Saberwing40k

I'd say the price of such an item, if released as a set, could easily clear the $3000 mark. Multiple programmable bricks, plus like 20,000+ parts adds up fast. There might be a market for this, but it would be small. Also, I find your statement about Lego being run by incompetent morons kind of misinformed. Lego would be stupid NOT to release a UCS Millennium Falcon. Star Wars is one of the, if not the biggest movie franchises of all time, and the Falcon is one of the most iconic ships from that series. What that means is that Lego has a huge potential fanbase for an item like that, including Star Wars fans who might not ordinarily be in to Lego. Also, nothing? All of the sets Lego has on the shelf now, and you think that nothing is good? Not liking anything on the shelf is one thing, but I find it to be jumping to conclusions without further analysis. Most Lego sets are good, for people into that thing. I don't like city sets, but several of them are good. And, Technic set 42078 is pretty spiffy. Not to say that Lego is perfect, and that they don't occasionally make stupid decisions, because they do, but it is still rather harsh to say that nothing is good.

Nope, not even a bit. Lego hubs suck, and the Porsche wheels only work with their tires. Also, portal axles will not work with deep hubs, I dunno if Lego would make two different kinds. What would be really cool is if Lego made a rim with swappable spokes.

I don't see Lego using the PF 2.0 connectors for the trains. Why would they? It would be an expensive retooling effort that would be actively bad for the purposes of Technic. Say goodbye to using more than one motor per channel. I think that the WeDo and Boost point to the next evolution of Mindstorms, not Power Functions. It would be stupid of Lego make a change to the PF connectors that would be actively detrimental to the use of said system. Robotics systems need the additional wires for communication, and need to be a single connector to avoid confusing the processor. No such requirements exist for Power Functions. Also, I think the image on the box is a logo, and not the new receiver itself, as it has no visible connectors of any kind, and it would be rather stupid to have a receiver that looks like a 1x2 brick. It is an awkward shape, and out of system. With any luck, the Remote control Batmobile from a couple pages back will have the same receiver, as will 42083. This follows the precedent of the rollout of OG Power Functions, where System sets had the receivers before they showed up in Technic. I could be wrong though, but I'm hoping.

Sets are a lot more interesting when they have new parts, and useful recolors. For a builder like me, that's really why I buy/am interested in set.

I can be annoyed by what provokes discussion. for instance, I make an interesting creation that has pictures and a write up, and it gets 2 replies. Somebody posts a topic about an S tank with no pictures of information, and they have like two pages of discussion. Just my two cents, but I feel like a lot of builders have moved away from technical diagrams, which I love to see, and have more focus on glamor shots. Now, I do like a good looking model, but I also like to see how it functions. Jennifer Clarke's website is something I really like, and I don't feel is done enough anymore. Or, maybe my problem is that I'm trying to participate in this forum, and I feel like I am kind of ignored, and I alienate people, whether through words or actions.

Have you not read any of this thread? It would not be a Volvo like that. For the eleventy zillionth time, we know literally nothing about 42083 aside from the number. Milan might get involved if somebody else asks "Will 42083 be X?" I'm a little bit tired of people asking this question. If we knew, it would be posted.

Based on what evidence? We currently have no evidence for what 42083 is. It could be a 6x6 Honda for all we know. I highly suspect it's not any sort of current production car, as then there would be no reason for secrecy. I think it might be a Toyota Supra, the new, massively hyped one, but any guess, without a source, is empty speculation. If we go into speculation, it will degenerate into a wish list topic, and that makes it harder to read. Also, I for one am extremely disappointed that Lego is not allowing photography at the Toy Fair, but what takes that right into stupid territory is not allowing write ups. So, what's the point of inviting journalists if they can not tell people what they've seen? Why even go to a toy show at all? But, I'm taking that with a grain of salt. Maybe something was communicated badly, or we have something not translated right. It would be a risky move for Lego, and once again, a rule meant to stop miscreants ends up just making life hard for everyone else. Those bootleg makers will get images out, one way or another, as they'd be the kind of people to use spy cameras, and then Lego risks their relationship with blogs and fan sites, by not allowing photographs or write ups. We shall see.

It's because we know it's a Batmobile, and it is RC. For 42083, we literally know the set number, and that's it. It might be a Helicarrier, for all we know. We're discussing whether or not the Batmobile would have a useful controller or not. Also, @degenerate, have you seen a picture, or no?

