Review: 42114 6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler
Posted by Huw,
Now that the summer Technic selection has been cut by a third there will be just two sets released on 1st August, including the Powered Up equipped 2193-piece 42114 6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler, the largest and most expensive of the pair.
It's a huge, imposing and impressive model that introduces a first for Technic: a motorised automatic gearbox, which works rather well...
The prototype
Previous Volvo models have included the Swedish manufacturer's model designation in the set name but not this time for some reason. Nevertheless, the stickers identify it as a A60H which looks like this:
From agg-net.com
It's typically used in quarry and mining operations and has a 55 tonne capacity. It's powered by a 16-litre Volvo engine and has a maximum speed of 55km/h. It's about 12m x 4m in size. The LEGO version measures about 60cm x 18cm so it's roughly a scale of 1:20
Parts
A Control+ hub provides the brains, power and connectivity (via Bluetooth) to the model. It, and the XL and L motors below, were introduced last year.
This large angular motor is a re-coloured version of the one that comes with the educational 45678 SPIKE Prime Set. It's making its first appearance in a Technic set here.
It provides for absolute positioning and feedback on its position which makes it perfect for use in the model's steering mechanism.
This circular gear housing was first used in the 42109 App-Controlled Top Gear Rally Car but this is the first time I've encountered it. It forms a very compact and sturdy differential. A fourth 12t gear is dropped into the top before clipping the red gear onto it.
The sticker sheet is small for the size of model and consists primarily of branding.
Construction
The majority of the set's mechanisms are housed in the rear section of the truck's chassis, along with the two Control+ motors.
The four wheels are connected to the XL motor via a gearbox between them which has four positions: neutral, plus three for driving the vehicle at different speeds. When in neutral the motor's output is diverted to the linear actuators that will be attached to the sides which raise and lower the tipper.
The motors are mounted side by side at the front of the rear section of the truck. The smaller motor operates the gearbox.
The orange gear shift piece was first seen in the Bugatti Chiron. It revolutionised gearbox design because it allows gears to be shifted by rotating an axle and that's exactly what happens here: it's directly driven by the smaller motor thus facilitating an automatic gearbox.
The cab section of the truck houses the cab, of course, and the engine, the crankshaft of which can be seen below. The angular motor used to steer the vehicle sits under the driver's seat.
A third differential is housed between the wheels and, like the rear two axles, it's connected to the gearbox making this a 6-wheel drive vehicle.
The cab assembly is connected to the rear section via a turntable and universal joint which allows it to both turn and tilt independently.
The Control+ hub is mounted behind the cab which makes it difficult to access the on/off button, but they've thought of that: rotating the light on the top moves an arm which presses it for you.
There's a lot of detail in the engine compartment, as you'll see below.
The orange handrails of the prototype have been very accurately captured here and, like its use in 42053 Volvo EW160E, orange adds a welcome splash of colour to the model.
The wheel arches are the same as those used in 42110 Land Rover Defender and have a subtle black line printed on the edge.
The set contains no less than 35 yellow panels, the majority of which are used for the tipper.
The final part of construction involves connecting the tipper to the chassis using an axle at the back and two of the new long linear actuators on the sides.
The completed model
At 60cm long it's big and impressive. With all that technology on board it's also quite heavy.
There's been a lot of talk lately about pin colours and blue ones in particular looking out of place. At the front of this model, the designer has used inconspicuous tan non-friction pins instead of more appropriate blue or black ones to avoid the colour clash that so many people seem to have a problem with.
The cable slack behind the hub looks a bit untidy but the real vehicle has flexible pipework and so on between the articulated sections so it's not too out of place.
The gearbox and drivetrain is visible from underneath, and when the tipper is raised.
Operation
It's operated entirely from the Control+ smartphone app, of which I've been provided with a pre-release version.
The only manual 'movement' on it is opening the engine compartment to see the not inconsiderable detail inside. The compartment is opened by pulling out a yellow pin at the front which can then be used to prop it open. There are 9 drum-lacquered silver pieces in the set, used in the engine and for the exhaust stack.
The hauler is added as another option to the start screen of the Control+ app and once it's been selected and you're connected to the hub you're presented with this control screen, one of two.
In this mode, the vehicle is driven by sliding your finger round the square at the bottom left. It works, but unfortunately if your finger goes outside it, the truck stops, so I found it difficult to use.
The most interesting thing about the model is the automatic gearbox. As you move the truck forwards and it accelerates, the gearbox clicks through gears 1 to 3 as it does on a car's automatic transmission. It works very smoothly.
At first, before I realised what was going on, I thought the clicking I could hear as it moved was gears slipping or something, but no, it was the gearbox stepping up through the gears. You can also select 1st and 2nd gears manually although there doesn't seem to be much point. The gearbox continues to work in this way when reversing, so there are three reverse gears, which probably isn't prototypical.
As soon as you stop the vehicle it straightens up and the gearbox returns to neutral which then allows you to tilt the tipper using the buttons on the left.
The second operation mode is accessed by swiping left and this one works much better in my opinion. Using two fingers, you drag the yellow sections of the circle out and around to control the speed and to steer.
Again, there's a choice of manual or automatic transmission, and the centre of the circle shows a number of statistics. There's an option to specify the weight of the load you want to pretend is being carried, which presumably affects acceleration and other operations.
Finally, at least on this pre-release version, there is the gamification aspect, the challenges: e.g. move forwards, discharge the load, turn, come back, that sort of thing, to win a badge. I didn't dwell of it but I suspect kids will find it more entertaining than I.
