Technic sets from 2009

[CloneCommanderDelta7]

I like the Front-End Loader the best! I might make it radio controlled with 2 remotes and 2-3 recievers along with a mass amount of motors.

Would XL motors be good for the wheels?

[5150 Lego]

Also, am I wrong or is color the only difference between the tractors on the 8063 and 8284. Havent had time to do detailed comparison and the pic might not be enough. Sure the rear assy is new but seems a copy of many MODs.

My first thought looking at the 8063 was bring back something else first, especially with unique parts such as 8420 streetbike, or of course 8455 with pneumatics

At first glance it apears you'd be correct. If this is the case, this will be a real let down. If i remember correctly the price was $59.99 for the tractor. With this trailer i'm sure the price will be close to $100. Not worth it just to get a trailer.

Sweet! Naturally, I would be buying all the new Technic sets even if they were only models of a lamp post, but I really like these. A few thoughts are below:

8063 - This tractor does look nearly identical to 8284, but I've been fooled before.

Good point. Its also important to remember that these pics are preliminary. TLC could very well be designing a new tractor and just using a different color 8284 for pic. reasons. Or maybe to through us all off! If it isn't the same, maybe it will include a PF motor to in the tractor itself. The first 8284 has a PTO, so i'm sure this red version will have the same to dump the trailer.

8258 - Beautiful! Looks like a cross between 8436 and 8292. 8 more of my favorite tires. I can't tell from the picture if both of the front axles are steerable. With only one M motor, it is possible that many functions are controlled by it which means perhaps a 4 way transmission. The front and rear outriggers have different mechanisms, so it will be interesting to see how they are synchronized. Comparing the wheelbase to 8421, which also had 8 wheels, this is a VERY large model. It could indeed be 1800 pieces. Sadly, the XL motors have still only appeared in one place. Surely there are more uses for them!

Now this is a breath of fresh air! This is completely different than what i was expecting when i heard we were getting a crane truck. Very cool! I love the fact the the've included working outriggers and and 8 wheels. By the pics i does look like both front axles are steerable. But even if the pic doesn't decipt this, based on TLC's past with 8 wheeled vehicles the first 2 axles are always steerable. I see no reason for TLC to stop this trend now.

I'd also agree with you that there must be a transmission to control everything. The picture only shows one motor, so i'm sure it will control at least a couple functions.

8263 - I like this very much, in no small part because LEGO has never done one before. More new big treads, new parts for the plow blade, and what appear to be new idler sprockets. The drive sprockets must also be new since the existing variety would not fit. Incidentally, Sariel just made a new Pisten Bully. His awesomeness makes me feel dumb. Some day maybe I will compliment him enough that he will allow me to build a replica of one of his models!!

Another breath of fresh air! Your correct that this isn't somthing that we've seen before. Its funny. I was wondering when we'd be getting a snow plow of some kind.

8265 - This is also a very large model. From the side view, it certainly appears to be articulated. Can't tell if it all wheel drive or not (can't see U-Joints at the articulation axis). I actually find this use of linear actuators a bit odd. The one to tip the bucket looks out of place with the long swing arm on top. With no motor, that's going to be a lot of cranking like the Telescopic Handler. Still loads of good parts and it will look great next to 8459. Plus, this picture is clearly too empty!

While not quite original, but i suppose we needed a remake of front end loader at some point. TLC did a really nice job. Lots of detail. But i really do hope that there's some PF or at least some kind of design to incorperate them in the model. Other wise you'll end up dieing of exhaustion turning the crank for the from scope.

Over all it looks like a really good sumer 09' technic line up.

[Brickthus]

8063 Tractor and Trailer:

At first glance it apears you'd be correct. If this is the case, this will be a real let down. If i remember correctly the price was $59.99 for the tractor. With this trailer i'm sure the price will be close to $100. Not worth it just to get a trailer.

...

Good point. Its also important to remember that these pics are preliminary. TLC could very well be designing a new tractor and just using a different color 8284 for pic. reasons. Or maybe to through us all off! If it isn't the same, maybe it will include a PF motor to in the tractor itself. The first 8284 has a PTO, so i'm sure this red version will have the same to dump the trailer.

Absolutely right about it being a copy of the green tractor. There is no indication of a motor in the set, but that could change.

Looks like the black z20 gear wheel (between the tractor and trailer wheels in the picture) is the hand actuator for the LA. It'll probably be able to be motorized with an 8293 kit but doesn't look like it's driven from a PTO. The only reasons for this set to have a PTO are:

> 8284 tractor has one already and this is a copy.

> The instructions show how to make other implements from the trailer parts.

> The engine could be replaced with a PF motor, with a gearbox providing a neutral gear to disconnect the wheels, so that the trailer can be tipped with the wheels stationary.

> All LEGO tractors of sufficient size must have a PTO.

Set 851 had a PTO and the implements were great fun. The harrow was my favourite because of its speed!

