2027 - Technic 50 year anniversary

[Repkovsky]

12 hours ago, yqc said:

Oh, please. Not another system incompatible with all the others. Just stick with PU now, it has data and power transmission.

But just why? Why do we need a new system? Power Functions was not ideal, as it didn't feature data transmission. But PU imo just had everything it needs to be a full electronics system.

To clarify - better new electronics, than PU in the state of decline. PU is ideal in terms of having a lot of options for people able to use them, but it might be just too much for most of applications and since versatility comes at the cost - also too expensive for TLG to maintain.

[Timorzelorzworz]

F1 Williams and F1 BMW is very likely in 2027 to extend the 1:8 Bolide series.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

3 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

F1 Williams and F1 BMW is very likely in 2027 to extend the 1:8 Bolide series.

Technic doesn't need another F1, it needs an F5!

/badumtss

Edited June 29 by Ngoc Nguyen

[HydroWorld Outlook]

On 6/29/2026 at 12:06 AM, yqc said:

But just why? Why do we need a new system? Power Functions was not ideal, as it didn't feature data transmission. But PU imo just had everything it needs to be a full electronics system.

Not everything. The Powered UP system naturally requires a screen with the exception of only two components (the Powered UP Simple / Dumb Technic Hub and LEGO Powered UP Train Remote (from post-2019 City Train sets)) which are both extremely expensive and limited in usefulness relative to legacy Power Functions 1.0 components. We all know this as a community because we were complaining left and right when LEGO first announced their intentions to replace versatile, stackable-plug Power Functions with Powered UP, and the monetary values of past LEGO Power Functions hardware spiked upwards all throughout the aftermarket because so many people preferred the original system over the new system.

Consequently, LEGO received all kinds of negative customer feedback from people like us about Powered UP due its dependency on digital devices, which was a major issue among parents in particular. Given all that backlash surrounding the Powered UP system for its dependency on smart devices, I wouldn't be surprised if discontinuing the consumer-facing Mindstorms line to focus on educational Spike Prime was part of LEGO's response to that feedback, and now their pivot away from mandating screen use entirely. Even if feedback wasn't yet as widely internalized across The LEGO Group when Mindstorms retired, customer dissatisfaction towards screen-dependent toys was certainly a factor that led to the introduction of LEGO Smart Play.

So like I said in my previous post, the writing is undeniably on the wall. It really wouldn't be that surprising since there are too many coincidences: Powered Up components are retiring quickly, the Spike Prime system that succeeded Mindstorms is being discontinued, and LEGO literally just revealed Smart Play earlier this year. Smart Play is scheduled to deploy in several autumn sets releasing in August as well. Smart Play branding is currently geared toward system themes, but the overall direction and business strategy is becoming increasingly clearer: LEGO is moving away from screen-based systems.

Given that the new Technic electronics in the Computer Science & AI LEGO Education kits do not depend on a smart device (though can be used with one) to function and operate using a decentralized framework, it is only logical that LEGO would apply this same philosophy, or a similar one, to consumer-facing sets going forward for consistency and production efficiency, for it is cheaper to maintain and expand a single electronics system, hardware framework, and branding across their entire portfolio of powered sets than it is to command many smaller separate, segregated systems that are incompatible with one another.

In summary, all this evidence supports my original prediction that, especially given that 2027 will mark exactly two decades since the initial introduction of the original LEGO Power Functions system in 2007, along with five decades (or a half century) since the initial introduction of the LEGO Technic line, it would be the most reasonable time to wipe out any remaining parental uncertainty regarding LEGO Smart Play by introducing a whole new related electronics system for Technic that does not require a smart device.

Hopefully this makes sense.

Edited July 1 by HydroWorld Outlook

[yqc]

You're mixing up two things in your post:

• What PU can do with it's current components
• What PU could theoretically do

And here lies my point: the current phone-dependent implementation of PU is not ideal. But to fix that, we don't need a new system, which would make PU outdated again. We can use PU for that purposes as well. PU is completely reliant on Bluetooth, so any remote control with an arbitrary amount of buttons, switches, etc. could easily be added into the system. Even remote controlled motors with their own batteries would be possible using the current system and of course, you might add a NFC sensor brick, which could replace the Smart Brick functionality.

