sama Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) Whoops, never knew I am not allowed to add preliminary pictures! Question, am I not allowed to upload these pictures on Brickshelf? Edited December 21, 2011 by sama Quote
dhc6twinotter Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 That was Allanp i was meaning beside the servo motor on the off roader were it seams to say 'new' ?...... . lol...sorry. Thanks Allanp! Quote
Crtlego Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I'm guessing the "L" motor would be slower, but have more torque than the "M" motor. It would also be faster, but with less torque than the "XL" motor. Hopefully, this "L" motor will be the same size as the "M" motors. If it is the same size as the "XL" motor, than I don't see any point in using it over an "XL". Oops.. Yes. That makes sense. For some reason or another, the "L" triggered memories of the RC motor and caused me to ignore the naming convention. It is obvious that an L motor would be faster and less torque that XL but slower and more torque than M. I must of confused myself with the RC motors since I have been spending a lot of time thinking about them and my order for the Supersonic RC parts.. Quote
sama Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) I think the 'm motors' images are just substituting for the new motors on the 9398 box. The 'l motors' are probably going to be bigger in size than the 'm motors' because if they were the same size as the 'm motors,' than there isn't any point in using it over an 'm,' similiar to dhc6twinotter theory about the 'l' and 'xl motor' size. Edited December 21, 2011 by sama Quote
dhc6twinotter Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I think the 'm motors' images are just substituting for the new motors on the 9398 box. The 'l motors' are probably going to be bigger in size than the 'm motors' because if they were the same size as the 'm motors,' than there isn't any point in using it over an 'm,' contrary to dhc6twinotter theory about the 'l' and 'xl motor' size. I dunno....I'd like to see a motor with more torque than an "M" motor, but with the same size. But, then I guess there would be no point in using an "M" motor now. LOL. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Honestly, I don't think we really need another size motor (unless we get a micro motor, which isn't the case here). Quote
CP5670 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 9396 looks like the more interesting model to me. I don't see any arrows indicating blade pitch functions, but the assembly there seems too elaborate for just a simple axle leading up to the rotor. If it does this and has new swashplate parts, it would be a must have for me, but I will probably pass it up otherwise. 9398 seems too similar to the Unimog and has fewer functions aside from the motors. If the M motors are used for the drivetrain, that would be a little odd considering that such sets in the past had XL-based drivetrains. I'm guessing the manual will indicate that you should not take it outside, like 8043's did. The 4 wheel steering looks nice though. We haven't seen that on a large vehicle in quite some time. Quote
Dutch_EE Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Here are my 2 cents Regarding the helicopter It looks like a Sikorsky rescue helicopter, that is used by coast guards. It is huge and the functions up to now are standard. If there is an M (or L) motor to drive the rotors I would be a bit dissapointed. I would love to see a controlable rotor (from the cockpit would be super). This model could be on my wish list next year. Regarding the Rock Crawler If there is a servo motor for steering, it can be steered from the standard remote control, because he also has return-to-center function on the 2 channels. Lego has finally become a bit smarter in the use of 2 engines for the drive train. Using 2 motors for drive in the Rock Crawler has 3 advantages. First there isn't a drive shaft that has to take the entire torque of making the vehicle move, I petty the universal joints in the unimog. By decoupling the drive-trains (if there are 2 L-motors) they each need to have enough torque to move 2 wheels. I think they can, where as the XL-motor sometimes has problems to move 4. I moded the Unimog with a single XL-motor, and as soon as there is a single obsticle it immediately stops, with crunching. Secondly there is more room in the middle of the car. That way, the battery box can be in the middle of the vehicle an improve balance. It will not lean to one side, like the Unimog. Third, it makes that the axles can move even more freely than the Unimog. More flexibility means, less stress on the drive-train and a larger rock climbing ability. This is something that Lego probably have seen from the Trial Truck Community. I still question how well the RC will do with actual rock crawling, given the plastic Lego parts. But still, this model seems to promise to be better off-road than the Unimog. Maybe if I have money I could buy it, but I'm doubting at the moment. Sander Quote
Lucas Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 There is not a remote controller on orange power functions box. It used to be on previous boxes. Actual remote control is useless with servo motor - 3 positions (full forward, full backward, stop) aren't enought to sufficient steering control. Also, take into account model size, model role (crawler) and playability speed control is really needed function (btw. to protect parts from shocks). IMHO we will get a new remote control with speed/position control. Old RC on image is just to delude us. Quote
davidmull Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I wonder what size would this model be compared too? Also I wonder how many pieces it will have,I'd say maybe 1500-1800 :) Quote
