allanp

Does anyone know the actual specific regulation that requires batteries to be screwed into toys aimed at people who aren't toddlers?!

It may retire soon but it's popularity (at least from UK toy websites) still seems pretty good so I wouldn't be that surprised if it stays an extra year.

@thekoRngear I had this issue and it was caused by the black hose needing to slide through the blue beam with the yellow triangle by a small amount as the rear tow arm moves through its range of motion. You can see if yours is the same by reconnecting the black hose without routing it through the blue beam.

@Zerobricks is right, try using the 42099 CV joints. As for others not having this issue, it's hard to tell for sure but @2GodBDGlory may be right with your positioning of the CV joint being half a stud off (that's how it looks to me also), meaning the drive shaft will want to move in and out as the suspension moves. Yes you have s frictionless CV joint which should allow for that, however it's only really frictionless when there isn't any torque going through the shaft. Others might also be employing some other tricks, such as fine tuning the length with shims of paper, or just not admitting to any breaks.

We had rumours of the CAT D11 by Dec 14th. It seems rumour leaks are a little tighter this year?

I would also assume that the flip flop beams are more expensive to make due to their geometry.

Yes even with taking different rpms into account the 5x4 motor had less mechanical output power than the L motor, which is why I would have liked the ungeared L motor but as you say 10000rpm is too fast for Technic pieces. So I think you're right, L internal motor with one stage of reduction, maybe just nudge it above 2000rpm! But let's not get bogged down with finer details, essentially I agree with your main point. With new gear train components like the reduction hub and newer diffs, we need a much much faster motor to go with them.

Yeah but that still had lots of internal gear reduction. And if they are going to give us the option between the L and XL motor, which are so similar as to raise questions over why they both even need to exist, then surely they can replace the bulkier XL motor with one that is significantly different. Not just a little bit faster, but waaaaaaaaaaay faster! At least fast enough that even with the cool planetary reduction hubs you still need a significant amount of down gearing to make things more mechanically interesting and realistic.

@gyenesvi ah yes, 10'000 rpm would be too much. But you can get slower internal motors. The 5x4 ungeared 9v motor had about 4000 rpm? That was a good speed.

I think drilling holes should work. Alternatively could you make the 48x48 plates removable, so you can bend them to remove the plates? Maybe have them stuck down with Velcro (this stuff can be very strong when you use enough of it).

Regards the "good out of the box" argument, doesn't that defeat the purpose of Technic, meaning that you get to build the mechanics? On the case of the CAT bull dozer all you do is connect the motor directly to the reduction hub. So you're not building any mechanism there as it's all done for you. I really like the planetary reduction hub, but I agree that we should have at least one motor with much less internal gearing. Basically the L motor but with preferably no reduction, just a direct drive. I'm not saying all motors should be like that but it would be great to get just one completely ungeared motor, just so we can build the gear reductions we want as opposed to these inefficient and unrealistic "down-up-down" solutions (42099) or mechanically boring plug and play solutions (CAT bulldozer track drives). Personally I'd phase out the XL motor and replace that with the FAF (fast as f@£k) motor! Those who want lots of internal gearing, you already have the L motor, the angular motor and the smaller 5x3 motor to choose from, and there could be more in future maybe. I just think there should be one completely ungeared option, ideally with the same internal motor as the L motor.

This is the stuff I got. The 22awg gauge I got is a tiny bit fatter than the Lego wire bit it does still fit between two studs. I think 23awg or 24awg would be closer to actual Lego cable and easier to fit into the plugs but the 22awg works fine for me. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/16AWG-28AWG-2-Core-UL-2468-Automotive-Auto-Stranded-Ribbon-Parallel-Wire-Cable-/401343208236?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l6249&mkrid=710-127635-2958-0 I haven't tried but I assume the white writing will rub off with acetone/nail polish remover if desired.

Some of the wires are routed between two studs, so literally any bigger wire wouldn't fit. But you can disassemble the old plugs (using a small screw driver to push in the tabs on the front and back of the plugs), remove the old wire and replace with new wire without soldering as the wires are just pushed onto sharp spikes inside the plug that go through the insulation and contact the inner wires. Just search eBay or wherever for some 2 core wire with outer dimensions no bigger than 3mm wide by about 1.5mm thick. I bought 30 meters of good wire (insulation will last for decades with nice thick copper conductors) a while back for less than the cost of one replacement 20cm Lego wire. It sounds like your copy is in great condition and shouldn't need any other work. However as it's only 9v, any corrosion on the metal parts of the plugs will stop it working. So if you find they don't work try wiggling and twisting the plugs or use some contact cleaner, but if using contact cleaner use a tool or something to apply it only to the metal parts as you wouldn't want it on the old rubber insulation. Also there is the micro motor. These are rather delicate. The inner gear reduction has tiny little gear teeth that are susceptible to jamming so don't try to force the output to turn by manually turning it. I did have some luck freeing a jammed motor when dropping it onto a tiled floor, but that was very risky! When working normally it will sound noisy and the output will turn very slowly. Don't worry, this is it's normal state of operation. Finally there's the fiber optic unit. It's not obvious at first how it's supposed to function. Firstly only one of the 8 fiber optics will light at a time. Attach the wire and supply it with power from the battery box and you should see one output light up. Rotate the axle hole in the middle to rotate the little light on the inside to light up the other fiber optics in sequence. Hope this helps.

