42099 CV joints damage after use

[ben20]

13 minutes ago, Gray Gear said:

How the F would having 4 pins instead of 2 make the part more expensive? Just use a different mold from the getgo thats all there is to it...

And "even more expensive"? You mean for us buyers, right? Because these pieces cost almost nothing to make for TLG, not even close to 10ct/piece, more like

0.1 ct/piece. These Prices are just greedy, nothing else.

+1, Like i said there is zero extra cost to design a stronger part. I grew up with the old technic, and for like 20 years or so there has been almost no new parts, you had to work what you have. It was the spirit of Lego, create creativity. Look at the 8868, air tech claw rig, such amazing shape, the blueprints on box, B model, so less and all normal parts you find in other sets.  But since the swap brick to beam, a whole lot is changed They make or design a piece when they like, and most of the time no needed. If the old Technic designers had the machines and molds they have now, i'm 100% sure we would have superb parts well tested before put in production

[Mechbuilds]

TLG's whole motto was that their stuff is only the best quality. Haven't they tested these CV joints at all? 
Disappointing.. They should have made bigger U joints as they have proven to be superior in every way. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mechbuilds

[ben20]

This was the first part i thought, 'hmm why you design this for, no creativity Lego?' (saw it in the 8421 crane on the boom, and said it to myself when comparing it to the 8460 crane)

bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=41672&idColor=11#T=C&C=11

And so it goes on, issue for Lego of cost to produce a (useless) part?... no!

Edited August 28, 2019 by ben20

[allanp]

1 hour ago, Gray Gear said:

How the F would having 4 pins instead of 2 make the part more expensive?

Due to the geometry of a 4 pin design the mould would probably have to be split into more segments to release the part from the mould, meaning that with a 4 pin design it might not be possible to mould many pieces from a single mould, so each one would have to be moulded individually from a much more complex and expensive mould. All this for a piece that will not benefit from economies of scale like a regular axle or 2x4 brick. A better solution may have been to use the 8880 design for the CV ball, which I think can accommodate 8 pins if I remember correctly, and fits onto a regular axle. But then they would have to have made the hole slightly larger to accommodate it and I'm not sure there's room.

1 hour ago, ben20 said:

+1, Like i said there is zero extra cost to design a stronger part. I grew up with the old technic, and for like 20 years or so there has been almost no new parts, you had to work what you have. It was the spirit of Lego, create creativity. Look at the 8868, air tech claw rig, such amazing shape, the blueprints on box, B model, so less and all normal parts you find in other sets.  But since the swap brick to beam, a whole lot is changed They make or design a piece when they like, and most of the time no needed. If the old Technic designers had the machines and molds they have now, i'm 100% sure we would have superb parts well tested before put in production

 

[Teo LEGO Technic]

1 hour ago, Attika said:

I agree, don't even understand why it wasn't obvious at the first place. Don't have the set, but bought a set of 8 from these hubs and joints. Knowing that they gonna get assembled into a 3 kg 8x8 straight away, driven by 4 buggy motors.  Accordingly I've started with dipping the cv's into silicone wd40 before the 1st use. Let's just be real. TLG's application of this parts was in a low torque setup. If then it goes under high rpm, high torque, then no surprise, something's gonna give. Lucky us that it is the cv, not the hub. 

Even in the genuine RC crawlers, where all the gears and cv's made out of steel, lubrication is crutial, while the weight-rpm data is quite similar to our experimental builds. So I guess that would be news, if there wasn't any wear on them.

For the record, my cv's on the two rear axles on my truck have some minor signs of wear, but nothing on the front axles. Spent about 2 hours climbing ditches and very loose, dusty slopes and I wasn't gentle. Then I've concluded, that it does no good to the hubs, nor the buggy motors, so the experiment is over. Gonna spawn some short video anyway. 

I'm still happy what we got from TLG. I think these hubs elevated the level of possibilities well above, than what we had before. If an outsider is reading this topic, he's gonna think that it is really hard to make us happy. 

 

We're hard to please I guess, but I agree that the new website is unfortunately garbage.

[allanp]

1 hour ago, ben20 said:

+1, Like i said there is zero extra cost to design a stronger part. I grew up with the old technic, and for like 20 years or so there has been almost no new parts, you had to work what you have. It was the spirit of Lego, create creativity. Look at the 8868, air tech claw rig, such amazing shape, the blueprints on box, B model, so less and all normal parts you find in other sets. 

That's just factually incorrect. If a part requires a more complex mould to be stronger then it will be more expensive to both design and manufacture the mould and in many cases to mould the part as well. And 8868 did require new parts, such as the motor pump and small pneumatic cylinder. Technic MOCcing may be about building with what you have, because you have no choice, but Technic sets have never been about that. Except for the worst years (where nothing was released) there have always been new parts released every year. It's what has allowed the theme to evolve past 853 auto chassis, or would you be happy for TLG to just have rereleased that every year?

