Technic is just for kids, and you can build anything so stop complaining!

[syclone]

Well, perhaps downscaling it a bit (somewhere around the size of 8275) would've helped... I've only seen a pair of photos but seems like it's a big shell on tracks, similar to the Liebherr. This would also remove the need for new tracks, potentially making the price even smaller (or not, since there doesn't seem to be a direct correlation of new elements increasing launch prices, nor prices lowering once the element is used in various sets). 

I'd also support it being pneumatic (since it's most similar to hydraulics in Technic), but even the "mini" motor from C+ is enormous compared to normal RC/robotics servos... so not a chance, specially with such a functionally limiting system such as C+. 

[Bartybum]

2 hours ago, allanp said:

But I think that's largely to do with costs for everything rising so dramatically since the pandemic.

The reason I'm not so inclined to believe this is that it's exactly the same cost as 42100. To me that suggests they were targeting a certain price point. I don't know how the product design process works though, so it might be that they design a set to a price range and then narrow it down towards the end. It could very well have been the case that it just so happened to line up with 42100. After all, all three 1:8 cars were priced differently. In any case, it's inconclusive but convenient to TLG that they cost the same.

2 hours ago, allanp said:

SO HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU! How could the CAT do this? How would you have designed the CAT o fulfil the desire for realistic mechanisms (LAs are not realistic LOL!) and a variety of mechanisms? How would you design the CAT so it can be worthy of it's price tag? 

I don't accept the argument that LAs aren't realistic. There's no other alternative that's inexpensive, precise AND playable. Pneumatics aren't precise, and remotely operated ones would be insanely expensive. Hydraulics are obviously out of the question because fast hydraulic pumps would be even more expensive. But moving on...

I'm by no means a good builder in the slightest, so I'll armchair-MOC here. I'm gonna try make it equivalent in value to 42100, or at least close. Here's my rant about the perfect 42131.

Firstly, there's the matter of cosmetics, although I wouldn't expect these to affect the price at all since they're just recolours and a few extra pieces:

• The roller bogies should be pendular and use yellow pieces.
• The linear actuators and mounts should be all-black, with no DBG mounts or base pieces.
• A yellow round 4x4 over the top sprocket to fill it out like in the real thing.

From here onward, the problem gets more complex. On one hand, I don't think two hubs are needed, because you never really need to operate two non-driving functions at a time with a bulldozer. The four gearbox functions are presumably controlled by a four-output gearbox, so it should theoretically be possible to fit a larger one with more outputs. If Eric Trax could find the space to fit two hubs and six motors into his PR776 alternate, then there should be enough space in this CAT to fit a larger gearbox. With that, we could add the missing ripper pitch.

The issue is that I can't think of any other function for the D11T that needs to be motorised. A larger gearbox to accommodate one extra output, plus two extra linear actuators, don't exactly cost as much as another hub and two more motors, so the price wouldn't be made up with only a larger gearbox. Note that I've said two motors, not three, because the angular motors are more powerful than (and probably more expensive) the XL and L PU motors, so I'll extend an olive branch and assume that two angular motors cost the same as the three XLs in 42100.

Because of that, the only other solution I could imagine would be to have two hubs, with a total of six independently controlled functions: 2x drive, 2x blade and 2x ripper. Scrap the ladder because it's boring and unnecessary; it can be a hand-powered function for all I care. That being said, as I mentioned earlier there's no reason the functions need to work at the same time, so the set doesn't need an extra hub and motors. Therefore, I don't think there's any reasonable way to make this set worth its current price.

TL;DR: There's no way to do it and keep the linear actuators. There's not enough possible motorised functions to justify only using one hub for the current price, but two hubs is unnecessary for playability. The set should just be $175AUD cheaper, at $575 instead of $750. Make it $600 and call it inflation or whatever.

