mocbuild101

Power Functions V2 receiver not in new sets?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I thought this was made clear by Lego long ago: the V2 receiver was only developed for using PF L motors and was introduced together with them. It's not supposed to replace the V1, it's not an upgrade, it's just a version optimized for running 2 PF L motors off one output, like in the 9398 Crawler and 42030 Front Loader sets. It works perfectly fine with most motors except PF M, since PF M should be used with the V1 receiver. So, to answer the question in the title, you're not going to see the V2 receiver in any new sets unless these sets are using PF L motors.

Edited by Sariel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sariel not sure where/when that was made clear by Lego, I'm just curious do you have a source? The "official PF FAQ" only says this about the V2 receiver:

The IR Receiver V2 has an improved motor driver giving you lower power loss and longer battery lifetime.
Currently, the IR Receiver V2 is only available in the 9398 4x4 Crawler.
The IR Receiver V2 can be recognized by a V2-print added on the front.

There's also a statement cited here coming from Lego that blames the M motor design for the issues and promises an upgrade to the M motor rather than ditching the V2 receiver for further sets. Apparently the designers changed their mind and did not release an upgraded M motor for the favor of keeping the V2 receiver as probably no other officially motorized sets needed the abilities of the V2 receiver ever since. Even though 42030 had V2s on the cover, the box had V1 receivers in it.

Anyway I think to original question is not really relevant now as we have PF 2.0 coming, I'm pretty sure there won't be any new sets with the V2 IR receivers.

I'm still wondering if there were any enhanced non-V2 receivers released after the V2s or the design remained the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is still a bit more complex. In my latest MOC, I used 2 L-motors and 1 Servo-motor with the latest version of IR receiver (ordered directly from LEGO in 2017, 20N7 is written on it). It works without any issue, with the same setup as in 9398. So I am still interested what has been improved, what are the real differences (output voltage, cut off value, etc..) between V1 / V2 / V1_upgraded.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kbalageAs far as I know V2 receivers are printed "V2" so most probably LEGO reverted to old design because of M-motors problems. Unfortunately I have no receiver from recent sets so I can't tell for sure. You could try to open yours, needs to be careful when pulling the circuit board but it's not very hard (see here http://www.philohome.com/pfnxtremote/pfnxtrem.htm). You can then see the type of motor driver used...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, agrof said:

I think it is still a bit more complex. In my latest MOC, I used 2 L-motors and 1 Servo-motor with the latest version of IR receiver (ordered directly from LEGO in 2017, 20N7 is written on it). It works without any issue, with the same setup as in 9398. So I am still interested what has been improved, what are the real differences (output voltage, cut off value, etc..) between V1 / V2 / V1_upgraded.

 

Same gearing, drivetrain and same overall weight?  Using two L's with servo has no issues when there is less resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Philo said:

@kbalageAs far as I know V2 receivers are printed "V2" so most probably LEGO reverted to old design because of M-motors problems. Unfortunately I have no receiver from recent sets so I can't tell for sure. You could try to open yours, needs to be careful when pulling the circuit board but it's not very hard (see here http://www.philohome.com/pfnxtremote/pfnxtrem.htm). You can then see the type of motor driver used...

I have V1 receivers with 3 different production dates between 2015 and 2017 and I took one V2 to compare with. All V1 receivers I checked have the LB1836M driver chip. Unfortunately I don't have a V1 receiver that is "pre-V2" for sure, but if the driver chip is the main difference then I don't think these ones will perform any better. Took some photos, probably you recognize something that I don't :)

V2 "40K2" side 1 / V2 "40K2" side 2

V1 "36N5" side 1 / V1 "36N5" side 2

V1 "31N6" side 1 / V1 "31N6" side 2

V1 "20N7" side 1 / V1 "20N7" side 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@technic_addict Hard to judge how the friction influence inbetween - but could be a good idea to get a 9398 and test with different receivers, good hint!

@kbalage Do You have a spare 9398? :classic: Btw, I didn't expected V2 to be so much different.

Actually, just comes in my mind: I had 8043 with 2x V2 receivers (came from original sealed box), and worked flawless with 4 M-motors. Unfortunatelly I already sold it, but what the heck than with V2 and M-motors?

