Linear Actuators VS Pneumatics

[Mtx]

LA's give more challenge at the building process, that's why I like them better. I don't need any directly to LA installed motors etc. IMHO I like more of those creations that use very few motors. Best part is always making the power drive lines. But if you want to take the easy way, then use the pneumatics.

[Gee]

Yep, I'm with Allan!

The slowness (even with a motor attached) is also very annoying.

I've gotta get me one of them 8455s. About the only studless set that I really want. All those pneumatics - yummy!

[aol000xw]

LAs are challenging, but not in a good way. I am not impressend by the usually cumbersome result of driving those power drive lines throught the model, creating friction and slack all the way.

It Is like using an abacus because it is way more challenging than a calculator. I better use the calculator, as it is a mean and not an end. Using pneumatics does not make a model less challeging it simple makes possible to put all the hard work on other parts, like adding more functions. I like LAs but Is a concept to be expanded and improved and pneumatics look better no matter what.

IMHO any solution that improves on the weakness on any of the systems is welcome. Be it powered LA's, autovalves... whatever.

[unimog123]

YEY! An open invitation to annoy everyone some more (WARNING>>>>YOU'VE MOST LIKELY READ ALL THIS BEFORE!)

TBH I've said my piece on this to to point where I'm starting to annoy myself but as you have twisted my arm I hate LAs. They are not life like, way too slow even for scale and require gear trains to power them which in many places is difficult of not impossible to reach. Sure they can be controlled more precisely but using a bit of skill you can control pneumatics precisely enough and the need for some skill makes it more fun to operate in my opinion. With an LA you just move a lever or twist a knob until it's where you want it (or get repetitive strain injury!) which is kinda dull. Real life machinery work via hydraulics which work on the exact same principal as pneumatics making them way more authentic. The numerous hoses required also make pneumatic models look more authentic. They can also be placed anywhere making models with pneumatics less likely to have non-functions where the control is right next to it. Everything can be powered, motorised and operated from a single point. When used in a model they are also much more powerful (tries to ignore those tiny pneumatics in 42008). In 42009 there was a massive gear train required to raise and lower the outriggers which used up most of the power leaving little if any to power to actually lower the feet to the point where it's hard to see them moving. Had they have been pneumatic the outriggers could have quickly and easily lifted the model off the ground. Now compare these two similarly sized back hoes.

​There is only 100 parts between them but these sets are miles apart. 8455 is considered to be a fantastic flagship with functionality that rivals if not surpasses any other flagship. It's numerous functions are also very powerful, authentic and fun to operate. Everything is operable and all from the cab. 8069 on the other hand, it is a great little toy but compared to 8455 it's nowhere. It isn't a flagship but it only has 100 less parts and represents 8 years of supposed progress over 8455. It's functions are a bore to operate, slow, not as powerful or as numerous and does not work or look as authentic. Many of the functions are operated via knobs mounted directly on the function itself. And now for the longer pneumatics bit that you guys so love to read! (Well I warned you). The reason 8455 wins is because it's pneumatic functions are so much better than those LA based functions of 8069. But 8455 being as great as it is, it's easy to forget that it's only a small model. The current cylinders were designed at a time when models did not exceed that part count. Now we are regularly at 2 or 3 times that part count. So to say pneumatic would not work on the boom of 42009, sure there is some truth to that HOWEVER to say they are therefore inferior to LAs in any way is a little unfair to them. In order to have a fair comparison when used on a large boom of a crane you would need to compare an LA against a pneumatic which is a suitable size for todays much bigger models.

I could go on but I'm boring myself now. Just know that LAs suck, whilst in dire need of an overhaul, pneumatics are to Technic what flavour is to food!

I have to agree with you! I think you explained it very well, pneumatics just seem to make any model a bit more special. After seeing those 2 backhoes I realized maybe if I had gotten 8455 then I would have liked pneumatics from the beginning, but instead I had gotten the 8069 backhoe which I thought was a good build with good pieces. It just didn't seem to be as much fun to use as say the pneumatics in the Unimog set, which were my first pneumatics.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Blakbird
: Removed large quoted images.

