dimaks13

Technic 2020 Set Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

42107 [2w]

for me it’s doesn’t means must be [2 wheel], also can be [2 wings]

cargo plane....sopwith.....

 

iMHO

42111 [Entertainer] should some sporting vehicle

i guess it might something near to F1 car

Edited by Technicallism

Share this post


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

42107 [2w]

for me it’s doesn’t means must be [2 wheel], also can be [2 wings]

cargo plane....sopwith.....

 

iMHO

42111 [Entertainer] should some sporting vehicle

i guess it might something near to F1 car

2W can actually be a lots of things

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2W

Entertainer can be some kind of show vehicle or some fun vehicle...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42111[Entertainer] could be smaller version of this year's 42099 set?

Share this post


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

42111[Entertainer] could be smaller version of this year's 42099 set?

It could be anything at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a though about the tractor wheels: Maybe if the 42102 Mini Claas Xerion will have them, also the 42103 Dragster (225 pieces) will use them?

Share this post


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

Just a though about the tractor wheels: Maybe if the 42102 Mini Claas Xerion will have them, also the 42103 Dragster (225 pieces) will use them?

Dragster tires are usually for streets, not to mention they are slick. In my previous post I was thinking loud in similar direction, perhaps mini Xerion and Ententeiner set have same (tractor) tires, just that Ententeiner set has some kind of ramp...but we are now in area of speculations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, I_Igor said:

Dragster tires are usually for streets, not to mention they are slick. In my previous post I was thinking loud in similar direction, perhaps mini Xerion and Ententeiner set have same (tractor) tires, just that Ententeiner set has some kind of ramp...but we are now in area of speculations...

Oh man, you are right... I just confused with tractor pulling .... nevermind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jundis said:

Oh man, you are right... I just confused with tractor pulling .... nevermind...

Could happen, don't worry :wink:

...but tractor pulling has also entertainment value...

Edited by I_Igor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, I_Igor said:

...but we are now in area of speculations...

We are discussing 2020 sets from a garbled list ... its all speculation :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont forget that pneunatics has a 2-year interval. There are pneumatics in 2018 and no pneumatics in 2019. There's a chance it may appear again in 2020, most likely in the mobile crane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2019 at 1:20 AM, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Dont forget that pneunatics has a 2-year interval. There are pneumatics in 2018 and no pneumatics in 2019. There's a chance it may appear again in 2020, most likely in the mobile crane.

Hopefully 2H 2020 includes sets that integrate pneumatics with Control+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ShowsOn said:

Hopefully 2H 2020 includes sets that integrate pneumatics with Control+

Yeah, that'd be cool. An option to control the level of air flow would come in highly useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm torn now I was going to buy the 42099 for all the new drive parts but if there is now an RC car do we think it will use the new hubs and CV joints and a smilier amount of motors? I normally prefer cars over 4X4 and I'm not sure I'll ever need 6 motors.

It's odd that they have put two RC vehicles so close together surly they going to take sales from each other?

Also if there is a new Lamborghini the ultimate next year could be that as it's owned buy the VW group and who wouldn't want a Lamborghini

Edited by Cardboy

Share this post


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

I'm torn now I was going to buy the 42099 for all the new drive parts but if there is now an RC car do we think it will use the new hubs and CV joints and a smilier amount of motors? I normally prefer cars over 4X4 and I'm not sure I'll ever need 6 motors.

It's odd that they have put two RC vehicles so close together surly they going to take sales from each other?

 

But won't this new one use Control+? So it will introduce Control+ to a much cheaper price point? Maybe 42095 was just a way to clear out a lot of the Power Functions part inventory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ShowsOn said:

Maybe 42095 was just a way to clear out a lot of the Power Functions part inventory.

That has also been my feeling. Not that I'm complaining, the 42095 has a great price for what it brings.

Share this post


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

But won't this new one use Control+? So it will introduce Control+ to a much cheaper price point? Maybe 42095 was just a way to clear out a lot of the Power Functions part inventory.

I was talking about 42099 the new Extreme 4x4 and the 42109 TBD R-car 463 pieces which will have a lot of duplication and if it is using control+ i can still see it being £100 - £150 as it will need at least 2 motors and a control hub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cardboy said:

I'm torn now I was going to buy the 42099 for all the new drive parts but if there is now an RC car do we think it will use the new hubs and CV joints and a smilier amount of motors? I normally prefer cars over 4X4 and I'm not sure I'll ever need 6 motors.

I doubt it will neeed the hub and CV joints if it's a smaller model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had mindstorms for complexity and PF for simplicity, it was that easy just lacking RF instead of IR.