I'm not saying, that this is what Lego will do, that's just what is my opinion on another new system. Your evidence seems very logical, that Lego will make a new electronics system.

But honestly, I can't see Smart Play being used in any Technic set, as it's base brick just doesn't have any connection possibilities with other parts in that system. They're more like their independent system like sirens in Duplo for example. And I very much doubt this'll be changed. Rather a completely new electronics system for motorized sets.

[idlemarvel]

With the current implementation of PU, along with Pybricks you can remove the need for a screen based device, at least in "use mode" if not "program mode".

[Jundis]

15 hours ago, HydroWorld Outlook said:

Technic that does not require a smart device.

There is a real discrepancy for Lego:

If they (re-)introduce an analog control without a smart processor unit, how should it control more complex vehicles, which not only have drive and steering? It can't destinguish the inputs, especially when there is a second smart battery box used. So you would need you mobile phone to interconnect the control unit with the battery box, making it more cumbersome for just a play function.

A more complex controller like console controllers with smart processor and small display to select what model you are controlling would be way more expensive and shy away costumers.

Really not sure how Lego could solve this dilemma.

Maybe partner up with Sony or Nintendo to do the second option? Just release models without the smart controller and make it an extra? Like the "smart brick" in some models?

[dhc6twinotter]

The beauty of PF is the connectors.  It was compatible with all the old 9V stuff, and it was popular with the GBC crowd.  Still is.  Old train controllers worked well with it.  Multiple motors and lights could be stacked on the same ports.  We had cable extenders.  And switches.  It was a well thought out system, and got even better with the introduction of the servo motor.

I don't care about being able to program my models.  If I did, I'd buy a NXT or whatever.  I hate programing.  I spend all day at work on a computer, and the last thing I want to do is go home and try to program a LEGO model that I spent hours building.  I've tried to use the PU app to program simple things (servo rotate axle 90 degrees and put on a blue light)....won't work.  Maybe more tutorials and instructions from TLG would be helpful here. 

My only complaint with PF is the IR didn't work great in bright light, and the IR receivers were bulky.   If TLG went back to bang-bang remotes and integrated the receivers (RF or Bluetooth) in the battery box, I'd be happy.  It was nice to be able to just hook stuff up and it worked.

As far as controlling more complex models, just go back to toggle switches to set the port settings, like PF did. 

PU isn't great, and I think TLG's diminishing PU products shows it isn't very popular.  Whoever came up with the system obviously didn't think about those of us who build our own stuff. 

Maybe I'm just getting old and don't like this newfangled stuff. 

Edited July 2 by dhc6twinotter

[HydroWorld Outlook]

On 6/29/2026 at 12:12 PM, Repkovsky said:

To clarify - better new electronics, than PU in the state of decline. PU is ideal in terms of having a lot of options for people able to use them, but it might be just too much for most of applications and since versatility comes at the cost - also too expensive for TLG to maintain.

Precisely. LEGO Powered UP had many flaws that its predecessor system did not, and the original LEGO Power Functions system was presumably too limited and outdated in capability for LEGO to expand it into what it's successor system became. Now LEGO needs to strike a balance and bridge the advantages of both electronics systems to create a new one that uses modern technology without being a burden to those without devices. The new Computer Science & AI Kit hardware seems to be the closest match we have to what they may be planning for Technic sets going forward, so we can use it as a guide to predict what Technic sets might employ starting next year.

5 hours ago, idlemarvel said:

With the current implementation of PU, along with Pybricks you can remove the need for a screen based device, at least in "use mode" if not "program mode".

Unfortunately, Pybricks is third-party to LEGO. Therefore, LEGO cannot and will not use Pybricks unless they buy or license hardware from the company, which is extremely unlikely.

16 hours ago, yqc said:

You're mixing up two things in your post:

• What PU can do with it's current components
• What PU could theoretically do

And here lies my point: the current phone-dependent implementation of PU is not ideal. But to fix that, we don't need a new system, which would make PU outdated again. We can use PU for that purposes as well. PU is completely reliant on Bluetooth, so any remote control with an arbitrary amount of buttons, switches, etc. could easily be added into the system. Even remote controlled motors with their own batteries would be possible using the current system and of course, you might add a NFC sensor brick, which could replace the Smart Brick functionality.

