Brickthus

This is the difference. Many AFOLs have different vision from that of TLG. TLG's vision has to consider the primary consumers, children of the minimum age on the box. Only recently have 18+ AFOL sets been a "thing". Even then, they are going for new markets to get more people to buy some LEGO kits, rather than going for those of us who buy plenty already. Ultimately they have to fulfil the vision of profit. AFOL visions range from bigger models in the chosen theme(s) to layouts in the chosen theme(s) to mash-ups between chosen themes to new model in an AFOL theme (such as modular buildings or supercars) to new ideas in the brick. I would count my own engineering aspects of vision, including maximising capability of the system, as being in small minority. I think TLG also realise the limitations of the materials, so we are not going to get motors even more powerful than the PF XL, simply because one of those can already twist an axle. I also doubt we will ever get a motorised flying model in a set because of the liability issues and drone licensing, which may be different in each nation - too many hoops to jump through. We won't get 8mm scale trains because they are too big and costly. We won't get a realistic jet engine model because it would not have the market, even with proprietary sponsorship. Play value may be a common element of vision but the AFOL idea of that may differ from TLG's idea of it. I enjoy building Technic sets but I find I'm not getting the play value out of the Control+ ones, partly because programming is too fiddly on a phone. I have had some excellent times with other engineers at work, when we have bounced ideas off each other and made such rapid progress on solving a problem; that is addictive! I guess there is a lot of that at TLG but not quite on the same topics; there they are prototyping models on a theme to create a range of sets at price points. With Technic it is a bit more individual but the theme has to cover a number of bases in the product range, to continue to capture the market each year. The question might be "what size and colour of aircraft should we have, compared to the size and colour of boat, truck and car?" As I have gained some years of experience at work, I have enjoyed working better with others. I'm still great on my own but value the group activity equally. I can show great "syntality" (group encouragement behaviour) as long as I know the parameters. This has been particularly good in innovation. Even then, it does not make me the best "hub" person. I wonder if TLG will find issues in their hiring process when it comes to candidates on the Autism spectrum, who may show limitations in teamwork but may be the best individually. It may also be that TLG prefer to hire younger people whom they can mould more. I think I'm in a better position where I am. As an engineer there are more needed where I am than there are at TLG. The pay is better, so I can afford my LEGO habit. Innovation is often about me making time to fit it in, rather than it being the whole job, which leaves me greater incentive to do more of it. I also have some opportunity to raise patents, some of which have resulted from my models. Some of the problems I tackle are more difficult, and with higher consequence, than those to make a decent model kit; there is more about "designing a system for safety" where I am. As a safety engineer I get to say "no" a lot but most people appreciate it, especially when I take the initiative to show an alternative. I suppose even Technic is more arty than I am used to being. I have got as far as considering the whole model as a system with functions but there is still more to it than that. Mark

I'm taking my first steps in opening up the hardware. Using the official route (not cutting cables yet), I opened my 51515 Robot Inventor Kit Distance Sensor with a Torx T6 bit (not T7 as I read previously). To begin with I'm emulating the simple devices, which will allow the PU hub to control my own devices using the standard control patterns from the handset or software (train motor, gearmotor or light brick). Philo's page shows the connections to make to set the device IDs but there is another step to connect to the Distance Sensor rear half 8-pin connector. The Distance Sensor port has 2 unused pins separating the 2 motor pins on the right from the 4 control pins on the left (Gnd, +3V3, ID1 and ID2). The port is very small, too small for 1/0.6 wire, so I found some smaller stuff from an old electronics kit. The connections shown on the breadboard (green & black links) are for emulating a train motor, allowing variable speed control; ID1 to +3V3 and ID2 to Gnd. The leads to the multimeter measure the motor output voltage. I have just tested a PF M-motor successfully, connecting it in parallel with the meter leads, using a 9V to 12V lead with 1/0.6 wires attached and a 9V to PF lead. This allows the PU handset and hub to drive the PF motor with variable speed. I know a 3rd-party lead is available for driving PF motors but I will be doing more varied experiments, some including a PF power supply (LiPo or mains source likely) so that the PU hub batteries are doing only the Bluetooth communications. If only TLG had made a Bluetooth Receiver like the PF IR Receiver! I hope this goes some way to keeping it simple, in order to drive PF or 9V devices from PU, using the non-phone-dependent handset and standard motor drive protocols. I hope this will make PU a bit more useful. I find the 2-Port hub and handset useful because they are not phone-dependent. I also find the 6-Port hub useful because it can have downloaded programs from a PC or other device and can operate independently. I have more problem with the 4-Port hub because the phone controls are not as precise as the train handset; I don't get the play value out of the Technic sets that use them. If only the firmware would understand 1 or 2 train handsets without a phone being needed to connect them. I just found the train sets and Robot Inventor Kit on discount and bought some more - more 2-port hubs, handsets and another Distance Sensor to open up! Mark

