Brickthus

I'd love to see the SPIKE Essentials 2-port hub used in Technic, provided that the firmware was updated to use the train remote handset. This could control a car without needing a phone. It would be the equivalent of the City hub but with the Technic attachment method and a LiPo battery. The 3x3x5 motors would be useful too; those are the smallest but not in high-street sets yet. If there is to be a tower crane, based on the jib modules of 42146, then let it be one that builds itself by rising and inserting modules into its main tower. That would be a decent flagship. A LEGO mobile crane has the difficulty that having more than 3 telescopic parts to the jib makes it too wide for the scale and too heavy to lift with LEGO actuators. There is a real crane that extends the idea of 42146 with a very long diagonal telescopic jib and twin cables to support the extension that is made from frame modules. Lichfield Station Crane December 2023 Mark

I agree on "worst". Having had the same problem with the 42131 front blade calibration and having reinstalled the app, I had more success when I repeated the individual function tests until each one rotated its function in both directions during the respective test, ignoring the times when they moved incorrectly. It seemed to be random but maybe it records the movements that were made during each test and takes those forward to the calibration stage. You could remove the ladder and wind the gears manually through the clutch to give it an offset. Then do it every so often when it falls out of calibration. Have owners of 42146 crane found that to be any better? I imagine a command to wind in fully would be subjective, based on how the strings wind on each spool. Or are all its 6 functions variable, without specific distance calibration? If that were so, it might lead to avoidance of Control+ sets with linear actuators but greater ease for sets without that combination. Mark

Given the "Earth Green" leaf pieces from 10289 Bird of Paradise, and the fact that is is retiring, it would be nice to see an E-type Jag in British Racing Green to keep up Technic panels and other pieces in that colour. A manual gearbox would be a nice change but I expect the Yamaha pieces would be employed in the next supercar as justification for their existence; 4 new complex pieces is quite an outlay. Mark

The motors are identical and independent. The differential is only a drive to the engine. The drive motors have to turn in opposite directions to go forward or backwards; this can only be done by a command of that sort from the hub. At step 198 I found that the tests were inconsistent in what they did to drive the motors. Test 1 drove the gear both ways sometimes and only one way at other times. Test 4 drove that drive motor in the reverse direction to what was prescribed, yet it would not fit into the model in a flipped orientation. I tested the drive motors with a battery unit and both are correctly wired, so it's either a bad hub or bad software. I'm persevering with the build in the hope that it was bad test software and that, when it calibrates (needing the model to be finished in order to hit all the end stops at the right times) it will work OK. This all puts more nails in the coffin of confidence in PU hubs and software. Mark

Hi Philipp, Unfortunately I'm not really into writing instructions. In the expired LEGO Ideas project there are a few more pictures and a video. I'll give you a basic list of key pieces: - 1x PF L-motor, 1x PF LiPo battery unit in the tail - 2x regular linear actuator (11M compressed size) - 2x set of gear selector pieces with white 3m axle extender, 3M selector, red lever and pair of red 16-tooth gears. Mounted one set each side near the front. The outputs of those drive the up/down and forward/back functions. - 4x small turntable, though this version chose not to tilt the rotors as the real CityAirbus uses just differential speeds for manoeuvring. - A couple of universal joints behind the front piece, to take the motor power up to the rotor drives, 45 degree angle on each one. 4x trans-clear 15M liftarms for the "invisible" lift effect. - Lots of axle joint #3, which were ordered from Bricks & Pieces. The rest came from sets but I have bought quite a few aircraft and sets with black and white panels. The latest sets have smaller panels for better shaping. Most of the rest you can see from the pictures. Mark