That I can understand, but why would LEGO take so many steps to wipe the slate clean again if they knew Powered UP still had potential and could expand it to address these issues? Clearly there is something bigger that led to their decision to wipe the slate clean and start fresh with a new system, or they wouldn't be rocking the boat by deliberately ridding themselves of their Spike Prime Education program and other PU hardware.

Unfortunately, we must remember that at the end of the day LEGO is still a business with overhead costs and fiduciary responsibilities. As a for-profit entity, you can only continue to sell something your customers don't want for so long before it becomes a corporate liability, and by now the Powered UP electronics system has likely reached that breaking point after nearly over 7 years of overwhelmingly negative feedback LEGO received regarding its app dependency.

That feedback led to the introduction of LEGO Smart Play for system-based sets, most likely to test the concept of non-screen-dependent hardware in lower-risk model applications (licensed sets) before translating similar technology into higher-risk original, nonlicensed products and more expensive-to-develop models like those in their Technic line. 

You are correct that Smart Play may not be directly used as branding for the new Technic electronics system that will succeed Powered Up, but it is extremely unlikely that LEGO will continue building upon that electronics system when they have clearly already hit a brick wall (no pun intended) and arrived at the executive decision to call it quits on Powered Up. Otherwise, they wouldn't deliberately sunset the hardware and everything that goes along with it.

1 hour ago, dhc6twinotter said:

My only complaint with PF is the IR didn't work great in bright light, and the IR receivers were bulky.   If TLG went back to bang-bang remotes and integrated the receivers (RF or Bluetooth) in the battery box, I'd be happy.  It was nice to be able to just hook stuff up and it worked.

As far as controlling more complex models, just go back to toggle switches to set the port settings, like PF did. 

PU isn't great, and I think TLG's diminishing PU products shows it isn't very popular.  Whoever came up with the system obviously didn't think about those of us who build our own stuff. 

Maybe I'm just getting old and don't like this newfangled stuff. 

It's not just you. I very deeply sympathize with this perspective, though LEGO would have made this change and maintained Power Functions back in 2019 if they thought that original system still had potential. Unfortunately, they took a different route and introduced Powered Up instead, so based on the fact that they are now retiring PU hardware left and right and wiping their software from app stores, I can't imagine they intend to keep it around that much longer. Based on the evidence we are clearly seeing and are continuing to see at this point and time is much more probable than not that a new electronics system is on the way to replace it. Again, though, this is only a theory and we won't know anything for certain until the 2027 sets start to be revealed in a few months.

Edited July 2 by HydroWorld Outlook

[yqc]

40 minutes ago, Jundis said:

A more complex controller like console controllers with smart processor and small display to select what model you are controlling would be way more expensive and shy away costumers.

One could also think of integrating it into the battery box instead. So a more complex PU battery by similar to the ones in Mindstorms NXT/EV3, which has different programs and ideally fetches a new program from the cloud when a new Lego set with that is released. Then you could select a program and the Hub knows what to do with inputs from the remote.

[gyenesvi]

7 hours ago, Jundis said:

Really not sure how Lego could solve this dilemma.

I agree, I have been thinking a lot about the best solution for this issue, and the more I think about it, the more I believe there is no clear cut solution; some compromise is needed.

6 hours ago, dhc6twinotter said:

My only complaint with PF is the IR didn't work great in bright light, and the IR receivers were bulky.   If TLG went back to bang-bang remotes and integrated the receivers (RF or Bluetooth) in the battery box, I'd be happy.  It was nice to be able to just hook stuff up and it worked.

As far as controlling more complex models, just go back to toggle switches to set the port settings, like PF did. 

This sounds simple at first, but it's not. The crux is that having those toggle switches for channel selection only worked because of simple separate two-port IR receivers and overly basic bang-bang controllers with two parallel joysticks (not really good for steering). Once you want to improve those, which is definitely required, than you loose the simple config option. So I think the crux of the problem is the configurability. And then the core question is where to put the configurability; into the controller (like RC transmitters), or into the hub (like PU / Buwizz / SmartBrick)? The problem with putting it into the controller is that it would be prohibitively expensive to include with each RC set. So the only option is to leave it to the hub. But then the next problem is that if there is a cheap/dumb physical controller, how could that connect to multiple hubs? And where does the config happen then?

