allanp

Apparently torquier is correct but my spell check thingy says it isn't . And don't worry, my German is würstchen im schlafrock !

I would like to ask anyone who reviews this set to try out different gearing between the motor and the differential to see how much (if at all) this improves it's crawling capabilities, as those 2 stages of 20:12 upgearing is going to be very inefficient, and I'm guessing this was done because kids would complain that it's too slow. But an RC crawler is supposed to be slow and the fact that it looks so easy to swap those gears for different gearing looks as though it's at least worth trying in a review. Of course, test it as it says in the instructions first, but try different gearing afterwards. I think this set has more potential than what the current gearing allows to be seen. Someone commented that it is better to gear up at this stage to prevent damage to the differential and CV joints. That is a fair point but the PU XL motors are much closer to the PF L motors in terms of speed and torque characteristics. And while a PF XL motor really is geared too slow and has a bit too much torque for the diff and current (old) CV joints to safely handle, I don't think this will be the case when using the new PU XL motor which is more like an L motor with built in encoder than an XL motor. Plus we also have new stronger CV joints and a 5.5:1 reduction in the hubs. So I think a 1:1 gearing from the motor to the differential will probably be fine. Besides we've had at least 2 heavier flagships that were driven by the slower and torqueier....torquier....(it has more torque!) PF XL motor with a 1:1 gearing between the XL and a differential already so TLG doesn't seem to think it's a problem.

I'd also like to see it but can't.

Also good points. I guess my patients runs out before a year I didn't want to name names, there are surely some fantastic MOCcers out there, but still I've never wanted to own those MOCs as much as I wanted to own the Arocs. Someone made a huge fire truck on 8 8110 wheels, but comparing MOCs like that is a little unfair when that would have cost more than the millenium falcon if it was an official set. Think back to 2015 and to the MOCs around at that time that you would favour over the Arocs. Now if TLG were to release those MOCs as official sets, how much would they cost? Maybe there's some MOcs I don't know about (well, definitely in fact), but I can't think of a MOC around in 2015 that TLG could have released at a similar price point that would compete with the Arocs. Of course that's just my purely subjective opinion. In terms of 42099 being better than all other MOC crawlers, I get your point about climbing ability, an issue that I think can easily be fixed by using 16:16 gears instead of two stages of 20:12. In terms of what makes a set "better" I keep coming back to asking myself, is it something I'm willing to pay money for. As great as the MOCs are, they don't have new 5.5:1 planetary gear reduction hubs, which I believe will make for a very capable crawler when the gearing is changed out to something less aimed at kids who wants all of the speeeeeedz and more aimed at AFOLs that want to do some serious crawling. And you just know that there are going to be a lot of crawler builders out there that will be using these new parts as soon as they get their hands on them. I'd be surprised if Zerobricks isn't designing a new 8x8 tatra using these new hubs in his head already! Of course there's an answer to that, the way real life vehicles do it, but that's for another topic

While I may praise TLG in my last comment, nothing is perfect and this is where I would agree that the high number of functions through gearboxes is a trend that I don't like simply because it's not realistic or in any way analogous to the way real life machines work. It was great and novel the first time it was done with 8480 (ok, this wasn't the first time multiple functions was powered through a gearbox but it was the first time to be done on a big complex flagship in the modern style using gearbox change over pieces) because it was something new and it brought a heightened never before seen level of complexity. But since then it's been done to death and it's novelty wore off long ago.

Of course you are right. But there was a snippet within that comment that mentions this topic so I'll paste that snippet here, with some notes in brackets for it to make sense out of context: But even with all the constraints (that a TLG designer must work with) I still think this (42099) is better than any MOC crawler. The difference between a designer working at TLG and a MOCcer designing purely for him/herself isn't just the constraints that a TLG designer has but also the advantages (a TLG designer has), such as being given the time to work "9 till 5" on a creation (as opposed to a MOCcer who can only design in their free time at home), and also more importantly for me the TLG designer has the option of releasing new parts. The extra time given normally leads to Lego sets being cleaner, more optimised (note) and more durable in design than most other MOCs (made by the most talented MOCcers) and these new parts (such as the planetary gear hubs) make this (42099) a set I want to own more than any MOC (crawler) right now. NOTE: I say optimised, I'm not sure that's the right word as they seem to use way more parts than needed in some cases. But if you want to compare the best MOCs from the best MOCcers then you should compare that to the best sets. While there are many MOCs that beat 42082 in terms of optimisation, and 42070 in terms of everything else, there's nothing in the sub 3k piece range that can come close to the Arocs at the time of it's release, constraints or no constraints. And why would there be? Like I said, MOCcers who build for their own enjoyment can only build in their free time and are limited to what ever parts they have available to them. While TLG designers are constrained by profits and safety I think having more time, budget and resources can more than compensate for that. And I think the fruits of this is evidenced by the fact that when I see the new Technic sets, there are some that I'de like to buy but there are very few MOCs that I would pay for just the instructions. In fact, I have over 150 sets, and have only ever bought 1 single set of MOC instructions. Maybe we should do a poll of how much actual real money we have spent on official sets VS how much we as a fan community have spent on building MOCs. Would this be a good indicator as to how well MOCs compare to official sets? So in short, Official sets are better over all, but they should be!

