Cumulonimbus

I have been tinkering around, looks familiar? And this is the one I wished was an official set: Thank you for your kind words. Every day has been a bit better than the previous one, so we're good.

A good model of an articulated dumper has been on my to-build list since the 42030B, so this set could fill that opening. But I will only consider it if the build and mechanisms are interesting enough. Being a Control+ set doesn’t bode well on that front, but I’ll hold my judgement until more information is available. I’m afraid the weird proportions of the preliminary model are final and are a direct result of making it RC. I guess the Control+ hub and two motors (drive and steering) needed to sit under the cabin to keep the drive train as short as possible, lifting the cabin up as a result. I suspect something similar is happening in the rear: the motor to lift the dumper bed is probably sandwiched between the rear chassis and the bed, again, raising the bed as a result. I really hope that the interesting rear suspension of the real machine is modeled with all its degrees of freedom. At the moment it’s difficult to judge whether or not there is enough room for it next to the Control + components. My ideal set would be something very close to the beautiful (pneumatic) A25D Volvo dumper @JaapTechnic started a long time ago. More information of that creation is on his website and Flicker page.

Thank you, it's an interesting exercise to try to interpret a blurry picture and compare the results of your recreation with the "correct" answer. You can learn a lot from the differences in design decisions you made compared to ones the designer of the official set made.

I was intrigued by this little crane as well and I have also searched for instructions but I couldn't find them either. However, I have rebuild this crane in LDD based on the available pictures and youtube movies. It's quite a surprising set for a number of reasons: It is a well thought through set with rugged functions and efficient part use, seemingly designed by an experienced builder. So I admit that at first I thought is must be a Chinese copy of a MOC. Surprisingly, this assumption appears to be incorrect, because the set relies on at least two parts which do not have an official Lego counterparts. For example: the light bar/bumper on the front is mounted directly to the curved panel on the underside of the cabin. Neither version of the Lego curved panels have holes in this orientation. There is no quick and easy way to mount the bar in another way without significantly modifying the construction of the cabine, so this set must have been designed based on these new parts. Even more surprising is that this brand doesn't have a big portfolio of other sets so I wonder where the building experience comes from. Long story short: I find this set a much better designed small crane set than the 42108, but you will not be able to simply build it with official Lego parts.

Thank you for the supporting words and the offer to chat. It helps to feel part of a community. It feels very disorientating when your life path takes a left turn when you were expecting a right turn. It’s especially confusing since it was not really obvious yet, so few people knew. Sometimes it feels like there’s a huge neon sign above my head explaining the situation, but it’s not there so everybody carries on. We will be alright eventually, my partner is a strong and kind person and although there’s not a lot I can do physical, I am there for her in any way I can. We’ll see how the coming weeks will go, considering the upcoming family parties with kids running around. Willem, your right that hobbies give some distraction, but I fear it’s no longer Lego. I don’t want to be too depressing, but my enthusiasm for Lego has diminished considerably recently: We moved house half a year ago and used the Marie Kondo method to decide what stuff to keep and which things to find another home for. Key to deciding the destination of an item is looking for joy in that thing. If you experience any form of joy when holding that item, you keep it. If not, you should part with it. It is a very strong tool to put things in perspective in this materialistic and cluttered world. The thing is that although I did keep my collection of Technic sets, for whatever reason many did not give me the joy or satisfaction they once did. This has made me much more critical in which sets I will consider buying. In the future I will be looking much more at what aspects of a set make me enthusiastic and stay away from just collecting the next biggest set ever, or getting another crane to keep the collection complete. I’m afraid that this effect, together with my state of mind has made me a a nay-sayer here on the forum. I do not wish to take away anybody’s joy for all things Lego, my apologies. For now my creativity seems to have found its way in woodworking. After moving house, for the first time in my life I have a small workshop and I’m designing and building workbenches, tool walls and basic furniture. I also have my own wood lathe now, inspired by a guy I knew who showed me how satisfying turning wood can be (thank you Mike). Anyway, I will probably read this forum from the sideline for a while. A part of me will keep hoping for a set, MOD or MOC sparking my personal Lego enthusiasm again. For now at least, bricks don’t play a big role in my life. Kind regards and happy building, Nicolas

I really struggled to decide if I should post the following, but I have noticed that it has colored my posts on this forum, so I figured that I owe you all some kind of explanation: Mrs Cumulonimbus and me were expecting a future Eurobricker of our own, but it was not meant to be and now we aren’t anymore. I will not go into any more detail and probably will take a break from this forum to avoid more frustration fueled posts. Life is what happens to you while you’re busy making other plans.