I agree that Technic has changed but it depends what structure we assume for the range of sets. If supercars and big Control+ models are each their own series then Technic sets up to £200 still include good flagship-worthy sets that have at most 1 or 2 motors with a simpler battery unit. 42145 helicopter and 42128 tow truck are two of the best. Plenty of play value. 42144 is similar to 8851 of old as a multi-pneumatic set and 42157 has more pneumatic parts for a similar number of functions. I do agree that the occasional clutch-power issues are a disappointment. I had 42158 Mars Rover corner-wheel bogies fall off because the clutch power of the 4M axles with end stop was insufficient in the black lobed gears. I substituted 5M axles with end stop and added half-bushes on top, which TLG should have don themselves. If that had given us another 4 white half bushes in the set then that would have been most welcome. TLG ought to know the value of reliability because to cost of unreliability is high. The change to studless was a big change. I miss the beam-and-plate chassises for vehicles because they were sturdier than studless ones are; the recent 3x19 frame helps but it took TLG a while to develop one! I would be happy with a studded chassis and studless additions but those years were brief. We do get occasional studded beams but more in other ranges of sets like the Batman Tumbler; the supply of those pieces is rather inconsistent. I may bemoan the reduction in basic instructions that used to be in the front section of the 3-digit Technic set booklets, as well as the lack of ideas books. Those were most informative but I suppose one has only to look them up on Peeron in the modern age. Kids need those pointers to learn the basics well; there is a trade between basic information that all should learn and the mass self-specialisation of filter-feeding that we all do on social media and search engines. I don't think AFOLs can completely fill in the gaps left by the end of ideas books; we try our best but we don't have the same "lead you through" objectives. The phone-dependency is the thing I dislike the most. Yes, it fits with the "every kid has a phone" trend and may help LEGO to stay ahead of the competition but it doesn't reach older fans quite so well. Then there is the cost of the parts; I simply won't pay RRP for any Control+ set because I won't get the value out of the hubs. However, if I see one at 33% off (after waiting a while) then I may be tempted. The bespokeness of the app for each set model is a bugbear because it takes a lot of dedication to bother getting MOC controls up to the same standard. I had in mind that the template of the Bulldozer 42131 (2 tracks, 1 power motor and 1 selection motor) might be good for other models too but it all depends on calibration. So when it comes to the new crane I would wait and see if 33% off ever happens. The GBP price would have to start with a '3'. Otherwise it'll be a parts order if I ever feel the need for some girder frames. With the advent of phone-dependency, what Technic lacked was the simple motor-and-battery setup, particularly when the Osprey 42113 was such as disaster, that being the only set with the simple battery unit at the time. The motor-and-battery setup is the essential step up from pull-back motors before anyone thinks about programmability. There is an abundance of pull-back motor sets but surely kids can't use more than 2 in a model? The sets with 2 (like the Mustang) are quite impressive but the pull-back motor torque tails off so quickly. TLG really missed a trick with the Top Gear car 42009; it should have had a city hub and train handset to be at least £10 cheaper. The tactile feedback of the handset is better than a phone screen. I would like it very much if TLG put the 2-port SPIKE Essentials hub and the 3x3x5 motor into Technic sets and allowed that hub to use the handset with the official firmware (not needing Pybricks or other hacks). I do like some of the new pieces but it's obvious which ones are versatile and which ones are not. The #17 and #18 panels have been the most aerodynamic, bettered only by the propeller blades from Education set 45400 (I cannot recommend that set too highly as an addition to your Technic hobby). It is the oblong panels and curved edge ones that I have found most useful in larger numbers, especially for making Technic-enhanced Space-themed models. The new 3x19 frame is great; I have already raided several sets for them, including the second copies of sets I liked enough to buy two. The girder frames are interesting but more dedicated to cranes. There are still some possible small pieces missing, such as a cross block with an additional 1M axle extension, either on one end or the side. We also need a new 2/6 pneumatic cylinder to complement the others, as well as brackets to assist in overlapping 2 or more to improve reach and the length/displacement ratio. More thin liftarms would be good, including an "O+O" to save using weapon-barrels; also a "minim" as a round hole with thin cross hole at right angles i.e. half the current 2-round-hole and single cross-hole cross-block pieces and able to make either of them with two. Thin liftarms with a cross hole on one end and a round hole on the other end would be good too. As I build frequently with Technic, I semi-sort for quick parts finding, using large freezer bags in small plastic crates. Bags of 2M pegs, 3M pegs and axles in one box, bags of smaller pieces 1x2, 1x3, 2x2, 2x3+, cross-blocks, thin liftarms and cogs in a second box, beams per length in a third box and right-angles, other angles, panels and frames in a fourth box. Those four boxes live on shelves and are easy enough to carry to where I'm sitting when I watch TV. I usually have a medium set box, opened as a tray, for sub-assemblies and project-specific parts in other bags. Overall I'm glad to still find a significant number of Technic sets to buy, build, enjoy, learn from and turn into MOCs. I buy approximately the number of sets that come out each year but, across the range, it will be two of one and none of another according to taste and usefulness of pieces, focusing on their destinations in MOCs. Mark