I count 6 functions in this set:

Steering

Engine

Differential

Trailer attachment

Trailer Tip

Trailer levelling (suspension with no springs)

Could do a gearbox and/or motor to make 7-8 - needs work on functions per pound, but PF parts rarely improve that (e.g. loader, cherry picker) because the battery box is a cost and space overhead for the first PF function added. The 8275 bulldozer managed so well because it motorized 4 functions.

8258 Truck:

Now this is a breath of fresh air! This is completely different than what i was expecting when i heard we were getting a crane truck. Very cool! I love the fact the the've included working outriggers and and 8 wheels. By the pics i does look like both front axles are steerable. But even if the pic doesn't decipt this, based on TLC's past with 8 wheeled vehicles the first 2 axles are always steerable. I see no reason for TLC to stop this trend now.

I'd also agree with you that there must be a transmission to control everything. The picture only shows one motor, so i'm sure it will control at least a couple functions.

I agree, the pics show steering potential for the second axle - same pins through the wheels in the classic "left over bit of 5.5M axle" fashion.

I see Blakbird's point about it being a cross with 8436 and another set, but I think it's an extended 8436, still with crane and 5th wheel on the back, with the added outriggers from 8421. Are there real lorries like this? It might have been better to make an enclosure with a few red panels, to give the crane somewhere to put something. Otherwise you need another copy of the set to make a trailer and then the crane won't reach to the back.

I would prefer a Brick Truck with a crane at the back of the truck and a trailer having the same enclosure size. That way the crane can reach to the front of the truck and to the back of the trailer and the trailer is detachable for small loads or awkward building site entrances. That's the configuration some lorry drivers prefer in real life.

It looks like the outriggers are motorized, with the crane having mostly manual functions, except for the hook string.

I count 9 functions:

2x steering

crane turn, 2 lifts, extension, hook

outriggers

motor

From the pics, better play value for money than 8063. A probable buy.

8263 Snow Plough:

Another breath of fresh air! Your correct that this isn't somthing that we've seen before. Its funny. I was wondering when we'd be getting a snow plow of some kind.

Looks like 12x light bley 6-lobe sprockets - just a new colour, not a new piece. A bit noisier than 10-lobe sprockets, and less easy to push along, but necessary for the flatness of the tracks on the real thing.

While not quite original, but i suppose we needed a remake of front end loader at some point. TLC did a really nice job. Lots of detail. But i really do hope that there's some PF or at least some kind of design to incorperate them in the model. Other wise you'll end up dieing of exhaustion turning the crank for the from scope.

Over all it looks like a really good sumer 09' technic line up.

3 LAs on the front. I can see that the lower one is offset and the words nearly cover where the other one is.

Looks suspiciously like there's a function-switching gearbox, perhaps changed by the red bit alongside the cab.

Maybe a piece at the engine end is the winding handle (cog). Lots of work at 26-turns full travel per LA!

I think the articulation is just in front of the cab.

I suspect 2-wheel drive. A real front end loader might have 2 engines, one for each set of wheels (graders do that).

It's ripe for an 8293 motor kit. Probably not included because it would push up the price by £25.

Looks a good set - a probable buy for me.

I agree - a good line-up as long as all four sets deliver play value. It should keep the 8293 kits flying off the shelves!

Mark

[5150 Lego]

8063 Tractor and Trailer:

Absolutely right about it being a copy of the green tractor. There is no indication of a motor in the set, but that could change.

Looks like the black z20 gear wheel (between the tractor and trailer wheels in the picture) is the hand actuator for the LA. It'll probably be able to be motorized with an 8293 kit but doesn't look like it's driven from a PTO. The only reasons for this set to have a PTO are:

> 8284 tractor has one already and this is a copy.

> The instructions show how to make other implements from the trailer parts.

> The engine could be replaced with a PF motor, with a gearbox providing a neutral gear to disconnect the wheels, so that the trailer can be tipped with the wheels stationary.

> All LEGO tractors of sufficient size must have a PTO.

Set 851 had a PTO and the implements were great fun. The harrow was my favourite because of its speed!

I count 6 functions in this set:

Steering

Engine

Differential

Trailer attachment

Trailer Tip

Trailer levelling (suspension with no springs)

Could do a gearbox and/or motor to make 7-8 - needs work on functions per pound, but PF parts rarely improve that (e.g. loader, cherry picker) because the battery box is a cost and space overhead for the first PF function added. The 8275 bulldozer managed so well because it motorized 4 functions.

Very good points. After having a closer look it does look like the trailer has its own dump control for the LA. But after thinking about this, it makes perfect sence. If it were in fact ran by the PTO, then it would only dump when you push the tractor along the ground. Hence the name Power Take Off. My guess is that they will include instructions to add on Power Functions. I'd also agree with you that the PTO will be included in this kit since it was in the last tractor and could be utilized with the addtion of PF. Thats the bad thing about these new LA. While i can appreacaite TLC bring us somthing different in terms of a functioning ram, it gets very old hand cranking these things. They really were made to go with PF motors.