I started a LEGO Technic Creatures Facebook group. I have a working Technic model of Nemo the clown fish, with mouth and gills, pectoral fins with 2 degrees of freedom, fin folding and tail swishing selectable by gear selectors. The model also has tilt and turn and an anemone that can move; those could be motorised later. I did suggest the animals theme to TLG but they didn't want to make it a regular sub-theme of Technic. I also did a working BB-8 droid before that. This would be expensive with 4 XL motors, 1 servo, lights, 3 IR Receivers and 2 LiPo batteries but it was possible to drive and steer. The Technic sphere was a good challenge. Mark

One thing that swings the idea in favour of fake motor inserts is that TLG used to use bespoke motors (the metal bit inside the plastic box) for most of 4.5V, 12V and 9V but with Power Functions they moved towards using standard off-the-shelf motors similar to other toys, which means they are more available, cheaper in bulk, and the failure rate is probably lower on average, and easy to rectify with a swap when something does fail. This means I would be prepared to fit a replacement insert into a PF motor casing if I had the tools, source details and patience. Assuming this has continued for PU motors, which it clearly has for some equivalent motor units, I would particularly advocate motor swapping for a PU BOOST hub, where there are 2 integral motors. If either of those failed then it is worth restoring the functionality of the whole £75 unit by swapping one. Since the unit includes encoders it would still be possible to drive straight according to the program. I had trouble back in 1994, in my degree project of a LEGO robot, as I had to use 2x 47154 5x4 motors geared down with worms to drive a robot chassis. I used the 4.5V rotation sensors with discs but it would never go in a straight line because it was underpowered considering the weight of the computer card and batteries it had to carry. Since then I switched to 12V train motors (8W each) that were the highest-power motor of their time. Now I would use PF XL-motors geared down 3:1, as in a rover robot that I used to test the early PF parts. Apart from the 9V 5292 buggy motor, PF was a great improvement in motor power but we have now used up that extra power in our expectations! Mark

It's a good idea, but if the vehicles belonged to a popular film or TV franchise then it would probably do better in the LEGO Ideas business model. Max Max would be a suitable theme for vehicles of various shapes with bones and spikes as decorations, but obviously those films were age-rated above the age of children who might buy the set. That makes it tricky. This is one reason why the LEGO movies redrew some themes from more adult films in a child-friendly way, to make the ideas available without the excessive violence. So Mad Max would be an input to the Apocalypseburg scenes to LM2, westerns including Westworld for the western scenes in LM1 (with robot gunslinger). TLG wants to attract new sponsors and new purchasers through LEGO Ideas, those who are not yet AFOLs, so popular themes are a way to get those. My model of Nemo might suffer the opposite age issue compared to what I say above, since the Finding Nemo theme appeals to younger children, where older children and adults would have just a memory of him. The model has Technic functions and build complexity for the 11+ age group, which is a mismatch, maybe even 16+! It was just so nice to motorise the realistic movement functions of a fish because it could be done, and the model was popular at the exhibition we went to before the Covid-19 lockdown. My own CityAirbus aircraft model could get a new sponsor whilst the theme might attract a few people in the aviation and aerospace industries. I hoped there would be additional appeal to anyone (usually AFOLs) who was disappointed at the cancellation of the Osprey set 42113. But then the model aims to be a Technic set, which is not as simple as some themed sets that have succeeded. At least it fits the same price point and age category as the Osprey, as a deliberate replacement. So, in summary, consider the potential for new sponsors, new not-yet-AFOL customers and the age-fit of your idea compared to the complexity of the model you make. Mark

