AVCampos

Yes, it has a matrix of monochrome LEDs, USB connection, regular Bluetooth in addition to BLE, more buttons, more memory, and runs on a proprietary Li-Ion battery.. Hmm, having written the above, I now see market for a hub that's between Technic and SPIKE in features.

I believe the extra ports would physically fit, but then the bottleneck could start being the AA batteries, tasked with having to power more and more current-hungry motors. Rechargeable Li-Ions are the future, but until there's an industry-wide standard that lets me buy more batteries in the future and keep playing when the current ones die (18650 is IMO a strong contender but it's still not nearly as widespread as AA/AAA/C/D), I still prefer regular ol' AAs and a charger for them.

The SPIKE hub would like to have a word with you.

Well, the only thing we know for sure is that we're not getting MJ-branded pullbacks this year; by itself it doesn't mean it's impossible that we get another MJ-branded set (JCB or not) at a larger price point and with features other than a pullback motor (such as 42005).

Very cool! It reminds me of Mahj's Stilskin Bridge Layer from all those years ago.

Well, of the four Space Technic sets, this is the one that NASA had a say in design, so it's expected that it looks more like the latter than the former.

Maybe Monster Jam simply didn't sell as well as TLG expected, and they decided to try something else?

I referred to those three sets as examples of grab-and-lift mechanisms (which, at least as far as I know, differ from grab-and-dump just in angle and range of motion; they're all mechanisms in which the input, when it can close the claw no further, automatically raises the arm it's attached to) in general in previous official sets, not the specific way they're implemented or their capabilities. As you're certainly aware, often there are many ways to create a given mechanism. For example, I bet you had to go through many iterations of the mechanism before settling on the one you were most satisfied with. The dartboard analogy I made wasn't just about garbage trucks or grab-and-lift mechanisms, but LEGO ideas (with lowercase i), concepts and mechanisms in general. With so many fans around the world creating so much stuff, it's practically inevitable that sooner or later an official design will be similar in some way to a fan-created one. Even though I'm not a LEGO employee, I think it's safe to say that TLG doesn't keep their employees locked inside a room with no access to the outside world to prevent them from being aware of fans' creations, and I hope they don't keep an ever growing list of ideas that are forbidden because fans already did them one way or another. The worst that can happen is "X is the best way to do Y but someone else already did the X way, so we have to do Y in a worse way to be different", and I (and I believe I'm not alone in this) really don't want that. So, I'm not surprised when occasionally there's an overlap between what TLG does and what fans do. Come to think of it, the "dartboard full of darts" isn't the best analogy for what I'm trying to express. A better one would be LEGO throwing darts trying to not hit any target, and fans putting up more and more targets on the wall. Again, not just about garbage trucks and grab-and-lift mechanisms, but ideas, concepts and implementations in general. seem to be somewhat contradictory to me. I don't think the statements are contradictory, because coming across the Ideas project or a clone doesn't imply an outright copy. For example, I saw an ad for a cool all-terrain tracked vehicle on a Chinese site, and suspected it had to be a copy of a fan design; turns out it is. The clone brand set is a clear case of a copy. But does the fact that I became aware of a four-armed tracked climber forbid me, or anyone else that sees it, to make my own four-armed tracked climber? (I sure hope not, because I want to make one some day) Or I could just have glanced over it without noticing, and somewhere in the future think "hey, I vaguely recall seeing a four-armed tracked climber, that'd be a cool thing to make". All in all, this debate, which sincerely I'm personally finding too exhausting for its importance, highlights that there's no clear line between independent creation and plagiarism with inspiration somewhere between them, and that different people draw at different places along a gradient the lines that divide the concepts. Also, the abundance of expressions like "I think" and "most likely" in my posts regarding this matter is intentional. These posts are only the expression of my opinion and of things that in my opinion may or may not have happened. Since I didn't participate in the development of any of the models (Ideas garbage truck and 42167), I'm aware that I don't know and certainly will never know the full truth, and took care to express it as well as I could. So, since they're just opinions and conjectures, I'm also aware and accept that there's a real probability that they may be wrong. Finally, since I've been on the Internet long enough (for almost 24 years... wow, I feel old), I know that these posts, mine or otherwise, won't change any opinions, and I also accept that. Something else just occurred to me right now: what if your project was rejected by the Ideas team, but the Technic team liked it and wanted to try their hand at doing that concept in Technic? It wouldn't be the first time that within TLG "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing", and not mentioning the inspiration was the Technic team's way of avoiding a clash between departments? To be clear: I have no idea if any of this is true or false; this is just a spitball theory I came up with.

