2h 2012 models

[DLuders]

@ ZBLJ: You must mean this piece (Bricklink 98989)

[jacobkristensen]

Come too think about guys, do you belive we will be closer to obtain pure lego flight. With use of the l-motor and the new blades?

Without any math nor physics. Beside a and educated guess, I will say that we get closer, but that ultimately no.

But my bet is that best possible design will be a quadrocopter. Because of it stablity, because if we were able to make think that could lift-off, I am quit sure that the weight to power ratio would make sure. We didn't have weight to spend on anything like control of vehicle.

Edited May 28, 2012 by jacobkristensen

[Saberwing40k]

It just bothers me that lego would introduce two new motors, when they're redundant. It just really bugs me.

[vmln8r]

Come too think about guys, do you belive we will be closer to obtain pure lego flight. With use of the l-motor and the new blades?

Nope, there's simply not enough power and too much weight.

It just bothers me that lego would introduce two new motors, when they're redundant. It just really bugs me.

Wouldn't it pay to wait for the motors to be released first? I've got high hopes for the servo motor.

[allanp]

Yeah, we have not used these motors yet and a proper servo motor is deffinately not redundant. If the L-motor is the same as the buggy motor (similar speed/torque) or faster at the cost of less torque i'll be very happy with it.

Edited May 30, 2012 by allanp

[jacobkristensen]

Nope, there's simply not enough power and too much weight.

Wouldn't it pay to wait for the motors to be released first? I've got high hopes for the servo motor.

My take on it too:hmpf_bad:

[LEGOMAN132]

The 9396 B modellooks like a mix of a Lockheed AH-56 and a Kaman K-MAX.

Edited May 31, 2012 by LEGOMAN132

[andythenorth]

It just bothers me that lego would introduce two new motors, when they're redundant

Because....? Assertion, no explanation, no evidence = poor argument.

[jacobkristensen]

It just bothers me that lego would introduce two new motors, when they're redundant. It just really bugs me.

I really cant see your point. The servo should make thing easier, and large motor is looking to be the best drive motor for cars and stuff like that since, the RF 9V old style car race kit.

But come up with some arguments.

So I dearly hope that lego at some poin in the future will unify pf and nxt. And maybe even transition PF from IR to RF. Secondly I would love to see pneumatics pf valve, and wire/connector that would allow several batterie box to be put in a serial circut. Simply to leve out the power drain on all the boxes. Take i.e. my tank with right now runs 4 x xl, and you be in need of and upgrade to control the pneumatics. That would add 3 + 1 pf-m, three for control and one for the compressor.

Edited June 1, 2012 by jacobkristensen

[AVCampos]

wire/connector that would allow several batterie box to be put in a serial circut. Simply to leve out the power drain on all the boxes.

Usually, the problem with too many motors draining power is that excessive current is requested from the batteries. Connecting battery boxes in series will increase the voltage, not the current. Therefore, you'll need to connect the battery boxes in parallel (which is already possible with some creative use of PF extension wires), not in series.

However, all this is supposing you're connecting the motors directly to the battery boxes (or via a polarity switch), instead of via an IR receiver. In that case, the receiver is the bottleneck, because there's a limit on the current it can provide from the battery to the motors: according to the PF specs document, each receiver supplies enough current for 4 M-motors, 2 XL-motors or 2 M-motors and 1 XL-motor.

[jacobkristensen]

Usually, the problem with too many motors draining power is that excessive current is requested from the batteries. Connecting battery boxes in series will increase the voltage, not the current. Therefore, you'll need to connect the battery boxes in parallel (which is already possible with some creative use of PF extension wires), not in series.

However, all this is supposing you're connecting the motors directly to the battery boxes (or via a polarity switch), instead of via an IR receiver. In that case, the receiver is the bottleneck, because there's a limit on the current it can provide from the battery to the motors: according to the PF specs document, each receiver supplies enough current for 4 M-motors, 2 XL-motors or 2 M-motors and 1 XL-motor.

Ah yeah of course your right, and swich around paralle and serial setups. I think my electrial physic, is bit rusty when not use to much. But how will you make the design whitout IR-reciver?

