It won't work. 

10 hours ago, doughnut said:

This fate awaits PU motors as well. But they will cost even more than PF, as they already do.

And how "third-party software" will get paid for their labor? The software side also worries me, tbh. TLG is not a software company, they are a toy company. I mean, C+'s APK was, like, 500Ms lol - I hope they fixed that now. Will they have enough resources and knowledge to maintain their software? Yes, they had Mindstorms, and pretty successfully, but they seem to be greatly expanding their software scale with PU. All the firmware for the smart hubs... And it's likely the mobile apps will need constant maintenance. I'm really curious to see how PU pans out.

Aftermarket prices are practically the same for PF and PU motors. In TLG's own online store PU components are of course grossly overpriced.

As for the third-party software... how are the developers currently being paid? BrickController 2 and Controlz are both available for free in the Play Store.

13 hours ago, doughnut said:

This fate awaits PU motors as well. But they will cost even more than PF, as they already do.

And how "third-party software" will get paid for their labor? The software side also worries me, tbh. TLG is not a software company, they are a toy company. I mean, C+'s APK was, like, 500Ms lol - I hope they fixed that now. Will they have enough resources and knowledge to maintain their software? Yes, they had Mindstorms, and pretty successfully, but they seem to be greatly expanding their software scale with PU. All the firmware for the smart hubs... And it's likely the mobile apps will need constant maintenance. I'm really curious to see how PU pans out.

Third party softwares are managed by..third parties which aren't necessarily a for profit corporation, some want to release their work for free and did the controller app for fun/hobby maybe other will want to put a price on it, but not all controllers apps need to be purchased.

If you have the bluetooth protocol (which we have since it's reverse engineered) anyone can do an app, that's the beauty of it.

As the the maintenance and knowledge, it is not a complex task we are talking about, once something goes open-source the knowledge is shared and many people with a developer background (or just people passionated about software development, as a hobby) can basically adapt the application and maintain it.

I understand your point of view but I don't share your pessimism, for me the C+ Lego app is just one way of using my C+/PU parts, IF it stopped getting updates (highly doubt so, but in the long-term future) I can still use or create a thirdparty app to use them.

 

6 hours ago, howitzer said:

Aftermarket prices are practically the same for PF and PU motors. In TLG's own online store PU components are of course grossly overpriced.

Most of the prices I see on Bricklink are close to the TLG's price. Or do you mean some other aftermarket?

 

2 hours ago, sephiroth117 said:

Third party softwares are managed by..third parties which aren't necessarily a for profit corporation, some want to release their work for free and did the controller app for fun/hobby maybe

Well then there's no guarantee the software will be maintained, is there? But even if LEGO actually had a software engineering department - I'm not sure how much that would help really. Corporate strategies change.

 

2 hours ago, sephiroth117 said:

As the the maintenance and knowledge, it is not a complex task we are talking about, once something goes open-source the knowledge is shared

The question is not whether it's complex, but whether they can do it. And let's wait until it's open source first.

 

Anyways, I am personally not excited about the new system being so tied to third party devices and so expensive, so I don't plan to be getting it in the foreseeable future.

24 minutes ago, doughnut said:

Most of the prices I see on Bricklink are close to the TLG's price. Or do you mean some other aftermarket?

I don't know which prices you are looking at in Bricklink, but I just recently bought 2 PU L-motors for about 17€ each, and even cheaper ones are available (on the order of 12-13€) as of typing this. Cheapest PF L-motors seem to cost about 11-12€. In TLG's online shop PU L-motor is 39,95€ so there's a pretty steep difference. PU Technic hubs are less than 20€in Bricklink and 89,95€ from TLG.

Prices will of course vary from country to country, where I live TLG's prices are always higher than in many other European countries, and I have no idea how they change when you go across the pond.

On 12/16/2020 at 5:07 PM, doughnut said:

Well then there's no guarantee the software will be maintained, is there? But even if LEGO actually had a software engineering department - I'm not sure how much that would help really. Corporate strategies change.

Anyone (with some knowledge in software development) can maintain a controller thanks to open, widely-used protocols like BLE.

For a specific application yes it will depend but if you are only preoccupied of not being able to drive your creation using Bluetooth, that won’t happen..that’s the beauty of standard protocols and open-source softwares.