Sure it has very little torque at the wheels but this looks to be very easily corrected, almost as if the designers meant for us to correct it. The two stages of 20:12 up gearing between the motor and the differentials is very strange but it does allow us to try out various different gearing options. I think I'll build it by swapping at least 1 set of 20:12 with 16:16 in each axle. It could be that they are prevented from doing this out of the box because it would make the wheel turn with enough force to potentially harm a little finger of a small child if it were to ever get caught in a wheel. With all the constraints Lego has that MOCcers don't health and safety is THE big one. But even with all the constraints I still think this is better than any MOC crawler. The difference between a designer working at TLG and a MOCcer designing purely for him/herself isn't just the constraints that a TLG designer has but also the advantages, such as being given the time to work "9 till 5" on a creation (as opposed to a MOCcer who can only design in their free time at home), and also more importantly for me the TLG designer has the option of releasing new parts. The extra time given normally leads to Lego sets being cleaner, more optimised and more durable in design than most other MOCs and these new parts (such as the planetary gear hubs) make this a set I want to own more than any MOC right now. BTW, while I still very much dislike the motors having so much internal gear reduction, I am happy to see these new PU motors spin a bit faster than the PF versions, so at least it's an improvement. And also, did anyone notice how easy it seemed to be to back drive the whole gear train from the wheels? Maybe @Zerobricks could enlighten us a little, but in his review it looked to be very easy. It would also be cool to see more about these new motors and gear hubs. The motors spin faster but do they have as much torque as their PF counterparts? More importantly, when you multiply speed by torque, how does the overall mechanical output power of PU motors compare to PF? How much sloppyness is in the new planetary reduction hubs? If you was gifted this set for review, would you be willing to test one of these new hubs to destruction to see how much input torque they can handle? It would be nice to know if I take a motor with "X" amount of torque and gear it down by "Y" if that is within safe working limit of the new hubs.

I made this one over a weekend a while ago. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=6396070 It might be a bit big for minifig scale but you can add as many vertical segments as you need.

Same thing happened to me when the Arocs came out, and 4 years later I'm still here and glad I stayed. Very glad to see you posting here again

The hood looks to be about 16 studs long so technically it could fit, but it would be a tight fit with the winch. I think a V6 or an inline 4 would be a better choice. In any case I really hope it doesn't have the Mack Anthem style engine.

I think my initial excitement is starting to fade just a little. I still want it because it's a land rover defender! But with no 2in1 indication on the box it seems we only have the new defender with independent suspension (no live axles, not Lego's fault but land rovers), a front that has non of the iconic tradmarks of the classic design (again, not Lego's fault) and a much too wide and low profile wheel and tyre combo better suited for a mildly pitted car park than proper off-roading (OK, Lego takes the blame for that one!). There's nothing classic or iconic about Land rovers new defender and sadly this has translated over to the Lego version. And with all the new control+ pieces, the awesome new planetary reduction hubs from 42099 , the new inline clutch pieces, the longer LAs from 42100, the new larger frame sizes, the new 28t gear, the new "biscuit" piece (or is it a cookie?!) and the new wheel arches and wheels for the defender I think it really would be too much to ask or expect any more new parts on the inside of 42110, such as leaf springs, a 3rd and 4th size of clutch gear for the 4 speed gearbox or a stronger 36t double bevel based differential. Maybe there will be new wheel hubs to accept the new larger CV joints but I can't expect even that with all the other awesome goodies (and the longer LAs ) coming this year. But of course I'm still gonna buy it!

Yes there are two panels on the roof that could be sand ladders. But there's another item beside these plates that looks like a roof box. This is what people are referring to as a coffin.

This....looks....BEAUTIFUL! I love the colour and the new wheel arches. If I had to nitpick I'd say the wheels are much too wide and the wheel arches would have been more useful, and might have looked better in black. Time will tell how mechanically accurate and interesting it is. I really hope it uses the regular pistons and not the Mach Anthem style of engine. But I think this might be a day one purchase for me just because it has much better functionality that the 1:10 white Porsche (who really don't seem to care about mechanical details. What does that say about their real cars? ) and I love defenders (the old classic icon) and this looks very close to it. Those wheel arches are a very nice surprise that I wasn't expecting at all! I very much doubt it will have the 42099 hubs as the real one doesn't have them.

Wow, deep, but sadly true. I think it's pretty much a given that 42110 will be based on the new poser defender. The best we can hope for (and I think this would actually be pretty freaken sweet) is a B model based on the classic icon with the live axles. If it was me designing it I'd push for it to have 2 A models, so when you flip the box round you don't see a typical back of the box but another front. So you have the new poser on one side and the old icon on the other. I think this would satisfy the need to make the new one as an A model while allowing for more time and budget (and the possibility of new parts such as leaf springs for the suspension) to be allowed for the "B" model. I don't think B models have ever been allowed to have new parts before so by having 2 A models that would get around that. This is only what my approach to the set would be and of course I won't look negatively on the set if this turns out not to be the case.

