The thing I don't like about motors

[Dennis]

I motorised my Frontend Loader (8265) and the thing I don't like about the motor is I find they, if your not careful go to the highest point and will stick, so when the arm cames down again you get a slight click, meaning it's got to it's highest point and slightly stuck. I have had gears come lose, etc. By hand it's fine, and nice and slow.

I think the motor moves to fast and would be nice and you would have more control if it went slow like it does manually, so motors while good can be a pain.

[Darth Legolas]

I had the same problem as you, but I got around it quickly. Just about the Front Loader, I learned to always flip the clutch switch first, and then turn the motor on or off. Never start the motor and then switch the gears, because then you lose control quickly.

I rarely get the gears stuck together now, but I know exactly what you mean. The thing is, what you'd be asking for is a way to simply leave the motor running while you're doing something else and not have anything on the machine stick or break. That would be a bit pointless though. (Don't take the first sentence to literally. I don't know what you're thinking. )

Always let the liftarms/beams from the bucket angler line up with the beams supporting it, and the gears will never jam. Never extend the linear actuator 100%. Just until it goes slightly passed a right angle between the beams.

Never let the beams of the bucket raiser/lowerer go to the full extent, inward or outward. After a few tries, you'll always remember that point just before it reaches out ward, and you know, you don't really need it out that far. Real construction vehicles don't actually need a million points of articulation. They really only go to the extent right before the gears jam. Of course, real Front Loaders use hydrolics, I think, so they don't have any of these problems!

[DLuders]

If you use one of the #8879 Power Functions remote control units with SPEED CONTROL ( http://www.bricklink.com/search.asp?q=speed+control ), you can slowly start your MOC's motors (just as railroaders do for the Lego "Emerald Night" train set). You can order it directly from TLG for US$13 at http://shop.lego.com/product/?p=8879&L...7&ShipTo=US .

Edited March 4, 2010 by dluders

[allanp]

Alternatively you could replace the LA with pneumatics and use the M-motor to power 2,3 or 4 motor pumps. The results are far more satisfying I find, especially if you can fit all 4 pumps in!

[Brickthus]

Alternatively you could replace the LA with pneumatics and use the M-motor to power 2,3 or 4 motor pumps. The results are far more satisfying I find, especially if you can fit all 4 pumps in!

Definitely a case of needing pneumatics if the gears are sticking at the end stops.

The more compressors in the pump, the better!

The XL motor is great for powering pneumatic pumps.

I increased the number on my Swash Plate Pump to 6 but I could add more.

The next step is to go to a proportional closed-loop pneumatic system, to get the same response as hydraulics. That's an area I'm researching.

Mark

[Anio]

"The thing I don't like about motors"

What I don't like about motors is that they nearly in all the models !!!

This year, with 4 "big" models, we have :

- 8049 can have one motor

- 8053 can have one motor (I'm sure of it )

- 8043 have 4 motors

- 8042 have one motor

- only the epic fail 8041 has NO motor.

In the past years, this is the same.

2009 :

- 8258 have one motor

- 8264 have one motor

- 8265 can have one motor

- only 8263 and 8063 (another epic fail ) have NO motor.

2008 :

- 8292 have one motor

- 8295 can have one motor

- 8294 can have one motor

- 8297 have one motor.

I'm fed up with all these fuc***g motors everywhere.

I want knobs.

[Darth Legolas]

"The thing I don't like about motors"

What I don't like about motors is that they nearly in all the models !!!

This year, with 4 "big" models, we have :

- 8049 can have one motor

- 8053 can have one motor (I'm sure of it )

- 8043 have 4 motors

- 8042 have one motor

- only the epic fail 8041 has NO motor.

In the past years, this is the same.

2009 :

- 8258 have one motor

- 8264 have one motor

- 8265 can have one motor

- only 8263 and 8063 (another epic fail ) have NO motor.

2008 :

- 8292 have one motor

- 8295 can have one motor

- 8294 can have one motor

- 8297 have one motor.

I'm fed up with all these fuc***g motors everywhere.

I want knobs.

8042 is a pneumatics set from 1993!

You went a little off topic here, but I have a few comments here. It's true that the Race Truck should've had a motor. I really don't think you can complain about the sets that can have a motor, as that's totally optional, and they do have knobs! I, for one thing, think the motor works much, much better than a knob in the Front Loader. The knob makes it boring, and slow, the motor makes it functional, really! The snow groomer really doesn't have much room for a motor, but I will agree again that the Tractor and Trailer should have had a motor.

If you're really a fan though, it's pretty easy to modify the sets, but I have to ask you one question. You can't simply go on complaining about too many motors. That's like saying there are too many dollars. There has to be a reason against motors besides the fact that there are quite a few.

So what's your real beef with motors?

[Anio]

You can't simply go on complaining about too many motors.

I want to feel the models in my hands. I want to play with them. I want to be the one who gives life to the models.

In this context, 8460 is just a perfect model.

If I want to press buttons, I just switch on my Playstation.

[Darth Legolas]

I want to feel the models in my hands. I want to play with them. I want to be the one who gives life to the models.

In this context, 8460 is just a perfect model.

If I want to press buttons, I just switch on my Playstation.

That's entirely true, but for other sets, functions like linear actuators need motors, or they really don't work well. The thing is, without the motors, things would get old. The newer Off Roader from 2008 would be exactly like every other Super Car if it weren't for the new motor clearance feature. Lego doesn't want to get stale.

For example, it's really impossible to think of operating the new Crane Truck without a motor. All the clutch systems are a lot more fun with motors. All of the sets you listed really aren't unique without motors.]

