gyenesvi

I use that too, it's a neat trick but only works with black 2L pins and towball pins (with 3L bar), and I never like to put it in a place where there would be too much stress in the middle connection, where only the bar holds it together. That's an interesting angle, thanks for noting. Though I hope that budgets are not so strictly separated at least for the design of not so specialized new parts, which should really be a cross theme thing. At least that would be an essential feature of lego. Sure, but I'd also weigh in the complexity of that solution if it exist. Sometimes a new part could significantly decrease the complexity, removing unnecessary connector parts, saving space and weight, making denser builds possible. And I think such things compound. An example I have been slowly realizing lately is a live axle in real life vs in lego (larger scale, driven). It all starts with the differential being too thick. It needs a (longitudionally) thick frame (5x7). If you want to strengthen the axle sideways with cross beams, you have to go around the diff by a large margin. The steering rig has to go around it. Wheel hubs are quite cumbersome to attach and need many connectors, especially the new planetary one as it requires a towball socket. The driveshaft joint gets very far from the axle center (because of the lack of shorter CV joint parts). As a result lego live axles are very thick compared to real life conterparts. And it effects the whole chassis, as it has to go around the axles by a large margin too. As a result, there's less space for the drivetrain and everything else. So while a solution does exist, the cost is high in terms of consequences. (On the other hand, smaller scale rear axles can be relatively well built with the ball joint specialized for this purpose, and they often don't need that much sideways support.)

Exactly. And longer pins would be very cool too, like 4L (2+2 pins or 2 pin + 2 axle). Though some of the arguments above for this new piece are somewhat valid, I still find it strange that this seemingly limited usage part is moulded sooner than those simple missing axles that could be used in a lot of sets. Let's see where else they'll be used. Maybe in a system set with some technic structure, because of the even size.

I like how it drives and how well the appearance is preserved! Nice steering solution, and the speed is pretty much enough for indoor play for this model. If anything, I'd actually prefer a slower steering, it feels a bit sudden. But I guess that's how fast the servo reacts, and you can't do too much about it, as it seems to be quite directly connected to the training wheels. Or is there any gearing there? I disagree with your disagreement.. pasting the link is easy, but getting the image up somewhere so that you have a link takes quite a few steps. Far from drag and drop from your phone, like on FB. But anyway, we have to live with that.

Indeed, that modularity is really nice, the chassis seems quite cleanly done. I wonder if the fact that the body is only connected on a few points makes it kind of more 'flexible' (I don't mean the chassis, just the body sitting on top of it). What I really like is the panel usage on the bodywork. It feels like it does not try to close all gaps but that works better as if it did. It feels like some patches of bodywork give a general curvature of the body where it needs, but parts of it don't try to get too close to each other where they can't connect naturally, so it does not end up looking like broken china (almost there but not smooth). Kind of like a 'less is more' feeling. The doors are simple and clean, and I like their similarity despite their differing size. Maybe the rear end behind the wheels is cluttered a bit only. Thanks for the great work!

Indeed in the middle small picture it looks like it has separate shock absorbers for each axle. But what makes you think they are new? This is my guess too. Furthermore, I don't get what makes you guys think that the gearbox would control anything other than the engine speed. The clutch is situated right under the engine, so the gears that the clutch gears engage with must be right on the engine shaft, seems like they are at its two ends. Furthermore, the selector itself must be on the side (as it can neither be above or under the clutch). There wouldn't be space for any other setup as far as I can see. Or do you see something that I don't?

I think the mechanism itself is conceptually really nice, just wonder how much stress this drivetrain could take. I mean it has quite a few weak spots; the two 8T gears themselves, and the whole moving assembly resting on a single axle that has the big gear with two more axles inside, and all those are impossible to brace from both sides because they have to be able to move. So something would skip for sure. What application did you have in mind @BB8, because I guess it would not fly for an RC offroader, but maybe useful for some mechanism that has to move light weight. Have you tested it in an actual build other than the demo?

Great, thanks!

I do like this point, because indeed both happens, and that puts TLG into a difficult position, but at the same time I suspect that it's not necessarily the same group of people asking for more complexity and failing to assemble gearboxes properly.. There are surprisingly many people who don't understand how flipping a differential effects a drivetrain and how to solve it when it happens accidentally (and won't even try to experiment a bit).. Most probably not the same guys who can improve the smoothness and compactness of the Sian gearbox. Unfortunately there's much more of the first type (with a lot of buying power), and I guess if TLG wants to broaden the target audience of Technic, they are sadly better off simplifying things. That's my problem too! That's why I keep thinking about possible lego parts..

