Today, a poll set dedicated to hear what do you wish, for a smaller Power Functions motor.
As you know, when Power Functions was released in 2007, there were introduced two new motors. One medium sized (M-Motor) and another large size (XL-Motor).
Since then, builders have been waiting for their natural companion, a small or minimotor (S-Motor) and/or a micromotor (u-Motor).
Such hypothetical motor, probably wouldn’t be very strong, but small enough for applications where size is really important or very limited. It should be also useful for both TECHNIC and System constructions, as it happened with its predecessor.
We can’t be sure, but probably it never seen the daylight yet, due to issues related with reliable suppliers, production costs, LEGO Designers not having found significant usage for it, etc. However, hope should be the last one to die…
Also as many of you should have realized, since the new studless emphasis, TECHNIC system is primarily odd sized. This would be in favor of also odd sized motors, when we think of studless TECHNIC constructions and structures made of TECHNIC Beams, instead of TECHNIC Bricks.
Actual ‘M’ and ‘XL’ motors, measure respectively 3x3x6 and 5x5x6 studs.
Both have pin holes in front for fixation. The ‘XL’ motor has also two pin holes at each side for fixation, while the ‘M’ got a 2x6 plate like tube bottom for extra fixation.
So, actually the most obvious questions are:
- Which size should an ‘u/S-Motor’ be?
- Which form factor should an ‘u/S-Motor’ have?
- Which type of fixation should/could an ‘u/S-Motor’ have?
- Should it have high or low rotation speeds (geared or not geared down)?
- Should it have high or low torque?
At least in what concerns the size, I see two main options for a Small size motor:
1) A thin and long version (similar to the ‘M’ version, but more compact)
This way, it would only make sense if being smaller than ‘M’, which would immediately force it to have a 2L diameter. Length could be as long as ‘M’ with 6L or shorter.
A 2L diameter form factor would prevent the presence of front pin holes for fixation and would limit the possibilities to fix it with pins.
The alternatives are: axle hole at the end; ½ or ¾ TECHNIC pin holes at the rear, in each side; one or two pin-holes in the back side (the option for one would be too less, and for two would be too unnatural. All these options would make the motor 1L longer).
A forth alternative would be the use of both studs on top and tubes at bottom, making it somehow similar to the old red micromotor and more suited to be used in SYSTEM constructions.
2) A wide and short version. This could go from a 3x3xN to a 5x5xN form factor, where N must definitely be shorter than 6. Something between 2 and 3, but also depending on the fixation design to be chosen.
Taking all these considerations, lets run a few polls to determine which would be your preferences regarding such hypothetical motors, LEGO may one day release.
The categories and options, are:
PF u/S-Motor, which size?
- 2x2x6 motor
- 2x2x4 motor
- 2x2x3 motor
- 2x2x2 motor
- 3x3xN motor (2<=N<=4)
- 5x5xN motor (2<=N<=4)
PF u/S-Motor, which fixation type?
- Preferred pin/axle hole fixation
- Preferred tubes/studs fixation
PF u/S-Motor, which torque?
- Low torque motor
- High torque motor
PF u/S-Motor, which speed?
- Low speed motor (<100>
- High speed motor (>100 RPMs)
Leave also your thoughts, into comments section from this post.