aFrInaTi0n

App Version on Beta is 3.0.7, Nordic Firmware shall than be updated to version 3.22.

Beta Update is available from the Playstore since this morning, changes are: Observations so far: - 🟨 1st Firmware Update failed on both Buwizz, second attempt with (shutting down and) restarting the App + the Buwizz unit helped - 2nd attempt went through fine. - 🟨 no mixed firmware mode: New App version is forcing updates of any Buwizz with old firmware, before you can use it - 🟩 Profiles are being kept - 🟥 Central Steering: First test with the medium angular motor wasn't working out. It did somehow start to calibrate, but not sure if no "endpoint" as blocker is needed to work correctly - 🟨 Current Limits: For the PU Ports the warning comes with values greater than 2.0 A, for the PF Ports it warns already from the "1.0 A" value - 🟨 UI: Bug of the Currents / Voltage - went away after some reconnects / restarts of the profile (or is 17.6 Volts the new ludicrous mode for BW3? 😂)

@Jundis I think the more and faster we test the update, the earlier.. I would guess the end of april is aimed for the prod version, so ~3 weeks of Beta testing if everything goes well. Its very easy to join, just go to the google playstore and navigate to the Buwizz App, there should be a button to participate at the beta.

Little update with Mk 4.0 and Mk 4.1 of the RC BATPOD: Huge thanks for @efferman and @Jundis for giving me a tiny and sturdy af gearless 1/2 reduction for the servo to do only 45° rotation of the Buwizz as leaning-weight at max! ♥ Unfortunately the weight rolling in instead of being shifting outwards the CoG wasn't as effectful as initially thought, but has been identified to a slightly missalignment from the chassis due to redesign, never the less a nice viewing angle with an offset to the left for the camera (so this is the reason for the left-heavy turning) for the MK 4.0: Finally the Mk 4.1 Testdrive with already better steering / effect of shifting the CoG through some minor adjustments in the geometry of the chassis. And a wonderful Mk 4.1 crash ( Buwizz):

@Jundis the "maybe end of April" Update may include it or not, they didn't state any clearer.. Edit: Another of those "lost range in under 25 meters" scenarios I am experiencing repetitivly... 🤬

Yeah, I had a call on our companies on-call-duty and realized inbetween - but couldnt immedialely edit.. Thanks, this is much more that I could have asked already haha!! ♥ so thanks to both of you. Edit: I forgot about the generic build help thread... next time I hopefully will post there... *note to myself..

with the requirement for the mechanism to work with off brand servos too, it would still move by 90°. I have currently no time to rebuild it digitally nor attach it to the servo, maybe this will clarify the intented usecase:

Sorry for confusion - I would like to have a solution which will also work out for aftermarket servos which only have the full 90° end position, as we a ll know the astronomic prices of original PF servos.. Goal of this is to use the upper part for a leaning mechanism which would have a Buwizz unit mounted to move the center of gravity of a motorcycle. My problem is, I could use gear reduction but the smallest and best fitting 2:1 config is 12t-24t - but this creates an stud offset to one side horizontally. Hope I clarified a little.. If not, I need to explain further.. Edit: screenshot of the direction is wrong, but was the easiest to take the screenshot out..

Hello together, I currently am in search for some reduction for having a servo doing its 90° max angle being converted into 30°- 45°. Goal is to have another part do a leaning of those wanted 45°. Also the middle 0° position should not have the teeth-offset which would be created by just using a pair of gears. gearracks and part 24014 would be possibilties to conquer that. Current (already working out) idea is this: (Hint: bottom axle is the one of the servo, upper part shall be angled to 45°, stud distance of servo output and the angling point should be kept, or max increased by one stud) Any ideas how this may be compacted any further? Best regards

Nice that xour Cafe Racer is finally released! It is a lot of fun to drive! Yesterday I was testing a double one-swingarm construction.. It is just coincidentally that it may look like a Batpod.. 🙄

@StudWorks As already pointed out, please supply us with the currents which it reached until it shut down. The thing of interest: The red one is the peak of the output. Its likely your peak currents are too high and / or applied for too long. Without more information nobody can really help you to identify. Please also keep in mind: It is likely you are reaching the limits of the Buwizz unit with your setup.. At least from the results you are telling us.. Edit: You also have seen the screenshot from my posting above, where they (Company of Buwizz) stated they will fix exactly the issue you seem to have? If not, please read and then wait, like we are all doing.. as unfortunate as it is..

