2025 Technic Sets Discussion

[Timorzelorzworz]

15 minutes ago, Auroralampinen said:

cool construction machines cannot have the cool function gearboxes

It is easier to develope the C+ App Interface for models without complex gearboxes in order for the calibration and also for the playability. Imagine how boring the CAT Dozer was to play with the App. Some programmable features for the model and some "auto-play" features requirering one Motor per function.

The 8043 Excavator and also the 42100 was very popular models so thats no surprise they made an Excavator again, and if the App-Interface and the controlling is good then such a model will be a big success. 

Its not hard to use the integrated hub in the upperstructure. Axles on Port A and B in parallel for the Jib and Bucket/Claw and the Port C behind with and axle underneath to the LA's for the boom

[allanp]

8 hours ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

Agree, but more friendly than requirering 12 AAA batteries.

Thats the world we're entering in. Keep things simple as hell for RC sets and things complex with gearboxes for regular builds like the Cars or Motorcycles.

TLG spent alot of effort into the new integrated HUB, not only for using for boring cars. This piece of hardware is the future for the next C+ models and using two of the hubs is very likely for an excavator with 6 RC functions. Only downside is that the hub can't act as a counterweight at the far end, but this wasn't also the case for the 42100. 

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.

[Timorzelorzworz]

True true we will see what is coming. The C+ system with common motors and the 4-port hub has expired. The 42146 Liebherr was the last C+ model in this series, no C+ with common components in 2024. We will not see the retired hardware again when TLG is focusing on newer components. Many people hate Control+, its now reduced to its absolutely minimum of hardware.

[allanp]

8 hours ago, AVCampos said:

I agree that it's more friendly and practical than AA/AAA, especially when it's time to charge, but my beef with proprietary rechargeables is that it's highly likely we'll still have AA/AAA in 10, 20, 30 years and more, whereas when a proprietary no longer holds a charge the hub that uses it is as good as dead.

That worries me way more than mobile apps that are no longer supported.

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.

21 minutes ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

True true we will see what is coming. The C+ system with common motors and the 4-port hub has expired. The 42146 Liebherr was the last C+ model in this series, no C+ with common components in 2024. We will not see the retired hardware again when TLG is focusing on newer components. Many people hate Control+, its now reduced to its absolutely minimum of hardware.

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.

Edited February 10 by allanp

[AVCampos]

23 minutes ago, allanp said:

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 strongly suspect that the Porsche hub's battery contains a standard 16850 cell and its related charging/monitoring circuitry. I think the ideal solution would be something like the PU ultrasonic sensor: not easily dismantlable by little kids, but easily and safely openable by those with a minimum level of knowledge. In the case of batteries, I'd be happy with one sealed with just screws, and with a non-soldered, standard-sized cell inside.

[M_longer]

At least Control+ died.
 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Death to the fake PF!

[NV Lego technic]

I actually think it was a really good system, enabling 90° shifting for gearboxes, and having an axle turn more or less than 90° for steering. The higher bluetooth range is also nice, so I would say that overall it is superior to PF, even with the disadvantages like nom stackable ports.

[Jockos]

1 hour ago, M_longer said:

At least Control+ died.
 

 

32 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Death to the fake PF!

I have a feeling that at least until 2027 C+ will be alive. Just to introduce a new electronics system for the 50th anniversary or something.

[M_longer]

31 minutes ago, Jockos said:

I have a feeling that at least until 2027 C+ will be alive

Try to buy something related to C+/PUp at LEGO. com. They quietly killed it, only 42172 has C+ onboard, and that's just a all-in-one block :)

[AVCampos]

I still see 42160 as available.

[Aurorasaurus]

4 hours ago, AVCampos said:

I still see 42160 as available.

They probably made a gazillion of them, which may also explain why they're so cheap. Or they're using 42160 to get rid of all the old C+ motors and hubs.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Yeah I think 42160 and 42146 are supposed to clear stocks  of remaining L motors and Angular motors. The same pattern happened when PF was being phased out: 42070 are used to clear stocks of M and XL motors, while every PF sets after that (42080, 42082, 42095) are used to clear stocks of L motors.