Yes, that would be lovely. I hoped it would add something new to Technic models. Its maximum height is where the two clear beams are at right angles. I tested the mechanism with another layer of crossed beams for more height but that was more difficult to keep stable and more complex to make the transmission for the wheels. I may include that in an update later. So far they have not chosen to use clear beams, like Anakin's Podracer 75258, in Technic sets but it's a great way to give the impression of unsupported flight! Support is growing, so I hope we will make the first milestone soon. Please keep on spreading the word. Mark

Yes, that's fair enough for those two sets; they are definitely new in topic and techniques. If only similar novelty of my Nemo model had enough appeal, but I suppose the age group who are into Nemo are not quite the same as those who could build a £200 Technic kit. LEGO Ideas does seem to be aimed at attracting new non-LEGO people to the product, more than satisfying AFOLs. I did buy both the Fishing Store (not built yet) and the Tree House (built up to putting the branches on). I have some difficulty finding space for all the models once they are built! I have built 6 Technic kits so far this year but I spend more time building MOCs, some in an attempt to join the 10k elite! My favourite was the Exo-Suit as I was a Spacer in my youth. I tried a Space Monorail project but a faster, never-obsolete, brick-built monorail is just not the same as the nostalgia for the old 1990s system. Mark

Following my disappointment that the Osprey 42113 did not follow the normal pattern of availability and cost, I decided to build a civil aircraft MOC of a similar price point. I chose the CityAirbus because it has an interesting configuration, not seen before in LEGO Technic. The real one is all-electric, improving on the usual gas-guzzling Technic prototypes. There was also room to innovate in the model. A lot of prototype aircraft inherit a shell from an existing one and fit new equipment, which doesn't make for such an interesting model. With Technic we want to see the new mechanisms, so I left the underside open to view the gearbox. There are three motorised functions: rotor spin, a "hovering" mechanism and a movement mechanism. A single L-motor powers the 8 rotors and a selection gearbox for the other 2 functions. The right lever does the hovering mechanism, which lowers a pair of linear actuators that move clear beams to raise the aircraft off the ground. The left lever does the movement mechanism that powers a sliding axle arrangement that drives clear wheels on the feet of the scissor jack. The two manual "mechanisms" are removal of panels on each side and the ability to rolls sideways when landed, using small wheels on the skids. The red lever sows the centre of the function selection gearbox. It works like the one on the back of Claas tractor 42054. The rotor drive comes from the centre of the gearbox, using the reversing bevels, and goes up, then diagonally to reach the front rotors. The rear rotor drive goes along the top. My first prototype test model allowed the rotors to tilt in sided pairs but they do not do so in the real CityAirbus. The motor is above and to the rear of the function gearbox. The hovering mechanism is geared down by worm but has a small gear-up before the worm. A clutch protects the motor. You can see the final drive from the end of a row of 16-tooth cogs to the LA (mirrored the other side). The movement mechanism has an axle sliding in a red 8-tooth cog in between the LAs, with bevel drives to the wheels. The battery unit (any 4x8x3 one will do) is housed at the rear. The 12-tooth cog shows the control to a PF LiPo for this prototype but the PU 2-port hub could be used. The maximum hovering height is about 7cm but the movement function works as soon as the skids have left the ground. Further flight uses the traditional "swooshing" method. Walking pace would meet the real 75mph design speed at 1:20 scale! My hope is that this will help to ensure that we have LEGO Technic civil aircraft of a decent size in the range of sets, seeing as the Osprey would have been around for at least next year, had it not tripped over the "non-military" policy. As a set, the final CityAirbus model would need to be sponsored by Airbus Helicopters, who own the IP to the real CityAirbus. They would specify decals to put the livery patterns and brand names on it. The design and build time was 125 hours over about 5 weeks in August and September, quite a few hours after midnight! More pictures in my Brickshelf folder Video on YouTube Project on LEGO Ideas Please let me know what you think, and do support and share! Thanks, Mark

Given the cancellation of the Osprey, I built a model in the VTOL family, the CityAirbus air taxi prototype, aiming for a similar price point I chose the CityAirbus for its interesting configuration. Its similarity to a drone may answer the question "why isn't there a LEGO drone?". It also has potential for innovation of functions and the real one is all-electric. The real one is testing in Germany this year. Some YouTube videos show its early tests. I designed the model to emulate the hovering, using techniques from 75258 Anakin's Podracer and an aircraft loading platform. It can also move forwards and backwards whilst hovering. Mark