Edited December 17, 20204 yr by sephiroth117

On 12/16/2020 at 8:42 AM, howitzer said:

I don't know which prices you are looking at in Bricklink, but I just recently bought 2 PU L-motors for about 17€ each, and even cheaper ones are available (on the order of 12-13€) as of typing this. Cheapest PF L-motors seem to cost about 11-12€. In TLG's online shop PU L-motor is 39,95€ so there's a pretty steep difference. PU Technic hubs are less than 20€in Bricklink and 89,95€ from TLG.

Prices will of course vary from country to country, where I live TLG's prices are always higher than in many other European countries, and I have no idea how they change when you go across the pond.

So I checked again, and turns out Bricklink has two items for motors, one cheap and one expensive. For example the XL motor: cheap link and expensive link. I'm not sure what to make of it. Those cheap motors - are they genuine LEGO? How can they be sold for such low price, where do those people get them?

On 12/17/2020 at 10:32 AM, sephiroth117 said:

Anyone (with some knowledge in software development) can maintain a controller thanks to open, widely-used protocols like BLE.

For a specific application yes it will depend but if you are only preoccupied of not being able to drive your creation using Bluetooth, that won’t happen..that’s the beauty of standard protocols and open-source softwares.

Can anyone (with some knowledge in software development) keep their APK under half a gigabyte? Why wasn't that anyone hired by TLG then for their C+? Rhetorical question.

On 12/16/2020 at 4:07 PM, doughnut said:

But even if LEGO actually had a software engineering department

Why does this thread seem to be suggesting TLG don't have any software developers, or that they should hire one...? Are you guys for real?!

They'll have a software dev department of considerable size. Bigger than some software houses. They're not writing this on some free half-baked platform using developers in india... this is serious corporate level in-house development with a massive budget. I wouldn't like to guess at the numbers, but if they have less than 15-20 developers i'd be surprised. Plus the software architects planning software. Plus testers for beta and RC releases... You make it should like a small side project for them. 

43 minutes ago, doughnut said:

keep their APK under half a gigabyte?

Which APK is half a GB? Powered Up is 202MB when installed, Control Plus is 304MB.. no where near 512?

These days i routinely deploy 3 and 400MB applications. Gone are the days of writing tiny machine code apps. Most devices can handle big apps these days

2 hours ago, doughnut said:

So I checked again, and turns out Bricklink has two items for motors, one cheap and one expensive. For example the XL motor: cheap link and expensive link. I'm not sure what to make of it. Those cheap motors - are they genuine LEGO? How can they be sold for such low price, where do those people get them?

The more expensive listings are is for the set (an individually-packaged XL motor), while the cheaper listings are for just the part itself. Chances are that most of the listings for the loose part are people who bought other Technic sets that include XL motors (possibly on sale or marked down in some way), and were able to make enough of a profit from the rest of the set's components that they don't need to charge quite so much for the motors themselves.

By comparison, the stand-alone sets are usually only available directly from LEGO (either through LEGO Brand Stores, LEGO.com, or LEGO Shop at Home catalogs), so there are usually fewer sales and markdowns available for the individually-packaged version. As such, few BrickLink merchants are likely to offer the individually-packaged components for much cheaper than it would cost to buy them directly from LEGO.

Power Functions components, Mindstorms components, and even 9V components are likewise often listed both as loose parts or as stand-alone sets. And unless the part in question was ONLY ever sold individually (like some of the more specialized Mindstorms sensors), the listings for the loose part will almost always be cheaper — especially if you buy them used rather than new. Hope that answers your question!

On 12/15/2020 at 5:01 PM, doughnut said:

Is it available for desktop, or for mobile only? If no desktop app, which mobile devices are supported then? Which iOS/Android versions? How convenient really is it, to program something on a touch screen? These are all rhetorical questions. Personally, I wouldn't hurry to label PU as "progress". Yes, it's a new corporate strategy, and PU is better for TLG for their reasons - it doesn't necessarily mean it's better for us, because we have our own reasons and definitions of "better", don't we?

I don't really have any Powered Up sets myself yet, but I downloaded the app a while back so I could check out the interface and see what options it offered, and I'd say that the drag-and-drop controls for the program blocks are about as easy to use on a touch-screen interface as they would be with a computer mouse.