If 8480 was the flagship set then, should a new Space Shuttle be at the same price point or a supercar price point now? The functions you suggest would put it at least as high as the CAT Bulldozer. Whilst the rocket motor light-up function could be achieved with three 2x3 light bricks (such as those in Pac-man 10323), the motorised functions could be done by having two free-run functions substituted for the bulldozer's tracks and one 4-way selection function and one power function from the other two motors of one hub. The free-run functions would have to include the satellite because on the end of an arm it would be too far from the base to use mechanical transmissions. The arm might start with what the Mars Rover arm does and then expand to as many realistic remotely-driven degrees of freedom as possible. We haven't seen the 3x3x5 motor in Technic sets yet; that is currently the smallest motor. I don't know if the licence to use the patented micro-motor concept ran out in the 1990s, or when the inventor died, but the smallest possible motor unit now would be 3x3x3 rather than 2x2x2. Does that put a new shuttle on a larger scale, say 1.5x like 10497 is to 497/928? On its own that could make the cost 3.375x 8480. Unfortunately that would also be over the 3000-piece limit for LEGO Ideas, otherwise it would be tempting to have a go at that. The limit is not just for practicalities of sales but also for the challenge of creation, as you can see with my JCB; it has suffered from the typical runaway complexity of engineers who like to do things properly, though the objective of pushing out what the bricks will do is always good, giving new set ideas a Unique Selling Point. Speaking of which, I will soon have a LEGO arcade machine to publish, with secret novel mechanisms! Mark

I've had a go but after about 300 hours of work it needs a chassis rebuild: Pic Folder: https://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=585534 Dual pneumatic servo steering, 6-function Backhoe, 3 function front loader. Engine repurposed as motorised multi-cylinder compressors. Would be up to 30 functions in total, showing enough value from expected £430 price tag. The aim is to avoid phone-dependency by having drive and steering controlled from a City hub, using the train remote handset, with the compressors driven from a battery unit with switches. The digger functions would be hands-on pneumatic controls. The design sets up the single front and twin rear joysticks in the prototypical positions. At least for the rebuild there are some new parts now, such as the 3x19 frame. The frames for the backhoe sideways slide function have used composites from thin liftarms up to now. Mark

