Technic 2014 Discussion and Speculation

[EyesOnly]

unfortunately not. when you take calculation based on scales of pinholes on bent liftarm that is used as rear mudguard and wheel/tire combo, you will see that it is wheel racing small with Tire 81,6 X 38 R Baloon.

But if Front loader will look like one that jorgeopesi made that would be great.

If that is correct then it has the same wheels and tires like 8265. It means it's quite large which is great. But i for one would prefer bigger tires. Wait i just realized the the post was about the truck thingy not the loader. If so then i have no objections at this time.

Edit

Regarding powerpuller tires, well they look great but are not worth it due to the extreme forces involved in making them move and not break whatever model they are in. Better to stick to smaller or at least lighter tires.

Edited January 13, 2014 by EyesOnly

[kevman]

I can attest to the fact that the power puller wheels are not all that they are hyped up to be. I have a difficult time using them on my 8466 and even my 41999. They do look great , but not worth it if you want to actually play with the set that is using them. I really hope those wheels in the second pic are 9398 or 41999 size.

[EyesOnly]

That would be part 44772c02 for the normal combo, not from 41999 and one can only hope. It's been 2 years since the last model so it's about time for another one.

[davidmull]

I used power puller wheels on my 9398 with no issues.

[Bob C]

I want LEGO to release a technic set like 8366.

[1gor]

Regarding powerpuller tires, well they look great but are not worth it due to the extreme forces involved in making them move and not break whatever model they are in. Better to stick to smaller or at least lighter tires.

exactly, they are to wide for steering and can only be properly used on non steered axles or on articulated vehicles like front loader or articulated tractors etc... you got the picture. Only way to make them useful (for my creations) is to make powepullers taller ind thinner...Not to mention that they are quite heavy and require another rim, so I do not think that we will ever see them again, perhaps some tire 102 X 38 R with buggy pattern to fit wheel racing medium, but not anything else

unfortunately

for front loader and pickup truck you know much more than me but I assume that dozer will be probably size of 42006

[N-4K0]

If the PP-wheels are that heavy and require much space, then it would indeed be best to reduce the weight and perhaps change the size in some way, if TLG should ever make them again.

[davidmull]

If the PP-wheels are that heavy and require much space, then it would indeed be best to reduce the weight and perhaps change the size in some way, if TLG should ever make them again.

PP tires are like proper rubber tires. Great for grip but today's lego tires are like more plastic. I'm not sure lego will ever use proper rubber again for tires.

I don't like the new rubber as it has no grip.

[N-4K0]

I don't really use tires for anything other than models I build for display, so it's no problem to me.

But I can understand that it's annoying to people who build crawlers and stuff and need proper rubber tires for grip.

[davidmull]

Just built 42024 skip truck, really nice model and works great ;) prob my favorite medium sized model to date :)

[Ceir]

Looking over the 1H sets, I could definitely see myself picking up the construction site triple-pack (already have the mini skip truck and mini mobile crane, they'll fit right in), the hortod (never actually had a Technic model with a big engine before!), and oddly enoguh the mini helicopter.

[andythenorth]

Just built 42024 skip truck, really nice model and works great ;) prob my favorite medium sized model to date :)

Did you motorise it? Is the mechanism boring to turn manually? (I like manual stuff, no batteries needed, but some mechanisms are too slow to be fun).

Edited January 16, 2014 by andythenorth

[Jim]

Did you motorise it? Is the mechanism boring to turn manually? (I like manual stuff, no batteries needed, but some mechanisms are too slow to be fun).

Boring is an understatement

[Freekysch]

I think i am the only one who likes sets without PF. i know turning a knob is not much appreciated but i prefere this insted of buying tons of batteries. For example, i played much more times with 8069 then 8043 or 8258.

To be ontopic, i can not wait to get the Container Truck.

[Cumulonimbus]

I think i am the only one who likes sets without PF. i know turning a knob is not much appreciated but i prefere this insted of buying tons of batteries. For example, i played much more times with 8069 then 8043 or 8258.

I completely agree, I prefer sets without PF too. In my opinion they are mechanically more interesting, more compact and don't require a stash of batteries. Additionally, I like the feedback a model gives through the manual controls. Especially with MOC's this feedback can indicate a poorly constructed mechanism. I even converted some of my sets which originally had PF or RC and converted them to manual operation. To increase the playability, I always change the standard turning knob for a crank similar to the 8288.

Don't get me wrong: I admire the 8043 like anybody else, but somehow I don't get it of the shelf as often as my non-PF sets.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Cumulonimbus

[Kumbbl]

Did you motorise it? Is the mechanism boring to turn manually? (I like manual stuff, no batteries needed, but some mechanisms are too slow to be fun).

I like manually stuff too but i also find that each model with manually driven LAs is boring or with other words: IMHO LAs need a motor, period. And for me there is no exception from this rule, period again. Manually turning a knob to drive LAs results in writers cramp, last period ;-)

[Gee]

I can see the point of PF and I like making RC cars, but what annoys me is sets that are obviously optimised for PF but don't come with the motors. This means that the sets are frustrating to play with manually. I'm thinking specifically of 42006 that I've just built, but 42024 would probably fit into this category as well.

Edit: Posted at the same time as the above, and I agree entirely. LAs are clearly designed for PF.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Gee

[davidmull]

Did you motorise it? Is the mechanism boring to turn manually? (I like manual stuff, no batteries needed, but some mechanisms are too slow to be fun).

Yes i motorised it as soon as i had it built. I didn't even try work it manually as Iv heard its slow. It's just a really nice model.

[dhc6twinotter]

So, regarding the new front loader, I've been wondering if we will see a stronger u-joint introduced. I'm pretty certain the front loader is 4wd (would be a major fail if not), and with a single XL motor driving the wheels, there needs to be a u-joint at the articulation point. This model is large and heavy, and with a XL motor driving the wheels, there is a lot of torque being put on the u-joint. Could LEGO use the existing u-joint, or perhaps LEGO has a new type of u-joint included in this set?

Probably wishful thinking on my part, but it would be nice to see.

[efferman]

i dont think we will see new universal joints, because there is the possibility of gear reduction behind the universal joint

[rm8]

i dont think we will see new universal joints, because there is the possibility of gear reduction behind the universal joint

They can use 3 gears instead u joint

[Saberwing40k]

I've been thinking about 42030,and how it would turn with a servo. I just don't see such an arrangement working. What if, instead, we had a configuration of 1 L motor, for steering, 1 XL motor, for drive, and 2 servo motors, each with an autovalve for control of the arm pneumatically? That would be cool, yes? As for getting air in the system, it could have an air tank, and a compressor run off the drivetrain. I'll be mocking this up and seeing how playable it is.

But regardless, this seems a bit unlikely.

[jantjeuh]

The motor configuration of 2 L, 1 XL, 1 SV has been confirmed twice.

[Saberwing40k]

The motor configuration of 2 L, 1 XL, 1 SV has been confirmed twice.

I'm not calling this confirmed until I see an actual picture, of the actual box, with that callout. Luckily, we won't have to wait that long...

[jantjeuh]

Alright, fair enough. Don't be surprised if it turns out that motor configuration is correct, though.