Also, since I first downloaded it, they even added the ability to design a custom controller for "remote control" type play, giving you much more flexible options than you would have with either a physical remote control or a predefined controller layout like they provide for specific types of sets. Some of the options include buttons, "thumbstick" style directional controls, rotating knobs, two-way and three-way switches, linear sliders, and letter and number markings to help label the different control options on your screen you have. All the control switches and knobs also come in a wide range of colors to help differentiate between them, and you can place them wherever you like on the screen.

I suspect there's a bit of a learning curve to figuring out exactly what type of control setup is best for the sort of models and components you want to control, as well as how to assign the different control options to the motors in your model, but I feel like that's part of the fun — not unlike the challenge of figuring out how to build motorized MOCs that can perform particular actions in the first place. I definitely feel like LEGO put a lot of thought into trying to make this new system as versatile as possible, and I definitely think it's much more in line with the LEGO brand's open-ended design philosophy than requiring programmable and non-programmable kits to use entirely different systems of plugs and motors.

Edited December 21, 20204 yr by Aanchir

Didn't read your whole post - too long; however, this caught my eye:

6 hours ago, Aanchir said:

giving you much more flexible options

who cares about flexible options when you must keep an eye on the touch screen at all times instead of watching the model? Touch screens lack haptic feedback.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, and so I am to mine. I like PF better.

 

Edited December 21, 20204 yr by doughnut

55 minutes ago, doughnut said:

Touch screens lack haptic feedback.

Number one reason why I hate using smartphones to control models. I much prefer the limited features of PF because I can use a physical remote. Control+ just isn’t appealing because there is no remote. We saw the patents for a Technic style PU remote, I hope they are used someday.

3 hours ago, doughnut said:

Didn't read your whole post - too long; however, this caught my eye:

who cares about flexible options when you must keep an eye on the touch screen at all times instead of watching the model? Touch screens lack haptic feedback.

 

You are entitled to your opinion, and so I am to mine. I like PF better.

 

It's pretty rude to ignore a well written comment which offers counterpoints to most of your arguments and answers most of your questions.

Anyway, haptic feedback is indeed nice and you can use a gaming console controller for that with PU.

13 hours ago, doughnut said:

So I checked again, and turns out Bricklink has two items for motors, one cheap and one expensive. For example the XL motor: cheap link and expensive link. I'm not sure what to make of it. Those cheap motors - are they genuine LEGO? How can they be sold for such low price, where do those people get them?

Can anyone (with some knowledge in software development) keep their APK under half a gigabyte? Why wasn't that anyone hired by TLG then for their C+? Rhetorical question.

Current APK is < 250mb I believe (I'm on iOS)

My humble opinion on the matter would be that either the application has simply many images/animations or that it is not a "native" Android application but rather a hybrid application like Ionic or React Native, those "hybrid" applications often have a memory space overhead 

You can absolutely have smaller APK for applications, but once you have complex GUIs lots of ondisk images and animations etc that's slightly harder.

 

Edited December 21, 20204 yr by sephiroth117

16 hours ago, doughnut said:

Didn't read your whole post - too long

I think you should at least read the first part of the post, since that answers a question YOU asked. If you're going to ask questions and then be too lazy to read the answers you get, you're going to have a hard time getting anybody to care about your questions or concerns in the first place.

16 hours ago, doughnut said:

who cares about flexible options when you must keep an eye on the touch screen at all times instead of watching the model? Touch screens lack haptic feedback.

This is certainly a fair point, although from my experience with touch controls on various devices (iPhone, Nintendo DS, Wii U, etc), muscle memory can go a long way to compensate for that as long as the controls themselves are positioned carefully enough for you to keep track of where they are on the device without looking. I'm sure for plenty of people, the additional options this system offers is a totally fair trade for the loss of haptic feedback, same as with any other sort of application on touch-screen devices.

Also, the Powered Up app's custom controllers can also be combined with program blocks to create more varied outputs for each input. For instance, you can program a controller for a model with multiple independently driven wheels or tracks (or a model with separate motors for acceleration and steering) so that you can drive and steer the model using just one thumbstick, instead of needing separate inputs to independently change the speed or position of each motor. Likewise, you can program a controller for a train layout so that your trains will realistically slow to a stop when you shut off the engine, rather than needing to manually reduce the input speed at a more gradual rate just to keep the movement looking realistic.