Maybe if you make Great Ball Contraptions, which use up a motor's life quickly, you would be able to keep genuine LEGO motors for other models. I agree with the point above that best accuracy for Mindstorms etc. merits the best quality. For rapid usage of life anything that is safe will do. Therein lies the question; does it still meet the CE standard of toy safety? My new aircraft (pic below) uses a single L-motor. The take-off mechanism slows it down but doesn't cause the clutch to slip. The function might not be used too often, so the life would be OK. The rotor spin function is on all the time but is a lighter load. It is best to design models so that the load results in the motor turning at half the no-load speed. That is the point of maximum power transfer. For train models, the motors can do 300mA but I stuck to 200mA per motor to prolong their life. 9-Volt trains had 2 motors where they had used a single motor as 12V trains. Mark

Yes, it takes so much work to drum up the support that a moment's dismissal in the 5-minute review-results video is rather cursory. I still haven't worked out how to get much more than 1000 votes. Either people must have superb marketing skills or lots of contacts. LEGO Ideas remains a theme based more on popularity of topic than innovation of building techniques. Mark

Now that we have both wider and narrower tyres at 43mm, the latter from 42093, smaller-scale trucks like 42008 can at least have single-width front tyres. A decent large truck of traditional style needs at least 2 types of tyre, a narrow one to double-up for driving axles and use singly for tag axles, and a wider one for super-wide front wheels and trailer wheels. The ratio is about 1.5:1 fro the two widths, but both pairs of parts (hub and tyre) are somewhat unlikely to be produced at any size, except for motorbike wheels! We have seen a couple of multiple-42082 MOC cranes but I would hope for a 6-axle one as the ultimate crane. The "ultimate crane" theme struggles with the limitations on the number of telescopic sections as well as the rigidity and weight over boom length. Whilst a real crane can have up to 7 telescopic sections and 5 is common, LEGO sets have 2 or 3. I was surprised to see only 2 in 42082. A telescopic section 1 brick thick would be far too heavy; I tried it once. Telescoping needs the walls of each section to be 1.6mm thick, not 8mm. I wonder which 2021H1 set(s) will have the 2-switch 6-AA battery unit that the Osprey had. This is a key PU piece that provides for anything that doesn't use phone control. I still wish the 4-port PU hub could be driven by the train handset. Could a firmware update achieve this? I enjoyed building 42100 but I don't really play with it. I found the phone controls imprecise compared to a handset with proper buttons. Soon the parts would be redeployed; I had planned to use some of the motors with the spare port of the switched hub but the Osprey failed. Following the Osprey debacle, we need more civil aircraft of 700-2000 pieces; over 2000 pieces might not be sufficiently swooshable. Has anyone made one a civil aircraft as a suggestion to TLG? We need to support the aircraft theme. I have some experiments ongoing. In terms of colours, especially panels, I'd like to see something with more "bright blue" (the traditional blue colour of 857). Not much in 42112. 42024 (2014) was the last set to have the 5x11 panel in bright blue. The parts could be re-used for Classic Space with Technic functions. Mark

It can be done with 4 links rather than 3. I did the collective and cyclic pitch for an Apache, using the 8856 helicopter rotor parts as the swash plate. Each pair of wishbone parts (black) has the collective and one dimension of the cyclic pitch added together with lever mechanisms. Both are routed to the respective controls in the double cockpit. Picture Folder The 8-lobed ball piece can slide on the drive axle with a little persuasion, either silicone lubricant or filing the axle hole. With heavy blades the blade-off prevention building method has to be strong. The new blades don't have as many attachments as the 89509 educational parts but 3x peg holes perpendicular to the release direction should be enough. I had plans to implement this for a Chinook. It could also be done for Osprey at a larger scale than the kit. In order bring the controls through the engine tilt mechanism, turn the motion into linear motion, sliding in and out of the engine pod, and use rotatable devices to turn it into lever motion within the engine pod. Mark

Nemo has had a few updates, particularly in his eyes. Since then I have changed the gearbox so that two functions may be used together. This allows the mouth & gills to move at the same time as either the tail swish or the pectoral fins. Gear selection is now done with 2 manual levers on top, so this saves a motor. More possibilities from the free port (PF or PU) include motorising the Anemone movement. Nemo will be on show at the National Space Centre in Leicester, UK on 14th-15th March as part of their Brickish weekend. It would be great to meet some of you there. Mark