The linear actuators operate the tipper smoothly although the maximum angle achievable is not quite that of the real vehicle, which is 70 degrees.
Verdict
It's a large and impressive model that has captured the likeness of the A60H pretty well. However, it's not overly complicated, so doesn't take that long to build, which is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your point of view.
Like the concrete mixer truck we reviewed the other day, this set does not contain many System parts, which I appreciate: I like my Technic sets to be pure. Apart from the usual tiles and 1x1 round plates and other small parts here and there, they are used only to form the shape of the cab roof.
It's an attractive model to display but of course that is not the point of it. It's designed to be operated so whether you'll enjoy doing so will depend on your opinion of having to use a smartphone to do so. There's no doubt that it's very clever and enables otherwise impossible actions to be performed: for example, feedback of the drive motor's RPM is presumably used to signal to the other motor to change gear, but I can't help feeling that a more traditional remote controller would make operating it a more tactile and enjoyable experience. Personally, I find opening the app, turning Bluetooth on, pairing the hub, then waiting while the connection is established to be a bit of a faff.
The major criticism I have about its operation is that the turning circle is massive: probably around 2 metres. You therefore need a very large area to play with it in, otherwise you'll be forever going forwards-and-back, turning a bit, forwards-and-back to negotiate a route around the obstacles in your room.
Overall, though, I am impressed and I think it's the best Technic Control+ model thus far released. Attractive, clever, and quite fun to operate, at least at first, until the novelty wears off...
This is definitely a model that benefits from a video review, so I will again direct you to Sariel's:
(I've just noticed when comparing the image above to the one in Sariel's review that I've applied the Volvo name stickers on the wrong sides. I'll swap the panels round...)
It will be released on August 1st at LEGO.com, priced at £230, $250 and €250, which makes it an expensive set, but about what I'd expect for 2000+ pieces, three motors and a hub.
Thanks to LEGO for providing the set for review. All expressed opinions are my own.
101 likes
69 comments on this article
Quite disappointed with the Boeing being axed but hey, at least some have made it to market, oh the after market prices seem fair. UPWARDS OF £500 :O
Nice set and at least we have a chance to look at the new technic control plus elements. Lets hope this set doesn't get pulled cause someone's offended by the use of Volvo or something pathetic like with the Boeing.
How dares LEGO support Volvo! Do they know how many people die in truck-related accidents every year?!
/s
A bit disappointed at the significant gaps in the tipping tray bed that reduce the roleplay potential due to inability to hold small items, dirt, etc. Other than that, seems like a pretty nice set.
I like the use of the very high precision angular motor, but then you have a massive turning circle? I assume the front wheels don't turn, which is the only way to have a tighter turning circle. Just wonder if the usual PU motor from last years vehicles could have done the same function using a lot less space, but maybe Lego were tired of people having problems with app calibration.
The 6 wheel drive and automatic gear box is impressive and suggests lots of possibilities for your own off-road vehicles. Glad that there are also lots of panels to allow you to be creative in your own designs. Just a note the rectangular 5x11 panel in yellow had appeared in 7 sets, e.g. 8265, and the 5x11 angled panel in yellow in 2 sets, e.g. 42035.
Agree with yacoub's comment, they needed to create new 45 degree right angle triangular panels to avoid the gaps at both the tipper end and the vertical wall, the 30 degree triangular panels will never look right.
Only criticism is that these larger motors and hubs have inadvertently increased the size of the builds compared to the previous Haulers, e.g. 8264, thus making more expensive in terms of both number of pieces as well as the technology.
@Minifig290 said:
"Lets hope this set doesn't get pulled cause someone's offended by the use of Volvo or something pathetic like with the Boeing."
My reply'll be the reason comments were turned off for the official cancellation announcement, but I have to say it:
You really don't get it, do you?
I'm willing to bet that I'm more disappointed than you at the announcement, but LEGO very clearly explained their non-pathetic reasons for cancelling the V-22.
Anyway, nice review, Huw, of a fun-looking set! Does the motor noise change noticeably as it goes through the gears?
Now if only it were BWE-scale...
An automatic gearbox is really cool and very unexpected. Is it $250 cool? As usual, my wanted list outpaces my wallet ....
Not going to get this.
Too expensive because of the unnecessary PU components + after the app is no longer supported they can go straight in the bin.
Like the model itself though.
Perhaps I manage to get lucky like I did with my second 42030 that I bought from a retailer who took out the PF components and sold the rest of the set for 75 Euro.
That's how I got my cheap 42030 B-Model :-)
@bananaworld said:
"Anyway, nice review, Huw, of a fun-looking set! Does the motor noise change noticeably as it goes through the gears?"
Not noticeably.
@ambr, thanks. They have new element IDs which is why I thought they were new.
This has no suspension, correct? Aside from the two-axis articulation.
No suspension.
Yep. Definitely putting it on my wanted list.
This is what technic sets are all about.
Love the look of this set. A definite get for me.
Not a huge Technic fan but I got to admit, this looks so great!
It doesn't look like the actual vehicle.
Will this work with the remote control that the Powered Up trains use? Don't want to use an app.
No.
Thanks for the review! It looks like a really nice set. But this turning radius appears to be a problem for a lot of sets nowadays. Why?