If they retire PF a simply plug and play system will be a thing of the past.

I am having a hard time understanding what is TLG strategy for the future, but by now I don't really like what I see.
The naming schema of all together is a mess, and the lack of backwards compatibility makes the whole system a dubious investment.

I don't like this mobile dependency at all for a toy period. There are many reasons why it is a bad idea if it isn't a specific set but suddenly the whole Lego thing that requires a mobile.
The irony is many parents consider Lego a good toy that keeps their children away from the omnipresence of electronics and internet. Not anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, aol000xw said:

We had mindstorms for complexity and PF for simplicity, it was that easy just lacking RF instead of IR.

If they retire PF a simply plug and play system will be a thing of the past.

I believe there is a simple "dumb" battery box coming out for the new motors so simplicity will hopefully still be there for the new system. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, allanp said:

I believe there is a simple "dumb" battery box coming out for the new motors so simplicity will hopefully still be there for the new system.

I hope you are right and they get their act together because there is no clear signal of what they intend to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aol000xw said:

I am having a hard time understanding what is TLG strategy for the future, but by now I don't really like what I see.
The naming schema of all together is a mess, and the lack of backwards compatibility makes the whole system a dubious investment.

It's not that difficult actually, here's a blog post and a video that might help.

You can't expect to have backwards compatibility forever if you want to create a system that introduces real new features. PF was around for 10 years, it was not prepared physically to have all the interactive functions introduced with Powered Up. The necessity of the mobile app is debatable, but all the 3rd party systems for Power Functions (that were praised previously) are using a similar mobile-based approach. 

The intention of LEGO is pretty clear IMHO - they want to have a platform where all components are using the same connector and same protocol (which is open source) to enable the widest range of devices to work together and also enable the development of 3rd party applications. Each product line will have their own basic control set (app) for the straightforward out-of-the-box experience, but the Powered Up app will be also the one that will be able to control all devices in the family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind here. I can't believe TLG would bung out a great product like PF just to try and stay relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, aol000xw said:

We had mindstorms for complexity and PF for simplicity, it was that easy just lacking RF instead of IR.

If they retire PF a simply plug and play system will be a thing of the past.

I am having a hard time understanding what is TLG strategy for the future, but by now I don't really like what I see.
The naming schema of all together is a mess, and the lack of backwards compatibility makes the whole system a dubious investment.

I don't like this mobile dependency at all for a toy period. There are many reasons why it is a bad idea if it isn't a specific set but suddenly the whole Lego thing that requires a mobile.
The irony is many parents consider Lego a good toy that keeps their children away from the omnipresence of electronics and internet. Not anymore.
 

+1 App is cool and sensors might be useful for large MOCs, but they completely left out what BuWizz and Sbrick accomplished: Small size factor and powerful outputs. Even CaDa has a better form factor than C+/Pu (4 ports, BL and smaller than a train Battery Box/ PU receiver/battery box).  Sorry, but for me power > programmability. Btw, why is everything white now? 

 

Sincerely hope the RC car will bring something new to the messy table. Like the amazing RC cars from 2006 Racers line. 

Edited by syclone

Share this post


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

It's not that difficult actually, here's a blog post and a video that might help.

You can't expect to have backwards compatibility forever if you want to create a system that introduces real new features. PF was around for 10 years, it was not prepared physically to have all the interactive functions introduced with Powered Up. The necessity of the mobile app is debatable, but all the 3rd party systems for Power Functions (that were praised previously) are using a similar mobile-based approach. 

The intention of LEGO is pretty clear IMHO - they want to have a platform where all components are using the same connector and same protocol (which is open source) to enable the widest range of devices to work together and also enable the development of 3rd party applications. Each product line will have their own basic control set (app) for the straightforward out-of-the-box experience, but the Powered Up app will be also the one that will be able to control all devices in the family.

And that is the problem... All the features introduced with PUp where already a mindstorms thing. So now there is less distinction between both.

And I can't agree about the conector. There were ways. Kind of like USB 3.2 (yeah the naming schema for USB is a mess too) is to this day compatible with previous versions 20 years older.

That third parties use a mobile is ok, because they are third parties, optional, most Lego users won't be aware of its existence at all.

I don't see how PowerUp positions itself reparding mindstorms. How it does in relation to the Powered Up Hub that can use the remote.etc

The problem perhaps isn't the strategy but the execution. The app isn't ready for primer time. The full line of products isn't ready. There is not clear documentation of what any of the existent parts does and doesn't and how does it fit in the product stack.

It feels rushed, and for a company the size (and quality) of TLG that isn't acceptable.

 

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.