New Powered Up motors: implications to trains

[Henry 991]

Hi,

I just came across some drafts what the new PU L and XL motors might be like.

https://racingbrick.com/2019/05/powered-up-update-technic-hub-l-xl-motors-revealed/

The new motors seem much bulkier than the current PF motors. Both L and XL have grown is size. However, I don’t expect their performance to have improved as it wasn’t the case in the previously launched PU motors. What this implies is that the new motors’ power generation density is way down.

That is not good news for our train MOCs. Fitting required power into the train designs will be harder with PU motors.

E.g. new XL motor is 8 studs long vs. PF XL 6. It means that you cannot do portal mounting in tender. Also, the motor is boxier than the PF. That suggests that having the new XL mounted in the boiler will be hard. I.e. I cannot see if you can fit it even on a 1:48 Big Boy boiler as it square profile doesn’t leave space for support beams and cables.

Overall, I will probably opt for continued use of PF motors due to these packaging issues in the PU power units.

Also, I hope that BrickTrax, PFBrick or some other 3rd party would create a compact and powerful motor. Like L-sized or M-sized but XL-torque. If you look at the RC e-glider motors, they have “horsepower” class motors that are not more bulkier than our small LEGO motors. Of course the metal gears etc. are expensive, ++100 USD.

Edited August 14, 2019 by Henry 991

[ShaydDeGrai]

I appreciate what they seem to shooting for with Powered Up, but between the form factors, the reliance on Bluetooth and the (in my opinion unhealthy) fixation with integrating smart devices, I think they are really opening the door for third parties to come up with more viable alternatives.  Certainly, there are things that the PU system can do that PF can't, but I personally don't want to do those things on a regular basis.  I don't want to pay for a bigger, more expensive (but less powerful) motor with a shaft encoder if I'm not actually going to use it as a servo.  I don't want a high interactivity UI (with a lot of Bluetooth chatter) in order to run my train; if I'm at a show I want to turn the blasted thing on and turn my attention to the other 20 trains I'm trying to set up.

And, honestly, do they realize how fickle app development has become?  The App Stores don't want to support anything but the latest version of the OS's and every time I "upgrade" half my apps get screwed up.  When I think about the problems TLG had keeping things like the RoboLab and Lego Studios Movie Maker (and camera driver) up to date on the the (comparatively) stable Windows PC platform, I'm more than a little paranoid about where their "smart device" integration software is going to be a decade from now.  I've got a 9v speed controller from 1991 that's still working today, I can't say that about most software I've owned.

The whole system just seems like they were trying to make the fringe cases possible and forgot to make the common use cases simple and practical.

Maybe it's time to stock up on PF motors and battery boxes before they are phased out entirely - I think this is going to be a rough transition.

[Henry 991]

I’m also considering stacking up the PF motors. With the third party controllers (FX Brick, S-Brick), 2-3S lipo batteries and the PF motors, I don’t think I need PU.

Actually the opposite, it might be that the old PF platform is more capable in the train use case.

I have a stock of around 8 XL motors and 6 L motors. I plan to bring it to around 15+10 over the next months.

That should be enough to continue building scale trains.

[Carefree_Dude]

Also, currently these motors are designed only to be used for specific purposes; you have to use them as intended in the app. You also cannot connect these to the AAA battery box trains use, as they will not work. 

 

[sed6]

8 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

I appreciate what they seem to shooting for with Powered Up, but between the form factors, the reliance on Bluetooth and the (in my opinion unhealthy) fixation with integrating smart devices, I think they are really opening the door for third parties to come up with more viable alternatives.  Certainly, there are things that the PU system can do that PF can't, but I personally don't want to do those things on a regular basis.  I don't want to pay for a bigger, more expensive (but less powerful) motor with a shaft encoder if I'm not actually going to use it as a servo.  I don't want a high interactivity UI (with a lot of Bluetooth chatter) in order to run my train; if I'm at a show I want to turn the blasted thing on and turn my attention to the other 20 trains I'm trying to set up.

And, honestly, do they realize how fickle app development has become?  The App Stores don't want to support anything but the latest version of the OS's and every time I "upgrade" half my apps get screwed up.  When I think about the problems TLG had keeping things like the RoboLab and Lego Studios Movie Maker (and camera driver) up to date on the the (comparatively) stable Windows PC platform, I'm more than a little paranoid about where their "smart device" integration software is going to be a decade from now.  I've got a 9v speed controller from 1991 that's still working today, I can't say that about most software I've owned.

The whole system just seems like they were trying to make the fringe cases possible and forgot to make the common use cases simple and practical.

Maybe it's time to stock up on PF motors and battery boxes before they are phased out entirely - I think this is going to be a rough transition.

Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth. Very well said sir!

[dr_spock]

3 hours ago, Goldenmasamune said:

Also, currently these motors are designed only to be used for specific purposes; you have to use them as intended in the app. You also cannot connect these to the AAA battery box trains use, as they will not work. 

 

A PF AA battery box powering the PU train motor.  An adapter would need to be made to connect the two together.  I got similar results with the PU M motor.  It would be interesting to see if that also works with the PU XL and L motors. 

 

[Roadmonkeytj]

47 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

 

 

Man that thing runs like a raped ape!

[zephyr1934]

12 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

I appreciate what they seem to shooting for with Powered Up, but between the form factors, the reliance on Bluetooth and the (in my opinion unhealthy) fixation with integrating smart devices, I think they are really opening the door for third parties to come up with more viable alternatives.  Certainly, there are things that the PU system can do that PF can't, but I personally don't want to do those things on a regular basis.  I don't want to pay for a bigger, more expensive (but less powerful) motor with a shaft encoder if I'm not actually going to use it as a servo.  I don't want a high interactivity UI (with a lot of Bluetooth chatter) in order to run my train; if I'm at a show I want to turn the blasted thing on and turn my attention to the other 20 trains I'm trying to set up.

One of the worst bits of PU is that they do not have a dumb battery box. I want a windmill (or what not), but I NEED the separate control (remote or phone) and I NEED to be connected to keep the blades turning. Would much prefer to flick a switch to turn the battery box on.

[Tcm0]

1 hour ago, zephyr1934 said:

One of the worst bits of PU is that they do not have a dumb battery box. I want a windmill (or what not), but I NEED the separate control (remote or phone) and I NEED to be connected to keep the blades turning. Would much prefer to flick a switch to turn the battery box on.

There have already been pictures (but more like concept art) of a technic battery box that has the same size as the technic hub

Edited August 15, 2019 by Tcm0