OK, be aware, nostalgia based comment approaching.... But I remember another piece of quarrying equipment, the 8853 Wheeled Loader from my childhood. With gearing controlled by 2 rotating handles and twisting the light on the cab, I could steer, raise the bucket and tip the bucket by hand. Millions of play hours ensued with the addition of some non-Lego aggregate (talcum powder I think - ooof what a mess, still evident 30+ years later in the bucket!).
My point being, until now, I was in the camp of favouring the new technology as I thought it would give many more opportunities for innovative play. I thought those who rejected it were luddites. But this set begs the question, do we really need all the electronic stuff? If we had a canny mechanism geared to raise the tipper bed without giving you hand cramps, couldn't us avid carpet quarriers have just as much fun firing this model across the floor by hand?
I'm no eco-warrior, but dont human powered toys have tremendous benefits over their electronic bretheren in the use of natural resources aswell? I'm thinking both in terms of manufacture and energy use during play, ie. baterries and charging phones etc.
Huw are you able to say if you received a promo copy of the Osprey and if so are you allowed to post a review?
Perhaps I'm just an 'old fogey', but I must say that I'm dismayed that LEGO has made the Control+ app on a smart device the ONLY method for controlling their newest 'Flagship' Technic sets. for example, aside from the $550 CAN price tag, the main reason I haven't purchased the 42100 Liebherr R 9800 is the fact that there is no other choice but to use an app on a smartphone. I realize that LEGO is a business and that design and development costs need to be considered. That an optional remote control is NOT available is unfortunate. I am truly intrigued by this new 42114 6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler set but unless there is an alternative to the Control+ app, I won't be purchasing it.
@MWD_AFOL_Canada said:
"Perhaps I'm just an 'old fogey', but I must say that I'm dismayed that LEGO has made the Control+ app on a smart device the ONLY method for controlling their newest 'Flagship' Technic sets. for example, aside from the $550 CAN price tag, the main reason I haven't purchased the 42100 Liebherr R 9800 is the fact that there is no other choice but to use an app on a smartphone. I realize that LEGO is a business and that design and development costs need to be considered. That an optional remote control is NOT available is unfortunate. I am truly intrigued by this new 42114 6x6 Volvo Articulated Hauler set but unless there is an alternative to the Control+ app, I won't be purchasing it."
I totally agree. I am a technological dope, but even I know that an app on a limited platform has the life expectancy of an orchid in my basement. Again, admitting my lack of knowledge, would it be so hard for LEGO to produce a separate, sold-alone, hand-held controller that worked with this system as an alternative? If they could, that item alone would sell well, and the impacted sets would see greater sales. It would have a long life, and all would be good in the world.
But perhaps LEGO is working on a strategy of planned obsolescence. Once they discontinue the last set tied to this app-based platform, they can let it wither and die. They then might have plausible deniability and suffer few consequences in sales as a result. Then they can just move on to the next very expensive powering system that requires additional investment by fans, old and new.
Regardless, I still love me some new LEGO!
it looks good, but the Volvo stickers on the tipper are on the wrong sides. sorry, but i can be real pedantic about insignificant things sometimes.
@ohrmazd said:
"Huw are you able to say if you received a promo copy of the Osprey and if so are you allowed to post a review?"
Sadly not, none were sent out to fan media as far as I know.
@Huw said:
" @ohrmazd said:
"Huw are you able to say if you received a promo copy of the Osprey and if so are you allowed to post a review?"
Sadly not, none were sent out to fan media as far as I know."
It's as if they knew that they would scrap the launch even without these handful of protesters in Germany. Conspiracy theory ensues...
I’m relatively new to this, and also have some concerns about the long-term use of app-based remote control. As it is, there are already at least two control apps from Lego. Even if Lego commits to long-term support for these apps, you know that iOS and Android are changing and leaving things behind after a few years. (The only solution I see is for Lego to open-source the control code so that enthusiasts can recompile and bug-fix as long as possible.)
Having said that, it shouldn’t be too hard to convert to Power Function, or, since these will become more unobtainable, either by scarcity or by price, to completely unpowered. (pneumatics and electric linear actuators, probably harder)
One of my main criticisms of the app is that well, it did nothing that a regular controller couldn't. That has been rectified, giving it the ability to have a functional manual or automatic transmission and to be able to simulate being under load (even more so than filling the bed with a ballast--1x1 bricks or that pile of extra Technic pins you've got laying around). But, that still doesn't remedy the fact that it's bloody expensive as a system. And problem 3: I don't see why they couldn't go to 2.4 GHz technology like most RC model makers have already done, allowing us to pick up the controller of our choice--and I don't see why a Futaba RC plane transmitter couldn't do all of the control functions the app uses. And, there are many $30 or so RC transmitters on the market.
The truck looks great! All that detail and functionality in something that isn't a whole lot more expensive than similarly scaled diecast models. Bruder (a brand I occasionally buy when the one store here that carries them marks them down), recently came out with their take on the A60H, and while beautiful, it's $120! While it's nothing but plastic (except metal pins and axles), at least with the LEGO, I've got functionality of top-grade RC construction models, and even moreso! Been looking at getting into buying an RC excavator as of late. What I can afford is cheap junk, and what isn't junk is priced right up there, and even moreso than this.
@Baldarek said:
"How dares LEGO support Volvo! Do they know how many people die in truck-related accidents every year?!
/s"
I'm honestly concerned... how long until someone says that sets like this Volvo promotes mining, and mining is bad because it destroys the environment?
Let me rephrase, since there are already people saying that (while using a machine made with minerals extracted from mines btw). How long until Lego starts to listen to them over their own fan base?