I think the only way out is to have a one-to-one connection; one cheap/dumb controller and one hub that has enough ports in case of large models, and is configurable. Of course there could be smaller and larger hubs for different model sizes, but then again it's more expensive. Config could happen through Bluetooth, from a single BT enabled web browser interface that works on all kinds of devices and is simple to maintain. Config could be done without programming, and there could be predefined profiles for sets and for basic setups like simple drive and steer models.

An interesting direction that could be further explored I think is the separation of drive motors and servos. Most functions don't need powerful motors; those could be reserved for drive, and all others could be run through angular and speed servos, which exist in small form factors, and have their control circuits integrated, so don't need speed controllers inside the hub; thus can have many output ports in a small space (a small RC receiver can run 5-6 servos). Would be interesting to see how that would impact builds. A hub with 2 power outputs for drive and 6 servo ports for other functions would be really interesting.

[HydroWorld Outlook]

21 hours ago, Jundis said:

There is a real discrepancy for Lego:

If they (re-)introduce an analog control without a smart processor unit, how should it control more complex vehicles, which not only have drive and steering? It can't destinguish the inputs, especially when there is a second smart battery box used. So you would need you mobile phone to interconnect the control unit with the battery box, making it more cumbersome for just a play function.

A more complex controller like console controllers with smart processor and small display to select what model you are controlling would be way more expensive and shy away costumers.

Really not sure how Lego could solve this dilemma.

Maybe partner up with Sony or Nintendo to do the second option? Just release models without the smart controller and make it an extra? Like the "smart brick" in some models?

14 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

I agree, I have been thinking a lot about the best solution for this issue, and the more I think about it, the more I believe there is no clear cut solution; some compromise is needed.

This sounds simple at first, but it's not. The crux is that having those toggle switches for channel selection only worked because of simple separate two-port IR receivers and overly basic bang-bang controllers with two parallel joysticks (not really good for steering). Once you want to improve those, which is definitely required, than you loose the simple config option. So I think the crux of the problem is the configurability. And then the core question is where to put the configurability; into the controller (like RC transmitters), or into the hub (like PU / Buwizz / SmartBrick)? The problem with putting it into the controller is that it would be prohibitively expensive to include with each RC set. So the only option is to leave it to the hub. But then the next problem is that if there is a cheap/dumb physical controller, how could that connect to multiple hubs? And where does the config happen then?

I think the only way out is to have a one-to-one connection; one cheap/dumb controller and one hub that has enough ports in case of large models, and is configurable. Of course there could be smaller and larger hubs for different model sizes, but then again it's more expensive. Config could happen through Bluetooth, from a single BT enabled web browser interface that works on all kinds of devices and is simple to maintain. Config could be done without programming, and there could be predefined profiles for sets and for basic setups like simple drive and steer models.

An interesting direction that could be further explored I think is the separation of drive motors and servos. Most functions don't need powerful motors; those could be reserved for drive, and all others could be run through angular and speed servos, which exist in small form factors, and have their control circuits integrated, so don't need speed controllers inside the hub; thus can have many output ports in a small space (a small RC receiver can run 5-6 servos). Would be interesting to see how that would impact builds. A hub with 2 power outputs for drive and 6 servo ports for other functions would be really interesting.

Or better yet, a hub with no ports at all. The latest LEGO Technic-based electronics hardware components introduced in the LEGO Education Science & AI kits are completely cordless, meaning that all communication between them relies on wireless connections rather than conventional hard cables. Although I can understand from other users' comments that the exact hardware presented in LEGO Education Computer Science & AI may not necessarily appeal to Technic builders at this time, please hear me out when I say that the introduction of wireless electronics may actually be one of the best-case scenarios, if not the best possible case scenario, for a Powered UP replacement or Power Functions 3.0 system. Just think about it for a minute—with past electronics systems, we were first limited by the maximum number of connected components a power supply could handle from a single port (Power Functions 1.0), and later limited by the physical number of ports on a central hub (Powered Up / Power Functions 2.0).

