[CADA] CADA General Discussion Topic

[howitzer]

9 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

A question to all those involved with Cada, especially who participated in part design as well. I was wondering if Cada would be willing to produce parts that don't exist in Lego, but could and would be very useful. I am not talking about designing brand new parts, just the usual often missed ones; well tested concepts in sizes that don't exist but could, such as 4L / 6L / 8L liftarms, thin liftarms in more sizes, L shaped liftarms in more sizes, 6L / 7L axles with stops, 4L pins or pins with stops, 24T clutch gear and different gear sizes in general, towball liftarms in different sizes, CV joints with different axle sizes.. and I'm sure that there's a ton more. I wonder why they stick with only the sizes that exist in Lego. I think adding the missing but useful sizes would be a great way to differentiate themselves from Lego and to make building things quite a bit easier. Sometimes that (generic) part in the right size just simplifies things enormously to where they really should be, and I hate that Lego just makes their own (and our) life harder by not adding those parts.

Has such thing been discussed with Cada? Or is there anybody who could strike up that conversation with them?

I'm in no way involved with Cada, but my guess is that they too have to justify the new parts from a financial point of view, same as TLG. Every new mould has a cost involved, and if the parts palette grows ever larger, the logistics of handling it all makes the cost of the whole operation ever larger. I think it's prudent of Cada to stick mostly to the tried-and-true parts that TLG also makes, while introducing here and there few new parts that they feel would enhance building experience greatly. Flipflop beams are one such part and there's few others, but adding stuff like even-length liftarms and thin liftarms in every length and other such series of parts will make the logistics unmanageable.

[T Lego]

@howitzer Exactly! There is no point in manufacturing so many variations of existing parts from a financial standpoint.

One could also wonder if these parts would actually improve models in a signifant way. You simply have to be more creative with a limited selection of parts and as a designer myself, I do frequently run into situtuations where I think ''this non-existing part would be perfect for the job'', but after some tinkering and rebuilding in the 'existing parts domain' you usually end up with something of comparable quality. 

Of course most of the mentioned parts would be great, however I wouldn't be a big fan if liftarms of even length would be introduced, because people would no longer be able to easily distinguish the different lengths when building a set. 

 

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, msk6003 said:

Because If you want use clutch system, it need some control device for driving ring. But if gear is bigger than 24t, it will block hole for rotatry catch, and if gear is bigger than 20t it will block to place for changeover catch.

You are right about the clutch gears bigger than 24T not being usable, but I think even the 24T can be built without blocking the changeover catch, though it needs a bit of working around, but definitely doable I think. And even if it would be usable only with the rotary catch (which is easily buildable), it would be a useful part! Another size that would be usable is a non-bevel version of the 20T clutch gear.

7 minutes ago, T Lego said:

There is no point in manufacturing so many variations of existing parts from a financial standpoint.

Somehow I don't like this argument, we are talking about a few tens (maybe a hundred in total) of missing parts, I just can't believe that they would become a significant loigistic burden compared to the number of already existing parts.

8 minutes ago, T Lego said:

One could also wonder if these parts would actually improve models in a signifant way. You simply have to be more creative with a limited selection of parts and as a designer myself, I do frequently run into situtuations where I think ''this non-existing part would be perfect for the job'', but after some tinkering and rebuilding in the 'existing parts domain' you usually end up with something of comparable quality. 

It all depends on the scale I guess. At larger scales we often have the option to do that, but if we go smaller and more compact/dense, then there are less options. Even if it can be worked around, it just sounds silly to me that something that would be very simple, has to become quite complicated just because someone thought that only one stud shorter/longer parts should exist.

11 minutes ago, T Lego said:

Of course most of the mentioned parts would be great, however I wouldn't be a big fan if liftarms of even length would be introduced, because people would no longer be able to easily distinguish the different lengths when building a set. 

Though this might be true to some extent, most Lego sets come with liftarms / axles of adjacent lenghts in different color for this reason (and color coding in general is applicable to other parts as well). And there are size guides to help with that. And again, I find the argument a bit silly that we don't have liftarms in all lengths because people cannot count number of holes..

