42100 Liebherr R9800 Excavator

[Maaboo the Witch]

1 minute ago, M_longer said:

Not enough tread links :)

Offfffffff course not... 

[syclone]

2 minutes ago, M_longer said:

Not enough tread links :)

 

Not enough wheels  (A25F)

[1gor]

7 minutes ago, syclone said:

Not enough wheels  (A25F)

 

There are two wheel but have hidden attribute 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Replacing the C+ motors and BBoxes with PF BBoxes wont be much of a problem because of the similarity in sizes.

The real problem is finding the soace for the 4 IR Receivers.

[M_longer]

19 minutes ago, syclone said:

Not enough wheels  (A25F)

There is 4 wheel version:

[kbalage]

2 hours ago, syclone said:

In regards of "additional features", such as the gyro and rotation meter, no one asked for them and they were already present in the MINDSTORMS line,

The fact that you don't need them does not mean that no one would like to have sensors, interactive motors, gyros etc.

2 hours ago, syclone said:

non-rechargeable batteries

You can easily use rechargeable AA/AAA batteries. Accessible everywhere, easy to use, no headache for LEGO with shipping built-in batteries. Also easy to swap which won't be the case e.g. when the battery dies in a BuWizz.

2 hours ago, syclone said:

bulky size

The volume of the Control+ hub is not significantly bigger than the volume of the PF AA battery box, it also has better mounting points. The L/XL motors are truly longer, that's a disadvantage, but they have more mounting points. On the other side we won't need to use the weirdly shaped Servo motor anymore.

 

2 hours ago, syclone said:

crappy wires

?

2 hours ago, syclone said:

 early "safety" power cutout

Let's wait and see some more tests with other real-life applications.

2 hours ago, syclone said:

added disadvantages of high price

Do you know already the price of the new elements?

2 hours ago, syclone said:

non removable battery chamber

Both the AA and the AAA PU hub has a removable battery chamber, it has the potential to be replaced with a rechargeable battery unit.

2 hours ago, syclone said:

non-stackable connectors

I see this as the single main disadvantage of the PU system compared to PF but it was needed to be able to create interactive motors and sensors. We provided feedback on this to the Powered Up HW team with some ideas like an unpowered port replicator, hopefully they'll be able to provide a proper solution with time.

Rant over.

 

[syclone]

 

@kbalage 
PU rant:

Spoiler

1. Crappy wires - you never had a PF motor stopping working due to a bent wire? either you're REALLY lucky or don't reuse them often, because my budget collection has had practically all PF motors replaced due to that terrible flat design and  And I'm still awaiting response to replace my only Xl motor.

2. I don't know the price but I can guess it - look at the hubs from PU trains - 60bucks for that crap if I remember correctly + a controller that is more expensive than PF ones (yeah, yeah app something somewhat as well...)

3. I seen ZBLJ's video of 42099, HERE and it clearly had same power outages as PF receivers.

4. Yes you can buy separately AA/AAA size rechargeable batteries but:

-Same huge size (by chamber I mean the batteries as a whole, like PF now - separate receiver and battery box not one unit)

-Heavier than built-in cell batteries

-Even more money to spend

-You have to remove the batteries to recharge them - BuWizz offers plug-in charging via a Micro Universal Serial Bus connector.

5. Sensors are not a requirement, but an additional feature. And why have built-in sensors if you support external? To raise the price of PU/control+ unit? Sbrick supported sensors as well, yet I have barely seen it being used in MOCs - that is why I don't really think it is that useful in RC MOCs but belong more to a programmable robot line (Mindstorms) where you don't really need stackable connectors and have priority on interactive motors and sensors. Maybe some construction machinery could use these sensors/interactivity, but again, that's what Mindstrorms Programmable Bricks were for, specially considering the scale of the machine to actually use that interactivity.

6. With time, maybe... - more money out of customers pocket just to get back features that should have been kept from the start. 

42100 discussion:

@M_longer Nope, that's A25E, whereas the sticker on 42030 B-model says A25F. Makes me wonder why they picked the 3 axle 

And they had no problems including extra pieces in the past, so there shouldn't be a problem including 20-30 extra links in a 400+ euro set.

