Longer rams? I love pneumatics much more than LA's, but don't the current larger pneumatic cylinders produce enough length? Not the ones on the 9397 Logging Truck, but the normal size, thinking 8455 Backhoe or 8439/59/64 Front-End Loader. However, I do see something must be amiss as I read the 2nd page first and it looks like it was bad information? I wouldn't mind a bit more length in some sets that had LA's since they did have rams that were longer than a pneumatic piston. Would be interesting if this came to pass, as the summer sets are probably already in production and packing, so it would probably at earliest be an early or spring 2013 release if true?
allanp, on 01 April 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:
Here's the statement from TLG!
"Dear adult Lego technic fans,
We have decided to reward the loyalty of our most hardcore fans by introducing a new part just for you. We have searched long and hard though the many ideas put fourth by Lego fans and found many many great ideas, it was tough to decide which one would not only open up the most new possibities, but also the one that the loyal fans wanted most. We have eventually decided that the longer pnaumatic cylinder is the one, we hope you will be happy with this choice.
But fear not if this is not your most wanted new item, as every year at Easter time, we will be annoucing a new part. These parts will be released first though S@H, and then later incorporated into actual sets in the following years. So keep posting those ideas guys, we really appreciate your passion for Lego technic!
The tech team"
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY I CANT WAIT TO GET THESE!!!!
I guess they'll be coming out soon as they did say Easter, could be this week. I WANT PICTURES!
Has anyone else heard anything about this?
Just had a thought and a bit off topic, there are some models that really needed 2 LA's, the 8295 Telehandler and the 8053 Mobile Crane, they really needed an LA on each side of their respective booms, more like the 8043 Excavator had for raising the boom. Unless motorized, and really both the first models I alluded to, had no choice but to be motorized with PF, and with a XL-motor instead of the M-motor, the 8295's boom was way too heavy for even an M-motor to raise. Best setup, I added a 2nd LA and an XL-motor neatly into the compartment in back where the M-motor was set to be mounted after I realized it was under way too much strain, and the boom needed more torque to lift it up. Even as first assembling the 8295 and attaching the boom to the superstructure, I could envision lifting issues. One other thing I did was use more axles and longer liftarms to raise the boom higher, just low enough for it to fit into the 'cradle' at the front of the machine. Raised much easier after all those mods.