[Auroralampinen]

Well 2 years ago racingbrick released video of powered up roadmap until 2025 and this year we should get new powered up products but interestingly the porsche hub isin't in this roadmap

[Oh_Hi_Mao]

53 minutes ago, Aurorasaurus said:

They probably made a gazillion of them, which may also explain why they're so cheap. Or they're using 42160 to get rid of all the old C+ motors and hubs.

170 euros for 900+ pats is not cheap. Anyway, I can still buy control+ technic hub at lego.com. Some powered up elements are sold out or on sale, but there is no support for conspiracy that control+ was taken down quitely. Three sets are available to be purchased, parts are on sale or regular price.

[Aurorasaurus]

28 minutes ago, Oh_Hi_Mao said:

170 euros for 900+ pats is not cheap.

4 electronic parts + 4 of the new cv joint + 4 of the new strong hubs + 2 daytona diffs + 4 of some of the best wheels lego has made so far. And its almost always on sale. I think its cheap for what it is, I may find myself picking another one up when they go to clearance next year(?)

[M_longer]

On 2/12/2025 at 5:15 PM, Auroralampinen said:

porsche hub isin't in this roadmap

Control+ is full of dead ends. Another one just fits.

All that PF needed was Bluetooth. Was cheap, easy to use and had physical remotes.

[AVCampos]

PF lacks some "smartness" that allows for things like 42100's "tell the shovel where you want it to be and the arm's motors will do it" or 42140's controls reversal when it flips over.

[LabManager]

C+ offers additional sensors, and though I don't have any sales data, I guess that LEGO Education sets with C+ elements are very popular not only for classroom activities, but also as expensive toys both for kids and AFOLs. At least they feature something different from motorizing cars, trucks and all kinds of construction machines.

Before C+ era, PF and Mindstorms coexisted and two different systems probably better fitted two different themes: Technic Vehicles need power and Robotics need variety of sensors.

An attempt to unify all of that stuff in a single lineup (C+) possibly was not a good idea, so:

13 hours ago, M_longer said:

All that PF needed was Bluetooth. Was cheap, easy to use and had physical remotes.

100% agree with this! Still doubt that we'll see any of this in upgraded PUP system.

[msk6003]

As someone who works as a model designer at a LEGO Education vendor and loves Technic, the problem is not the integration into a single system itself. The problem is that because they focus too much on unification, it becomes difficult to use anywhere. In Education, the program function is severely inferior to EV3, and in Technic, the controllability is severely inferior to the power functions.

[M_longer]

6 minutes ago, msk6003 said:

The problem is that because they focus too much on unification,

There's a saying in polish - "If something is (used) for everything, it's (usable) for nothing". Having overpriced motors that can serve both as servo and propulsion was a stepback, instead having decently priced motorized sets with single motor, we got few overpriced sets, with app that basically does nothing interesting.

[Michael217]

By the way! We noticed that in 2024 there was only one set with C+. And it is not yet clear what will happen in this. Maybe TLG is preparing something interesting?

[AVCampos]

Just like MINDSTORMS introduced a motor (angular large) that Technic later adopted, I think it's reasonable to assume that sooner or later a grey-coloured 68488 will appear in Technic as well.

[Aurorasaurus]

56 minutes ago, AVCampos said:

Just like MINDSTORMS introduced a motor (angular large) that Technic later adopted, I think it's reasonable to assume that sooner or later a grey-coloured 68488 will appear in Technic as well.

I hope so, it would be useful if it was affordable. But I suspect C+ as we know it is dead and half way buried at this point.

[allanp]

6 hours ago, M_longer said:

There's a saying in polish - "If something is (used) for everything, it's (usable) for nothing". Having overpriced motors that can serve both as servo and propulsion was a stepback, instead having decently priced motorized sets with single motor, we got few overpriced sets, with app that basically does nothing interesting.

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.