@Ngoc Nguyen Judging from the pictures you could replace those grey towers on top with some covered-up receivers maybe? Or place two there and two in the place of the ventialtion vents in front - they don't have any purpose anyway, and IR receivers work through transparent parts as well.

 

[Bartybum]

11 hours ago, knotian said:

Converting or staying with PF is great idea, but Lego's getting rid of the rechargeable battery is a real downer.

You see, I never understood this stance against using AA/AAA batteries. I'm firmly of the opinion that if someone lives in a house, then chances are they rely on some battery powered appliances like remotes, etc., and so they should already have rechargeable batteries as well as a recharging station. Maybe my family is just ahead of the curve...

[HRU_Bricks]

My plan for the 42100 is to replace the Control plus gear with all of the PU gear I have so the model is functional and then use the control plus hubs and motors on other builds. 

 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

9 hours ago, syclone said:

Judging from the pictures you could replace those grey towers on top with some covered-up receivers maybe? Or place two there and two in the place of the ventialtion vents in front

The problem is that two receivers need to be in the superstructure and two need to be in the base. Finding space for two in the superstructure isn't hard; the main problem is finding space for the two in the base.

On another note, official pictures are available:

 

 

Looks like rock pieces are included. This makes me think 3700 - 4000 may be the maximum piece count for a single Technic model. Any increase in piece count in subsequent sets would most likely be attributed to fluff pieces, play pieces, or secondary model (like the Mining Truck in 42055).

Edited July 27, 2019 by Ngoc Nguyen

[Dylan M]

How about Tracked Mobile Crane for B/alternative Model?

[Maaboo the Witch]

8 minutes ago, Dylan M said:

How about Tracked Mobile Crane for B/alternative Model?

That would clash with 42097.

[TeamThrifty]

17 hours ago, syclone said:

non-rechargeable batteries, bulky size, crappy wires and early "safety" power cutout but now with the added disadvantages of high price

Valid points, i can't argue.. non-rechargeable batteries does seem a glaring omission. Bulky i can live with as i like bigger mocs.

I love new stuff and can forgive some issues as the new-ness wins for me. I'm not familiar with enough mindstorms (something i should address), but i guess the thought i had was that maybe this was part of a roadmap to unify a few things across lines.. possibly not though.

I'm excited for the New, and hope that the points mentioned don't present themselves!! Time will tell...

I like the set visually - big and brutal, but 80% of my reason to buy it will be as a parts pack for control+ (i never leave sets built more than a month anyway). Long LA's are cool too. I'm hopeful that the retailers will discount a decent amount off it - i'll not be buying it when it first comes out at full price, thats for sure....

 

 

[kbalage]

18 hours ago, TeamThrifty said:

i guess the thought i had was that maybe this was part of a roadmap to unify a few things across lines.. possibly not though.

That's exactly the aim - Powered Up and Boost sharing the same protocol and connectors, Spike Prime as well for the Education line. I'm sure the next generation of Mindstorms will follow them.

[HRU_Bricks]

On 7/28/2019 at 2:02 PM, kbalage said:

That's exactly the aim - Powered Up and Boost sharing the same protocol and connectors, Spike Prime as well for the Education line. I'm sure the next generation of Mindstorms will follow them.

Unification of the equipment across the different lines will be excellent.  There is some missing parts at this stage,  extension cables and multi hub programming in the apps, when they come out it will be good 

[andythenorth]

I love Technic AFOL rants.

Only in the mind of some Technic AFOLs does this happen:

• TLG have multiple incompatible competing electrical systems, anyone wanting to use more than one has to buy a complete range of parts for every system
• TLG unify systems to be compatible, with wide range of interchangeable parts
• specific kind of AFOL perceives TLG are doing this only for marketing reasons, and to make more profit

Keep it up, it's great work. 

This is always a good read https://www.lugnet.com/general/~1285/traumaticevents

FWIW...

• the Powered Up Hub from trains is widely available around £15 ($18 USD) on Bricklink
• there are some sellers listing it as £55 ($68 USD) due to price gouging or confusion
• the Boost Move Hub is widely available around £23 ($28 USD), again some confused sellers listing as £70 ($86 USD)

Those who want to build Technic without Control+ can alternatively use PU, Boost or Spike hubs, and can also use the various sensors and motors from those lines, mixing and matching all freely.

