Power Functions V2 receiver not in new sets?

[mocbuild101]

While looking to buy a PF V2 receiver (58123bc01) I realized that it is only in 9398 and 41999 (both 4x4 crawlers), but is not in later sets like 42030 and 42065.

I have been confused by this because I thought that it was suppose to replace the old receiver (58123c01).

One thing I thought was that the insides were changed but they didn't have V2 printing, but why I don't know.

 

Hopefully someone knows what's going on!

[Aventador2004]

The v2 does not work with xl or m motors. That is why.

[technic_addict]

Just now, Aventador2004 said:

The v2 does not work with xl or m motors. That is why.

Where did you hear that?  I had zero issues with using XL motors

[Aventador2004]

I heard it somewhere but don't remember where. Maybe they had wrong info.

[Jay Psi]

The V2 receiver was created because running two L-motors on the same V1 receiver would draw more current than it could handle (~1A). For most uses the V1 is fine, and probably a bit cheaper to produce given it uses a more capable motor driver.

As always, Philo is the go-to for all the technical comparisons and details.

[agrof]

I am not 100% sure, but I remember it was mentioned before, that Grohl (Milan Reindl) confirmed an upgrade on most recent IR receivers - so basically they are better than the old V1-s, without the problems  of the V2. I can not find now that discussion... and wouldn't bet on it.

Maybe Philo could test a brand new one, than it would be official. 

Edited April 13, 2017 by agrof

[Philo]

1 minute ago, agrof said:

Maybe Philo could test a brand new one, than it would be official. 

Problem is to be sure to get a new one... But I'll have a look at the receiver when I get a new set including it! (and at the battery box too, I got reports that its internal construction has changed).

1 hour ago, Aventador2004 said:

The v2 does not work with xl or m motors. That is why.

The problem occurs only with the M-motor, not the XL one. Noise suppressing capacitor in the M-motor is far too large, causing high current surges that fools V2 motor driver into believing that it's output is shorted. Generally V2 works fine with only one M-motor, but not with two M-motors on the same output.

[mocbuild101]

14 minutes ago, Philo said:

Problem is to be sure to get a new one... But I'll have a look at the receiver when I get a new set including it! (and at the battery box too, I got reports that its internal construction has changed).

The problem occurs only with the M-motor, not the XL one. Noise suppressing capacitor in the M-motor is far too large, causing high current surges that fools V2 motor driver into believing that it's output is shorted. Generally V2 works fine with only one M-motor, but not with two M-motors on the same output.

That problem with the capacitor could possibly mean that the M-motor was changed too.

[Philo]

Just now, mocbuild101 said:

That problem with the capacitor could possibly mean that the M-motor was changed too.

Unfortunately I don't think so. Or rather... it was changed, but is no longer PF-compatible: https://brickset.com/sets/45303-1/WeDo-2-0-Medium-Motor

[Aventador2004]

Ok, maybe it is just the m motor. They are no different. I have a 2012 m motor and a 2017 m motor and they both work the same.

[ifilin]

2 hours ago, mocbuild101 said:

While looking to buy a PF V2 receiver

I've bought several SBricks, and they work very well, even in sunny and snow weather. :)

I tnink, SBricks are better than IR V2, and price is lower.

[kolbjha]

4 hours ago, ifilin said:

I've bought several SBricks, and they work very well, even in sunny and snow weather. :)

I tnink, SBricks are better than IR V2, and price is lower.

I see that the price for one SBrick now is $59. In addition, you will need a PF extension cable ($3 in S@H from US). Assuming that we need 2 x PF IR Receiver + 2 x PF IR Remote to replace this. These components will cost $49 in S@H. So all in the LEGO PF IR solution is cheaper.

Buying PF IR Receiver V2 on Bricklink will cost apx. $20, even then the cost will be more or less the same as the pure LEGO S@H solution.

Saying this, I agree that SBrick is a more powerful solution than PF IR.

Edited April 13, 2017 by kolbjha

[ifilin]

8 hours ago, kolbjha said:

Buying PF IR Receiver V2 on Bricklink will cost apx. $20

Minimal price in BL in Europe now is 35 Euros with excluded VAT for NEW IR V2. Anyway SBrick is coolest. :)

[mocbuild101]

14 hours ago, Philo said:

Problem is to be sure to get a new one...

I just remembered how to know when it was made, the production code stamped on all PF parts!

For those of you who don't know how to read them, the code is made of 3 numbers and 1 letter e.g: 06K2, which means the 6th week of 2012.

12 hours ago, ifilin said:

I've bought several SBricks, and they work very well, even in sunny and snow weather. :)

I think, SBricks are better than IR V2, and price is lower.

