nerdsforprez

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.

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.

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.

I know I have said this before, but yes, we need to see them in hand. The hypotenuse section of the frame piece looks very thin. Questionable strength. The one thing this set was banking on was the ABS used for these frame pieces, and at least from the visual it appears they went skimpy EVEN ON THESE...

I anticipated as much in the past. But in that case the onus still falls on TLG. How obvious a concern this is. Something that should have been pointed out right at the beginning. I am not really faulting TLG so much on the end result of this model as much as I am the CHOICE to even select it in the first place. With their uber concerns regarding lawsuits, the undeniable calls that will be made claiming "my set does not have xx of the new frame pieces", etc. this model choice was perhaps wrong in the first place, at least at this scale. I see these statements as inconsistent. Complain about the price but then advocate for increasing the size by buying more of the new frame pieces. For anyone who thinks this my money is on these new frame pieces, from Bricks and Pieces, will be VERY expensive. This will increase the price much, much more. And mind you, one is not increasing the size to make it larger than scaling would suggest for this model, one would have to increase the boom size ALOT to JUST GET IT TO SCALE.

I believe the the hypotenuse side of the triangles making the frame pieces is too thin. They don't really look that strong, structurally, to me.

Also up on FB. Looks like the prior leaked pics were real. Huge disappointment. Swing and a miss by TLG.

I am here for just the @$*&show at this point.... not excited for the set itself

Okay. That would make more sense. A lot of pushing back the release date for this set. Last yr. and now again. This may be one of the more problematic, if not controversial sets TLG has released for quite a while.

So is this set dead again? Forgive me but I believe it is only just over a month until the proposed release date and still no information? I am not sure we have had a set go this long with no leaks (or at least nothing further since the last ones) with such a fast-approaching supposed release date.

Great model. I encourage everyone to view the little video. The stills look great, but the functioning of all the functions as also looks incredibly strong and smooth.

I do believe we have fallen into obscurity again here. I keep logging on seeing activity on this thread expecting new information only to hear gripes again about the pricing. Lets not to this again for the billionth time. If there is credible information that the set has been cancelled/postponed again fair enough, but to just throw this out there with no evidence to actually suggest this is not needed. We run the risk of this being a locked thread until there is actual information.

News on other sets but nothing on the Liebherr for quite some time. Forgive me for not looking back, but isn't it set to release in Aug or something. I would think we should be hearing something soon, especially with the released info on the Audi and Lambo....

Way to think outside of the box on this one. Usually I don't pay much attention to B models, but I love this one.

Yea... thanks for the reply. I should have specified I obviously meant my question directed to this set, not the rationale for the CF axles in the first place. As far as I understand, they are not needed for this set. Without having the instructions handy, I know there are three. Two for just under the doors (which carry no load and are not under stress) and the third I cannot remember without the instructions. I have decided to keep them and use them in a motorized model or at least something that will need the strength of CF over ABS axles

Can anyone tell me the rationale behind the carbon fiber axles? I love the CADA provided them, not complaints here, but as far as I can tell they aren't really needed. I am tempted to just use regular axles, and keep the carbon fiber ones for a build that truly needs them.

I do not believe you can make a good LPE without the frictionless switches. I have tried and like you, only achieved minimal success. Now, I have not used the new switches, only the old, but they are just too rigid to work effectively. I also think you need to drill the holes in the pneumatic cylinders larger as well. I have an LPE from Alex Zorko and it works great. Had it for around a decade now. I know you can buy the frictionless switches, if they are too much of a problem to build. They can be expensive to experiment on, sometimes, unless you have experience converting them, it is actually cheaper to just buy them.

On the actual Liebherr 13000 thread there was chatter that it had been reduced to 100cm. But I see that they were older posts...

on the Technic 2023 thread this set is now reported as being 150 cm tall. Previous reports have been 100 cm. I cannot see all posts on the 2023 thread, can anyone confirm this change?

That is a change. Last info we had, if I am not mistaken, was 100cm. If 150 is correct, that is a step in the right direction (in terms of price validation) At nearly 5 ft. that is certainly something to write home to mom about....

I am not sure if comments on the CADA build should be posted here or on the CADA thread. Oh well. Almost done with mine. Have to say, while things are fresh on my mind, what a wonderful build. Usually I detest building standard models, at least from TLG I do. After building this, and @Lipko's lightweight airplane, building others' MOCS has restored my faith in building. They are more than simply assembling a bunch of parts together. You have to use deductive logic at times, even inductive (though rarely) to get things correct. Also, you really, really have to pay attention. Usually I like to build with music on or a show in the background, but lately I have just focused on the build; the aesthetic, sensory and cognitive experience of it all. Usually I also dislike building body panels, really any part of the body. The chassis and drive train have typically been the meat and potatoes part of any build for me. But I found myself loving building the body of this model. The angles and part usage is just so creative and practiced. I can tell so much effort went into this model. I am sure I will share pics when done, but just had to comment a few thoughts on the model.

Yes... couple things could still be tweaked a little more. I will check the perpendicular connector in the skeletal wing to see if it is flipped. Yes, I changed the elevator linkage a little. It does allow for a bit more movement, but it doesn't make it harder to operate. I did notice that it operates the rudder a little at the same time though, but an easy fix with a 1L liftarm there would keep the extra movement without moving the rudder. I should have installed that prior to shooting the video. As for the landing gear. I recall it working great, but i can take an extra look at it tonight when I get home. Again - great build. One of those that even with perfect instructions there is some tweaking and modifying to get things right. As mentioned, I could even do more about balancing all functions.... I did not. Sorry. But if @Ngoc Nguyen needed some assistance I am sure I could help. Also I am sure rebrickable staff would not have a problem with it given you have the original builder's permission...

So I finally am finished with this build. Thank you @Lipko for providing the necessary files, but most of all thxs for sharing such a wonderful build. I made a brief video, but made sure to get you the credit. I did the same color combo (more or less) but kept the cross-section design because I like to see the functions so much. As can be seen in the video and photos, I added a little skeletal framework to enhance the cross-section appearance of the plane. Difficult build, even with the .io files, but I mean that in a good way. Even after knowing how all the functions worked I needed to fiddle with everything to get it all balanced.

for noobs like me this distinction was not immediately apparent. Thanks for pointing that out...

Speculation is it own kinda fun. No prob. if you are not into it, but no reason to be down on others just b/c its not your cup of tea. Speculating about new sets is routinely one of the more active threads on this site. If you are going to be a part of the forum, better get used to it...