So it is indeed white and orange as stated originally, nothing lime or olive. And it does seem to have a gearbox under the engine, so it seems to apply for the pistons. Plus it seems to have grey shock absorbers on the rear axle too (at least one per side)!

@Zerobricks thanks for summarizing the steering control parameters. Are these parameters part of an algorithm in the mobile app, or inside the firmware itself? If it's inside the firmware, do these somehow appear in the Buwizz protocol as well? You mentioned that the beta testing is for Android. With the full release, will this be also available for the iOS version soon? Thanks!

Why would it use a gearbox to switch between functions, it's a manual set (isn't it)? For manual functions, it's easier to have separate knobs for control I guess.

This one looks interesting indeed. Not sure how many springs it has, can't see them in the back. And I wonder how the steering is implemented, could be same as the Jeep?

This is exactly what I am arguing against. What I see with flip-flop beams this year is that all models use a lot of 11L ones and a few 15L as well. I just can't believe that all models needed exactly only 11L and 15L beams. I think they were worked around (just like many other things) so that they make use of those, because those are the only ones available for now. But by this logic, 13L or 9L ones might never get introduced, because they can often be worked around, and when they can't, well TLG will not build such models. About the 3L, I think it'll never get introduced exactly because of that connector you cite; it's often not what you need, but many times can be solved with added complexity elsewhere. Of course I am a bit over-exaggerating here, it's only the first year we get these flip-flops, so we have hopes of getting more later, let's see what comes in 2022 (well, the BMW uses only 11L again..). However, the situation is similar with flat panels and their curved counterparts, and more time has passed since their introduction. We have 11L and 7L panels, not 9L or 5L, although they would be very useful, but they can often be worked around (at the cost of looking like broken china), so they never got introduced. Look at the Raptor for example. Its doors and roof are a patchwork of panels and beams in the wrong sizes. It could have been made much smoother with panels/beams in other sizes that don't exist (like 5x5 and 5x7 panels, even the never-existent 6L and 4L beams could have been used here; even an 8L beam would have been handy in the rear door!). Actually, those doors would even look better with a stack of 7L beams. So in the end we get a lot of compromised models which only look okay if heavily stickered (and we can't even build our own models that look smooth, even on the flat sides). And I don't think adding these missing parts to the lineup would add significant cost of production/storage, they'd just be just a drop in the ocean of (less reusable) parts that do exits. So I guess what I am arguing is that if these parts all existed, it could easily increase the quality of all models by a significant margin. Sure, one-by-one, they would not make a big difference, but treating them as a system, they would. And I fear that's a kind of short-sighted thinking on TLG's part, always just about the next model. I'd even bet that such an approach could cut down costs a bit on the long run (but at least come out even) due to decreased complexity. BTW, I see similar lack of systematicity in the rollout of the PU system as well, but that's another story. Lots of potential left on the table that will never get fixed because what exists is okay enough and can be worked around. But let's see how it unfolds.

I totally agree with all of you about the priorities of TLG and its well foundedness; indeed, people want those shiny sets and TLG is just serving the market need. I understand that. And I think the reason why the Technic line is used for this is because it's more appealing for adults (18+ sets). But still, somehow, in that process, I feel the essence of Lego Technic is slowly being lost. To me, Lego is like the definition of a system of parts, from which many things can be assembled (we often use the word lego as a metaphor for such systems). However, I miss the systematicity in the Technic line nowadays. We do get some specialised parts (which is also needed and welcome), and some new generic parts as well every now and then, but I feel that instead of designing a system of parts, TLG mainly introduces parts that it needs to build those good looking models that can be sold well. And we always get the argument that certain parts are not introduced because they don't need them for official sets. At the same time, they are not really trying to push the limits of the mechanical (or structural) side of models, so it's not surprising that they don't need those parts. We can't build a better gearbox, because we don't have all the clutch gears. But we don't have the clutch gears, because they never wanted to build a better gearbox. I bet if all those missing parts were available, they'd also use them. It's kind of a chicken-egg problem, from which a more systematic approach could be a way out maybe.

Oh thanks, that's actually promising. Why did you limit it to 80% power/speed?

