allanp

It depends. Like pretty much anything they could turn into a Technic flagship, it could turn out terrible or it could turn out great. For me personally, if it's the same as 8043 and 42100 (basically if it uses linear actuators), it's kinda pointless. We've already had 8043 and 42100 plus a plethora of other LA driven flagships. I actually could see myself not minding LAs so much but if it's all we get flagship after flagship despite a more mechanically authentic alternative existing, well how can I like it?! The last pneumatic flagship was the Arocs and we've never once had a remote controlled pneumatic set of any size. It's the overuse of LAs (especially in flagships) that has made me go mad, and made me go from seeing LAs as a novelty to wishing they'd just F right off!

Not necessarily. Is is possible that they moved the RC unit forward and squeezed a v12 cam engine behind it, using the rear facing drive outputs to drive the wheels and engine?

I'd pay good money for that too, if I could join in! Marketing "So we're seeing good sales for cars....." Me "Cars stands for Clear Air Ram Servos right? Those are called pneumatics! Marketing "No, cars as in vroom" Me "Ah yes, Very Realistic Oxygen Operated Movers!" Marketing "No, cars, like Porsche" Me "Pneumatically Operated Remotely Since Control+ Hardly Educational? I like it but you need a better name." Marketing

I'm still dreaming of RC pneumatics, or any pneumatics for a change, as we've already had a few varieties of LA/RC driven flagship excavators. With this twin all-in-one hub idea, are y'all actually hoping for more of the same, or are you just managing expectations so as to not be disappointed?! The tracks on the real one look quite like the cat dozer tracks. If it's in scale with those then 2300 pieces is easily reachable.

Wasn't sure if the excavator was the flagship or the second from flagship, so I'm glad to see it's the flagship. Remain very anxious to see how it could be mechanically much different to 42100, or will it be just a yellow and smaller 42100?

Well if they will go backwards in terms of feeling like an authentic Lego building experience with pre-built stuff then what should they expect. Integrated rotation sensors, integrated non detachable wires, integrated gear reduction, app control, all of that are steps away from an authentic Lego experience IMHO. You can have separate elements, like a basic ungeared motor, a planetary reduction box, an encoder and detachable wires instead of a pre built all in one thing, and still make cool robotics. You'd just have far more flexibility and sets can be cheaper as they only include what's actually needed. And the brick based wires and plates made 9v actually feel like Lego. Sorry sorry, we're meant to be talking about 2025 sets

To be fair, they didn't have to produce all the other PU hardware for all of 2024 and it looks like most of 2025. Well, only enough to supply the current sets that use them. Besides, production can still produce the current generation while they concurrently develope the next. They are a couple years ahead of us, could it be the next generation, or at least the very bare bones beginnings of it, was developed in that time? We have seen new electronics in education after all. Either way, I'm also insanely curious to see what this set tells us about the future of electronics in Technic. Everything does eventually, but Technic still has so much potential and room to grow for decades to come. As long as TLG sells plastic bricks, Technic should still be there. If it isn't, it's not the theme that failed Lego, it's Lego that failed the theme.

Be careful when using the emoji! With it's small battery, I'd say it was designed for vehicles about the same size as the car it came with. There could easily be many more cars and tracked vehicles that uses it, but I doubt it's really meant for anything bigger. It's easy to think of ways an excavator could use that all in one hub, but people are so pre-occupied with weather or not they could that they never stopped to consider weather or not they should! I'm sure there's a lesson there somewhere! Yes they could do it but it'd be pretty lame if they did. I don't think they'll do that but I've been wrong before.

The 400 euro price is quite encouraging to me. It's surely motorised for that price. At the same time, I don't see them doing something so similar to 42100, which is also a flagship, and not very old. I'm hopeful that this means there's something new coming, not a reheat of what we've already seen before, but something hopefully more authentic.

I agree with this. It becomes an expensive compromise. I still think the 9v Dacta system had the right idea. You had motors which had no fancy electronics or anything, just a plain ungeared motor which was cheap to integrate into regular Technic where most times that's all you needed it to be. But with Dacta, for robotics you also had a separate rotation sensor. It could likely be done better now with much higher resolution, but having things separate means you only use what you need for a set. Having a separate rotary encoder also gives you more flexibility, like you could use it without a motor to make you own joysticks/physical remote/train speed dial etc. Or you could use it in the joints of an excavator or in a powered steering mechanism for example, to give you position feedback no matter if it's powered by LAs, pneumatics or gears and levers. If you really want a precise motor then they should make a nice miniature servo or even a stepper motor. Hobby grade servos can be very powerful with lots of precision and accuracy and very compact while still being not that expensive.

A good point. I think a possible solution to this is to have a basic AA battery box and separate receivers. For models that use a slew ring, then a simple slip ring power coupling would remove the need for a second battery box. For a proprietary rechargeable device, maybe they could use a caddy system like the PU hubs. So you'd have a standard AA battery caddy as well as a proprietary rechargeable battery. Once the proprietary battery fails, just use the standard AA caddy. Additionally the rechargeable battery could use the same rechargeable cells as you would find in most modern power tools. These are non proprietary AA sized cells that Lego wouldn't have to develop as the tech is well established and will likely be around for ages, they would need desoldering to be replaced, but it's more doable. I do know people in the RC community that actually make there own lipo cells, but that's a whole other level of specialist knowledge, skill, chemistry and danger! In any case, if the battery box is ONLY a battery box, and everything else like receivers and motors are separate, then it really doesn't matter if there's a proprietary rechargeable option, so long as there's also an option that uses standard AA batteries we can always use that in its place. Yeah, and I'm party thinking that's another reason for the newer hub to exist, basically to reduce app control/C+ to that singular do all component. We'll probably see it again in a few smaller cars and the like. This is all speculation though. I'm really quite anxious to see what's coming.