EDIT: Alternatively, RC pneumatics would have been totally ace here, and would have made up for the lack of electronics.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Bartybum

[Gimmick]

51 minutes ago, rener said:

For the CAT pneumatics would not be very realistic either, don’t you think? 
But if it was done with pneumatic, servos for each valve and sensors, I would think the price would reach the level of beyond ludicrous. Plus there would be need for a highly specialized remote control, since I fail to see how the need for many subtle controls could work via touchscreen. Cool as it would be though…;)

Hmmm. 4 valves -> 1 motor for gearbox switch, 1 motor for the pump, 1 motor for the selected valve movement, 2 motors for driving? :D

Interface: Switches for each valve -> the gearbox motor and valve motor move automatically to open/close the valves. Not perfectly playable of course, but would be interesting to see I think.

And you "only" have to remove basically all the mechanics after the gearbox and add some hoses xD

[rener]

With my answer I had the 8868 Rebirth MOC (fantastic model btw) in mind, but maybe I’m thinking too complicated. I would certainly be interested in an RC/pneumatic combo, and probably willing to fork out €  449,99 for it…😉

 

[Bartybum]

1 hour ago, Gimmick said:

Hmmm. 4 valves -> 1 motor for gearbox switch, 1 motor for the pump, 1 motor for the selected valve movement, 2 motors for driving? :D

Interface: Switches for each valve -> the gearbox motor and valve motor move automatically to open/close the valves. Not perfectly playable of course, but would be interesting to see I think.

And you "only" have to remove basically all the mechanics after the gearbox and add some hoses xD

That'd definitely be an interesting solution, but it would need two hubs. This is a prime example of the need for more ports, or a separate receiver and battery box.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Bartybum

[allanp]

The new education set has a new smaller PU motor which might be good for controlling the valves. I think there's room enough for 4 of those, 2 hubs, drive motors and compressor. At least then we'd have more justification for its size and price tag.

[sm1995]

Pneumatics may have a more “realistic” mode of operation, but honestly their movement is so jerky, unpredictable and unrealistic that I prefer LAs > pneumatics every time.

Plus the realism argument is a moot point, since industrial equipment uses hydraulics out of necessity due to the high forces it can impart with pressurized incompressible liquids. Electromechanical actuators are quieter, more precise, more reliable and requires less maintenance… I believe the tech is just very expensive and not quite there yet for high load applications. I’m sure with global electrification we’d see that pendulum swing the other way! Lego was just ahead of the curve ;)

[Bartybum]

41 minutes ago, allanp said:

The new education set has a new smaller PU motor which might be good for controlling the valves. I think there's room enough for 4 of those, 2 hubs, drive motors and compressor. At least then we'd have more justification for its size and price tag.

That would make six motors, two hubs, four valves, at least two small pumps, not to mention like seven cylinders. While I agree, that'd definitely take it quite some amount above the value of 42100.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Bartybum

[allanp]

5 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

That would make six motors, two hubs, four valves, at least two small pumps, not to mention like seven cylinders. While I agree, that'd definitely take it quite some amount above the value of 42100.

Maybe. I haven't noticed pneumatic components raising the price of sets anymore than LAs would. This year's tow truck is very well priced. But yeah, could be fewer parts but equal in price to 42100, or slightly more, but I think you'd get what you pay for.

[Bartybum]

2 minutes ago, allanp said:

Maybe. I haven't noticed pneumatic components raising the price of sets anymore than LAs would. This year's tow truck is very well priced. But yeah, could be fewer parts but equal in price to 42100, or slightly more, but I think you'd get what you pay for.

Yeah maybe you're right. Shame that TLC act like this

Edited August 29, 2021 by Bartybum

[Citromon]

There is one moment to take in consideration if we talk about "Is Technic for kids or adults?" - could a kid (10 years, for example) build the Sian or CAT bulldozer? Easy! Because it has the instructions. But, could the same kid make a MOC with the same complexity? I doubt it. That's why we have smaller technic sets and the big one, for gradually learning. On the other hand, sets like Ferrari and Raptor are  the consequences of a rash and stupid marketing.    

[gyenesvi]

While I agree that LAs are more precise and hence more playable, I would have loved to see an RC pneumatic solution with the new PU small motor for switching valves. Also, the 6-port rechargeable hub from the Spike / Mindstorms set applied to the Technic lineup. Although, if I count it right, drive plus 4 functions requires 7 motors at least (2 for drive, 4 switchig, 1 for the pump, right?). But other solutions for avoiding more than one hubs would have also been interesting, such as the separation of the control unit from the battery, or some way of connecting two identical motors that are driven together to a single port.