Definitely yes in a real world application where you can feel the vibrations. Maybe the same is true for the CAT as well. I was thinking that as it's turning quite fast then the change in speed would happen too quickly to see. But yes it would work more smoothly if the UJs were aligned properly.

Looking at the instructions (as I don't have the model myself) you are correct. The UJs would be better aligned as you suggested though probably wouldn't make much of a noticeable difference given that it's spinning pretty fast.

If we're talking movies what about the walking giant spider from wild wild west?! People have been wanting more animal type things in Technic haven't they?

That plane turned out very well for so few pieces!

On no! I didn't want to imply that the people they have working on PU are in anyway "the problem". And maybe I overestimate the scope of the job or the freedom they will have. But if they are hiring for an embedded systems architect then I can only assume it's because the current team are in need of some extra support, which is in no way a bad reflection on the individuals within that team. If they need more help there's no shame in that at all. We all need help sometimes, especially if it's a relatively small team at the core of designing such a complex product for an understandably quality and safety driven toy making multinational. Asking for more help and getting it from not only an embedded systems specialist but one that also happens to be an AFOL, that can only be a good thing, right? I definitely didn't want to imply that PU is in this state because of the people involved, I don't think that at all. And I probably shouldn't have used the word "drastically" without the proper context I just said, I just meant that he'd be a really great addition to the team.

Well that depends. There's a job opening in the UK at Lego which is a big deal for the future of PU/control+, which someone I know has applied for. There can't be that many embedded systems specialists who are also current afols with large and growing Lego collections to pick from. He knows first hand all our concerns. If he's successful then my confidence in the future of PU/control+ will drastically go up.

That's really cool (no pun intended!) Very nice real world demonstration and you have blended system and Technic very well. Thank you for sharing

Most likely it'll be the 2022 F1 car. There's some tricky curves to get right, will be interesting to see how they do it. Surely it will have the engine and push rod suspension. I don't expect there will be a gearbox. They did a roughly 1:8 scale formula car with roughly 1400 pieces a while back, and before that there was the roughly 1400 piece silver champion, however those was a few years ago and not licenced. Part counts for sets the same size have inflated since then. I'm thinking this will be 1:10.

The Audi prognathism .....I mean hoonitron would be ok for the pull back cars or a 130 euro PU car (like the top gear rally car) It's all electric so no engine or gearbox. It would just have steering and suspension. Not really enough for even the 1:10 cars let alone the 1:8 cars me thinks.

@Andman you got it

The flagships are the BWE, the RTC and the hauler. The UCS cars are their own separate thing. But that doesn't really matter. The supercars can still serve the same purpose as a non motorised flagship set, still scratch the same itch, even if they are not technically (or should I say arbitrarily) called the flagship IF they had more mechanical value than just a display piece. This at first thought seems tricky as a supercar doesn't have many functions to add (besides brakes and clutch), but it's possible in the details. HOG steering with a much better feel (by having better geometry and feeling more solid and direct like the test car for example) is a good start. The Sian and land rover got the suspension about right. And the engine has to move without having to push the car a few feet forwards first. It has to start moving much sooner (less backlash) and at higher RPM so you can hear/feel it spin even if it's not visible, while still having a multispeed transmission to play with (very important, otherwise just make it a 1:10 scale car). The ability to add an optional motor directly to the engine while lifting the wheels off the ground will also add a lot of play value, as you could run the motor and flip through the gears to watch the wheels spin faster and faster (like 8448). They can (and should) still have the good looks, but increased focus on the mechanics as described above would help the UCS cars be seen more as flagships in their own way, and less as ultimately useless display pieces IMHO. I'm also still hoping for a flagship back hoe. I don't see a grader happening (not recognisable enough) but imagine having a flagship back hoe with a grader as a b-model! Having both a grader and the return of a b-model to a flagship would please a lot of fans. Mostly b-models wouldn't make much difference to sales, but in this case I could see a few extra sales being made just for a grader b-model alone. I think this is the best bet for a good sized and fully functional grader as opposed to a little £30 set.

I think the UCS supercars could be seen as non motorised flagships but not really flagships of sorts. Perhaps if they focused more on making them better mechanically rather than mostly just display models then they would do better at scratching that non motorised flagship itch.