allanp

Ah right, thanks for that. I'll have to check the MSDS for any silicone oil I have, or have used. It's a good way of seeing what harmful ingredients it may contain. Thanks again for pointing that out.

Issues with silicone oil?

Sounds to me like a friction weld rather than a sonic weld.

Agreed. While it's interesting to see new electronics and a possible confirmation that PU is gone, I don't see this particular new system being good for Technic. Having to charge each motor individually and turn on/off each one wouldn't be fun play time. Being able to code and program stuff is one thing but they need to get the basics right first, like simple, inexpensive plug and play operation, like the 9v system or PF. Then if they want to add other functionality like basic RC then add receivers and physical remotes like PF, and if they want to add more advanced programming options/RC then have something like the control center that doubles as a big, fully programmable physical remote, or even the code pilot from the 9v system. There shouldn't be any need to be tied to third party smart devices or computers.

Nice job, the proportions look pretty accurate for such a small scale.

To make the engine bigger for these 1:5 scale bikes it would be really nice to get more of the engine. We only ever get the bottom half, so it would be great to see the cam belt/chain and some representation of the cam shafts. I'd prefer that over making it less realistic.

I'm just glad we still keep the proper engines. It would suck if they all went to the cam style engine. No idea why the new Ducati went that route.

Wowsers!

A lot of interesting thoughts there. In terms of sets being challenging, sets were obviously harder when I was a child, like 8868 when I was only 8 years old due to putting one of the rear differentials the wrong way round and having to figure out what I did wrong. But it wasn't the end of the world. They got easier as I got older and more experienced building sets. I don't think it's really possible to make a set that would be actually challenging for us unless you make poor instructions. No matter how complex the final product, all we will ever do is place one piece against another, or one assembly of pieces against another, and repeat, nothing is difficult if the instructions are clear. The only way to induce any kind of challenge for experienced builders would be to make poor instructions or introduce something entirely new such as insanely complex rigging or real hydraulics that would require a process of bleeding out all the air in the system or something like that. I do remember finding the Arocs pneumatics slightly more fiddly than previous pneumatic sets including even 8455, but that was because the Arocs hoses came pre cut and they were too long in some cases, particularly the blue hoses that connect the valves. After trimming them to a more suitable length it suddenly became just as easy as anything else. Set designers are cautious of making sets too challenging for inexperienced builders and that's only fair. Although I do disagree with some of their chosen methods for making things easier like color vomit, Lego is meant to be fun and not like airfix, which does require more time and skill to make a great looking model. I'd also love to see a set with 10 or more pneumatic functions with hoses and/or wires everywhere. A full lighting package would really increase the wiring to be a full on wiring loom! But I'm also a fan of giving the customer some options to tailor their build experience. For example, make all pneumatic hoses black so that it looks more authentic to real life, and supply a sticker sheet with colored and/or numbered bands that you can wrap around the ends of the hoses. This way you can have far more colour coding for pneumatic hoses than the current 3 color system, but in a way that's far more tasteful (a small coloured band would look far better and more authentic than coloring the entire hose) and the stickers can even have a clear numbering system to make placing/routing the hoses correctly super easy, barely an inconvenience, no matter how many hoses there are! But if you want more challenge then just don't use the stickers. Cables in panels are marked a similar way but stickers would be cheaper to do. As for your suggestion of a $1000, 10,000+ piece crane, I'd be totally up for that. A $1000 Technic model? Yes please. But How can we make a crane, or any set sooooooo good that $1000 seems like a price worth paying? It can't be just big. It can't be more of the same just.....more. It would need next level mechanical excellence! No linear actuators, at $1000 this is not a toy. It's not enough that the functions are replicated but the way they work in real life needs to also be replicated (I'd say that's true for any flagship). For $1000, new, massive pneumatics would be a minimum requirement but also, at that price we're getting into the realm of real hydraulics. They might be plastic and it might use water instead of oil, but hydraulic non the less. Were also talking new, more powerful motors and if it's RC then absolutely a big physical remote. There are many, including many on this forum that say they would never pay more than say $200 for any set. I'm not one of them but still, This would have to be sooooooo good, soooooo next level, so beyond what they thought was possible that it makes even them say okay, I need this! You'd also likely want to cast a wider net to appeal to some of the big time youtubers that aren't really Lego focused already, but would feature a set if it was that next level in terms of teaching real world mechanics, such as Adam Savage (tested) or Jerry rig everything.