Oh come on, I think a Batmobile would be a great subject for a Technic set. You have all the standard supercar functions, plus things like deployable weapons, ejector seat, an interesting canopy, and other nifty functions. The Batmobile in Arkham Knight, in particular, You have a variable wheelbase, an interesting suspension and steering system, and a retractable turret system. Plus, a deployable rear seat, and front ejector seat. I would nerdgasm if Lego made one of these with full functionality. I just really freaking hope that Lego goes for an actual Technic chassis with standard motors, and just have the receiver be a new part. It would be extremely disappointing to have Lego make a new receiver and motor set that is entirely one part. It would be just as much so to have them just reuse the Boost hub. I really question Lego's decision on that part. But, I don't think they'd do it. I'd think they'd either have a separate receiver and use an AAA battery box, or they'd come out with a rechargeable battery with included receiver, along the lines of a BuWizz. Why? It would give them much more freedom to design the Batmobile around a number of separate parts rather than one large block. But, I'm not getting my hopes up, it's only a 442 piece set, and it costs like 100 euro. Although, that is to be expected, given that it is a licensed and remote control set. Although, it would be kind of silly for Lego to design a new receiver and motor block. Such a thing would be rather expensive to design and build, and would have extremely limited reuse potential. Boost is kind of an exception to that, but I think programable bricks are thought of somewhat differently. Lego would probably want to kill two birds with one stone when it comes to a new electronic part. As an aside, I can not believe that Lego has not come out with a new, better control scheme for Power Functions. 2.4ghz is stupid cheap now, and I see plenty of companies do worldwide distribution, and have no problems with regulations. Since you can get a cheap 2.4ghz drone for $20, I refuse to believe that Lego could not make a 2.4ghz receiver for the same cost. I'd argue 2.4ghz is arguably superior to Bluetooth in this application, given that it is far more plug and play, which would be very advantageous to Lego. Oh well, at least we the fans have options, even if they aren't made by Lego.

Honestly, if Lego were doing new Mindstorms, they would have probably debuted it at CES in Las Vegas. I have not heard anything, so there probably isn't anything. EV3 is still fairly new, and Mindstorms overall still enjoys strong sales, so I don't see Lego changing it much.

I've looked closer at 42080, and I can kind of see the new valves. I though the valves were on the back, but that looks to not be the case. (There is only one hose crossing the articulation point.) Also, there are some nice dark bley small panels under the cab, which while not new are welcome.

On who's page?

Oh yes we can. Because unneeded recolors, like the red 3l axle pins, devote a slot away from something actually wanted, like, I dunno, blue or green connectors?

Actually, you're completely right. The 75532 Speeder Bike has a few in it. But, why are seeing only that particular connector, when there are so many other recolors in that set? They could have easily built a nice brown set. Although, that does raise the question of what kind of Technic set would look good in brown...

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but AustrianLegoFan has reviews up, if you're lacking patience. I watched his review for the hovercraft, and it has some of the triple perpendicular connectors in brown. This piece, in brown. Why? Who at Lego decides we need pieces to be changed to these garish and stupid colors? The way to avert problems of part confusion is to have clearer instructions, and divided builds, which they already do, so it is completely redundant. Also, what piece could anyone possibly confuse that one with? Why Why Why? It is just mind bending that they can justify recolors like that, and yet we don't have any blue connectors, or other parts in sought after colors.

@nico71 includes plenty of pictures on his website regarding this thing. http://www.nico71.fr/gbc-spiral-ball-lift/ Thing is, I think you explained it yourself. A Scotch yoke actually has both a vertical and horizontal component. The cam that actuates the mechanism also lifts the ball.

I honestly don't care what 42083 is, as long as it is teal!