I find set 76405 a "dolls' house on wheels". It's an HP playset, not a set aimed at train fans. At 1:32 it is too large for L-gauge track; as experienced train fans we could shrink it to 1:38 or re-gauge it but... All 6 large drivers are flanged. We need them flangeless at this size in order to negotiate curves and points. In the points in particular the flanges would catch on the check rails, leading to derailment. The preferred solution at this scale, especially with 4 bogie wheels at the front, is to carry the loco body and blind drivers on the front bogie and the front of the tender, which might have 2 train motors, like this: Note: I could improve my loco with some BBB XXL blind drivers and upgrade to use fewer studs on top but this was built and exhibited in 2004. Another thing with 76405 is that the front bogie wheels should be smaller than the tender wheels, so BBB medium wheels would be better. Obviously a "not another new piece" limit for TLG. It would take 4 train motors to pull a 4-carriage train on L-gauge track at 1:38, including a maximum straight hill of 1 in 30 and R104 curved hill of 1 in 40. 4 train motors is OK with 9V, or with Power Functions using 2 sets of a LiPo battery and IR receiver on the same channel - 2 in the tender, 2 in the 1st coach. Powered-Up would need 4 hubs at 1 train motor each to handle the 1.3 Amp total current required. Synchronising 2 PU hubs on 1 channel is not easy; doing it with 4 hubs would see too many calls to customer services so it's no wonder TLG avoided making the L-gauge train. This fits with their policy of not supporting LEGO model railways. By contrast I find the winding handle of 76405 a humiliation for TLG, admitting their PU electric system is not up to the job of powering a proper train built at the scale of the track (as it represents "standard gauge" of 4'8.5"). The carriage in the set is too short to scale; it should be 8x as long as it is wide. My 1:38 UK Mk1 carriages use an 8x64 base. I'm not too worried on the "red vs dark red" thing. The HP book describes the Hogwarts Express as "a scarlet snake".. The darker red is only a factor of the LMS livery run by the WCRC train company. Some dark red pieces have broken for others, not quite as bad as brown, but we know red has a wide range of pieces and little tendency to break, so it's a safe bet. So 76405 does not have much appeal for me, not even the larger wheels. Hence the huge price tag is not justifiable for the value I might get out of it. I hope the HP fans enjoy it but I worry for TLG missing the train market like this. Mark

42144 Material Handler is currently at £80 (RRP £105) at Smyths UK Mark

Amen to that, but it's not easy at that scale. I have a WIP JCB, potentially 30 functions, of which at least 12 would be pneumatic. After 250 hours it needs 250 more but it is heading for 1:8 scale flagship super-digger £450 territory! I have to decide whether variable pneumatic servo steering and pneumatic hydrostatic drive are feasible. Both functions aim to follow the prototype but need technical performance that I'm not sure the pieces can provide. Remote control would be drive and steering only, using a City hub, but the digging actions would be hands-on with compressors using the AA battery unit. Mark

The price of 42144 at Smyths UK dropped from RRP £105 to £80 so I bought a couple of them. Not sure if it would ever go lower but that would be welcome. If £30 of RRP were for the 7 pneumatic pieces then that would be £23 of the £80 and £57 for the rest is 6.9p/p. The set has fewer panels than most but £80 for 8 functions seems OK. Mark

I have experimented with Technic panels 17 and 18 and the buggy motors. A 270g model created 200g of lift when powered at 9.15V (fresh alkaline AA voltage) from a bench power supply, drawing 2.6 Amps. Also a Ninjago Airjitzu spinner, mounted on an axle and without the pod or minifig, powered by 2x PF train motors geared up 5:1, using a PF LiPo battery for power, allowed the spinner to take off by 3cm as it slid out of a red 8-tooth cog. I have a few of the educational propeller blades, design ID 89509. They are more aerodynamic than other pieces but are a bit inconsistent in their shape - one has to select matched shapes to make a good rotor. Actually similar to the selection of real jet engine fan blades! I would really want a pure-LEGO drone but clearly the amount of power and the type of motor needed (open-frame) are not on the cards for official LEGO parts. @allanp is right about it being a liability issue. The video of someone using PF L-motors and overdriving them to 63 Volts is probably why LEGO would never do it. That's a 50-times increase in motor power compared to 9 Volts; not such a toy any more! Life would be short if motors were overvolted. Mark

