Do you think that The Lego Group will ever produce a Power Functions "Small" motor? It could be a replacement for the 5119 "9V Micromotor" (shown in red below), which was used in 9 different sets from 1993-2001. The Power Functions system was introduced 4 years ago, and the 9V Micromotor is quite rare and prone to seizing up.

Do you think that a new PF "Small" motor would be useful for modern Lego Technic sets? If so, in what application(s) would you use it? It's light weight and compact size could allow motors to be mounted on the ends of booms, inside the chassis of small cars, etc....

With the existing names, one wonders if TLG intends on "filling in the gaps" in their Power Functions motor lineup:

XL -- [Large?] -- MEDIUM -- [small?]

I for one certainly hope for it. It would give us easier opportunity for small servo assistance where a medium motor is too big. On the other hand, using small motors everywhere in a model, directly attached to their purpose kills some om the ingenuity with lego technic, you know a machine with a lot of axles and cogs doing magically things. I.e. the 8043 excavator wouldn't have been the same if all the linear actuators had a motor directly connected to it.

I don't see any particular need for a "large" motor. To place it in between XL and medium, should it be 4 units wide? makes it a bit odd.

I don't see anything wrong with motor placed directly where needed.

Would definitely love to see new small PF motor!

I really hope they would produce a motor similar to the micromotor but honestly i wouldnt be surpirsed if a smaller motor never comes into existence. there is actually a "S" motor offered by Lego education. http://www.legoeducation.us/eng/product/e_motor/2028

I would see the benefit of a new Small motor. I hope if they ever release one, some stud holes (like the M motor) will be added, otherwise it's still not that small for a studded builder like me.

@timr: Personally I don't see that as small. Looks like it measures 4 x 6 studs, being larger than the M-motor, measuring 3 x 6 studs.

There is actually a "S" motor offered by Lego education. http://www.legoeducation.us/eng/product/e_motor/2028

As Richie pointed out, that is actually the E-Motor (left picture below), which is definitely larger than the PF Medium motor (right picture):

Edited August 6, 201113 yr by DLuders

Ya sorry i thought it was a S motor and realized shortly after posting it was an E motor. When looking on the Compared motor characteristics page, the E motor is almost double the weight and almost double the RPMs of the M-motor, but with significantly less torque.

E-motor is hopelessly useless for anything but working as a power generator, trust me.

Since PF is still somewhat new they have many different upgrades that they could make. A smaller motor is a great idea and I could especially use it for Lego locomotives that can't fit the current PF system. If Lego actually continues with this system I'm sure we will see advancements like smaller motors and receivers in the near future. I really hope we do.

Something else that would be cool would be a receiver/remote system with more than 4 channels or more than 2 motors per channel. that way MOCs aren't limited to only 8 functions unless a gear box is used. Also, a smaller motor would be extremely useful.

tim

Seeing as the M and XL motors are already geared down very low (boring!), The missing L-motor should be a really fast one without any gearing down, like the 9v ungeared motor but more powerful! A RELIABLE s-motor would also be cool, as well as an SE-motor (servo). Servo is the one I'de like most.

An S motor for operating auxiliary functions would be great! Really hope Lego will release one.

I always wondered about this the typing convention, M and XL?!

Edited August 7, 201113 yr by Gekke Ted

Definately a good idea. Go go.

I must admit I never used the micro motor. I simply never needed it. Having said that, I didn't really use that many motors anyway in the pre-PF era...

Edit: for an S motor I'd suggest a size of 3 x 3 x 3. Same to Medium, but 50% shorter.

I do like the idea of an ungeared motor (mentioned by allanp above). Everytime I gear a motor up, I think: it's wasted energy...

I always wondered about this the typing convention, M and XL?!

My guess is they did it just because it sounds cooler than just "L".

Edited August 8, 201113 yr by Erik Leppen

I do like the idea of an ungeared motor (mentioned by allanp above). Everytime I gear a motor up, I think: it's wasted energy...

