AVCampos

Given that there's also a PF train remote in the image, I would take the rest of what's in it with a grain of salt.

No, all those numbers are integers.

That's the best sentence I've read in this whole thread.

Since modern motors have encoders and speed control, they can be coupled via a differential and that ensures one doesn't force the other.

No, it also had the option to add two for propulsion and one for steering, to be controlled by an RCX: https://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=492474

TLG has been mechanically coupling motors at least since 1999, with the 8448.

Whoa, they had plates with alternating studs on opposite sides? Is there any place where we can take a look at those?

Yeah, I'm glad LEGO finally embraced flip-flop beams long ago in use by other brands, and am certain that we'll see more lengths than 15 in the future.

You can have a fixed front axle and still get good off-road capabilities: the 8273-B does that.

The landing gear is spring-loaded and pops out, but retracting it is manual. Also, rotating the central engine nozzle turns the ailerons.

Complexity of Technic sets fluctuates: for example, this one is basically a City set built with studless parts.

I remember when the 8275 came out. People were bashing it left and right, with complaints like not being realistic with one motor per function, or having the cylinder engine connected to only one of the tracks. I think the mix of studded/studless parts was also criticised as "not Technic". Yet fans nowadays put it on a pedestal: nostalgia never takes off its rosy goggles. Also, more recently, there's the case of the Volvo dump truck: people assumed the worst as soon as the first rumours emerged and, as usual, bashed it and deemed it unworthy of "flagship" status. Then its full details came out, and people were more appreciative of it. I'm not saying this Cat bulldozer is any good, but until I know more about what it does (or doesn't) and how it does it, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Is the ground pin on the male connector also longer than the others?

I didn't have that problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tiltrotor_aircraft

I thought about that too, but then considered it could be more MINDSTORMS than Technic. Not that I would mind seeing Boston Dynamics-licensed MINDSTORMS sets, of course. Then, with that license in hand, the door would be open for Hyundai cars (I don't know if they make any interesting cars or not, though).

Well, I think I've been nice... but it's a moot point, as I'm currently stuck right at the first question: off the top of my head I can't think of any IPs that could benefit Technic instead of restricting its design/functionality. But I will think of something eventually, as a Technic fan since 1988 (when I got my first Technic set) it is my sworn duty to fill this survey.

After a quick glance at the questionnaire, it feels more like a letter to Santa than a survey!

Cool, I never imagined tracked vehicles had rocker suspensions! I always thought they were always fixed, for simplicity and toughness, and their slow speeds meant they didn't need anything fancier.

While they do have their uses, note that 3L worms were cancelled because they're not very durable.

I imagine your confusion, then, if you built the A-model of 8837 and found yourself with an extra metal hook...

I don't think anyone's complaining, though. That kind of beam has been sorely missed by fans for a long time!

LEGO needs to be in its natural environment: under people's bare feet.

It's also useful for robotics, to be 100% sure the model moves in a straight line: no two motors run at the exact same speed without active sensor monitoring.

Because people would complain that it's too simple, just one motor per function, like they do with the 42100. Whatever option TLG takes, somebody will complain that they should have chosen the opposite.