@el_maga said:
" @Baldarek said:
"How dares LEGO support Volvo! Do they know how many people die in truck-related accidents every year?!
/s"
I'm honestly concerned... how long until someone says that sets like this Volvo promotes mining, and mining is bad because it destroys the environment?
Let me rephrase, since there are already people saying that (while using a machine made with minerals extracted from mines btw). How long until Lego starts to listen to them over their own fan base?"
How about instead of getting yourself upset by hypothesizing about what other people COULD get upset about, you pay more attention to the substance of what other people's actual objections to sets have been? There's a wide chasm between a set like this that's marginally related to something somebody might hypothetically object to on environmental grounds, and a case like the Osprey where Lego accidentally ran afoul of one of their own longstanding policies. Trying to create a hypothetical objection from a hypothetical group against something you support is what's called a strawman argument, which is both a shoddy argumentative tactic and, if you take your own strawman too seriously, a good way to lose sleep over a supposed controversy that's actually all in your head.
@AustinPowers said:
" @Huw said:
" @ohrmazd said:
"Huw are you able to say if you received a promo copy of the Osprey and if so are you allowed to post a review?"
Sadly not, none were sent out to fan media as far as I know."
It's as if they knew that they would scrap the launch even without these handful of protesters in Germany. Conspiracy theory ensues... "
You're suggesting they caused this uproar on purpose, so now they can "cave to public opinion", change their internal policy and start releasing military related sets, now without looking like hypocrites?
I like that Lego is still coming up with new mechanisms for us to enjoy even after half a decade of Technic, and the model looks quite good both in form and function when compared with the source material.
There is one thing not related to the model that is bugging me quite a lot, and this comment section is a prime example of it: PU App-bashing.
My hope is that most of the naysayers might see reason at some point and we can stop the negativity and instead enjoy all the new possibilities Lego has given us with the system.
Let me preface the next bit by saying that as an electronics and software engineer this subject is right up my alley - or to put it simply: I know what I‘m talking about.
Here‘s some perspective on the points most frequently brought up, in no particular order:
- price/it is expensive: it is dead easy to buy a brand new Android phone for less than 50 monies, look around a bit or buy from china and you can get that to under 30 monies. Go for used or tablet and the price drops even more. with it you can control multiple hubs and a ton of motors/sensors - compare that to PF IR remotes and you‘ll quickly spend more on those for larger models.
- obsolescence/longevity: just because an OS or App doesn‘t get any updates anymore (at some point in the future) doesn‘t mean the product stops working and becomes useless! My original iPhone still works quite well today, over a decade after I got it - I only had to change the battery once. So next time you get a new phone, keep the old one around for Lego use.
- seperate controller: there is really no point as that hardware would essentially be... a smart device! Or potentially worse, if they e.g. dumb it down too much to make it „simple“: you would be left with something that could only control what was available when it was made, leaving future PU components out in the cold.
- physical controller/buttons: the one point I concede is that the physicality of a touchscreen is less than brilliant, and for some scenarios like racing downright bad - which is where peripherials come in: at least on android, you can connect gamepads and other similar input devices to remedy that problem. granted, the official PU app doesn‘t support that (yet) but others do.
- RC model remote systems are so much better, use those: well, the radio part of those and the Bluetooth used by PU are very similar hardware, so they share the same advantages and faults. The software is specific to each manufacturer (as with Lego) so it would make it impossible to support all of them - doesn’t sound practical.
Lastly, thanks to Lego actually publishing a lot of the specs of PU openly, and the efforts of talented and motivated community members (some of whom also frequent these parts), there are already a number of great open source (and less open) alternatives such as PyBricks (recently featured here) to run your PU creations - and those cover a huge range of platforms, from embedded to smart devices to computers and even cloud solutions.
Thank you for guving PU a fair chance if you have read this far, it really is a great new ecosystem (with Spike and new MS as well)!
It's just a great big giant tipping truck to me - it really isn't that special. I like the use of those new fully housed differentials, which I do hope I will eventually get in a set, (so in other words, I'm disappointed that they haven't become more commonplace yet), but that isn't a good enough reason to buy a large set that imitates the most boring of all existing excavation vehicles.
And that turning circle - 2m? Laughable. I'd rather the cement mixer - at least it's unique.
Looks really good but I'm not quite sure about app controlled sets. I'm using iphone 6 (yeah, old tech by now) and Hidden Side app said my phone is not compatible. I didn't check if Lego updated the tech, I don't care. But if this is gonna be the case for sets with apps, such as this one here, I prefer the regular power parts, or manual controls.
@voyman said:
"I like that Lego is still coming up with new mechanisms for us to enjoy even after half a decade of Technic, and the model looks quite good both in form and function when compared with the source material.
There is one thing not related to the model that is bugging me quite a lot, and this comment section is a prime example of it: PU App-bashing."
My comments above could be construed as “bashing” but I don’t mean them to be. I’m pretty much embracing PU, having already bought a few of these sets. Pointing out shortcomings is an effort to suggest improvements.
"Let me preface the next bit by saying that as an electronics and software engineer this subject is right up my alley - or to put it simply: I know what I‘m talking about."
My background is in digital hardware chip design, so I also feel I’m qualified to talk about this.
"Here‘s some perspective on the points most frequently brought up, in no particular order:
- price/it is expensive"
It’s ridiculous to suggest keeping or buying an old phone just to run motorized toys. In my case, I’m playing catchup buying sets that have been retired 5-10 years old. With PF, I can still use all the functions built into the set. I seriously doubt being able to use a PU set I buy 10 years from now. Even if I could find an appropriate phone+OS, will I be able to find an app?