Forma uses a different business model for a different market. It began as a crowd-funded thing, with limited circulation. It aimed to be a desk toy. It has a few Technic pieces and a printed shell. Unfortunately Forma fails to meet the Technic set attributes of functions/cost and parts/cost so it is too expensive. It has only one function, which sets a functions price of £10, and under 300 pieces, which indicates a parts price of £25. It retails for £43! This is why I considered those equations for Nemo before building him. I designed Nemo to be Technic set, the natural equivalent of the Porsche 42056 or Off-Road Buggy 42099, using standard parts. Nemo has 4 motorised functions (£30 each) and 4 manual functions (£10 each) plus combinations so that's a functions price of at least £160. 2000-2500 pieces indicates a parts price of £200 including 1 motor and 1 2-port hub. I was also flexible between PF and PU, knowing that PU will be here for 10 years or so, and that a phone app provides opportunity for interactive play, similar to BOOST and 42099. I chose the 2-port hub because the train remote will work with it, not needing a phone. The fun of Nemo is to make some similar and some different mechanisms for a new application, but one that can rebuild just as any Technic set can. Definitely worth a try. Definitely worth supporting; let TLG and the market decide. Nemo has engine mechanisms in the Anemone, suspension wishbones supporting the fins and a gearbox to select the functions, as well as various cranks, sliders and levers. Even wheel arches for the mouth and gills. Add 4 wheels and rebuild as a car if you like! I have more ideas for creatures, with some really interesting mechanisms. These would each find a price point, based on the mechanism cost equation, and hence a size, so that the number of pieces would set the parts price similar to the functions price. I also set out to avoid loading the price with too many electrical pieces. When calculating the value of a Technic set, take off the electrical pieces at cost, and £1 per large panel, and then hope for 5-6p/piece for the rest. Mark

I'd love to set another precedent for Technic, also aligning with the modern theme of saving the planet, a set where the primary model is an animal. We have had the occasional dinosaur (8485 3rd model) but not much else. The chance of having realistic movements and also fitting the functions/cost and parts/cost that we expect of the best vehicle sets. Might attract more people to Technic too. My first is Nemo, a scaled-up clown fish with motorised fins, fin-fold, tail, mouth & gills and manual tilt, turn and anemone. 48cm long, aiming for the same price point as Porsche 42056 or Off Road Buggy 42099. Compatible with PF and PU. Mark

I build to 8mm scale, 1:38, using 8+ wide for UK prototype and it would be 10+ wide for US/EU prototypes. Minifigs are too short; using Woody's legs or a plate under each foot can raise them a bit. Mark

1) Here's the circuit diagram of 9V train controller: The diodes top left rectify the 7V AC input and the capacitor smooths the unregulated power. The LM317 regulates to 9V DC. 2) Rails carry 9V and 0V but a partial short circuit between two opposite-position controllers would create 18V across the un-shorted connections. 3) No, but I would try to follow either standard LEGO circuits or model railway book circuits, which may specify keeping signals isolated from track etc. Mark

Most of us can only dream of attracting support that fast. As long as it's honest, and not associated with anything dodgy, I would have no problem with someone promoting my MOC. Getting the project accepted is a big fulfilment; further development is a means of attracting more interest. I've gone for something we don't see often, a Creature in Technic. An Orange Clown Fish, like Nemo and Marlin, with motorised features but designed to fit the parts/cost and functions/cost criteria of the best Technic sets. I hope this would provide variety for Technic fans and also attract a wider range of people. Mark