First of all, I want to congratulate you on the Ideas project: it was a neat idea and it's a shame that it wasn't approved for production. When I wrote "it could be argued", I meant exactly that: that people could form that opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean that I share that opinion. And I expressed that opinion of mine in the next paragraph, where I said that the most likely thing that happened was that both you and 42167's designer(s) came up with the concept and mechanism independently. To me, it's a case of coming up with similar solutions to the same problem. Nowadays it's practically impossible to create something without researching first, or at least do a quick Google search. With the size and diversity of the LEGO fandom, it's also practically impossible to create a model that someone else didn't previously do (the mental image I have is of a dartboard with every space filled with darts), and, even if unconsciously, possibly draw some inspiration form it. So, I believe it's likely that the designer(s) came across your creation or a clone of it, even if unintentionally. So, to be clear: I don't believe you copied the design from LEGO. I don't believe LEGO copied your design. I'm not accusing you of anything.

Exactly. Also that I believe that the Ideas author came up with the mechanism independently, and that so did 42167's designer.

It could be argued that that Ideas project's author was the one who stole the idea from LEGO: that kind of grab-and-lift mechanism was already present at least in 8094, 8479 and 9736. The most likely thing that happened is that the author came up with the mechanism on their own, as did the LEGO designer(s) responsible for the Mack truck, and this is a case of similar solutions to a similar problem.

Yes, a retractable roof would be a good novelty for the 1:8 range. That, and variable ride height (so far only done in 8297) and four-wheel steering (so far only done for cars in 8880). Steer-by-wire and hybrid powertrains, on the other hand, are modern features that in my opinion don't translate into interesting Technic models.

Won't people then complain about yet another Lamborghini, and how similar it is to the Sián?

They didn't praise the colour scheme, just the specific colour, which is indeed new (vibrant orange/reddish orange/tomato soup orange). As for the colour scheme, they just explained that they liked the orange, and combined it with white because white is usually associated with "space". Even if it's similar to the previous Mars themes, none of those were Technic, so in my opinion they're cool to see here and not repetitive.

Electronic separator? Do you mean something like a more advanced version of the brick separator, or something to separate electrically, like a relay or an optocoupler?

"Compatible" brands (not sure if it's CaDa) have beams with longitudinally-placed pins on their tips, but I don't think LEGO will make that kind of stuff. I'd bet (and hope) more on shorter lengths of flip-flop beams.

Wow, with all those single-hand controls, 42181 deserves to be promoted to Patron Saint of Swooshability!

According to RacingBrick, licensed sets are more appealing to non-fans. The issue with lack of functionality is still valid, though.

Another example is the 8275 Bulldozer: I remember people were bashing it having too simplistic functions, and the cylinder engine being connected to just one of the tracks (hmm, come to think of it, the 42131 appears to be made specifically to address those issues). Nowadays it's fondly remembered. I almost bet any Technic team employee recites some version of that mantra whenever they come to this forum, to keep them from depressing and giving up their job.

Actually, dark orange has been around for a while. The new colour is reddish orange, a.k.a. "Tomato Soup".

To me, the greatest official Technic animal of all (not that there are many) is the animatronic T-rex.

They also have an educational value: they show that Technic elements can be used to build things other than machinery, and hopefully inspire people to do so.

Wow, Mercedes is really playing both fields, LEGO and CaDa...

Belville figs are the same scale as techfigs, and early ones have the exact same articulation. They're a lot less blocky, though.