Motorising the Haunted House
Posted by Huw,_202005131328.jpg)
It's not immediately obvious from the front of the box that 10273 Haunted House includes a 'Tower of Terror'-style free-fall lift within it.
As it comes, it's manually operated, but the back of the box suggests that you can add Powered Up components to it to motorise it.
Previous fairground sets could be motorised using the now-obsolete, but low-cost, Power Functions motor and battery box, so it was possible to automate your ride for less than £20/$20.
Now, however, it's going to set you back about £75/$85. You need a 88009 Hub (£45/$50) and two 88008 Motor (£15/$17), not to mention a smart device that runs the Powered Up app to operate it. That's a significant outlay!
It's not clear what the two motors do. One will raise the lift, of course: perhaps the other opens/closes doors or something. It will be interesting to find out whether the old PF motors can be used and simply turned on and off, or whether the motors' operation needs to be synchronised which of course is only possible with some sort of programming and control. I was hoping the designer video would shed some light, but it doesn't.
Do you think this is an interesting advancement or a retrograde step?
87 likes
49 comments on this article
Ive always loved power function integration into normal lego system sets.
Selling motorized parts seperately is a good thing.
For example : the 2018 Vestas Wind Turbine could've been a lot cheaper (unmotorized) as a standalone set without the electronics included, and still would make a good display.
Also the components not included in the set makes a difference over time, as someone can just use their hub, motors etc for 1 set at a time, without needing to pay a lot more if they were included each time.
I think it's ridiculous we've got to spend £75 on motorisation. It's times like these that the drawbacks of the new Powered Up system are apparent; you're forced to pay a lot of money for functionality that you don't really need. I'm so glad I was able to get a simple motor and battery box for the carousel last year, as having to pay for a powered up hub would really sting.
I think it's a step back, as Powered Up seems to be both very general-purpose and very specific at the same time.
However, hopefully it won't be too difficult to mod it with other motor systems :)
I keep hoping for Powered Up to wow me and provide some kind of decent recent for completely replacing PF, but nothing yet. Before, all you needed was a $30 set (8293) or even just buying a motor and a battery pack which would come to around $20, and you could instantly and easily motorize any intended set and it wouldn't be difficult to modify others. Now, it's an $85 investment, in addition to the smart device!
I don't mind more technology integration (even with Lego's notoriously poor app history), but eliminating a reasonable option in favor of one that costs 3x-4x more and requires more outside tech, while offering very little benefit in return, hasn't sat right with me since day 1
The video shows that all the functions (including the opening doors) are controlled by just a single lever being turned constantly, so I see no reason why you can't just bung the power functions motors in there instead - it's just advertising the latest system over the one from over a decade ago, it's not that big of a deal.
I really liked the Power Functions system, and plan to keep using it for as long as possible: it's relatively cheap and also highly adaptable. I have to imagine there's a way to power this model with Power Functions... it might require some extra clever mechanization, but that's what LEGO is all about - and the flywheel mechanism in this set is one of the greatest examples of that!
I don't generally like things that require apps to operate (LEGO or otherwise)... it seems to be almost universally unnecessary, and it requires way too much technological infrastructure (I say this as both a young person and as a professional who's worked on products that are pushing in that direction). The more complicated something is and the more things it depends on, the more susceptible it is to breaking.
I feel like the addition of all of these new power systems is not the brightest move by LEGO. Power Functions was versatile; it could be used in Technic, City Trains, and many other themes and subthemes. Many people purchased several Power Functions sets, only for LEGO to abandon that prospect, forcing people to purchase Powered Up.
@Balthazar_Brannigan said:
"I really liked the Power Functions system, and plan to keep using it for as long as possible: it's relatively cheap and also highly adaptable. I have to imagine there's a way to power this model with Power Functions... it might require some extra clever mechanization, but that's what LEGO is all about - and the flywheel mechanism in this set is one of the greatest examples of that!
