NEW LEGO Powered Up motor test

[Sariel]

I've had a chance to compare the new LEGO Powered Up motor from the 76112 set against the PF motors. There's a number of differences. It remains to be seen whether LEGO intends to replace the PF system with the PU system or to keep them coexisting.

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by Sariel

[shadow_elenter]

Nice video

I must say, I hoped I just missed some information about the new PF system or something, but I'm afraid after seeing this all hope is lost...

I don't see any reason to want these motors or any part of the PF2.0 eco system.

The non-stack-able connectors are just a mistake in my eyes...Why change a winning team?!
The fact that a battery box/receiver only has room for 2 motors is just a deal breaker for me!
If anything you'd expect the losing of stack-able connectors would result in more ports on the receiver end, not less! 

If we were to gain something like steppen motors as seen in the mindstorms sets that might be worth while, but what did we actually get that was an improvement?

[PunkTacoNYC]

I like the better bracing. I do hope there will be some sort of extension hub for the wires.

The real question is if we will get a PoweredUp SBrick or BuWizz...

Also, is it the PoweredUp ecosystem that allows low-level programming - like the SBrick Plus? Or was it Wedo, or Boost? 

why's there so many?

[jorgeopesi]

Interesting thank you forthe review.

[Andy D]

This is only the first step into the Powered Up motor set. For what it is, I think it is pretty good. Yes, there needs to be some better expansion options for using more motors and LEDs and such.

I really like all the mounting options.  I am not going to be quick to judge, I am in a wait and see mode.

Thanks for the video and review, it really highlights the currently available functions.

Andy D

[Bublehead]

Thanks for the review, @Sariel. This is pretty much everything we all fear wrapped up in one place.  

[TechnicRCRacer]

Stock up on PF while you can! I finally got myself to replace my broken servo motor 

Seriously, I don’t like the PU system very much. (Unless they make a monorail 2.0)

[pleegwat]

I don't want to judge before I've at least seen a technic model with it. They're quite unlikely to use this hub in a technic model since it's studs-only without pinholes.

I do think though they're going to need a good set to sell the new system on.

[dr_spock]

Thanks for the review.  The new motor seems better suited for stronger System build mounting than the old M motor was.  It was somewhat of a challenge to mount the M-motor strongly without using Technic pieces. 

I am not going to stock up on PF motors.  I have enough burnt out GBC motors that I could probably desolder the PF connector cables and recable the new motors for PF.  Just have to send power to the electric motor on C1/C2, don't need the ID pins nor the 9V power lines.

 

[Bublehead]

My fear is that the Boost hub is more or less what the Technic version of PU will be like. 2 internal motors, two external ports, total of 4 motorized functions in a model. Let’s you do drive, steer plus two other functions... including LEDs, that’s pretty much more than any Technic model has ever used to date...  yeah, this is where Technic PU is headed. You couple the fact that hubs can be linked, and you just keep adding hubs and motors until you get what you need.  Never mind having to shoe horn in the space for every hub in your model... just means you have to build bigger models, right? @shadow_elenter, you should love the new PU then. 

[andythenorth]

2 hours ago, Bublehead said:

My fear is that the Boost hub is more or less what the Technic version of PU will be like.

Bet you money it's not.  Internal motors would seriously restrict model integrations, it's not going to happen.  Boost is Boost, Technic is Technic. 

You can't run more than 4 motors simultaneously off a PF battery box anyway, if you value performance   All my big 4+ motor PF MOCs have had 2 or 3 battery boxes.   The train-style PU battery box actually saves space, by ditching the IR controller, which also eliminates a poorly performing (power limited) component in PF.  

So PU is probably a win, but as usual, some AFOLs fear change.  I don't mean that as a criticism, just 'it is what it is'. 

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by andythenorth

[Sariel]

2 hours ago, andythenorth said:

Bet you money it's not.  Internal motors would seriously restrict model integrations, it's not going to happen. 

Ahem, anybody remember these? Happened just a few years ago:

[TechnicRCRacer]

6 hours ago, Sariel said:

Ahem, anybody remember these? Happened just a few years ago:

 

Oh, I got one when it came out! It’s not too restricted because it is meant for only one purpose.

[Saberwing40k]

17 hours ago, shadow_elenter said:

Nice video

I must say, I hoped I just missed some information about the new PF system or something, but I'm afraid after seeing this all hope is lost...

I don't see any reason to want these motors or any part of the PF2.0 eco system.

The non-stack-able connectors are just a mistake in my eyes...Why change a winning team?!
The fact that a battery box/receiver only has room for 2 motors is just a deal breaker for me!
If anything you'd expect the losing of stack-able connectors would result in more ports on the receiver end, not less! 

If we were to gain something like steppen motors as seen in the mindstorms sets that might be worth while, but what did we actually get that was an improvement?

This is exactly what I am thinking. We lose a lot of functionality, and gain very little. Why could Lego not just make a PF bluetooth hub, like what we actually want?

10 hours ago, andythenorth said:

So PU is probably a win, but as usual, some AFOLs fear change.  I don't mean that as a criticism, just 'it is what it is'. 

 

It's not that we fear change. It's that there is a change, where we lose a lot of functionality, and backwards compatibility, and gain nothing. Having to use hubs and splitters to stack connections would be very annoying, and you have to buy an extra part to do it, and you lose the ability to use any of you PF motors without, again, adapter cables. And, again, what do we get? Nothing. It's not us fearing change. It's the fact that Lego is not changing the system for the better.

[Bartybum]

I'm sure they'll bring more/improved PU components out in the coming years - we didn't get the entire Lego PF lineup at once.

[Sariel]

5 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

I'm sure they'll bring more/improved PU components out in the coming years - we didn't get the entire Lego PF lineup at once.

