[REVIEW] 42030 - Volvo L350F Wheel Loader

[allanp]

I think the ideal thing for the steering in this particular model would be a better remote that can make use of the 15 steps in the servos movement as well as being absolute, not relative. By that I mean, by moving the control stick to any position, the servo will move to that position as opposed to the train remote where moving the dial one click moves the servo to the next step. You probably already know my thoughts on the rest of the model .

[davidmull]

I think the ideal thing for the steering in this particular model would be a better remote that can make use of the 15 steps in the servos movement as well as being absolute, not relative. By that I mean, by moving the control stick to any position, the servo will move to that position as opposed to the train remote where moving the dial one click moves the servo to the next step. You probably already know my thoughts on the rest of the model .

Please share your thoughts :) I take it you won't be buying this set?

[Blakbird]

It would be nice if one of the few people who actually have this set for review could try driving it with the proportional train remote. I have a feeling the movements will be much more realistic.

[Jim]

It would be nice if one of the few people who actually have this set for review could try driving it with the proportional train remote. I have a feeling the movements will be much more realistic.

I will try that tomorrow!

[jantjeuh]

Still, I have mixed feelings about the model. It looks unfinished (and big size is not a relevant criteria IMO) compared to 8265. I am pretty sure that the model could have look much better with no Volvo license. The designers would have been free to make choices that look good on a Lego model (like 8265), and not only choices that look "like the real Volvo model".

There is a subtil difference which is IMO essential when designing a Lego set : the thing is not to take a nice vehicle and to make it into a Lego set, but to take a vehicle and to make it into a nice Lego set. This is really a key point IMO. And L350F hardly enables that.

I 100% agree with this. I would give the design a 7/10 at most, as I've come to expect more from a Technic flagship model. Functionality and playability are excellent though, which, in the end, is probably more important. It's a toy after all.

Edited June 10, 2014 by jantjeuh

[jorgeopesi]

I agree, the set it would have been more realistic with a smaller body and same wheels and bucket but this is the funny part, it will be a pleasure to re-do it when I have the parts I need.

[Kumbbl]

Still, I have mixed feelings about the model. It looks unfinished (and big size is not a relevant criteria IMO) compared to 8265. I am pretty sure that the model could have look much better with no Volvo license. The designers would have been free to make choices that look good on a Lego model (like 8265), and not only choices that look "like the real Volvo model".

There is a subtil difference which is IMO essential when designing a Lego set : the thing is not to take a nice vehicle and to make it into a Lego set, but to take a vehicle and to make it into a nice Lego set. This is really a key point IMO. And L350F hardly enables that.

As for the building process and mechanics, they are kind of boring. The whole model is almost a bunch of yellow liftarms (btw, making the chassis the same color as the fairing was a big mistake for a Lego set, no matter if the real model is all made in yellow).

It is a great set, and it well deserve the title of "flagship". However, best Lego models have more to offer than "just" an awesome playability imho.

i agree with every word... these are the reasons why i rate the 8265 higher...it is the better LEGO-MODEL (if RC is not the most important feature - as for me): More balanced design and much more interesting build (and lets face it: lego technic is not only for playing with the finished model, it is also about BUILDING the model, build by kids!)

The compromise is a key principle, more in the Technic line than in any other line given the very technical aspects.

And to be honnest with you, I think few people master this concept of compromise. If one day you have the opportunity to talk with a Lego (Technic) designer, try to discuss about that subject. You will see, it will be a very interesting discussion. And for sure it will help you with your own models. Indeed, before having bricks in the hands, it is important to understand what really is involved in your models (shapes, key lines, key parts, features, stability, playability, critical points regarding the build, etc) in order to define specifications that lead to the best compromises.

Compromise also involves parts availability, part quantities, building standards, price range, instruction readability, and maybe even age range for a Lego set (and I am sure I forgot some aspects).

I can understand you, but Lego focus mainly on kids. They have now their "Technic for men" section, but their main target is for kids

both are very well spoken and again i agree at 100% - nevertheless i think using the servo and this binary control (full, center, full) for steering was the wrong compromise decision.. why?

- playability: if you want the best playability with a LOADER (not a RC car, here we talk about a loader!) and you want really loading and feeding dump trucks with buckets of sands then you need a precise control about your loading and its steering angles so can precisly heading the sandheap - such a jerky full-center-full steering is not really satisfying here.... and with such a slow speed of a loader 5 to 10 seconds from full left to right are really not a problem.. matches perfectly

- usage by children: yes, you are right, lego technic is mainly made for kids but: not all model for all kids regardless their age: models like the 42030 are not made for kids 4 or 5 years old (with this age i would agree with you, then a servo would be the best solution) but such a model is made for kids about between 9 years old and above - and these kids can perfectly steer an articulated loader with a slow and not-return-to-center LA-driven steering...do not under estimate kids

- stressing parts like the LAs: IMHO the stress applied to the steering LAs at the end points would not be higher as the stress to the servo and related parts when "bashing" the full and heavy front part of the loader in one jerk to the left or to the right... (sorry for my clumsy english)