Yes exactly like that, perhaps with a few pin holes (or even pins moulded directly into the housing) so it can be easily pinned to the front of an ungeared motor, so a studless version if you will. Combined with a motor that has very little to no internal gearing (>2000 rpm) and this will allow for more options, like easy and simplistic for younger builders, or more advanced totally custom gearing for more advanced sets. But I don't mean to sound so negative. I really am very exited for the new planetary gear hubs, they are a very nice and unexpected surprise and TLG deserves and huge THANK YOU for such a nice new element .

That's what I'd like to see. Separate the motor and internal gearing into separate units giving us the option to use use it (or not use it) in a way that best suits the model.

Which is great. This also makes me think that there is even less need for the motors to come with so much internal gear reduction. In the case of 42099 I believe the XL motor is geared up before going to the differential then geared down again in the wheel hubs. So essentially there is the XL internal motor>internal gearing down>gearing back up again>gearing back down again. Not only is this unrealistic and incredibly inefficient wasting a lot of power but is also means that all of the gearing down is done in pre-built assemblies, which is very not Lego, and feels very overly simplified and childlike for a set aimed at teen builders. Having a motor with very little to no internal gearing solves these problems while still having those lovely new planetary reduction hubs. You might say that this reduces wear, but when you are gearing up after the motor that becomes a moot point. So while we have a selection of motors surely there is room for just one very fast and quite powerful motor in the lineup. Must they all have so much internal gear reduction?

But in one video we hear the clutches engage for a few seconds so surely that would throw the calibration out. I also wonder how the model is brought into calibration to begin with. My guess is that you must drive the motors so that the actuators are fully extended, at which point you can reset the calibration. The model can then know where the arm is by counting rotations of the motor. That will work but only with this model obviously and only if the clutches never engaged.

I think this will come as a pre-fabricated piece so it's not meant to be taken apart. Plus, why give the copy cats any help?!

Even as someone who prizes mechanical authenticity above all else (which probably tells you all the things I don't like), I can't help but be impressed with this insane model. It's HUGE but in a way that feels justified. I think the best way to sum up this model is to say that as a toy for older kids and adults this thing is surely one of these most impressive things a fan of Lego could show to a non fan of Lego regardless of age. I know my brother and my mates will say this is the best thing they've ever done by far (the huge creator roller coaster is current favourite), but they're not that much into Lego and won't buy it for themselves. They will also not be surprised at the price. When I showed them the UCS falcon, they were of course impressed. But when they asked about the price they were rather shocked to say the least. But there will be no surprise when they ask the price if this set. To me this set feels every bit of the price they are asking for. As for my feelings as someone who is a long time Lego Technic fan who might buy it, all but one of the new parts look good and that linear clutch looks great for these geared motors, though I would still prefer to have much faster motors. The control+ side of things also look better than I had expected with that awesome one touch control. I'm amazed at the way you can move the arm on the screen and the real arm moves to that position, while the screen also shows a shadow of the arm moving to that position. Is this advantage over purely physical controllers enough to make me forget about physical controllers? Not at all, but still it's a very nice addition. It still remains to be seen how much customisation will be available. What if I want to make, for example, a pneumatic model where you have one compressor and 3 servo motors connected to valves. Ideally I would have it so whenever any of the servo/valves are in a non-central position the compressor motor runs automatically. When all servo/valves are in the middle position the compressor motor stops. Will I be able to set that up in the app? Or will there be some kind of custom control layout builder app thingy that will allow me to do that? The ability to create your own controls so that I can use control+ in a MOC (that's not a liebherr r9800 excavator) is a big question mark that hangs over control+ for me. I know it's very unlikely that I'll be needing those new long LAs for anything (the shorter ones are tedious enough, these longer ones will be practically unplayable when used manually). The model itself doesn't have any mechanical interest to me as it's entirely unrealistic but I'll be happy to lay down the (rather large sum of) money for it as an investment in all the new control+ stuff IF it is fully customisable, or at least there is a promise that it will be in the future.

All I can say about the new wheel hubs is.......... I love it! It's even better than I had expected with 5:1 reduction. It remains to be seen if they are sloppy or if they have a more bearing like feel but so far I am very pleased. There is also a built-in ackermann geometry! Can't wait to get my hands on these. The new CV joints also look good from what I can see, definitely stronger but hopefully they will give a bigger drive angle. I think it's funny how Markus at 7:27 had to draw attention to it (thank you Markus ).

I've always used brickshelf. Would I be better off using Flickr or bricksafe?

The rear axle doesn't tilt. The front axle extends all the way back to the rear axle so that turntable you are seeing at the rear axle is the rear support for the front axle. You wouldn't want both axles to be able to tilt freely because the whole vehicle would just flop over to one side or the other.

This is going to be a great resource for those looking to get into GBC.

I know this is based on our best guesses, but why do they insist on putting so much gear reduction in the motors