Just curious, what should this discussion look like? I have re-read the whole 42108 thread and at first the tone was generally positive until more detailed images where available which revealed the shortcomings. I have always tried to explain why I dislike certain aspects and (lack of) functions, and many other users did as well, so this not whining in my book. If a set isn't good enough, should this be hushed? Good on you that you like this set and you are welcome to give counter arguments. I agree this would be more interesting, but so far I haven't read many positive opinions about this set once all the functions were revealed . Jim probably has a brighter look on life than I have at the moment, so he might might still convince me and others that is a actually a good set not just a parts pack.

The discussion of set sizes has been done before elsewhere on this forum, but it is rather relevant to the 42108 set. Beside the looks, the functions it provides are so underwhelming for its size. In my eyes, the 42108 is only slightly above the level of the 8067 Mini Mobile Crane function wise, yet it has more than four times as many parts. The 8053 Mobile crane had an almost identical part count, but had 4 actuated outriggers, with a novel mechanism and a gearbox. And don’t forget that the 8460 had 65% of the amount of parts of the 42108 but had more actuated functions, looked better and had pneumatics. I guess this is partly due to the studful design which requires less pins, but still … But size is only part of the equation of a great set. To me medium sets where often great at providing interesting mechanisms at reasonable sizes (and thus reasonable prices): The beam mechanisms of the 9396 and the 42025, the linked mechanisms of the 8109 and the 42024, the ingenuity of the Claas steering modes, the two stage lifting of the 8416 Fork lift, the rope operated functions of the 8288, the adjustable ride height of the 8297, the container lift/dump mechanism of the 8052 to name a few. These where all fascinating mechanisms showing what was possible with the bricks at that time and taught me something new, so I grew as a builder. It also meant these sets were enjoyable during the build and long after it, each time I operated the set. For me those are the truly great Technic sets, independent of their size. Personally I don’t really care for logos and the hype they bring. The only advantage to licensed sets is that fact that TLG seems to spend more attention to realistic proportions and to a lesser extent, imitating real functions. EDIT: @TLG: build a medium sized set, inspired by a real machine, with an interesting mechanism, proper proportions and preferably no PF and I will throw my money at you. I probably ask a lot, but you have done it before. So all I ask is don’t forget the Technic and technical minded (A)FOL while developing all your car-centered sets.

This is probably off-topic, but I can't help chiming in here: I feel the same way. There are some pretty ok models the past years, but they don't feel as exciting as they used to be a couple of years ago. Can't quite tell why this is, but I miss the oh-my-god-I-must-have-this-set feeling I had with for example the Claas, Volvo excavator and front loader, the 42009 and the 9396. Maybe the 2H wave will bring some more mechanically interesting sets. Another thought is this: I always thought that the studless building system allowed for more complex systems in a similar scaled model, but when comparing this 42108 with the similar sized but studded 8460, that last one had more coherent mechanisms whereas the 42108 seems to have run out of space. Or is it just that the designer(s) run out of time and/or budget?

Thank you for the link to that video, it looks like a very intense but joyful design process, nice work Milan. I know I'm not the easiest AFOL to please, but I can appreciate the result of a tough design process where creative solutions have to be found for all kinds of limitations. @grohl Are you allowed to elaborate on the influence that Land Rover had on the design decisions of the Technic model? For example certain features that had to be implemented (gear box and the roof rack maybe?) or that were too complex to integrate (adjustable ride height possibly)?

@Sariel Thank you for another great design tool. I really appreciate the effort that you put in for the community. Especially your scaling tool I personally find very useful. Keep up the good work!

I feel the same way. The 42110 still hasn't persuaded me to buy it. After the Porsche and Bugatti, the Defender feels like more of the same thing: a big licensed car with suspension, custom rims and a complicated gearbox. As a set, it's not distinctive enough in its feature for me to justify another expensive big car set. Regarding the original colour: I experience it mainly as an obstacle to modify the set substantially. Additionally, the fact that the fender part only comes in this green for now, discourages rebuilding it in another colour. The real car seems cool, but I haven't seen it in real life so it hasn't caught my imagination. I might consider a second hand purchase some years from now, but for now it is a pass.

Good point, I didn't realize this. Somehow I hoped/expected a BB with less features to be smaller. In that case I think the BB might be part of the load bearing chassis, as it was in the 42053 after PF was added.

I really hope this one is NOT a remote control set. A pump which is driven by a motor to keep the pneumatic system pressurized I see as an advantage, but I want to control the functions myself via levers and knobs. It would also help to the keep the cost in the not-ludicrous range. Space-wise, I imagine that the rear of a pneumatic backhoe will be pretty packed with valves and tubes, but in the engine bay I think there could be enough room for a more compact (non-RC) battery box, one motor and a pump. This would also help balancing the vehicle when it's using the back implement. The 8862 had a boat weight in the front to keep it stable.

If the rumors are true that the 42114 will be an all pneumatic backhoe with at motorised compressor will this set see the introduction of a "dumb" Control+ battery box? Or should we expect PF components here?

