[REVIEW] 42043 - Mercedes-Benz Arocs 3245

[Jim]

The second axle doesn't need 1L round pin connector. It does steer less than the first axle, so never hits the black parts.

If you look carefully, you will see that the gap between the 2 attached with frictionless pins is slightly longer than 2L. In other words, it is not in the systems, and so rubber parts are necessary to go out of the system.

Okay cool, thanks! I will take a closer look.

[saabfan]

I'd really like to get those new pneumatic pieces! :D

[Anio]

I completed my review of 42043.

Here is the conclusion I drew :

In conclusion, this #42043 boasts a dazzling inventory and a very realistic look. Regarding the functions, it offers plenty of possibilities, and that is also found in the remarkable diversity of the model : pneumatic, electric, mechanics, suspensions, and manual stuff. Unfortunately, the model fall because of his too complex controls that strongly harm the gameplay. Still, this Mercedes-Benz 3245 Arocs remains a great set. But trying too hard to make an impressive set, the 42043 is not the perfect set that it could have been. Yet, Lego should know it : beyond a certain point, "more" does not necessarily mean "better".

I you have the courage to read more in French : http://www.techlug.f...us-kossman-2015

As always, the last part of "Functionnalités/Functions" is the most interesting, I think.

The review with the translator : http://translate.goo...us-kossman-2015

It may however be hard to understand sometimes. Ask me if you are really lost with some of the translations... ;)

[allanp]

In my opinion difficult =/= unplayable. Quite the opposite actually. If they made computer games too easy to play then they would become boring to play very quickly. It's not like the arocs is very difficult to play with, it just requires a bit of skill which for me is going to make it more fun to play with, not less. And besides, despite the fact that for me the arocs looks to have a ton of hands on play value, far more than any hands off, boring RC thing, as far as I am aware/concerned, playability has never been one of the main requirements of a Technic model. It's all about the authenticity, complexity and challenging building. Playability is nice to have but it shouldn't come at the expense of any of those things. From where Technic was in 2014, the arocs is as close to perfect as you can get. To move on from here will take even more new parts and I look forward to it. Although, if tradition holds true, next years flagship will be an over priced under performing RC thing that's mechanically uninteresting. I'll buy another arocs

Edited July 9, 2015 by allanp

[Anio]

If they made computer games too easy to play then they would become boring to play very quickly.

I am not sure this example is very relevant. If they made only very hard video games, there would be only hard core gamer. Today, in most video games you can chose the level of difficulty. Something like : very easy, easy, normal, hard, very hard, extrem.

Moreover, I sincerely doubt that the goal of a Lego set it too have something difficult so that a kid needs 2 weeks before being able to use it properly...

I played quite a lot with 42043, and I can not imagine a 12 yo kid controlling it correctly...

I challenge any adult to do the following sequence with no mistake (you have to know the function of each lever, and know in what direction to push the interruptor for each (!) function) and no hesitation (too easy if you think 20 seconds between each moves). I consider this sequence to be something normal and realistic to use correctly the features of the set :

- outtriggers out horizontaly then vertically

- rise the arm and take it out of the bucket

- rotate the crane on one side

- open the claw

- lower the arm slowly, with the 2 big cylinders

- extend the arm with telescopic function

- close the claw and take some materials (sand, anything)

- raise the arm slowly

- rotate the crane to have the claw above the bucket

- lower the arm and retract the telescopic section

- open the claw, drop slowly what you picked up before

- close the claw, raise the arm, and rotate the crane on the side you want

- rise the bucket

- do not forget to open it at the back

- lower the bucket

- close the back

- fold the crane in the bucket (rotate it abowe the bucket, then lower it carefully)

- outtriggers up, then in.

- finally, interruptor off.

Kill me now...

[allanp]

When I get one I'll give it a go, and I will succeed. It'll take some practice for sure but that's part of the fun .

We all have different tastes and whilst the challenge may not seem fun to you it does seem like fun to me. Technic models come in a variety of "difficulties" for playing with and building, just like computer games and I am glad they are not all super easy. I also wouldn't underestimate the ability of a 12 y/o to get the hang of it very quickly, their brains are like a sponge at that age, at least more so than us adults. It just needs to be something they are genuinely interested in and they will get it. I have played some computer games that are really difficult in parts, like killing the wither in minecraft, then you go an youtube to get some hints and see some 12 y/o blaze through it like it's nothing!

Moreover, I sincerely doubt that the goal of a Lego set it too have something difficult so that a kid needs 2 weeks before being able to use it properly... I played quite a lot with 42043, and I can not imagine a 12 yo kid controlling it correctly...

Using it properly? Controlling it correctly? Is that to the standard of an adult trained operator as your sequence requires? It's not like the kid playing with it is on the clock to get the job done. If a kid is just having fun with just fooling around with all the different controls then it's being used properly. If the kid wants to really operate it in a precise sequence as you describe then he can accept that challenge if he wishes, and really it's not that difficult, it's just memorising a new sequence which is something kids can do better than adults.

[Corvette3]

And yet if had just a couple fewer functions, we would be lamenting about Technic sets getting too simple... sorry i'm in a bit of a cynical mood about not being able to get one for a while

[Appie]

Using it properly? Controlling it correctly? Is that to the standard of an adult trained operator as your sequence requires? It's not like the kid playing with it is on the clock to get the job done. If a kid is just having fun with just fooling around with all the different controls then it's being used properly. If the kid wants to really operate it in a precise sequence as you describe then he can accept that challenge if he wishes, and really it's not that difficult, it's just memorising a new sequence which is something kids can do better than adults.