7 hours ago, Bartybum said:

A larger gearbox to accommodate one extra output, plus two extra linear actuators, don't exactly cost as much as another hub and two more motors

I have already asked in the CAT thread if anyone actually sees this even theoretically possible (with a single motor for drive and one for switching, I don’t) and so far I did not get any solutions.

Edited August 29, 2021 by gyenesvi

[2GodBDGlory]

11 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

I have already asked in the CAT thread if anyone actually sees this even theoretically possible (with a single motor for drive and one for switching, I don’t) and so far I did not get any solutions.

The gap between a four-output and a five-output gearbox is quite great in terms of complexity, and I doubt a five-output with current pieces would be reliable enough for inclusion in an official set. Of course, the ladder could be tossed in favor of the ripper tilt if necessary.

[gyenesvi]

1 minute ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

The gap between a four-output and a five-output gearbox is quite great in terms of complexity, and I doubt a five-output with current pieces would be reliable enough for inclusion in an official set. Of course, the ladder could be tossed in favor of the ripper tilt if necessary.

So at least in theory it is possible with current pieces? Do you have some reference to see how it would work?

[howitzer]

23 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

While I agree that LAs are more precise and hence more playable, I would have loved to see an RC pneumatic solution with the new PU small motor for switching valves. Also, the 6-port rechargeable hub from the Spike / Mindstorms set applied to the Technic lineup. Although, if I count it right, drive plus 4 functions requires 7 motors at least (2 for drive, 4 switchig, 1 for the pump, right?). But other solutions for avoiding more than one hubs would have also been interesting, such as the separation of the control unit from the battery, or some way of connecting two identical motors that are driven together to a single port.

I have already asked in the CAT thread if anyone actually sees this even theoretically possible (with a single motor for drive and one for switching, I don’t) and so far I did not get any solutions.

I'm a bit baffled by the decision of TLG to make separate Technic hub with 4 outputs and standard batteries, and also to make a 6-port hub for Mindstorms with rechargeable battery. I mean, the battery of course makes the latter more expensive (both to manufacture and to ship) but why not design a single 6-port hub with a standard battery holder that can be replaced with a rechargeable battery? Then just ship the Mindstorms etc. with the rechargeable battery and Technic sets without and sell it separately. The two additional ports make such a difference with versatility, and the ability to upgrade to rechargeable battery would probably make a good bit in sales.

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, howitzer said:

I'm a bit baffled by the decision of TLG to make separate Technic hub with 4 outputs and standard batteries, and also to make a 6-port hub for Mindstorms with rechargeable battery. I mean, the battery of course makes the latter more expensive (both to manufacture and to ship) but why not design a single 6-port hub with a standard battery holder that can be replaced with a rechargeable battery? Then just ship the Mindstorms etc. with the rechargeable battery and Technic sets without and sell it separately. The two additional ports make such a difference with versatility, and the ability to upgrade to rechargeable battery would probably make a good bit in sales.

I totally agree with this. But it only gets worse, as they are not even really compatible SW-wise. I bought the Mindstorms set, as I saw great potential in the rechargeable 6-port hub and the motors, but it turns out that the Powered Up app is not compatible with the Mindstorms hub. I learned that they use different Bluetooth technology for remote control (Technic hub uses more recent BT Low Energy, while Mindstorms uses old BT technology??? (although it does contain some BLE HW AFAIK), and does not use the Lego Wireless Protocol as the Technic Hub). It just seems a bit uncoordinated for me, lot of potential left on the table, all the HW seems to be there without proper SW, which is annoying.

[Erik Leppen]

On 8/29/2021 at 11:53 AM, allanp said:

SO HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU! How could the CAT do this? How would you have designed the CAT o fulfil the desire for realistic mechanisms (LAs are not realistic LOL!) and a variety of mechanisms? How would you design the CAT so it can be worthy of it's price tag? 

Realism and LA's are not the problem. The tow truck also uses LAs and noone complains. In fact, it uses LAs where pneumatics would have made more sense and vice versa! (Outriggers never have to be placed half-way, so pneumatic would make more sense there. The crane should allow precise control, so LA makes more sense there.)

