nerdsforprez

I'd be much more interested in why you think the set was not worth it rather than hearing how much Lego you own......

Since when did that stop the AFOL community ????

Why do you say your project has lost relevance? 42082, IMO, was still just released, and a moc to compare it against is still highly relevant!

I saw the engines and thought of this project I did a few years ago. You could actually make this thing go! But in all seriousness, its great you gave images of the engines. They look really nice. But perhaps you could provide renders, sketches, etc. of what you have in mind for the lower half of the fuselage. Because based on your post, that is what you are using the 1/4 curves for. Perhaps it would give us a better idea of how to help. B/c technically, the 3/11 curved panels are a quarter of a circle......

Agree. Actually, I don't think his video showed the capabilities very well at all. That is not how cranes lift. Funny, I remember when 42009 came out there was a slew of youtubers, who got lots of views, but lifted the same way as this guy. With the actuators. While the video itself is quite cringe-worthy, I do think it shows something important. As mentioned, the video already had like 54,000 views and people for the most part are liking it. This goes to show that I still think the main audience for Technic are not a very technically-sound bunch. Most of what we argue on this site, like pendular axles for the crane, ackerman steering for our cars, etc. - most people, even those that purchase Technic are not privy to. Sadly enough, it is exactly why I don't think many of the voices on this site are heard in terms of improving sets......

Perhaps from a AFOL POV. There are plenty, perhaps younger folks in the target population for this set, who will see this set as a huge set forward. Many will view using the new ring gears (first introduced by BWE) for the turntable as a step forward. Remember, that was one of the biggest complaints for 42009. Couldn't lift anything without looking like it was going to topple over. The problem wasn't so much in the boom but rather in the turntable. This set, while still with its flaws - resolves that issue. Its funny how sometimes we define "function" - it seems like it is uniformly defined as doing tons of different operations - even if those operations don't perform all that well. Hell, we even consider opening doors, etc. as "functions." In real life cranes, supercars, and many other vehicles don't have many diverse operations. Supercars, they just go really fast. Cranes, they lift stuff. Their "function" comes not so much in the operation itself, but in the manner in which they do it. There is alot of interesting engineering behind this - don't miss it. Not saying this crane matches that, but sometimes I do think we need to scrutinize our definition of "functional"

And if we erase the 3-400 "fluff" pieces that we have already discussed, that are not really part of the set (hub caps, tool box, building walls) then we really don't have too much of a piece count gap. I don't dispute that TLG engaged in piece-gouging to inflate the piece count in this set. One only needs to look at the hubs, the battery box, etc. to see this as the case. I just don't think it is as bad as everyone assumes. Also, I don't think it has so much to do with poor design as it does with the obvious "fluff" they added to the set just to inflate the piece count. Important distinction here is inflated piece count because of design flaw (one build) versus inflated piece count because of multiple vehicles, entities, etc. then you are on your way! Eager to see your results....

Your responses seem to contradict themselves. You start by stating the scale does not matter, continue with this thinking for most of the post, but then end it with "if the end product is around...." (i.e. talking about how the scale DOES matter). In my response, I think the scale certainly does matter... in regards to the complaint of too many pieces for scale. 4000 pieces means very little in difference scaling contexts. 1/20 scale? Way too many pieces (if not impossible). 1/5 scale? Probably too little pieces. Scaling certainly matters. Your build, I have no doubt, can be better than 42082. And probably will be. More functions for less pieces - no doubt you will do it and kudos when you do (no pressure! ) But to say that it is proof that 42082 could be built with much less pieces will be a stretch if the scale is not the same. And as we all know, best way to start a vehicle for proper scaling is with the tires (since there are so few official Lego options). I could be really off here, but it looks like you are going with the 68.7mm balloon tire? Is that correct? Or the 81.6? Either way, you are a long shot from the size of the Unimog tire (91 or so). So, if you model is the same dimensions than 42082 but you are using any tires I mentioned then your tires will be too small. If they are the correct size, then the overall scale of your model will not be 42082-size. And before you think that small differences in scaling don't mean that much in piece count understand that the relationship between the two is not linear. I have posted this before, but take for example Paul B.'s Vampire car and Sheepo's mustang. Roughly 1/10 scale compared to 1/8 scale. I have built both. More or less equally dense and complex builds. But with only slight differences in scale the piece counts are like around 1800 pieces compared to almost 4,000. More than 50% as many parts for the latter with only a slight change in scale. Sound familiar? Yes. Seems eerily similar to the complaints made about this model. So scaling has a lot to do with piece count. If you want to made something that is comparable to 82082 but of smaller piece count you have to make sure the scaling is spot on (i.e. just as big as 42082). But... if the argument goes something like this.... proving that you can build something at a smaller scale, with the same or even more functions than 42082 - well, that is a different matter altogether. And I think you are well on your way

I did make a thread about the "redundancy" issue explained in my post. Like I said, I will look for the data on piece count versus weight as a predictor of price point. However, video posted by @allanp is a great starting point.

