I become accustomed to absence of steering by steering wheel in big sets but I really want to know why designers ignore 4X4 in most technic medium offroaders from past few years.This is for me as fan of offroaders mostly reason why I ignore set if doesnt have any other interesting functions.Everytime when I see mod came first with 4X4 .

Maybe reasons are to make set easier to kids or reduce piece count.

There I made list starting from last big offroader 8466.Criterias are must have engine and real life look a like have 4X4.I ignore buggies.

8297 Extreme offroader 2-Great set with interesting functions and PF components.But why is 4X4 absent is for me mystery, maybe it is because in chassis isnt room for true 4X4 because in center is gearbox and they dont eant make set bigger.

8081 -Extreme cruiser-Why is called extreme without 4X4 is another mystery.Based on mods there is room for full 4X4.This set have potential to introduce this kind of drivetrain to kids in great accesibility.

42029 -Customised pick up-This set is great part donor and probably fun to kids but, this pickup is mostly based on http://en.wikipedia....dge_Power_Wagon and yes this real life truck have 4X4.

42037 -Formula offroader.This is interesting set. but every formula offroad have 4X4 as standart .So from my side i going to pass this set....

For other side there is Unimog, but price to see 4X4 working is high.

Thanks for reading .

Please remove this topic, I dont know why is duplicated.

worse still is when they claim its a 4x4 when referring to looks only not function (8435 for example)

Edited December 17, 201410 yr by Rockbrick

It 'appears' the majority of purchases are made based on the 'looks' of the set, and not the functionality/intricacies. For a MOCer, it's always a challenge if he/she can improve upon's the original set. I see most recent cars as just starting points. This is especially true since most original sets are rather 'hollow' and have lots of room for upgraded/functionality. In contrast, MOCs such as D3K's SwingLoader are so compact/dense, that it's almost impossible to add anything. In other words, TLG is very skilled at making large sets with fewer parts, just my opinion of course, and by doing so, they provide us with room for added functionality. While many (on here and else) still buy a set for its 'intended' purpose, for many it's just a starting point to build upon, isn't that what Lego is really about?

Edited December 17, 201410 yr by DrJB

Remember the focus of TLG. They are not engineers, but designers of a toy, and their main purpose is to sell toys. We pooh pooh TLG sometimes for not meeting our rigorous standards, but remember there is a plus to a system that is only concerned about one thing, and that is selling sets. With selling sets comes the creation of literally billions of elements, the whole reason we are allowed to have a forum and community like this. Don't hate the beast people.....without market forces, business-type models, etc.... we would not have billions of elements to build with. Making things motorized, 4x4, look better, drive better, more functional, etc.. that is our job, not TLG's.

For other side there is Unimog, but price to see 4X4 working is high.

TLG have the skills to design 4x4 drive train but it adds costs to the model. Just like buying the 2WD versus 4WD version of a pickup truck. I guess their market research may indicate price points customers are willing to pay for certain sets and they design them to that.

There's that saying, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

I don't agree with this common "targetted at children" and "main purpose to sell" argument in AFOL discussions used all the time for every decisions TLG makes. A 4WD is quite far from "rigorous standards" or advanced mechanics or even being too expensive to include (or not more expensive than a slightly bigger appeal couldn't compensate). Even 8265 had 4wd (okay, no central diff). I guess there is some other reason, the very poor steering ability of the CV-joint seems to be a pretty good candidate. And I can't see TLG ever making custom-built hubs again. And (very rightfully) the most important feature of Lego sets is playability.

The CV-joint issue seems to be a good candidate, because 8265 has articulated steering (no CV issue) and the Unimog used portal hubs (which are designed to house U-joints), and was a pretty big set.

Maybe we get to see 4x4 models again if TLG introduces a better ball joint system (something like 8880 had)

Edited December 17, 201410 yr by Lipko

We had a former Lego employee on this forum who once stated that he was 'forced' to use the round 1x1 tile in place of the square 1x1 tile, for cost reasons. When, you think about it, every bit of plastic you can save helps your bottom line. Granted, not all decisions are based on cost, but cost is ALWAYS a major attribute. TLG is in the business of making money, like every other successful corporation out there. Sometimes we 'seem' to complain about cost, but we're only stating the most 'obvious'. That said, I can give multiple examples where parts were re-designed to save some plastic e.g., the 4L/3L cardan for starters.

The rock crawler vs. 41999 is an exception as both sets had the same MSRP, and yet the parts assortment (and PF) was very different between the two.

Edited December 17, 201410 yr by DrJB

I think it is mostly to save the extra costs in parts to drive both axles. Also, it frees up space in the front, to make for an easier inclusion of a potential engine. I think for TLG in these mid-to-large-scale cars - concidering the target audience - the most important thing is to just have a differential driving a fake motor in the front.

I don't agree with this common "targetted at children" and "main purpose to sell" argument in AFOL discussions used all the time for every decisions TLG makes. A 4WD is quite far from "rigorous standards" or advanced mechanics or even being too expensive to include (or not more expensive than a slightly bigger appeal couldn't compensate). Even 8265 had 4wd (okay, no central diff). I guess there is some other reason, the very poor steering ability of the CV-joint seems to be a pretty good candidate. And I can't see TLG ever making custom-built hubs again. And (very rightfully) the most important feature of Lego sets is playability.

