Technic 2023 Set Discussion

[Maaboo the Witch]

49 minutes ago, Akbalder said:

Here is the description (in french) of the John Deere 948L-II Skidder:

The seat is pneumatic? Woah!

[Akbalder]

16 minutes ago, Jockos said:

I suppose it will be motorized, hence the steep price

What is the price? The 42128 is now 180€. The pneumatic sets can be very expensive even without motor. I think that if there was a motor, the description would mention it.

7 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

The seat is pneumatic? Woah!

The sentence isn't very clear buy I think that the 3 movements for the claw are pneumatic but that the blade and the seat aren't.

[barberminged]

39 minutes ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

If we assume that the dimensions are based on the box, I suppose it would make sense for that to be the small angular motor? It would be a great motor to have more widely available!

I thought about that too, but i think the dimensions would be too big for that too, unless theres a lot of extra packaging inside the box. I bought a couple of the small angular motors (45607), and they came in small cardboard boxes that were not much larger than the motor itself (motor is around 32x40x24mm, plus the cable). Of course this would be targeted less towards education, and might have a fancier box, but still..seems a bit too big.
Could it be some kind of new motor for the upcoming Liebherr 42146, or maybe one of the other upcoming sets?

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, barberminged said:

The fact that i found it by searching for building instructions, it has a productnumber 88019 (close to the other C+/PU "sets"), and in the JSON data the server returns, it says "piece_count: 1" :)

I don't really get your argument about this one, or we use the words differently. What do you mean by PU "sets"? For me a PU set is something like the Zetros (set number 42129) or the Xtreme Off-Roader (set number 42099). And when piece count is 1, that's what I'd call a part. And the product number is close to other parts, as I've shown above.

54 minutes ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

If we assume that the dimensions are based on the box, I suppose it would make sense for that to be the small angular motor? It would be a great motor to have more widely available!

I think the small angular motor would even be too large for the box. I have also bought a small angular motor (Spike Essential) separately from a vendor of educational products, and it came in a small official looking lego box (with logo and product number), slightly larger than the motor itself, which is 3x4x5 studs (~24x32x40mm). So that's much smaller. It can't even be a motorization set of multiple motors if the piece count is 1. Also what's strange is that it's almost rectangular. But maybe we're speculating too much here..

13 minutes ago, Akbalder said:

The sentence isn't very clear buy I think that the 3 movements for the claw are pneumatic but that the blade and the seat aren't.

That's also how I tend to interpret it.

[barberminged]

Just now, gyenesvi said:

I don't really get your argument about this one, or we use the words differently. What do you mean by PU "sets"? For me a PU set is something like the Zetros (set number 42129) or the Xtreme Off-Roader (set number 42099). And when piece count is 1, that's what I'd call a part. And the product number is close to other parts, as I've shown above.

I totally understand the confusion, its just a "set" with 1 piece..Not much of a "set" in the general sense, but i dont know what else to call it, the actual part inside probably has some other number.

The other "sets" in the 8801x area also just have 1 piece, like the hub, large motor, angular motor, etc. "piece_count: 1" is what LEGO's server said, would be weird to include that info if it were just a part..the main thing tho, is that it shows up under building instructions, like other sets (altho theres no picture or instructions to download).

For example, with the LEGO Education small angular motor, thats set 45607, so its a set with 1 piece, and that 1 piece is the motor, and has part number 68488..if that makes sense :)
Anyway, its all speculation..it could be anything i guess, we will see soon..ish :D

[kbalage]

13 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

I don't really get your argument about this one, or we use the words differently. What do you mean by PU "sets"? For me a PU set is something like the Zetros (set number 42129) or the Xtreme Off-Roader (set number 42099). And when piece count is 1, that's what I'd call a part. And the product number is close to other parts, as I've shown above.

Each Powered Up "part" is available as a "set". 88013 is a "set" with this number if you check on Bricklink for example, but it only has a single part which is bb0959c01 at least in BL terms. 