I don't generally like things that require apps to operate (LEGO or otherwise)... it seems to be almost universally unnecessary, and it requires way too much technological infrastructure (I say this as both a young person and as a professional who's worked on products that are pushing in that direction). The more complicated something is and the more things it depends on, the more susceptible it is to breaking."
This I why I bought the Hidden Side sets primarily on the strength of their construction and almost completely disregarded the app. Who knows how long that'll stick around for?
Is the second motor for the front doors - unrelated to the elevator mechanism? If so, there shouldn't be any problem simply using Power Functions. The only advantage of Powered Up would be (1) not over-running the front doors (easily fixable with either a slip-able belt drive or the white 24-tooth friction gear) and (2) not running the drop tower for multiple cycles in a row (which I'm sure there's a way to solve, too).
I suppose with the Powered Up integration they could add audio FX via the app. But otherwise, I wish it were just designed for the PF gear. I don't want to cue up a smart device to use motorized functionality. And the old PF gear is more cost efficient.
Well the Powered Up pieces are the same as Power Functions in terms of their sizes so surely you could use Power Functions to motorise it. They just probably don't want to advertise the cheaper alternative so that customers will buy the significantly more expensive Powered Up elements.
Its not a big worry for me as I have got both a Power Functions and Powered Up hub just need to buy a motor for each.
I am sure there will be people who make it work with the old PF.
Thankfully, there are still lots of PF (R.I.P...) parts listed on eBay; they will remain cheaper there than PU for a long time.
@Ayliffe said:
"The video shows that all the functions (including the opening doors) are controlled by just a single lever being turned constantly, so I see no reason why you can't just bung the power functions motors in there instead - it's just advertising the latest system over the one from over a decade ago, it's not that big of a deal."
On the back there seems to be another motor attachment point, which you can see at 0:21, but it's not clear what it does.
I bought a spare app-controlled Batmobile at a massive discount. Thought I'd sell it on at some point, but I guess it makes more sense to just open it and use the PF parts for this.
@Brainslugged said:
"I bought a spare app-controlled Batmobile at a massive discount. Thought I'd sell it on at some point, but I guess it makes more sense to just open it and use the PF parts for this."
Did that exact same thing.
As always, motorizing sets is amazing, but the Powered Up system is so expensive, so if I would ever buy this set I'm not so sure I'll pay $70 more. Power Functions was cheaper and also had more potential, not to mention it didn't need an app
This set is growing more and more disipointing.
I'd get it without the power functions if anything. I mean, $85!!?
I prefer sets to sell the motorised parts separately, like this one.
Take the Disneyland train station for example. It's a great set but the motorisation in it bumps the price needlessly. Specially for those of us who won't be bothering to ever play with it or with the app.
As for the price of Powered Up, yeah, it's a bump, but you also need to see the tech in it improved. And as long as it remains sold separately, I'm fine with it.
I'm just glad it's optional, like others have mentionned I too wasn't all that happy about being forced to pay extra for the Disneyland train and station just because it included the Powered Up elements (or Power Function for that matter) since it's a static display in my case. So kudos on them for making it optional instead of just adding a substational amount to an already substantial price.
I hate to tell you 'I told you so' LEGO, that your sales and interest rates would drop because of an overpriced motorisation, but I was right.
So, I told you so!
The doors are not motorised or connected with the lift system. You can see a 2x2 "knob" on the side of the house at the bit where the house is spinning early in the designer video. Also because of the hinging it cannot be connected to the lift mechanism. One motor clearly goes on the opposite side of the lift handle as Huw pointed out at 0:21 in the video. I think the other motor just plugs into the door mechanism opposite the external handle (see the 4L technic brick in LBG). If so that is ugly, and probably won't allow closing of the house, unless there is space inside the opposite front section.
A lot of the Lego Stores still have the bagged kits for the old Power Functions, just ask.
The cost of the Powered Up components, for features you don't need here, is ridiculous.
LEGO could solve all these problems with a simple AAA battery box that can just run motors or lights when you switch it on.
Back when developing Power Functions they invited groups of AFOLs in to help the direction of the technology and the associated sets.
Why have they ignored all the best advice they've been offered - and seemingly all reason - in developing Powered Up?
