General Part Discussion

[legotechnicisawesome]

On 04/12/2016 at 0:21 AM, Richard Dower said:

not seen since 2011 http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=32017&colorID=11&in=A

instructions for the combi model of 42058/59

 

 

 

How do I have some of these then if I started collecting in 2016 and I don't have any 2017 sets yet?!

[syclone]

This is a question that has been bothering me a long time : why the 2838 motor (pictured below) is so rarely used? Is it because of it's low torque? Or the studded outside makes it difficult to implement? 

Having a much higher speed (approx. 2'5 times faster) than the buggy motor , it would be more logical to implement one of those and gear it down rather than buying an expensive motor ... 3 € vs 30€ Data source: link

Edited January 26, 2017 by LXF

[Limga]

17 minutes ago, LXF said:

This is a question that has been bothering me a long time : why the 2838 motor (pictured below) is so rarely used? Is it because of it's low torque? Or the studded outside makes it difficult to implement? 

Having a much higher speed (approx. 2'5 times faster) than the buggy motor , it would be more logical to implement one of those and gear it down rather than buying an expensive motor ... 3 € vs 30€ Data source: link

 

You can see from the link you have posted that the power of the 2838 motor is about 1/5 of the power of buggy motor. Speed isn't equal to power:) Speed * Torque = Power. And buggy motor is the most powerful one. 
When you gear down a motor speed decreases and torque increases but power of motor remains the same. 

[BusterHaus]

6 hours ago, LXF said:

This is a question that has been bothering me a long time : why the 2838 motor (pictured below) is so rarely used?

If you are talking about its usage in MOCs, it's because of the gearing (down) required to get it to move anything heavier than a tiny car.  The mounting is indeed an issue for non-studded builds and it also requires an older battery box or a converter cable. 

I like this motor for sentimental reasons (I built a lot of stuff with it as a kid), but the motors that are currently on the market are much more suitable for most creations. 

[doug72]

I have two but only use them as "ballast" counterwieght boxes when building cranes to remain Lego Legal.

[Saberwing40k]

22 hours ago, LXF said:

This is a question that has been bothering me a long time : why the 2838 motor (pictured below) is so rarely used? Is it because of it's low torque? Or the studded outside makes it difficult to implement? 

Having a much higher speed (approx. 2'5 times faster) than the buggy motor , it would be more logical to implement one of those and gear it down rather than buying an expensive motor ... 3 € vs 30€ Data source: link

 

Why would it be more logical to use a motor with high speed and low torque with external gear reduction? Also, that doesn't tell the whole story. Due to differences in motor size and construction, the buggy motors are far, far more powerful. And, as a matter of fact, any external gear reduction is less efficient than getting a motor with internal reduction, because than the motor can have metal shafts, differently designed gears, and lubrication to make it more efficient. You're presuming that, all things being equal, the internal motors of the 2838 and buggy motors are the same, when they most certainly are not. One of the reasons for this is the buggy motors draw a ton of current, which is why they can output so much power. I don't use the 2838 motors that often, due to the low torque and awkward case, but I do use them, mainly to make high speed mechanisms, like flywheels and gyroscopes. Then, having the high speed without the need for external gearing is more efficient.

[Zerobricks]

Just tested the new-ish battery boxes without current limiters with RC motors and in my Oshkosh 10x10. The difference in performance is clearly visible, the battery box along with V2 receivers allows the motors to use as much power as the batteries allow them to (applies to RC motors too). I have a feeling TLG removed tha current limit due to the larger power needs in the upcoming 6x6 truck.

[syclone]

Many thanks everyone for clearing the question out, I made a wrong assumption , saving money for a second buggy motor then 

About the bb. Finally ! Now only need to get a V2 receiver and no more overheated receivers by buggy motors 

[Limga]

49 minutes ago, Zero (Zblj) said:

Just tested the new-ish battery boxes without current limiters with RC motors and in my Oshkosh 10x10. The difference in performance is clearly visible, the battery box along with V2 receivers allows the motors to use as much power as the batteries allow them to (applies to RC motors too). I have a feeling TLG removed tha current limit due to the larger power needs in the upcoming 6x6 truck.

Seems I have missed something. Are you talking about new battery boxes with slightly different colour? I didn't know that internals of BB changed. Need to check that out:)

[zux]

9 hours ago, Limga said:

Seems I have missed something. Are you talking about new battery boxes with slightly different colour? I didn't know that internals of BB changed. Need to check that out:)

Newer Battery Boxes discussed in a different topic.

[Richard Dower]

Bricklink lists several sets with an so-called Undetermined Spring Type , for example...the shocks in 8461 are listed here, but i have this set and the shocks are the HARD spring type, Part #731c04, the same as 42056 in Red housing or the Yellow version housing.

Why does Bricklink say undetermined?....in YOUR experince, is there only 3 official spring types?....or could the 4th one be because of wear and tear?, so visually the metal spring looks different, but in reality its shape has been altered due to age and wear?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Richard Dower

[JJ2]

On this picture

The one on the right has a stiffer spring and I got two of them from THIS SET, I use them when the regular ones are not stiff enough.

