Ngoc Nguyen

If I were to go for the 7 motors for 7 functions, the chassis must accommodate the battery box and 2 IR Receivers. Since the receivers catch the infrared, they must be exposed and thus must be put as outwardly as possible. At the same time, the PF battery box needs to be removable for battery replacement. Therefore in general there are 2 arrangements. - In the first case, the battery box and the receivers are stacked vertically, and all are exposed. This setup will require a height of at least 8 studs. The chassis of PF 42100 use this setup because its height is 10 studs. - In the second case, the battery box is and the receivers are put on one row. The battery box will be tucked further inside, while the receivers are outside. This setup will require a length of at least 12 studs. The chassis of 42215 cannot accomodate either of those arrangements because it doesn't have the required dimensions, as shown below in the instruction. Not to mention, the motor that rotates the chassis cannot connect directly to the turntable and has to instead go through a series of gearing down, which will take up space in the middle portion as well as interefering with the placement of the two drive motors. The chassis for PF 42100 doesn't suffer from this problem because it already has gearing and motor placement for 3 motors. Thererfore the option for full RC (7 motors for 7 functions) is now ruled out. The next best option will be RC in 8043 style. In this style only 6 functions can be motorized, and only 3 can work simultaneously, so I have to choose one function to exclude. This reminds me of another problem with 8043. Since two independent transmissions have to go through the turntable, the solution in that set is that one motor will drive a direct axle, and one motor will drive a clutch gear, which transmits motion through the driving ring and a ring extension. A drawback of this setup is that the clutch transmissions has a significant degree of backlash, which causes one track to start rolling slightly later than the other one even when the motors driving both tracks start at the same time. The difference in starting time causes the model to slightly turn whenever it starts moving from its resting state instead of going in a straight line, and I don't like that. Another problem is that in order to accomodate both of those track transmission and the drive of the lowest pair of LAs, the drive train for the LAs has to go above the drive train for the direct drive, which means there should be at least a space of 7 studs to accommodate. In 42215, that space doesn't exist, because the connection point with the excavator arm is put really low into the undercarriage. And as stated above, I don't want to do any major redesign, especially structural placements. Another point of consideration is that the bucket coupling function might not make sense for a manual model, but for a RC model it increases playability. Therefore I decide that in the 8043 style PF conversion for this set, 3 functions for the arm will go together, just like in the old 8043, while the other 3 will be driving, slewing, and coupling. The two tracks will be hard coupled like those in 42042, so that only one transmission needs to go down through the turntable. That will simplify the setup in the area right above the turntable, while still allows the coupling function to be RC. Also, while the excavator is digging, it doesnt really need to decouple the bucket.

I just opened the instruction and immediately realized luck is already not on my side. The 3x13 frame blocks transmission to the sprocket from behind, so that part will have to be redesigned. For PF conversions I dont really want to stray to much from the official design to save time doing the instruction, but thére's no other way for this part.

8043 is often brought up as a comparison for this set. Granted, it has four motors with six functions and RC and it has good value for money, but it's not like it doesn't have problems. Its playability is not that good. I had a 8043 and rebuilt it a couple of times, and it struggled to drive and move its arm as M motors didnt provide enough power. The function switch didnt work consistenly either, as the driving rings slid on the old axle connectors with ridges, which had quite some friction. Another problem with 8043 is that the angled section of the arm is held together with pins only, and over time the pin broke apart, so the Therefore I've always wanted a 8043 that actually works properly and is more modern. Then comes the 42215, whose flaws have been explored quite extensively already. Given that's it provides abysmal value for money, I don't plan to buy it. I did, however, give it some thoughts. I haven't gone through the building instruction yet, but from the look of it, it does seem possible to do a PF conversion. The ideal way is to give it 7 motors for 7 functions, but I'm not sure there is enough space. I'm already working on a PF conversion for 42100, and things are quite dense there already. If not possible, then 4 motors for 6 functions in the style of 8043 while making the coupling function manual is okay too. It can also go in the direction of 42042. In this case, it is still manual, but it will have 4 motors that drive 3 functions of the arm and the hard coupled two tracks, while the coupling function becomes manual. The possibilities are quite fun to think about, but it has to start with a Studio model of this thing, which wil take a lot of time. Therefore I planned to build and mod this in Studio some time in the future. Then things took an unexpected turn when I got an offer for this thing at a retailer's price. After some deliberation I decided to grab it. Although it still has poor value for money even at the lowered price, I can use it to implement the PF Conversion, and also to satisfy my long desire for a 8043 update. Not to mention, I do have a number of L motors around. Let's see how this will go.

Hi everyone, this is finally the real 42214 review from RacingBrick

For some reasons I randomly thought about your comment, and my mind ran through a couple of possible alternative builds, until voila! I found the perfect solution. Does it look better now?

One does not simply defend the 42146 tho

Who wants to see Sariel roast this set? Obligatory tag: @Maaboo the Witch

Life happened and more than a month went by with no progress. Fortunately, I finally got the time and energy to finalize the design. It's too late for the contest but it will be published later.

Hi everyone, this is not the 42214 review from RacingBrick

My bad I dont have a source. I remembered it wrong, Olav is the designer for 42209, not this set.

It really makes me wonder why the motor is gear down that significantly. Both this set and 42082 are designed by the same person, and they use the same gearbox concept. The transmissions in 42082 are even longer than those in this set, since they go through a mode switch before getting to the bidirectional switch, and those going to the outriggers are even longer. Yet the speed of functions in 42082 are decent, and the functions work just fine. Not to mention, the PU L motor has more torque output than the PF L motor. Therefore to say that the reduced speed is required to increase torques doesnt really make sense. Unless the arm in this set is so inefficiently designed that it needs more torque for all functions than any of the function in 42082.

or read that old C+ components will be phased out.

Hi everyone, this is a wheel swap from M_longer

Hi everyone, this is finally a licensed car that works from RacingBrick

I did make that happen with my mini Zetros, so it's possible to replicate it in this model, but the engine has to be changed to inline instead of V type.

It's not like TLG hasnt released reskinned set. 42096 itself is a reskin of 42077.

Who wants to bet that 42224 Porsche 911 GT3 R AO REXY Racing Car is gonna be a 42096 reskin?

So I guess this set definitively takes the crown of Worst Technic Flagship from 42070.

Or just buy a 42121 and mod it into a 42215 at home.

Hi everyone, this is a video I've been waiting for from RacingBrick

Interested in mini replicas?

Not me refreshing RacingBrick's channel religiously to check for new videos

It's just like @kbalage said, Technic is trying to do Creator Expert/Speed Champion but with Technic pieces.

I dont get what you mean