If you want to, it's your Lego. Your question is essentially a question of Lego purism. Some members like to stick strictly to what comes in a Lego box unmodified. Others allow themselves to go crazy with modified parts, 3D printed parts, third party parts (such as buwizz or aluminium beams and steel axles), clone brand parts, brushless motors, metal bearings and so on. But when posting your model in the forum it's usually customary (though not required) to state what parts stray from pure, unmodified Lego. Enjoy the hobby how you please, there's no judgement here. And besides, don't Lego designers themselves create new parts for themselves to use?

The Audi tires would look good on some heavy machinery like a mobile crane, I'm surprised we haven't seen it yet. For your mobile crane suggestion, what should we be exited about? How would it improve on previous mobile cranes we've had? Some farming machinery would be good. Something I've been meaning to MOC (but have no time) is a tractor which pulls a seeder/planter. Into the seeder you would dump a pile of tan 3/4 technic pins, and when it's pulled along by the tractor, it would place them down on the floor on end like a field of crop. Then I'd also build a combine harvester that could actually gather them off the floor as it goes, and into it's hopper. It would also have a thin conveyor made of chain, or maybe it could use the newer larger worm screws to unload them out the auger pipe into a trailer. This could then be loaded back into the seeder and the fun starts again. If you want more complexity and more of an idea of what these mobile factories we call combine harvesters are like, maybe the seeder could place down two different types of pieces to represent wheat and straw, and the harvester would have internal rotating drums and shaker plates to separate the wheat from the straw. The straw pieces gets dumped out the back and the wheat pieces get stored in the hopper. That would be a really cool set of farming machinery.

Do you mean front wheel drive only (can't think of any, except the 8862 B model, which is a combine harvester!), or do you mean any sets with driven front axles, which would also include 4x4s and 6x6s? If it's the latter, sets with a motorised front axle would include 42129, 42099, 9398 and 42070. There's also sets like 42030 which is an articulated front loader, so there's drive but no suspension or steering on the axle itself. For sets that come with a driven front axle but that don't come motorised, so you can motorise them yourself, you have to be careful as most of them use differentials, CV joints and a gearing ratio that isn't suitable for being motorised. Many of the big supercars are like that, but the 8110 unimog might be okay as you can easily swap the 1:1 portal axle ratio for a 1:3 ratio.

I haven't really been excited by the call backs to older sets in other themes. I would much rather get a proper retro set, meaning it is the exact same set with the same original packaging and all that. Apart from the barcode and a few parts mould updates, it should be indistinguishable from the original. If they are going the retro route, I don't want retro marketing, I want proper retro sets. If we're talking about a new set for Technic, I think a mostly studfull universal set with a new ungeared motor (like the 9v 5x4 motor) and simple battery box would really hit the spot. There would be no panels and a lot of gears and belt drives, a mechanical playground of fun! The majority of studded Technic parts are still in production so it wouldn't be too difficult, and being studfull has a lot of advantages. It's easier to build more generic b, c and d models when you don't have to care so much about the looks, it's easier for the consumer to have fun building their own mechanical creations and it would act as a bridge between regular Lego and Technic. There could even be a second pneumatic focused universal set also. As for the flagship Technic set, I would hope that they get back on form before 2027, but I'd like the sort of set that says "this one's for you!". It's not marketing that makes it for the adults that have been buying sets for many of those 50 years, because marketing can't do that. It's the fact that it's "true" Technic, and a true flagship at that, something that feels truly special like now the designers are just showing off!