The thing with the tow truck is that it's not bigger than the functions require, and, as a result, it's filled with functions. Simply said: the size : functionality ratio (or, better, the price : functionality) is quite good.

Technic is about functionality. For looks, we have literally all the other themes (except Mindstorms and educational stuff). So if there's one thing that Technic should deliver, its functionality. So, if a set doesn't deliver on that, it would have been better off as a Creator set.

How I would change the CAT? If I were in charge, I would either release a Creator set, or just re-release 8275 instead. That set was big, but not overly huge in relation to what it does. It doesn't have empty large empty spaces or needless complexity. Also, it was affordable, and as far as I know, does the same as this CAT thing, so on the level of functionality (that one thing that gives the Technic theme its reason to exist, remember), we gain nothing but we pay more than twice the price! (RRP for 8275 was $ 150 in 2009, which is about $ 190 now.) I'd consider that a problem.

Now I don't really care, I don't buy control+ stuff, I still think C+ is a huge failed mess, but I would have liked to see a set that I would have wanted instead. Now, basically, the tow truck is the only 2021H2 set even worth considering. All the rest is either cars or out of my reach, money-wise.

[Maaboo the Witch]

1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

C+ is a huge failed mess

That's because it's little more than a hastily-conceived techno-gimmick designed by TLG to horn in on screen time. And surprise surprise, it's... well, Erik, you've described it brilliantly. Look at VIDIYO, TLG's biggest flop in recent memory. That theme already has an entry on TvTropes' "We're Still Relevant, Dammit!" page.

[Gimmick]

@Erik Leppen

Everyone always talks about "functions", but to be honest I never realy understood what that means. Are doors of a car a function? Are they a function in the 42115? Becomes everything a function if I move something indirectly? Is a gearbox for switching  "functions" by itself a function? Are things only a function if they realy add something to the core of a model (e.g. car doors, chain tensioner,... are never functions)? Gets a function better or worse if I drive them directly with a motor? Is a suspension a function? Is light a function? Is blinking light a seperate function? If you build a dozer and you add a single motor just to drive the fake motor, so this fake motor moves when you use the shield, is that a great function?

I seriously do not know. Is everything best if you build the model around a bulk of motors? If I follow that "needless complexity" argument I would conclude: 42055 and 42082 are two of the worst models ever created?

Your example of the 8275 just shows how diverse the community is. This model combines so much of the negative critics of so many models from the past years and now you bring it up as an example of how things should be done xD. And it contradicts the result of point 9 in this survey  :D

But please don't get me wrong, you wrote how you would do it and that's fine of course. It's just not what most would do, just like TLG apparently does things most in this forum would not...

 

@gyenesvi

I think in theory you can add multiple gearbox outputs. If a full rotation of gearbox A engages a connection 1 you can connect with a gearing of 2:1 a gearbox B that engages every 2 rotations of gearbox A. That means first selection of A.1 selects B.1 second selection of A.1 selects B.2, which would make 5 independent outputs since A.1 is already used. But well.... would not work great I think, or I may be wrong :D

[Bricktrain]

I have been using C+ in a lot of my MOCs and PU in trains and find it great. As yet I havent done custom apps as I have been able to make the supplied apps work to my configurations, but when I complete my modified D11 I will have to build a custom app as it now has two hubs and 8 motors. Anyone saying that dedicated remote control removes complexity obviously hasnt tried adding all the RC features into a confined space. The D11 isnt that big when you are fitting 8 motors and gear drives into it.

[2GodBDGlory]

17 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

So at least in theory it is possible with current pieces? Do you have some reference to see how it would work?

I see that this question had already been answered in part, but my reasoning is that the shifting mechanism for any sequential multi speed gearbox over four speeds could be used. Generally this involves a stepper to switch a second gearbox after the first one had rotated 360 degrees, but other things (that Lego would be very unlikely to do) include meshing a wave selector with three adjacent driving rings (See my TC19 entry), or building one of Sheepo's pre-wave selector sequential designs. None of these are good options, but it is possible.