Agreed -- It would have been an ideal time to launch a PU battery box. The system is crying out for one.
@Rimefang said:
"A lot of the Lego Stores still have the bagged kits for the old Power Functions, just ask."
PF battery box (£12) and M motor (£6) still available on Lego website as well.
I expect the Powered Up option will only add suitable sound effects (frights and screams) plus start/stop on the lift maybe. Seems like a strange add for a set marketed as 18+, but as noted by others Lego has stuck with PU and not promoting PF any more so probably the only option available to designers.
I will probably try out with my existing PF motors from my carousel/rollercoaster/mixer before committing more cash on new motors, since I rarely have them working anyway.
I was a bit skeptical of powered up but seeing my 5 year old son programming his train to do different things when the colour sensor goes over a tile on the tracks is amazing. Purchased standalone they are expensive but I managed to get hubs for about £20 each Inc shipping on BrickLink.
It's imaginative, but it's still over £200 for a doll's house and another £75 for a motor. Too much, especially in the present crisis.
The advantage of PU is that the operation of the motor can be timed via the software, so it can run in cycles.
I agree that the cost is high, on the other hand adding it is just an option, probably mostly for fans that already have units from other sets. With a basic assortment of PU pieces most sets can be covered, unless one wants to display all of them at once (marginal amount of people).
Great article, sir!
I am so glad I still have lots of old PF components. I have PU components as well, but I will stick to the old system for as long as possible.
The way I understand new technology is as follow: the initial cost is usually high due to research and development. Basically, early adopters are financing the new technology. Once the initial expenses have been absorbed by the early adopters, the price eventually go down to something that make it palatable for the population at large. As far as I can tell with Lego, the price of technology never goes down. On another note, Mindstorms EV3 is set for imminent retirement - will be interesting to see what's in store for EV4.
@Slobrojoe said:
"I hate to tell you 'I told you so' LEGO, that your sales and interest rates would drop because of an overpriced motorisation, but I was right.
So, I told you so!"
Unfortunately, that is only your opinion based on other people's opinion and you are not right. Do you have any factual evidence? Yes, it is overpriced, but I doubt that would affect any of your ignorant claims. It should be obvious they promote the new PF to generate additional profit. But this is the internet so we can say whatever we want, no matter how childish.
Because Brickset kindly ask me to :
"Add a comment
Share your thoughts on this article but before doing so please read the article and all comments to avoid asking a question that has already been answered, or making the same point as someone else."
......., I cannot say nothing that was not pointed already about this Haunted House.
I simply don't understand why AFOLs thinks LEGO is some kind of a friend who listen to your dreams and make everything cheaper, simpler and affordable?
Just because the price of oil is zero, it does't mean the price of PLASTIC cannot be overpriced year by year and the price of "phone motorized" plastic cannot be ridiculously expensive.
The Colosseum Creator Expert will be 2,5 times more expensive than the 4.000+ parts London Tower Bridge, how many parts will have? 10.000 ??
When the model is manual, you have :
- main crank
- secondary crank to operate driving ring
When the model is motorized :
- main crank remains unused
- main motor is connected on the right side
- secondary crank is removed and secondary motor is connected instead
Working :
- you raise the elevator with the main mechanism. It stays up thanks to the pawl gear (dark bluish gray connector)
- you free the main mechanism by operating the secondary lever which disconnects the driving ring, and so the elevator drops immediatly.
The box tells to use 2 motors to operate the entire thing with the app.
But with 1 motor only (for the main mechanism), it will be totally fine. Secondary mechanism is just a lever that is pushed left/right.