Proper Lego ones aren't usually too stiff unless they have been left for a while not being used. sometimes both valves and pneumatics can stick on the first few operations after storage. I'd like to try a silicone oil from a bottle but so far have just used a spray can of silicone lubricant. I spray a bunch into the cap and then use it from there, either carefully dripped into the ports or down the side of the valve or applied directly to the pneumatic rod. Be careful not to get it on the outside of any ports though as it can make the hoses slide and pop off easier when under higher pressure. This will help a lot with the sticking as well as keeping the rubber seals supple. I usually have a spray can of silicone lubricant, it's great to have handy around the house for lubricating sticky curtain rails, windows mechanisms, bicycle (doesn't trap dust/dirt on the chain like oil would) or also for use on the car door seal rubbers as it stops them sticking in winter.

Nah I don't think so. It's not like TLG couldn't do a flagship scale forklift just because a copy cat company done one already. Besides, I would hope that TLGs version would be quite different. Real forklifts can move quite fast, this looks way too slow for scale speed and not mechanically authentic at all. Looks like a nice MOC, but a Technic flagship? They can do better. With new pieces and recolours, a flagship should be better than a MOC could be at that time.

Yeah, it really depends. 1) They might be using a lot of bigger parts like the liebherr crane. 2) They might also be introducing the next electric system that feels somewhat like a spiritual control center 3 for all we know, the cost of which might make them super careful of the piece count (control center 2 only had just over 1000 pieces, converted to studless would probably be around the 2300 mark). The last time we had 2 non motorized flagships in a row was 2003 and 2004, so I think it will have some form of motorization. 3) Or it might be using a motor and a bunch of pneumatics. To add power to each additional function only requires 1 or 2 added cylinders and a valve. In this scenario the piece count might drop even lower if they supply the pneumatic hose in one long length which you cut yourself (which I would prefer TBH though it's unlikely, even if it is more cost effective). 4) It might be some combination of any/all of the above 5) Or perhaps the least exciting option, it's a fairly unambitious set that just plays it safe. So what would make for a great flagship at only 2300 pieces? I'm not sure a 10 axle mobile crane or JCB backhoe would be on the cards here, I could be wrong though of course. For only 2300 pieces I'm thinking something a bit simpler, like perhaps an all terrain forklift on claas tires with 3 stage mast. Imagine the size of the twin cylinders to extend the 3 stage mast on that! Ideally for a flagship it would have at least one motor, ideally one that's new and more powerful. Would be fun to play with as an RC set also, just please keep it mechanically realistic as well, whatever it is.

There's been a feeling for a while now that PU is being either replaced with the next system or at the very least it's being completely overhauled. There's no concrete proof of this though, only small pointers towards this, like the lack of PU in sets recently as well as selling PU parts off at a discount, or not producing enough to have them in stock. There's something about this years flagship mercedes also, although very competently well engineered, it doesn't feel like it was meant to be a flagship imho. It just lacks a sense of flagship sized scale and ambition and was essentially a simplified 42110. A flagship doesn't solve the problems of the past by removing features, nor is it confined to only 2 new pieces. It's well made, but a flagship? I think it's unfair to place the weight of that title onto it TBH. Combined with the delay of the Liebherr crane also, maybe I'm adding 2 and 2 and getting 43, but it feels like PU promised more than it could deliver, or just wasn't well liked, and has had to be replaced or revamped much sooner than they had planned. I'm hoping for some 2025 Technic flagship information real soon, maybe we'll get some insite into the future of powered Technic sets.

YAY! Merry Christmas everyone.

There's always the option of buying used working/clone parts but sometimes it's satisfying to bring something back to life yourself, and often cheaper! There are some things you can do to try to revive them. My process for old used pneumatics is to first try to clean the steel rod, as any imperfection might prevent a good seal. I start with the least aggressive approach using some scotchbrite. You can spin the rod by attaching a lego motor to it, this makes cleaning much faster. If it still looks terrible, or if I want it looking really shiny like new, I have had good results by mounting the rod end to a lego motor to spin it then shining it up nice with metal polish. I have got really bad ones looking brand new but please be careful with this approach (try metal polish as a last resort), metal polishing compounds may have ingredients that can eat away at the top seal. You also definitely want to make sure you get all polishing residue off the steel rod before you retract the piston because metal polishing compounds also contain abrasives. I don't imagine it's good for the seals but if you are careful, apply a tiny amount to the cloth and wipe all the residue off and do what you can to stop it getting into the top seal it does wonders! After I'm happy that the rod is at least functionally clean I use a thin silicone based lubricant (again, to not eat away at the seals like a petroleum based lubricant might) on the seals by directly lubricating the rod and putting a few drops in the air inlet ports to lubricate the inner seal.