The lack of stacking bothers me, but then again, PF can't actually drive more than 2 stacked L or XL motors through one IR receiver, so eh.  It's only a loss of perceived functionality from PF versus C+, the actual performance of stacked PF sucks. Hence the success of the 3rd party PF receivers and power bricks.

Edited July 28, 2019 by andythenorth

[HRU_Bricks]

1 hour ago, andythenorth said:

I love Technic AFOL rants.

Only in the mind of some Technic AFOLs does this happen:

• TLG have multiple incompatible competing electrical systems, anyone wanting to use more than one has to buy a complete range of parts for every system
• TLG unify systems to be compatible, with wide range of interchangeable parts
• specific kind of AFOL perceives TLG are doing this only for marketing reasons, and to make more profit

Keep it up, it's great work. 

 

That sums it up!  

It is a good thing what they are doing, it opens build possibilities up so much. I just hope there is extension cables and a way to program multiple hups in the apps in the future

[TeamThrifty]

1 hour ago, andythenorth said:

I love Technic AFOL rants.... 

The voice of common sense! Thought i was the only one that thought it was moaning for the sake of moaning... Wise words.

[Appie]

5 hours ago, andythenorth said:

The lack of stacking bothers me, but then again, PF can't actually drive more than 2 stacked L or XL motors through one IR receiver, so eh.  It's only a loss of perceived functionality from PF versus C+, the actual performance of stacked PF sucks. Hence the success of the 3rd party PF receivers and power bricks.

Yeah bothers me as well. Yeah, you can't control more than 2 stacked motors on an IR reciever, but for models where I want to put in 5 motorized functions of which I'd only control 1 or 2 at a time and only have space for 1 battery box it's a huge loss to me. Even worse when that second hub has to be that huge Control+ hub. I hope Lego comes up with a solution for this that doesn't take up too much space. I want to switch to Control+ completely, but for example on one of my current MOCs, I had to use PF instead of waiting for Control+, because of this limitation of 4 slots on 1 hub (I needed 6).

[dr_spock]

Stacking is good for dumb motors and useful for us GBCers.  I stacked several PF motors off a single battery box. I only trigged the fuse when GBC modules stalled. But the new PU system has ID for devices based on a resistor value.  Stacking can cause confusion on what the intelligent hub detects as connected. One thing good about the new connectors is they are easier to make your own compared to the older PF studded connectors. If you're handy with CAD and have access to a 3D printer, then there are options. 

 

[SNIPE]

Maybe someone will make a 4 port hub so that you can stack connectors. But we must also be aware that too many attachments plugged into one port will create problems

[dhc6twinotter]

I'm seriously thinking about just using the Spike Prime hub for my Mocs instead of the PU Hub.  The six ports will come in handy, but even then, having to now find room for two battery boxes is going to be a real pain.  I'm not even sure I want to invest in the PU stuff, especially if there isn't going to be any extension cables available. 

With the PF stuff, I've port stacked on every moc I've built that was RC.  I never once had an issue with over-current protectors kicking in. The new PU stuff is nice, but there are some major drawbacks.

[Timorzelorzworz]

3 hours ago, dhc6twinotter said:

I'm seriously thinking about just using the Spike Prime hub for my Mocs instead of the PU Hub

You can not control this model with Prime. The only way to control and program the model without Control+ is to use the PoweredUp-App, but PU does not support 6 outputs. The app can only connect with 2-port-hub, move-hub and at release with the new 4-port-hub. To steer and program the model with Prime-hub it is necessary to use the Prime-App. If this supports programming and manual steering, ist seems possible

[Misaki]

monster

[kbalage]

23 hours ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

You can not control this model with Prime. The only way to control and program the model without Control+ is to use the PoweredUp-App, but PU does not support 6 outputs. The app can only connect with 2-port-hub, move-hub and at release with the new 4-port-hub. To steer and program the model with Prime-hub it is necessary to use the Prime-App. If this supports programming and manual steering, ist seems possible

Spike Prime was delayed anyway until next year so there'll be a lot of time for the Powered Up app to catch up with the support :)