[gyenesvi]

6 minutes ago, barberminged said:

For example, with the LEGO Education small angular motor, thats set 45607, so its a set with 1 piece, and that 1 piece is the motor, and has part number 68488..if that makes sense :)
Anyway, its all speculation..it could be anything i guess, we will see soon..ish :D

4 minutes ago, kbalage said:

Each Powered Up "part" is available as a "set". 88013 is a "set" with this number if you check on Bricklink for example, but it only has a single part which is bb0959c01 at least in BL terms. 

Ah, okay, now I get it, I thought it's actually the part's number, didn't know it has a separate set/part number that way. Thanks!

Edited February 22, 2023 by gyenesvi

[TechnicSkiier802]

1 hour ago, Jockos said:

I suppose it will be motorized, hence the steep price

Wishful thinking, but what if 88018 is a cheaper motor that can be used in low load situations such as a compressor. To be introduced with the skidder.

Edited February 22, 2023 by TechnicSkiier802

[howitzer]

I think it's highly unlikely that the John Deere set is motorized. The price is indeed steep-ish, but if it has 4 pneumatic cylinders and related pneumatic parts along with Claas tyres, I don't think it's that expensive, accounting for inflation. I hope they include the short large pneumatic cylinders there, as those have been absent for a while and can't be bought at the moment from TLG.

[allanp]

The John Deere is sounding even better with 4 pneumatics, 4wd and fake engine. I hope it is motorized using simple battery box but of course I'm gonna buy it either way! 

I like the idea of the bolide in a different colour. Releasing certain sets in multiple colour choices is great. It makes more parts available in more colours and I don't think it will be released in the place of a completely different set, it likely just an additional set.

I did complain earlier about the number of cars for this year but if there's enough other sets of interest then I guess I shouldn't complain. The John Deere is sounding great and the Liebherr is the first flagship control+ set I find myself actually looking forward to as I think it'll be the first flagship control+ set to be fairly mechanically authentic. The new counterweight pieces sound interesting (the set is rumoured to contain 20, at 50 grams each, making 1 kg of counterweight, but that is a rumour of an earlier version). The also rumoured truss pieces will also be useful and make the build less tedious. And I tend to think there will be something special with the hook, like maybe a metal hook, or maybe a stack of new 3 x 0.5 pulleys? Something like that.

Hopefully there's more than just these two to look forward to. The NASA rover could go either way. Could be dull, but could be great. And I think cars get a bad reputation from us because of the lack of mechanical novelty they seem to bring, and some seem to go backwards. But I don't think that's the fault of the subject matter. We can all think of ways to make cars novel again! 

[thurd]

1 hour ago, howitzer said:

The price is indeed steep-ish, but if it has 4 pneumatic cylinders and related pneumatic parts along with Claas tyres, I don't think it's that expensive, accounting for inflation.

That's some brutal Lego inflation my friend. We get higher price, less parts and less functions than the brilliant 42128. I know all sets cannot be equal but at least they should be priced accordingly and this is not a good price in my opinion.

[allanp]

6 minutes ago, thurd said:

That's some brutal Lego inflation my friend. We get higher price, less parts and less functions than the brilliant 42128. I know all sets cannot be equal but at least they should be priced accordingly and this is not a good price in my opinion.

We haven't seen it yet, but one translation of the description sounds very much like there's 5 pneumatic functions (maybe more than 5 cylinders?) as well as steering, 4wd and engine. Also bear in mind that part count is not a good indicator of price. Weight is a much better indicator. So if this set has bigger and heavier elements then the price also goes up. Possibly class tyres, possible 3 x 19 frames, possibly even a motor? We don't know yet.

[Bartybum]

20 hours ago, kbalage said:

why can't we be happy to see a little experimenting?

Because it's probably different people complaining each time

[Maaboo the Witch]

11 hours ago, Akbalder said:

The sentence isn't very clear buy I think that the 3 movements for the claw are pneumatic but that the blade and the seat aren't.

From the description, it sounds like the rotating seat is indeed pneumatic. But time will tell.

[gyenesvi]

43 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

From the description, it sounds like the rotating seat is indeed pneumatic. But time will tell.