Yeah, but I'm concerned about the prices. If you search S@H, they're already selling Powered Up version of LEGO LEDs and it costs nearly TWICE as much as the original PF one:

https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/LEGO-Powered-Up-LED-Light-88005

https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/LEGO-Power-Functions-Light-8870

[zoo]

29 minutes ago, Sariel said:

Yeah, but I'm concerned about the prices. If you search S@H, they're already selling Powered Up version of LEGO LEDs and it costs nearly TWICE as much as the original PF one:

https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/LEGO-Powered-Up-LED-Light-88005

https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/LEGO-Power-Functions-Light-8870

Could it be that the research and development costs for the PF LEDs have largely been covered compared to PU LEDs, which is a new part? There could also be supply vs demand in work here. Due to the need to offer spare parts, the production of the PF ones might need to go on for a while longer, in turn taking space in the production line from the new PU alternative.

[Bartybum]

1 hour ago, Sariel said:

Yeah, but I'm concerned about the prices. If you search S@H, they're already selling Powered Up version of LEGO LEDs and it costs nearly TWICE as much as the original PF one:

https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/LEGO-Powered-Up-LED-Light-88005

https://shop.lego.com/en-GB/LEGO-Power-Functions-Light-8870

For me they're almost the same price:

https://shop.lego.com/en-AU/LEGO-Powered-Up-LED-Light-88005

https://shop.lego.com/en-AU/LEGO-Power-Functions-Light-8870

Don't know why PU are more expensive though. It's probably H Y P E and marketing megablocks.

 

[dr_spock]

19 hours ago, Sariel said:

Ahem, anybody remember these? Happened just a few years ago:

Yes, I still have one.  I haven't used it much lately. 

5 hours ago, Bartybum said:

For me they're almost the same price:

https://shop.lego.com/en-AU/LEGO-Powered-Up-LED-Light-88005

https://shop.lego.com/en-AU/LEGO-Power-Functions-Light-8870

Don't know why PU are more expensive though. It's probably H Y P E and marketing megablocks.

 

It is $8 vs $12 here.  You pay for the extra pair of wires, ID resistor, new connector.

 

[M_longer]

2 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

You pay for the extra pair of wires, ID resistor, new connector.

There's nothing more needed for LED lights than 6 wires :D

[Saberwing40k]

Oh joy, this is exactly what I was worried about. PU is more expensive than PF, and we get nothing out of the bargain.

[Bublehead]

On 9/8/2018 at 11:36 AM, andythenorth said:

Bet you money it's not.  Internal motors would seriously restrict model integrations, it's not going to happen.  Boost is Boost, Technic is Technic. 

A gentleman’s wager of $1 dollar?  Here is my thinking... Upper management says we need to reduce costs and consolidate our R&D on educational, system, Technic, Trains, and edu-tainment power function development. So we are going with the Wedo/Boost platform and all TLG will adopt this platform for powered functionality.  Ok, could I build a Technic model with the Boost brick and possibly but not necessarily (at most) one more smart hub?, yep, it is possible. Well, when faced with going to upper management and saying Technic needs something different/better/bigger, do you think they will say, sure, get right on that? Or would they say, “use the Boost brick. End of discussion.”? I figure Boost has two external ports to run external motors too, so integration will be some functionality near the brick, and port driven external motors for remote mounted functions. But I hope you are right and I am wrong.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Bublehead

[andythenorth]

16 hours ago, Bublehead said:

A gentleman’s wager of $1 dollar?

Ok, forum can witness that bet 

Boost brick (I have actually got one) doesn't fit any recognisable strategy for PF-equipped Technic models, except for the tracked racer.   

The internet will make this seem more argumentative than I intend it, so read it with smilies eh? 

The PF strategy has been:

• one motor, demonstrating multiple functions via a switching gearbox
• multiple motors for a highly playable RC-style model

There are a few exceptions, but they're outliers (e.g. motor for a single function).  These two approaches are highly marketable, and require either

• a single motor SKU to be included (not two motors in one SKU)
• multiple motor SKUs to be be included (which can be featured on the box art and in marketing as 'includes xyz') 

The idea of forcing Technic to use exclusively the Boost hub literally makes no sense as a product strategy. 

• there is already a separate motor SKU equivalent to PF M
• Trains already has a battery box and receiver SKU with no integrated motors
• all product design and marketing would be tied to the very fixed locations of the Boost motor BI points
• the Boost hub uses System studs BI points, which is very limited for current Technic studless meta

So if you win the bet and all future Technic sets use the Boost hub, I will buy you the most expensive and get it shipped to you.  Your stake can remain at $1 

[Bublehead]

@andythenorth, that is some conviction there.  But to be honest, I really want to lose this bet .  But maybe to clarify my position, I think what we will get is the Boost guts in a Technic bag, or in other words, maybe the arrangement of the hardware might change, we will probably get pinholes or axle hole mounting points, but these are just features on a plastic box the guts fit in.  The electronics on the inside will be the Boost architecture, with 2 internal motors and two external ports. No stackable connectors. We will get a two port hub like the train or batmobile with pinholes in it. A selection of motors and the already available LEDs and they are done.   No more money needed to develope anything else.  Let’s hope you are right and I am wrong.

[Ivan_M]

That makes no sense, most of the technic sets are fine with battery box that has no other purpose - ie without any remote control. Recent technic models are single motor + gearbox or 2 motor (+ gerabox) setup. For that you are fine with dumb BB and powered up receiver. The technic BB will feature one PU port and no other electronics to minimize cost, there will be new remote with two PU connectors and MAYBE another PU connector to chain them. The form factor of PU technic BB will be the same as PF one. Receiver - who knows.