8258 Truck:

I agree, the pics show steering potential for the second axle - same pins through the wheels in the classic "left over bit of 5.5M axle" fashion.

I see Blakbird's point about it being a cross with 8436 and another set, but I think it's an extended 8436, still with crane and 5th wheel on the back, with the added outriggers from 8421. Are there real lorries like this? It might have been better to make an enclosure with a few red panels, to give the crane somewhere to put something. Otherwise you need another copy of the set to make a trailer and then the crane won't reach to the back.

I would prefer a Brick Truck with a crane at the back of the truck and a trailer having the same enclosure size. That way the crane can reach to the front of the truck and to the back of the trailer and the trailer is detachable for small loads or awkward building site entrances. That's the configuration some lorry drivers prefer in real life.

It looks like the outriggers are motorized, with the crane having mostly manual functions, except for the hook string.

I count 9 functions:

2x steering

crane turn, 2 lifts, extension, hook

outriggers

motor

From the pics, better play value for money than 8063. A probable buy.

I'd agree with both you and Blackbird that for the most part, its just an 8436 with two more axles and some outriggers. But to be honest, i'm ok with that. Cranes, and trucks (American for Lorries) are still my favorite Technic sets. So i'm happy to see both combined. I'm surprised that your asking if there are real trucks configured this way. Based on the cab design it apears to be based off a european cab over design. I've seen a few pics of simular trucks in europe. Not so much in the states.

My one real fear with this set is that the crane will have just enough power to lift the arm and thats it. Simular to 8421, and the crane on the back 8436. In stock form both had just enough to lift the crane arm in full extension, but not enough to lift a load. I really hope there's a purpose for those outriggers.

8263 Snow Plough:

Looks like 12x light bley 6-lobe sprockets - just a new colour, not a new piece. A bit noisier than 10-lobe sprockets, and less easy to push along, but necessary for the flatness of the tracks on the real thing.

Good point. I'm looking forward to seeing if this can be motorized. It will give my bulldozer a little brother!

I think the articulation is just in front of the cab.

I suspect 2-wheel drive. A real front end loader might have 2 engines, one for each set of wheels (graders do that).

It's ripe for an 8293 motor kit. Probably not included because it would push up the price by £25.

Looks a good set - a probable buy for me.

I agree - a good line-up as long as all four sets deliver play value. It should keep the 8293 kits flying off the shelves!

Mark

Hmm... I really hhope its 4 wheel drive. Considering that they were able to get 4 wheel drive in the previous front end loader, i see no reason why the couldn't incorperate it in with this one. Also, graders yes, do have two engines, but front end loaders (at least the ones i've worked on) have only one engine in the rear with a drivshaft trasfering power to the front wheels.

3 LAs on the front. I can see that the lower one is offset and the words nearly cover where the other one is.

Looks suspiciously like there's a function-switching gearbox, perhaps changed by the red bit alongside the cab.

Maybe a piece at the engine end is the winding handle (cog). Lots of work at 26-turns full travel per LA!

See,this is my only gripe with the LA's. Having to crank for so long really takes away from the playability. LA really NEED PF to work at there full extent. Hand cranking them really gets old after a while, and quite frankly makes the sets that include LA's without PF less attractive. I understand that because of price they can't include PF in every set, but in cases like that, i'd gladly welcome back pnuematics.

[Dannnohhh]

See,this is my only gripe with the LA's. Having to crank for so long really takes away from the playability. LA really NEED PF to work at there full extent. Hand cranking them really gets old after a while, and quite frankly makes the sets that include LA's without PF less attractive. I understand that because of price they can't include PF in every set, but in cases like that, i'd gladly welcome back pnuematics.

And each LA needs its own indepenant gear and axle assembly (this is obvious and inferred in your gripe, just agreeing with you and griping myself). At least the 8265 might have 2 LA's with synchronized assy, but still, multiple LA's means exponential hand cranking. And PF enabled is good but then we need a motor for each assy to get multitasking functions. Not to mention the fact that many functions are forcibly separate HOG because another gear axle assy is rediculous and/or impossible.

I dont mean to bash LA's into the ground, but more so their apparent replacement of pneumatics. I dig LA's, lets keep them and use them where applicable and the same for pneumatics. The recent sets would have additional functionality and multitasking functions with pneumatics and PF and LA's together.

And Mark, thanks for pointing out the 5.5 axle on the crane truck, thought for sure TLG wouldnt leave out the 4WS but now we have proof!

[Brickthus]

I'm surprised that your asking if there are real trucks configured this way. Based on the cab design it apears to be based off a european cab over design. I've seen a few pics of simular trucks in europe. Not so much in the states.

My one real fear with this set is that the crane will have just enough power to lift the arm and thats it. Simular to 8421, and the crane on the back 8436. In stock form both had just enough to lift the crane arm in full extension, but not enough to lift a load. I really hope there's a purpose for those outriggers.

