allanp

Part 1 PF servo motor Rotates a limited distance at slow speed with very high torque. When used with the current pf system it should return to centre automatically when the control lever is returned to centre (may require a new kind of reciever but i'm not sure). It's uses include, but are not limited to, steering, train point control, pneumatic switch control, etc. Part 2 Longer pneumatic cylinder. In all respects apart from the length it would be identical to the current pneumatic cylinder with a stroke at least twice as long as the current one. A range of lengths would be better (from 2 studs [point control] to 32 studs [forklifts, telescopic booms]) but if I could only have one length of stroke then a stroke of 8-12 studs is my most prefered length. It's uses would include anything that requires a powerful linear movement (such as moving an excavator arm). It would provide greater reliability, speed, strength, realism and FUN than linear actuators and the current stubby pneumatic cylinders. Part 3 Synchromesh gears http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/radbot/custom-parts/gearbox_example.bmp http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/radbot/custom-parts/new_gear_box_desing_explanaition.bmp It's uses are for making transmission stronger, more realistic and more efficient, transfering more of the power from the motor to the wheels, istead of the current setup where most of the power is wasted overcoming the internal friction of the gear box. Part 4 Improved pneumatic motor pump. The existing part is great but not without it's flaws. For instance, you have to off-set one end half a hole or place it at an angle to make use of the full stroke. Making a compressor out of more than one is also very difficult to make compact enough to fit into a medium sized MOC whilst having them maintain efficiencey and constant flow by offsetting thier working cycles. So what if we were to have something like these three engine parts... http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2850 http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2851 http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2852 ...in a complete assembly with a closed top containing valve and outlet, a little ridge around the bottom to stop the piston coming out and appropiately sealed piston. now i'm not sure but I would guess the surface area of the piston is roughly double that of the piston inside the current pump. This dimention could be tweaked to give double (or slighly more) surface area of the one in the current pump. This means that with a stroke of only one stud (like you get in the current standard technic engine), you achieve the same capacity (or slightly more) as the current motor pump. However the main gain is that it it could be motorised in a much more intuative way, and you could have many of them, for example in a very compact V4 configuration giving as much power as 4 motor pumps! It would also look way cool, like an engine with the pneumatic tubing looking like exhaust ports or HT leads. This + longer cylinders = Part 5 PF-L motor A powerful/high speed PF motor with NO or very little internal gearing. It's uses are for reducing the stress on many gears while maintaing power by having them spin at high speed and having greater freedom and control over how different parts of the gear trains are stressed and also the output speed. (Personal note: I feel that having the gearing down done for you kinda spoils the fun and undermines the whole point of technic) Part 6 Spline shaft A hollow shaft with friction to holt it onto an axle at one end and no friction on the other allowing the axle to easily slide in and out whilst maintaing rotational movement. It's uses would inlude drive to a live axle Part 7 Double ended pneumatic Pretty self explanitory, it's uses would include pneumatic power steering. Part 8 Making all axels notched (like the current two long axle) and a female balljoint housing that fits onto the notch (similar to the flex system ball joint coupling but stronger). It's uses would include linkages for live axles, steeling, gear shift levers, etc Part 9 Improved transmission ring shifter part. It's main use is to provide an improved and more intuative way to slide the transmission ring

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't a motor releasing it's maximum power available when loaded enough to slow it down to exactly half speed? With these m-motors that's still around 200 rpm (roughtly the speed of the xl motor when not under load. I would worry when the motor turns significantly slower than that, about 120 rpm (2 turns per second).

I wouldn't place all the blame (if any) at the designer either. The technic team is a team afterall and the model has to be tested and passed by various people before it goes into production I would imagine. Indeed we seem to be disigning at the limits of what is possible, haven't we always Models with new parts that further push the boundries of what is possible. I'm talking parts that really make models more authentic and lifelike. The current gearbox concept is one of a few examples. It was a great step forward 16 years ago in the 8880 but it is an old concept now, not very realistic, creates alot of internal friction which has to be overcome and can't handle much power as it comes in standard sets. This doesn't mean TLG should never fully motorise a car with a gearbox, but that they should design better parts. The short length of pneumatic cylinders make them unsuitable for todays large flagships like the excavator, this means they should make them longer, not refrain from making pneumatic sets (and no, I do not feel LA's to be a good enough replacement. We were told they weren't a replacement anyway, i'de hate to see pneumatics replaced, unless by water powered hydraulics, but that's just silly ). I'm not saying they have to increase the number of parts available to us as that would be costly (although obviously nice) but that parts should be updated and changed as the size, demands and standard of sets increase. I could be wrong but if technic is at it's limits, and if TLG wants to continually improve on the line, then the only thing that limits the technic line are the elements in the assortment (and our own imagination of course!)