It seems too generic. I get it. And like I said, doesn't seem to make much sense because it does account for non-ABS stuff. However, it doesn't matter. Non ABS is still LEGO, or at least to them it is, and they are going to charge you for it. And the thing is, like explained in the video below, it is much better related to price of a Lego set than is piece count. Especially towards the tail end of larger Lego sets. This is a statistical conclusion. Not a personal one. Someone may say "well, I don't care about packaging" etc. - that is fine. I am not making the argument based on any type of preference. Simply put, the relationship to final price of a Lego set is better predicted by its weight than its piece count - which uncovers something about something about whatever formula TLG uses to determine price point of sets. I assume what it uncovers is the cost/use of ABS (which is reflected in weight. Indirectly in piece count yes, but more-so in weight). Uncovers the use of other things as well, but mostly ABS since that is primarily what you are buying when you purchase a set. Yes. This is exactly what I meant. Excellent find. Couple of things: (1) I would not have used the term "value" in the video. This is too subjective and hard data points like those in the video often mean little to someone in terms of subjective value. Those watching the video I would encourage to think of like "price point" or something every time "value" is mentioned. (2) - the real story in the graphs I think was missed. Yes - Set weight's relationship to price point is stronger than piece count was discussed, but the real story is the difference between small and large sets. See on the graphs how the scatter of all the dots for smaller sets is relatively tight on both graphs? for both piece count and weight? But then for larger sets the scatter in the graph on piece count starts to go all over the place but for weight it remains the same? This is likely means there is an interaction going on. Can't tell completely, but what this means is that yes, weight is a better predictor than piece count of TLG price point but only for large sets; and exponentially so. i.e. the larger the set, the more this becomes the case. So then one has to ask why? I assume it has something to do with what I mentioned before with redundancy. Redundancy, in this context, is amount of pieces per lot. As any Bricklinker knows, it takes a lot of work to create a lot of "lots". More "lots" of pieces = more work. I would much rather have an order for 1000 pieces in one lot than an order for 1000 pieces but in 999 lots (999 different types of pieces versus only one). Large sets, through no fault of their own, (this is actually a natural law), will have many more pieces per lot (redundancy) than small sets. And the relationship is not linear. It gets more-so the larger the set is. Just like in the graph on weight and price point. Yes - you are right. I think "value" was the wrong term to use. Too subjective. Perhaps a better term or phrase would be "price point". As mentioned in my last post, I am not trying to make a subjective claim here. I think I do a pretty fair job of stating when something is my opinion or not. My original post was simply to point out the difference in statistical relationship between weight and price of a set versus piece count and price point of a set. Everyone thinks that piece count is the "holy grail" of this measuring this relationship. But I don't think this is the case. I think there is a near just-as-easy-to-obtain metric (weight) that better accounts for the variance between Lego set price points. Confirmed by the video posted by @allanp

Couple of thoughts: So - there have been quite a bit of complaints about the high piece count when a much less figure could have done just as well. Valid argument here. Especially when we see all too obvious evidence of an inflated value for this set (look at hubs, the toolbox, walls for building, etc. - and I will never understand all the pieces around the battery box switch). Many have even begun their own crane proving that something with all the same functions can be built at about 2/3 or 1/2 the pieces. But I think I am missing something. No one argues that the build could be done with much less pieces and the same functionality - but you gotta compare apples to apples. Those that have came out thus far have used different scales. If someone wants to prove that you can build something with similar functioning with much less pieces you also have to use the Unimog tires as your starting point. I think the real question here, if people want to complain about inflated part count, is to see if you can build the same model, of the same scale, same functionality and strength while keeping the piece count lower than the crane (not including the extras. Pads, building walls, etc. TLG could have excluded these things as well, they simply had different goals). I think if people focus on this they would find that building such a model would be more difficult than they anticipate. Lastly, I actually think the wheels are NOT big enough for this scale. Now I know that for some cranes this is a good scale, but I would love to see a rough terrain crane like this with truly hulking tires.... https://rtlequipment.com/equipment/2007-terex-rt1120-rough-terrain-crane/