[howitzer]

36 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Somehow I don't like this argument, we are talking about a few tens (maybe a hundred in total) of missing parts, I just can't believe that they would become a significant loigistic burden compared to the number of already existing parts.

I'm sure both TLG and Cada employ skilled people who make the calculations of how much it would cost to introduce this proposed new part and then decide if it's worth the expense. The question is less "will this new part be the last straw that breaks the camel's back" and more "death by thousand cuts" where no single new part is in itself big deal, but rather every new part adds to the total cost and unless they also increase sales proportionally, they're not worth it. It's a hard calculation and it's widely known that TLG has made some serious mistakes with it in the past, and I'm sure high-ups at Cada don't want to make the same mistakes.

[T Lego]

1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

It all depends on the scale I guess. At larger scales we often have the option to do that, but if we go smaller and more compact/dense, then there are less options. Even if it can be worked around, it just sounds silly to me that something that would be very simple, has to become quite complicated just because someone thought that only one stud shorter/longer parts should exist.

Yes, I see what you mean. However, in such situations you ususally have a part that is serves it's application very well in a single part of the design, but in broader sense doesn't to bring a lot of potential in terms of versatality. E.g. introducing a variant of every axle lenght with stop will doesn't bring much to the table, nor will liftarms in every length. I could also come up with an infinite amount of liftarms with arbritrary amount of pin holes in any concievable shape, which beyond the use in a specific creation will not be any better suited than earlier existing parts. Obviouly there are many exceptions like the mentioned gears with new number of teeth, since this can reduce the size of many gearbox designs and make other mechanisms more efficient. Or in the context of smaller scale, I think a new type of suspension arm with socket could be very useful but then again it's exaggerative to add five new ones in different sizes. 

1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

Though this might be true to some extent, most Lego sets come with liftarms / axles of adjacent lenghts in different color for this reason (and color coding in general is applicable to other parts as well). And there are size guides to help with that. And again, I find the argument a bit silly that we don't have liftarms in all lengths because people cannot count number of holes..

We are talking about CaDa producing these parts, which would be appearing in master sets mostly. You will not find any colour vomit in most of the existing and upcomming sets because most MOC desigers simply prefer a monotonously coloured chassis. Axles are usually more hidden and don't affect the appearance as much so it's not the same story. Yes, you can simply count holes in a liftarm or put a 1:1 scale picture on every single page and grab the correct size after a small number of trails but this simply isn't practical or contributing to a satisfying building process - agree to disagree.  

[brunojj1]

CaDA / Doubleeagle is not so much about increasing sales in the first place. It happens automatically while they are growing and expanding quickly. In the meanwhile trying to diversify themselves from the market leader and others. There is so much market potential, at the moment they can barely keep up customer´s demands worldwide. E.g. they don´t even touch seriously the important US market. New parts and molds are being created consistently, continuously. Plus it´s very nice that we designers have influence on that and it´s relatively easy to convince their R&D department to develop new molds and parts if neccessary. I personally am very happy that we will have new major improved RC components coming soon – that´s obviosly the priority of the whole concept within their traditional product range. Other innovations and ideas are being considered too, included many mentioned in this thread. Just give it a couple years more in time, I guess some solutions and enhancements will pave their way naturally, like parts "falling in place" in your MOC after tinkering a lot about a specific solution.

[gyenesvi]

5 hours ago, howitzer said:

It's a hard calculation and it's widely known that TLG has made some serious mistakes with it in the past, and I'm sure high-ups at Cada don't want to make the same mistakes.

Yeah, I keep hearing that argument and can totally see its danger, but as far as I understand that was a different situation, involving many crazy new part types, many of them with limited use. However, I am mostly talking about generic parts with lot of usage potential. I think the hard part of the calculation is how filling those holes in the parts palette would simplify future builds/structures and thus save costs on requiring less parts to build the same thing, that way counteracting the cost of introducing the new part.

