, 2013 by GuiliuG

[Lipko]

Well, 8880 was far from realistic. Nevertheless it was a great model, one of my favourites. (gearbox with no reverse, no opening doors, chain driven fake engine, the rear hood deformed significantly when opened, arguably the 4 wheel steering. even the shape was a bit unrealistic, too small seats, we could go on).

Pneumatics works like the real thing (like hydraulics), but behaves very differently (inaccurate, not smooth, too quick).

LA:s work differently than the real thing but behave like it. I prefer LA:s, the tubing is a bit annoying to me, and honestly I can't imagine little kids can push the tubes on the pins without help. I have strong hands, but it was quite an effort (at least with the new tubes) to push them on, and sometimes the whole thing just slipped out of my hands. Definitely it's not something I would be hacking around and trying things.

As for the educational thing: I don't think that learning that Lego machines don't work exactly like the real thing will cause a trauma. The principles of pneumatics and hydraulics are quite simple anyway. Sure, there should be pneumatic sets too.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Lipko

[designer-han]

Interesting discussions the last couple of pages...... Although I do understand both angles in the LA and pneumatics discussion, we have to bare in mind that TLC first sets functional requirements before selection solutions for each model. Nothing different from the real world btw. Which means that the functinal requirement is 'we want a to have a boom that does not retract automatically within 15 minutes due to the weight'.... the solution will be LA's in this case.

Same methodology is applied to all my MOCs. The dumptruck had to have pneumatics, otherwise it was never able to dump a full load. Crunching gears all over the place with LA's. For the Artic Hauler LA's came into play for steering, no pneumatics. The groomer should have had pneumatics for the tiller and blade, but due to the functional requirement 'full RC' and no space for a compressor it ended up with wormwheels and gears to lift them..... So, its all about requirements, compromises and for TLC to keep the model 'reasonable priced'.

I understand the view Allanp has and agree with most parts., I know parents who dislike the sky high price of the flagship models and explore other options with the same functionality. If their kids are really onto Lego and like the building part.... then it is considered.

Back to topic 42009. I'm not convinced yet that the crane will be a successor of 8421. Yes, its bigger, but not different from functions except the outriggers. And what I dislike in the 42009 is the rearside of the superstructure. It would have been nice if the battery box was hidden (or a had a yellow battery box).

And the fact that the LA's point downwards in rest (see my previous post) is not very nice as well.

Edited February 2, 2013 by designer-han

[mobi]

LA is better than pneumatics because it is more durable than pipes where leaks can develop after few years. Although it is not like real thing but at end of day Lego is nothing but an advance set of toys.

[Ape Fight]

The Lego Car Blog has posted a preview of the crane and Recovery Truck/Wrecker

http://thelegocarblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/start-saving/

They say £150 and £100 - is the Truck really going to cost that much?!

They look awesome in the photos though : )

[davidmull]

Interesting discussions the last couple of pages...... Although I do understand both angles in the LA and pneumatics discussion, we have to bare in mind that TLC first sets functional requirements before selection solutions for each model. Nothing different from the real world btw. Which means that the functinal requirement is 'we want a to have a boom that does not retract automatically within 15 minutes due to the weight'.... the solution will be LA's in this case.

Same methodology is applied to all my MOCs. The dumptruck had to have pneumatics, otherwise it was never able to dump a full load. Crunching gears all over the place with LA's. For the Artic Hauler LA's came into play for steering, no pneumatics. The groomer should have had pneumatics for the tiller and blade, but due to the functional requirement 'full RC' and no space for a compressor it ended up with wormwheels and gears to lift them..... So, its all about requirements, comprises and for TLC to keep the model 'reasonable priced'.

I understand the view Allanp has and agree with most parts., I know parents who dislike the sky high price of the flagship models and explore other options with the same functionality. If their kids are really onto Lego and like the building part.... then it is considered.

Back to topic 42009. I'm not convinced yet that the crane will be a successor of 8421. Yes, its bigger, but not different from functions except the outriggers. And what I dislike in the 42009 is the rearside of the superstructure. It would have been nice if the battery box was hidden (or a had a yellow battery box).

And the fact that the LA's point downwards in rest (see my previous post) is not very nice as well.

Great post han and well summed up, I have to agree tho that this so is no better than 8421 apart from the outriggers.

[radiant7]

The real kicker for me with 42009 is the lack of geared slewing/rotation of the crane. This was a huge gripe of mine with 8421, and means that the 8460 mobile crane from 1995(!) still has the most functions.

On the topic of realism, with TECHNIC for me it goes: functions quantity > aesthetic style > functions realism > aesthetic realism. This is why sets like the futuristic 8462 tow truck and 8479 barcode truck are among my most beloved, because they mix lots of functions with post-modern styling.

The absolute least important thing for me is aesthetic realism. I find a lot of sets these days unattractive compared to the late-90's/early 00's, especially sets like 9395 Pickup Truck and 8070 Supercar, which just look so boring and bland to me. GIve me a practical near-future concept set over a modern-era one any day.

Edited February 2, 2013 by radiant7

[andythenorth]

Great post han and well summed up, I have to agree tho that this so is no better than 8421 apart from the outriggers.

But the numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...

Edited February 2, 2013 by andythenorth

[allanp]

Allanp : consider pneumatic lego models are less complex than model using Las. Isn't it also a good teachment for children to learn how work all these complex drive shafts?