[davidmull]

I have to agree with you! I think you explained it very well, pneumatics just seem to make any model a bit more special. After seeing those 2 backhoes I realized maybe if I had gotten 8455 then I would have liked pneumatics from the beginning, but instead I had gotten the 8069 backhoe which I thought was a good build with good pieces. It just didn't seem to be as much fun to use as say the pneumatics in the Unimog set, which were my first pneumatics.

Just run 8455 off 8110 :)

[beach_dr]

I just bought 8455, arrived last week, as all the hoses looked like so much fun!

And I was not disappointed! I much prefer the way the model works vs 42006 and 42009 for instance. The hand pump also seems to work a lot faster than the tiny motorised pump on 8110.

So my vote goes with pneumatics

[GoldVillage]

IMO pneumatic all the way becuse they have one huge advantage: you dont need to care about the right angles of degrees as when u gonna connect universal joints at curved beams, i just got my hands of my first actuators just recently ( 2 mini ones) and have started a mini excavator project

Edited February 5, 2014 by GoldVillage

[Alasdair Ryan]

I have started a mini excavator project.

Can you post a wip?

[GoldVillage]

its no way near done yet (it isnt even medium rare ;) and i need get more pieces in yellow color

[Fyredog]

I think both have their uses, I would like to see a smoother valve for the pneumatics that can be operated by a motor, so that it's not so jerky or fast. I am a big RC fan, so I like having all functions work Via RC, so LA's work better for me, but I love the Pneumatics for their realism.

[davidmull]

Yet we get no pneumatic set this year at all,come on Lego :(

Anyone think it's unusual no pneumatic set for 2014?

[Alasdair Ryan]

Yet we get no pneumatic set this year at all,come on Lego :(

Anyone think it's unusual no pneumatic set for 2014?

Nop,its just you....

[DrJB]

each has its merits, I mostly enjoy Pneumatics, thats what got me back into Technic,LAs have benefits too, but try doing this with LAs

Having 16 (or more) cylinder brackets should be a 'shameful crime' ...

That said, nice build you have here. Any more pictures you can share?

Edited February 4, 2015 by DrJB

[dan1el]

When used in a model they are also much more powerful

Please provide some link which demonstrates this. I just searched youtube for "pneumatic lego excavator" and I haven't seen anything which is self contained (not tethered with pneumatic hoses) and which objectively outperforms 8043. That is to say: from all such excavators that I've seen on youtube, none of them can consistently raise the boom faster than 8043, and that is saying something because 8043 is slow. Of course, there are some which are faster when you leave them to build up pressure for 30s, but that is not very meaningful.

I suppose the crane posted here with 16 cylinders is an example of something that is more powerful than what would be sensibly possible with LAs, but that is more because of the fact that it is easier to combine 16 pneumatic cylinders than 16 LAs, not because pneumatics are more powerful than LAs in models of the same scale.

Edited February 5, 2014 by dan1el

[unimog123]

I just bought 8455, arrived last week, as all the hoses looked like so much fun!

And I was not disappointed! I much prefer the way the model works vs 42006 and 42009 for instance. The hand pump also seems to work a lot faster than the tiny motorised pump on 8110.

So my vote goes with pneumatics

Yeah, I've noticed that with motorized pumps. Unfortunately I don't have a manual pump and I've been wondering if they could be bought from Lego Service even if they haven't been in an official set for a while.

[Bricktrain]

Having 16 (or more) cylinder brackets should be a 'shameful crime' ...

Then I would hate to tell how many I do have. My new crane uses 32.

Yeah, I've noticed that with motorized pumps. Unfortunately I don't have a manual pump and I've been wondering if they could be bought from Lego Service even if they haven't been in an official set for a while.

They should be available, it wasnt that long ago they last used them, otherwise they are easy enough to get on Bricklink.