2 pics to see the mechanism :
https://nsa40.casimages.com/img/2020/05/13/200513090612357306.jpg
https://nsa40.casimages.com/img/2020/05/13/200513090459435788.jpg
As to the last question...yes. Yes, I do. Making sets with motorization potential is a great idea, especially if you've ever tried to motorize the most recent Hogwarts Train (it's almost like it's intended to _not_ be motorized). But PU is needlessly complicated compared to PF, and offers less functionality than PF did. With PF, how the motor worked depended entirely on which type of controller you were using. Train controllers would let you set the speed and leave a motor to run with no further action (and the Li-Poly battery could be plugged in to create a makeshift 9v regulator). RC controllers gave you direct control over the motor for fast processing. Now how the motor behaves is dependent on which type of motor you use (PU Train vs everything else) if you use the standard controller, or you're entirely dependent on their willingness to cease habitually abandoning their apps after a year or two, which at some point will mean that the only way to get full features will be to leave a legacy smartphone with a shot battery plugged in by your layout.
Oh yeah, and by all reports, Bluetooth control in crowded settings is like trying to communicate via telegraph from the front row of a rock concert.
@TeriXeri:
Part of why the Vestas came with a motor included is so you could use the wind turbine to actually generate power. And kill birds. Lots of tiny little birds.
@Balthazar_Brannigan:
Scotty's Law!
@Huw:
The problem with that is that they rolled the receiver and the battery box into one item. It's great for saving space, and it eliminates the need to stick an IR port out of the top of whatever you're controlling remotely, but you can't just link the PU hub to a Li-Poly battery box as with PF, and I really don't see them offering a "dumb hub" with just an on/off switch like they have with just about every previous motor system. We can see the same mentality behind the recent "upgrades" at Bricklink. A new generation that grew up with smart devices surgically attached to their hands are firmly convinced that everything should be designed around those same devices.
They've been releasing sets with the ability to add Power Functions but not including any since 2008, and now that they've switched over to a different power system it makes perfect sense to me to keep doing the same thing. The problems with the new power system (and I have many) are entirely a different matter, but I'd rather this set be $249 and work perfectly well manually than $349 to motorize two functions with a smartphone... I know there is more that can be done with Powered Up but for just turning a couple of cranks, I don't see why you couldn't use Power Functions to accomplish the same thing
@Huw said:
"Agreed -- It would have been an ideal time to launch a PU battery box. The system is crying out for one."
Please upgrade the site to allow a single user to give a post multiple likes in instances where it's clearly called for :D
I don't like thes new powered up mobile app functions. Everything in our world is electronics and kids especially are living in a world of this. Lego has lasted the test of time as traditional play toy while capturing the ever increasing adult market and those wanting to recapture their childhood memories. These new 900 pc sets like the Technic 4x4 for 299.99 CND are far overpriced. If kids really wanted a RC car, then there are much better options for less.
@PurpleDave said:
"Part of why the Vestas came with a motor included is so you could use the wind turbine to actually generate power. And kill birds. Lots of tiny little birds."
Ha ha, it's hilarious that the LEGO turbine does exactly the opposite of a real wind turbine!
(Let's hope the second statement was in jest too; wind turbines are not a major contributor to bird deaths. I could not, however, find any data for LEGO wind turbine models and their effect on tiny little birds.)
The LEGO page for the set:
https://www.lego.com/en-gb/product/haunted-house-10273
has a video showing the motors connected. As @Anio said above, there is a motor connected to the right (presumably to drive the chain), and another connected to the lever on the front.
In the designer video you can see a clutch mechanism behind that lever, so it must disengage the drive before the car reaches the top. Maybe it's to make a ride like Tower of Terror - where it drops from various heights, not always the top?
@NickF22 said:
"The LEGO page for the set:
https://www.lego.com/en-gb/product/haunted-house-10273
has a video showing the motors connected. As @Anio said above, there is a motor connected to the right (presumably to drive the chain), and another connected to the lever on the front.
In the designer video you can see a clutch mechanism behind that lever, so it must disengage the drive before the car reaches the top. Maybe it's to make a ride like Tower of Terror - where it drops from various heights, not always the top?"
Good catch... that video is really helpful for investigating this. Hilariously, though, at the relevant section the caption is "Upgrade with LEGO Power Functions to control it"!
Some lighting functions with flickering lights would look really good on this set.
That's something the hub would be capable of.
I've never really dabbled in motorizing my LEGO, despite wanting to, because of the price. You're telling me the new system is four times as expensive as the old one!? Crying shame!