My comment about truck configuration was not about the cab, but rather about an 8x4 truck with crane and 5th wheel (no enclosure of its own to carry a load that the crane might lift).

In the UK, trucks with a 5th wheel come mostly in 5 types: 4x2, 6x2 centre lift, 6x2 centre steer, 6x2 with tag axle and 6x4. 6x4s are mostly on scrap metal duty - not so common. Fuel tankers tend to have 6x2 with centre lift, using smaller wheels on the centre axle.

Today I was surprised to see a truck with the same configuration as 8258: 8x4 with crane and 5th wheel. It had a standard 6-wheel trailer attached and was carrying a Portakabin. The real truck had no gap between the 2nd steerable axle and the 3rd, driving, axle, missing out the length of the panel in 8258. The crane was tucked up behind the cab, like in 8436. The 4th axle was a tag axle and was in the raised position as the truck departed, having unloaded its cargo. The front trailer wheels also raised. The rear 3 axles were covered by a single fairing each side, made of that silvery metal walkway stuff.

I share your wish about the crane - it needs to be able to lift a Lego Portakabin of the same scale! A good use for the outriggers too.

And each LA needs its own indepenant gear and axle assembly (this is obvious and inferred in your gripe, just agreeing with you and griping myself). At least the 8265 might have 2 LA's with synchronized assy, but still, multiple LA's means exponential hand cranking. And PF enabled is good but then we need a motor for each assy to get multitasking functions. Not to mention the fact that many functions are forcibly separate HOG because another gear axle assy is rediculous and/or impossible.

I dont mean to bash LA's into the ground, but more so their apparent replacement of pneumatics. I dig LA's, lets keep them and use them where applicable and the same for pneumatics. The recent sets would have additional functionality and multitasking functions with pneumatics and PF and LA's together.

And Mark, thanks for pointing out the 5.5 axle on the crane truck, thought for sure TLG wouldnt leave out the 4WS but now we have proof!

I agree about keeping pneumatics and not letting LAs replace them, but we should consider the applications.

Pneumatics are best for end-to-end applications with just 2 states. crane 8421 is a good example: cranes don't often lift things without the jib being fully raised (a Kirow rail crane lifting track panels is an exception, but that is operating in restricted space). Pneumatics are great for rail points control and are not subject to the same electrical system obsolescence and messing about with connector interfaces. That's why I chose them to do most of the points on my railway. This required obtaining a good supply of hoses and rigid tubing, more than TLG would normally supply.

Pneumatics can be made to do 3 states and cascade those states, but it's complex: 3-state Pneumatics . The best use of 3-state pneumatics is for wheeled-digger steering where you want it to be able to go straight. The achievement of proper straightness of the steering is an incremental thing - it gets there eventually, depending on load, source pressure etc... . Just as it's easier to turn the steering wheel of a car when the vehicle is moving (ignoring power steering).

LAs effectively replace hydraulics, where theoretically-infinite mid-stop positions are required. In the Front End Loader application (8459 vs. 8265), LAs are better because of the variable position capability. In this case there is room for a PF motor to drive them, even if it has to be bought separately (there'd better be instructions for adding PF if the set is to be worth buying!!!)

There aren't many real vehicles with pneumatics! Hydraulics transmit more power in uncompressible fluid and provide the mid-stop capability needed by almost all vehicle applications. That's why it's no surprise that LAs are more popular than pneumatics in the Technic range.

One place where pneumatics score highly is in their ability to work against each other, or the load, and find the best point without complaining. One such application is a steam engine. Another is air suspension, especially on a bus that lowers its doorway to the kerb.

Another great application is on an aircraft engine. An aircraft engine has to have a hydraulic pump for the aircraft systems (flaps, elevators, ailerons etc...) but on the engine pneumatics are just as easy because there is a ready supply of compressed air. It is used extensively for cooling, and for pressurising cavities to keep oil in the right places. If it were not for pneumatics there would be no pressurised air for the passengers to breathe!

Pneumatics are great in safety situations where it is best to avoid a fire (since hydraulic fluid is more flammable than petrol e.g. dripping it on a hot exhaust manifold). I think most train doors are pneumatic. Truck brakes use air to hold the brakes off. Of course we don't want a fire anywhere near our Lego bricks!

Sadly most of these pneumatic applications are unlikely to appear in a Technic set because the whole vehicle would be so big as to be above the highest price point of the range! A happy exception is JCB outriggers, where pneumatics sit between hand-cranked gears and LAs in terms of cost for the function. Some real pneumatic applications need short, fat cylinders that have not been produced by TLG, such as a 4x4 cylinder 20mm long with 12mm extension.

I don't expect another excavator with pneumatics now that we have LAs. Same goes for many applications. Perhaps LAs were too expensive for TLG to develop in the 80s. If we had had them then, perhaps we would never have had the benefit of pneumatics! I think motor technology has been an enabler for them too, though the same can benefit a pneumatic compressor.

