HydroWorld Outlook

Okay, so this model definitely has a swiveling seat in it, which allows the vehicle to travel in both directions, and definitely has a suspension system of some type as we see towards the end of the hyperlinked video. This video does not show the model's piston engine in action, however.

Since we now have official, high-quality images of the first three summer sets (counting the Blue Bolide), then it shouldn't be much longer now before we receive official images of 42146. Once TLG releases the photos, we'll all know for sure what the final product looks like and whether or not it's actually worth $680. I hope this set was worth the wait!

You're right, I stand corrected. And I guess we'll see just how useful these parts end up being in MOCs.

I can't imagine they would be thick enough to have rubber tires. And besides, look at how small they are. They're only connected by axles. You can't even use wheel hubs with them. That's going to make using those new wheel pieces outside of their intended context extremely difficult, especially for larger and heavier models that require additional support at their wheel connections. Completely agreed. But, at least there's two steering modes. And maybe there's a way for the Ingenuity Helicopter to deploy from the rover's underbelly like in the real-life version.

Look closer. The new A-Frame piece has reinforcements. And in case anyone didn't notice, I'm pretty sure this is the same A-Frame piece we will see used in yellow on 42146. That should give us some perspective on its boom size.

The final product for 42157 looks fantastic without a doubt. Those new claw pieces will be very useful. Additionally, this set's packed with pneumatic cylinders, which increases the value we're getting for its price. Unfortunately, however, I do have one major critique: it does not appear that this set will contain a motorized pneumatic compressor, and that's a massive missed opportunity for TLG considering this set's $200 price tag. We haven't gotten a motorized compressor in any set since 2018's 42080 Forest Machine, which contained 489 fewer pieces and cost $50 less than what we're getting here. Just one battery box and one PU motor would have been all that was required, so a motorized air compressor absolutely could have fit in this model considering its size. For a $200 set, it's a real shame that TLG decided to stick with the manual air pump design.

I agree. Let's not jump to conclusions about how accurate or inaccurate this model is until official higher-resolution photos of the set are released in May. The leaked image hyperlinked in this thread is only preliminary and may not reflect the final model, which in reality may be larger than it appears to be in that one blurry photo. Plus, we haven't seen any of its actual functions yet, so the crane have more surprises than it appears. Additionally, it should also be noted that even if the model itself does not meet the community's expectations, it may include lots of useful pieces or building techniques that are difficult to find anywhere else. For example, the crane's tank treads may appear to be 5 studs in width, when they may in fact be usefully-recolored versions of the newer 7L tracks, which currently only exist in yellow. If that's true, then that recolor could benefit many MOC builders who wish to construct larger tracked vehicles with those elements. But we can't know any of this for sure until official photos are released. So let's just wait a few more weeks, and when those official pictures release by the middle or back half of May, then all of us as a community can determine whether or not the finished model is actually worth the astronomically high price tag the TLG believes it to be. Maybe it will be worth the money, maybe it won't. Maybe the final model will look accurate, maybe it won't. Then again, we won't know the final answers to those unknowns until official photos release in May. Worst case scenario, even if we're correct and this set's not worth the money, I'm sure there will be some form of sale or discount on it somewhere eventually that fans will be chasing after. :)

Wow! Great work on the mechanism. Can't wait to see the finished product.

Unfortunately, I can't see the image, just a minus sign. Maybe its because this is blocked on my computer. I'll try on my other computer and see if it works there.

This is a great idea. Would this joystick controller system also work well for air and water vehicles?

Wow! Excellent work on this MOC. We don't see large-scale Autogyro builds often in LEGO Technic. Keep up the good work!

Well, granted TLG did say the primary reason was to focus their energy on their Education lineup, which makes sense because schools pay a lot more money than general consumers to purchase their products. This is purely speculation, but the TLG might be planning a major expansion of their Education line, and if that is actually true, then the cancellation of Mindstorms could be financially justified under the circumstances.