However, I don't know if upgrading to the new motors for this would be necessary. The build seems to be controlled by just one or two cranks, some sort of simple rotation should do nicely.
@DearMisterLegoBreaker said:
" @Brainslugged said:
"I bought a spare app-controlled Batmobile at a massive discount. Thought I'd sell it on at some point, but I guess it makes more sense to just open it and use the PF parts for this."
Did that exact same thing. "
Yes, me too... Bought a couple in fact!
@bananaworld:
But it works both ways! If you turn the blades by hand, the motor will generate electric current.
@GSR_MataNui:
PF had three battery boxes. One fit 6x AA, and another fit 6x AAA, with both having just a simple 3-position power switch. The third was a Li-Poly rechargeable box, which also required purchase of a charging cord. There was an optional IR receiver that worked with two different controllers. So, truthfully, if you wanted the same functionality as PU, it could actually cost you _more_. PU has the receiver built into the battery box, which uses Bluetooth instead of IR. So, there's no cheap battery box, there's no simple on/off switch (you either need the dedicated controller, or a smart device that's compatible with the app). And Bluetooth probably uses more expensive components than IR.
The motorisation could be done with 2x PF M-motors, 2x PF switches and any of the PF battery boxes. For the gear shift function, the motor operates like a solenoid; only 2 states are required, engaged and disengaged. To that extent the expensive PU parts is a retrograde step, but if you have the app already to try to make it "scary" then the electrical parts are a smaller outlay than the phone or tablet.
I have 4 disappointments with PU over PF:
1) The lack of modularity between the power source and the control device. PF had the IR receiver and switch as control options, with 3 battery boxes including the LiPo option. PU forces the integration of battery and control hub, and at greater cost. Cannot connect 2 control hubs to 1 power source; this limits the power-to-weight ratio of models.
2) The lack of connector splitting that enables multiple actuator devices to be controlled from one control port. This would be possible with a 6-way connector but PU is point-to-point even for simple devices. It makes the light brick uneconomical in multiple; 100 white LED Christmas lights are a lot cheaper for a layout.
3) The current lack of LiPo battery for both the 2-port and 4-port PU hubs. This is holding up further purchases of PU for me; I cannot invest further until the power solution is sustainable for exhibitions, for both Trains and Technic models.
4) The compulsory use of a phone or pad for all but the Trains. I bought PU trains first because they have a remote handset and I didn't have a smart phone at the time. Now we find that the train handset cannot control a Technic hub without a phone (or 3rd party PC software) connecting them; even more so 2x handsets to control all 4 ports. The remote handset can turn the dials to control a car, yet the Top Gear car cannot use that function. It ought to have come with a handset.
This compares with the PF solution to 42100, 1 handset with switchable channels.
What I wanted for the development from PF was a Bluetooth device in the IR Receiver box. I would have been happy with the same plug system. I can see why these things could not happen.
1) With the 7-motor excavator 42100, it would have used 4 receivers. The fan-out of Bluetooth might have been thought insufficient at the time the development decision was taken. Any limit below 4, at least 2 years before the train set release, would have been a significant risk to the PU product line and a safe decision had to be made.
2) The aim was to unify the system as a 6-wire system, including sensors and intelligent motors. A 2x3 plug would not have gone down well; I just wish they had included a stackability feature but it might have confused a few people if used in the wrong places.
3) LiPo development for PU may be held up by world events, assuming it is still planned.
4) The phone or pad was always the trend. I was happy to try it but control is not as precise as with a remote handset. The philosophy puts more emphasis on software and chunky ready-made hardware, with less on why the hardware works. Back in the day I used to do computer control of LEGO with my own circuits; that was OK right through 4.5V, 12V, 9V, RCX, NXT and PF. We risk fans reaching adulthood with no learning of the electrical aspects of LEGO.
Powered-Up has multiple retrograde steps. It powers-down the education of tomorrow's engineers.
@Mark_Bellis:
Was there ever a stated plan to make a Li-Poly PU pack?