Review: 42147 Dump Truck
Posted by Huw,
42147 Dump Truck is one of a couple of pocket-money-priced sets that have just been released.
Small models like this are usually of little interest to adult Technic fans, and I wasn't going to bother to buy it until I discovered that it contains a new Technic connector, which is always cause for celebration.
Summary
42147 Dump Truck, 177 pieces.
£8.99 / $12.99 / €9.99 | 5.1p/7.3c/5.6c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
A great introduction to Technic
- New connector piece
- Rare colours
- Blue panels look out of place on the cab
A small sticker sheet accompanies the set but as this is not a model that I'm likely to keep whole for long I did not apply them.
The new piece is 2393 BEAM 3 MODULE, W/ 4.85 BUSH, NO. 1 on the left in the picture below. It is currently unique to this set, and belongs to the family of connectors that were introduced in the early 2000s.
Like the others it has non-friction pins.
The main potential I see is for connecting two beams together, either with holes aligned at right angles, or adjacently. It's possible to achieve such connections with other pieces, but this one makes it much easier.
However, that's not what it's been designed for, it seems. In this model it's used in the steering assembly. Models with larger wheels have used 65489 BEAM 3 MODULE W/ 4 SNAP for this purpose but of course with this model having smaller wheels that one couldn't be used here.
It's not a bad looking model, even without the stickers, although the dark blue small panels, 2387 BASE PLATE 2X3, W/ CROSS HOLE, on the sides of the cab looks totally out of place, and it would probably be better to omit them altogether
Four of the dark blue pieces are currently unique to this set but of course they will have been produced for the forthcoming 42154 2022 Ford GT.
The tipper is operated using a gear on the side of the chassis.
Other than the out-of-place dark blue panels on the cab, it's a decent-looking model and perfectly functional for its size. There isn't a lot here to appeal to AFOLs but if you're looking for something to add to your basket in order to reach a GWP threshold you could do worse.
However, as is often the case with Technic sets, there's an odd disparity between the price in the USA, where it's $12.99, and in Europe, where it's £8.99 / €9.99. So, reasonable value here but not so much in America.
95 likes
38 comments on this article
I feel like the blue panels can easily be removed without the model looking too awkward without them. Just huge side windows.
Still a great improvement over 42084 imo, aside from stickers.
I'm surprised there are no mentions at the (very odd) fact that this set has TWO instructions booklets just to build a simple model as that.
No interior seat plus that 4 tiny wheels making this set so tiny if put side by side with other $10 Technic Set.
Actually, as an AFOL I do find these small Technic sets very appealing. I have much more interest in buying this than yet another 150 euro car with standard functions.
Would have been perfect if the dark blue side panels had been orange, but I guess that was a matter of economics or logistics, with the Ford GT probably using these parts as well.
And it can fly ;)
https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-133672/M_longer/42147-ultralight/details
The alternate model looks pretty good, too.
I love these smaller Technic sets. They don't take much room, don't break the bank, and often have alternate builds.
@Huw, that nw connector was one I immediately picked up on in your earlier article on new pieces for exactly the reasons you point out.
This little model looks pretty good - I quite like these small Technic sets: they have a pretty high function:piece count compared to most of the larger sets and are fun for my daughter to play with.
@HOBBES said:
"I'm surprised there are no mentions at the (very odd) fact that this set has TWO instructions booklets just to build a simple model as that."
And it takes 90 steps for 177 parts. Remember the old days when instructions were a challenge?
850 has 13 steps on 7 pages for 210 parts...
Anyway, this looks like a decent set for pocket money.
@Huw What's the steering lock/ turning circle? With those three beams parallel on top of the new connector it can't be very tight.
Actually, the view from the back is better than the front, I think.
I’m no Technic expert, very far from it, but it seems to me that it would be possible to connect four of the new pieces together such that they can’t be separated.
You would need to put the pins of each part-way into the holes of another such that you would form a square in cross section of the four parts. Squeeze that assembly together so the pins all click in place and it would be very hard or even impossible to disassemble. It would also work with the middle piece in Huw’s picture.
Am I wrong?
By the way, if you try this and I’m right, don’t blame me for costing you four pieces!
I like the colors and I think the price here in the USA is not bad considering the functionality. I may even try to figure out how to get a seat for a minifigure in the cab. And the colors are sharp. The blue cab panel does look a bit odd but the sticker helps a bit to blend the blue and orange/yellow together. Thanks for the superb review!
