kbalage

There was another Moon rover in 1970 though...

They did not mention it because they literally don't know much about the Powered Up app - it is managed by a completely different team.

One of TLG's biggest challenge seems to be segmentation at the moment. Most designer teams can totally work alone (Star Wars, City, Friends etc.), but in case of Technic this approach very much affects the whole product line. Having a separate team for hardware development, set design, Powered Up software development and Control+ software development means that these people work in their own silos instead of working together to make better products. The fact that Technic designers ask for swappable controls for cars and the Control+ team does not implement it shows that there's something fundamentally wrong with the whole approach.

@brunojj1 thanks for clarifying the details again! I highlighted the challenges with both the KERS functionality and the single motor reverse drive function because they are both described in the manual as a working function that should have a visible effect while you play with the set.

I finished the AMG One, if anyone is interested in the review, it can be viewed here. A short summary about my findings: Pros - The quality and consistency of the parts has improved greatly, they're now virtually indistinguishable from LEGO, big thumbs up for that! New pieces offer some interesting combinations and building possibilities. The printed tires with the proper tread are a very cool addition. The model looks great, it's sturdy enough for RC and the parts don't come off as easily as some earlier models. The model contains some nice and tricky body sculpting solutions and the drivetrain is interesting from a conceptual point of view. Cons - Some panels had visible stains and scratches that would require more attention. The use of single color pins makes the building process difficult. Frames that are made of multiple pieces are sometimes challenging to assemble. Motorization and lights require too many wires, and cable management in the model is tedious. Motorized functions with a single motor engaged don't work very well. Due to the design and weight, you can't drive backwards with a single motor. KERS Implementation doesn't have a visible effect. The new electronics don't seem to have any advantage over the previous solution. All in all, I like the development direction of CaDA with the new models. Improving quality and cleaning up the parts portfolio to avoid potential conflicts was a good move. Personally, I don't think CaDA and LEGO should be considered competitors in this segment and there's really no reason to attack or defend one or the other. LEGO is aimed at the masses, and according to their philosophy, even a beginner should be able to build a 1:8 scale Technic set. CaDA, on the other hand, is clearly targeting expert builders. As a smaller company that focuses on a specific segment, it can be more flexible and experiment with new solutions. I'm looking forward to see what comes next, and meanwhile might take a look at the F1 set as well.

I see well what's happening :) If I drive only the rear motor backwards, that drives the front motor through the differential as the pullback motor has no resistance there. If you lift the car up then the wheels will still spin backwards with the single rear motor (due to less resistance on those outputs of the differential), but with the weight of the car the rear motor's power will go only to the front motor. If you drive with the rear motor forward, then the pullback motor winds up and locks, so the car will eventually move. Thanks for the confirmation.

Thank you for the confirmation, but the question still remains - can you drive the car backwards with only one motor? Because according to the instructions you supposed to be able to do that.

I'm working on my review about the AMG One and came across something strange. I've already asked Bruno, but wanted to ask about the experiences of others who have already built the set before jumping on conclusions about the build. Long story short, the problem is reversing, and I'm having trouble with the concept itself (I built the 2WD version). The two drive motors are coupled via a differential, and the pullback motor is also connected to this assembly. The lever on the remote controls one motor and the second motor is activated with buttons. When I push the drive lever down, one motor tries to drive the vehicle backwards, but the other motor is "freewheeling" through the differential because the pullback motor doesn't block it as it does in forward mode. This means that the vehicle cannot go backwards unless I also push the button to wind up the pullback motor. There may be some resistance in the drive train, but I checked the setup and couldn't find any obvious problems. I also watched all the video reviews I could find, but I didn't see anyone using the reverse function with only one motor. Actually I only found maybe one video of someone reversing, but that was also with two motors engaged. So I ask the people who have the build: Can your build reverse with only one motor, does it actually move?

CaDA just released a licensed one, I don't think TLG would have the same model.

We're now at 475 EUR and it hasn't even been a month since the release. I'm sure it'll be available around 400 EUR towards the end of the year (Black Friday, etc.)

I have no intention of taking any steps regarding their guide, I made mine to help the community. At the time I used a draft as a basis that was sent to me by LEGO customer service, but I also made that clear on my website. If TLG had done the same, that would have been perfectly fine. I don't think TLG employees should be criticized for their skills. I see two problems: first, the overall concept of Powered Up, which still relies heavily on programming skills without providing comprehensive resources to learn and understand the system, and second, the severe lack of resources dedicated to Powered Up development over the years.

According to this article the first space-themed LEGO set was released in 1964, so next year will be a nice anniversary.

I took that one in the video to show that there are worst sets from this perspective in the Technic lineup, yet the price of those weren't criticized at this level. I didn't want to include sets that were not sold after the recent price increases as that'd require more speculation.

I don't think there's a significant difference between the licensing prices of different companies. The 1:8 scale cars are sold as a premium product with premium packaging and all the bells and whistles, so they ask a premium price for them.

Yes, I was referring to that. The 1:8 scale cars like the Ferrari have a pretty bad price / weight ratio.

You can make it turn slower, but that requires a lot of attention on a touch screen, I don't see why it needs to have this maximum speed at all.

Here is my 2nd video about the set with more details, comparison to other cranes and Technic sets, more lifting tests, and even more serious lifting tests with some extra counterweight :) @Danke - regarding the positions I suggest to watch the video, there's a section with the full range of motion. You can detach the booms and the links fairly easily, but you really need to pay attention to the strings.

Thanks, I was comparing it with the Ferrari Daytona for my next video, and the price/weight ratio of the Ferrari is worse in every configuration (with or without electronics, even without counterweights).

It's interesting to see that big price / weight chart without the really outstanding other Technic sets like the 1:8 scale supercars.

Technic designers haven't really liked stepping into the spotlight in recent years. Aside from the video for the Ferrari Daytona SP3, I think Milan was the only one to make regular appearances with his creations. And of course, no one would talk about the challenges and anything they had to change or give up to bring this set to market.

Same dark grey masts, same counterweight configuration, same boom / superstructure size ratio, actually same everything vs everything ratio. Oh wait...:) I don't think people are complaining about the configuration. Yes, you're right, there may be a similarly configured LR 13000 out there. The problem is the proportions, and even the photos in the manual don't look like the LEGO version. If you compare a real Liebherr R 9800 with the LEGO version, at least the main proportions are right, but nothing is really right with this set. 42146 is a massive and surprisingly capable toy crawler crane (with more, much more counterweight), but it's no LR 13000. They should have just chosen another, smaller Liebherr model, but it would have been best to release it without a license.

Tested with a quite strong magnet, nothing.

The tilt of the hub and the whole superstructure changes based on the load and that is measured, not sure what you would consider "proper" load sensing? I was really hoping the embargo won't be pushed again, couldn't answer more "LIEBHERR WHEN??!?!?" questions on my socials Someone did the calculations previously in the topic and that supported the pure ABS theory, they definitely feel like a solid block of plastic. I won't drill them for sure until they will be available on B&P :) The holes are smaller than pins or studs and larger than rods so they don't seem to be directly compatible with anything.

Sorry to interrupt the speculations about the cancellation, but here is the first part of my detailed building review about this little set:

You really shouldn't overthink this. TLG as a multinational company is acting exactly like every other similar company does. There are lots of departments and everyone is only focusing on their own job. One department sets the embargo dates, the other sends out review sets, the third one grants access to beta apps, and sometimes there's a glitch in the matrix, things get messed up and this happens. Believe me, review embargo dates might seem to be super important for us, but it's way less significant from the company's perspective.