allanp

YAY! After some negativity from myself towards this year's sets it's nice to feel a bit of positivity. I really like the new parts for the front axle. While they don't offer new functionality, they do allow for that functionality to be done on a much smaller scale. The drift function is a bit silly and unrealistic, but it's something a bit different, and it looks trivially easy to gear the front and rear axles to spin the same speed and connect the front and rear axles while it's not in drift mode to have proper 4 wheel drive. Just remove the clutch gears and connect the front and rear axles. And maybe repurpose the clutch gears (and maybe add a few more) to give it an actual gearbox. A 4 wheel drive, steering, fully suspended car with a transmission at this scale would be sweeeeeet! Still I really dislike those cam style engines. I'd rather they used the more mechanically authentic larger pistons even if there's less of them. Or better yet, make a 1 module long version of the more mechanically authentic engine, which would probably require a one piece crank shaft and connecting rods that clip onto it. Overall though, I like it.

That's a nice build. I like the clean design (minimal and careful parts used to fill many gaps) and I love how you did the removal body. Maybe more official sets should do that to avoid complaints of "you can't see the mechanics when it's finished". Only complaints (or should I say constructive criticisms!) are the stickers covering multiple parts (though that's easy to fix by running a sharp knife along the gaps) and the completely upright seats. I also have a personal disdain for those cam style engines. But overall it looks like a lot of effort went into the look of this car. Very well done

Yup. 8459 is better than both 8265 and 42209. Everything from the pneumatics and the little extra effort put into a working steering wheel that's slightly tilted towards the driver (something even the "UCS" 1:8 cars still can't do, apparently), to the overall clean design, shaping of the cab and lack of colour vomit. 42209 looks to be a fairly complex design for it's size but the final product just isn't anywhere near as appealing.

The problem is that 42042 had efficient rope winches, it didn't have to drive less efficient LAs through long and winding drive shafts and gear trains. I don't think one L motor would have the power to reliably power multiple function simultaneously with this system. It'll struggle to dig a bowl of cornflakes! If only there was a more efficient way to transfer energy to it's multiple functions!

There's multiple ways it could have been pneumatic. From a manually pumped model (would be way smaller though, and we've had a couple of those), to a single motor model with a mix of gearbox/pneumatic functions (like the Arocs). But surely it's time for something to beat the Arocs. How about they release a new, stackable valve with integrated micro servo (or a micro servo that can interface nicely with the existing valve) and a new more efficient compressor for more consistent speed and power and better control. Something similar in scale and ambition to 42100 but with RC pneumatics. It might benefit from an air tank but I think the ultimate is to have a beefy enough compressor to make air tanks redundant. It would be RC so that crowd it happy. It would be fast and powerful which would make everyone happy and it would be authentic making us happy. Everyone's a winner baby! Oh, and it would have a physical remote and a new buggy motor for the beefy compressor too .

The "dumb" hub itself doesn't need rechargeable capability. We would only need a rechargeable battery that fits in place of the 6 AA battery holder that's inside it.

Wouldn't that be nice . But seriously, why I feel particularly wound up by it is that it's yet another flagship excavator moved by LAs. Every single motorised flagship since the the introduction of C+, heck since the Arocs has been with LAs. We've never once gotten a RC pneumatic flagship. If they had alternated between the two systems, one year pneumatic, the next year LA, then it would have been fine. I feel like if they had known that every other year would see a pneumatic flagship, there would have been time and effort and waves of development making RC pneumatics work and it's awesome potential would have been clearer.

Regards the rechargeable battery box, is it possible they are using the existing "dumb" battery box with a rechargeable battery inserted into it instead of the existing 6 AA battery holder? Hydraulics and pneumatics work on the same principles while LAs are entirely different. Stranger things have happened. I don't think the integrated hub is replacing the 4 port hub. The integrated hub could continue in a long line of app controlled 1/10 scale cars. Something else would be needed to replace the 4 port hub.

