 | | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Thanks for the info. Still, I don't see the need to use this motor in the 8421. It only uses one motor, and it is not a very demanding application. They could have used the minimotor easily. It would have been smaller and less expensive, and (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Hmm - not a lot more torque, but a huge amoutn of additional consumption, and fairly highly reduced efficiency. The 5292 appears to definately be the American SUV of the Lego motor range. I take it that for heavier torque - it is still better (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) Indeed... more torque, but lower efficiency: (URL) (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
(...) I think it is supposed to deliver more torque than the standard motor. Anyone care to verify that for me? (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8421 first impressions
|
|
On Thu, June 30, 2005 11:49 pm, Gyl said: (...) The motor is the same used in the RC Racers. It's much more powerful than the other motor, runs three times as fast, but also draws more current. The two outputs run at different speeds. Steve (19 years ago, 1-Jul-05, to lugnet.technic)
|