Well, maybe there are other aspects which lead the designer to make the steering with the servo, so e.g. providing the full PF motor assortment in one set... but from just technical aspects i see really NO advantage when using the servo for this loader steering, and i mean really NO - not even playability (s.a., why not)

Of course Lego can not really fulfill the slogan Technic as in reality, but the steering of the 42030 is the complete opposite...

well, LAs are not as in reality but they REACT and perform (from a result viewpoint) as in reality which is IMHO often a senseful compromise (as e.g. in an excavator like the 8043) - but the servo driven steering of the 42030 has really nothing to do with reality: neither ground principle nor performance nor result --> simply nothing and therefore it is a really poor solution and the wrong compromise - LA-driven steering (or maybe even pneumatic+compressor driven) would be also compromises but they would be better ones...

Just my 2ct

[Interceptor]

I agree, servo has nothing to do with reality. But on the other hand LAs have also nothing to do with reality. (Pneumatics + compressor could have been a good compromise IMO because a new hydraulic system for such a LEGO set would cost too much). But as for the reasons my thougths are: we live in the age of Power Functions, and the designer of 42030 simply wanted to give us an almost full assortment of PF and I think it was a nice thing doing so. The other main reason IMO was profitability and thrift regarding the servo mold and I'm sure this helps LEGO to produce a Technic flagship every year for us.

I hope, with using train control, the steering will perform better.

[Kumbbl]

I agree, servo has nothing to do with reality. But on the other hand LAs have also nothing to do with reality.

well, you are right - but they have more to do with reality than the servo (for this steering) because at least the perform as in reality (from an endresult viewpoint) even if the underlying ground principle has nothing to do with reality... but this would be a good compromise...

we live in the age of Power Functions, and the designer of 42030 simply wanted to give us an almost full assortment of PF and I think it was a nice thing doing so. The other main reason IMO was profitability and thrift regarding the servo mold and I'm sure this helps LEGO to produce a Technic flagship every year for us.

fully agreed - have assumed the same above...

To avoid misunderstandings: For me the 42030 is not a bad SET (it has its pros like the full PF assortment for an overall fair price) but it is an average MODEL...with a better steering and a more balanced design i would rate it as a good or maybe even very good model... but still being away from outstanding...

Edited June 11, 2014 by Kumbbl

[Interceptor]

To avoid misunderstandings: For me the 42030 is not a bad SET (it has its pros like the full PF assortment for an overall fair price) but it is an average MODEL...with a better steering and a more balanced design i would rate it as a good or maybe even very good model... but still being away from outstanding...

Probably agree but still waiting for my own copy to make final judgment on this. It can be outstanding in may ways...

Edited June 13, 2014 by Interceptor

[Kumbbl]

there is one notice: steering is one of the most important features of a driven vehicle and therefore it should perform well (at least well - not to mention the realism, but it should at least perform well and suitable) - but two of the recent flagships, the unimog 8110 and now the 42030 front loader, fail in exactly this feature: in both models the out-of-the-box steering is crap (IMHO) - for the Unimog it can at least be fixed fast and satisfying with few cheap parts...

[imajor]

It would be nice if one of the few people who actually have this set for review could try driving it with the proportional train remote. I have a feeling the movements will be much more realistic.

I don't have high hopes for that. It would work well, if it was absolute, but with the current relative controller it would be hard to center the steering.

[Blakbird]

I don't have high hopes for that. It would work well, if it was absolute, but with the current relative controller it would be hard to center the steering.

A "traditional" proportional controller with absolute positioning would indeed be best. But I have several loaders for which I use the train remote and it works pretty well once you get the hang of it. You can push a button to return to center. Of course, it works delightfully well with linear actuator steering instead of a servo. For example, M_Longer's Liebherr L580 is really easy to drive with the train remote or even the binary remote.

What is sad is that the PF system is perfectly capable of supporting an absolute proportional controller. Both the motor speed and servo steering can be commanded directly to any of 15 settings, but there is no remote available which will actually do it. I am surprised no skilled electronics person has made their own.

[Alasdair Ryan]

Maybe some one on the train section has done this?

[Anio]

- usage by children: yes, you are right, lego technic is mainly made for kids but: not all model for all kids regardless their age: models like the 42030 are not made for kids 4 or 5 years old (with this age i would agree with you, then a servo would be the best solution) but such a model is made for kids about between 9 years old and above - and these kids can perfectly steer an articulated loader with a slow and not-return-to-center LA-driven steering...do not under estimate kids

It is almost certain that a team tested several steering modes with kids. :)

I guess they chose the most satisfying modes given what their observation on the kids, etc. :)

- stressing parts like the LAs: IMHO the stress applied to the steering LAs at the end points would not be higher as the stress to the servo and related parts when "bashing" the full and heavy front part of the loader in one jerk to the left or to the right... (sorry for my clumsy english)

I had in mind a different kind of stress. Not because they are some pressure on parts due to weight, difficult terrain, or end point, but because building a symetric system with LA can be considered as an illegal build. What I mean is LA does not move symetrically in opposite direction in an articulated steering system. :)

(in other words, it is a pretty big mistake in an engineering point of view)

Well, they could have made it with 1 LA on 1 side then. But this is meh on such a big model.