I'm sorry, but I see several critical flaws in your plan. I don't mean to be mean, or come across as harsh, but you asked for advice, because you're at the stage where you don't have a lot of experience with Technic, and want advice. We've all been there. But, that does not mean I'll sugercoat it, that much. Firstly, what are you building that would weigh 12-15 kilograms? For comparison, 42055 weighs 3.5 kilos, and @Sariel's Maus tank weighs 5.3 kilos. Those are really quite big. I mean, this isn't an inherent problem, if you're building a scale model of something large. But, are you building the model large for the sake of being large, or are you building it as big as it needs to be? It's fine to build a large model, but building as big as possible is not a good design practice. What you are wanting to build also dictates the track and motor configuration. A bucket wheel excavator, for instance, has many small tracks, whereas a crawler crane has two or four large ones. I initially though what you were building would be near the top end of what is possible, but @Dawid_Szmandra recently posted a crawler crane that weighs in at a whopping 27 kilos. I'd maybe ask him how he drives the tracks on that thing. Secondly, you have some very bad ideas regarding adders and subtractors. Using adders is more or less unneeded, as Lego motors don't differ that much, and do not suffer very much from hard coupling. In addition, using an adder with more than two motors is a nightmare of complexity. Plus, you're adding gearing that accomplishes nothing. Same with gearing up and then gearing down. I've seen some people suggest using it, but it is a terrible idea, and horribly inefficient. It also does not remove any stress from the drivetrain. Also, bevel gears are going to be the LEAST of your concerns at the scale you're talking about. At your scale, all manner of components, including axles, can be broken by poor design. Don't ask how I know this. In addition, subtractors, at least in my experience, actually cause you to lose a lot of power in the drivetrain, as the drive motors backdrive the steering motor, instead of driving the vehicle forward. Thirdly, in my experience, using two Lego motors to drive a tank does not result in a vehicle that can't travel straight. Lego motors don't differ that much, and the weight of the vehicle actually forces the motors to move at more or less the same speed. Plus, any differences in motors can be accounted for by the operator with relative ease, the differing motors speeds only really matter with a self guided robot. Also, as I alluded to earlier, hard coupling motors will not damage them any more than normal use. Lego motors are quite good for what they are, and the other system parts actually equalize things fairly well, at least from my experience. Basically, you should use hard coupled motors, and keep the drivetrain, if any, as short as possible. With XL motors, you should be able to gear them down 3:1 and maintain the speed you want. Best of luck, I hope you come back with some actual WIP pictures.

Typo, probably. I'd say that 42083 is not any supercar on the road. After all, the Porsche was new, and so that's why it was hidden. The version of the 911 GT3 RS modeled by Lego was not yet released by Porsche, and that's why it had camo and was just called Ultimate IP Car. 42083 is not called as such, but it seems like a relatively sure bet. The Mack Anthem was called out as such, so another truck or other machinery seems less likely. The only need for secrecy would come from some other sort of license, like a car, or something fictional. So, what could 42083 be? My money, based on precedence, is a Mclaren BP23. It's a new car, that will likely debut sometime in 2018, but has been rumored for a while. That would be a good explanation for the secrecy, but I don't think we should speculate much more, we really have nothing to go on.

Yeah, no. That's an external concept artist, and has a lot of wheels. The Volvo ZEUX B model is far more likely to be one of these: By the way, 42081 says Volvo Autonomous on the box, but the name it is listed under is Technic ZEUX, which might be the name of the "real" vehicle. Or, there is the possibility that 42081 is a collaboration between Lego and Volvo for a concept vehicle, like the BMW bike B model, but I really doubt that.

It's a great idea, but I think you should adjust the title to include the fact that it's an idea, as just by reading the title, I thought you had a weak z24 clutch gear.

I think the B models could be: 42079: tow truck. 42080: tractor with trailer and log crane. 42081: Drone Volvo Dumper 42082: Reach Stacker

I'd think that the B model uses them.

Don't worry Jim, I see it as being 3x7 dogbones to. Also, the forklift almost certainly has dark blue parts. If you look at the top of the beam at the back of the cab,and the connector to the left of it, they are pretty clearly different colors. Also, there is a Lift Me arrow on the box of 42082, so it is a flagship. Here's a list of possible functions for the crane to have: Boom Elevation Boom Extension Winch Slew Outriggers Steering, 4 wheel Drive, to fake V8 I'd say that much is plainly evident, but a couple of questions remain. There is four wheel steering, but is it switchable? What does the function on the chassis selector switch between? A possibility is that the XL motor can be connected to the wheels, and the model driven at slow speed, like 42042 or 42055, and the other mode is for operating the outriggers. Or, it's a bidirectional switch, again like 42042. Another question is does the cab raise, and finally, is slewing motorized? I ask that because 42009 did not have motorized slewing, but on the other hand, 42042 and 42055 do. It's a bit of a mystery, but stay strong, friends. It's only a month and change until the toy fairs. Also, have a very merry Christmas!

Nah, you're right. The camera arm is more decorative. I actually didn't see anything on the box that indicates what that piece even is.