The pneumatically rotating seat sounds quite counterintuitive, especially if we consider that they are trying to make every set cheaper. Why would they waste a pneumatic cylinder on such a function? Does it have some authenticity? Add any play value? I don't think so. I'd rather bet on marketing people screwing up that sentence, either not knowing what they are talking about or not being able to clearly phrase it. It has happened a few times before.. (like the 'gearbox' of the Zetros, 'diff lock' of the F1 car). Or it got confused during translation.

Edited February 23, 2023 by gyenesvi

[Cardboy]

59 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

The pneumatically rotating seat sounds quite counterintuitive, especially if we consider that they are trying to make every set cheaper. Why would they waste a pneumatic cylinder on such a function? Does it have some authenticity? Add any play value? I don't think so. I'd rather bet on marketing people screwing up that sentence, either not knowing what they are talking about or not being able to clearly phrase it. It has happened a few times before.. (like the 'gearbox' of the Zetros, 'diff lock' of the F1 car). Or it got confused during translation.

Hopefully for the same reason the legendary 8868 did. They want to add the function and the set has one motor and compressor.

[gyenesvi]

15 minutes ago, Cardboy said:

Hopefully for the same reason the legendary 8868 did. They want to add the function and the set has one motor and compressor.

Well in that set it did make sense, it was rotating the entire rig, so it was more authentic and had more play value. Even then, it consumed a lot of space. And those were different times, then they wanted to make technic sets function rich, and build everything possible :)

In the other thread dedicated to this set, there's some speculation about about a possible pneumatic rotator used for the claw as well. In that (less likely) case of a new part being introduced, using it on the seat as well would make some sense to provide more pieces of a new part in the same set. But that would sound just too good.

Edited February 23, 2023 by gyenesvi

[msk6003]

3 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

Why would they waste a pneumatic cylinder on such a function? Does it have some authenticity? Add any play value?

I thinked similer thing when D11T dozer has motorised folding stair insted fully-working 2 axis rear pick.

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, msk6003 said:

I thinked similer thing when D11T dozer has motorised folding stair insted fully-working 2 axis rear pick.

Yes, but in that case there was no need for an extra expensive part just for that. The motor and the gearbox was already there. They only had to decide which function to drive with it.

[TechnicSkiier802]

6 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

From the description, it sounds like the rotating seat is indeed pneumatic. But time will tell.

I dont really understand why the seat would be motorized though. In the real skidder the seat is on a swivel and you press a button on the joystick to release it. It has driving petals on both the front and back of the cabin. It would be a cool function though. If a bit overengineered for a medium size set.

[howitzer]

9 hours ago, thurd said:

That's some brutal Lego inflation my friend. We get higher price, less parts and less functions than the brilliant 42128. I know all sets cannot be equal but at least they should be priced accordingly and this is not a good price in my opinion.

Inflation is surely one factor here, it's running at high single digits or in some cases even double digits, and TLG can't escape its effects. Other factors are stuff mentioned by @allanp as there may be lots of expensive parts. But we don't know much yet, so let's wait for better information before making judgements.

[R0Sch]

Anyone else thinking that Perseverance Rover might become a popular set, not just in our small Technic bubble? And it's a cool idea for the Technic theme. Not just another transportation and construction vehicle as usual.

[Maaboo the Witch]

9 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

Anyone else thinking that Perseverance Rover might become a popular set, not just in our small Technic bubble? And it's a cool idea for the Technic theme. Not just another transportation and construction vehicle as usual.

It's different, which is good - especially in this year of the same ol' thing over and over.

[howitzer]

3 minutes ago, R0Sch said:

Anyone else thinking that Perseverance Rover might become a popular set, not just in our small Technic bubble? And it's a cool idea for the Technic theme. Not just another transportation and construction vehicle as usual.

Yep, that's a really cool one, hopefully the execution lives up to the expectations. I wonder when we last got a Technic set that departed significantly from the usual racing/transportation/construction/agriculture type of sets. Maybe the Star Wars sets from 20 years ago?

[kolbjha]

26 minutes ago, howitzer said:

I wonder when we last got a Technic set that departed significantly from the usual racing/transportation/construction/agriculture type of sets. Maybe the Star Wars sets from 20 years ago?

Yes, I think you are right. I guess the last set outside the usual Technic categories was the Hailfire Droid from 2003.