4 hours ago, T Lego said:

E.g. introducing a variant of every axle lenght with stop will doesn't bring much to the table, nor will liftarms in every length. I could also come up with an infinite amount of liftarms with arbritrary amount of pin holes in any concievable shape, which beyond the use in a specific creation will not be any better suited than earlier existing parts.

Sure, I get what you mean here, and totally agree that all possible combinations would be infeasible, and that's not what I'd hope for. Only that when there's a type of part that can vary along one dimension, such as length, then all possible lengths up to a reasonable point would be desirable. For example, with axles with stop, I don't think any length beyond 8 would be required, but length 6 and 7 are missing and would often be useful. Same with liftarms, only 4, 6, and 8 are really missing I think, because the shorter ones are more difficult to work around than the longer ones, and also when used in a bodywork for example, their lack of existence results in a more visibly worse result.

4 hours ago, T Lego said:

Or in the context of smaller scale, I think a new type of suspension arm with socket could be very useful but then again it's exaggerative to add five new ones in different sizes. 

This is a different but interesting example I think, though falls into a more specific use case of suspension systems, not totally generic parts (though cars are so much widespread that they represent an important use case). Again, I would not hope for many different sizes, indeed that would be exaggerative. However, I see some clearly missing parts for smaller scale: we do have 5L towball liftarms that can be used to build independent or even live axle suspension. However, some accompanying parts are missing; for a correct steering geometry, a 5L towball link would be required, furthermore it is not possible to build a 5L double CV-joint driveshaft that would be required for a driven independent front suspension for example, and would also be useful for shorter driveshafts going into live axles.

Another related 'hole' in the system is mounting the new planetary hubs. It would require some new smaller connector piece with a towball socket to mount those hubs to a live axle for example in a way that does not result in a super bulky structure.

(I know we are talking Cada here, but just as an example, Lego had a "need" for both of those use cases last year in the Raptor and the Zetros sets, but instead of introducing those parts, they worked around it resulting in clearly inferior builds; an RWD Raptor with wrong steering geometry (big rolling resistance) and the Zetros with axles that are bulky and have very little ground clearance).

So I guess what I am trying to say here is that just a couple of parts that complete an existing array of parts would be really useful, no need to think in tons of parts in all conceivable lengths.

4 hours ago, T Lego said:

We are talking about CaDa producing these parts, which would be appearing in master sets mostly. You will not find any colour vomit in most of the existing and upcomming sets because most MOC desigers simply prefer a monotonously coloured chassis.

That's an interesting aspect, I do welcome unicolor chassis builds, though I think a small amount of color coding that helps less experienced builders is not irritating. Something like two of the greyscale colors, but definitely not all over the rainbow.. And that could be already enough to differentiate adjacent sizes.

3 hours ago, brunojj1 said:

CaDA / Doubleeagle is not so much about increasing sales in the first place. It happens automatically while they are growing and expanding quickly. In the meanwhile trying to diversify themselves from the market leader and others. There is so much market potential, at the moment they can barely keep up customer´s demands worldwide. E.g. they don´t even touch seriously the important US market. New parts and molds are being created consistently, continuously. Plus it´s very nice that we designers have influence on that and it´s relatively easy to convince their R&D department to develop new molds and parts if neccessary. I personally am very happy that we will have new major improved RC components coming soon – that´s obviosly the priority of the whole concept within their traditional product range. Other innovations and ideas are being considered too, included many mentioned in this thread. Just give it a couple years more in time, I guess some solutions and enhancements will pave their way naturally, like parts "falling in place" in your MOC after tinkering a lot about a specific solution.

Thanks, that's informative! I do really like the positioning of the Cada master series models, you seem to confirm that they do fill a market gap with builds that are both technically complex but with well detailed exterior at the same time, often not being afraid to mix classic bricks with technic parts. I always wondered why Lego does not do that (probably part count / price considerations), and whether there would be market for that. Also, I like the focus on motorization, either built in or addable later. After all, what's one of the first mods people would do to any (car) set? Motorize it :) Those improved RC components sound interesting! I always wondered whether / when Cada would try to offer an alternative to the PU system.