^This

Lego is made with plenty of fail safes to prevent "incorrect use". Including this set. Not sure why you even want to a do a sequence with a max of 20 seconds intervals unless, like allanp said, you want to challenge yourself. Fail challenge? No worries, Lego fail safe <insert "clutch gear/LA clutch/whatever" here> go. As for memorising a sequence? Come on! Remember old sets? That stuff didn't even come with stickers to explain what each crank or switch did and in what direction! Considering I don't put stickers on any of my current sets (except the Tumbler which has no funtions besides looking awesome), I still have to memorise which switch does what. Takes a couple of minutes?

And yet if had just a couple fewer functions, we would be lamenting about Technic sets getting too simple... sorry i'm in a bit of a cynical mood about not being able to get one for a while

^and this.

Lego did an awesome job with the sheer amount of functions in this set and I wish to see more sets packed with functions in the future.

[Blakbird]

I think back to 8862 which had 4 cranks and 3 pneumatic valves, and I find that the difficulties are quite similar to this. Those cranks and levers are all unlabeled and figuring out which ones to use is not obvious. That does not stop if from being one of my favorite 88xx series sets. In fact, it is because of that complexity that I like it so much. I don't have 42043 so I reserve judgement until it is available, but I predict that I will be happy about the complexity.

I actually found 8110 to be quite difficult to use, especially the PPTO.

Note that performing motions without "errors" would be a lot easier with the stickers applied to show you what the controls do. This is true for most modern multi-function models. It took me forever to make this animation right (watch the pneumatic switches)!

[efferman]

I think that the"control problems" , which are really minor problems, could be easyly solved when the pneumatic controls and the controling for the turntable would be on one place, for example on the roof of the cab.

[Foggy]

Blackbird, i have the same problem with the 8455....that has even the pneumatic outriggers :D

Ayway, i don't mind if i make a mistake or 2, it's a good reason to re start again :D :D

[Blakbird]

Blackbird, i have the same problem with the 8455....that has even the pneumatic outriggers :D

Ayway, i don't mind if i make a mistake or 2, it's a good reason to re start again :D :D

Pneumatic switches when arrayed in a big pile are not very intuitive. A dual stick controller like on Jennifer Clark's JS220 excavator can suddenly make controlling 4 functions very easy indeed. The locations of controls on the 42043 are obviously chosen for easy of build, not for ease of use. The gearbox controls are right by the driving rings, and the pneumatic controls are all at the base on the crane to avoid hoses through the turntable or long supply lines. It would be a good technical challenge to try to optimize for ease of use instead without altering any of the actual functionality. Nathanael Kuipers' latest supercar is a good example of logical control of a gearbox from a remote location mechanically. Jurgen Krooshoop also has some excellent controllers for his models. The controller for his ultimate Backhoe is a good example.

[dhc6twinotter]

I think the complexity is great, but the playability of some models can be confusing, particularly when pneumatics and motorized functions are mixed. Both my nephew and I were pretty bad at controlling 42008, and i suspect 42043 will be the same.

The problem is that the pneumatic valves are logical to operate, but mixing easy to use pneumatics with PF functions that require us to select a function and switch the battery box is confusing. I really like the method LEGO used to set up the gearbox in the new crane, and if they can use the same method for all other sets going forward, they would greatly improve the playability.

[Foggy]

Even if " Looks like it is possible to lower the crane slowly by carefully controlling the valve." (As blakbird noticed) do you think is possible to replace the cylinder with an LA, maybe with the bed one so we put the cylinder in the bed? But i think that with all the tubes at the base of the crane....would be a hard try...

[TheItalianBrick]

Even if " Looks like it is possible to lower the crane slowly by carefully controlling the valve." (As blakbird noticed) do you think is possible to replace the cylinder with an LA, maybe with the bed one so we put the cylinder in the bed? But i think that with all the tubes at the base of the crane....would be a hard try...

it's not about how hard it would be or not....it's about "having a sense or not" doing it! You will end up having to switch between pneumatic/L motor simply for 1 "non pneumatic function".....simply insane! playbility would go down!

this without considering that there is no space for a shaft in the middle of the turntable right now!

Andrea

[Anio]

I think the complexity is great, but the playability of some models can be confusing, particularly when pneumatics and motorized functions are mixed. Both my nephew and I were pretty bad at controlling 42008, and i suspect 42043 will be the same.

Very true.

For example, the 8455 with 7 pneumatic switches is much easier to control than 42043.

[davidmull]

I'm still unsure why it bothered no one that the arm (second 2x11 cylinder) when fully extended is not straight!

[efferman]

it is only room for optimization, why we should bothering?

[davidmull]

it is only room for optimization, why we should bothering?

True maybe bringing 1 stud forward would fix?

[Anio]

I think the arm is good as it is.

Sure you can modify the arm so that it opens farther and so it is straight. But :

- it will not change the range of the arm (5 mm maybe...)

- and on the contrary, it will probably prevent you from reaching the front of the bucket.

[efferman]

absolutely no problem. even with shorter Rams

[TheItalianBrick]

absolutely no problem. even with shorter Rams

True, but with longer cylindres you get more lifting power due to the longer levers!

[Anio]

True, but with longer cylindres you get more lifting power due to the longer levers!

Yes. And you can also control the movement more precisely.

[efferman]

i have played a bit around

100_1491 by Michael Wirth, auf Flickr

[TheItalianBrick]

i have played a bit around

100_1491 by Michael Wirth, auf Flickr

I've already made 3 cranes with the new pneumatics....as soon as we get them I'll show you Efferman! I know you love foldable cranes! Mines will also fit on the Arocs, but they uses 9 pneumatic cylinders!!

Edited July 10, 2015 by LuxorV