From our lego ambassador we received the following messages:

First one:

I know that the Power Functions System is still being developed and added too. The current system is only part of what the original vision for PF and its something that will take several years to finish developing. I don't know if a micromotor is part of that vision but I've passed your wishes for one onto the PF team.

Second one:

A PFS micromotor has very much been discussed within TLG and with AFOLs (the Emerald Night came out of the same group of people) and you can also see from the existing sizes that there is no 'small' yet. I can assure you that use in trains is something the design team are aware of.

Whether or not it appears depends on whether or not the powers-that-be think it will be profitable.

Personally, I think the micromotor should be one of the PF elements. It would be very useful in several applications, it would reduce the weight of the creations. What do you think about it? Should we press TLC to design one ? It also would be possible to use it in System sets - they've already done this before!

It also would be possible to use it in System sets

Not sure ; you still need a battery box.

A small PF-motor can be used in places where there is no space for bigger moto9rs like de M or XL.

Speaking for myself an small PF-motor should have low speed/high(er) torque! (Even better would be a build-in reverse-switch for choosing high speed/low torgue and low speed/high torque)

I would be very happy to see small or micro PF motor, as JunkstyleGio said, it would be better to be low speed, and as much torque as they can fit in it.

It would be good if the motor could connect directly to LA.

I am totality supporting micro PF idea

I agree that if they was to do one it should be low speed and high tourque. I would love a small motor but have reservations due to the quality issues with the last micro motor. A new PF micro motor would have to be better than the last one.

(WARNING: OFF-TOPIC. what follows is just my usual ramblings!)

Personally what I would prefer is a L motor that has a large, very powerful motor inside and ABSOLUTELY NO gear reduction. I mean, where's the fun in having any of the mechanics done for you? Surely that's missing the point of what lego technic is all about.

Secondley, a servo motor would also be great and could be used for things like proportional steering, precise control of a pneumatic valve, etc, etc, etc.

Surely that's missing the point of what lego technic is all about.

Sometimes there is no place for mechanisms.

Sometimes there is no place for mechanisms.

Yes I totally agree but in those cases where there is no space for mechanisms then perhaps the XL motor isn't a good choice anyway. The XL motor has only appeared in two technic sets and in both cases there was plenty of room as they were both large sets. All that being said there is still a place for the XL motor I would just prefere to have an immensely powerful motor with a very high output speed. Besides the whole reason we are discussing a micro motor is for when there is little space as the XL and M motors are too big for these cases.

If there's actually M (medium) and XL (extra-large) motors, sure they left room for an S (and maybe an L too), or otherwise they should have call them something like, small and large.

In my car I can use a XL for driving, and an M for steering, but what should I use for my wind-shield wipers?

Clearly there's a small motor missing in the PF family.

A servo motor, as already mentioned, would be nice also.

Regards

Edited October 3, 200915 yr by Mortymore

A new PF micromotor would be great, but as allanp said, it needs to have better long-term reliability than the old one did. I think it would actually be more useful for minifig scale models than Technic ones. The existing PF M motor is already pretty small and compact for most purposes in Technic models.

Personally what I would prefer is a L motor that has a large, very powerful motor inside and ABSOLUTELY NO gear reduction. I mean, where's the fun in having any of the mechanics done for you? Surely that's missing the point of what lego technic is all about.

I can certainly see where you're coming from here, but external gear reduction is always going to be less efficient than what the motors do internally. For example, the original 2838 9V motor is usually weaker in practice than the 71427 geared one, even though it's technically more powerful. Most of the sets with ungeared motors also used rubber belts to reduce the speed instead of gears, which further reduces the motors' power. Gears work, but they are quite noisy and the high speeds can in some cases wear down the gear plastic.

The 5292 9V motor comes closest to what you want though. It's actually more powerful than the XL, but runs at something like 1000rpm. There is some gear reduction inside but it's fairly minimal.

Edited October 3, 200915 yr by CP5670

The 5292 9V motor comes closest to what you want though. It's actually more powerful than the XL, but runs at something like 1000rpm. There is some gear reduction inside but it's fairly minimal.

Yes I do believe that motor to be a fair compromise. Would be awsome to have a motor that is slightly more efficient/powerful with a similar or higher output speed in a PF format.

A new PF micromotor would be great, but as allanp said, it needs to have better long-term reliability than the old one did. I think it would actually be more useful for minifig scale models than Technic ones. The existing PF M motor is already pretty small and compact for most purposes in Technic models.

I can certainly see where you're coming from here, but external gear reduction is always going to be less efficient than what the motors do internally. For example, the original 2838 9V motor is usually weaker in practice than the 71427 geared one, even though it's technically more powerful. Most of the sets with ungeared motors also used rubber belts to reduce the speed instead of gears, which further reduces the motors' power. Gears work, but they are quite noisy and the high speeds can in some cases wear down the gear plastic.

The 5292 9V motor comes closest to what you want though. It's actually more powerful than the XL, but runs at something like 1000rpm. There is some gear reduction inside but it's fairly minimal.

Yes, I can't see much need for a micromotor in Technic, especially now that the PF pole reverser switch cannot rotate freely (it would have cost more to do it). Universal Set 8882 used that technique with a micromotor. The satellite solar panels in the Space Shuttle were a great application. It was always good for space or ship radar antennas and I used them for train point motors and a station clock.

I used four 2838 motors to turn an open rotor jet engine model. It needed the rpm of these motors (4000 at no load). With 2 motors each end, I used the motor bearings and had no axles through beams, to keep friction low. The main axle was extended from one motor to another at the other end whilst the other motor at each end used 40:40 cogs to add its power. It took 1.5 amps from the power supply at 9.15V (= fresh battery voltage). Most of the energy was absorbed by the friction in an epicyclic gearbox that allowed the two rotors to contra-rotate. In the end it achieved about half the speed of the real engine (one quarter or less of the power, given the square or cube relationship of energy to rpm in a fan) and the low friction techniques allowed the energy input to overcome the gearboc friction, such that contra-rotation was achieved. As an alternative in that rpm range, I attempted to interface a 135W 10000rpm drill to a Technic axle, and succeeded in gearing it down 3:1, but the vibration was too great and it melted the pieces

Yes, the 5292 motor was designed for direct car drive and has a speed between the PF medium motor and the ungeared motors. Its spur gear train has lower friction than some motor gear trains and the actual metal motor is bigger than the one in the PF medium motor. The 47154 motors were a disaster for the gear train, as it ground and jammed in more than half the motors I have of that type.

Mark