[Kumbbl]

It is almost certain that a team tested several steering modes with kids. :)

I guess they chose the most satisfying modes given what their observation on the kids, etc. :)

i know lego does some pre-tests with kids and this has happend with the 42030 also, no doubt... but in this case i doubt that they offered the "test"-kids different steering solutions - i guess using the servo for steering was pre-set by the team cause of non technical aspects - like i and allanp have decribed above... and maybe also cause of the illegal aspect you wrote about LA-based steering... but of course: who knows .... ;) hard to answer without any insider knowledge... but i admit: it would be very interesting to know something about the design process of this model - maybe the designer will tell us some infos in the future - as has be done for the 42009....

Edited June 11, 2014 by Kumbbl

[Superkalle]

I am pretty sure that the model could have look much better with no Volvo license. The designers would have been free to make choices that look good on a Lego model (like 8265), and not only choices that look "like the real Volvo model".

I'm not sure to be honest. Sure, TLG could have taken inspiration from various real machines and made their own version (as they do with all other Technic models). But still, basically all wheel loaders on the market look the same and have the same proportions irrespective of brand. I think the criticism in that case should be more on the model as such, rather the it being caused by applying a certain brand (be it Volvo, Liebherr, Komatsu....)

[Jim]

What is sad is that the PF system is perfectly capable of supporting an absolute proportional controller. Both the motor speed and servo steering can be commanded directly to any of 15 settings, but there is no remote available which will actually do it. I am surprised no skilled electronics person has made their own.

The other day I was thinking about a full fledged PF remote control for Technic and possibly for Trains. Something like two PF remotes joined together, but with a proportional controller, a (return to center) steering wheel and maybe some on/off buttons instead of levers. Would be a nice addition to the current PF components.

Still need to test the train controller. Hope I don't forget it tonight

[MOC82]

This is simply amazing! But I don't think that my wallet could afford this...

[OzShan]

What is sad is that the PF system is perfectly capable of supporting an absolute proportional controller. Both the motor speed and servo steering can be commanded directly to any of 15 settings, but there is no remote available which will actually do it. I am surprised no skilled electronics person has made their own.

There are a few projects out there, both PF receivers and transmitters. Pretty cool that lego released the standard publicly (for non profit hobbyists anyway)

I hacked together a two channel transmitter of my own using an arduino mega and a few basic external components. It doesn't support the full control set but it does take two proportional inputs and sends the full 15 stages to the respective output channels (all I needed at the time).

Happy to share if anyone wants it (sorry if this is driving too far off topic)

[Jim]

There are a few projects out there, both PF receivers and transmitters. Pretty cool that lego released the standard publicly (for non profit hobbyists anyway)

I hacked together a two channel transmitter of my own using an arduino mega and a few basic external components. It doesn't support the full control set but it does take two proportional inputs and sends the full 15 stages to the respective output channels (all I needed at the time).

Happy to share if anyone wants it (sorry if this is driving too far off topic)

I would love to see what you've come up with. You can create another topic and we'll discuss it over there

[OzShan]

Sure, I'll put something together over the weekend.

[Jim]

Sure, I'll put something together over the weekend.

Cool

[Anio]

I'm not sure to be honest. Sure, TLG could have taken inspiration from various real machines and made their own version (as they do with all other Technic models). But still, basically all wheel loaders on the market look the same and have the same proportions irrespective of brand. I think the criticism in that case should be more on the model as such, rather the it being caused by applying a certain brand (be it Volvo, Liebherr, Komatsu....)

I am not exactly sure about what you mean (my English is not perfect, etc).

My point : the Volvo license does not help to make a good looking Lego model. But it would have been the same with another license.

The thing is generally to take the best of each brand, in order to get the best "Lego licensed" model, if you will. =)

8043 is a good example. There is of course some adaptations compared to real excavators, but still, it looks great !

There are some counter example, though. 8110. TLG uses a license because this brand is almost the only one to make that kind of vehicle. "Unimog" is now almost a common word to speak about that kind of vehicle.

Ferrari are also a counter example. But it can be explained : a Ferrari has a very very strong identity. If you modify this identity, you ruin it.

The identity of a loader in one brand is not that strong compared to the identiy of a similar vehicle in another brand. This is why you can have a better result if you "mix" the brands.

[TomOOO]

Hi,

(just joined - but an AFOL for some time)

I just thought I would comment on the user of the servo motor for the steering.

In this model it is controlled by the 3 position controller (forwards/stop/backwards) so give you full left, full right lock and center; this makes it jerky. I have used the servo motor with the 15 position controller (usually found with lego trains) which gives you 15 steering positions. Attaching a wheel on the controller means the steering shadows the turning of the controller quite well. The problem is that it has some different charteristics with the 15 position controller which I can add if interested.

Anyway, using with the 15 position controller would make the model better to control - I have used it on the mark-II crane OK so I am surprised they did not go for this option in the box.