"- obsolescence/longevity"
Same as above
"- seperate controller: there is really no point as that hardware would essentially be... a smart device! Or potentially worse, if they e.g. dumb it down too much to make it „simple“: you would be left with something that could only control what was available when it was made, leaving future PU components out in the cold."
Can’t argue against that, except that the functions are (currently) pretty limited. You only need a few kinds of controls. On the plus side, in the future, exciting new kinds of functions could be possible only being a software upgrade away.
"Lastly, thanks to Lego actually publishing a lot of the specs of PU openly, and the efforts of talented and motivated community members (some of whom also frequent these parts), there are already a number of great open source (and less open) alternatives such as PyBricks (recently featured here) to run your PU creations - and those cover a huge range of platforms, from embedded to smart devices to computers and even cloud solutions.
Thank you for guving PU a fair chance if you have read this far, it really is a great new ecosystem (with Spike and new MS as well)!"
Effectively, it looks like the long term support for PU will be Spike / upcoming Mindstorms. Those are also “app-based”. Not too many first gen (RIS) or 2nd gen (NXT) are still running anymore, because not too many old computers are still running. Official Lego long term support for PU seems pretty dubious to me.
@voyman said:
"I like that Lego is still coming up with new mechanisms for us to enjoy even after half a decade of Technic, and the model looks quite good both in form and function when compared with the source material.
There is one thing not related to the model that is bugging me quite a lot, and this comment section is a prime example of it: PU App-bashing.
My hope is that most of the naysayers might see reason at some point and we can stop the negativity and instead enjoy all the new possibilities Lego has given us with the system.
Let me preface the next bit by saying that as an electronics and software engineer this subject is right up my alley - or to put it simply: I know what I‘m talking about.
Here‘s some perspective on the points most frequently brought up, in no particular order:
- price/it is expensive: it is dead easy to buy a brand new Android phone for less than 50 monies, look around a bit or buy from china and you can get that to under 30 monies. Go for used or tablet and the price drops even more. with it you can control multiple hubs and a ton of motors/sensors - compare that to PF IR remotes and you‘ll quickly spend more on those for larger models.
- obsolescence/longevity: just because an OS or App doesn‘t get any updates anymore (at some point in the future) doesn‘t mean the product stops working and becomes useless! My original iPhone still works quite well today, over a decade after I got it - I only had to change the battery once. So next time you get a new phone, keep the old one around for Lego use.
- seperate controller: there is really no point as that hardware would essentially be... a smart device! Or potentially worse, if they e.g. dumb it down too much to make it „simple“: you would be left with something that could only control what was available when it was made, leaving future PU components out in the cold.
- physical controller/buttons: the one point I concede is that the physicality of a touchscreen is less than brilliant, and for some scenarios like racing downright bad - which is where peripherials come in: at least on android, you can connect gamepads and other similar input devices to remedy that problem. granted, the official PU app doesn‘t support that (yet) but others do.
- RC model remote systems are so much better, use those: well, the radio part of those and the Bluetooth used by PU are very similar hardware, so they share the same advantages and faults. The software is specific to each manufacturer (as with Lego) so it would make it impossible to support all of them - doesn’t sound practical.
Lastly, thanks to Lego actually publishing a lot of the specs of PU openly, and the efforts of talented and motivated community members (some of whom also frequent these parts), there are already a number of great open source (and less open) alternatives such as PyBricks (recently featured here) to run your PU creations - and those cover a huge range of platforms, from embedded to smart devices to computers and even cloud solutions.
Thank you for guving PU a fair chance if you have read this far, it really is a great new ecosystem (with Spike and new MS as well)!"
Thank you for the sensible information!
For the cost of the Lambo I could get the Land Rover *and* the Mustang (assuming they both came back into stock), or I could buy this and a cheap new smart phone to run the app. Both pretty appealing options, but I think I'll go with this--I needed the phone anyway! (And the piano, remarkable as it is, never even makes it to my Wanted List....)
@voyman said:
"There is one thing not related to the model that is bugging me quite a lot, and this comment section is a prime example of it: PU App-bashing."
I couldn't agree more. I also prefer physical controls over touch screens, but sadly that's just today's world, whether it be TVs, microwaves or Lego controls.
However the constant complaints of inbuilt obsolescence are ridiculous. No updates, no change, no problem!
I'm sure at some point Lego will indeed release a controller, which will be a very basic mobile, with added studs, and hugely overpriced, and people will be delighted!
I used to be a huge technic fan and have always bought the big complex sets. But since we got the the new control system, I hardly even look at them any more, because I know I won't even consider buying them. Too bad.
@AustinPowers said:
"Not going to get this.
Too expensive because of the unnecessary PU components + after the app is no longer supported they can go straight in the bin.
Like the model itself though.
Perhaps I manage to get lucky like I did with my second 42030 that I bought from a retailer who took out the PF components and sold the rest of the set for 75 Euro.
That's how I got my cheap 42030 B-Model :-) "
The good old B-models...
I knew this set looked familiar, but couldn't quite put my finger on it. Then I found my 8854's box and there it was: the B model (Ah, the good, old B models...). Opened it, connected the pneumatics and tested. Everything works as it did the first time 30 years ago. Even if it hasn't, I can still purchase modern parts that are compatible, today.
The set does look fantastic and has very good accuracy, especially for a Technic (from pics I've seen). I'd say it performs really well.
