Bartybum

Radical idea - build an adjustable size cradle for your phone, with adjustable brickbuilt switches, buttons and joysticks with touch pads on the bottom to hit a corresponding button on the phone screen

I worked in a girder crane engineering firm for a year, and whenever there were two falls of rope off the drum, it was generally done to cancel out hook drift during hoisting. I'd assume the same strategy is also employed in large crawler cranes to minimize the risk of buckling.

I guess for that we have bootlego from the great people's republic

Nah don't worry, it was to do with what I was talking about with the other guy. From memory even the PF servo cost almost the same as the PU L motor. LEGO's charging a premium for encoded motors, so I want basic motors back to get around having to pay that premium. I guess Bricklink exists though, so...

Oh dear... ...I look forward to it You might wanna look into getting an XL motor though hehe

To not have to spend $40AUD for a single medium motor. I could spend $20 back in the PF days for the same thing. It gives me the absolute sh*ts that they pulled PF from the shelves, stuck an encoder in its butt and slapped a 100% markup on it as if the motors became god's gift to mankind. Is the difference that big? In any case, I guess that just means that as long as you have a smart hub, then you're guaranteed to have an encoded motor already.

Or any skid steering vehicle, or any motor being used for drive, or any motor used for a two-way switch, or for a linear actuator, or winch - literally any function that doesn't require precision could be done without an encoder. Only if you have a smart hub. If you have a smart hub then it's likely that you already have at least one encoded motor. Have a look at all the RC C+ sets released to date - only the app-controlled transforming vehicle didn't come with any precision functions. It also just so happens that a skid steering vehicle is the only type of vehicle that doesn't require any precision, so while what you're describing is possible, it's also unlikely. I'm also not suggesting to remove encoders entirely, just to offer both smart and dumb motors

This is an interesting solution, but I think the component would have better luck being used as a distributor, since the smart hub already has BT. Each time the smart hub receives a command from the paired smartphone, it could send a signal out to one of the ports which has a distributor plugged in, along with an ID corresponding to one of the four ports, which then receives a signal. There are a couple downsides that I could see, the most significant one being that once you have sixteen motors, you're really starting to chew into the battery capacity each time you play. Secondly, the circuitry would need to be beefed up to be able to accommodate four times the power and information. At that stage it might just be be easier to have two smart hubs, each with eight motors, or a distributor with 2 ports instead of 4. There will probably be extra costs with the new hub, which means that any time the smart hub is being used for small-potatoes MOCs, you're stuck with a huge beefcake of a hub that you just don't really need - I rarely ever see MOCs that need more than ten motors, let alone sixteen.

Aside from accurate proportions, I wanna see someone redo this completely without RC, only using a single battery box and distribution gearboxes, moving at a somewhat realistic slow speed. Heavens knows I won't be able to justify buying this set unless secondhand for cheap one day

When they first released, the PU motors cost roughly twice as much as PF motors, so I was coming from that angle. That being said, I'll admit I didn't consider whether they actually started charging more for PU sets than in the PF days. Yes but not every function needs an encoded motor. Drive motors, two-position switching motors (like in the Zetros), and other functions that can otherwise use clutches don't need encoded motors. The only functions that NEED encoders are precise functions, like steering, gearbox switching or inverse kinematics. Even the inverse kinematics features could (and should, in my opinion) be dropped, but then that brings into question the entire existence of the smart hub, so I won't go there. I'm not sure what this has to do with my comment, but I agree with 3 as well, I just don't think it's as urgent as other issues. I don't know what VM means.

@allanp How much do you expect an advanced programmable transmitter like what you describe to cost? You're practically describing an RC transmitter. I'm picturing $200-300AUD, which already makes it a super niche product that very few people will buy. At that stage you're just begging for something to be an official Lego product for the sake of it, and not for any practical reason. Just go third-party, like others have said. Alternatively, maybe a controller that just feeds control input commands to a smartphone (where the control profiles are stored) via BT, which then feeds commands to the hub? That would at least make it far cheaper, since you already own the computer that comes with a programming app. For me, PU has one pressing issue - flexibility. I think there's two areas that need to be addressed that would make improve PU's flexibility: Size - The smart hub is too big. Separate the brains of the smart hub from the batteries, like a PF receiver but with four ports, stacked vertically to make for a super compact hub. Have a dumb 6x AAA battery box in the style of the PF train battery box, but with Technic pinholes at either end, two slider switches and two ports. Introduce a slim battery box, to allow for small C+ and dumb PU sets. Introduce micro/S motors. Encoders - Not every motor needs a damn encoder, it's driving the price up for zero reason (especially the simple motorized sets) and there's so many functions that could be done with just a dumb motor. Introduce dumb PU motors in all sizes: micro/S, M, L, XL.

Not with that attitude

I wouldn't agree with that, I think it's because he just doesn't post as much content as he used to

Sariel's authenticity score for this is frankly idiotic, considering that the set functions more or less like a crawler crane. Zero stars should mean absolutely nothing is authentic, which is plainly obvious to not be true. A more reasonable value would've been two stars, as far as Technic set authenticity goes. He's wildly inconsistent

I'd be extremely surprised if they recall all those yellow latices, especially since there's one place and one place only that they would fit - a yellow crane. I reckon there's enough hype that it's more efficient to sell and recoup some sunk costs than it is to straight up cancel it. Unless I see some proof all this cancelling talk just seems like coping and getting salty about the price

I got to talk to RacingBrick about Lego Technic or RacingBrick talks about the Lego Technic theme something like that idk

Idk, I think it's nice to see multiple creators in the same video from time to time, so I thought it was generally fine. I will say though (and I'm curious to hear what others' views are on this), I think this video is probably better suited for a YouTube than Eurobricks Technic audience, namely because most if not all the opinions raised in the interview are already pretty well known here and have been talked about for the past couple years at least, like the discussions of function vs form, physical C+ controllers, size of sets, etc. Given that, I'm not sure I was the target audience In any case, I'm sure that newer members will find the interview very valuable I also kinda dislike the titling, and can't help but feel it's a bit clickbaity. I didn't feel like there was much discussion of how Technic should be run, at least from the perspective I think I'd like, but then again I think it's a pretty drawn out topic so I'm generally left feeling unsatisfied by any discussions of that too. Regardless, I like the effort of bringing content creators together. On a tangent, it kinda makes me wonder what a monthly Technic-related podcast would be like, where people come together to build, drink and discuss the latest happenings of the Technic theme and community

Mmm yeah, especially for manual models

The alignment issues with 2L rings were because they used a lever, which is no longer the case with the new slider

I've only built the BWE of all these, and all I remember was how huge it already felt, but bloody hell this crane seems to blow it right out the water...

One piece per page, 2882 page instruction booklet Bloody hell imagine

If those weight figures are correct, then even without the 900g of counterweights it still weighs 20% more... I think I'm beginning to actually understand how the RRP can be so high... Still a shame, shouldn't have been an RC model

That's what I've been wondering... Even though it's only ~3k pieces, all the plastic in those lattices suuuurely has to weigh a fair bit, right?? I wouldn't be surprised if this thing actually ends up weighing significantly more than the 42100. Still don't like the $1050AUD price tag though, and I totally would've preferred a dumb PU model with gearboxes. Given inflation I could maybe see this being $900AUD, but definitely not $1050. Gotta say, I do like how they've done the load sensor, pretty clever

Hehe this is really cute, great job

$1049AUD hahahahah what the hell, I wouldn't even pay $800