Cumulonimbus

Seems that it will be a bit more complex that just a static 1:1 model. Check this short video where they are using 2304 PF motors simultaneously to drive a metal shaft, presumably for driving the huge model: https://www.facebook.com/LEGOTechnic/videos/295203794544868/

Without wanting to drag myself in this discussion too much, I only want to mention this: For most of the EB members English is not their native language. Some language subtleties might be become lost in translation. Moreover, cultural differences will color the same words and sentences differently. Even though I moved only one country further to the north years ago, the difference in culture and language are still staggering sometimes.

It seems that you’re MOC is impressive by its size. It is in line with the trend that the bigger a MOC or set, the more praise it gets by the general AFOL audience. For me personally, I’m more impressed by making a model as small as possible while still fitting in all the chosen functions. The limitation of a smaller size stimulates builders (professional or otherwise) to be more creative. Building big for the sake of being big is not my cup a tea. But you should build for yourself, not to please others Secondly, I think this discussion (as others before it) is sparked by a mismatch in expectations. By stating that you are building a very specific crane model, you have inadvertently created a high level of expectations on this forum of very technology minded people. It was probably unintentional and it is good to be ambitious, but a certain level of realism of what is possible with your bricks and skills is never a bad thing. Overselling will always backfire here. I’m not familiar with your work to judge whether or not this crane is the next step in you development as a builder. It seems like a cool crane and it is obvious that you have put a lot of work into it, but as others pointed out, there is plenty of room for improvement. My biggest concern in this case are the proportions of the vehicle, an issue which has nothing to do with its scale or size. This is what Sariel was pointing out with the image of the other MOC crane. Never mind the different building style, try to look at the position of the wheels in relation of each other and the body, the height of the body compared to its length, the position of the cabine, etc. Incorrect proportions can be seen in many creations both by AFOLS as by TLG, can really make or break a creation and is something that I’m sensitive for. The more a model is representing a real machine instead of a generic model, the more errors in its proportions are obvious. Naturally, the Technic building system has its limitations, so a certain level of artistic freedom will always be needed. How much you deviate for the sake of rigidity or functionality is a very subjective choice. But a good build but with incorrect proportions will never feel perfect to me. Even the Bugatti suffers from this because the designers were restricted by a certain wheel size . Translating the proportions of a real machine to a model can be really tricky, but tools like Sariel’s modeler scaler are very valuable here. Master this and you will amaze yourself. To illustrate my point I rushed some images in Photoshop: This first image superimposes a drawing of the crane you mentioned and I have scaled this image to correspond with the size and position of the rear wheel on you MOC (marked by blue lines). You see that not many features match. The next image shows the same illustration but scaled up to match what you were aiming for. The Claas wheels are too small in this case, but this is a limitation you will need to work with since there are no bigger wheels than the ones you have chosen. You see that even now some features do not fit well: the cabine is to far forward and the boom is too this to mention a few. To prove that with a bit of effort, you can come quite close to the real thing with you MOC, I have hustled a screenshot of your movie to match the Liebherr more realistically: In short, my advice would be: be motivated by the good comments you have received and try to learn from the tips and tricks given by more experience builders. Happy building.

Also true, but not what I meant. I meant that there are more people working on 42082 alternatives which are not visible on the internet per se.

There is a world outside the interwebs where all kinds of exciting stuff is happening...

Last time I have seen a chain being attached to another component was in the 8835 fork lift set. Although the chain is in a continuous loop, it attached to the fork carrier in this manner: :

@AVCampos. You're absolutely right, a car carrier would be a very cool vehicle as well. These MOCs come to mind:

Yes, this please. If you do a Technic car, I would like to see more mechanisms than the standard engine, gearbox and suspension. Folding roofs. adjustable seats, adjustable ride height, etc are all features which have been done a long time ago, which I would like to see again, possibly in one car. Maybe the next UCS car will have some of these, we'll see in 2 years. Secondly, I believe that sets which combine multiple models are still a good idea since they offer a lot of play value. Basically, you could take any Lego City vehicle set, scale it up and Technic-fy it. Some suggestions for mid-scale combination Technic sets I would buy: Tractor with trailer or complex implement Truck with a hitchhiker forklift and cargo (with printed cloth side panels please), Truck with low loader trailer with a load (8872 anyone?) As for other machines on my wish list: A small or medium size tower crane, but it would required bringing back the weighted bricks for the required stability. Flagship pneumatic backhoe Helicopter with new swashplate parts so cyclic pitch control is possible Motorbike with gearbox, using the Bugatti selectors If/when TLG decides to update PF, I dream of these functionalities: More control of LEDs: for example with blinking modes, possibly linked to other channels (blinking when steering) but I guess the programmable capabilities needed for this would require a Mindstorms-like control unit. Micro motor for small functions Compact PF switch which can start or stop a PF-motor when the switch is mechanically actuated, for example as an endstop for a linear movement or to create a two stage movement. But for now I will stop dreaming and enjoy the 2018 sets.

Congratulations with the new job @Jim. I know the feeling of the mix of anticipation and excitement when starting a new career step: For about 3 months now, I work as a mechanical engineer in a hi-tech production company and not a day has gone by without me learning something new. Some seriously high-end stuff (think nanometer scale tolerances) which blows my mind and it amazes me that they even let me work on those machines . The question of how far you go up the corporate ladder without loosing touch with the hands-on work is a difficult one, I find. In the world of mechanical engineering you reach the inevitable point where in order to climb further, you must become a manager and give up the hands-on work which brought you to that point. Personally, I haven't found the answer yet.

Thank you for the images of those prototypes, where did you find those? Cool that they were included in the manual, I would like to see that for all Technic models. There are some interesting looking concepts in the line-up, I really like the quad track excavators:

Yes, the next step is to see where a steering mode selector like in the Claas can live, and how to actuate it.

Not strictly a Technic part yet, but a Powered Up compatible sets of LEDs. Together with the new Bluetooth train controller, I really think that the Power Functions will see an update soon. More info about this parts here: Promobricks.

Thanks to the chassis images of @Ctan, I could make a rough model with the correct proportions. As I suspected, it looks like there is enough space to have a pendular front axle, two stage outriggers and a fake engine. If the steering mode mechanism will also fit is not sure yet.To be continued...

Thank you both for your compliments, they have spurred me on: I have followed the advance of @Magical Duck and changed the rear mudguards. I have also played around with some color schemes and last but not least, I redesigned the boom to increase the lifting height. Theoretically, the forks can now be lifted 26 studs, but I must test this in real bricks to be sure. It looks like this:

Thank you for the LDD file @M_longer. I have been tinkering a bit in LDD, and think is my take on the 42079: The main modifications I have made are: Smaller wheel size which seems more correct to the scale to me, doubled the tires at the front. (this does mean that at the moment the gears in the diff are the only things keeping the axles in place, which is not ideal) Corrected the steering direction and rerouted it to the beacon light on top. Lifting action rerouted to a thumb wheel on the left. (boom tilt lever is still present at the right side) Moved the boom one stud higher due to the smaller wheel size, this increases the lifting height a bit as well. Extended the rails on the boom, so theoretically, the forks can move higher. Reduced the color vomit and picked a Hyster color scheme. The result so far looks like this:

Nice images again @Ctan. The big question is off course: does this bearing construction work? Does it run smoothly and I wonder how much tilting of the upper structure is still possible?

Not too difficult, but you will need to modify the chassis considerably. You wouldn't need the U-joints, also see here:

Thank you for the images of the build process @Ctan, curious to see the upper part as well. I'm a bit surprised the set uses the Unimog portal axle parts. Seems the pivot points are rather far inwards as a consequence. I was expecting Claas hubs, but maybe the steering angles are too small on those?.

A a driven pendular axle, using the 42054 hubs is quite tricky even without springs. Especially the routing of the steering system interferes in many areas with the structural parts in the axle. To make it even more challenging, I want keep the height of the axle as low as possible since we have no idea yet how much room will actually be available in the crane chassis. An example of one of my axle concepts in LDD:

The upcoming 42082 Rough terrain crane has inspired a whole list of possible improvements because I believe that at this scale some cool functions could/should be modeled (in random order): Two stage outriggers, preferably PF controlled Multiple steering modes (minimal 2: 4WS and front wheel steering) Pendular front axle Luffing jib, folding away against the boom Second winch for secondary hook Replace LA’s which lift the boom with an actuator with a longer stroke for bigger range in the boom angle Cosmetic changes to cabin, engine cover and upper structure to resemble real cranes more like Grove or Terex Some of these are probably overly ambitious and I’m not claiming to be able build all these MODs in one single model, but I am curious to see how far I can take this. My first step is to take a look at possible two stage outriggers. So far I’m tinkering in LDD to find mechanisms for the horizontal stage which are rigid enough to support the Crane and compact enough to fit on both ends of the 42082. I think it must be possible to fit the outriggers in a module measuring 5x7x23 studs. The ultimate goal would be to lift the crane from its wheels, but considering the size and weight of the 42082, I would be happy if the outriggers can simply provide actual support. Progress so far:

As a young kid, I believed that all Lego sets were actually made in Legoland, similar as Santa on his North pole base. There might be some truth in it after all ... On a more serious note: I guess it's a simple marketing strategy: lure more people to the Billund park and the Lego house and simultaneously sell more sets at the full price. Profit! The review embargo is still strange though, maybe a way to buy time for production and spread the demand for the new sets a bit more over time?

I have the suspicion that they might have a more interesting function than that. There is a rumour that the new gear selector rings from the Bugatti are also used in the crane. The rubber bands might act as a return to center function for those rings.To be continued ...

Does anybody have an idea why there are rubber bands in the upper structure? They can be seen in the video from 2:15 onward, in the bottom right hand corner. Looks like a return to center mechanism or a belt-driven axle, but I can't think of a reason why it would be needed there.

Can you elaborate? I don't really understand what the issue is and I was not aware of a problem in the 42009. In any case, I'm considering to replace the LAs because their range is too limited for this crane. I would like to see a boom which can rest horizontally during transport and can achieve a bigger angle during lifting . A solution like in the Kenworth K100 Crane Truck of @efferman might do the trick.

The “things used to be better in the past” sentiment is a typical human tendency, and one which is often not back-up by objective arguments. Additionally, I think it is not really fair to compare studful with studless sets, both systems have their pros and cons, but overall I think the sets have become much more complex and interesting in the studless era. Looking at my own buying behavior of new sets (I ignore my second hand sets), I noticed that they are pretty consistent since 2009. Only in 2013 and 2014 I bought nearly all sets released that year. Year # sets bought new 2009 2 2010 4 2011 4 2012 2 2013 6 2014 7 2015 4 2016 4 2017 4 So overall, I think that the claim that it used to be better is not valid for me for the following reasons: 1. I’m still impressed by the drive of TLG to create vehicles which are new to the Technic line: the BWE, cargo plane, research ship, sailing boat, hovercraft to name a few, indicate that they are willing to take a risk. The futuristic 42081 underlines this even more. 2. The color use is something in which TLG is making an effort as well. Most models are vibrant and look inviting in the shop and at home. This is a big improvement since the “yellow and red” era. 3. One of my purchase triggers is the innovation in mechanisms in a new set: I liked the crane truck for the first relative compact knuckeboom crane, the Claas for its 4 wheel steering modes and the Mack for its loading mechanism. Those solutions let me grow as a builder. I understand that not all sets can be as revolutionary, but I don't see a declining trend over the past decade here. However, the trend of growing set sizes without significant increase in functions worry me a bit for things to come. The 42082, 42077 and 42070 are examples of this. The studless system allows for compact models with interesting mechanisms, so I would like to see more clever mid-sized models instead of a new set which yet another record breaking part count. Keep in mind that building studless has an inherent drawback: the bigger you build the more space will be needed to create a structure which is rigid enough to carry the extra weight, leaving less room for functions. I think even in the Bugatti suffers from this. A final note: B-models are still important to me, because they create an opportunity for an official model without the restriction of it being a good selling model. It can be a machine which is not popular or recognizable enough to be an A-model. The 42055B Sorting machine, the 8043B Traxcavator and the 42009B Reach stacker are all models which I have found exciting to build and have learned me new building tricks. For each of these B-models I even have bought a second set, which I imagine is one of the main motivators for TLG to even do B-models. Conclusion: Yes, I’m a bit disappointed in the 42082 and its B-model as many of you, but I don’t agree things used to be much better.