Pneumatics are ideal for self-handling Technic sets, but there aren't many around. Can you actually see 8043 coming out later this year without motors in it? There would be nothing fun about it.

[Anio]

The newer Off Roader from 2008 would be exactly like every other Super Car if it weren't for the new motor clearance feature. Lego doesn't want to get stale.

Actually, it seems that TLG seems to be unable to provide us true innovation.

We have been waiting 10 years to see the clutch+driving ring+clutch.

And we will probably have to wait 10 years again to see a subtractor or Sariel's autovalve in a model.

TLG force-feed us with PFS to hide the lack of innovation (the leds are the most useless innovation I've seen in the past 10 years -_-).

Can you actually see 8043 coming out later this year without motors in it? There would be nothing fun about it.

Yeah, some models must have motors.

But not all. Definitely not all.

[AndyC]

Each to their own.

As a kid I desperately wanted Lego motors to improve my Technic sets, there was just something deeply fascinating about seeing a motorized model in action, with all the gears spinning rapidly as things came to life. Only pneumatics could ever compete for making a model behave in such a life-like manner. While hand-cranked gears were interesting technically, manipulating a model directly by hand somehow never felt all that far away from what could be acheived with ordinary System sets.

Even now, as an AFOL, I can't help but tinker with every new technic set I get to see how I can motorize it, regardless of whether that be just a case of powering the primary functions or adding yet more functionality. I love the Power Functions stuff and do hope Lego continue to extend it (especially if they start combining PF and Pneumatics!)

[Brickthus]

Actually, it seems that TLG seems to be unable to provide us true innovation.

We have been waiting 10 years to see the clutch+driving ring+clutch.

And we will probably have to wait 10 years again to see a subtractor or Sariel's autovalve in a model.

TLG force-feed us with PFS to hide the lack of innovation (the leds are the most useless innovation I've seen in the past 10 years -_-).

Yeah, some models must have motors.

But not all. Definitely not all.

You're right that not all models should have motors.

Perhaps any model with Linear Actuators should be capable of having a motor because 26 turns of a shaft is too many for hand operation, leading to user boredom! Perhaps any model with more than 2 pneumatic cylinders should be capable of having a motor for the compressor, especially if any automatic finite state machine operation is used (as in 8868 2nd model). Perhaps any crane with string longer than 1 metre should be capable of having a motor for the spool (as in 8421). Capable yes, compulsory no, but in some cases the set is too little without the motor. My favourite recent sets (8294 Excavator and 8049 Tractor with Log Loader) are enough without the motor but still benefit from having it.

My beef with Technic sets as a teenager used to be that, with few exceptions, if a vehicle could be motorized it was never the wheel drive or steering that was motorized, primarily because the motors were never powerful enough (e.g. the 870 motor needed the 872 gear set to get any power at all and by then it was down to 200rpm at 3 Watts or less). PF sorted that out with a more powerful XL motor, used it for drive in the 8275 Bulldozer and will continue with the 8043 Excavator, though neither of these is especially quick. The PF medium motor is good for driving smaller vehicles and has more rpm and more power than the 870-872 combination. The PF IR system also gets rid of the long wires, which twist and tangle if there is more than one.

We have to consider how long any non-AFOL Technic enthusiast will be interested in Technic. The age range is 7-16, so that's no more than 3 evolutions of the range of sets. By the time they've seen the same type of model twice, they're probably ready to move onto something else anyway (girls perhaps? :-) ), except the TFOLs who will become AFOLs and begin to care more about the parts in the box than about what the model is and are looking more at whether the new parts facilitate their own larger Technic MOCs.

Innovation is for all. If TLG see us continuing to innovate, it encourages them. They need our encouragement. Some innovative models I have made, I am not allowed to share online because they relate to intellectual property owned by companies. Shame really 'cos there are many who would like to see the techniques I've used. Some techniques I have shared but don't expect to end up in a set model, such as a swash plate pump or proportional pneumatics. They might demonstrate real engineering quite well but they're too complicated for a set. Incidentally the swash plate pump with 6 compressors began to wear out the turntables under load!

The PF LEDs are for a lot more than Technic. They have to fit with almost all set themes. When I helped design the part with the LED in it, I made sure the end would fit in a Technic hole or headlight brick, for maximum utility for as many types of model as possible. You can hide the LEDs inside a 4-wide car for headlights so that only the light from the front is showing. I had hoped that the parts might be able to fit right through a Technic hole but the need for cable strain relief put paid to that as toy safety means that the wires must not be able to be pulled out of the plastic part. The wires are long enough to reach round the engine of the 4x4 and I found that if I used the LEDs to light railway signals, most of whose parts are Technic, the wires will reach to ground level to hide the black brick part and the part with the LED is smaller than the 9V light bricks I used before. The PF medium motor has a stud base to fit with other themes too, but the XL motor was always going to be primarily for Technic so it didn't need a stud base. There will inevitably be some compromises with the PF parts because of fitting multiple themes and toy safety regulations but TLG has done well overall. I think more integration of the light brick into the town theme should be encouraged though, as it is at least as good there as it is for Technic.

To pick up Andy's point about PF pneumatics, the most desirable element might be a PF electrically-driven pneumatic valve. This would need solenoids and springs, which would be large when you consider the amount of force needed to move a pneumatic valve. In fact the solenoids would be as large as a PF medium motor, which we already have, so why not use that instead? Other than that, more cases of pneumatic cylinders driving valve levers are to be encouraged, especially because TLG began it with 8868 in 1992 and we really want to see the technique in a set again (example). It would confirm the renaissance of pneumatics that 8049 has begun. By all means let's have PF-motorized compressors for it though!

Mark