Different people have different, often overlapping and often opposed complaints, and they are often more complex than it may seem. I didn't mind the inclusion of remote control as an extra touch of playability. What I never liked is that RC was always (except for the zetros and liebherr crane) used as a replacement for any semblance of life like mechanics as opposed to being a neat addition to the life like mechanics. RC, when not dependent on using your smart device is cool, but mechanics should come first in a Technic set. Technic can do mechanics better than any other (if we ignore $3,000+ fully metal real hydraulic RC excavators and such), but it when it comes to RC, where there are alternatives with insanely powerful brushless motors, metal gears and ball bearings, it's vastly out classed and over priced. Technic being just another RC toy is weak, weaker still if it's smart device dependent. But Technic being an authentic mechanical masterclass is awesome. Technic being an authentic mechanical masterclass that's also RC without being dependent on a smart device seems sadly to be an impossibility. So now we have this Volvo excavator. Losing smart device dependency is good, I do like that. Losing RC altogether is not the same thing, but not the worst thing that could happen considering they can only very rarely have both RC and semi reasonably authentic mechanics in the same model for whatever reason. Having a "dumb" power source that doesn't require a smart device is good. When it comes to complexity, if it had complexity that is authentic and somewhat resembles the complexity of the real thing, that would be awesome. But instead we have the kind of complexity that doesn't do as much to serve the models authenticity. Real excavators don't have multifunction gearboxes or screw style actuators. This would be fine if it was a space shuttle, where it would be unreasonable to expect a working rocket engine, but when it's an excavator? It brings to mind why so many still love 8880. Why does it have a V8 engine (a first for 8880) or 4 speed gearbox (another first) with drive rings engaging in clutch gears (another first) or 4 wheel drive (another first in a car) or 4 wheel steering (another first) if it doesn't actually move under it's own power? If the wheels can turn freely, it can still be pushed along the floor and move around realistically right? So why does it need an engine or gearbox or differentials or drive shafts or any of that mechanical innovation? It has them because a real car has them. That's the only reason they are there, to serve the authenticity of it. Moving realistically (though I suspect this excavator will move far too slowly even for scale speed) isn't enough in a good flagship. If we compare the functions and mechanics of this Volvo excavator to somewhat similar sets like the airbus helicopter and unreleased osprey (both having "dumb" battery boxes, a single motor and multifunction gearbox), the 140 euro osprey compares about the same and the 210 euro airbus helicopter had more innovation in terms of mechanical authenticity. 42042 is also similar with a 4 function bi-directional gearbox. So that's about where an excavator with this level of functions and mechanics should be for me, a 150-200 euro non flagship. Oh boy, this post sounds harsh. I'm sorry about that. I did tone it down but what can I say, this is how I see it. We've had a strong feeling that control+ and the majority of it's components has been quietly shelved (with the exception of the all in one hub based cars) due to their absence this year and last year also. We do get the L motor in the Volvo excavator and there is a control+ train coming this summer, but this could be clearing old stock of parts, or it could be because developing what might be the next system of electronics will likely take longer than a year.

This is just sad. Every mechanism is either not authentic (LA arm movements) or it's missing entirely (track drives and slewing). The hammer function is a hand cranked knob and it's right next to the function. 8110 did working PTOs decades ago. It's only complexity doesn't come from any real world mechanic but instead a multifunction gearbox that you would not find in real world equipment. It's like they took a typically inauthentic C+ set and just removed the C+. They could have done much better and see no excuses why they didn't. They could have made an almighty Arocs killer, instead they made something far too similar to two previous unrealistic linear actuator driven flagship excavators (8043 and 42100), and yet after years of time and opportunity to release better parts, it ended up being no better than either one.

Yeah, probably not that old to bump, though this topic has been discussed a few times over the years/decades. But just because us lot have discussed it, who are we to say you can't discuss it now?! For me, the question of "Is racers Technic?" depends on what you're really asking. On the one hand, Technic is whatever Lego has decided to put the Technic name on the box. On the other hand, Technic is what it means to us, with authentic/interesting mechanics being the star of the show. With that I think we can differentiate between the silver champion and the Williams racer. Technic never had authentic F1 style push rod suspension till the Silver champion came out. I remember thinking it was kinda lame when it first came out with it's lack of transmission, but in that one aspect, in terms of bringing novel and authentic mechanics it was a Technic set. Then with the Williams racer, it was just a cosmetic change, so it was all just about the authentic look of it, and therefore not so much a Technic set but a racers set. The view that "if it contains mostly technic pieces then it's a Technic set" doesn't really hold up for me because to me, Technic isn't defined by it's pieces, only made better or possible by them. We don't ask "Is Pirates star wars because they use the same Lego bricks?" Pirates, ninjago, star wars, castle and all other brick based themes are entirely separate themes regardless of if they share the same bricks. Same for Technic, racers and bionicle (even though I think bionicle was labelled as Technic to start with).

Sorry I missed this topic. Been insanely busy with a personal project. Happy to help with testing and sharing my thoughts. Is there any others willing to help?

So there's still hope for a pneumatic flagship this year.

It's hard to tell what the issue might be just from looking at the instructions. From what I can see there are two separate assemblies (the one with the roof and the one with the rear spoiler) that are linked together (on page 223), and they both need to be able to rotate forward. Can you possibly unlink the two assemblies and see if one of them is blocking the forward rotation?

If it comes with GFO pneumatics, a GFO compressor and motor to power them and a GFO physical remote controller, then I would indeed have a GFO smile on my face.

Didn't they do that last year already?! Glad to see someone having some April 1st day fun, was coming up with a doozey myself

Glad you solved the issue. Just to clear up a few things said in this thread, even though they are the older style diffs, it will matter which way round they go because if you have one installed the wrong way round, you will most likely have the mated 16t and bevel gears installed backwards also, which will make the main central shaft spin the wrong direction. Normally the diffs would go in opposite orientations front to back, but as the rear diff has an added gear stage of 16:16, this flips the rear diff so they should be orientated the same way in this model. Also, installing one of the diffs in backwards will not block this model from rolling on it's wheels because of the central differential. All that will happen is the two axles going into that middle differential will freely turn in opposite directions and so the differential itself will not turn, making the gearbox and engine completely motionless in all gears.