jorgeopesi Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I wonder what size would this model be compared too? Also I wonder how many pieces it will have,I'd say maybe 1500-1800 :) I don´t think so, too much bricks to work fine I think that the number of pieces will be minimum as posible, 1000 or less to reduce the maximum weight. Quote
davidmull Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I don´t think so, too much bricks to work fine I think that the number of pieces will be minimum as posible, 1000 or less to reduce the maximum weight. U do know this is the flagship so ur way off with ur 1000 parts ha ha Quote
Paul Boratko Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 U do know this is the flagship so ur way off with ur 1000 parts ha ha I'm not so sure that he is off by much... The Flagship 8043 Excavator only had 1,147 and the 8297 offroader didn't even have 1,100.. I think this new Rock Crawler is going to be right on with the 8297 at around the same part count as it appears to be a similar size... Quote
Brickend Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) I tend to agree. When there are more motors, there seems to be a lower comparable part count for a flagship. I really hope it isn't a motor per axle, I'd hope lego would retain a sense of accuracy. Truck Trialers do it because it is an easy solution. Edited December 21, 2011 by Brickend Quote
jorgeopesi Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 U do know this is the flagship so ur way off with ur 1000 parts ha ha Anything flagship call, look at the rc lego cars, to work well must weigh little. If you have 2000 pieces and 6 electrical items will not move and will be very expensive. Look at the wheelbase distance, near 17 studs without wheels. Quote
Paul Boratko Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I know we were discussing the part count months ago when the news about a possible Rock Crawler first broke and one of the main discussions was about the part count being somewhat low due to weight from the various motors(not to mention the very heavy battery box)... I don't expect this new Rock Crawler to move exceptionally fast, but I also don't expect it to "Crawl"... If this set has more than 1,200 pieces, I will be very surprised... Quote
jorgeopesi Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 If this set has more than 1,200 pieces, I will be very surprised... Totally agree, thank you for the help Paul . Quote
davidmull Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 I know we were discussing the part count months ago when the news about a possible Rock Crawler first broke and one of the main discussions was about the part count being somewhat low due to weight from the various motors(not to mention the very heavy battery box)... I don't expect this new Rock Crawler to move exceptionally fast, but I also don't expect it to "Crawl"... If this set has more than 1,200 pieces, I will be very surprised... W,ell see ;) Quote
Meatman Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 U do know this is the flagship so ur way off with ur 1000 parts ha ha The 8297 Off Roader was a Flagship set and it only had 1097 parts. Then again I believe it only retailed for $119.99. Quote
zewy623 Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 @Meatman Wasn't that also the price before technic prices started to go up? I've noticed that especially the flagships have gone somewhat up in price. Quote
Meatman Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) @Meatman Wasn't that also the price before technic prices started to go up? I've noticed that especially the flagships have gone somewhat up in price. The 8070 supercar is $119.99 and it is 1287 parts. The 8297 actually might have been $109.99 I can't quite remember. Most technic sets seem to retail around 10 cents per piece. I also noticed Toys R Us has all of their prices much higher then they normally do. The excavator was $199.99 and had a low part count, but it did have quite a few Power Functions elements included. So I would say the last 2 Flagship sets were more expensive than usual because of the cost of the many Power Functions in the Excavator and the high part count in the Unimog. This new 2012 Flagship set will probably be right in a similar range, or possibly a little lower. Edited December 21, 2011 by Meatman Quote
Traktor Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) It is very interesting to see these preliminary pictures.. I actually like the Helicopter a lot.. but I've never purchased a Technic set without tires (ACTUAL tires, not tiny ones for landing gear) So you have never bought a set with belts, like For example the excavator or the buldozer? Then you have missed some really good sets. Edited December 21, 2011 by LuxorV Please quote only what you need to reply to. Thanks. Quote
Cwetqo Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Price (at least german) will be exactly as for 8043: 169,99 euro. Unimog is 20 euro more (189,99) and 8258 10 euro less (159,99) Quote
sama Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Wait, but if 9398 has 94.8 wheels, just like 8297, then won't the rims spin inside the wheels when the truck meets a difficult obstacle? Quote
matias bendtsen Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Wait, but if 9398 has 94.8 wheels, just like 8297, then won't the rims spin inside the wheels when the truck meets a difficult obstacle? Maybe they make the tires a little bit smaller to fit better? Quote
sama Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) This tire problem made me re-consider which wheel size will be on 9398, it could be 81.6 * 38 wheels. But the wheels seem a little skinny to be this size. Any ways, looking at this picture, the servo or l motor seems to be resembling a m motor casing. Edited December 22, 2011 by sama Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.