mdemerchant

Still no instructions but the LDraw model is posted on my Bricksafe page, link is further back in the thread if you want it. Now that I have some modest experience with making instructions for things I can say that it would take me a lot longer to build good instructions for this than I have time to put towards it. Anyone else is welcome to though. The model should import into Stud.io easily enough but probably needs some cleaning up of invalid color parts. I also realized I was previously building everything with an old version of black pin that is rare now, I'm sure this file will be like that. I don't know if @nigel1975 already has an improved .io file.

Does Cada outsource their production to a factory (or factories) that makes generic parts for other companies as well? Surely they haven't deliberately designed two different thread worm gears of the same colors in their parts lineup so seems like this would have to be a mix up at a supplier who is producing both types for different companies.

Looks great in those colors. Glad you enjoyed it so far. I'll be very keen to see how it looks when you finish it. I've actually been thinking about rebuilding it lately but haven't gotten around to it, been busy with work and a few other models. Anyway, now I would definitely have to order red and black parts to build it since my original patchwork version doesn't compare well to yours I will warn you to be careful with the flying jib. I didn't put any safety struts into the design and I managed to flip mine over backwards on a couple of occasions by raising it to too high an angle. The collapse was sudden and spectacular and not something I ever experienced with a crawler crane.

I think the idea is good because words matter to most people but I don't think it will entirely solve the problem. A challenge with judging, winners and prizes is still a competition by definition. But it could definitely help. As someone who unfortunately doesn't have time to be able to enter competitions and isn't a big contributor to the forum, I'm not sure this carries much weight but I do have a suggestion as well. The main debate seemed to be around the need for sufficiently detailed rules but to me there are two sets of rules. There are rules that define the constraints and determine eligibility. I agree they should be as clear as possible but Jim always seems very good to give quick feedback on any eligibility questions so that seems OK to me. My suggestion is about the second set of rules around how entries will be scored. I think we should just get rid of those entirely. Jury or public votes for the models they like. This is certainly what happens in the public voting anyway. You have a model that catches people's attention, they will vote for it. Totally fair to everyone involved and no one goes into the challenge thinking I just need to follow this formula to win and hence aren't disappointed when they follow it and don't or they perceive the formula to change halfway through. Look at it this way, a great piece of art isn't considered great because of some judging formula, it's considered great because lots of people look at it and think that's great. Same with Lego models in my opinion. I'll don my armor now

This really is super impressive. 42082 is one of my favorite sets and I wouldn't have thought it possible to replicate so much of the mechanics in such a small size. Very well done so far.

No deals to be had yet in North America that I can find but admittedly I didn't look very hard. We definitely don't have the selection of retail channels that exists in Europe though so I don't really expect any unless/until Lego starts discounting or Costco picks it up.. I am very curious what you are going to do with it.

I think this is one detail where they are matching the real crane, sort of. Real crane uses two winches for the hook, but they are located front to back in the superstructure, not side by side and ganged as in the Lego version. A lot of heavy lift cranes use this setup.

I have no idea why the complaints about the color. I've seen the red boom tips in lots of photos and I'm fairly sure I've seen one somewhere with the grey bases as well but I could be mistaken. But the crane configuration is definitely not a real one. The jib is always used with the derrick counterweight according to Liebherr's technical manual and all photos I've ever seen. Lego one doesn't have that counterweight and the mechanics around it at all. Also the real crane has a hoist for adjusting the derrick angle, lego one has this fixed. Real crane has a hydraulically adjustable A frame at the back, lego one is missing the entire frame let alone the adjustability. Real crane has the jib adjustment winch in the derrick, lego one has it in the main superstructure. Real crane doesn't have ballast supported by the ground, Lego one does (I understand why). I could go on but anyone can easily go on the Liebherr web site and see for themselves. There are lots of significant mechanical differences that do make this not remotely an authentic LR 13000. Still seems a fun toy crane but not one I would personally be willing to pay anywhere near retail price for. And certainly not one I would claim to be an LR 13000.

Has anyone else noticed the new lattice pieces that are used to connect the sides of the boom? The 7x17(19?) frames making up the sides seem to have gotten all the attention and I hadn't seen them until looking at the hi-res photos on lego.com just now. They're vaguely like a 5x11 frame except longer with mostly very thin walls on the long side so they practically disappear except for the diagonal elements and the connection points. While I still think the crane generally looks odd, the combination of the two new frames is a nice way to make sturdy booms so long as you are happy with 7x7 cross section in yellow. Won't be ideal for proper scale models where boom, derrick and jib aren't all the same size but it would be ok for a lot of builds. Seems like a good solution for a generic crane when they become available to buy separately.