I am pretty sure the one on the far left is from the old technic studded sets and are softer. I do not know about any other ones.

 

[DrJB]

I've found many 'inconsistencies' in Bricklink's inventory and parts' names. I used to double-check with peeron but that site is no longer maintained regularly. 

[Milan]

Merged with General Part Discussion.

@Richard Dower again, please try to post these parts-related questions in this topic.

[zux]

I think the reason there is a confusion differentiating the springs is due to lack of an easy way finding their stiffness. Some sellers do not differentiate between close but obviously different moulds of the same part, which is kind of easy to spot. Can you imagine such person would be getting into hassle finding out which spring is used in a shock? I doubt it.

It is easier to spot the difference once you have one of each type. But you have to have them, which might not be always the case.

[brunojj1]

12 hours ago, zux said:

I think the reason there is a confusion differentiating the springs is due to lack of an easy way finding their stiffness. Some sellers do not differentiate between close but obviously different moulds of the same part, which is kind of easy to spot. Can you imagine such person would be getting into hassle finding out which spring is used in a shock? I doubt it.

It is easier to spot the difference once you have one of each type. But you have to have them, which might not be always the case.

I didn´t know the colors are as much differentiated. The right color coding would be helpful especially at this part to determine their hardness. Instead we get a new hard shock absorber e.g. in the Porsche in red color. Moreover I have noticed they are even a bit harder than the yellow hard shocks. Confusing...

[Richard Dower]

2 hours ago, brunojj1 said:

I didn´t know the colors are as much differentiated. The right color coding would be helpful especially at this part to determine their hardness. Instead we get a new hard shock absorber e.g. in the Porsche in red color. Moreover I have noticed they are even a bit harder than the yellow hard shocks. Confusing...

The Hard springs were in White on 8461, Yellow on 42039 etc. and Red on 42056....i haven't seen any other hard springs types in other colours. I think the confusion as to what is a Normal and Soft spring. Visually the springs might look different also. And i haven't touched the longer 9.5L shocks on 9398 etc. there is a wide variety of those as well....with Soft, Hard and Extra Hard springs in different colours.

15 hours ago, zux said:

I think the reason there is a confusion differentiating the springs is due to lack of an easy way finding their stiffness. Some sellers do not differentiate between close but obviously different moulds of the same part, which is kind of easy to spot. Can you imagine such person would be getting into hassle finding out which spring is used in a shock? I doubt it.

It is easier to spot the difference once you have one of each type. But you have to have them, which might not be always the case.

I have several types, i have Red, Dark Blue, Light Gray, Light Bluish Gray and Yellow....i don't have any Teal or Blue ones. In the 9.5L in have Yellow/Black and all Black, i also have Red/Black shocks as used in this set: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=2909c02&colorID=5&in=A

I don't have any Dark Gray or the ALL Yellow shocks used on 8466,

[Richard Dower]

I have noticed the price of #53178 has dropped ALOT?...seems to be a large supply of these parts available now:

[Jay Psi]

Has the supply actually increased? I'm thinking that with the introduction of the (longer) V2 cylinders, the need to use brackets to double up the V1 cylinders has diminished.

[1974]

That is correct. BL sellers are dumping them due to the new pneumatic rams. Same thing is happening with white pulleys (4185), they used to be really expensive but due to that RC tracked thingy they're cheap now. Too bad I paid out the nose for a bunch of those last year

But such is the BL game

Cheers,

Ole

[N-4K0]

So the new 2x11 cylinder is 2x11 and extends to 2x17, what's the measurements for the old cylinder? I know I have two from the Unimog, but I can't find one to check the extension length.

Does the 2x11 have a length and extension that makes it better to use that than two of the old one connected with brackets?

[Erik Leppen]

On ‎5‎-‎2‎-‎2017 at 1:13 AM, Error404 said:

So the new 2x11 cylinder is 2x11 and extends to 2x17, what's the measurements for the old cylinder? I know I have two from the Unimog, but I can't find one to check the extension length.

Does the 2x11 have a length and extension that makes it better to use that than two of the old one connected with brackets?

From the top of my head, the old cylinder had the distance between the centers of the holes to be 6 compressed and 9.5 extended. So the length of the cylinder is 7 compressed and 10.5 extended. So the range is 3.5 studs. I expect the new short cylinder to be the same. If the new long cylinder's range is 6 studs, that's a little less than two short ones back-to-back. I don't know about the range of the long thin cylinder.

But of course, someone will find a reason to put the new cylinders back-to-back to get a 12-stud range :)

[Richard Dower]

Prices of the infamous Red #3 connector is starting to drop: http://www.ebay.ie/itm/Lego-Technic-1-Verbinder-No-3-32016-rot-/222372352045

[bonox]

what's that line about 1 sparrow making a spring?

[HallBricks]

The two 24z gears that came with my copy of 42066 have ZERO friction... they look exactly the same as previous molds, but they literally fall of an axle if it's tilted. Have TLG changed the mold slightly or is there something wrong with the gears I got? Would be strange if both parts had this issue. Have anyone else experienced this?

Edited February 27, 2017 by HallBricks