Now, with this new electronics system, provided that it is modeled off of the new LEGO Education hardware, the physical/hard connections between the motor and power supply are effectively eliminated because there is no central power supply—only a central host device (and sometimes a master hub unit element) that receives commands from the remote control and distributes them across slave components, similar to how past Bluetooth and Bluetooth-Low-Energy Daisy Chaining systems worked for large EV3 and Spike Prime models prior to the discontinuation of LEGO Mindstorms. Each component in Computer Science & AI has its own separate, independent power supply and wirelessly connects with a host device. In theory, depending on how well this new electronics system is designed, a much higher—if not indefinite—number of components can all wirelessly connect to the same host device or hub and still run at full power, since they aren't sharing the same physical power supply and battery life. Wouldn't it be nice to build a model as large as the Liebherr Excavator or Crawler Crane with many motors that only needs one power hub versus two or several, and no cable management, as was previously required by Powered UP? That would simplify constructions dramatically, even if it meant that it was initially more expensive to build than it would be with a standard corded system.

Yes, charging so many components separately can become a pain fairly quickly, but we always have to pick and choose our tradeoffs. I don't know about the rest of you, but I would think that particular tradeoff is worth it provided that the rechargeable battery packs are affordable and replaceable (or at least reasonably priced), and provided that we're getting higher quality and better performance for the money we're spending on motorized LEGO sets (and if that balance is successfully achieved, we can thank the absence of a central, expensive physical power supply like we had for Powered UP). That's a high bar of an expectation, I know, but it can be done if LEGO was smart about development from an early stage. Although other users here are correct in pointing out that designing a new LEGO electronics system in this manner can be a major liability if not executed well by The LEGO Group, it can also be a significant advantage that gives this successor system a massive edge over the preceding Powered UP and Power Functions systems in the sense that it provides more flexibility for builders, eliminates frustrating/annoying cable management, and thus reduces overall long-term costs to the user (relative to inflation) by avoiding dependence on smart devices and fast-deprecating software. 

For LEGO Technic sets in particular, I agree that the current electronics introduced for the Education Computer Science & AI lineup of kits would not be sufficient by themselves in their current state, and we would definitely need to see components with greater Technic-based connections (whereas the Education hardware has studded surfaces) and significantly greater power output and utility on the motors' part. We would also need to see the introduction of wireless LEGO LED lights and an upgraded remote unit, or at least a module that can be appended to the existing remote, to provide sufficient proportional control and hopefully tactile feedback for operating RC models. The arrival of new, similarly-cordless or hybrid corded-and-cordless LEGO Technic-tailored hardware components designed to fulfill the above-said criteria is what I strongly believe we are likely to witness in 2027, but again, this is only a predictive theory for now based on the concrete evidence accessible to us at the present time, and we won't know anything for certain until the official sets are revealed.

Edited July 3 by HydroWorld Outlook

[pleegwat]

Do we know if the new motors with integrated battery can run while a charging cord is connected? Would it be feasible to use standard USB components to distribute power throughout a larger model, with permanent wall hookup for GBC and similar fixed installations?

[HydroWorld Outlook]

2 hours ago, pleegwat said:

Do we know if the new motors with integrated battery can run while a charging cord is connected? Would it be feasible to use standard USB components to distribute power throughout a larger model, with permanent wall hookup for GBC and similar fixed installations?

Excellent question and very solid points. Unfortunately, we currently do not yet know, though based on what we are currently seeing, this is very highly probable for the Education hardware and most likely to become the standard for future consumer-facing Technic hardware. Given that the existing LEGO Education Computer Science & AI hardware already uses USB-C ports, it really wouldn't be all that surprising if LEGO ceased using proprietary ports and plugs entirely and fully transitioned to USB-C connections all across the board. Lucky for us, the European Union has already enacted blanket common charging directives requiring that anyway, and USB-C is becoming increasingly common on consumer devices worldwide. If LEGO does choose to scrap all proprietary plugs and ports in favor of USB-C, allowing any compatible cords or charging devices to work with future electronics components they release, whether for charging, power, data, or all three, that would be a massive step forward for everyone, both in terms of affordability and convenience. 