I understand if you don't care about these options and still prefer to keep using Power Functions. Nobody's forcing you to switch over to the new system, after all, just as nobody ever forced anyone to stop using the 9V system for Technic, Trains, or Mindstorms if that's what they already owned and preferred.

But I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to expect LEGO to continue producing a system like Power Functions when they have a system that offers nearly all the same options as Power Functions and Mindstorms COMBINED, as well as lots of new possibilities that weren't offered by any of the systems that preceded it.

15 hours ago, TechnicRCRacer said:

Number one reason why I hate using smartphones to control models. I much prefer the limited features of PF because I can use a physical remote. Control+ just isn’t appealing because there is no remote. We saw the patents for a Technic style PU remote, I hope they are used someday.

I definitely wouldn't mind if LEGO introduced more physical remotes like that. I suspect a big part of why they didn't focus on that sort of stuff early on is that Power Functions components (and even Power Functions-based sets like 42095) were still available, and they wanted as many of the early Powered Up sets as possible to showcase the new stuff Powered Up could do, rather than stuff that was already possible using the previous system. After all, it'd be impossible for a general-purpose "analog" remote to replicate many of those computing-based functions like the programmable functions of #17101 and #75253 or the one-touch maneuvering and tilt tracking  of #42099 and #42100.

Next year would probably be as good a time as any for LEGO to introduce a simple analog remote like that, since once 42095 is actually retired (and not just "temporarily out of stock"), it'd be pretty fitting to replace it with a similar sort of "entry-level" remote control Technic vehicle.

Edited December 21, 20204 yr by Aanchir

On 12/21/2020 at 7:31 AM, TechnicRCRacer said:

Number one reason why I hate using smartphones to control models. I much prefer the limited features of PF because I can use a physical remote. Control+ just isn’t appealing because there is no remote. We saw the patents for a Technic style PU remote, I hope they are used someday.

The Powered Up remote offers the same functionality as the small PF remote, but with buttons instead of levers. There's no easy speed control, but that was not offered with the small PF remote either. You can configure the Powered Up app to use the PU remote as an input and you are ready to go, this should work for most vehicles. For trains it works out of the box with speed control. 

I would also like to see proper remote with proportional joysticks for PU, let's see if it happens or not. But considering the implementation of the Ps4/Xbox controllers in the Mindstorms app I think we can expect something similar for PU in the future instead of a proprietary design. That solution would still require the smart device as a bridge, but the usability would be greatly improved. 

26 minutes ago, kbalage said:

You can configure the Powered Up app to use the PU remote as an input and you are ready to go

This is good to hear, but do I have to go through the whole setup process to get the remote connected every time I want to drive the model? 

Just now, TechnicRCRacer said:

This is good to hear, but do I have to go through the whole setup process to get the remote connected every time I want to drive the model? 

You need to create the code first in the app for the control profile, mapping the PU remote's buttons to the hub's outputs (basically the motors). Both the hub and the remote needs to be connected to the app for this. Next time you want to use the remote with that vehicle, you load the profile in the app and you connect both the hub and the remote to it. You press play and you are ready to go.

 

I have to say that I fall into the camp of disappointed Technic fan wrt PU introduction.  It could, indeed should, have been so much more and need not have made left existing PF parts behind.

Batteries not included is now expanded to 'Smartphone not included'.  I think that the defacto necessity to own a smartphone in order to motorise lego models is a serious block to enjoyment, it represents a serious expenditure that will be unaffordable or unsuitable for many.  I just bought my young nephew (age 4) his first lego trainset, he doesn't have a smartphone, neither does his mother, the inevitable result is that he is unlikely to be gifted any more lego trains as PU becomes the only available means of motorisation so I would strongly disagree that this is aimed predominately at kids/sets sales, if it is then I think it will backfire on TLG.

TLG are just so far behind the curve here, how many years has S-Brick been around?  Third parties have managed to provide better executed control systems of greater capability for years, not only this they are backwards compatible because as I understand them they use the existing PF motors.

Programability? If this was what I wanted from my Lego experience then I would own Mindstorms or some of the other similar Lego systems, I build lego technic for the same thrill of working mechanical mechanisms that I got when I opened my, just released, 850 forklift on my eight birthday, 4.5v train was relegated to my little brother!