I think that SBricks are much better too but I don't own a device that can control them, which makes it much more expensive for me.

[Homersapien]

how can I check which IR receiver I have? to see if it's V1 or V2?

[Cwetqo]

If it says "V2" on front size it's V2, otherwise it's V1.

 

 

@Philo: had you tried disassembling and testing "new" V1? I mean the on which blinks when you power it on. Grohl said that it should have similar (good) properties as V2.

[Richard Dower]

The prices for the V2 receiver are quite insane, i think this is why 9398 has helf its value and actually gone UP in price, new or second hand.

The V2 receiver + the other PF parts make it a must have set.

[kolbjha]

3 hours ago, ifilin said:

Minimal price in BL in Europe now is 35 Euros with excluded VAT for NEW IR V2. Anyway SBrick is coolest. :)

You are right! My bad, I saw BL prices world wide and didn't include VAT. But as somebody else have mentioned here, perhaps the new PF Receiver has the good stuff from V2. That would change the price picture, as you then (I suppose) could get it from S@H. Anyway, I just tried to comment the price pictures for the different alternatives, not discussing other aspects of SBrick. I use SBrick a lot my self (I have 5 of them), and think it is brilliant!

[syclone]

My problem with the IR receivers is that a buggy motor is too much for them . You get 5 minutes of play , but then the receiver overheats and you have to let it cool down . I think one of my receivers broke due to that 

[Philo]

3 hours ago, Cwetqo said:

had you tried disassembling and testing "new" V1? I mean the on which blinks when you power it on. Grohl said that it should have similar (good) properties as V2.

AFAIK, LED blinking is related to firmware revision, not to hardware revision. Quoting release notes of IR protocol 1.1 (current version is 1.2):

Quote

October 2009: LEGO release update 1.1 of the infra-red protocol used by Power Functions

Here is the notice accompanying the document:

The LEGO Group has released a new version of the LEGO Power Functions RC Receiver (identified by a short blink on the green LED when power is connected). The new version of the RC Receiver supports all functionality of the LPF RC protocol and we have added a command to access the extra address space.

We are hereby offering you an updated version of the LPF RC protocol documentation. Please feel free to use any information from the protocol document for personal, non-commercial use only, provided you keep intact copyright, trademarks and other proprietary rights of the LEGO Group.

Gaute Munch, The LEGO Group

 

[mocbuild101]

1 hour ago, LXF said:

My problem with the IR receivers is that a buggy motor is too much for them . You get 5 minutes of play , but then the receiver overheats and you have to let it cool down . I think one of my receivers broke due to that 

You must have been using a V1 receiver, V2 receivers don't have that problem (in fact that is why I got a V2 for!).

[Philo]

11 hours ago, mocbuild101 said:

I just remembered how to know when it was made, the production code stamped on all PF parts!

For those of you who don't know how to read them, the code is made of 3 numbers and 1 letter e.g: 06K2, which means the 6th week of 2012.

Interesting, but something must be wrong: I have PF receivers stamped 22K7 and clearly these are NOT from 2017 (might be 2007 instead!)

[TechnicRCRacer]

10 hours ago, Philo said:

have PF receivers stamped 22K7 and clearly these are NOT from 2017 (might be 2007 instead!)

I am pretty sure that they are from 2007 because the new ones would be "22X7" (If they are made in the future). Anyway, I heard something somewhere that the new sets would have "modified V1" receivers in them instead of V2.

[mocbuild101]

10 hours ago, Philo said:

I have PF receivers stamped 22K7 and clearly these are NOT from 2017 (might be 2007 instead!)

Yes I think they are from 2007, but not having a 2017 set with PF parts (yet!) I can't confirm it.

[kbalage]

On 4/13/2017 at 4:36 PM, Philo said:

Problem is to be sure to get a new one... But I'll have a look at the receiver when I get a new set including it! (and at the battery box too, I got reports that its internal construction has changed).

The problem occurs only with the M-motor, not the XL one. Noise suppressing capacitor in the M-motor is far too large, causing high current surges that fools V2 motor driver into believing that it's output is shorted. Generally V2 works fine with only one M-motor, but not with two M-motors on the same output.

@Philo did you manage to test the new IR receivers since then? I'm doing some tests now with V2 receivers and some new non-V2 ones. I have one from 42065 and one from 42070 (both from 2016) so they supposed to have a newer design, but in a similar situation like you've tested them with the buggy motor the V2 still performs visibly better.

Like the others I thought the design was upgraded and the new ones supposed to have a similar performance like V2 had but I have doubts now.