Thanks for this review Jim. Pics are excellent, and overall I enjoy your take on things as they tend to be a little less pessimistic than others I don't mean to sound like a broken record..... I think I brought this up back when the Porsche was new. There was a ton of hubaloo about price per piece in that set..... But I suspect dividing price by piece count, giving us a price per piece is not the most accurate way to measure a set's value. It is by measuring the amount of plastic that is in a set, or overall Lego (which includes booklet, etc) and dividing price by that figure. Years ago, and I need to dig up the data set, I compared the associations between piece count and price and set weight and price. I looked at like several hundred sets (my own curiosity) and weight of set easily had the greater relationship with set price. Overall correlation value was greater and there certainly was less variance. When I regressed price onto set weight versus piece count I also got a better prediction value with weight and price than piece count and price. Piece count is an indirect measure of ABS in a set, but set weight is a more direct measure (certainly not perfect.....as it also contains box weight, instructions weight, etc. but it is a better predictor). I get it.... there is a lot in a set that is not ABS. Does not matter. Over hundreds of sets, that all evens itself out. The key here is yea, the price per piece may only be like 7.5 cents a piece, but if they are all pieces that use little ABS then they do not cost TLG much. Pins, all the black rounded tiles for the hubs etc - they all don't cost TLG much. I am not saying this is the case with this set.... looks like there are plenty of liftarms that carry quite a bit of ABS, .....just something to think about. I really wish people would rethink the PPP argument. Perhaps I should look into publishing something formally. Another thing that I suspect goes into the formula is the amount of new molds that need to be created for a set.... or even the amount of different (even if used before) molds per piece overall. As you mention, there are only two pages to the inventory. So, per lot there are tons of pieces but relatively few lots (molds). This can be demonstrated with a piece count per lot. Sets with high piece count per lot are less unique (not overall, just in terms of piece use) than sets with much less pieces in each lot. Overall, high piece count per lot is a measure of redundancy (pieces used over and over and over) and the more redundant a set is, the cheaper it is for TLG to produce it. So.... with the above, I am not certain this set is the outstanding value everyone may think it is based solely on price per piece. Maybe.... I really need to look at its weight. But according to the redundancy value I mentioned, there certainly is a lot of it. But, I do like the set, I think I will get it. Just wanted to point out the above.

Flywheel was a great idea.

This takes to what appears like a main, home page, but that is it......

Everyone has the right to their opinion, and I respect that. But honestly, again, my neurons aren't making the connections what understand the critique here. If I am not mistaken, the picture provided by @Metagross555 IS a picture of a real crane. One that looks super similar to 42082 I might add. While the circle in the picture above may indicate it can be lowered a little more it is not by alot. Can't be lowered past the bracket. Parallel to the superstructure is really doubtful. This angle is quite a bit bigger than the pic posted of 42082. Now I get it.... this is not a direct comparison. Vehicles are at different angles, etc. etc. etc. etc. But com'on, we are really splitting hairs here. This looks eerily similar to the rationale we have been bandying about for a while now. We are biased towards official Lego sets. We would never scrutinize a MOC this way. Not saying that is a bad thing. Things deserve more scrutiny when one is shelling out their hard earned cash to get (which usually doesn't happen with MOCs). But once again, I am not seeing the problem here.....

Everybody keeps saying this and, respectfully, I just don't see it. There is a difference between a jerky turntable on a crane b/c of poor design, and then there is jerkiness just because of backlash, and that is it. When due to the latter, this is not due to poor design per se but the mere fact that ABS is used. Better design may occur by using less axle length, but there will still be some backlash, no matter how little axle length is used, when we are talking about a very large, heavy build. Like this is. I rather think the rotation of the superstructure is smooth. How do I arrive at this conclusion? There is little to no rocking back and forth. Which occurs when things are off-balance. 42009 had plenty of this.....

So the more I think about it, and the feedback I get from others I am beginning to think you are correct. I think I would have to apply the telescopic arm to a larger model. I am not sure what you mean by a cable chain guide with 2M beams. Do you mean 2 length beams serving as guides? I guess they would have to be 3L … because there are actually two pneumatic tubes, not just one, that would have to be fed (open/close the cylinder that controls the clam buckets).

This would make for an interesting comparison study. In addition, one could compare these options not just on a one-time trial basis, but also on a temporal one. Like, apply the substance, wait a month or two, and then see how much, at all, the substance has degraded in its protection. With the option I am recommending I have literally applied it to an LPE, or one of the turbines I have built; left it on a shelf for several months at a time, only to see that the lubricant is still doing its job. Out of curiosity, because Alex Z. @ LPE power really is a pro when it comes to LPEs, I wonder how often and regular he has to apply his lubricant to his LPEs.....