[allanp]

Ah yeah of course your right, and swich around paralle and serial setups. I think my electrial physic, is bit rusty when not use to much. But how will you make the design whitout IR-reciver?

You could use 2 recievers set to the same channel.

Edited June 1, 2012 by allanp

[jacobkristensen]

You could use 2 recievers set to the same channel.

Allan I already does that, because else it ain't possible to power all four pf-xl at max current and effect. And I have tried it befor I got the second battery box installed and you see the difference in the motors performance.

[Brickthus]

Usually, the problem with too many motors draining power is that excessive current is requested from the batteries. Connecting battery boxes in series will increase the voltage, not the current. Therefore, you'll need to connect the battery boxes in parallel (which is already possible with some creative use of PF extension wires), not in series.

However, all this is supposing you're connecting the motors directly to the battery boxes (or via a polarity switch), instead of via an IR receiver. In that case, the receiver is the bottleneck, because there's a limit on the current it can provide from the battery to the motors: according to the PF specs document, each receiver supplies enough current for 4 M-motors, 2 XL-motors or 2 M-motors and 1 XL-motor.

The thing about parallel power sources is, the nominal design current for 9V and PF is about 1 Amp steady state, a bit more at the peaks. The leads and connectors will start to heat up if you use much more than that. I have a pneumatic compressor driven by 2x 5292 motors that pulls 2.5 Amps from a power supply and causes the 9V leads and connectors to warm up - not to the point of damage but it's noticeable. Therefore I kept the leads short, used both sides of the end of the input lead to split the power to the motors via other leads and put in a bridging lead between the motors to share the current well.

As has been suggested, separate receivers and power supplies for each motor can get round this problem but that doesn't help the power to weight ratio of a vehicle (let alone a pure-LEGO aircraft!). The output current limit for an IR receiver (LB1936 chip) is 400mA/channel or 600mA if only 1 channel is used. That's less than the peak operating current draw for a single M-Motor (850mA), let alone an XL motor (1700mA) or L-motor (we can probably expect 1700mA but hope for as much as the 5292 motor - it might even be the same motor unit inside). The steady-state currents are less than half those peak values - see Philo's motor comparison for details. There is also the issue of making sure both motors get the same command. The Crawler would not work well with receivers if the front wheels tried to move without the rear wheels moving!

I think the IR receiver might have been designed to be less able to burn out motors because that way TLG would get fewer returns of burnt-out motors, when motors have always been problematic for other reasons! Not sure this is deliberately the case but it makes sense, otherwise they would have used a bigger-capacity motor driver like the L293, or some power transistors. That might have made the IR receiver too large.

Up to now the most powerful LEGO motors (XL, 5292 and NXT, each suitably geared) have provided up to 35Ncm of torque, the 5292 being the most efficient because the torque is at the most useful speed (fewer losses in further gearing). I hope the L-motor will provide at least that much torque at a higher speed than the XL-motor does, perhaps at least M-motor speed, hence demonstrating that it is more powerful (power = speed x torque). If that is the case as we hope, it would not help the IR receiver situation because all the torque has to come from current.

To get more power I was thinking of an 11.1V RC Li-Po pack and an RS-380 RC motor, driven by an RC speed controller, using a bespoke 9V PWM converter circuit to turn an IR receiver output into RC speed control input. This would need only a low current from the IR receiver, so that several speed controllers could be driven from one IR signal. Perhaps the RS-380 motor could fit into the girth of the case of an XL Motor and drive its gears for a moderate speed output? Would have to check the gear torque capability. RC motors tend to be fast; as the most powerful LEGO motor, the 5292 motor unit is faster than those in other LEGO motors.

Mark

[Dannnohhh]

I'm surprised TLG hasn't leaked anything more substantial as of yet. Mark gave us early insight (what he was allowed to ) on PF's a while back. 8110's were sent out to a select few by this time last year. This year? nothing in comparison .

I'll be pulling my hair out (whats left) if we have to wait 'til August for detailed reviews on the new parts!