Jerney modded the BatCycle - not fully functional, as the weight distributions seems to make left turns not possible, but nice how he kept the original shape! :)

@amorti sure the support for the servo mode to be used with the motor was also announced within that and may not be delivered "in the future"?!

@Toastie Currents, so I guess the "h" after the Ampere is too much there as it is only used when its about the capacity of the accumulator, correct?

Thats why I asked to take a look at the currents drained by the motors. Rough estimates: Real short peaks to 2.5 A per port may be fine - in the long run I would try to stay below 1.5 A per port - but even this may heat up the ICs in the long run.. So if you are experiencing shutdowns, checl for the reasons and adjust with smaller tires or gearing down to have more torque with less Ah drainage. Edit: Welcome to the club of customers which are somehow disappointed by the product..

@StudWorks have you tried the ramp up functionality to test if it works with those set? Also it would be recommended to add the output current monitor to get an idea about what was drawn as max value to get feeling for the load to the bw3 unit. From my opinion two things could be the case: Motors are pulling too much current because of high gearing or too much weight of the model (or too much friction somewhere) Buwizz3 Unit has a bad pcb with the ICs overheating stepping in way too early Another thing you can check: Do you have the firmware 1.8 installed to the brick?

This topic title is very confusing to me as the original Lego motors were called "Motor RC Race Buggy", Buwizz also has their "Buwizz Motor" which is a replica of a Buggy Motor and also Buggies in general... 🤯😵

@FriedlS I see.... So I will test those this weekend hopefully :)

@FriedlS How do you mount them to lego pieces if I may ask?

Updates for MTP: Ammended threaded axle (from "discontinued" to "not available right now") Added single / double beveled gears Added micro bushes for technic axles Added clutch gear 16T Added 3D model of their upcoming differential housing

Even if I am not Friedl, for the ballbearings: I am very happy with the 5L aluminium liftarms with a pressed in bearing in the mid hole from MTP, reference: Also there is another rising star with 3d printed parts, a review of their items will be posted in the next days by myself. (3D printed 3L liftarms with different options (pin / axle holes, aligned or as flipflop), they also offer ballbeared wheelhubs). They should arrive in the next days... 🥰 Carbon axles are offered by some (reseller-)brands from our far-east friends.. My personal opinion about using regular RC: Right now it feels (for me at least) somehow wrong using such as it is "not really brick-compatible" parts - even if brushless motor mounts may fit the spacings of LEGO liftarms etc.. On the other side I am really disappointed by Buwizz with their "premium price" product which doesn't really performs in some regards.. What I am really missing is RC components which are being fitted to be used in the brick world, like receiver, ESC and battery casings which respect the Lego (Technic) format. How wonderful would it be to freely place the needed components into different places and also have the power of 2s batts with brushless motors. I am especially a little bit wondering why CaDA is going with another line of brick-based/-fitted components which are not really an improvement (I know, I know, they may wan't to divert away from LEGO as it may get hard to get the PU connectors replicated without doing copyright infringements) - but with DoubleEE in their back would have the wisdom and also the money to think about trying those out - even maybe as a simple rc kit to see responds from the community, without directly aligning all their future sets for those components.

German Disclaimer in the footer: english translation from google:

I send them one of my RC mocs and gave my honest opinion about what is not possible with their brand, but with others. Also in my personal opinion they are not even considering into getting into new markets except the already exploited ones... 🤷‍♂️ Every honest feedback is a good feedback I guess - shall they decide if this agency will ignore all the non-LEGO brand mentions in their to their customer. BTW: Please don't enter any personal details and use not your main mailbox account, as it seems there is no GDPR agreement / disclaimer - which is mandatory since several years. So very professional looking agency..

Seems not if an agency is asking community sites to offer great MOCs.. but I may be too negative here

Just send all of them... because there isn't any limitation - more MOCs, the better for them