As an alternative to the usual vehicles, here is my Technic MOC of an Orange Clown Fish, which can be built as Nemo (with "lucky fin") or Marlin. The model has 4 motorised functions: 1) Pectoral fins with 2 degrees of freedom in cyclic movement; 2) Folding in of pectoral fins; 3) Moving mouth and gills; and 4) Swishing tail. There are also 3 manual functions: 1) Tilt with trans-clear beams, able to nibble the anemone or swim a little above the flat position; 2) Turn on the turntable, through at least 180 degrees; and 3) the Anemone can move with some crankshafts underneath, via the gear on the left of it. The gear change is currently sequential (motorised) but I'm working on upgrades to that. The model has about 2000 parts in the fish and stand, plus another 500 or so in the sea bed items and turntable covering. It is designed to fit the parts/cost and functions/cost criteria for the Porsche 42056 or Off Road Buggy 42099 price point. You may notice parts from several sets; mouth/gill wheel arches from Corvettes 42093, fin edges from Car Transporter 42098, turntable from big red crane 42082 and orange parts from many sets. I have erred towards the real fish, omitting the whites of eyes and white teeth that are used in the cartoon characters. There is a short video and a long video on YouTube and the project is live on LEGO Ideas. More pictures there, and please add comments. I have development options for the control scheme. I used PF to get the functions working well but, as a potential set, I intend to use the 2-port PU hub for 2 motors (gear change and function power) as swap-in replacements; that would allow handset or phone control for best user-accessibility. One or two 4-port hubs could be used instead, but should I go that far, given the risk of loading the price with the electrical parts? The ultimate motorisation might be like 42100 with 4 motors in the fish and 3 motors on the sea bed, but £400 was not my intention. Nevertheless it should be cheaper than keeping a real fish and has the advantage of leaving the real fish where they belong. As a large Technic set, there is potential for sponsorship from Disney Pixar, just as other sets are sponsored by vehicle manufacturers. The Finding Dory franchise is accepted as a theme. Hope you like it. I would be very grateful for your support. If you would like to see Technic Creature sets alongside the usual vehicle sets then this might be the way to do it. It might even interest a wider range of people in Technic. Thanks, Mark

You hear that "p" word in the January Technic sets announcement? That is the sound of inevitability! I wish it were so for pneumatics in the August announcement! No Technic animals in the range this year; all vehicles as usual. I thought perhaps an animal or two would attract a wider range of people to the theme, as well as providing variety to existing Technic fans. More people = more profitability = better sets. I would hope that a firmware update to the Technic Control+ hub would enable the hub to have at least some outputs controlled with a train remote handset. Even better if two handsets could work to control all 4 outputs; otherwise why does the remote have peg holes at the sides? Mark

Thanks for the review. I'll wait and see whether there will be smaller and more-versatile PU parts like the PF parts, especially leads. I have made much use of the PF switches, including in a control panel (which is why it has the little switch on the back). As for PU in a Technic flagship, I would be put off unless PU demonstrates versatility and integration with the system. The parts in this review a plug and play for a smaller range of applications, such as trains or educational robotics. It is not as easy as PF was for a set like the 8275 Bulldozer. I would be more enthusiastic if the simpler PF functions were replicated; the expensive "Bluetooth and app" philosophy works for the new generation but would add too much complexity to use it in all models. I have many PF models with just a motor and battery; the trade for including those for £10 was favourable compared to adding the (now £35) 8293 kit separately. The X-Ray video shows that the motor inside the Boost motor is the same as the one on the XL motor, which makes it a good powerful standard motor and easier to use than a large NXT or EV3 motor. This is the most likely in a Technic set and would be an encouraging sign. If more than two motors were used then the instructions on getting 2 hubs controlled from 1 handset need to be included. I've done it but not always right first time. Sometimes the 2nd hub is reluctant to sync with the handset. However, recent Technic sets have tended to use fewer motors and more function gearboxes because of the cost. A further encouragement would be if the Boost motor can act as a servo motor (if there is no Servo motor in PU). Mark

We can only hope. Otherwise the applications with our previous product investments are limited. I do get the feeling PU is designed for the modern "module + app" generation and have less appeal to those of us who are used to making compatible hardware. The most fun I had with PF was to create my own circuits to go with its protocol. I had in mind to make a multi-coloured LED signal and also a flashing light like the 9V light pair. If TLG do not announce a set of leads soon, including some compatibility with PF, then I'll be tempted by the other IDC plug idea. However, the problem of obsolescence of older products is serious; many of us have large investments in previous electrical products. 9V leads degrade. Track connectors crumble and other leads are showing similar signs. I'm not sure whether the PF or PU lead insulation material is similar or not, but it has similar flexibility and feel. Either way, it indicates that there is a life limit on electrical products with cables, far short of the life of ordinary bricks, which will severely limit my purchasing unless a maintainability solution can be found. Oddly enough the 4.5V and 12V leads are fine, and use plugs that are easy to rewire. Best cable system yet! Given that the PU plugs are unique to TLG, is the 6-way cable available commercially? If so, I'd like to get some and re-wire some 9V leads and track connectors. That would keep things going at least until PU is fully deployed. Thanks for the teardown and interesting discussion. It seems the 6 pins are similar to the NXT/EV3 interface, where Gnd and Vcc (3.3V) are similar and ID1 and ID2 work as serial ports. I drove an LED from the NXT by changing the sensor type in software. Perhaps PU will be able to control an NXT/EV3 motor with only an interface programming change in an app? Mark