The problems I have with it:
- Expensive (surely the licenicing part hasn't helped here).
- Already obsolete technology (fellow programmers will agree) without an alternative; Non-customizable.
- As Sariel's video shows (although it is a pre-release), a few bugs in app.
- Stickers in a €250 set with so much panel parts...
Also, in Sariel's video at 19:20, engine pistons 2 and 5 don't move much (nearly not at all). I'm not an expert, but to me it doesn't look like it's supposed to be like that...
@AustinPowers said:
" @Huw said:
" @ohrmazd said:
"Huw are you able to say if you received a promo copy of the Osprey and if so are you allowed to post a review?"
Sadly not, none were sent out to fan media as far as I know."
It's as if they knew that they would scrap the launch even without these handful of protesters in Germany. Conspiracy theory ensues... "
Apparently Lego does now state that the Ospreys that are in stock may be sold freely. Still too much limited unfortunately. Only a few lucky b*s may be able to get their hands on one.
https://www.change.org/p/lego-fans-urge-the-lego-group-tlg-to-release-the-lego-technic-set-42113-bell-boeing-v-22-osprey
@zduny said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Huw said:
" @ohrmazd said:
"Huw are you able to say if you received a promo copy of the Osprey and if so are you allowed to post a review?"
Sadly not, none were sent out to fan media as far as I know."
It's as if they knew that they would scrap the launch even without these handful of protesters in Germany. Conspiracy theory ensues... "
You're suggesting they caused this uproar on purpose, so now they can "cave to public opinion", change their internal policy and start releasing military related sets, now without looking like hypocrites?"
There was no uproar at all, just a literal handful of protesters (2 or 3 if my information is correct). All the rest was totally blown out of proportion by fan base media. Actually this peace initiative had been sending protests to TLG for months about this set. TLG could have scrapped this project far earlier and long before sets had been produced and shipped to retailers. That they didn't does indeed beg the question as to why, and why now.
Fact is they screwed up big time. Far better to blame it on some scapegoat than to admit that they were wrong in the first place.
Honestly, it is no secret that Boeing does produce more than just civilian aviation equipment. It is also no secret what the Osprey is. Are TLG seriously trying to tell us that they did not know that? I mean, they made a specific licensing deal with Boeing for crying out loud.
That's the problem with the current generation of TLG management. Everything has to be licensed. In former times a Technic set was a generic truck, plane, helicopter, motorbike or whatever. They could have just produced a generic tilt rotor in rescue colours like yellow, orange, red or white, called it Rescue Helicopter, and no problem. But no, it had to bear a branding and look exactly like that prototype. And THAT one in particular. Why the heck? Don't they know that Technic fans couldn't care less about the sets being modeled after a particular prototype?
Nice review. I'm not interested in the electronics in this model though. I would prefer a cheaper, manual version.
If I buy, I'll retrofit the good old infrared PF system.
" @AustinPowers said:
There was no uproar at all, just a literal handful of protesters (2 or 3 if my information is correct). All the rest was totally blown out of proportion by fan base media. Actually this peace initiative had been sending protests to TLG for months about this set. TLG could have scrapped this project far earlier and long before sets had been produced and shipped to retailers. That they didn't does indeed beg the question as to why, and why now.
Fact is they screwed up big time. Far better to blame it on some scapegoat than to admit that they were wrong in the first place.
Honestly, it is no secret that Boeing does produce more than just civilian aviation equipment. It is also no secret what the Osprey is. Are TLG seriously trying to tell us that they did not know that? I mean, they made a specific licensing deal with Boeing for crying out loud.
That's the problem with the current generation of TLG management. Everything has to be licensed. In former times a Technic set was a generic truck, plane, helicopter, motorbike or whatever. They could have just produced a generic tilt rotor in rescue colours like yellow, orange, red or white, called it Rescue Helicopter, and no problem. But no, it had to bear a branding and look exactly like that prototype. And THAT one in particular. Why the heck? Don't they know that Technic fans couldn't care less about the sets being modeled after a particular prototype? "
^ This. I absolutely don't get the licensed thing. What is the benefit in terms of the product, especially in Technic. It's all about the functions and the inner workings, not the shell with a particular badge on it. If it was for me, we could pretty much do away with full shells anyway and go back to the 3D blueprint design with a lot of gaps and ways to actually see how the thing operates, but again that's just me.
What I've also noticed, is that so many of those new Technic sets, especially the flagships, don't push the envelope in terms of function design anymore. Sure we got the sequential gearbox thing, but that hardly is something, that's needed, when you don't have a motor in there and you can't even see the pistons moving. Flagships in the past were supposed to be the state of the art of what is possible with Lego Technic at a given time, now it's mostly just fancy shells in another kind of lego system.
Also, not offering B-models is so against the initial idea of Technic, and of Lego itself. Lego is supposed to be a toy that promotes creative play and by extension Technic is supposed to be a toy that get's slightly older kids into engineering vehicles and functions. It's a great teaching tool, and one that for sure was very successful in getting the new generation interested in that field (it certainly did that for me). But right now it looks more like a toy for rich business people, that are into the idea of cars and machines and just want to build one easily and put it into their display case.
Literally no kid would care if the Hauler was an accurate depiction of that exact Volvo or just some generic mining hauler, similarly, no one would care if instead of the Osprey, we just got a generic swivel Rotor transport aircraft.