Well, to be 100% authentic they would need most of the pieces to be made of metal, and the gears to be precision ground, and encased in cast aluminium alloy casings which are then filled with oil and yeah, that's not gonna happen! But they surely can be more authentic than they are. The parts pallet is really getting good in some areas. For the gearboxes, they are only a few more gearsizes and a rethink of their utilisation in sets and colour scheme away from perfection in the eyes of this hardcore fan right here! It's really not that far. I'll have to agree to disagree with some of the incorrect comments made in this topic and others like it. They do listen to us in this forum. I have no insider knowledge of what's coming, but was given some inside knowledge years ago of how my comments on this forum directly influenced the development of the Arocs. You can thank Markus' brilliance and willingness to listen to my persistent whining about wanting longer pneumatics for that! I don't see myself as being part of TLGs target audience, but my whole existence isn't defined as merely a member of a relatively small group of Technic enthusiasts either. I am not a group, big or small. I am one individual, and that's all it takes to have an idea that someone in TLG reads and thinks hey, I'd like that too! So all I can say is keep on making these topics and commenting on them, and make your criticisms constructive. Don't just say "I want less cars". Instead say what you do want, and let them decide if and how they might include it amongst the lineup of cars! If what you want is a telehandler for example say "I want a telehandler", but don't stop there. A telehandler could range from being a ground breaking game changer (First RC fully pneumatic or even actual hydraulics!), pretty decent (interesting, complex and intricate geared mechanisms with ungeared motors and a return of belt drives and/or flex system) all the way down to awful (all the mechanics are pre built in the factory in the form on linear actuators and gear reduction inside the motor). Pitch your telehandler idea and explain why it's worth the monetary investment TLG would have to make to bring it into reality. If you really don't like what is happening with Technic then these are the comments that do have a small but very real chance of steering the ship towards better things.

That is good news. Value is relative. I'll pass on a 300 euro same old same old sort of model but would happily pay quite a bit more than that for a proper game changer of a flagship. Sort of like they tried to do with 42100. A big, expensive and rather quite well designed/engineered and mechanically powerful (though much too slow) set that was clearly intended to be a big leap forward in ambition (which I do still admire for that), but this time with electronics being a compliment to real authentic mechanisms rather than a replacement to real authentic mechanisms, of which 42100 really didn't have any for it's digging arm/bucket functions.

I think hydraulics is....doable....but probably not in a way that's both authentic and financially viable. It would probably be like an already existing Lego compatible system where you have individual pumps for each hydraulic circuit, which would be less realistic than pneumatics. I'd much rather have a fully authentic version of hydraulics with proper stackable valves and return path to a tank. It could all be plastic with stainless steel rods and use tap water but would require a stronger way to affix the hoses to stop them popping off, and better watertight seals. It would also need some comprehensive instructions (ie written in multiple languages with lots of colour photos) for how to fill the system with water and bleed the air out. This difficulty level increase might actually be the biggest hurdle to overcome, but then it would finally match the 18+ branding. It would also be pricey, but look what people paid for C+, so maybe not impossible? It would also make a truly realistic telehandler possible. Look up the clever way hydraulics are used to keep the forks level when raising/lowering. Hydraulics would give all the benefits of pneumatics, plus the one tiny benefit of LAs. I don't expect them to ever do it, but I have been wrong before.