Good point about the instructions but I would also say that the $2 difference between motors is also not that trivial when you consider the numbers in which these sets are produced.

Yeah, i could be wrong but the option of inspecting the problems parts in the search for a solution could be valid. The problem with a picture is that you could borrow a friends excavator. I know it's unlikely and sounds a bit daft but then the excavator is quite costly to buy (and presumeably to produce) and it would be very easy for me to borrow someone elses instead of paying for one my self if I were that way inclined (sadly some people are). Any who, I can't see TLG adding an XL motor or anything like that. I imagine it will be the smallest and simplest change possible, like increasing the gear reduction slightly or weakening the clutch in the LA so that it protects the motor or adding a rubber band to help the LAs lift the boom. There are many relatively small things they could do really but then adding a rubber band or increasing gear reduction does not prevent the motor stalling, it only helps slightly to prevent it.

You know I really didn't like the use of LAs in this set but it is always sad to see sets having to be recalled or customers having to be refunded. Somebody asked the question why do TLG ask for the used parts back. Well I assume it is probably the only way to prove that a) you actually own an excavator, b)that you had problems with it (if you were asking for a refund) and c) by examining the pieces they could find out exactly what was causing the problem. Not sure if reusing the parts in other sets would be feasable (you would have to pay someone to examine every part for wear) or within their policy.

You have a good point there blakbird. indeed the one good thing about LAs is the mechanical complexity that sometimes comes with them. But there are other ways of adding complexity without doing away with realism and pneumatics. I'm sorry to keep ranting on about this, just love the technic

I know the solution, i'm sure you know what i'm thinking it is by now Anywho Blakbird raised an interesting point as regaurds to the complexity of these sets. Now as mentioned by somebody earlier, 75% of poll takers have had problems with this set. When you factor in the 100% of us are fans and not casual customers I really don't think it's complexity was the problem (I hope TLG realises that) as it is not a very challenging build at all. Complex it may be but thanks to the quality of instructions nowadays not at all challenging, not compared to sets like the 8480 space shuttle. The problems seem to come from this model pushing the capabilities of LA's and m-motors to their limits. Maybe they had an exceptionally good batch of parts when they were testing the model. Now if it were pneu....... you know the rest

My version was built perfectly, the motor was not under much stress when I motorised it but either motorised or manual I was able to lift much heavier weights with either of my motorised or manual pneumatic versions. However I did have to double them up (two end on end) to make them long enough to be in scale. Pneumatics will always be far better to me for this kind of application (diggers, excavators, back hoes, container trucks and so on).

For me you have summed up this model perfectly, couldn't agree more. You mentioned that you much prefere pneumatics (awesome!) but then you mention other aspects/problems with this set you would like to change like it not being able to lift anything with any weight to it or not being able to control both features at once. You also mention that you would like to change the control at the back. I assume you realise all these problems and more will dissappear if you use pneumatics.

I decided to just build my own pneumatic version, works great, can lift massive loads It's annoying that you have to double the pneumatics up to make them a usable length in this scale model but still much more satisfying, realisitic, authentic, reliable and cool

Sadly, these are not available, they are only my wishes. I know TLG have a policy of not using ideas from fans so TLG, if you are reading this, please don't let that policy put you off from using these ideas.