That's a very good point, however a real crane like this contains more gears in it's transmission than you would find in this set, personaly I think it would be ever better to teach kids how they are used in real cranes. This thing is rumored to have over 2600 pieces. It's not unreasonable to say that with that many parts and a few well designed new parts (if I had such new parts i'de build it for you) we could have had a crane that is pneumatic (there are lots of simple ways to stop things like the boom falling too fast giving the best of both worlds), has all the functionality of this model plus more functionality never seen in an official technic crane set, such as a full transmission, motorised 8 or 10 wheel drive and suspended live axles, just like the real thing. With the same amount of parts they could have made it's authenticity greater than that of even the unimog, complexity greater than anything seen before with all of the drawbacks of using pneumatics eliminated. How much cooler would that have been!

[DLuders]

Yes, the upcoming 42009 Mobile Crane MkII set has ~2,600 pieces and will be expensive. On this thread, many people are saying that they won't be able to buy it AND other 2H2013 sets. New part moulds cost $100,000+ to manufacture. Will The Lego Group make a profit on an even more complex (read "more expensive") set with newly-made parts? Probably not.

[andythenorth]

plus more functionality never seen in an official technic crane set, such as a full transmission, motorised 8 or 10 wheel drive and suspended live axles, just like the real thing

But would that have left room for the lasers? The best thing about 42009 is the lasers. All that realistic stuff means the lasers might not fit?

Edited February 2, 2013 by andythenorth

[allanp]

Yes, the upcoming 42009 Mobile Crane MkII set has ~2,600 pieces and will be expensive. On this thread, many people are saying that they won't be able to buy it AND other 2H2013 sets. New part moulds cost $100,000+ to manufacture. Will The Lego Group make a profit on an even more complex (read "more expensive") set with newly-made parts? Probably not.

More complex need not mean more expensive if it's using the same amount of parts. And with the record amount of new parts they came out with this year it would be nice to see the same kind of investment into the technic line. Legends of Chima required so any new molds for a theme that likely will not be around as long as technic. It would not require that many new parts to create that kind of functinality I was talking about. And what you said kinda re-iterates my point that bigger is not always better. Yes it's bigger which seems to be what most people find the most impressive thing about it. To me if it's size is not justified by it's complexity then bigger is just more expensive.

But would that have left room for the lasers? The best thing about 42009 is the lasers. All that realistic stuff means the lasers might not fit?

Or the space thrusters

Edited February 2, 2013 by allanp

[DLuders]

Yes, but the Legends of Chima theme is marketed a lot more heavily than Technic. In the USA (at least), the typical Wal-Mart store has 20+ "Legends of Chima" sets but NO Technic sets for sale. That indicates the relative level of expected sales (and profits) for The Lego Group.

[allanp]

Yes, but the Legends of Chima theme is marketed a lot more heavily than Technic. In the USA (at least), the typical Wal-Mart store has 20+ "Legends of Chima" sets but NO Technic sets for sale. That indicates the relative level of expected sales (and profits) for The Lego Group.

You are absolutely right, but I think that if they are expecting an evergreen theme like technic to not sell as well and create as much profit as a newcomer then they should do something about it. Do you not agree that if they made the crane I was talking about for the same price and marketed it as much as Legends of Chima with a killer advert with a tag line along the lines of "technic, build the real thing" that it would help technic become more successful, especially in America and more attractive to all ages? I mean if you don't agree that's fine i'm not trying to be a bully here

[bord4kop]

Come to think of it; Lego Technic saved TLG from almost going bankrupt in the late 70 's or early eighties..

(if I am not mistaken)

[DLuders]

Most Lego sets are bought by parents trying to find a birthday gift for their son or daughter. They see some relatively inexpensive Lego set in the local Toys-R-Us store, Wal-Mart, Argos, etc. and buy it. They won't go for the complex, 2,600-piece, $200+ Technic set because (1) it's too expensive, and (2) it looks too complex for their kiddie to handle. Besides, they are used to dealing with the Lego "System" studded-brick style of building (when their toddler may have worked with Lego Duplo blocks), and not with Lego "Technic" studless building style. As Blakbird, Paul Boratko and others have noted, many people still view Lego Technic as not being "real" Lego.

I'm sure Lego Technic sales are increasing but TLG learned from its difficult years when it lost money. It's being CAUTIOUS since much of the world is in economic doldrums right now.

[CP5670]

The real kicker for me with 42009 is the lack of geared slewing/rotation of the crane. This was a huge gripe of mine with 8421, and means that the 8460 mobile crane from 1995(!) still has the most functions.

On the topic of realism, with TECHNIC for me it goes: functions quantity > aesthetic style > functions realism > aesthetic realism. This is why sets like the futuristic 8462 tow truck and 8479 barcode truck are among my most beloved, because they mix lots of functions with post-modern styling.

The absolute least important thing for me is aesthetic realism. I find a lot of sets these days unattractive compared to the late-90's/early 00's, especially sets like 9395 Pickup Truck and 8070 Supercar, which just look so boring and bland to me. GIve me a practical near-future concept set over a modern-era one any day.

I like the look of the Technic models in that era too. They weren't intended to look entirely realistic, but instead had stylized appearances that sort of represented real vehicles but had their own artistic touch.

The lack of a proper slewing function in this set is a bummer. I didn't realize that. I tried adding this into 8421 but haven't found any simple way to do it without making major changes to the chassis. One problem with a lot of studless models is that small modifications like this are harder than they should be.