You don't need license in a theme, where you can't depict the source material (without very specialized parts and unnecessary shells) anyway. If you really want licenses, why not do that with creator expert (or whatever it's called right now). You would have the same functions as with the Technic sets (as there are barely any to speak of int he first place), you would get a better and more accurate looking model and Technic would focus on functionality again.
Honestly don’t feel “safe” buying one of the app-controlled models. If the app stops working, it will render the models completely dead.
@LegoHaploBuilder said:
"Honestly don’t feel “safe” buying one of the app-controlled models. If the app stops working, it will render the models completely dead. "
It's likely that used communication protocol will be reverse engineered soon, so even if official apps would stop working, fans will create their own ones.
@PjtrXmos said:
"If it was for me, we could pretty much do away with full shells anyway and go back to the 3D blueprint design with a lot of gaps and ways to actually see how the thing operates, but again that's just me. "
Trust me, it is not just you. Every Technic fan I know would prefer LEGO to go back to proper Technic sets that deserve the name, not some licensed Creator Expert lookalike built with Technic pieces.
Actually, your entire post took the words right out of my mouth.
If this was "up"-less I would buy it. But like this I will pass. I prefer sets that can be bought without the motors - I have enough of them.
Concerning "app bashing", I just pulled all my 30 year old models out of storage and started playing with them with my two little builders. No problems getting everything to work as it was all manual. I'd hope in another 30 years I could pull the same sets out of storage again and play with my grand kids. While voyman did a great write up on how to make it work, I don't want to have to spend a week researching and buying tech just to make a model work 30 years from now. I just want to pull it out of storage and start playing with it. As a mechanical engineer, I love all the mechanisms included in this set but the concerning of having the thing built but then banging my head against the tech due to some computer bug or out dated app or os makes this a no. Maybe will pick it up for parts if available at the right price.
I like it way more than I expected.. great amount of yellow pieces, good functionality/playability and Arocs tires!
@LegoHaploBuilder said:
"Honestly don’t feel “safe” buying one of the app-controlled models. If the app stops working, it will render the models completely dead. "
And if the software that runs your microwave or washing machine or car stops working they'll be dead too!
I must confess that I too prefer my Lego to be analogue...
But the set looks great - it will be interesting if there are some sold on minus the electric bits!
Does it scale correctly with the 42030 Volvo L350F Wheel Loader?
I sure hope TLG management are reading these comments. I'll give TLC credit for generally being more responsive to their users' rational concerns than any company I can think of.
-reduce the licensing, it's pointless, indeed it seems harmful as has been illustrated
-return to cool functionality that can be seen internally, not hidden under a slick exterior. Function > appearance!
-return to controls that are part of the model (remote or otherwise) rather than requiring external software on platforms of uncertain stability and durability.
@vaellen22 said:
"I don't want to have to spend a week researching and buying tech just to make a model work 30 years from now. I just want to pull it out of storage and start playing with it."
So long as you store the control device with the set it will work just the same in 30 years time as it does today.
If you store a TV for 30 years it will be tricky to get it to work if you haven't stored the remote with it!
@ind1g0 said:
"Does it scale correctly with the 42030 Volvo L350F Wheel Loader?"
Looks pretty correct in RacingBrick's video.
https://youtu.be/WR1y3aRo3SM
@sjr60 said:
" @LegoHaploBuilder said:
"Honestly don’t feel “safe” buying one of the app-controlled models. If the app stops working, it will render the models completely dead. "
And if the software that runs your microwave or washing machine or car stops working they'll be dead too!"
If a car stops working you take it to the repair shop. If the washing machine stops working you call the repair technician. If the microwave stops working you throw it away and get a new one, unless it's within warranty. For the price of one of these Volvos I can buy about five to eight microvave ovens.
Disclaimer: our microwave, that we have had in use for the last five years, cost 35 Euro.
New to Technic and am blown away by the functions on some of these sets. Serious question: how is this 2000 piece monster the same price as the 958 piece 42099 4x4 off roader? Don’t they both have the same number of motors/PU components? Obviously piece count is not everything so what am I missing? Thanks for any info or thoughts.
I'm not a car person at all so the following could easily be wrong.
In a real automatic car my understanding is the switching is based on the current RPM or at least tied to it.
How does this model attempt to mimic knowing when it switch? is it using how fast the drive motor is being pushed or how long it has been running and if so does that mean the behaviour is all within the software? @Huw, was it clear at all in the testing for the review which was happening?
@AustinPowers said:
" @sjr60 said:
" @LegoHaploBuilder said:
"Honestly don’t feel “safe” buying one of the app-controlled models. If the app stops working, it will render the models completely dead. "
And if the software that runs your microwave or washing machine or car stops working they'll be dead too!"
If a car stops working you take it to the repair shop. If the washing machine stops working you call the repair technician. If the microwave stops working you throw it away and get a new one, unless it's within warranty. For the price of one of these Volvos I can buy about five to eight microvave ovens.
Disclaimer: our microwave, that we have had in use for the last five years, cost 35 Euro. "
The point was, if microwaves, washing machines, cars or Powered Up LEGO die, the most unlikely reason in all cases will be the software!
Comments on Brickset are so tiresome lately. It's rather ironic that people are willing to spend $400 on their preferred LEGO set, but gripe incessantly about an app on your phone.
People, phones have been around for 20 years now. The apps will make it into the next decade.
@sjr60 said:
"The point was, if microwaves, washing machines, cars or Powered Up LEGO die, the most unlikely reason in all cases will be the software!"