Would something like the parts descibed here interest you? http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36939&view=findpost&p=648107

This is something I have often wondered. I think it would require at least a 4 part mould for the cylinder barrel, and a longer, machined stainless steel rod (or treated/coated steel). All the other components can be "recycled" from existing cylinders. You have probably seen this video from pithivier57 before but it is possible to glue in a longer section of tube to make them longer, and they work very well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kMpVfnE4Rs&feature=related

I completely agree. Power functions are like a very nice tasty spice , just a little goes a long way but you don't want to have very much otherwise it ruins it. Besides, like i've said numerous times, with all that gearing down already done for you inside the motors it slightly removes the point of a technic set. Give me pneumatics anyday (just wish they would make the cylinders two times longer!). One large PF motor in a compressor with several pumps can power a large number of cylinders simultaniously with great power, making there movements precise is a nice challenge of skill. I'm gonna stop now before I ramble on for ages about how good pneumatics were and even better they could be.

I really do love your site blackbird please keep up the good work. It is a very valuable recource to the AFOL community and i'm very greatful for it. There are many sets I couldn't get as a kid but after seeing your review of the universal set from 1993 (the one with the micro motor in it) I just had to find one, and the set is amazing. Built the bob-cat first, great model. Thankyou for showing me how great this set is. Can't wait for 1996 (SPACE SHUTTLE!). Just wondering Blakbird if you had the chance to work as a designer for Lego in the technic team, you could design a set with pieces in new colours and even design completely new elements, so what set would you design? What colours would you have and what new parts would it have?

I would say the cherry picker is much more complicated than this set, still a nice set tho.

It would be very hard to tell them that they are propabaly not worth selling. What I would do is show them some of the things that do sell for example the LPE pneumatic engines. They should then get an idea of the standard something needs to be in order for it to be sellable without you telling them. I wouldn't say "look how good these have to be in order to be sold" but "hey kids, look at these cool engines!". Hopefully they will get the idea.

White, blue, or metallic would look awesome!

Thankyou for a great review blackbird, i'm more impressed by this set every time I see it, not enought to spend £140 on it but i'm still impressed. Yeah but wouldn't you prefere a cool gear box than some boring electronic speed control? I know I would. I think that if they want to keep taking things to new levels then, for flagship sets, IMHO they need to move away from RC toys and concentrate on authentisity and realism.

Without a doubt the pneumatic one is the winner for me! It's fantastic. I think it is smaller in some parts due to the fact that studded models where usually an even number of studs wide whereas studless is usually an odd number of studs wide.

I agree. Besides even if it did work like the 24 tooth clutch gear the return to centre spring would stall the motor anyway. I think what you really need is a way to cut the power off from the motor when full lock is achived (perhaps using a PF pole reverser switch operated via a crank on the pinion shaft). This would prevent damage to the motor, wear on clutch parts and prolong battery life. But then you have the problem of the spring trying to return the steering back to centre as soon as full lock is achived. I haven't really looked into it much yet, I did start working on a pneumatic solution to the problem (pneumatic power steering) but got distracted! I'll let ya know if I finish it. I'm not really happy with having to keep power to the motor in order to keep it at full lock, and only having the power of the return to centre spring to bring the whole mechanism back to centre as it's not ideal on larger MOCs.

If it does have an opening span I wonder if it will be motorised!

You could try a system that was used to steer a forklift in the 8082 technic universal set. It uses two motors and no special parts to control 3 functions (you could use the same two motors to control any number of functions!) For a detailed description of it's workings go to http://www.ericalbrecht.com/technic/8082.html (a very excellent website!) and scroll down to see the forklift.

Well Dluders did say not to reply but what the heck! My dream set is a 2500-3000 piece UCS backhoe like the 8455, but at least twice the size. It would include: An xl motor (with less gearing down for a higher output speed) Combined Inline 4 engine/air compressor Motor driven 4 wheel drive and gearbox pneumatic steering and pendular front suspention Longer pneumatics Rear arm would have all the usual functions plus a pneumatically powered telescopic boom and lateral (side to side) sliding movement Stableizers Front bucket would have all the usual functions plus pneumatically powered bucket opening/closing feature Basically the real thing, just smaller. A flagship supercar would also be great (one thats larger that the ferrari racers with new, more realistic gearbox, four wheel drive, all round suspention and in a colour that's NOT red and so on!) but this wouldn't have to be a direct to consumer item.