kbalage

Not all Technic sets have 3D instructions in the app, 42177 is one of them. I'm not sure why, but some larger builds only have PDF instructions, while others also get the 3D version. This is valid since 2023, before that only a few smaller sets got the 3D treatment.

Thank you folks, really appreciated! :)

Moving the discussion from the 2026 sets thread. As far as I know this is not an official name coming from TLG. If we accept a naming convention because a lot of people use it, then I guess you should have no problem with the "Control+" name either I'm afraid your software won't be able to control it, Pybricks doesn't work with the hub either. As I said, the problem is on TLG's side, they create products that should be perfectly compatible, but they aren't. If you look at Pybricks, based on the capabilities of that environment all current LEGO hardware components should be able to communicate with each other, whether they were released with Technic, Powered Up or Education label. The manufacturer is creating artificial boundaries between their own products.

@Lok24 so many things have changed since 2018. You can try to stick to the definition provided by the PU team back then, but those people are long gone and most of their plans and promises have not been fulfilled. I have a nice library of roadmaps and plans that looked great on paper, but never happened. At this point TLG does not even want to sell us most of the "Powered Up" hardware they created in the past years... As for the hub (which by the way is not the Move Hub, this one doesn't even have a name, just a part ID), it uses the same protocol, but there is no software other than Control+ that can control it. So is it part of the product family? Yes, it would be important to name products and technologies properly, but TLG failed to do so in the first place. It makes no sense to impose a naming convention on each other if the company is not willing to dedicate resources to this topic. Anyway, this is very off-topic in the 2026 discussion, I'm happy to continue this elsewhere.

If LEGO were consistent in their naming, it might make sense to stick to the "correct" definition, but it is all around the place. The hardware components have completely arbitrary names, the "Powered Up" category on lego.com has some but not all of the related sets and parts. I've chosen to use the term Powered Up product family for all hardware that uses the LPF2 connector, but that puts a question mark on the new All-in-One hub for example, as it has no expansion capabilities, it is not compatible with the PU app, etc. Things are rarely black and white in the LEGO world. LEGO only puts the Control+ label on their Technic sets, so people will use that term, that's inevitable.

I was waiting for it to pop up on the 1st, but it's been a little delayed. Now we need to see the price @R0Sch that document is a nice catch, where did you find it? I checked the battery documentation page but 88021 is still not listed there. If you check some "speculated" product lists for 2026, there are a lot of LEGO DC sets listed.

I have built several non-LEGO sets myself and also tested them with inexperienced family members. When pins and axles are the same color, the building process becomes much more difficult and frustrating. I like building complex models, but I hate spending time trying to figure out exactly which pin to pick from the pile. I haven't tried Reobrix yet, but unfortunately other manufacturers don't separate the different parts.

Technic used to work as a system, with fairly strict color coding to make identifying and differentiating parts easier. But with the rise of display models, those rules are increasingly bent, like the reintroduction of 2L black axles in Technic sets. The problem is that TLG wants to stick to their own rules while also delivering better-looking models, and at some point they’ll need to decide which path to prioritize.

We’re drifting off-topic already, and there’s a lot that could be said about this, but in a nutshell: the 18+ category is clearly aimed at adults looking to spend money on “quality me time,” many of whom probably never built a LEGO set before. Since the pandemic, the 18+ category has exploded, and marketing seems to think it’s the best thing to happen to the company since the invention of the stud. Technic is probably the biggest victim of this trend. The 18+ push started here with one of the 1:8 supercars (I think the Sián), and from there more and more sets appeared under this label. Technic was probably chosen for this because you can build bigger models with relatively fewer elements and still sell them for a premium price. Some functionality, like the fancy gearboxes in the 1:8 cars is added so people can say they built something that “works,” even though they’ll most likely never use those mechanisms. Not all of these sets are purely about looks, there are a few exceptions with interesting and playable functions, but in general, they’re designed to be accessible for people with minimal LEGO experience, and to look good on a shelf. And of course, almost all of them are licensed, because the assumption seems to be that adults only want buildable models of things they already like in real life. There are other trends too, like the ever-growing flood of licensed sets in the theme, or the self-fulfilling prophecy around the decline of motorization and the increasing amount of cars, but I’d rather make a video about that than write pages here.

I was being a bit sarcastic, of course, but it really is the sad reality of Technic at the moment, and part of the whole 18+ product nonsense. A LEGO set can and should be both functional and good-looking, but the “adult-focused” marketing trend is taking over the theme. These days, anything bigger will be expensive, and automatically gets slapped with an 18+ label, which seems to mean it should look decent on display, require minimal building effort, and offer less and less interesting or playable functionality. It’s been a clear trend in recent years, with only a few pleasant surprises along the way, but the overall direction is hard to miss.