The answers gave a few encouragements, such as how to control multiple hubs from one handset, but it's not easy. Connecting each one individually and switching off each time still leaves trouble recognising the 2nd one as you restart and try to add up the connections. Sometimes it goes into a bang-bang control mode too! That was fixed by turning off and on again. I noticed that the PWM command on each hub is offset when a hub is first turned on, so going up and down in power without reaching maximum or pressing Stop leaves a buzz at zero speed. Fixed for the duration of hub On-time by going to maximum or pressing Stop. As long as we can get the multi-hub control to work, PU should prove to be a good product, at least as good as PF. I have made sure my Space Monorail is compatible with PU. I have yet to take pictures of my monorail train that uses it as an alternative to PF. Serious use for trains or monorail would need a PU hub with a LiPo battery, but I am remaining calm and quietly confident, awaiting developments. The support for PF should continue while PF sets are on shelves. 42080 is a new 2H2018 set with PF so the support would extend to at least 2 years from now. Wait and see if any 1H2019 sets have PF included. After that it will be while stocks last. Whilst I might agree with M_longer and andythenorth that soldering is going a bit far, using 12V individual plugs is something I did between 9V and PF, mainly to power an IR Receiver from a 9V battery box. A similar technique would work for the transition from 9V/PF to PU, and it's "all LEGO". The patent thing is only prohibitive if you intend to make commercial profit from it, or sell in a way that might undermine the patent-holder's market. Part of the aim of PU is to prevent kids making short circuits; it leads to customer dissatisfaction and expensive replacements. It was easy to make them in 9V, possible in PF with the 9V backward compatibility but not possible with NXT plugs. PU retains the impossibility of short circuits but simplifies the NXT plugs, losing the vulnerable clip. TLG has not ruled out selling female PU sockets for AFOL use but is pensive about selling them to support 3rd-party products. If I were TLG I would think hard about the balance between losing the initiative electrically, as they did with PF, and the need to satisfy customer functionality desires themselves, when they are a much larger organisation and therefore slower by default. They will have to think like a start-up if they are to develop PU rapidly themselves in the ways we would like. I would recommend that TLG licence selected 3rd parties as they did with some NXT sensors. I bought some licensed sensor types (IR Link, IR Receiver, Colour sensor and RFID sensor) and I would buy licensed PU parts. This kind of licensing would enable TLG to keep control of its patented connectors but let us get a wider range of electrical parts to play with. My investigations so far, using 2x train set 60198 (hubs and train motors) have found results consistent with my own assumption that the electrical interface would be similar to NXT/EV3 with the new connector type. That means pins 1&2 are 0V and 9V for a dumb motor or light (powered either way round but possible to read an RCX-type sensor when the motor drive is off, if the hub supports that), pins 3&4 should be +3.3V and 0V for smart sensors and pins 5&6 should be data pins (open drain) for serial I/O. This means smart sensors & motors would be recognised by type by their serial IDs, whereas dumb motors have the potential to be recognised by having a resistance of tens of ohms and an inductive load characteristic, if the hub detects voltage and current and has the right software to correlate their changes in time. This depends on what TLG wants the hub to do. Certainly the Boost hub can recognise the smart sensor and motor, and the WeDo hub can recognise the motor, motion sensor and tilt sensor. If the tilt sensor is only a passive device, where a ball-bearing makes one or two of four resistance contacts at a time, then it could be like an RCX passive sensor on pins 1&2 and that would mean passive RCX sensor types could be used (active TBD but more likely to benefit from being smart instead). The CyberMaster recognised its tools by the resistor in the switch in the module but did not work with active senors; this might be the extent of RCX-type sensing by pins 1&2 in the PU protocol - TBC, for TLG to confirm or deny. The use of an electrical interface similar to NXT/EV3 also means it would need only 2x 12V individual plugs to connect a dumb motor (including 9V motors or PF motors with pins C1 & C2) to pins 1&2 of a PU male plug lead. I suspect the port uses a similar motor driver to PF IR Receiver, so it might have the same issue as PF IR Receiver V1 if it were asked to drive 2x PF M-motors in parallel. This could be a simple reason why daisy-chaining of motors has been prohibited by design. The use of the NXT/EV3 interface would also give backward compatibility with those types of sensors and motors if a suitable lead were provided (or if AFOLs used 12V plugs to hybridise one). I'm sure there are software developers ready to get hold of the PU SDK if it were released. I would suggest that anyone brave enough might like to try splicing an NXT cable to a PU cable, to see if they can control an NXT/EV3 motor. Identify pin 1 of the NXT cable and connect to pin 1 of the PU cable and so on. Use a multimeter to check each port; voltage setting of 20V for hubs, resistance setting of 10-30 ohms for motors. I don't expect the motor's encoder to work with the train hub, but it might work with the Boost or WeDo hubs. Caveat: no responsibility is taken for your experiments or any damage consequences from them, whether you take the suggestion or not. If you try it and succeed, please post here. I would like to see three things from TLG regarding PU: Confirmation that the electrical interface is similar to the NXT/EV3 or confirmation of what it is, if it were different. Images and descriptions of the simplest products in the PU range, as soon as possible. It has to be cheaper than the hub to add a motor and battery to a model without needing Bluetooth control, preferably also with a pole reverser switch. There should be a PU kit to replace PF kit 8293, preferably starting in 2019 and sold in parallel with 8293, to help the transition. The price point of £30 looks difficult to achieve because the light brick 88005 is already £8.99 rather than £5.49. The lower the entry point price, the better for children. A PU LiPo multiplexer hub, in a 4x8x3 box, including the LiPo cells and charging socket of PF battery 8878, a flying lead to take commands from a PU hub, 2 ports on one end of the box (using the PU hub port positions) copying the motor drive input and 2 ports on the other end copying it in reverse (swap pins 1&2 or drive the opposite way round from the other channel of the motor driver). This device would enable 2-motor train locomotives by plugging a train motor into each end. It would power the motors with the LiPo battery and keep the AAAs for just the Bluetooth part. The motor driver chip can drive 2x motors per channel so that would make use of it for 4 motors. The multiplexer hub would also behave like an NXT/EV3 multiplexer for smart sensors and motors. Target price £50, perhaps £55 including the smart sensor functions. While I wait for PU to develop, I am encouraged in pneumatics. We have a new valve switch in set 42080 and it is possible to order them separately over the phone for about £2 each (pneumatic parts always show "Out Of Stock" on the LS@H "Buy Bricks" page, if they are listed at all. Other parts may be ordered either individually from that set or by the pneumatic bag of a set like 42043 (around £44.71 for 9 parts plus 28 tubes). This gives us the option to enjoy mechanical control systems while we wait-and-see for the electrical ones. Mark