EDIT: asked photos from current owner of my ex-8043, see below. He also claims no issue with it during the play.

800x517.jpg800x600.jpg

Edited by agrof
added pics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@agrof I'm planning to test the different receivers with my 9398, I'm curious now - feel free to join :)

It's interesting to hear you had 8043 with V2s, I thought that came before 9398 and with V1s only.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 8043 was made by TLG in 2012 (checked via LA's to see if the set I just bought didn't have the old version LA's) and also has 2 V2 IR recievers out of the box. They worked fine with the 4 motors.

As for the mention that a V1 can handle 2L's and 1 servo, I remember testing this about 5 years ago and while it did work perfectly fine you could notice a difference in rpm and torgue. I also noticed such a difference when building Sheepo's Wrangler and swapped the IR reciever V1 for the XL and M with a V2 and the drive (XL) became alot better/faster.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, kbalage said:

I have V1 receivers with 3 different production dates between 2015 and 2017 and I took one V2 to compare with. All V1 receivers I checked have the LB1836M driver chip. Unfortunately I don't have a V1 receiver that is "pre-V2" for sure, but if the driver chip is the main difference then I don't think these ones will perform any better. Took some photos, probably you recognize something that I don't :)

Thanks for the photos/confirmations. The PCBs of your V1 receivers are slightly different from the old pre-V2 ones (photos on my remte receiver page), but all use the same LB1836M chip so performance should be very similar.

As a side note, the number above the channel switch is most probably a date code of PCB manufacturing, well in sync with LEGO date code on the case:

36N5 PCB was done in 2015 week 22

31N6 PCB was done in 2016 week 23

20N7 PCB was done in 2017 week 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@agrof I did a quick test with my 9398 and the V1 receivers I have here (including yours from 2017) have a worse performance than the V2 receiver. This supports the assumption that no design change/upgrade was made to them. It was a quick test on a slope, the vehicle was able to climb it with the V2 but could not do it with all the others. I'll do some more tests with different motor/receiver combinations and probably show it in my next PF tutorial video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are closer, but still we have no black and white picture, what IR receiver does what exactly, and than we also have the contradictory saying and reality with the V2 & M-motor combo.

I just don't get it, why is it not revealed by TLG yet, must be super secret... :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need to upgrade V1 fo TLG. It is easier for TLG and customers not to release sets with 2x L motors that work fro one output simultaneously. They keep things simple. V2 can give more current on load, and 9398 with new L motors was the only reason they released v2. Just a temporary salvation for Power Function. And after 9398, V2 receivers that left on factory stock was packed in other sets instead v1 receiver.  LTG learn a lesson and then came back to V1 forgetting V2 as a bad dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rm8 said:

forgetting V2 as a bad dream.

Weird choice of words. Personally having a V1 as only option would be my bad dream. 8 out of 10 cases the V2 is simply better to use for the stuff I want to use an IR receiver for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Appie said:

Weird choice of words. Personally having a V1 as only option would be my bad dream. 8 out of 10 cases the V2 is simply better to use for the stuff I want to use an IR receiver for.

I don't choose words, I use my head:wink:. Compatibility with M motors (most popular motor in PF lineup)  is more important than supporting 2x L motors from one port.  More, if you have a contract with suppliers for V1 components for many years forward, you think twice before change that contract exchanging v1 to v2, especailly when V2 is not perfect exchange. More I can say, I heard a lot about broken V2 receivers (not broken wire), and no compains about v1.

Edited by rm8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, rm8 said:

I don't choose words, I use my head:wink:. Compatibility with M motors (most popular motor in PF lineup)  is more important than supporting 2x L motors from one port.  More, if you have a contract with suppliers for V1 components for many years forward, you think twice before change that contract exchanging v1 to v2, especailly when V2 is not perfect exchange. More I can say, I heard a lot about broken V2 receivers (not broken wire), and no compains about v1.

Isn't the compatibility issues with M-motors only when you put more than 1 on a channel? Meanwhile I notice a difference in performance from M (using 1) to XL between using a V1 reciever or a V2 as mentioned before by me and others in this topic. So the difference doesn't only show on 2x L motor. So the question is more: how many times do you use 2 M-motors on 1 channel? For every other instance the V2 is the better choice imo.

Edited by Appie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.