gyenesvi

I went through the survey, but wasn't that much impressed by the questions. Most of it is like a market research, trying to explore who the fans are and how they buy and use lego. There's only one relevant question about how to improve things.

Okay, by arguing I just meant what your view is on the matter :) That makes sense. Yes, I totally agree, that is exactly the reason why I also started looking into brushless systems, and the same way, I aimed for the smallest one I could easily get. I am more interested in precise control than very high speeds that can damage lego parts. Although, with better steering, higher speeds also become more enjoyable :) Unfortunately, I really don't like the form factor of the buggy motor, I find it hard to integrate into smaller or even medium MOCs in a way to preserve space for other stuff like suspension. Even the form factor of the L motor could be improved if the motor inside would allow, like the one you have there. Those half stud bumps on the sides of the L motor are really annoying, they are always in the way for something (like a driveshaft running next to the motor). A motor with a 3x3 cross section (like an M motor) would be achievable and would have significant advantage for smaller builds. Unfortunately, that's not my experience with basic bluetooth control, even using an Xbox controller. I think the method of measuring position / moving the motor is just too slow. I only felt it after having tried lego compatible GeekServos, they are night and day in terms of precision. Actually, just using a Buwizz and an Xbox controller, the old PF servos felt a little more precise than PU ones for me. Or do you mean they could be made more precise using some other control mechanism, like a custom circuit?

That is pretty impressive, cool that you have the skill to do that, I could really use such knowledge myself. I only got to the point of building my lego compatible brushless electronics from off-the shelf components and 3d printed casings. But the experience is already a huge leap from basic lego electronics: https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/forums/topic/209870-wip-small-scale-defender-with-brushless-motor-pure-lego-alternative/ Is that an inrunner or an outrunner motor? I'm not sure I understand what you are arguing against here. Is it the mixing of the two types of electronics, or is it using brushless in lego altogether? Since you are doing the second one anyway, I am bit confused. Anyways, to achieve the single goal of having a better L motor in a lego compatible way, there's another, maybe easier path. The (brushed) motor inside the old lego buggy motor (or the Buwizz motor) is the same size as the one inside the L motor, but more powerful, so you can swap that inside the L motor housing (you can buy some 3d party buggy motor clones, or some buwizz motors for acquiring the motor itself). That gives you about 2,5x - 3x more power according to my measurements, and you can connect two of those to a Buwizz 3; plenty of power with good speed / torque ratio for lego. I have a few MOCs that use such modified L motors (though I didn't make the motors myself). Those MOCs use brushed RC ESC for control, but that is not strictly necessary, I used it to be able to use proper servos and a pistol grip transmitter. https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/forums/topic/200233-moc-toyota-hilux-truggy-rc-18-scale-with-custom-electronics/ https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/forums/topic/211649-moc-rock-crawler-jesse-haines-moon-buggy-with-rc-electronics/ There is already a thread for brushless motors in lego, so you could re-post this motor design there, I'm sure folks would be pretty interested. https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/forums/topic/194125-brushless-motors-in-the-lego-world-general-topic/

That sounds interesting, can you share more details about it? What kind of brushless motor? Did you design the ESC, or is it something off the shelf? I saw such brushless motors with integrated ESC do exist on the market, is it one of those maybe? I suppose it works with standard PF control signals? Well, you are already using custom made motor and ESC, so.. By the way, you'll also need precise steering for the speeds that such a motor provides, and that will also be a challenge with a Buwizz unit and Lego servos..

I think that is exactly why Buwizz 3.0 units are shutting down if you push them hard, which is quite easy to achieve using 2 Buwizz motors and moderately high gearing ratio (not enough down-gearing). For brushless motors, I assume you must be using a brushless ESC as well, and probably an RC receiver? Then why would you need a Buwizz in your system? With a proper RC battery, it should be fine, that's what I use.

Yes, there's a proposed variant of that piece in the first post, but true that it could also be a different variant.

I'm actually holding my breath for brown parts :) They could be cool for building old-school stuff.

Exactly what I was thinking and shorter parts can actually fit into more places, so would probably find many uses.

Agree that it is useful, though I find it most useful for two reasons: A 3L flip-flop beam does not exist, and in some cases it can be used as essentially such part (with some extra pinholes) Since it is 3x2 with parallel pinholes, it can connect two parallel beams that are 1 or 2 studs apart in a stable way. But that has not much to do with the fact that it is C shaped. I rarely find utility to it's C shape that could not have been built before from other parts, though of course those situations also occur when it's a great match. But clearly, any new part can be useful in some situation when exactly that part is required. So it's all a matter of priorities. I often think that if the selection of more regular parts was more systematic, then the utility of these irregular ones would be less. That's the problem here. That's what makes things bulky, which is often unaffordable. On top of that, in this example, when you connect the two 3x3 L shapes, then some of its important connection points will already be consumed by that connection, blocking the actual connection possibilities that you wanted to make in the first place, or making things even more bulky. For example if you need to connect two parallel beams that are two studs apart, then that connection made of 3x3 L shapes displaces one of them, and can also be in the way for the actual beams. In general, my problem is that there are simple / basic constructions that cannot be achieved in simple ways with lego parts, and the lack of S beams (or even L beams in various small sizes) is a good example of that. For example, often I'd be in need of offsetting a beam in one direction, but not in another. That's pretty hard to do in a stable and space efficient way, even though anyone new to technic parts (with some structural understanding) would think that that should be easy to do.