I also like the idea of doing the gearing down myself and being able to use a white clutch gear or drive belt to protect gear trains. Motorised sets were more interesting when you could see lots of gears and pulleys spinning really fast.

hehe, old times ;) I'll never forget the first rectangular 9v motor, which ran at 2000 rpm i think, with no internal gear reduction whatsoever

Yeah, i liked that but realistically speaking, i think that having two sequential planetary gear reductions are far more efficient and space-conserving ;) ( XL motor )

I'm also eager to have the Small motor of Power Function.

If you have the same desire, Please support me on LEGO CUUSOO:"Micro Power Functions"

Let's make TLG to make smaller actuators!!

I also like the idea of doing the gearing down myself and being able to use a white clutch gear or drive belt to protect gear trains. Motorised sets were more interesting when you could see lots of gears and pulleys spinning really fast.

The essence of the S motor would be that you could place it in small mocs, where is a very limited space, so it will be much more useful if the S motor has an internal gearing and low rpm, like micromotor. The essence is the performance(rpm[1/s] * torque[Nm]) of the motor, that should be higher as the micromotors, for example 60 rpm and 6 Ncm stalled torque. (mircomotor: 1,6 Ncm - 35 rpm)

The gearing with normal technic gears would use a reltively lot of space in a small moc, sometimes there is no possibiity for it.

Edited June 3, 201212 yr by Mbmc

The essence of the S motor would be that you could place it in small mocs, where is a very limited space, so it will be much more useful if the S motor has an internal gearing and low rpm, like micromotor. The essence is the performance(rpm[1/s] * torque[Nm]) of the motor, that should be higher as the micromotors, for example 60 rpm and 6 Ncm stalled torque. (mircomotor: 1,6 Ncm - 35 rpm)

The gearing with normal technic gears would use a reltively lot of space in a small moc, sometimes there is no possibiity for it.

Well, yeah, a micro motor should have lots of internal gearing, but for any other motor i'de rather they left it out.

The essence of the S motor would be that you could place it in small mocs, where is a very limited space, so it will be much more useful if the S motor has an internal gearing and low rpm, like micromotor. The essence is the performance(rpm[1/s] * torque[Nm]) of the motor, that should be higher as the micromotors, for example 60 rpm and 6 Ncm stalled torque. (mircomotor: 1,6 Ncm - 35 rpm)

The gearing with normal technic gears would use a reltively lot of space in a small moc, sometimes there is no possibiity for it.

I once made a station clock with a 9V Micro Motor, using the standard belt drive followed by a 24:1 worm drive. It had just enough torque for that, and turned a clock tile in 57 seconds. I would like to see a new Micro Motor of some kind.

I haven't heard anything about the possibility of one. It's a popular idea so I'll investigate, but even if I heard anything, I would not be able to say! Even in the best case it would not happen this year, and we have 2 new motors this year, each with probably a wider spread of applications (L-motor = truck trials, power and torque with more speed than XL; servo motor = steering, rotor pitch control (as soon as someone buys both 9396 and 9398!), and many things traditionally done by RC servos).

Most applications of the 9V Micro Motor had the motor being visible. Examples are the ship radar in the City range and the Technic Space Shuttle satellite. Therefore one criterion of any future motor motor to replace it is that its size should not grow because the size becomes at least one dimension of the model. This could be a problem for the PF range. PF motors have internal gearing that takes up space. They also have an external case and an internal motor unit case. The wire termination takes up space next to the motor. A PF motor would most likely have this rather than an on-board socket (output device philosophy) so it would not save the space that the 9V Micro Motor did.

I would suggest that a significant increase in speed and torque over the 9V Micro Motor would be ambitious for the same size, even with the latest magnetic materials. If happiness is wanting what you get then it is all about expectation management!

In the meantime we are stuck with a significantly larger way of doing it, with an M-motor and worm drive, giving 10-20 rpm but with better torque. That should do the trick for all but the visible applications. Getting the drive to a satellite down the Canada Arm of a space shuttle is the challenge!

Mark

personally I'm more interested in them making a smaller battery box. since finding a place for the battery box on my power functions mocs is always one of the hardest parts.

personally I'm more interested in them making a smaller battery box. since finding a place for the battery box on my power functions mocs is always one of the hardest parts.

I would completely agree, especially because I don't have the smaller AAA battery box.

tim