Very nice way to remember being in Hawaii! I like that it looks both natural and mechanical with all the exposed gears and springs.

This new piece will indeed be great for telescopic drive shafts on trucks. There is the sliding CV joint but the prop shafts on trucks usually use universal joints, so this will be more realistic. Plus there's all the other already mentioned uses like PTOs and modular builds and such.

Very glad to see you back and also very well done on completing another big model!

The defenders gearbox was indeed too complex to work correctly. But did we really have to sacrifice functions/capability.....in a flagship? Having seen inside (admittedly the older more iconic) defenders gearbox, the Lego defenders gearbox was more complicated than the real one! But the Lego defenders gearbox did have a main gearbox with more speeds (as well as the hi-low gearbox) than the Lego G wagons Hi-Low range only gearbox, which is why people think the defender surpasses it in the sense of functions. The G wagon has diff locks, but the control for the rear one was at the diff itself. You might argue that the centre diff lock control was mounted in a better place in the cabin, but the optics of having the rear diff lock control located where it was isn't good, not for a flagship. That's probably more the issue than anything. The G wagon was meant to be a flagship where the defender wasn't? That's the thing. We're looking at the G Wagon through the lens of FLAGSHIP. A flagship simply does not solve the issues of previous sets (especially non flagship sets) by removing functionality. Any other set, okay......maaaaybe, and a cam style engine? Aaaah okay, maaaaybe. But in a flagship? No. A flagship set would look at the previous defender and say "the issue is not the amount of speeds in the transmission, but the unrealistically complex way those speeds were achieved, so let's look at the real thing and bring some new parts to make it right". What makes it look worse is they already had the new gearbox pieces in the Yamaha and P1 to solve all the issues of the previous defender whilst keeping the functionality. Given they already had the parts from those sets, it seems odd that they would use them to remove functionality relative to the previous defender, rather than adding to them. All these things would be easier to explain if the G wagon wasn't intended to be the flagship. While people compare it to the defender, you could also compare it to the Zetros (also non flagship) by swapping motorisation of all it's functions for a 2 speed gearbox. The look and the engineering of the G wagon itself is fine, but to place the weighty title of flagship on its shoulders just seems unfair.

The G wagon does feel like it wasn't meant to be the flagship. And I don't think it was because if the Control+ flagships that came before it. The airbus, though not intented to be a flagship, it became one by default after the crane got delayed, but it felt more like a flagship than the G wagon. The airbus felt like an earnest attempt to raise the bar for its chosen subject matter. While not totally realistic for nitpicky reasons only helicopter mechanics would care about, it was by far the most authentic helicopter they had ever released. The G wagon by contrast didn't feel like that same earnest attempt to push the boundaries but instead felt like they played it safe. That is probably the rarest type of flagship and we're not really accustomed to it. Usually a flagship is: A) They aim high....and miss! For me that's 42009. It's insanely complex but not in a realistic way, and was perhaps too complex for it's own good. After the power from it's single motor has passed through 2 multifunction gearboxes, a turntable and 4 mini actuators there was barely any power left to move the stabilisers up or down. B) They aim high....but in the wrong direction! For me that's basically the control+ era. Very ambitious which is to be applauded, but replacing authentic mechanisms with coding and smart phone apps ....that doesn't feel like Technic and isn't for me. C) They don't aim high at all. By not doing so people will question, is it even a flagship? Was it meant to be? Not many examples of that but the G wagon unfortunately does feel it belongs in that category. They aim high....and hit! The Arocs. 8480 space shuttle (arguably the first licenced set but didn't need to boast about it). Control centres 1 and 2. 8868 airtech claw rig. 8880 Daytona VX4 supercar. Bare in mind with those older examples, it's looking through the lens of what came before it. Before 8880 was the test car, which itself was a big improvement over the autochassis before that. I am actually optimistic for the future. The control+ era, okay, they swung for the fences and missed, but at least they tried! At least the ambition was there. How ambitious was 42100?! 2 smart phone controlled hubs and 7 motors?! Holy moly! Now, if they could only aim that ambition a little better, in a way that's more authentic, not just mechanically, but in a way that's more authentic to the physical, non app dependent Lego building experience, we could be in for some crazy good stuff! As much as I praise the Arocs for being the king, Technic has the potential for flagships that would dethrone the king real quick! Aim that ambition a little better, that's all it takes.

Yeah, the 1:8 cars are kinda their own thing. They could be seen as being flagship level, but they are their own subtheme of Technic. It could be (and I think has been) argued that the highest piece count for the year is what makes a flagship, but there is at least one exception to this rule, even ignoring the 1:8 cars. Ignore the 1:8 cars and the flagship is the most expensive set released in any given year. I don't think there's ever been any exception to this. As for flagships disappearing, well there are Flagships (8868 in 1992, and 8880 in 1994) and then there are "flagships" (like that forklift transporter truck released between them in 1993). What separates the men from the boys, the Flagships from the "flagships" is a different, much bigger question.

No, the flagship is the most expensive set of the year and is meant to be the best and most desirable set in order to justify it's high price, hence it's status as flagship.

I still think it'll be used in this summer's mid sized V12 car judging by the price and piece count.