I got this set yesterday and absolutely love it. I think the blue (especially stickered) panels blend with the cab and break up the orange a little, and just make the rear blend in better.
I have no actual issues with this set, it was a fun and interesting build with some cool techniques and basic (but well-implemented) features. The fact it took two manuals was a bit strange as was mine using plastic bags rather than paper (the manual showing paper), but those aren't really issues with it.
I think it could only really be improved with an increased ride-height, perhaps with larger wheels? It feels like it sits a little low and this can make turning the tipper a bit fiddly, but I don't consider it a criticism.
@Zander said:
"Am I wrong?!"
I think you would simply be able to pull two halves apart again.
You could put two subassemblies of two pieces each together by moving them in one direction. So, they would also split again that way.
@TomKazutara said:
"I think that the blue and tand pins look out of place"
Pins have been like this since 2002 (axle pins) and 2007 (long pins) and people are still complaining about the color. E.g Jang is mentioning it in almost every review. I like him lots but this complaint we have heard enough.
Very reminiscent of the very sweet 643 Flatbed Truck from 1978. One of my personal favourites.
@Duq said:
" @HOBBES said:
"I'm surprised there are no mentions at the (very odd) fact that this set has TWO instructions booklets just to build a simple model as that."
And it takes 90 steps for 177 parts. Remember the old days when instructions were a challenge?
850 has 13 steps on 7 pages for 210 parts...
Anyway, this looks like a decent set for pocket money.
@Huw What's the steering lock/ turning circle? With those three beams parallel on top of the new connector it can't be very tight."
On that topic, I would like to bring to your attention set 40580. As you build this, you will notice that on numerous occasions, Lego asks you to put as much as 10 pieces per step - oh the humanity! How can they do that?
Of course, 10 pieces per step is just fine and maybe this is why this is a 18+ set...
FYI: 40580 has 354 parts and the set is built in 94 steps for an average of 3.8 parts per step. 42147 has 177 parts and it is built in 90 steps for 1.97 parts per step. In fact, the parts per step should become another stats available for each set - the higher the number, the greener the set. (i.e. low number means more pages = more trees).
@Duq said:
" @Huw What's the steering lock/ turning circle? With those three beams parallel on top of the new connector it can't be very tight."
Surprisingly small considering its reliant on the gaps between the three beams. About 25cm diameter.
I thought the little blue panels on the cab might be important for the B model so they were shoehorned into the A model. But I think they're mostly just decoration on the B model.
@HOBBES said:
"i.e. low number means more pages = more trees"
Trees for paper are grown in managed forests as a sustainable crop. Reducing demand for paper results in fewer of such trees.
To echo what others have said, I have also become a fan of those small sets. So far I got: 42102, 42116, 42117, 42133, 42147, 42148. Following is the number of parts/functions for these sets: (130/2, 140/2, 145/1, 143/2, 177/2, 178/3). This comes at an average of 76 parts per functions. I sure would like to see that on the larger sets - at even one function per 200 parts that would be great. (i.e. real function means operated by gear or complex mechanism - straight opening door is not a function - even City cars can do that).
The shrinking is continuing. Lego has no other choice than develop new parts, sets are getting smaller and smaller. Panels have reached the maximum shrinkage possible (I think). That new part has to be developed because the older part would touch the ground and the truck would be stuck - that said, there were much better pieces than that one in the past - they were involving 'System' plates with holes; I guess that's why they've been phased out (but they allowed for very compact design).
I feel like the wheels and tires look a bit small for it, but I also think that increasing their size might look worse.
I'm going to guess this set is more geared toward someone just starting to build Techic sets, as opposed to the more experienced builder.
It's a nice looking set but other than perhaps a completionist, this set is more for a novice Technic builder. In a way, Lego needs a few more of those other than just the City line.
@Banners said:
" @HOBBES said:
"i.e. low number means more pages = more trees"
Trees for paper are grown in managed forests as a sustainable crop. Reducing demand for paper results in fewer of such trees.
"
Are we at the point now where we are saying that if we do not consume paper and cut down trees then we would not plant managed forests thus it is a bad thing?????
By the same logic, are we also saying that we should eat more meat because if we don't, we will not raise all those animals that we produce for consumption?
Sorry, but what kind of twisted reasoning is that? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you preach for resources protection or economic output but not both.
To be fair, the yellow/orange and blue look less contrasting when you put the stickers with the orange stripes on the blue pieces.
And the huge number of steps is likely for the 7+ target age as a "starter" Technic set. But of course cue the "back in my day, a 7 year old could build a car chassis in 10 steps" comments. :)
@rick77 said:
" @Zander said:
"Am I wrong?!"