Well, at least TLG is taking care of the issue before they release the set. It's either we wait the extra year and have a strong, sturdy model that works correctly, or have a flawed end product that doesn't stay together and suffers the same fate as the 42113 V-22 Osprey that crunched those 8-tooth gears into oblivion. We wouldn't want this set to be suddenly pulled from production and then only exist as a precious collector's item like the Osprey did, so let's be grateful that TLG is taking the necessary actions to avoid further cancellations of sets they release. And besides, smaller is technically better when it comes to LEGO builds. Most of us are likely going to be storing this thing on our shelves or on display 95% of the time anyways, so the smaller the crane is, the easier it will be store the model without having to undo many hours of work disassembling massive components of it immediately after building just to put it away.

This is some excellent progress, and I can't wait to see the finished product. What's its propulsion system? Are there any other mechanical functions planned?

You're using the classic Space color scheme, I see. Nice! This is some excellent progress and I can't wait to see the finished model.

Nice part usage of those small curved banana gear racks. I didn't know they worked so well with those new Technic ring pieces introduced in the Friends line.

Wow. Really nice mechanisms and design. This is an interesting competition, and I can't wait to see the finished product.

Unfortunately, I don't think TLG is ever going to do that, Jim. LEGO Education Spike Prime was specifically designed for students and teachers to use in classrooms, as well as for robotics teams to use in FLL Competitions. As the FLL Competition Rulebook expressly prohibits daisy-chaining of multiple hubs in competition, I do not believe TLG would openly provide teams with the tools required to break these rules. In fact, TLG recently updated the Spike Prime firmware in such a way that it has become impossible to flash the Robot Inventor hubs' firmware onto Spike Prime Hubs, and only the Robot Inventor firmware permitted daisy-chaining. This is obviously a business strategy, and as such, I am afraid that our only hope for daisy chaining, at least for the foreseeable future, lies with the other Powered UP hardware and mobile app. I'm sorry, Jim, but this is what companies do. They come out with some brand new product and then they either stop supporting that product or introduce a new product so that you are tempted to buy more from them. It is obvious that this is what TLG is willfully doing here. I have no doubts at all they canceled Mindstorms just so that people would be forced to purchase the more expensive Spike Prime system, and then the super-expensive Control+ hardware if they are not satisfied with the limited capabilities of Spike Prime. No matter how long you bake the cake, all they want at the end of the day is their money, and these are the consumer-facing consequences of that. So, unfortunately, I do believe an implementation of daisy-chaining in the Spike Prime environment anytime soon is very unlikely, at least until there is some major breakthrough in the Powered UP System that costs even more money. The next best thing we can hope for that might happen is an expansion of the Powered UP mobile app that supports the low-energy Bluetooth connectivity of Spike Prime Hubs. But then again, such an update was never listed as an upcoming milestone on the Powered UP Roadmap, so even this is still not likely to happen anytime soon. And whether or not TLG will ever decide to modify this timeline in response to the discontinuation of LEGO Mindstorms remains to be seen by the surrounding community.

