Is using SBrick cheating?

[Carefree_Dude]

I was really wanting to build a steam engine using the new PF2.0 system with bluetooth, but due to a lack of motors so far, and so far seeming inferior to what PF1.0 has to offer, I am thinking of doing original powerfunctions instead. The problem is though that i can't figure out a good way to include the receiver. Sbrick is looking very tempting as I can just hide it in the build. Do you feel it's cheating to use a non-lego element like this? 

Also, are there any cheaper alternatives to S brick? 

[Hod Carrier]

I think it depends entirely on how you feel about it. When you consider how prevalent third party parts are, such as wheels and valve motions, and how acceptable it appears to be to use non-LEGO parts, like Arduino modules and Kadee couplers, I think choosing to use an SBrick instead of PF or PU really shouldn’t cause you to lose too much sleep.

[Foreman]

I wouldn't use it Myself, but I wouldn't hire Ninja Pirates or Pirate Ninjas over it.

[dr_spock]

Depends on how LEGO pure you want to be.     It's your hobby and it's really up to you.  Unless it is something like a contest with specific LEGO content rules.

Cheaper alternatives would be build your own.  Micro-controllers, bluetooth modules and motor drivers are really inexpensive from China.  For the price of a S-brick, you can make several of your own if you are into that sort of thing.

 

[supertruper1988]

I feel that for trains there will never be support from LEGO to have things that make our LEGO trains more than toys. I dont support cutting or gluing or painting pieces but some use of things like S-Brick controls, BrickTracks curves, 4Dbrix switch components, Trained Bricks driving rods and valve gear, etc are inevitable if you want to have LEGO models of real trains and good track components to run them on. 

If you must stick to LEGO then you are going to have to make compromises from a scale perspective. 

[zephyr1934]

The SBrick is great because it can deliver more power than the PF IR receiver (I think it is 2x), which helps a lot for heavy trains, long cars on standard curves, etc.. Though the fact that you can completely hide it is equally good. The UI has a small learning curve to set up, but once you have figured it out, it has a lot of flexibility.

On the purist side,  if you are building a big steamer and don't mind the slow speed of XL motors, here is a pure lego solution that I have not been able to stop (it will pull magnets apart, and if you use super magnets it will pull cars off the tracks on tight curves)

It looks like this with the tender built on it

I've also built a version inside of a boxcar, though I did not take any photos.

[Redimus]

You can do that on the *HUGE* US designs, but European, especially British, nah, not a chance. 

For me, Sbrick was the perfect solution, now, I wanna try out the new system before I decided if I want more Sbricks or to move over to Lego's system.

[andythenorth]

It's not cheating.  It's just expensive ?

 

[hallidaynick]

I don't see it as cheating. 

LEGO make the trains for kids, the PF system is great I love it but the IR side of it is poor. In order to control a large layout at a show or even at home, I see Sbrick as the best way forward. 

When we use IR at shows we have to run around the tables to stop trains before or after a crash etc its a pain. With Sbrick we just use the tablets we have from anywhere around the layout and even further away and it works. 

[Paperinik77pk]

Well - sincerely I used IR on many of my MOCs, and I simply find them very limited. Sbrick is another planet - you don't have to think about the receiver's position (and transmitter position too) - so it is a big deal, especially in small designs! 

[Ashi Valkoinen]

It is not cheating, but a really good offer for our train hobby. Multiple motors served from same port (and SBrick actually allows 3A per output!), synchronising outputs or different SBricks for multiple locomotive or EMU/DMU traction. I use currently 6 of them, but plan for more.