PF motors are better than the older types - they answer the long-term gripe we had about more powerful motors. LAs are designed to fit with PF, with one of the two types of bracket having been designed just for a medium PF motor. I hope and expect that PF will have a long life. That means LAs are here to stay. PF pneumatic parts are possible but they would be more bespoke than the PF parts we have so far, not so good for cost-effectiveness. Why make an electric pneumatic valve when you can drive an existing valve with a motor and crank for less cost? LAs will also score in any rotating application, by virtue of PF IR Remote control and their simpler interface to the motor.

What we really need to revive interest in pneumatics is a decent robot kit. How about this one as one of three models in the instructions? I built all the electronic logic gates in pneumatics , so such a set could teach kids about logic systems! One thing pneumatics can do more easily than LAs with PF is a multiple function robot that automatically executes a sequence of moves. Yes, I've made an automatic machine with PF, but in order to use any function more than once each way in the programmed step sequence, an NXT is easier and Pneumatics are a lot cheaper than an NXT!

Mark

[CP5670]

See,this is my only gripe with the LA's. Having to crank for so long really takes away from the playability. LA really NEED PF to work at there full extent. Hand cranking them really gets old after a while, and quite frankly makes the sets that include LA's without PF less attractive. I understand that because of price they can't include PF in every set, but in cases like that, i'd gladly welcome back pnuematics.

Is the cranking such a big problem with LAs? I don't actually have any sets with LAs yet, but I figured it would be similar to the crank-powered functions in older sets. Several sets in the late 80s (like 8862 and 8854) used the large pulleys as cranks, which were fairly comfortable to use. If the worm screw inside the LA gears down the motion a lot, maybe TLG needs to first gear it up outside the LA to compensate for that.

There aren't many real vehicles with pneumatics! Hydraulics transmit more power in uncompressible fluid and provide the mid-stop capability needed by almost all vehicle applications.

Well, the pneumatics in the Lego system essentially take the place of hydraulics in real life. Their basic method of operation is much closer to hydraulics than what the LAs do.

I want to see a good mix of both the LAs and pneumatics in Technic sets, as they have different strengths and situations that they are best suited for. As you said, LAs provide much finer control over the position. On the other hand, the main advantage of pneumatics is that you can put them into otherwise hard to reach places and still get a lot of power out of them. The 8868 Airtech Claw Rig, for example, would have been impossible to make with LAs unless you mounted motors on the turntable, and even then the resulting geartrains would be complicated and would diminish the power that the pistons can provide.

What we really need to revive interest in pneumatics is a decent robot kit.

We do have the Lego Education pneumatics set, which is intended as an extension to the NXT set, but it's very expensive and is never really going to become popular.

Edited February 13, 2009 by CP5670

[Musikfreak]

Is the cranking such a big problem with LAs? I don't actually have any sets with LAs yet, but I figured it would be similar to the crank-powered functions in older sets. Several sets in the late 80s (like 8862 and 8854) used the large pulleys as cranks, which were fairly comfortable to use. If the worm screw inside the LA gears down the motion a lot, maybe TLG needs to first gear it up outside the LA to compensate for that.

Thats exactly the problem of the new models. In the old ones (8862 and 8854 are good examples and 8460 has the same feature with a different approach) you could just grap the the freely rotating pin on the pulley (8862 and 8854 had really big ones which were comfortable; 8460 ones were a lot smaller but still manageable) and crank infinitely and really fast.

On the new ones (8294 for example) you just have a relatively small gearwheel which you have to regrab after every half turn. Thats not a good solution compared to the old one.

Where the gearwheel was nice, was the steering in the 8421 were you had the huge wheel which you just had to turn from one side to the other and due to the size it was very accurate.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Musikfreak

[5150 Lego]

And each LA needs its own indepenant gear and axle assembly (this is obvious and inferred in your gripe, just agreeing with you and griping myself). At least the 8265 might have 2 LA's with synchronized assy, but still, multiple LA's means exponential hand cranking. And PF enabled is good but then we need a motor for each assy to get multitasking functions. Not to mention the fact that many functions are forcibly separate HOG because another gear axle assy is rediculous and/or impossible.

Well, you don't have to have seperate motors for multiple functions. 8297, 8294, and 8295 are all evedience of this. You just need a transmisison assembly. Although thats easier said than done. Adding a transmission, or coggs does take up space, so this can be a bit of a problem on some models.

My comment about truck configuration was not about the cab, but rather about an 8x4 truck with crane and 5th wheel (no enclosure of its own to carry a load that the crane might lift).

In the UK, trucks with a 5th wheel come mostly in 5 types: 4x2, 6x2 centre lift, 6x2 centre steer, 6x2 with tag axle and 6x4. 6x4s are mostly on scrap metal duty - not so common. Fuel tankers tend to have 6x2 with centre lift, using smaller wheels on the centre axle.