Edited March 20, 2022 by gyenesvi

[langko]

I personally don't think new pieces are really necessary. Yes there are some things that would nice, but like people have already mentioned I think there is always a solution to what you are trying to make with what's already available. After all I think finding an answer with what you have is part of the whole challenge to begin with. I think the biggest challenge to a designer is the limited colour pallets, which Cada can completely avoid because they can do whatever they want. As a MOC maker, If you could have every existing part in whatever colour you wanted, there would be way more possibilities.

[dmaclego]

My 5 cents about 'vomit' colors and new parts:

1) In my models created for CaDA I only use brightly colored parts deep inside and always with the same commentary: 'You may use ANY color instead of red/yellow/blue etc.; these parts will not be visible'. I do this mostly for CaDA's convenience (they may have certain colors in production, maybe even in stock; besides, some colors are cheaper in production than others). But my thinking was that if they must produce, say, dark green plates 1x2 for the armor of my tank, by default they will use them in dark green inside as well, because it makes sense (logistically). But that didn't happen :) . Honestly, though, you would hate me even more if the most dense, System-built areas of my models were monochromatic ;).

2) Until recently I had no idea that pins 3L will be available in black so you get blue ones in my bulldozer. I guess communication between designers and CaDA, which is really good, could be further improved.

3) I totally agree that liftarms or axles with stop in all conceivable lengths would be a mistake. Yes, they would make things easier, but, in my humble opinion, that is not the point of this hobby. As Orson Welles once said, 'The absence of limitations is the enemy of art'. But on the other hand, there are also parts that open up immense creative possibilities and for some reasons have never been produced by LEGO or were abandoned years ago. Wedge tiles 2x3 and 2x4, towball sockets with pin, flipflop liftarms, old style hinge plates... You really appreciate them once you try to build small, complicated AND realistic structures. If I get to continue my relation with CaDA, I will not stop suggesting them new parts that support creativity (and boy, I do have some ideas!). And I'm not the only one, as far as I know :). Expect the unexpected!

4) About that legendary cost of new molds. Yes, they are expensive, but we should also consider two important factors: a) they are not nearly as expensive in China as they are in Europe and b) CaDA is not (yet ;)) a global superpower on bricks market. This means they do not have to produce new elements in absurd quantities (thus don't need huge number of molds for each new element) - and LEGO does. That's why as long as CaDA does not go the 'Jack Stone way' and keeps producing new parts that support creativity, things should be just fine.

5) Ultimately, though, it is all in buyers' hands so here is my plea to those of you who so far choose to be faithful to LEGO brand (and I used to be one of you): there is no such thing as positive monopoly. CaDA seems to be an honest competitor and who knows - maybe if you give them a chance, it will also motivate LEGO to improve. (Unless you think LEGO has already reached perfection but that's not the case, in my opinion ;).

P.S. No, I don't get royalties for each CaDA set sold. Nor for writing in this thread :) .

 

[gyenesvi]

7 hours ago, langko said:

I think the biggest challenge to a designer is the limited colour pallets, which Cada can completely avoid because they can do whatever they want. As a MOC maker, If you could have every existing part in whatever colour you wanted, there would be way more possibilities.

I agree that certain frequently used parts missing in basic coloros is also very annoying with Lego. I even observed some parts that exist in a few exotic colors, but not in basic ones, so probably the argument of "not everything can be made in all colors" does not really stand here.

@dmaclego thanks for your input, I find it quite useful!

5 hours ago, dmaclego said:

I totally agree that liftarms or axles with stop in all conceivable lengths would be a mistake.

I think we agree on that for all conceivable lengths, but my point was more about two missing ones (6L and 7L). I bet if those existed you'd also use them! ;)

5 hours ago, dmaclego said:

Yes, they would make things easier, but, in my humble opinion, that is not the point of this hobby. As Orson Welles once said, 'The absence of limitations is the enemy of art'.