Thank you so much for starting this discussion. I will add my proposals here. Although such parts would be a bit more specialized than others mentioned here, I strongly believe that we need some more rotor and propeller blades added to the LEGO Technic building system. I know we already have the 89509 fan blades as well as the 65422 and 99013 helicopter blades for large propellers, but these two existing pieces alone do not serve our needs well for building air, water, and wind/fan-powered vehicles that use ducted-fan or coaxial propeller systems; the 89609 fan blades are too small and are only produced in one direction, while the 65422 and 99013 helicopter blades have surfaces that are way too thin. Additionally, the helicopter blades cannot create air unless they are securely fastened to the hub at an angle, which is very difficult to accomplish with Technic pieces without the risk of centrifugal force pulling the entire assembly apart, especially for variable-pitch systems. To fix this issue, my proposal is to produce new propeller blades that are wider and more aerodynamic (preferably with leading and trailing edges), as well as new rotor hub elements that allow these blades to swivel or remain stationary (depending on whether or not the propeller is fixed- or variable-pitch) while still keeping them fastened to the hub. The propeller blades themselves should be made in different sizes (to allow for different sizes of vehicles) and designed with neutral, symmetrical airfoils, like the one displayed in the attached image, to allow for use of the same part in both clockwise and counterclockwise rotational directions. This will save on cost when producing the new rotor blade, because only one new element for each size rotor will have to be fabricated rather than two blades exclusively optimized for different directions of rotation. Pin or axle holes on the flat blade tips would also allow a ring to be constructed around the blades to reinforce them while rotating or drive them from the outside, if found necessary. Additionally, the blades should have connectors with circular protrusions that fit in the circular grooves of the propeller hub, as well as axles that allow bevel gears to be mounted inside the hub for variable-pitch systems. This would mean that the hubs would have to be produced in two halves: one for the bottom and one for the top, so that the pitch-changing mechanism would be secured inside the hub with the protruding ends of the rotor blades. This would likely mean producing the propeller hubs with central pin holes rather than axle holes, so that the axle controlling blade pitch could rotate freely for variable-pitch propellers. In that case, driving the propeller assembly itself would would require a standard turntable to connect the rotating blade assembly with the vehicle's static structure around the propeller pitch control axle. For fixed-pitch propellers, the structure built inside the rotor hub would be far simpler, as securing the blades would only require using axle connectors and axle pins to lock the blades to the hub. By securely fastening the blades into the propeller hub, the propeller can operate at much higher rotation speeds without the risk of centrifugal force disintegrating the entire assembly and injuring someone who may be standing nearby when the model is turned on. A possible alternative to bevel gearing would be to provide circular "swashplate" pieces (kind of like mushroom-shaped elements) that connect around the central drive axle and are two studs smaller in diameter than the propeller hub itself. The mushroom elements could have bars extending from their bases that allow them to be reciprocated by either pneumatic cylinders or linear actuators. This system would allow the propeller hub and blades to rotate around the mushroom swashplates, while the mushroom pieces themselves remain stationary with the rest of the build. Unfortunately, the propeller hubs themselves are the biggest catch because different molds of them will have to be fabricated for different numbers of blades. For example, if you need a large 9-blade propeller for let's say, a 1:4 scale model of the Vonmercier EV Sports Hovercraft, you will need a propeller hub that has 9 socket attachments for 9 rotor blades. Or if you're building even bigger like me and you need an even larger 15-blade propeller for a 1:3 scale model of the GE9X, then you will need a larger diameter rotor hub with 15 blade sockets. I know it all sounds a bit complicated, and I understand that such parts may never be feasible, but I strongly believe that adding such parts to our inventory will increase the flexibility and efficiency possible when constructing aircraft, watercraft, and other propeller-powered vehicles with the LEGO Technic building system.

This is a great aircraft set, but to be honest, I am kind of disappointed that this set does not include at least one motor for its price. $100 is a lot of money for a non-motorized set that doesn't even include pneumatics, at the very least. To be honest, this set's predecessor (the $50 fire plane set) was a much better deal for roughly the same features, not to mention a better color scheme and a twin-piston engine of all things, even despite its relatively small size and lower piece count. Now granted, that set released years ago, so I understand the pricing inflation, but its still a bit sad that this set doesn't really better or expand upon its predecessor.

That's true, but PyBricks does not offer block-based programming options. Additionally, it does not allow you to create an account, meaning you cannot reliably save your programs on the site. Instead, it relies on browser cookies, which can be unintentionally deleted if your browser cache gets too full. That happens a lot with Google Chrome. At the end of the day, LEGO's official software is the best and safest option. You know what I think TLG needs to do? Get rid of the standalone Spike Prime App altogether. It's so lackluster in its functionality that its better off scrapped. What we really need to see is a single LEGO Powered UP Programming Application that can run on both computers and mobile devices. Since Mindstorms will no longer exist soon enough anyway, and Spike Prime is basically the same thing, it might as well replace the Robot Inventor as a consumer-facing product. And TLG is already merging other standalone Powered UP apps (Droid Commander, Control+, etc.), so why not include Spike Prime? A Python coding interface would need to be added to Powered UP, sure, but wouldn't it be a lot more efficient to allow that feature for every LEGO Powered UP Hub rather than just Spike Prime? Then LEGO can focus their team's energy on a single, powerful application (with proper documentation) rather than wastefully dividing their attention across a bunch of mediocre standalone ones with far less functionality, kind of like what they did for LEGO Life. After all, if one thing has been made clear since the discontinuation of the EV3, is that Powered UP is the future of Mindstorms. The core advantage of Mindstorms proper was that it could be programmed via a computer as well as tablets and smartphones. Meanwhile, you presently cannot do this with other LEGO hubs; the app for that works exclusively on mobile devices. If Mindstorms is going away, then we will lose the ability to program LEGO models on the computer, which will shrink the market that the products appeal to. If TLG really wants to get the greatest potential possible out of the Powered UP System, then they're going to have to appeal to those who relied on Mindstorms by continuing its legacy through the Powered UP System, and give us some option for computer control at some point. So why not just do it now? Why not just merge everything into one application and provide compatibility for all three kinds of devices? Sounds like a simple, one-size-fits-all solution to me. They do that and everyone will be happy, not just Technic fans but also those of non-Technic sets like the City Train, Duplo, and Boost kits that already share Powered UP Technology anyways. After all, we already heard LEGO was going to incorporate the Mindstorms hub into Powered UP anyway before it got discontinued, so as far as I am concerned, including Spike Prime and adding all the same features Robot Inventor had (Hub2Hub, Fan Models, Interactive Instructions) seems like the most logical course of action for the Powered UP team at this point. What do you all think?