Today I was surprised to see a truck with the same configuration as 8258: 8x4 with crane and 5th wheel. It had a standard 6-wheel trailer attached and was carrying a Portakabin. The real truck had no gap between the 2nd steerable axle and the 3rd, driving, axle, missing out the length of the panel in 8258. The crane was tucked up behind the cab, like in 8436. The 4th axle was a tag axle and was in the raised position as the truck departed, having unloaded its cargo. The front trailer wheels also raised. The rear 3 axles were covered by a single fairing each side, made of that silvery metal walkway stuff.

Ahh. Ok. The 8x4 is preety rare in the states as well. But seeing a fold away crane behind the cab is actually preety common. Even with a 5th wheel. This way there is always a crane to off load cargo off whatever trailer is in tow.

I agree about keeping pneumatics and not letting LAs replace them, but we should consider the applications.

LAs effectively replace hydraulics, where theoretically-infinite mid-stop positions are required. In the Front End Loader application (8459 vs. 8265), LAs are better because of the variable position capability. In this case there is room for a PF motor to drive them, even if it has to be bought separately (there'd better be instructions for adding PF if the set is to be worth buying!!!)

Oh i agree that both have there high and low points. I'd agree that in the case of the new 88459 vs. 8265, LA are a better choice because of the ability to be more precise. My only gripe is the speed at whitch it takes them to work.

There aren't many real vehicles with pneumatics! Hydraulics transmit more power in uncompressible fluid and provide the mid-stop capability needed by almost all vehicle applications. That's why it's no surprise that LAs are more popular than pneumatics in the Technic range.

Pneumatics are simply legos versions of hydraulics. I'd imagine that things would get a bit messy if lego decided to use real Hydraulics in there sets. but man, imagine the lifting power!!

. Some real pneumatic applications need short, fat cylinders that have not been produced by TLG, such as a 4x4 cylinder 20mm long with 12mm extension.

I would love to see this part to be made by TLC. A kind of a dual stage cylinder.

Is the cranking such a big problem with LAs? I don't actually have any sets with LAs yet, but I figured it would be similar to the crank-powered functions in older sets. Several sets in the late 80s (like 8862 and 8854) used the large pulleys as cranks, which were fairly comfortable to use. If the worm screw inside the LA gears down the motion a lot, maybe TLG needs to first gear it up outside the LA to compensate for that.

Yes. The problem is, for the most part, the old sets that used hand cranks with worm gears, those paticualr functions were never the main function, and if they were, they didn't manage any heavy loads. In this case every set with LA controls a heavy load function. So while gearing it up might speed along the process, it will make it harder for the LA to do there job, as well as putting more stress on gears, axles, etc.

I was a bit dissapointed that no one took any pics of the new techinc sets. Seems that nobody cares about techinc anymore. Sad really.

[Siegfried]

I was a bit dissapointed that no one took any pics of the new techinc sets. Seems that nobody cares about techinc anymore. Sad really.

I do, and I've been looking for them too! I thought you were here to post some...

[Avohkahs' Sparks]

Cool.

[5150 Lego]

I do, and I've been looking for them too! I thought you were here to post some...

As on as i find some i will!!

[Dannnohhh]

Well, you don't have to have seperate motors for multiple functions. 8297, 8294, and 8295 are all evedience of this. You just need a transmisison assembly. Although thats easier said than done. Adding a transmission, or coggs does take up space, so this can be a bit of a problem on some models.

Agreed. by multitasking I was referring to the ability (and ease) to control multiple pneumatic cylinders and swithes at the same time, the 8439 and 8455 (especially with an airtank added) as examples, giving us the ability to raise/lower/turn the boom and adjust the shovel all at once, closer to the real thing. While the transmission assy's are cool and complex (especially the 8297), we're unable to simultaneously control both LA's on the 8294 for example, without dumping the tranny assy and adding 2 motors instead of one (a MOD already posted at least a few times on BS).

Totally dont wanna beat a dead horse into the ground, but pneumatics are more realistic then LA's (and I totally agree their Lego's version of hydraulics--the real thing would be nice but....), and while I'm glad LA's are around and I cant wait to see the guts of this summers Crane Truck and how the transmission assy controls all the diff functions with one motor, I'll still think of how perfect a set for a combination of PF and pneumatics, and bummed that a PF pneumatic switch didnt and may never come to pass.

[Dannnohhh]

I don't expect another excavator with pneumatics now that we have LAs. Same goes for many applications. Perhaps LAs were too expensive for TLG to develop in the 80s. If we had had them then, perhaps we would never have had the benefit of pneumatics! I think motor technology has been an enabler for them too, though the same can benefit a pneumatic compressor.