While I like that quote, I think about it this way. Lego has a bunch of inherent limitations coming from the material and the production method and the building block concept itself; it is a discrete system with limited types of connections (studs, pins, axles, bars, hinges, etc). And of course, all sorts of complex shapes will never be produced. That itself puts enough limitation on the hobby. So why make things even more limited by not producing certain simple parts (and in certain basic colors) that would conceptually fit into the system? Don't get me wrong, I do like building with a limited parts (I find B modelling really interesting), but it's a different kind of art than getting the maximum out of the system and focusing on different challenges, like reproducing complex mechanics, and I think there would be enough remaining challenges even if the parts palette would be broader.

5 hours ago, dmaclego said:

there is no such thing as positive monopoly. CaDA seems to be an honest competitor and who knows - maybe if you give them a chance, it will also motivate LEGO to improve.

This is so true - I do agree that a bit of push for Lego to improve the technic line would be healthy :) Again, don't get me wrong guys, it's not that I am unhappy with it, it's more that I like it so much that I want to get the max out of it :)

Edited March 21, 2022 by gyenesvi

[amorti]

@gyenesvi I would very much like a 6L axle with stop. Would be really useful as a motorcycle front wheel spindle! Other than that, though, I'm not sure there's a load of use cases you can't solve in another way.

[AVCampos]

I have experienced time and again that I'm perfectly fine with the available parts assortment, but then along comes a new part and I think "how was I able to build without this"...

The exception is the 4L pin, which I'm sorely missing and TLG insists on not making.

[howitzer]

2 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

I agree that certain frequently used parts missing in basic coloros is also very annoying with Lego. I even observed some parts that exist in a few exotic colors, but not in basic ones, so probably the argument of "not everything can be made in all colors" does not really stand here.

I think we agree on that for all conceivable lengths, but my point was more about two missing ones (6L and 7L). I bet if those existed you'd also use them! ;)

While I like that quote, I think about it this way. Lego has a bunch of inherent limitations coming from the material and the production method and the building block concept itself; it is a discrete system with limited types of connections (studs, pins, axles, bars, hinges, etc). And of course, all sorts of complex shapes will never be produced. That itself puts enough limitation on the hobby. So why make things even more limited by not producing certain simple parts (and in certain basic colors) that would conceptually fit into the system? Don't get me wrong, I do like building with a limited parts (I find B modelling really interesting), but it's a different kind of art than getting the maximum out of the system and focusing on different challenges, like reproducing complex mechanics, and I think there would be enough remaining challenges even if the parts palette would be broader.

This is so true - I do agree that a bit of push for Lego to improve the technic line would be healthy :) Again, don't get me wrong guys, it's not that I am unhappy with it, it's more that I like it so much that I want to get the max out of it :)

I think it would be great if parts that are used for exteriors like liftarms and panels were available with complete palette in "standard" colours, though adding new parts and colours would make this inventory of "standard" exterior colours exponentially larger, so it may not be feasible in the long run. Having few parts in weird colours isn't that exceptional though, they have obviously been made for a specific set, with no intention of expanding that palette further, for example the silver/golden panels of Technic Star Wars sets 20 years ago. I consider those as nothing more than a curiosity, never expecting them to show up in large enough variety to be useful. What I find more annoying is that some colours come in wide-ish but incomplete parts palette, for example purple. Enough parts to make it tempting but not enough to make it easily useful.

By the way, surely you mean something else than 7L liftarms, as those are available both as thick and thin variants?

I also hope that competition from Cada will force TLG to rethink some aspects of the Technic line - most importantly the minimally functional empty shell sets, which should be discontinued and replaced with some properly functional ones.

[WvG_853]

I have just finished building my first Cada set, the Cada Master telehandler by @eric trax. I’m a big fan of his creations and had bought the original instructions. I just knew I would never get to buy the necessary Lego bricks to build this MOC. So when Cada brought out his set, I hesitated a bit, but bought it in the end. I did not regret it at all. This was one of the more challenging builds in years for me. It is really next level building. I really enjoyed it! The end result looks great! The quality of the bricks is not up to Lego’s standards, in particular the wheels feel cheap, but is still good value for money, in particular when you think of all the electronic components + lights included. The linear actuator in my set was broken. I contacted freakware.de where I bought the set and got a new one for free per post. Very happy with their service! I’m really excited seeing that Cada has established a collaboration with the best MOC-ers out there and look forward to your creations!