Encoders and Tilt sensors could have been added as discrete elements, that would have added far more flexibility to the system. I believe such things are/were available in the robotics themes, I would suggest the lack of routine penetration into the Technic MOC scene is indication enough that such functionallity is not important to the majority.

As I've already given away my age it will be no surprise that I will always be a studded builder at heart and that I think TLG produce too many complex multi functional parts that dumb down the ingenuity of builders, who remembers the programmable crane and coloured trace drawing machine from the Technic ideas booklet 8888 in the late seventies or early eighties, programmed with 'rack' cards?  now my mind is spinning back in time - working suspension on the truck tractor unit (the rot was set though as it used a lego differential and new fangled Z16 gears if I remember correctly) :-)

I have recently borrowed a 42099 pickup set to see what PU was all about, while the system worked very nicely it does nothing that PF with train controllers doesn't do in this context. It was no more responsive, to the controls and why would I be trying to drive it out of sight?

As some here say I can (and will) continue to exercise my perogative to continue using PF however that is not without finacial penalty - price of a PF servo is in excess of £40 on lego markets now, Even TLG list is almost a quarter of that, At those prices even AFOL's are going to think twice about purchasing and will be driven to the 'compatible' market.

In my dayjob (Central heating) we have seen many controls featuring integration with phones and tablets.  Most have problems with interoperability across the huge range of devices and operating system versions, builds and updates, not show stopping, niggly stuff that stops auto installs and buggers up interface element positions and the like. I don't think any of the manufacturers (we are talking about multinationals the like of Honeywell here, many times the hitting power of TLG) reckoned on the sheer scale of the task in supporting and fixing these incredibly difficult to diagnose/ deal issues. Imagine on the first day of business next year when fifty percent of the purchasers of PU sets this Christmas are on the phone with an issue!

TLG have every right to consolidate their offering across themes (and are doing so, after all Technic and Mindstorms etc must be a tiny part of the business) but it is my opinion that PU is a poorly thought through system architecture, the lack of backwards compatibility (has) will alienate many AFOL's that don't need or want its complexity and is far to late to market for those that have found it elsewhere many years ago.  I would not be surprised to see it withdrawn or massively reworked on the next development cycle

My opinion FWIW

Simon

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Plumber said:

I have to say that I fall into the camp of disappointed Technic fan wrt PU introduction.  It could, indeed should, have been so much more and need not have made left existing PF parts behind.

<snip>

My opinion FWIW

Simon

One of your points caught my eye, the requirement of a smart device is indeed a drawback. Not necessarily a debilitating one, but still. I'm sure though, that the people at TLG have considered this at length and come to the conclusion that as long as the requirement of smart device is stated out clearly enough and most of the product range is still traditional, it's not going to be a problem for their business. Vast majority of people have a smart device at their disposal and those who don't probably aren't buying much Lego anyway.

That's something to ponder though, while the Sian didn't have any motors, other flagships and just below flagship sets (42100, 42099, 42114) of the last couple of years have had PU motors and thus required a smart device and if the rumours are correct, the upcoming bulldozer will surely too while the Zetros could be anything. Beside those we have the 42109 and 42124. So especially in the higher end most sets appear to require a smart device while the small sets naturally go without electronics. I really hope we're going to also see large, even flagship-level sets, without smart hub in the future. The dumb hub un-released with 42113 gives us hope though.

It appears though, that the complex, motorized sets have come to stay, smart or not. The brickbuilt frames with gears inside of the 80's and early 90's are gone for good, and while studless is indeed much harder to build with, it also allows the design of much better looking models with more complex and interesting mechanisms. I don't think ingenuity is lost either, rather the new parts have allowed the design of smoother, more reliable and compact mechanisms instead of kludging together stuff that could be easily solved with new parts. I also remember fondly my childhood sets and builds, but I must say that if you strip the nostalgia away, Lego (and not just Technic) has come a long way, and models today are for the most part much cooler than they were in my youth.

5 hours ago, howitzer said:

The dumb hub un-released with 42113 gives us hope though. 

Yes, it might have helped TLG  transition us 'stick in the muds' to have released a few smaller sets with this dumb hub and the remote (and adaptor cables like they did for 9V/PF)  to show that the future was not exclusively tied to smartphones!