I don't think the issue is that there exists some sets in the Technic theme that are lacking from our point of view. It's that there seems to be little else, with many sets not reaching the potential of their parts. If the cars sell well and help the Technic theme that's great. No issue with having them stay with the Technic theme. The theme used to have only a few sets per year but now has 2 or 3 times the amount, so there's room for a few cars. So long as there's still flying machines, digging machines, swimming/floating machines, lifting machines, random machines and the odd creature here and there that hold the core values of Technic and Lego as a whole. Technic can be a board church that caters to the masses, the casuals as well as us nerds.

Well I'm still of the opinion that, despite being part of a minority group pf customers, we are the ones that know better than the masses or the casuals what the Technic theme is capable of. We really do care about the theme far beyond "that looks cool". And it's always the same discussion, the same comments every wave of sets that gets revealed. We are a minority. TLG has to cater to the masses. We are not the masses but only a relatively small group. Technic needs to be easy to build and so on! Yes. We know. Nobody on here is saying that Technic shouldn't be easy to build or cater to the masses or do what it needs to do to be successful. After all, if it's not successful, it won't exist. We all get that. However, the argument is why must it ONLY cater to the masses? It can look eye catching, covered in panels, easy to build and be licensed out the megablocks, non of that means that it can't also be mechanically interesting and authentic and cater to the core fan base as well. Bear in mind, that when it comes to the parts selection, I personally feel VERY listened to by the Technic team, I really do! So I don't really want to complain, that would be very ungrateful, but I do think a point needs to be made when it comes to the sets/theme as a whole. Lets take the P1 for example. Yes it's another car that's easy for casuals to build and appeals to that market as a nice display piece. Would that be any different if they made the steering work much better, with longer steering arms (increased leverage to turn the wheel will decrease the cheap, awkward and spongy feel), ackermann geometry, a discreet hoG and a steering wheel that is angled upwards towards the driver in a more realistic way? No it wouldn't! it would still appeal the the masses and the casuals and still be easy to build and still look good collecting dust and all the rest of it. What about the P1 gearbox? It has the lovely new parts but those parts are still arranged in an unrealistically complex way. Did the set designer not know what the part designer intended? Do the masses and the casuals find it easy to build and understand? Wouldn't they find it even easier if it was more like a real gearbox with only 2 shafts? Would it suddenly become completely useless as a display piece if the gearbox was more like the real thing? The point is, many on this forum seem to be arguing that Technic should appeal to the masses as if making something that appeals to us would make it appeal less to everyone else for some reason, and I just don't see any reason for that. I see it the opposite way, we know how good it could be, they don't. As far as Technic goes, the masses probably couldn't tell you what they want from the theme until it's presented to them. Why would they, they don't obsess over the theme like we do! Why would the masses and the casuals want crap feeling steering, or color vomit that makes their very expensive, made for adults, built for real 18+ adult model car look like a toy made for toddlers when there are other (and I believe more effective) options for reducing the risk of making mistakes and making parts easy to find, or RC sets that cost more but perform less than other RC models and don't have a physical remote and weak sauce pre geared motors? Ah but it clearly sells I hear you cry. Okay.....so is that it? What if it could still sell but be a better product that holds on to the core ethos "only the best is good enough", that actually fulfills the marketing "build for real" and "adults welcome" promise, and holds on to a fanbase that have spent more on Lego than any casual ever will, that same core fan base that should still be around long after this "Lego for adults" marketing has passed? Nope, it sells well enough. What if we could make it sell better? What if we could make it look better to hardcore fans and casuals alike? What if we could make this success last another 50 years after everyone is pissed off with StarWars? What if......nope, it sells okay right now in this point in time, that's all that counts! Sorry, I'm not convinced.

Totally agreed about the parts being superior to the sets. The MOCing opportunities are great, there's a bunch of things I want to get to but I rarely have the time to put together even a sketch model. Besides, If I did find the time to MOC it, the interesting mechanical bits would still be multicolored because that's the only colors available. Also, the Technic design team have the time, the tools and the talent to make something better than I can. I can make a MOC, but they can make a set that has had many helping expert hands and over 50 iterations with new parts and recolored parts and it's a more professional and polished final product. We know they are good. We know what they can do. Technic is like an A+ capable student putting in B- work.