PF motors are better than the older types - they answer the long-term gripe we had about more powerful motors. LAs are designed to fit with PF, with one of the two types of bracket having been designed just for a medium PF motor. I hope and expect that PF will have a long life. That means LAs are here to stay. PF pneumatic parts are possible but they would be more bespoke than the PF parts we have so far, not so good for cost-effectiveness. Why make an electric pneumatic valve when you can drive an existing valve with a motor and crank for less cost? LAs will also score in any rotating application, by virtue of PF IR Remote control and their simpler interface to the motor.

I was also wondering about the production cost of hoses for pneumatics (I'm suspecting not cheap, but still I'm clueless). I think the 8436 was the most recent Technic set to use more then a few centimeters of hose (8421 and 8285 needed almost nothing, especially compared to 8455!). Motors and LA''s aside, compare the cost of a few axles, gears, and universal joints to 10, 50 or 100cm of pneumatic hosing...now I really think pneumatics are dead

And last month I received the new Lego Education catalog (for this side of the pond) and in the parts section it listed the pneumatic hose item with an emphasized note "Limited Supply".

Still, if TLG would just track the average price for airtanks on Bricklink they'd see pneumatics are still in high demand, and many of us already eat bread and water just to cover the cost, how many more would gladly buy pneumatic stuff directly from TLG even if they were an expensive accessory.

[CP5670]

Yes. The problem is, for the most part, the old sets that used hand cranks with worm gears, those paticualr functions were never the main function, and if they were, they didn't manage any heavy loads. In this case every set with LA controls a heavy load function. So while gearing it up might speed along the process, it will make it harder for the LA to do there job, as well as putting more stress on gears, axles, etc.

Many of them did use cranks for their main functions. The 8862 and 8853 sets had the same functions as this new front end loader, but worked very well with the cranks. As Musikfreak said, I think the real problem is the type of handle TLG is using these days. Those little 12-tooth gears are no good for this purpose. I guess they look nicer than the large cranks, but they compromise playability.

I was also wondering about the production cost of hoses for pneumatics (I'm suspecting not cheap, but still I'm clueless). I think the 8436 was the most recent Technic set to use more then a few centimeters of hose (8421 and 8285 needed almost nothing, especially compared to 8455!). Motors and LA''s aside, compare the cost of a few axles, gears, and universal joints to 10, 50 or 100cm of pneumatic hosing...now I really think pneumatics are dead default_cry4.gif

And last month I received the new Lego Education catalog (for this side of the pond) and in the parts section it listed the pneumatic hose item with an emphasized note "Limited Supply".

I got this catalog a while ago too. It comes with Lego branded tape flags to mark pages in the catalog. Some things in it are out of date though. I called them up and asked if they still had any of the 9V polarity switches left, as shown in the catalog, but those had gone out of stock.

The hoses are still on their website though, and can be replaced by third party tubing if needed. I doubt TLG produces their own hoses anyway. I got 20 feet of some stuff off ebay several years ago, which is slightly thinner and glossier than the Lego tubing but works just as well. I still have plenty of it left.

The actual pneumatic parts probably aren't cheap, but I doubt the LAs are much more cost effective either. They both have metal shanks and are made up of several individual parts.

[Dannnohhh]

There are finally some pics of a real 8258 Crane Truck, in a BS folder of the Nuremburg Toy Fair... 3 pics starting here, can see some cool new technic parts, some of which showed up in the NY toy fair pics of the summer Bionicle sets.

Conchas has a good writeup on his TechnicBricks blog (I recall a debate if we can link to outside blogs forums etc, but looks like these pics have been buried in a Brickshelf folder for a week I and just wanted to share it here since every other Lego theme gets frontpage news)

Anyone find more Technic pics from that toy fair? The 8265 Front-End Loader is in the background next to the Crane Truck... want to see more detailed pics of the summer sets, glad TLG didnt hide them forever (still not sure if the revived tractor set is really alive).

[CP5670]

Linking to other sites is fine. That large scale version of the crane is amazing.

Technic Bricks has several interesting observations. I guess there is only one motor after all, although I don't know why they included a PF switch in that case. This may be the first time since the Space Shuttle that we have a single motor operating four functions, as the dual transmission switches seem to suggest.

I can't really determine how the stabilizers work though. The end portions seem to be manually controlled, which is a bit of a bummer. I think they extend outwards automatically though.

[5150 Lego]

There are finally some pics of a real 8258 Crane Truck, in a BS folder of the Nuremburg Toy Fair... 3 pics starting here, can see some cool new technic parts, some of which showed up in the NY toy fair pics of the summer Bionicle sets.

Right on! Thank you for the pics! The new truck looks like its going to have alot more functions than i thought. Glad to see that we get a V8 engine insteadof the standard V6. I'm also cool with the hook being manually controlled. I just hope that the crane does in fact have the strenth to lift things.

but looks like these pics have been buried in a Brickshelf folder for a week I and just wanted to share it here since every other Lego theme gets frontpage news)

You know this pisses me off. We get detailed pics of techinc sets, but yet a stupid starwars impulse set comes out and its front paged! Stupid!