Yes. Most of the machines I have seen with this configuration are around a 40-ton excavator (more or less like the size of 8043). However, they do exist on smaller excavators. The reason why I am placing it on Anto's is because of the size. I think it would fit better on something the scale of 8043, but then it would also have to be longer (the arm). This would compound the problem with the pneumatic tubing. A longer arm means more tubing, and it is already just unwieldy. I need to come up with a way that the tubing automatically retracts and extends with the arm. Which I have not been able to do. If it cannot be done, I am afraid I will not extend the build much further. This is what I am reaching out to the community for help for.

Telescopic excavators indeed are rare. Like i mentioned, I don't think i have ever seen one in Lego. Do you not like it in blue? I think as I build version II I will do it in yellow. I will do it in blue if I can, but I will have to see. The curved 3x11 panels in other colors are rare, and I already have plenty in white. So I may have to make something with white in it. Yes, I don't think that I can do the telescopic arm without the motor on top. But I am not really concerned about the PF wires. I am more concerned about the pneumatic tubes.

no.......too thick. Provide lubrication it would, but slow things down unnecessarily also it would......

I have found that silicone spray does damage ABS. I have posted this before, and I don't mean to be crude, but the best stuff I have found is: http://stayswetlonger.com/products/wet-platinum-premium-lubricant/ I know this sounds like a joke, but it is not. I move often for work, and this means things sit sedentary for long periods of time, including my lego sets/collection. I have one of Alex Zorko's LPEs that I have used for years. After over a year of sitting on a shelf, I dusted it off, lubed it up, and it worked great. Also, no need to repost things, but if you check out my youtube videos I have several where I play with Lego as a turbine, with lego axles, gears, etc. and other pieces moving at thousands of RPMs. I lube everything with this stuff, and never had any problems.

As mentioned when I initially posted this build, this is not my original MOC, but Anto's: and I redid it in blue with all functions remaining. I am not re-posting this for redundancy, but because I wanted to build the MOC with a telescopic attachment and have some questions or would appreciated input on how to make this happen. Although these machines are certainly out there I believe they are rare and I don't think I have ever seen one in Lego, which surprises me because we have seen a lot on this forum. Anyways, the build is complete and looks like a real attachment: and while it is functional I am not really pleased with it. Couple of things I would like to improve or change on it: Anto was gracious enough to make instructions to his latter version of this little build. which I think I will take advantage of. As can be seen from his photos, the mounting point where the arm connects to the superstructure is much closer to the center of the vehicle. In my version, the arm is connected to a point far extending from the center. This creates a lot of pull and limits how large i can make the telescopic arm. If I build version II of Anto's excavator, then I think I can avoid alot of this. I may lose a function (side-to-side movement of arm) but hopefully will lose some of the tension the extended mounting point creates. Also, and this is where anyone's help or experience would be helpful, I think the pneumatic tubing is a little unwieldy. It looks really messy. I need a way for the tubing to extend the length it needs to, but also wrap, coil, or bend in such a way that it is somewhat self-managed. Unfortunately I am not sure I can finish the project; or at least not anytime soon. I will be leaving on an overseas assignment for my job and I will be there for an extended period of time. I will likely bring this project, but may be restricted in pieces/materials I am able to use since I will not have my whole collection with me.

As for the beams themselves (not the internal structure/chassis) I think you are fine. WHen I was first beck from my dark ages i had a custom Millennium Falcon that I had made. Nearly the exact same size as your creation. Nearly 3000 grams exactly, and the mounting points were nearly the same as yours. Because mine was mounted from a wall, and therefore gravity acting differently than just pulling straight down, I actually think the forces on my MF were even greater. It held for many months before crashing down. But this was my own fault, and not because of the Lego. I actually had not accurately hit a stud in the wall, and the MOC had pulled straight out of the sheet rock. But the Lego mount, similar to your mounting points, was entirely intact.

As mentioned in my post, it is not this example of using "one color variation" that leads me to the conclusion of laziness. If the narrative for color variation is to ease the building process, then like I said, I understand that. It makes sense. Don't like it, but at least the rationale is there. But then to go far out in left field and do the orange fan, I think breaks the rationale of the "ease of building" narrative. How can it ease the build? There is only one of that piece in the model, and the fan does not lie flush with other like-colored pieces which is the rationale of distinction from other pieces. I mean, I guess one can make the argument like @Kaanere that the fan color is akin to yellow piston heads in LBG engine blacks, but I disagree with that. In that example the piston's are right up against other like-colored pieces (engine blocks) so differentiating colors would make sense. In this crane, the fan, IMO is closer to non-LBG elements (mostly surrounded by black) so if it came out in LBG then it should not be a big deal. Essentially, the narrative of color differentiation does not work for this element; there must be a different reason, thus my conclusion.