Also, I just skimmed through the build video and saw the extensive use of ball joint connections to achieve angled placement of panels, which is a nice trick to achieve smooth paneling. I think the use of ball joints in Lego sets is underrated, could be useful for many more things (such as angled tubular structures), there should be more parts available for that as well.

Interesting viewpoint, but I think it only holds true as long as you don't need to build very compact / dense things. When compactness / density is required, such parts (not necessarily this one, but similar generic structural parts) can open up new possibilities by reducing bulkiness. For example the scale of "car transporter" sized cars is already quite demanding for adding more mechanical features inside, like suspension in case of off-roaders; part of it is due to some things unnecessarily taking up way too much space due to bulky builds, blocking the possibility of other things (such as realistic proportions or clean interiors).

Oh, that's a really nice one! Would be great if Lego produced something like that as well.

Well a 7x7 frame would be useful in whatever pinhole arrangement, even without overlapping pinhole, which might not be feasible. Another similar one I'd like to have is a 5x5.

Ah, okay, I did watch it and understood the bricks in the context, my confusion was the part 66909, I thought that continues with a bar, not a stud. So yeah, in that case, a brick with an axle hole does not work, but a brick with a pinhole would, no? The simplest fix. Another thing I could think of, is that maybe, originally, the other headlight piece behind it was at the same level, then it would work, and maybe that one was raised later for some reason, and screwed this up.

I know what it does in general, but it's not used for that in this build. Instead it seems to hold a bar, but it wasn't explained in neither of the videos above, at least I could not find. Exactly this. What the heck, Lego? Someone really does not know the part list there.. Maybe a 5.5 axle could have been used in the steering system as well. Or the new (4.5?) axle that's coming out this year? Probably could have been solved..

I wonder what's the role of that headlight piece and what else could have been used. I it to hold a bar? Could it have been a 1x1 brick with an axle hole instead?

Great that you came back to this :) Yes, that's it exactly, replace the pin with a 3L axle, and the green gear with a blue 20T gear for a steering wheel that works backwards too. I never tested that though, don't know how much force is needed to steer that way, whether the linkage transfers the power properly. Let me know how it goes!

I think this is pretty cool, has nice performance and seems playable. It shows that Lego should really make more compact electronics, that would be applicable to medium sized models, which could lead to cheaper and more playable RC sets.. Current ones are too bulky, and as a result mostly large and heavy, and as a consequence slow and less playable models can be built.

Neat idea, looks cool and packed with functions :) Let's see how far a technic car can get in the program, you got my vote!

I guess it's going to be using the all-in-one C+ hub..

These turned out pretty nice, great that you made a trailer too for showcasing. The pullback motor for the heli works pretty well!

Nice amount of functions in that helicopter too, it's a great duo! The looks are pretty cool as well!

I agree with others that the switching motor could be directly connected, it's pointless to complicate things in the RC case. My philosophy about RC gearboxes is that more than 2 speeds are pointless, and often impractical :) Though I mainly build off-roaders where a high and a low gear makes sense, but anything in between does not really. So I assume this is more for the sake of doing it, than the actual practical utility of having more speeds. Also agree with others that 8x speed range is way too much. The lego motors won't really be able to handle it. If it was me, 3x is the most I would try, something like 1x, 1.66x, 2x, 3x (or 2.77x) for the 4 speeds. Lego motors are weak enough for a single speed for a larger car, not to mention a range of speeds and the friction of the gearbox. As for the 12T-12T diagonal connection, just try it manually with 2 gears on an L beam - you'll see immediately that it does not work, way too much friction. I guess you could start out with testing a 2-speed gearbox and having a complete body of the car to see the weight, and find out which speed range works, and then you'd see how you could fit more gears in between the two extremes. What's the scale of the car you are building?

Actually, I have long been wishing for more brown parts, I think they could look good on vintage classics, like pickups, trucks, off-roaders..

Thanks for the info, now I understand, interesting hub design. Are the bearings 8mm or 10mm? Do you use Cada CV joints in the driveshaft? Cool, I never tried to print a rim, but this is exactly the one application where it would be really useful. I wish Lego would make a deeper rim for the 80mm tires as well, along with such a portal hub, it would be awesome for mid sized RC off-roaders.