Next year 10 balloon tyres and a mini version of 42009! Having 8 tyres made me think twice about how many sets to buy; settled on 2 for now and ordered some extra valves. There is also a trend in pneumatic pieces: 42043 4 switches, 2L, 1M, 1S cylinders but a lot of truck with it 42053 3 switches, 2L, 1S cylinders as the main functions of the vehicle, and a hand pump. 42080 2 switches (new type), 2L, 1S cylinders, main functions but a larger vehicle Soon we could have a replacement for the 8837 small pneumatic excavator with 2 switches and 1L/M and 1S cylinders as the main functions, and hand-pump control, but would it be at a low-enough price point to buy quite a few? I suspect £30 might not be possible these days for any set with 2 pneumatic functions. Perhaps if it did not have the small compressor for PF motor addition? There would be an excuse for lacking motor addition capability from the transition from PF to PU; it would need a Technic PU battery box and an L-motor with PU plug first. That would also be more expensive than necessary for adding a motor; I hope there will be cheaper ways to add a motor without remote control, at least to mirror the functions of PF in the PU parts range. I'd also like to see more Technic sets with 4 of the 43mm wheels and tyres of the type that replaced the ones that were so plentiful in Model Team days. A smaller set like 8837 would encourage younger kids to get into pneumatics, from age 9 rather than 10 (42053, 42080) or 11 (42043). 2 functions is also just enough to automate a second model, which is where the technical fun really begins! Mark