Edited August 28, 2019 by allanp

[Mechbuilds]

I think lego should design a good strong part even if it's more expensive. After all, they're known for their high quality. 

[TeamThrifty]

6 hours ago, suffocation said:

Amazingly, intense RC applications appear to require specifically RC-designed parts

My thoughts exactly! Used out of context, the parts show wear... who'd have thunk!

[Henkl]

We must remember that it is still a childrens toy. We afols do different things. Lego tested it as a toy, not as complex RC stuff. I think. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Henkl

[Lipko]

I'm more interested in the backlash of the new parts (male + female axle, not the hub). How does it compare to the old CV joint and the universal joint?

[howitzer]

13 hours ago, ben20 said:

snip

I grew up with the old technic, and for like 20 years or so there has been almost no new parts,

snip

New parts have been introduced in every year since the start of the Technic line in 1977, except 1985 and 1987. In some years there has been only one or two parts, but most of the time there's been more.

[sirslayer]

I wonder if this is based off from the sugar cane plastics??? not so good news!! 

[Ox1337]

Have you tried to aks replacements from TLG?

[allanp]

31 minutes ago, Lipko said:

I'm more interested in the backlash of the new parts (male + female axle, not the hub). How does it compare to the old CV joint and the universal joint?

Id say there is about the same, maybe a tiny bit more backlash with the new CV as compared to the old, but the universal joint has noticeably more backlash than both old and new CV joints. However, the old CV joint socket had a weak and easy to bend design, and was made of cheese, so the movement you get is much more. The new CV parts and bigger and the plastic is harder so in reality the backlash will feel much less with the new CV joints. 

[rm8]

I also have some doubts

[agrof]

I do believe this topic is overreacted, the parts were used out of their intended context (indoor usage only, with original motor and battery setup) - of course some damage can be expected.

There is no problem to stretch the limits (actually it is the best), but for sure there is a price. We just must acknowledge this. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by agrof

[sirslayer]

When my grand children seen this as I did also ....  I would think the Lego 42099 is indestructible!!   ..  is that sugar canes in the back ground??

 

 

 

[Mechbuilds]

Okay i have not seen that ad.. They made it look completely indestructible. 

[nerdsforprez]

13 hours ago, TeamThrifty said:

My thoughts exactly! Used out of context, the parts show wear... who'd have thunk!

 

1 hour ago, agrof said:

I do believe this topic is overreacted, the parts were used out of their intended context (indoor usage only, with original motor and battery setup) - of course some damage can be expected.

There is no problem to stretch the limits (actually it is the best), but for sure there is a price. We just must acknowledge this. 

+1

 

3 minutes ago, Mechbuilds said:

Okay i have not seen that ad.. They made it look completely indestructible. 

Oh brother. Thats just it. An AD. Thats the operative phrase. If you base opinions or expectations on ads you will be in a world of hurt. They are not meant to reflect reality.

[agrof]

Of course, one could easily blame LEGO, that "I just reproduced, what LEGO did in the video - but the toy is broken now and can not be repaired." Actually, I would be happy to see such case happening. 

TLG's marketing department proved many times already, that... well, they are not really up to the task (at least for Technic).

[sirslayer]

I hate to say this but some countries,  Comply with laws against deceptive or misleading advertising if your country is in the modern 21 century like USA!!!!!  But I like to believe in a one world which we all are equal. So maybe USA version of the Lego set 42099 is built to be better or stronger.. Now I'm curious and I got to purchase the set and see...  

[Touc4nx]

6 minutes ago, agrof said:

"I just reproduced, what LEGO did in the video - but the toy is broken now and can not be repaired."

I think TLG would just say that there is a warning message at the beginning of the ad and they wouldn't be bothered with law IMO.

[suffocation]

There's a big-ar$e warning at the beginning of the video telling brain-dead viewers not to attempt to reproduce what happens in the video itself. So is it deceptive advertising? No, it's "Don't watch this if you have single-digit IQ."

Edited August 29, 2019 by suffocation

[sirslayer]

who sucking up all the air???   The video claims not to do the stunts ...  Stunts is define as ...... can you fill this part out?? 

[Mechbuilds]

28 minutes ago, suffocation said:

There's a big-ar$e warning at the beginning of the video telling brain-dead viewers not to attempt to reproduce what happens in the video itself. So is it deceptive advertising? No, it's "Don't watch this if you have single-digit IQ."

Well in some countries there aren't any ad's that are misleading. Warning banner or not. 
Guess it's an american thing?