Yes, 42052 had just over 1000 pieces and 42113 just over 1600 pieces. A 2000-piece helicopter is around the maximum sensible size for a kit. It is a "pick-up and swoosh" model so it would have the new version of the switched battery unit, not needing any remote control. Hence the price should be around £200, not £400. Hence I believe the listing is a typo, copying the Ferrari figures. A more-sophisticated helicopter idea in the £400 price bracket could use more motors in servo mode for the pitch controls but that would not be a pick-up model. A LEGO Technic kit model is most unlikely to ever fly under its own power, given the state-of-the-art. It is a shame that we might be restricted to the bright colours for aircraft in order to avoid military connotations, but I hope it will be a kit I'd like to buy in multiple. Mark

1. Not an overall backward step, but maybe small ones and several sideways steps, lining up with avenues that are not necessarily AFOL preferences. Some sets have too many panels and not enough mechanisms but that doesn't matter if the panels are of the colour you want for a MOC. Black, white and grey work for me. So do Red and Bright Blue, since I like to make Technic-enhanced Classic Space (and following) theme models. I tend to avoid Azure and Dark Blue, but Dark Green, Bright Green and Orange are just nice colours, even if they are not suitable to recreate a previous theme's colour scheme. Simple motorisation is currently lacking, following the Osprey debacle, which was itself a backward step. We may see the revival of the simpler switched battery unit in the Airbus helicopter later this year. PU hubs, without the ability to use the train handset, are awkward, especially the 4-port hub. They limit the set to being just the toy you buy, unless you either have a tablet to program it or you use the supplied control screen for a similar MOC. TLG has admitted before that it is not a software company, so we are unlikely to see support for improved firmware from them. I tried the 3rd-party Pybricks firmware but can't get a 4-port hub to work with a train handset yet. I was hoping that TLG might eventually use a Spike Essentials hub in a Technic set, as the Technic equivalent of the City hub, and even add train-handset-friendly firmware, but that would be too expensive. So, avoiding a phone, I'm left with waiting for the switched battery unit for the always-on functions (compressor etc.) and using the City hub and handset for remote functions. After that, if the average LEGO electric system lasts 10 years, roll on 2030! It's touch-and-go whether I would have extracted significant play value from PU by then. Steering rakes on set vehicles are usually rubbish. The aspiration should be 40 degrees either side of centre for most vehicles; 42078 achieved it. For other sets of similar size to fail to achieve it is a choice and hence a backward step if TLG puts out poor functions in sets. 4WD is a bit more limited in rake. Clearly sponsorship has its difficulties; a wrong turn with 42141 has needed a revision for a sticker licensing issue. That will hit TLG's profits for something I don't bother with; I'd happily take the brick sets off them without sticker sheets for half price ;) The current absence of a 2/6 pneumatic cylinder is a backward step. I see it as another symptom of TLG wanting to limit the range of special parts for cost reasons. Same as combining the switches into the PU battery unit. Loss of versatility overall is a backward step but there are steps forwards and backwards. The loss of extra instruction pages with basic gear, strut, lever and pulley education is a backward step that was made years ago. Sets are not designed for MOCing; that has to be our own initiative. Sponsorship is a necessary evil. The alternative was dependency on Bionicle. The whole of TLG relies on the licences of SW and HP to support the sideline that building has become. That is the world we live in - all about money :( 2. Not often. Sponsorship makes it harder for us to build MOCs good enough to get a sponsor interested in giving anything Technic on LEGO Ideas the push it needs to become a kit. I love to make scale working models but it's a next level beyond most kits, well into several hundred hours for a decent sized MOC. 3. I do struggle to "find the fun". Technic has the issues above but Trains is almost dead (just a toy), Monorail was too bespoke (or New Monorail uses too many standard pieces for the track) and Classic Space could not be revived as it may be perceived that it would compete with Star Wars for our cash. Hence Technic is actually better off than those other themes! I have tried a new Technic MOC but hit a few snags and limits of the parts. I couldn't deny it was fun to spend 250 hours building in 9 weeks but I need fresh vision now. I still enjoy it when a set does a function well. I kept the Lambo gearbox for now. I would prefer to see the release of the tube extender/holder in more colours. This would be the equivalent of having the cable holder in several colours in 42100 and educational sets. Mark