jacabias

I absolutely love this. I remember randomly buying this set at Walmart when it originally came out in 2002 not even knowing beforehand that it existed. When the GWP was released, a boxor was on my list of things that I wanted to build to go with it, so I believe I am going to have to try building this. I think you've done a wonderful job representing the original technic functions using the ball-joints here.

Yes, the cross-bar has to be narrower than the width of the truck so it can fit between the wheels of the truck it's towing. Typically they use hooks to secure the axle on the bar and then chains to secure it. My understanding is that this is a more secure and robust way of towing something that can weigh upwards of 50,000 pounds depending on the load as the weight is supported by the truck's axle rather than the tires. You also don't have to worry about locking the steering when towing like this. The set-up you are thinking about is more common on smaller tow-trucks for cars, but in my area they are not as common as a flatbed tow-truck these days.

This is the exact MOC I had the idea to build, but I didn't know what set to focus on. Thank you for this and for making the instructions available.

This is really the point I was trying to make before. Clearly LEGO knows how to make mechs, and we get a lot of them. The small creature builds that accompany larger Ninjago sets and many of the Monkie Kid sets show that the traditional building system can be used for Bionicle-like builds.

I both agree and disagree with your points. There are numerous sets in other themes (City, Creator, Ninjago, for example) that give good value for only $10-15. You are right that system parts don't give many pieces for building "Bionicle" MOCs, but that is only true if you are insistent upon adhering to the old technic-style. From my perspective, what made Bionicle cool was not just the building system, but the narrative and concept behind it. That can be achieved regardless of the building system. Also, there is a reason LEGO keeps making the "regular System Mechs that we get all the time in LEGO." Children, and parents, know what they're looking at and buy them. Why did the all of the other constraction sets fail to sell well enough for the building system to stick around? My guess (though this is conjecture) is that they were too different from "standard" sets. Personally, I also think that size is not a necessary quality. It doesn't bother me that the GWP Tahu is smaller than the original, and it wouldn't bother me if other Bionicle sets, if they ever exist, were of a similar size to this GWP.

I feel that MOCs like that Kopaka would be the best-case scenario, but they would be too expensive if LEGO were to try another round of Bionicle (which I doubt would happen). This GWP feels more than reasonable with LEGO's current approach to small, collectible sets. Honestly, something like the newer Ninjago mechs, the small ones with the fixed-joint limbs, would even be a good direction to take. They are similar to the original Bionicle sets from 2001, but the "new" mixel-style joints allow for more poseability, a more subsstantial size than the GWP Tahu, and a cheaper price, in my opinion. With the reboot in 2015, I felt that the sets were too expensive to reasonably collect all of them. I would want to see them all around $10-15 rather than $15-20 like the CCBS sets were.

Personally, I am very excited about this set. I know that there are clearly many compromises, and this likely does not hint at another reboot for the series. I think it's smart that this set is brick-built, and in my view it wasn't necessarily the technic parts that made Bionicle what it was. Yes, it allowed for the gear functions, but Lego has demonstrated for years now (and in technic's original form), that studless parts are not necessary for set functionality. Though I did not buy any Bionicle sets after 2004, I do remember that eventually Bionicle sets themselves moved away from gear functions (except maybe for vehicle sets) and focused primarily on articulation anyway, similar to what we see with this set. What I remember the most, besides collecting masks, is making my own characters from the Bionicle, Roborider, and Throwbot sets that I had. Seeing this GWP is making me want to buy other sets specifically to make Bionicle-themed MOCs. In recent years I have been buying sets for the set, not for building MOCs, and it's exciting to think about buying a set just for the parts. I also feel like these builds are small and simple enough to spawn many other matoran and toa builds in the same style. I would also love to see, or try building, an Exo-Toa or Boxor for either of these models.

I really like how the yellow is much more promiennt on this model compared to the original set, and, similarly, none of the stickers or prints feel out of place on this build. This makes me want to buy the set to then build your alternate model.

Seeing this topic updated reminds me that I have been wanting to build this; I was actually thinking about it either this morning or yesterday! I had missed that there is an updated version of your model, so I will be careful to redownload the instructions.

Actually, this is almost an identical build to the claw in 42042. Check starting on page 211 of its instructions. The only notable difference here seems to be the linkage used with the pneumatic cylinder rather than a small linear actuator.

You are correct, I have fixed the dimensions. The corrected dimensions are LxWxH: 32 x 14 x 21 = 9,408 cubic studs.

21. Pneumatic Telehandler Functions: Stearing (Pneumatic) Boom elevation (Pneumatic) Boom extension (Pneumatic) Tilting forks (I do not know what the correct technical term might be) Dimensions: L x W x H -- 32 x 14 x 21 = 9,408 cubic studs. Images: Topic: TC22 Generic Pneumatic Telehandler

Below are the pictures of the completed MOC. Functions: Stearing (Pneumatic) Boom elevation (Pneumatic) Boom extension (Pneumatic) Tilting forks (I do not know what the correct technical term might be) The stearing is not an optimal solution as I have previously mentioned, but a goal that I had for this build was to use every pneumatic cylinder included in 42128. The final dimensions are L x W x H -- 32 x 14 x 20.5 = 9,184 cubic studs. I was nervous that this would be too large of a build, but it ended up being smaller than I anticipated.

Really it is not that practical at all; using the gear rack from the set would have been better. This is very much a case of could it be a solution, rather than should it be the solution.

Greetings, TC22 finally motivated me to create an account and post a MOC here as I finally had an idea for something to make. Typically, I am not very good at creating Technic MOCs, but I wanted to try. For the contest I finally decided on building a telehandler as I think they are cool machines. My initial thought was to build something like 42061 except with pneumatic functions. I also decided to try building an alternate model from 42128, something I had in mind ever since I first acquired and built it. I first created this chassis: In this first attempt I tried to preserve the 4-wheel steering from the 62056. However, I thought that the wheels were too small for how large the chassis was, and I also had concerns about the size. I tried making a smaller version with 4-wheel steering, but one goal I have for the build is pneumatic steering. That led me to this second chassis: Here you can see that I am using the alternating beams that were first introduced last year along with a larger frame. I also at this point already had, for the most part, sorted out the placement of each valve and the pneumatic pump. The long cylinder is not ideal here, and it would've been much simpler to use a gear-rack for the steering, but I could not get the idea for pneumatic steering out of my head. The clear tubes are actually RC-Car gas lines that I purchased quite a few years ago. Cutting LEGO pneumatic tubing is not something I wanted to do for this. At this point, the steering is only the front axle like on set 8283, but I had to be satisfied with this compromise at this scale. Even with this smaller chassis I feel the tires are too small, but this is what I had to deal with in making a B-Model. Below are more work-in-progress pictures as I started building the rest of the machine. I did not expect to be able to finish this model, but it came together much faster than I anticipated. At this point the model is actually already completed, but I have not had time to take any pictures yet. The cab was completely rebuilt from the initial mock-up in the above pictures. Even at this stage of completion, I appreciage any comments or questions from the community.