It is not an excuse, this is how the set is proudly promoted on lego.com. This is the reality of LEGO Technic in 2025.

I don't think anyone "used a kid" here, it looks like a real fan building video on a small channel run by them. They got lucky, bought the set at a store that put it on the shelves early and were excited to film it, that's all.

In most cases the embargo has a specific time, not only a date. In some rare cases the embargo is at midnight, but usually it is early afternoon (Billund time).

I don't recall having midnight embargoes for Technic sets :)

@Auroralampinen I don't think it will happen. When I have multiple sets that share the same embargo, I usually ask my audience which one they want to see first, and I would be very surprised if this set won.

Luckily that giant warning will be only on the boxes for the US, my sample has the usual tiny warnings. Edit: here are the two versions side by side, for some strange reason lego.com admins only added the US version to all local pages. This requirement is effective from September last year in the US, and only concerns button batteries, so I don't think many Technic sets will be affected. https://imgur.com/a/YLe8dON

Some designers (very few) are open to interviews and willing to talk about all aspects of their work, others only talk about specific sets they have designed, and some others are not approachable. I share everything I can, and believe me, I am constantly trying to reach more people. Let's not forget one thing - this is the designers' job in a highly confidential environment, so it's understandable if someone chooses not to share rather than make a mistake.

All extra pages of the manual were visible in the video, so there's no information there. But according to a comment on my Insta post (by another designer), the designer of the set is Kasper R Hansen

Before the end of this week

And again, all I can say is that you shouldn't make assumptions and accusations based only on your own experiences when you don't know how things works with other people. Maybe others receive lot more offers than you, or similar sized sets from different themes, etc. I have received many generic sized packages, including 1-2 sets that could have been any of the previous offers. Sometimes the sets come in the order of the offers, but sometimes they don't, I was surprised a couple of times in the past. A few other sets have an earlier embargo, but from that batch I will begin with the bulldozer for sure.

There is actually a bit more to this than you are trying to suggest, maybe you could think about the possible circumstances before you call someone a liar. When we accept review offers, we have the set numbers listed, but when the packages are shipped, there is no information about the actual contents of each package, at least if you're in Europe. There are other regions of the world where additional shipping documents are required which might reveal the set numbers inside. So if you have multiple "active" review offers that have not been shipped, you won't know exactly which sets are in the package. You can of course make guesses based on the size of the box and the weight, but you won't know for sure. I was expecting the June Technic sets and two batches of City sets for this week, and received a delivery with one box, then another with two boxes. To my surprise, the first delivery contained half of the City sets, the second delivery contained the Technic sets and the second batch of City sets. I don't make unboxing videos like this, but I could have been really surprised at the first box.

@HydroWorld Outlook I don't think that wireless components are really the future of LEGO Technic, because they create far more problems than they solve. The parts in the Education set last about a day on a single charge, and they seem to be designed for low power applications. Imagine a standard small scale Technic car having only two motors, and even that has to be designed with a proper access to both of them to be charged. Motors with integrated batteries are inevitably bulkier than today's, and even if we gain some space by not having a central power source, I'm not sure that's the best direction. Not to mention more complex models with e.g. 4-5 motors and lights, each consuming a different amount of energy and therefore likely to run out of power at different times, that would be a real pain to manage. But you are right, this probably belongs more to the Speculation or the Powered Up topic, happy to continue the discussion there.

If you watched my videos, you should have identified another person a long time ago I wouldn't mind proprietary batteries, until they use the same slot as the AA/AAA cartridge and they are interchangeable. I don't think a non-removable battery is the way to go for LEGO, but there are other recent examples that are not promising either. The AIO Hub of the Technic Porsche set has a removeable rechargeable battery, but LEGO won't sell it separately, and you won't get this form factor from anyone else.

I'm not sure we will ever see these elements being implemented in consumer LEGO themes. They are purpose-built, and the whole concept relies on simple applications where the parts are not integrated into bigger builds. They don't have any app connection or coding ability, you cannot modify the behavior, they rely on color cards to perform hard coded actions. The sensor and the USB port needs to be accessible all the time, which means you cannot bury a motor in your build. I wonder if the physical remote offers proportional controls, that can be the only advantage over the current Powered Up remote, but there's no use of it if it only works with this hardware.

Interesting, thanks for the details! I guess we'll have to wait for more official information. If the batteries aren't replaceable, that's a pretty unique situation. I mean, the rechargeable Power Functions battery box was similar, but having multiple different components with non-replaceable batteries doesn't seem like the most future-proof approach and a lot more possibility of failure. Most people worry about the software, this will be something else.