Edited August 30, 2021 by 2GodBDGlory

[gyenesvi]

12 minutes ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

my reasoning is that the shifting mechanism for any sequential multi speed gearbox over four speeds could be used. Generally this involves a stepper to switch a second gearbox after the first one had rotated 360 degrees.

Thanks for the answers, I have been thinking exactly in this direction, but some crucial detail was missing, but now I have figured it out. It's probably something like @Gimmick is talking about, although I am not sure exactly what he means, but here is my solution. As opposed to an 8-speed gearbox, which has only a single output with different speeds, something must be fundamentally different here, and what I have realized is that in the generic case of up to 8 functions, you need not just a single 2-output gearbox and a single 4-output gearbox, but you need two of the 4-output gearboxes after the 2-output one. The 2-output one is which changes once after every 360 rotations of the 4-output gearboxes, and basically selects which of the two 4-output ones are active. So theoretically the drive part is not too complex, maybe the switching mechanism is a bit more involved, but that does not really effect the performance. The whole thing would be probably quite big though.

On the other hand, the special case of 5 outputs gets more simple, as one of the 4-output gearboxes can be left out, simply using the second output of the 2-output gearbox without further multiplexing it. So that would be somewhat more compact, although probably still large enough.

[2GodBDGlory]

I think that you're exactly right!

[allanp]

So, in the BMW zx111000rrkxj whateverthefrick it's called review topic, @nerdsforprez wrote (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the BMW can be modded to our whim to include all the functionality that we want. Apologies for bumping this topic but this topic was created to answer such arguments, and hopefully to contain them in this topic as opposed to repeating the same discussion in every other set topic. I have no intention of trying to change nerdsforprezs mind or anything like that, of course he's free to have that opinion but I can't help but reply to that argument 

So nerdsforprez wrote that we can change the BMW to our whim. I argue that this is not true, or perhaps I should say that it's missing the point?

Let's take the BMW, let's put some though into what could make it a truly great TECHNIC model that lives up to the marketing hype if "build for real" and so on. At this huge 1:5 scale there's a lot that's possible. There's a lot that was wished for and suggested in the forum, 6 speed, more realistic gearbox with all the sizes of clutch gears, working brakes, proper shocks like that large, oil filled adjustable shock found in some RC sets and an older Technic bike. And in the reviews there was comments that you can't see much of what the gearbox is doing, you can't see much happening. It took me 5 seconds to think of a solution to that, you could have the option of adding a motor to the base to drive the engine. That way you could flip through the gears and have them in the correct order, and really see the speed of the rear wheel changing. You could even have a hand crank in the base to make the same effect. It wasn't just me, there were a few members that got excited, their imaginations got fired up for all the possibilities that a 1:5 scale model could bring to the table. So it is regrettable that TLG themselves lack that same fire and enthusiasm for their own product. Sure the BMW has some fans, but the bike just feels like the lazy, bare minimum needed to make a few sales. Let's just make it bigger and good looking, and we'll add an extra gear over the Ducati and people will buy it as a display model. If there's anything I would want to change about this model, it's that lazy approach to its creation. That's the main thing I would want to change to my whim, but I can't do that. I could go over all the other things I'd like to add/change and the reasons why I either can't or shouldn't have to, but this topic has already covered that. But in short, you wouldn't expect a cake to come without any toppings or filling and be expected to add them yourself, nor should a company expect you to. And there are some things, like a realistic 6 speed gearbox that just aren't possible with current Technic parts, and yet would be so easy if only the parts were available. They have the power to do that, they could go beyond the bare minimum requirement and make Technic into something truly phenomenal with these sets that are getting increasingly larger, but it seems they lack both the passion and the will. I think that's a shame. Do they want to make their sets bigger in order to make them better? This BMW tells me no, and that the only reason they make their sets bigger is to sell us more bricks, that's the only reason.

Edit: rereading my post, lazy is probably the wrong word. I don't mean lazy. I'm sure it took a long time and a lot of effort to design. But it just feels like the very hard work of a product designer that's not really a fan of Technic.

Edited December 9, 2021 by allanp

[Gray Gear]

Okay no I am not reading that