While slightly less likely than a fully-cordless system, another possibility that should be entertained (which I wish I had mentioned in my previous comment) is that, in addition to using USB-C cables for charging components, it may also be possible to connect said cables between the central power/Bluetooth receiver unit and the motors, or even between components. This framework would effectively create a balanced hybrid corded-cordless LEGO electronics system, where motors can both accept a physical wire from a central power supply AND run wirelessly via its internal or removable rechargeable battery, or even by a separate, clip-on receiver module. Although technical compromises would still be necessary regardless, and the physical hardwire-connection concept would be similar to that employed by Powered UP (thus limiting its usefulness), the option for wireless connections between components would naturally bypass these limitations. Therefore, a new hybrid LEGO electronics system like this may be the absolute best-possible case scenario for a Powered UP successor as it would successfully bridge the gap between heavy-duty vehicles, compact builds, and permanent GBCs or other such installations like yours. Let's keep our fingers crossed that this is the case, but like I said before, we won't know for certain until we're close enough to the official reveal window for the 2027 sets.

Edited July 3 by HydroWorld Outlook

[msk6003]

4 hours ago, pleegwat said:

Do we know if the new motors with integrated battery can run while a charging cord is connected?

No it can't. Tested.

That is another reason why CS&AI system is SUCK.

And there is one more surprisingly serious problem with this system that no one on the forum has noticed yet: the fact that each individual motor contains a battery means that to charge the model, you need either a multi-headed cable or a massive amount of cables. With the former, the length of the split ends would be an issue, and with the latter, a charger with multiple ports is required Which usually people don't have it at home. in both cases, it implies that a spiderweb-like mass of cables is required just to charge a single model. As for CS&AI's solution? TLG include ONLY ONE type c cable in each set(remind CS&AI need to charge 4 component) and released a spider-shaped charger. But because the price was so high relative to its functionality, my company didn't even bother to bring it in.

We also can't leave out the fact that the individual price of the motor has become at least twice as expensive as that of the Spike Prime.

While the ability to control multiple motors simultaneously is certainly an advantage compared to any other system, its other drawbacks are too severe. This system is BAD for general use outside of educational applications.

Edited July 3 by msk6003

[R0Sch]

3 hours ago, msk6003 said:

No it can't. Tested.

That is another reason why CS&AI system is SUCK.

And there is one more surprisingly serious problem with this system that no one on the forum has noticed yet: the fact that each individual motor contains a battery means that to charge the model, you need either a multi-headed cable or a massive amount of cables. With the former, the length of the split ends would be an issue, and with the latter, a charger with multiple ports is required Which usually people don't have it at home. in both cases, it implies that a spiderweb-like mass of cables is required just to charge a single model. As for CS&AI's solution? TLG include ONLY ONE type c cable in each set(remind CS&AI need to charge 4 component) and released a spider-shaped charger. But because the price was so high relative to its functionality, my company didn't even bother to bring it in.

You mean this? Not LEGO's fault you didn't buy their cheap 150 bucks spider chargers 45623 / 45624 :)

[pleegwat]

12 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

You mean this? Not LEGO's fault you didn't buy their cheap 150 bucks spider chargers 45623 / 45624 :)

Actually, in Europe, it is. USB is universal. That's why it's mandated. There can not be a requirement that recharging during use is only possible using first-party hardware.

[R0Sch]

9 minutes ago, pleegwat said:

Actually, in Europe, it is. USB is universal. That's why it's mandated. There can not be a requirement that recharging during use is only possible using first-party hardware.

Who said it's against EU regulation or only possible to charge using their hardware? You can just plug every motor in your own usb charger and deal with the cable mess or buy the multi-charger with or without transformer for convenience only. Usually wireless devices are charged when not in use because the batteries will not overheat.

[pleegwat]

The point I'm trying to make is about having the motor plugged in during use. If you're running a GBC all day at a show, you don't want to swap out the motor for a charged one every few hours (or likely more often). And you do not want to disassemble your model to recharge the motor if it's not easily accessible.