Edited March 21, 2022 by WvG_853
Corrected typo

[eric trax]

10 hours ago, dmaclego said:

1) In my models created for CaDA I only use brightly colored parts deep inside and always with the same commentary: 'You may use ANY color instead of red/yellow/blue etc.; these parts will not be visible'. I do this mostly for CaDA's convenience (they may have certain colors in production, maybe even in stock; besides, some colors are cheaper in production than others). But my thinking was that if they must produce, say, dark green plates 1x2 for the armor of my tank, by default they will use them in dark green inside as well, because it makes sense (logistically). But that didn't happen :) . Honestly, though, you would hate me even more if the most dense, System-built areas of my models were monochromatic ;).

The same here. Whenever I finish designing a prototype, when creating a virtual model and making corrections, I try to limit the number of different bricks. For example, after completing the design of the Articulated Dump Truck, I reduced the number of lots by 26 while working on the virtual model and building instructions. You can see it thanks to the yellow frame on the front of the vehicle. It is not visible, so I used the one that also appears in the dump box.

7 minutes ago, WvG_853 said:

I have just finished building my first Cada set, the Cada Master telehandler by @eric trax. I’m a big fan of his creations and had bought the original instructions. I just knew I would never get to buy the necessary Lego bricks to build this MOC. 

I am glad that you liked the design and that you got help very quickly in replacing the damaged part.

[LvdH]

2 hours ago, AVCampos said:

The exception is the 4L pin, which I'm sorely missing and TLG insists on not making.

I know it doesn't always work but in some cases you could do 2x normal 2L pin with a 4L lightsaber bar connecting the two.

[amorti]

I've made that devil's pin a few times. It doesn't have enough friction to hold against any kind of pulling force. Can still be useful to keep the pins in line in other directions though.

Some alternative brand 3L pins "just" let you push a bar all the way through. Toit loik a toiger... Sometimes just what the Dr. ordered. Especially if you don't need those parts for anything else ever again.

[gyenesvi]

3 hours ago, amorti said:

Other than that, though, I'm not sure there's a load of use cases you can't solve in another way.

Well, I don't see much difference between the utility of a 5L and a 6L, and have run into a couple of cases where needed a 6L. Of course I could do something about it, but by this logic then the same goes for the 5L..

3 hours ago, howitzer said:

surely you mean something else than 7L liftarms

That was in reference with 7L axles with stop.

3 hours ago, howitzer said:

What I find more annoying is that some colours come in wide-ish but incomplete parts palette

Yeah, just recently went through a couple of basic colors trying to build some bodywork and found that neither red, nor yellow was possible for what I wanted, because of some pretty basic parts missing. Even DBG is missing a few common panels. Right now orange seems to have the most potential to be complete!

42 minutes ago, LvdH said:

I know it doesn't always work but in some cases you could do 2x normal 2L pin with a 4L lightsaber bar connecting the two.

That's a useful trick I used already, although not in a position where it has to bear some load.

[thekoRngear]

On 3/20/2022 at 4:16 PM, gyenesvi said:

A question to all those involved with Cada, especially who participated in part design as well. I was wondering if Cada would be willing to produce parts that don't exist in Lego, but could and would be very useful. I am not talking about designing brand new parts, just the usual often missed ones; well tested concepts in sizes that don't exist but could, such as 4L / 6L / 8L liftarms, thin liftarms in more sizes, L shaped liftarms in more sizes, 6L / 7L axles with stops, 4L pins or pins with stops, 24T clutch gear and different gear sizes in general, towball liftarms in different sizes, CV joints with different axle sizes.. and I'm sure that there's a ton more. I wonder why they stick with only the sizes that exist in Lego. I think adding the missing but useful sizes would be a great way to differentiate themselves from Lego and to make building things quite a bit easier. Sometimes that (generic) part in the right size just simplifies things enormously to where they really should be, and I hate that Lego just makes their own (and our) life harder by not adding those parts.