Also, with only three 2h 2012 models...the fewest in a long time...I've wondered if TLG will start a fall release of one set, like the delayed 8070 and 9397 but September or October. Any thoughts?

[DLuders]

@ Dannnohhh: As discussed on this post , Rebrickable.com had graphed the number of Lego Technic sets issued by year. It has been 10 sets per year for several years in a row, with 5 so far in 2012:

So, it is possible that there will be fewer than 10 Technic sets released in 2012. The European recession may be having an effect on sales (although this March 1st, 2012 Lego Press Release said that annual sales were up 17% in 2011). They wrote that "Sales of classic lines such as LEGO City, LEGO Technic and LEGO Creator also rose sharply...."

Perhaps The Lego Group has been clamping down on its toy distributors and resellers, so that they cannot release details of the 2H2012 Technic sets ahead of time. I find it curious that high-resolution pictures are released to Cypr-21 (and other folks), without an explanation on HOW they obtained those pictures....

Edited June 4, 2012 by DLuders

[Cypr-21]

I find it curious that high-resolution pictures are released to Cypr-21 (and other folks), without an explanation on HOW they obtained those pictures....

I just reposted the pictures. They came from SeTechnic, posted by Tony_st170, here.

But I've no idea where he found it :/

[DLuders]

I would think that our official Lego Technic Ambassador (Jetro de Chateau) would get the pictures directly from The Lego Group. In the past, Conchas (Fernando Correia) got them. Sometimes, pictures get posted on this Eurobricks forum by members we never hear from before or since -- could they be from The Lego Group's Marketing Department? I always thought that they monitor this forum, but cannot identify themselves as official Lego employees....

[Wiseman_2]

There'll be 9 sets in total this year that we know of, only 1 less than the last few years. Nothing to be worrying about really.

[allanp]

I always thought that they monitor this forum, but cannot identify themselves as official Lego employees....

Yeah, i'm secretly one of them but I keep complaining about not having this part or that part (read longer pneumatics and so on) to help conceal my identity, you know, a double bluff, so this is now a triple bluff, which is now a quadruple bluff, which is now a....um..... fivethingemagigger bluff!

[Dannnohhh]

Thanks guys, I agree with all of you:

- Nothing to worry about on the number of sets released -- especially since the March release was a very large set, 9397, even larger then last years 8070... Also TLG has clearly abandoned the previous pattern of a cheaper flagship every other year

- Economics most likely is a factor. The 8043 might be around for longer then normal, worldwide, and introducing a few more 800 pc or 500 pc sets this summer might increase supply too much over demand (not for me though! I still wish there were more 2H sets, since 1H is usually the smaller release)

and @allanp, you clearly WERE one of them but couldn't keep a secret , now you think you're a double agent but what they leak to you is disinformation so you (and us) will believe longer pneumatics aren't coming, ever

[Xan326]

According to the Brickset listing for 2012 Technic (Brickset- Technic 2012)There's ten sets, one being Dacta (which is Lego Education?) But it has the new brick separator, and a weight(?- the big black brick)The beams are studded beams, BUT, It has 40 tooth gears, crown gears, and belts, possibly some bands, then it has smaller connectors (Possibly the two new ones from that monster theme!)

It's actually sold now- Website Looks like $50USD

Edited June 4, 2012 by Xan326

[davidmull]

Hello everyone havnt been on in a while or even built in a while, was even considering selling my collection but I'd probably regret that,is there any release date for the crawler yet?

Did some people not have the unimog this time last year?

[jacobkristensen]

I have seen the 9398 list up for preorder here, http://klodsland.dk/product.asp?product=43312. Where say the item will be send between 1st and 3th of august. The price is 1124dkk(roughly $190 or €151).

But I don't know if the shop can be trusted, as I have never had any dealings with them befor.

[Pauger]

I have seen the 9398 list up for preorder here, http://klodsland.dk/product.asp?product=43312. Where say the item will be send between 1st and 3th of august. The price is 1124dkk(roughly $190 or €151).

But I don't know if the shop can be trusted, as I have never had any dealings with them befor.

They are definitely to be trusted