I'm still a bit confused by the whole Top Gear thing. At the moment it seems so pointless, Just a few Stig and Top Gear stickers on the car, which add little or nothing. I wonder: is it possible that we don't have the full picture yet? For example, I can Imagine that the Control+ app will be expanded with Top Gear specific challenges, maybe linked to an online score board where you can compete with the Stig and celebrities or something similar?

Ok, you got my attention, but big is not necessarily good...

In this line-up the two sets which stand out to me are the Buggy and the Boat: The buggy is a fantastically executed set: Interesting proportions and color scheme, plus the integration of steering and suspension in a compact model make it a very playable model and a great introduction to Technic. I hope it feels very swooshable when driving. The boat is ... let's say an fascinating experiment. I appreciate the effort of making a set that is not a car, truck or construction equipment. It is nice to see that boat mechanisms like the hydrofoils are modeled and could teach kids something about these type of boats. The floats seems to increase the play value compared to the previous Technic sailing boat. However, I'm not a fan of the big one-piece hull pieces. I see that they are necessary to make it float, but hey are very big, single purpose parts that really define the look of the vehicle. The rest of the sets are kind of alright. Not bad in their functions, colors and designs, but nothing really grabs me with its looks, functionality or price.

I agree, just compare it with the four axle crane in the image below. It feels too light and unfinished in the chassis and too heavy and cluttered with details in the cab. The rear seems to be completely missing and the fact that the front outriggers are not connected to rear ones is a lackluster. If TLG chooses to focus on display models which are built once (instead of for example offering a B-model and stimulating to build something else) at least these sets should look the part. Your mention of Erik's crane is spot on. I feel the same as @allanp: the comparison with the 8460 is not justified. I'm probably biased because that model was one of my most favorite sets I had a s a kid. But the fact it could lift itself on its outriggers, each function was geared, it fitted Technic figures, had pneumatics and a metal hook made it utterly fascinating to play with. Additionally, it had a modern and finished look and feel with the angled surfaces and fenders that really had an fascinating presence. Crane-wise, only the 42009 came close to the 8460 in my opinion.

You might be right, three speeds would be possible to achieve with a planetary gear system like in a bicycle hub gear. If so, my guess is that the internal gears of the planetary hubs from 1H2019 are used in this gearbox as well. The question then is by which mechanism this gearbox is actuated and whether this is a manual function or an RC one?

@mahjqa Thank for showing that video. Some very handsome cars racing there. Do you or @rm8 have more information about these creations?

Nice medium sized manual model. But I'm surprised that people find it good looking. In my eye, the cab looks too wide and far forward, the wheels stick out the sides and the main body lacks ... body. I like the new knobs, much friendlier for your fingers than the small gears.

I don't get the Top Gear affiliation. For a car show I would expect the set representing an actual car (for example a Lancia like the rumors said). But it appears to be a generic rally car, like its big brother was. What was/is the roll of Top gear franchise in this set? As far as I know, no similar car has ever appeared in any incarnation of the TV show. Could it be a feature in an upcoming season of the show? Also, again no B-model: this trend is here to stay. I can see this set becoming popular for the kids it is aimed at, but it's not for me. I might eventually try to "detune" the car and MOD it into a manual, standard hatchback which can fit on the car transporter.

I don't know what you guys are talking about, but you make me hungry.

@Jim Thank you for writing this post and giving us a peek behind the curtains. I too have always greatly appreciated your written format, because it allows for a more in depth look at a set and zoom in on for example an new mechanism or clever use of parts. Your reviews were always very enlightening to read and you have convinced me more that once that an upcoming set was interesting enough to buy even if at first I was unsure. I wonder if another reason for this change in strategy might be that TLG anticipated a more critical (maybe even a negative) review from EB members? I think that at the moment the consensus here at EB is that while Control+ is a promising platform, it currently lacks some key features and components to be a complete replacement for PF. Maybe TLG was afraid that a focus on this (temporary) shortcoming could overshadow the launch of Control+ and its first two sets? By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if EB has a reputation of a tough crowd at TLG and it might be easier to target the new sets at less experienced builders via other channels. We (myself included) like to poke holes in a new set and complain about what it could have been. This situation could be the results of TLG reaching a tipping point where it has had enough of the criticism and have found easier ways to launch their sets. On the other hand, if a review is nothing but praise about the set, without an honest and critical point of view, it is all but useless in my eyes. As a final point, I like to add that if it is true that TLG is loosing interest in modifications of their sets like @Aventador2004 says, I think this is a big mistake on the long term. Similar as your reviews, MODs by builders like @efferman have also persuaded me to buy and modified a set which I otherwise wouldn't have bought. But recently, I have noticed that my personal interest in sets on the whole is waning. I haven't bought a new set since the Bugatti for multiple reasons, maybe there is a correlation with your decreasing number of reviews?