It was probably designed for small/medium RC sets like small cars and tracked vehicles. It does feel very much aimed at the younger end of Technics main audience, like 8 to maybe 12 years tops, and a way to keep app control for that audience while being able to develop something less app focused and more suitable for a more authentic Lego like experience, which an app controlled anything doesn't really achieve IMHO. An all in one pre built thing and staring at a phone/tablet/computer screen is antithetical to what Lego is all about. I applaud the ambition of C+ as it was, but the lack of C+ last year, as well as the new electronics in upcoming Lego education sets, leads me to suspect they're ripping the bandaid off quickly so to speak. While it wouldn't be that difficult to integrate 2 of the newer integrated hubs into the demo crane, you'd still need a forth function for the claw. That could be done with a gearbox but then you'd have to wait for a gear change between using functions. It also wouldn't bring anything new that previous Lego Technic flagship excavators haven't already brought. It's easily doable but the easy option isn't always the best.

Yeah nah, I really don't think it'll use that all on one hub.

Ah okay. Thank you for clarifying. I think he's talking about the latest hub from last year's small C+ RC car, which has the three motors built into it and small lipo battery. I'd be quite surprised at this point if it was C+, but also surprised if it wasn't motorised in some way.

Is this speculation? Please be wrong

It looks? Have you seen it?

Partly wishful thinking maybe however, surely if they are releasing another flagship excavator then it will be somehow different to what we've already had, at least in the studless era of Technic. We've already had motor/gearbox combo with 8043, and a one motor per function version with 42100. So while a pneumatic version might be more desirable to me as it would be more realistic, I also think it happens to make more sense. RC pneumatic would also be a first, and the first pneumatic flagship for 10 years.

We've had a couple RC excavator flagships that were driven with motors and LAs. Can we get a flagship excavator that's RC pneumatic? It shouldn't be too hard to make an excavator more mechanically authentic and with better, to scale movement speed. 42100 was well engineered and quite powerful but moved too slow for scale speed (though it was perfect to introduce the new C+ system at that time). 8043 was nicely complex, but also too complex for it's little motors to handle, and thus was too slow and weak, and both weren't realistic. So let's get a pneumatic one with a new, much more manly compressor than the single pump design of the past. A demolition excavator? This could be a great use case for pneumatics as you could have the demo claw attachment be swappable with a regulator bucket. Then to reattach the demo claw you can attach the hoses to power it. With one new bucket piece, this would really increase playability.

I thought that might be the case. I understand Legos tricky position but I also miss the days of getting those "leaks" and the days before that of getting those thick, square catalogues that showed every product for the whole year. If only we had our own secret place, like a secret garage, where the first rule is to talk about Technic, and we could trade leaks for critiques!

Soooo, anything from the toyfair?

This is indeed sad news. My first file upload to the site was in 2001, and I didn't really stop using it.

That is strange. I also remember thinking the suspension was very hard. Did you use the springs that came with the 8880, the dark grey ones, as they are stiffer than the black ones. You can try disassembling the spring assembly and physically stretching the springs back out.

The second list feels more accurate than the first, though in both cases, if I know us fans anyway, the 42043 Arocs should be higher and 42030 lower. I'd also put 8110 higher and swap the sliver champion for the McLaren P1. Besides that, it feels pretty accurate to me. It's nice to see 8455 getting some love and also control center 2. I really like control center 2 but didn't know it was ranked so highly among other fans, so that's nice to see.

Basically yes. Depends on how good you want the results to be. To start with, to get a working sketch model like this one... (I think it's okay to show this 16 year old image right?) Something like that sketch model would probably take anywhere form a day to a week of solid, focused building depending on how well things come together on the first try, and if the parts are available to make the functions I want to make. If I want to make a mechanically accurate automatic gearbox, well that would obviously take much longer to get a working prototype than an excavator because more parts exist to make a working excavator than exist to make a mechanically realistic automatic gearbox. But for your idea of a wheel loader from 42131, if you are using one motor per function (as in no fancy function switching gearbox), and allowing myself to use extra parts like wheels and a bucket, you're basically making 42030, for that I'd say about a day for the jankiest of sketch model. With fancy function switching gearbox it might take a few more days. If you're aiming to have 2000 pieces for your finished wheel loader, this sketch model might have as little as half that. Usually, official set designers will just not change anything, and instead just move on to building version 2, then version 3 and repeat till about version 50 or more in some cases. But even if your changing and rebuilding the sketch model, the approach is the same. From this starting point you just refine and refine and refine. In the above example, The tracks could do with more detail so add some upper rollers and side beam structure. I might then build a cabin and see where that can attach to the side. I might then decide to move the battery box to the rear to use it as a counter weight. Instead of paralysis by analysis, you are making one decision at a time. You can only climb a mountain one step at a time. After several months, up to a year maybe by a professional Lego designer, the above sketch model eventually became this... The more you build, the faster you'll get.

Try building what's called a sketch model first. It's a properly crude multicoloured version that focuses only on one thing, usually the functions. Search Google for "8043 prototype" and you'll find the first version of it. Another thing is you can try building the outer bodywork without any regard for what's inside it. Basically, don't try to build a finished thing from the start. For a typical 1000 piece Lego set, the designer probably assembled over 50,000 pieces worth of sketch models and prototypes and exterior details and so on.