Perhaps you can clear something up for me? Lego have two 'medium linear' motors shown in the PU range. Simple and regular.

I am guessing the Simple has no rotary encoder and cannot be used as a servo? The regular having the encoder?

So what is the 'Linear' bit all about? Are they linear actuators with the motor built in? They don't look like it and I would have expected more fuss if they were!

5 hours ago, howitzer said:

and while studless is indeed much harder to build with

 that could be easily solved with new parts.

Not sure I agree that studless is harder to build with, different certainly, enables much more ridgid frames/chassis etc and many possibilities that could never be realised in studded bricks.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not a stud purist, I buy,build and enjoy studless generation sets/parts as much as the next person :-)

Solved with new parts, that opens the can of worms, who decides what is a new part? TLG? Efferman and his 3D printer? Lego Technic Embodiment with his scapel,drill and glue?   A recent change in my circumstances has left me with much more time on my hands and I find myself at the lathe making ABS swarf! :-)

Here's to happy Christmas building wherever you draw the line!!

Simon

 

On 12/21/2020 at 2:06 PM, Aanchir said:

I think you should at least read the first part of the post, since that answers a question YOU asked.

A mere fact that I asked a question doesn't mean you should be answering it

16 hours ago, Plumber said:

Perhaps you can clear something up for me? Lego have two 'medium linear' motors shown in the PU range. Simple and regular.

I am guessing the Simple has no rotary encoder and cannot be used as a servo? The regular having the encoder?

LEGO has 3 types of motors in the PU range. 

•  "dumb" motors with no encoder and only power control, like the 45303 Simple Medium Linear Motor or the 88011 Train Motor
• motors with encoder but only relative positioning for speed/power control, this one only knows it's position relative to the "power on" position so the usage as a servo is limited, like the 88008 Medium Linear Motor (Boost)
• motors with encoder and absolute positioning, these motors have a physical 0 position and can be used as a servo, like the 88013 Technic Large Motor or the 88014 XL motor

About the "linear" in the name I only have guesses - there's now an "angular" motor type that has the driving axle perpendicular to the longest side of the motor, so the "linear" might be the one that has the regular driving axle setup.

 

19 hours ago, Plumber said:

Yes, it might have helped TLG  transition us 'stick in the muds' to have released a few smaller sets with this dumb hub and the remote (and adaptor cables like they did for 9V/PF)  to show that the future was not exclusively tied to smartphones!

Perhaps you can clear something up for me? Lego have two 'medium linear' motors shown in the PU range. Simple and regular.

I am guessing the Simple has no rotary encoder and cannot be used as a servo? The regular having the encoder?

So what is the 'Linear' bit all about? Are they linear actuators with the motor built in? They don't look like it and I would have expected more fuss if they were!

Not sure I agree that studless is harder to build with, different certainly, enables much more ridgid frames/chassis etc and many possibilities that could never be realised in studded bricks.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not a stud purist, I buy,build and enjoy studless generation sets/parts as much as the next person :-)

Solved with new parts, that opens the can of worms, who decides what is a new part? TLG? Efferman and his 3D printer? Lego Technic Embodiment with his scapel,drill and glue?   A recent change in my circumstances has left me with much more time on my hands and I find myself at the lathe making ABS swarf! :-)

Here's to happy Christmas building wherever you draw the line!!

Simon

 

Yeah, the "linear" is very confusing term, as I have associated it previously with motors that produce linear (usually reciprocating) motion instead of rotating. But as kbalage commented above, here it means only that the motor has output in the end of the motor shaft, instead of angle gearing and output in the side like angular motors.

I think it's a general agreement that studless building is difficult, as it requires more planning ahead than studful building but it's balanced out by more versatile building possibilities.

Many parts have been released over the years which now allow stuff that was essentially impossible before them, for example the clutch gear and driving ring released in 1993 and 1994. The question about who gets to make decisions about new parts is more related to purism, which has been discussed at length in other threads, so I suggest you take a look at those if you're interested in the topic :)

On 12/23/2020 at 10:42 AM, doughnut said:

A mere fact that I asked a question doesn't mean you should be answering it

I'm confused. Did you not actually WANT to know why the BrickLink prices on those two listings were different? Why did you bother asking, then?

Am I the only one who does not like any motors at all? Just give me cranks and wheels to turn.