Thing is, with all these other devices there are ways to repair them when they break. TLG has decided that without the app there is no way to use these components any more. And given TLG's history I have zero confidence in their long-term app support.
That's what we critizise. There was zero need for this stupid app control system to begin with. The only thing PF would have benefitted from would have been a switch from infrared controllers to 2.4 GHz radio control. Luckily CaDa uses exactly that system. Which is why I use CaDa RC components together with original LEGO PF motors in all of my Technic sets. Works a treat and is totally robust.
Best of both worlds. And much cheaper as well.
@Delta said:
"Comments on Brickset are so tiresome lately. It's rather ironic that people are willing to spend $400 on their preferred LEGO set, but gripe incessantly about an app on your phone.
People, phones have been around for 20 years now. The apps will make it into the next decade."
My objection to the LEGO PU app has nothing to do with the cost of a phone or the technology itself, I'm no Luddite. Nor, am I "PU app-bashing" but, in fact, find myself rather intrigued by this new LEGO tech.
My main objection is simply that we are not given any other option. If the brains at LEGO can design a physical Bluetooth remote control for the City 60197 Passenger Train, then surely they could do the same for these TECHNIC sets. Having the option to purchase a separate 'universal' remote control for the TECHNIC PU functions would be most welcome.
I'm no fan of the PU system. It's just when so many posts seem to suggest that if/when Lego stop supporting the PU apps, then all models using them will stop working, which is obviously nonsense!
Personally the 4.5v blue motor and battery box did everything I wanted to do!
@AustinPowers said:
"TLG has decided that without the app there is no way to use these components any more. And given TLG's history I have zero confidence in their long-term app support.
That's what we critizise. There was zero need for this stupid app control system to begin with. The only thing PF would have benefitted from would have been a switch from infrared controllers to 2.4 GHz radio control."
With respect, that is just your opinion. Yes, if all you want to do is make a motor spin endlessly and aimlessly, then there is zero need for an app control system.
I for one find the advanced capabilities like motor feedback for position, speed and load that PU brought to the Technic mainstream (from MS) very interesting, since they together with suitable control software allow for mechanisms such as the automatic gearbox in this model.
@MWD_AFOL_Canada said:
"My main objection is simply that we are not given any other option. If the brains at LEGO can design a physical Bluetooth remote control for the City 60197 Passenger Train, then surely they could do the same for these TECHNIC sets. Having the option to purchase a separate 'universal' remote control for the TECHNIC PU functions would be most welcome."
But you DO already have other options than the Lego PU App, and with time there will only be more of them. Lego might not put their name on any of them, but they do encourage them by publishing specs as well as officially stating on multiple occasions that they welcome third party components (hard- and software) - heck, you are even allowed to make money with them, royalty-free.
Regarding the remote, I think you can see that there is a massive difference in complexity between the train remote (2 channels, motors only, basic speed control with discrete steps) and what would be a universal remote (16+ channels, motors and sensors, full two way comms for sensor data and motor position, speed and load) so Lego did a very sensible thing and chose to implement the latter by using the most ubiqutous existing thing we all use anyways - our smart devices.
@aamartin0000 said:
"My comments above could be construed as “bashing” but I don’t mean them to be. I’m pretty much embracing PU, having already bought a few of these sets. Pointing out shortcomings is an effort to suggest improvements."
My choice of words could have been more appropriate in your case - apologies. I think the second part is an excellent way of looking at things, and I always welcome input from fellow engineers.
After watching Sariel‘s excellent review, I‘m reminded of my two biggest PU gripes, which I‘ll describe in the spirit of suggesting improvements:
- rechargable energy source: Lego really should have designed all the hubs (not just Spike) around a lipo battery. This would avoid having to fiddle with or even dismantle a model when it runs out of juice, by simply plugging in any old phone charger. Oh and making this an „extra“ at a ridiculous price (100+ monies) as in the previous generation is clearly not the way to go...
- removable/replacable cabling: almost all the electrical and electronics systems Lego had over the years (4.5V, 12V, 9V, NXT, EV3) we had cables between components as seperate pieces, allowing us to chose appropriate lengths based on where components are in a model. Alas, PU up till now has followed PF with integrating cabling into motors/sensors. I think this really limits the way the components can be incorporated into large models - especially with no extensions currently available - as well as small models, where excess cable leads to space issues. Huw also pointed out the effects on this model, where the excess is just hanging between the two sections.
@AustinPowers said:
" @Huw said:
" @ohrmazd said:
"Huw are you able to say if you received a promo copy of the Osprey and if so are you allowed to post a review?"
Sadly not, none were sent out to fan media as far as I know."
It's as if they knew that they would scrap the launch even without these handful of protesters in Germany. Conspiracy theory ensues... "
The old saying goes: There is no such thing as 'bad press' as long as your name is getting mentioned to the masses.
Bricked:
cause (a smartphone or other electronic device) to become completely unable to function, typically on a permanent basis.
For me, this set have 2 major problems: bad steering, and the app. Since Lego made this Control+ thing, I just lost my interest in big sets. They are way too expensive, with a less amount off pieces, and I also don't like this 1-2 minute synchronization thing before every "play".
"At the front of this model, the designer has used inconspicuous tan non-friction pins instead of more appropriate blue or black ones to avoid the colour clash that so many people seem to have a problem with."
They are not used for aesthetics, these are pins without friction, which is crucial in front assembly. Using blue pins would end with streessing the elements, because small panels are squished between surrounding elements. Tan pins gave that 1mm play thus making the assembly "legal".