Anyone find more Technic pics from that toy fair? The 8265 Front-End Loader is in the background next to the Crane Truck... want to see more detailed pics of the summer sets, glad TLG didnt hide them forever (still not sure if the revived tractor set is really alive).

Hopfully, someone took some more pics of the rest of the techinc sets. To be honest, i wouldn't be disappointed if we didn't get that revamped farm tractor and trailer. I just can't see spending around $80 just for a trailer since most already hae the tractor from a couple years ago.

[CP5670]

You know this pisses me off. We get detailed pics of techinc sets, but yet a stupid starwars impulse set comes out and its front paged! Stupid!

Maybe all it takes is to send a PM to Sinner. He's the one admin here who is into Technic.

[Dannnohhh]

I can't really determine how the stabilizers work though. The end portions seem to be manually controlled, which is a bit of a bummer. I think they extend outwards automatically though.

It's got me wondering as well. And the front view of the Crane Truck in that BS folder shows each front stabilizer in a different position (no help at all). But the simple action of extending the yellow beam horizontally outward doesnt appear to move the gear or the vertical parts of the stabilizer.

Hopefully we're missing something... similar to previous posts comparing the steering of the 8421, if these stabilizers are overly simplified compared to the 8421, then weak sauce TLG.

You know this pisses me off. We get detailed pics of techinc sets, but yet a stupid starwars impulse set comes out and its front paged! Stupid!

Hopfully, someone took some more pics of the rest of the techinc sets. To be honest, i wouldn't be disappointed if we didn't get that revamped farm tractor and trailer. I just can't see spending around $80 just for a trailer since most already hae the tractor from a couple years ago.

I'd comment but I might be banned from the nonexistent Technic forum here.

I too dont mind the tractor coming back, just wish the new panels werent green and useless for other builds. Not that I like panels replacing other technic parts, but they have there place. The Crane Truck is much better looking with the new ones, otherwise it'd be studded plates like the 8285 2 yrs ago.

But I also cant resist razzing TLG for reviving a recent Technic set instead of reviving pneumatics

[CP5670]

I have been saying for a long time now that we should have a Technic/Model Team forum (since a lot of MOCs fit into both categories) and a separate forum for Bionicle, but it doesn't seem like the admins have taken notice. We have gotten more interest in Technic over the last several months, enough to justify it now.

As for those panels, I don't like them at all to be honest. They don't really do anything that can't already be done using existing pieces, and seem to be there just for TLG to save costs by including fewer studless beams. The best solution would be if they actually started making Technic sets with studs again, and built those sections with standard bricks.

Of course, the panels won't be preventing me from buying sets that are otherwise great.

[Dannnohhh]

As for those panels, I don't like them at all to be honest. They don't really do anything that can't already be done using existing pieces, and seem to be there just for TLG to save costs by including fewer studless beams. The best solution would be if they actually started making Technic sets with studs again, and built those sections with standard bricks.

Of course, the panels won't be preventing me from buying sets that are otherwise great.

I totally agree that existing pieces could do the same thing, and there's no way that I'm buying the Hauler until its half price at S@H. Way too expensive for so few parts, last thing I want to do is pay that extra charge for another battery box and one PF motor.

That said any new parts get my vote. There are huge advantages to the technic capabilities on the new panels compared to studded plates. Stronger and more versatile having pin holes in at least 4 to 6 (or more) different directions compared to the one and only option for a studded plate. But that sparks a potential debate on studded vs studless technic builds, and dont get me wrong I dig both and use both. IOW dont dump what we already have and I'm okay with more building options and functionality.

On a related topic though, I dont opt for covering up the inside mechanics of a model, such as the new Wheel Loader with the (new?) plates totally covering the top rear (again we havent seen any detailed pics of it yet)...that goes for studded or studless plates/panels.

[CP5670]

I use a mix of both building styles too, and would like to see that in official sets instead of the 100% studless style TLG has adopted these days. The strength and weight advantages of studless parts largely become negated if they are used exclusively, and not together with studded parts. 100% studless MOCs also tend to be harder and less intuitive to build, forcing you to spend more time thinking of structural issues instead of the mechanics, which is why most Technic MOCs even today are largely studded. I think they had the best balance when the studless style was first introduced in the late 90s, with sets like 8437 or 8446.

[Buttons]

So this! won't be of any use to you then?

[Siegfried]

Sorry guys, I've been busy looking for work. In future, feel free to nag me; I love to frontpage Technic sets!

I have been saying for a long time now that we should have a Technic/Model Team forum (since a lot of MOCs fit into both categories) and a separate forum for Bionicle, but it doesn't seem like the admins have taken notice. We have gotten more interest in Technic over the last several months, enough to justify it now.

Shhh! Actually we're planning on doing this but we were hoping to have a skin made first. I'll look into moving it along.... Shhh!

Maybe all it takes is to send a PM to Sinner. He's the one admin here who is into Technic.

I just noticed this post!