[Plumber]

All a very interesting debate but I think it misses the point, Lego have had a solution to this dilemma for decades by running basic motors for lego modellers and the 'education' theme hardware and software for those inclined in that direction

Dumb motors and battery boxes for those who just want simple motorisation of mechanical function eg 9V, PF

Programmable motors/controllers and sensors for those more interested in automation/coding RCX,NXT,Mindstorms, Spike,Prime or whatever the latest fad is

The intermediate ground for RC vehicle models seems to be comprehensively covered by some excellent third party products already

The issue I see with PU was that it attempted (unsuccessfully) to standardise hardware across all use cases and forces screens and coding onto the masses that have no interest in this aspect and object to needing a smart device

Compound this with the rat race (huge resource) to keep up with (maintain compatibility/functionality) the ultra consumerism that smart phones embody, the lack of timely/adequate documentation, and the (relative) high cost hardware and I think it was always doomed in current form

My suggestion is that PF concept should be updated to offer Lipo battery boxes (as well as traditional replaceable cell type), radio (not BT) receivers based on standard RC technology that can  offer longer distance control, proportional control of the PF servo (maybe make the servo continuously proportional rather than just 7 steps) via either a basic Lego control or function with third party RC world controllers for those that want more facility

It seems to me that all the above  is mature tech sold at consumer price and availability  meaning it could be accomplished with off the shelf hardware/designs packaged in a Lego housing with ease!

As far as  a new family of the 'robotics' coding/programmable hardware goes I can't really comment byond saying that I suspect the answer lies in a similar pattern of adopting currently circulating technology that already does what people want, I have words like Ardiuno and Raspberry Pi floating in my mind :-) 

[Toastie]

1 hour ago, Plumber said:

My suggestion is that PF concept should be updated to offer Lipo battery boxes

PF >was< updated to that technology, perfectly by TLG!

And as you said, with technology in fully mature state. To the extent that TLG's PF #8878 LiPo box could be charged during operation without any problems. Well, every cell phone can do that since more than "a" decade. I did such a study for my trains 16 years ago, as I replaced some 9V battery boxes with #8878 boxes. It was on the expensive side, but TLG was >for sure< totally overcharging. As they did with their preposterous "10V" charger for that box. No other company ever used a 10V charger, but TLG did. Implying you need to do so. However, #8878 charged with any wall wart rated 9 - 18V DC:

So there are two issues: 1) TLG can do it - but 2) doesn't want to - anymore. It is up to them, why not.

Best
Thorsten 

Edited July 3 by Toastie

[Plumber]

Thanks for the info and the link - my bad - never owned one (8878) and only ever seen it described as rechargeable and assumed was NiCad or metal hydride like an 88000 with rechargeable AAA cells - every day a school day 

To clarify the general thrust of my suggestion, I meant a battery box of high capacity and high current capability as seen in RC world since afaik  a frequent complaint/observation re PF is the battery box is current limiting which in today's world is a design choice at the power levels /loads we are discussing

More generally, we agree that almost all the negative aspects of the PF system could be solved by updating with mature off shelf components/tech, why they didn't??? Anyone's guess! I reckon it's bitten them on the big behind though  and played into the hands of the third party generic PF manufacturers

 

[Toastie]

13 minutes ago, Plumber said:

I reckon it's bitten them on the big behind though

Well - my take is that TLG, for any time in their existence - and regarding anything else than ABS pieces - did this "pull the plug" business when the cow seemed to be milked dry. Or: When something else is proposed to make more profit, as the believers of the TLG Church will follow regardless of what's happening. We had 4.5V, then 12V, then 9V in all its dumb variety including PF, then in its smart variety, but only for so long. You could always camouflage that as "new tech needs new LEGO". So we had RCX, NXT, EV3, PUp including all their weirdly named smart bricks. They were all so powerful, but >never< really "exploited", heck, the line follower is just one example, the turtle in TC Logo from 1996 could do that. OK, there were cables back then.

My take is that TLG is (has to) always using third parties to do the electronics. Of course they do, ABS is ABS. Once done with the new product, they already lose interest. Well, they really lose it when sales tank or profit shrinks. So here we are: We have the "Smart Brick", which may be a cool seller as of now, but will be replaced for sure by the super smart "system", when the smart brick tanks, profit-wise.

I believe it is not about being behind, it is about making less money - within the community that follows, regardless of what's thrown at them. Third parties, well, they'll make their share for sure, TLG just moves on to a bigger share.

Best
Thorsten    

[HydroWorld Outlook]

8 hours ago, msk6003 said:

No it can't. Tested.