Has such thing been discussed with Cada? Or is there anybody who could strike up that conversation with them?

Thanks for raising the question(s) here!

I'm all in for 6L/7L cross axles with stop, L shaped lift-arms in moar sizes and the 4L/6L liftarms. The 4L clutch pin (with variations) is already something I feel the need for when I am fixing/modifying a build. In addition to those, I'd like to see perpendicular Technic-pin connector hub (Lego's part #48989) with friction pins.

[langko]

So I just realised the other night that the wheels from CADA "Ferrari" fit on the disk brake pieces by connecting them with 3x2L pins. Unlike the Porsche rims this actually works perfectly. Some rims that can be used on both disk brake models and non disk brake models sounded to good to be true. Sadly it is because I came to realise that the offset when doing this turns out to be different to the Bugatti/Sian rims and the CADA wheels stick out more. So you cannot simply put them on existing models with disk brakes... So close yet so far 

[brunojj1]

@langko Yes, it´s a nice fact on the one hand and not so nice if you have tight wheel houses designed for the Lego standard. Surprisingly, both wheel types not only look good but are working pretty well on the Italian Supercar. I´m wondering what specific problem are you encountering right now? Be aware - you can create the rim of your dreams and cast it into reality, if you are designing a new supercar for CaDA! Tell us more, if not a secret of course.

[langko]

@brunojj1 Just another MOC (not for CADA) I started towards the end of 2020 and put on pause when I started the yellow re-work of the Senna. Now that that's done I've slowly been working on it again. I have the Gold Sian wheels on it currently but was just exploring and seeing if there were any other options. I was quite surprised when those silver ones fit, but the extra width it creates is a no go... The model is already so far down the design process that the width of the chassis/bodywork cannot be changed to account for it. Nor would I specifically want to design the car to only work with the CADA wheels as I'd prefer it to work with the traditional lego standard. So sticking with the Sian ones 

[Xusso]

On 3/3/2022 at 1:29 PM, amorti said:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/cadabricks/files

https://cn.doubleeagle-group.com/list.php?pid=6&ty=25&tty=19&page=7

 

Many thanks

[brunojj1]

I guess the discussion about the new CaDA motors rather belongs to this topic as reference, so let´s discuss it here.

10 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

Can you direct me to any info regarding the difference in power between CADA and Lego buggy motors?

I´m sorry I have no deeper background as expert or engineer. In general one can safely say that CaDA buggy motors are stronger, spinning faster than Lego motors, which has its advantages and downsides. Surely they are noisier which is kinda logical. IMHO there are no sources reliable to 100%, but I´ll try to explain. There are variables such as voltage and load/resistance which are unknown in some declarations. First we have Philo´s homepage as a good source when it comes to all kind of Lego motors characteristics. Then there is Sariel´s gear calculator where you can see theoretical output values of different gear redactions combined with the Lego motors. Before the update there were different rpm data related to 7V and 9V which is a significant difference, now we have only 9V for comparison. When it comes to the CaDA motors, we have the data from the set C64053W where they are being used. I´ve had written down the exact rpm from a different source some time ago, but don´t remember where it was, so I have no reference. It would be nice to have an independent comparison together with the BuWizz characteristics added as well. I have preliminaryly summarized my collected data as following, maybe it can serve as some orientation anyway:

	LEGO buggy motor			CaDA racing motor
	Philo´s homepage		Sariel´s gear calculator	CaDA homepage	unknown source
	9V		9V	7,4 V	?
inner output (r/pm)	1700 (no-load)	1069	1069	1800	1860
outer output (r/pm)	1240 (no-load)	780	780	?	1344

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by brunojj1

[2GodBDGlory]

Ok, thanks for the thorough answer! I hope someone does a full on comparison video at some point, especially to compare torque outputs.