I read that, but I am not going to quote it all :) Anyway, I always liked this discussion but never quite knew how to articulate my position, but I feel like I got it now. On one hand, I do agree with @nerdsforprez that we can change any set to our whim, and I never really complain about the base set (I usually dismantle them quite fast anyway and build something else). Except for one thing, that I started to feel strongly with this year's lineup, and that's where I have to agree with @allanp: the missed opportunities to introduce new parts. Because that is really hindering me in building whatever I want. Technic is inherently limited by its material and discrete sized parts so why limit it even further with not introducing parts that could easily exist? (Both special purpose and very generic ones like flip-flop beams; I fear we won't get them in all sizes, only as flat panels, maybe 7L besides the existing 11L and 15L, while 5L would be quite useful). That is the only thing that I'd complain about. As an enthusiast for off-roaders, I am sad that this year both the Zetros and the Ford Raptor falls short of pushing the limits of what's possible with lego parts. The Zetros missed opportunities to introduce parts to support building more realistic live axles (less bulky, with more ground clearance using those planetary hubs), while the Ford did not introduce new drivertain components (such as joints) to support driven and steered front axles at a smaller scale. And I do feel that this is kind of a laziness on TLG's part (probably not on the designers' part); it feels kind of oriented towards selling 'good' looking but less functional models, because most buyers don't care anyway. As for the size of recent models, I do feel they are getting unnecessarily big and bulky. (But it probably works because the big CAT seems to be selling well). In fact, what I'd like to see is pushing the limits of building well functioning models at smaller scales. RC could benefit a lot from that. Lego electronics is not for big and heavy models, especially in case of cars that have to move the whole weight, not just a crane. Being able to build mechanisms at a smaller scale would put RC in a better position; lighter models, need for less/smaller electronics and it could result in more playability like reasonable speeds, and at the same time less stress and wear on the components. But all I see is Technic going in the opposite direction.

Sorry I missed that one, I thought that's the large 6-port Mindstorms hub. Good to know it works with it. Yeah, that would be enough, although I have doubts (especially on outdoor terrain, not on a flat surface), but let's see, let me know how it goes! Thanks!

I’d be interested in that one, can you share a bit more? Did you test it with a technic hub? Did you actually build something with it? How powerful is it? Could it be used for steering in a medium or larger MOC, or is it weak for such a purpose? Thanks!

Thanks, that's my solution too for now.

Has anyone seen the Studio part for the new 4 stud wide steering wheel in this set? I can’t find it in Studio neither on @Philo‘s home page, I just guess it’s too new yet.. @Timorzelorzworz did you use something else in your alternate build?

Thanks @Zerobricks, that helped indeed (I had an older version of this document). It works now, reacts a bit slowly compared to the Powered Up app controlling an L motor, but it's okay as a start. I'll test it in a build later. One strange thing about it is that in the very beginning when I start a profile and it connects to the Buwizz, centers the servo, on the first move, it has a tendency to start to wiggle for a while. But it does not do it afterwards, just on the first move. Let's see how the update improves it. I'd a have a few notes as feedback about the app itself, possible improvements for usability, but not sure where's the best way to give such feedback. Should I send a message on the Contacts page of buwizz.com? I did not find a generic feedback form, just order issues.

I just received my Buwizz 3 and started testing. However, I can't seem to find an option to control a PU motor in steering servo mode. I am guessing it can already be done since @keymaker's trophy truck uses it. Am I missing something obvious, or is this setting hidden somewhere? I also tested a PF servo with it. It works, but it's quite jerky. Just checked the same servo on a Buwizz 2 and it's much smoother. Is it a firmware difference? How come that it's worse on the newer device? Furthermore, I also checked the speed control of PU motors. Currently the Buwizz app does not seem to be regulating speed, only power; when I spin it slow, I can easily block an outcoming axle with my fingers. This is not true for the same motors controlled by a technic hub; even if it spins slow, it's very hard to stop it by hand. @Zerobricks, is this also going to be fixed in the upcoming software (FW) update? Furthermore, will the FW update be automatic as in case of a technic hub? How can I check if I have the latest SW/FW?

That's a really cool truck, I love the style, especially how the rear part can be detached, both forms look good! Nice idea for an alternate, even if it needs one extra U-joint. I like how the suspension is built, seems to work really well. It's an interesting idea that the L and XL motors can be mixed in the drivetrain if they are not connected. Have you thought about connecting them through a differential with an adder mechanism?

It looks better on your pictures :) and they nicely show some key stages of the build. But I agree that it's better to view it from the rear end.. The sticker color mismatch is a shame, it feels cheap. I was wondering whether it would work without them, but I'd guess if omitted, the remaining parts of the race stripes would be out of place. I think the steering is omitted because of the pullback feature. With steering it would not go straight I guess. Or do any of the pullback sets have steering?

Thanks, I saw that link to the part, just not the pics for how it's used. Indeed, I agree. Yeah, I have been wondering about this part as well. I don't have it, but I suppose it's kind of the same as two thin liftarms with a spacer in between if you put an axle through the whole thing. I wonder if that would have worked in your use case. The only true differentiating use I can imagine is if you have to break the through axle in half right in the middle of this part.