I think you would simply be able to pull two halves apart again.
You could put two subassemblies of two pieces each together by moving them in one direction. So, they would also split again that way.
"
I think you’re right! You wouldn’t be able to remove just one from the assembly, but could remove two at once and then separate those two.
I wonder how common it is to have to remove two (or more) parts at the same time to disassemble a number of pieces, i.e. where you can’t remove one part at a time.
Fine little set, nothing special but just Technic as Technic should be. For such a small set that's all I could ask for.
I think I like the B-model more though. Unfortunate that one wasn't included in the review. But I'm glad Lego still keeps doing those for these small sets. Still the cheapest way to add value to a set.
@HOBBES said:
" @Banners said:
" @HOBBES said:
"i.e. low number means more pages = more trees"
Trees for paper are grown in managed forests as a sustainable crop. Reducing demand for paper results in fewer of such trees.
"
Are we at the point now where we are saying that if we do not consume paper and cut down trees then we would not plant managed forests thus it is a bad thing?????
By the same logic, are we also saying that we should eat more meat because if we don't, we will not raise all those animals that we produce for consumption?
Sorry, but what kind of twisted reasoning is that? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you preach for resources protection or economic output but not both."
No, we are not at the point you, erm, pointed out. Lego is using sustainable paper sources, you can find that logo on their paper prints. That's why more paper doesn't equal less trees in the long turn. Most of the paper used in Europe and other western nations is coming from sustainable sources since decades. Your meat analogy is not "the same logic", as animal upkeeping is a very different and more complicated process.
Huw, why didn't you build the B model too?
Cool little set, and I don't think the price is all that outrageous here in the U.S. Still hits the "magic" PPP ratio. I'll probably get it. I like the alt model, too.
@M_longer: Very cool. I'll have to remember that if and when I get this set.
@Luka_Lobe said:
"Huw, why didn't you build the B model too?"
I didn't want to.
"Blue panels look out of place"
Well, they wouldn't have as much if you applied the stickers. A basic look at the box is enough to know that.
It's just a way to add some color variety and tie the color scheme together a bit more. Otherwise there would be too much of a dichotomy between the orange cab and the dark blue tipper. With the orange stripes from the stickers the blue panels are in turn better matched to the rest of the cab.
@Huw said:
" @Luka_Lobe said:
"Huw, why didn't you build the B model too?"
I didn't want to.
"
Hardcore
@HOBBES said:
" @Banners said:
" @HOBBES said:
"i.e. low number means more pages = more trees"
Trees for paper are grown in managed forests as a sustainable crop. Reducing demand for paper results in fewer of such trees.
"
Are we at the point now where we are saying that if we do not consume paper and cut down trees then we would not plant managed forests thus it is a bad thing?????
By the same logic, are we also saying that we should eat more meat because if we don't, we will not raise all those animals that we produce for consumption?
Sorry, but what kind of twisted reasoning is that? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you preach for resources protection or economic output but not both."
My local SuperMarket guarantees that the more I spend the more I save.
??
@HOBBES said:
"In fact, the parts per step should become another stats available for each set "
That would not be an easy number to get for each set because of sub-assemblies. Someone would have to go through every page of every instruction book.
And if you have a sub-assembly that's built twice, how do you calculate the parts per step? Count the sub-assembly steps twice?
I see where you're coming from, but unfortunately I don't think it's feasible.
Great little set as with most 10€ Technic ones.
@Huw: Any idea who is behind the design of this? I wanna update by unofficial Technic Designer bricklists.
I bet this could easily be reconfigured cab-wise to make a pretty cool 6-wide City light duty pickup/dumptruck. I could see myself getting this for that purpose/ project, but it's a cool set in its own right.
90 building steps?
You really can’t imagine that a set like 8868 from 1992 had 954 parts, complex pneumatics and many other functions had only 32 building steps!!!
@mrdoofa said:
"90 building steps?
You really can’t imagine that a set like 8868 from 1992 had 954 parts, complex pneumatics and many other functions had only 32 building steps!!!"
Well, I was surprised to see that the RC Stunt Racer 42095 (324 parts) a few years ago, had 15 steps of instructions.....not to build the damn thing, but just to replace the batteries!
I still wonder how I as a kid was able to build Test Car 8865 (900 parts) with just 24 steps of instructions. I must have been an absurdly intelligent kid! I still wonder where all of those brain cells have gone...