That is another reason why CS&AI system is SUCK.

And there is one more surprisingly serious problem with this system that no one on the forum has noticed yet: the fact that each individual motor contains a battery means that to charge the model, you need either a multi-headed cable or a massive amount of cables. With the former, the length of the split ends would be an issue, and with the latter, a charger with multiple ports is required Which usually people don't have it at home. in both cases, it implies that a spiderweb-like mass of cables is required just to charge a single model. As for CS&AI's solution? TLG include ONLY ONE type c cable in each set(remind CS&AI need to charge 4 component) and released a spider-shaped charger. But because the price was so high relative to its functionality, my company didn't even bother to bring it in.

We also can't leave out the fact that the individual price of the motor has become at least twice as expensive as that of the Spike Prime.

While the ability to control multiple motors simultaneously is certainly an advantage compared to any other system, its other drawbacks are too severe. This system is BAD for general use outside of educational applications.

Okay, then I retract my previous statement in regards to the Education products specifically as physical testing always overrides theoretical predictions. However, this does not preclude future consumer-facing LEGO electronic components from possessing this capability.

4 hours ago, pleegwat said:

Actually, in Europe, it is. USB is universal. That's why it's mandated. There can not be a requirement that recharging during use is only possible using first-party hardware.

Precisely correct. That's exactly what I explained before. See the European Common Charger Directive here for more information.

3 hours ago, pleegwat said:

The point I'm trying to make is about having the motor plugged in during use. If you're running a GBC all day at a show, you don't want to swap out the motor for a charged one every few hours (or likely more often). And you do not want to disassemble your model to recharge the motor if it's not easily accessible.

That I can sympathize with, but based on the new information received from @msk6003, who owns the physical product, that is unfortunately not possible using the current hardware. Again, however, that does not preclude future LEGO electronics from having this capability.

3 hours ago, Plumber said:

All a very interesting debate but I think it misses the point, Lego have had a solution to this dilemma for decades by running basic motors for lego modellers and the 'education' theme hardware and software for those inclined in that direction

Dumb motors and battery boxes for those who just want simple motorisation of mechanical function eg 9V, PF

Programmable motors/controllers and sensors for those more interested in automation/coding RCX,NXT,Mindstorms, Spike,Prime or whatever the latest fad is

The intermediate ground for RC vehicle models seems to be comprehensively covered by some excellent third party products already

The issue I see with PU was that it attempted (unsuccessfully) to standardise hardware across all use cases and forces screens and coding onto the masses that have no interest in this aspect and object to needing a smart device

Compound this with the rat race (huge resource) to keep up with (maintain compatibility/functionality) the ultra consumerism that smart phones embody, the lack of timely/adequate documentation, and the (relative) high cost hardware and I think it was always doomed in current form

My suggestion is that PF concept should be updated to offer Lipo battery boxes (as well as traditional replaceable cell type), radio (not BT) receivers based on standard RC technology that can  offer longer distance control, proportional control of the PF servo (maybe make the servo continuously proportional rather than just 7 steps) via either a basic Lego control or function with third party RC world controllers for those that want more facility

It seems to me that all the above  is mature tech sold at consumer price and availability  meaning it could be accomplished with off the shelf hardware/designs packaged in a Lego housing with ease!

As far as  a new family of the 'robotics' coding/programmable hardware goes I can't really comment byond saying that I suspect the answer lies in a similar pattern of adopting currently circulating technology that already does what people want, I have words like Ardiuno and Raspberry Pi floating in my mind :-) 

This I can resonate and agree with. It is extremely unfortunate that LEGO has not yet created a solution that embraces all of this potential.

[msk6003]

13 hours ago, Plumber said:

The issue I see with PU was that it attempted (unsuccessfully) to standardise hardware across all use cases and forces screens and coding onto the masses that have no interest in this aspect and object to needing a smart device

Although it has little problem like don't have physical controller and high price but standardise hardware of PU/C+ system is already perfect. Main problem of PU/C+ is software.

From Spike to C+, all the software in this system operates independently. It is the default for features supported in one software to not be supported elsewhere, some software cannot be shared, and as of this month, even the Robot Inventor software, which previously supported the above, is completely unavailable for download.