I have some good news about this. First, LEGO has added all of the Spike Prime products to their retail website. So maybe, they are opening it up to the general public to replace Mindstorms. The other good news is that I learned it is indeed possible to re-flash the Spike Prime Hub with Robot Inventor Firmware using the Robot Inventor application. Meaning that, as long as you have the application already saved and installed to your device, you can retain the exact same functionality of the Robot Inventor Hub with the Spike Prime Hub. The part colors will be less appealing, of course, but at least losing the Robot Inventor will not be a total loss, as all of the same features will still work with the Spike Prime System, including the Powered UP Compatibility and Hub-2-Hub Communication. Now, by no means am I justifying the TLG's actions here. I still believe that the cancellation of the Mindstorms lineup was unacceptable, however, I am very grateful that the Powered UP system has developed enough to provide workaround solutions.

Actually, it could still be done. These modules would not need wires, since they would be designed to fit together. In that case, you could just have a male and female PU connector embedded into each part, then fit them together to create your controller. Almost like the modular system we have seen in the LEGO City Space and Deep Sea Sets from 2019 and 2020. Unfortunately, you would probably need some sort of central battery/microcomputer module with a charging port or something so that the modules would be powered, but then again, that wouldn't be much different than the controllers we have now. So, good idea, that could actually work.

First of all, TLG's discontinuation of Mindstorms is unwarranted and beyond unacceptable. Even more so than discontinuing the EV3. They knew they were making a good profit off the kits, and they knew that the kits were successfully rivaling other robotics systems, like VEX, for example. Although it was disappointing to watch the EV3 go last year, they still addressed our concerns with the new Robot Inventor System and added the features we asked for, resulting in a huge software improvement. The Bluetooth Low-Energy (BLE) Daisy-Chaining Features were incredibly useful, and the many models featured in the app were astonishing. So much so, that I even began to consider the Robot Inventor even better than the EV3. I was willing to go along with the change and had plans to work around it. But now, of course, they're throwing away all that work and all that money by using an educational system that isn't even half as useful to replace a robotics system that has served both markets even better than the Spike Prime could do alone. If TLG really wanted an updated robotics system that would replace the current one, why not just come up with one system in one set of neutral colors instead of two with all the features they wanted to begin with and expand from there? That's what they did for the EV3. But no, they wanted bright, annoying colors and more features just for the educational version. Didn't even bother to consider those who might be colorblind, they just did what they wanted. This shows us that LEGO does not care about its customers and what the customers want to see; they just care about their money and what they want. So, I for one, am incredibly appalled and disappointed about this, and I strongly believe that we should definitely reach out to the team and explain their concerns. I highly disapprove of the business direction LEGO is choosing to travel in with this. "Other priorities" could be the same excuse they throw at us when they kill off the Technic line too. I know are there might be solutions and workarounds to this, but this sudden discontinuation of the Mindstorms line, without even caring to release a gradual sunset timeline so that people could at least prepare for this, is a complete disservice to the customers and to the robotics market. And knowing that this could just as easily happen to Technic one of these days, I do think we should stop this before that happens. And I for one, am holding off on buying anything else from LEGO until they pull it together. Completely unacceptable, TLG.

Absolutely 1000% agreed. I can't wait until somebody attempts a full RC mod of this set. And who knows, maybe they'll carry on the Buggy Motor Rotor Drive tradition from the 9396 set too while they're at it.