[Kylorin]

I've always done stuff with the LA. It is easier to do precise controls without pressure loss.

[Aventador2004]

Alright, if a topic is made already for this, blame me. I haven't seen a topic for pneumatics vs linear actuators , and it pops up alot, so I thought I would make a topic for this conversation that nobody wants to start, and I did. I thought of asking because 1) if there is a topic for this, not bump it. 2) I can't find it. So, as a start, I don't own any pneumatic parts, so if you think I am biased, whatever. I don't think they are better than the other. the LA's are easier to use, but harder to make compactly. The pneumatic system is more compact, but harder, I think, but you may have a different opinion. Ok, biased person, I know, but I haven't got any yet, but the next pneumatic set along I will buy and see if I am just talking badly about pneumatics.

Feel free to share what you think, or if you prefer to remain anonymous, vote in the poll.

Regards,

@Aventador2004

[Andy D]

I like both, but I prefer LA's because or having to run tubing for pneumatics.

When I built the 42043 MB truck I was amazed at how the tubing was run.

Each have their advantages (and disadvantages) so use what you like.

Andy D

[msk6003]

My opinion

LA is for motorised model. One LA need one motor but pneumatic need least 2 motor.(one for pump and one for switch)

Pneumatic for small model. Mini LA is bigger then mini pneumatic cylinder.

[dr_spock]

Each have their advantages and disadvantages. It depends.  Do you want precise control or quick response, etc?   Choose wisely. 

The topic comes up from time to time over the years since I've been here.

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/92033-pneumatics-vs-linear-actuators/

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/27637-linear-actuators-vs-pneumatics/

 

[Aventador2004]

Just now, dr_spock said:

Each have their advantages and disadvantages. It depends.  Do you want precise control or quick response, etc?   Choose wisely. 

The topic comes up from time to time over the years since I've been here.

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/92033-pneumatics-vs-linear-actuators/

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/27637-linear-actuators-vs-pneumatics/

 

Hmm, seems I missed those. Thanks for pointing that out.

20 minutes ago, msk6003 said:

My opinion,

LA is for motorised model. One LA need one motor, but pneumatic need least 2 motors (one for pump and one for switch).

Pneumatic for small model. Mini LA is bigger than mini pneumatic cylinder.

Yes, pneumatic parts are more compact, but LA's are easier to use.

32 minutes ago, Andy D said:

I like both, but I prefer LA's because or having to run tubing for pneumatics.

When I built the 42043 MB truck I was amazed at how the tubing was run.

Each have their advantages (and disadvantages) so use what you like.

Andy D

The tubing part is the biggest disadvantage for pneumatics, they need a lot of tubing.

[aminnich]

They both have their pros and cons. 

LAs you need to figure out gears from motor in input shaft, which sometimes can be tricky. I use LAs a lot of the time, I just recently got some pneumatic parts and I haven't been able to try them out yet.

Pneumatics you need to figure out where the tubing can go so the model this looks good. 

I would say both have the same power behind the actuator rod if done correctly. 

Really it comes down to, what you have available and what works best for whatever you are building. 

[Leonardo da Bricki]

I have and use linear actuators as well as pneumatics, and I must say there are pros and cons to both.

Pneumatics require tubing, and though there are two tubes per cylinder (most of the time) they are much easier to route than a drive shaft. You can fit a LOT more tubes than axles through a turntable.

Linear actuators are dead simple and can be directly motorized, without the need of a complex pump/airtank/switch assembly. They are better for internal uses, where tubing is difficult to route, pneumatics work best externally, where the flexible tubing has the advantage over a drive shaft.

Just my $0.02, I'll say its a draw between the two... But combining both makes a great model, I have started modifying the UGLY Xerion crane arm to use pneumatics for improved performance...

[mocbuild101]

They both have different uses in MOCs - for example: you can't use LAs for suspension and you can't make pneumatic cylinders move a small amount before stopping.

@Sariel made a great comparison in his Technic book about the pros and cons of LAs and pneumatics.