That is exactly my problem with this. It just looks wrong. The price is high but had they come out with something realistic looking I would have gotten past the price. I really like cranes, have built lots myself, but I don't see myself ever buying this even at a reasonable discount. It just doesn't appeal to me because I really like cranes.

This is exactly why I expect this set to not be very impressive and the leaked box photo may well be real. A big crane with a derrick and luffing jib is tricky to assemble and easy to collapse. That can be mitigated a bit with the big molded lattice parts for the boom and including all the various safety stop cylinders in the model but still all you have to do is hook onto something slightly too heavy and it's going to fall down. Or slew it too quickly, drive on a rough surface, have a child pull on the hook or boom, etc. I still think to make it playable to normal TLG standards they are going to have to keep it reasonably small which will make it odd looking and uninteresting to most of the sort of people willing to pay $700+ for toy cranes. Now it does seem likely they will make the main boom, derrick and jib with common parts (as in the photo) so you should at least have the option to build some other simpler boom configuration that would be larger and still reasonably stable which would be nice. But I think anyone expecting a big boom+derrick+jib configuration is going to be disappointed.

Your large render seems to have different support than your first image. It now looks like you are using 2x 3L pin with bush for each connection point, is that right? Anyway, in terms of strength that should be pretty much exactly the same as the first arrangement with 1x 3L pin with stop in double shear. Pins are pretty sturdy, I bet they will be fine. But it's quite easy to just hang a weight off them and do a quick test to put any concerns to rest. I would be more worried about the octagon shape getting distorted from the weight but I have no experience with the click hinges. I guess you have a lot of them but am I correct in thinking they are the only thing holding the octagon in shape?

It's a nice build, looks great. Did you do anything to synchronize the ballast trailer movement to the crane or is everything just totally manually controlled?

It can be as simple as something like this. You drive one axle with the motor and they all turn. Or you can make a full crankshaft structure as @howitzer mentioned which would let you run multiple connecting beams off one driven axle. What I showed above is technically a crankshaft also but it's only driving one link. Check out the linked amination below for a more generalized case which shows four links and includes translation to back and forth linear motion (the pistons) if that is useful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crankshaft#/media/File:Cshaft.gif

The suggestions above are all good and will definitely help I think but another thing you could try is connecting the various axles by linkages instead of gears since you are just trying to drive them all in sync anyway. Then you just drive one axle directly. This might have less friction, or not, but it could be worth a try.

This is a really impressive creation and it works so well. I'm amazed that the ball exit is so reliable as you're just dropping into a 2x2 hole with very little guiding it. Obviously built and tuned to perfection, great job.

Yes, I don't think I would build it like that exactly, I was just trying to show a quick idea. It would be much stronger to use another 6x6 round plate and tiles instead but that would make it a little thicker. If you are willing to make the cam 6x6 instead of 4x4 you can do something like this which will be nicer and stronger. Some parts cut away to show how it's built.

Do you mean the cam or the connecting rod end? Either way, system parts seem like the obvious choice to do it but at least the connecting arm seems doable with technic as well. Some things that could help would be considering that the connecting arm hole does not have to be round to make the mechanism work and that the cam could lock around the rod instead of the other way around. Here's an idea, I don't know if it's what you had in mind or not. You could definitely make it look nicer if you lock the rod around the cam but with a 4x4 cam I'm not sure that's possible because you need clearance to put the axle somewhere. You could do it with 6x6 cam made out of 6x6 round plate(s).

Wow, that's a really impressive job. This would have made a great official B model, looks like a real set. Actually it's better than most official B models I'd say. Very well done.

Agree, I like the look but it does seem like it's asking to fly apart. Could work for a static model or something that only spins very slowly. Drooping might also be a concern as it's going to be a lot heavier than the original blades.

I echo what everyone else has said, it's definitely a really spectacular car. I'd love to have this one on my shelf.

9: 10 12: 6 28: 4 19: 3 11: 2 16: 1

I would guess some sort of narrow wheel but given the extremely creative parts usage on that MOC it could be practically anything Clips fit on the edge of a wedge belt wheel which will give you basically the same structure but something slightly larger diameter is being used here.

Parts with a pinhole can stay in place, you just make a big long pin out of pins and bars instead of using an axle. If you are willing to live with four points and a nice twisted shape I think it's easily done with 4x4 round plates and pointed tiles at the size you want.

@Carsten Svendsen This should look nice but it's slightly too large diameter and the part is only available in very limited colors. 41125. I don't know of a star shaped part exactly the size you want. Maybe you could build something with 4x4 or 6x6 round plates and small tiles but I don't think you would be able to get six points that way. Four points would be easy though and getting the spiral is easy by mounting the plates on pins so you can set them to whatever angle you want. Use bars to join the pins.