The CV-joint issue seems to be a good candidate, because 8265 has articulated steering (no CV issue) and the Unimog used portal hubs (which are designed to house U-joints), and was a pretty big set.

Maybe we get to see 4x4 models again if TLG introduces a better ball joint system (something like 8880 had)

I never said "targeted at children" and if you don't agree that TLG's main purpose is to sell then that is fine, but you are missing the boat. It definitely is and whether you agree or not doesn't make it so. This sounds meaner than it really is. The fact that TLGs main purpose is to turn a profit is not even an opinion or judgement, it is a fact. This may sound arrogant, but I assure you it is not. Let me make a point: when a business survives, especially on an international scale... then objectively speaking, the mere fact of their existence is to make money. Now you may argue, no... the main purpose of their existence is to build a great product.... and making money is a byproduct of that. However, this is wrong. To survive one must adjust a product to meet market demands, to not do so means extinction. Whether it be children or adults it does not matter, TLG group has a market and they are meeting that market, and like stated in the post by DrJB, costs are certainly cut to save money. Little nuances here and there add up.

But alas.... this sounds all bad and Lord-Business-like... but I assure you again that it is not. I am glad that TLG is in it for the dough because it creates tons and tons of demand. With tons and tons of demand comes billions of bricks. Again folks, we would not have a forum like this w/o the shere quantity of bricks TLG group has made over the years. The shere number of bricks allows things to morph and evolve into something greater (which is exactly what I think is resembled in all the combined building power of those on the forum).

There's that saying, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

I hate this argument.Lego isnt cheap, for my money Im expecting maximum of functions packed in set.4X4 in offroad is one of them...

Interesting, that studded sets have interesting functions that are now abandoned.For example 8880- Steering, gear shifting, 4X4-All wheels steering.If I compare 8880 to 2015 Le mans, I must say that lemans set is a bad joke.

I never said "targeted at children" and if you don't agree that TLG's main purpose is to sell then that is fine, but you are missing the boat.

You misunderstand me. I said I don't agree with using this as an argument for every TLG decision. That's all. No need to say it's TLG's main purpose, because that's obvious.

I actually think the reason is that nobody (Read: stupid kids) cares about whether or not the model is 4 wheel drive or not. They only care if the engine moves when they push the truck around. I really don't think that that is a demographic worth pursuing with Technic, but nobody at Lego shares that opinion. For a similar reason, that's why we don't see geared steering wheels, or proper dually wheels on trucks anymore. What makes this even worse is that one of the key components of Technic is Authenticity. Are they just going to admit that that's a crock, or what?

Also, nowadays I think too much money in the set budget is being spent on bodywork. That's why I like some of the earlier studless models better, becasue they were more stylized, but still represented the functions and looks well.

You misunderstand me. I said I don't agree with using this as an argument for every TLG decision. That's all. No need to say it's TLG's main purpose, because that's obvious.

Okay... makes sense.

Adding 4x4 to a 2x4 is one of my favorite modifications. I'll keep the 2x4 to save some cost.

I actually think the reason is that nobody (Read: stupid kids) cares about whether or not the model is 4 wheel drive or not. They only care if the engine moves when they push the truck around. I really don't think that that is a demographic worth pursuing with Technic, but nobody at Lego shares that opinion. For a similar reason, that's why we don't see geared steering wheels, or proper dually wheels on trucks anymore. What makes this even worse is that one of the key components of Technic is Authenticity. Are they just going to admit that that's a crock, or what?

Also, nowadays I think too much money in the set budget is being spent on bodywork. That's why I like some of the earlier studless models better, becasue they were more stylized, but still represented the functions and looks well.

Yup... I agree.. Also, I think that we want to think of ourselves as the demographic when in reality it is still like those described in this post. Kids who like moving engines, opening hoods, etc...

So kids use sofisticated and in such way tricky things as computers, mobiles, tablets but when they want to play with technic they rather choose stupid and easy functions?

This generation is ....

I'm not sure such this generation is (insert whatever you had in mind) ...

Truth of the matter is many AFOLs grew up with a more developed 'mechanical' aptitude. I learned about differentials and gears BEFORE I started playing with Lego. In fact, Lego was the avenue for me to replicate some mechanisms I had leaned in school. So, it is normal that AFOLs are more drawn to mechanical functions whereas the younger/newer, it's all about iPads and minecraft. Are they missing a lot? Not sure, but some of the new technology does not interest me at times too, ... To each his own, and you can't compare generations.

Edited December 17, 201410 yr by DrJB

So kids use sofisticated and in such way tricky things as computers, mobiles, tablets but when they want to play with technic they rather choose stupid and easy functions?

This generation is ....

Well, Kids don't buy Lego and tablets. Their parents do. So maybe the issue is with our very own generation... The processes on a market where it is not the target audiance that's buying the product may be not that trivial. Maybe our generation become more ignorant, we don't spend time to carefully chose the models (or toys in general) we buy for our kids, we buy what looks good. Many adults, even some AFOLs go for the looks and fascinated by the size of a model more than anything else. Maybe we became lowly, not our kids.

Edited December 17, 201410 yr by Lipko

I agree with what others said... Today's kids just dont give a flying **** about that... And for TLG adding FWD is additional cost with no real functions (externally). Almost all of kids who see my stuff I build are like WHERE U BUY DAT MODEL. When I say I built it myself they are like WHER U GT INSTRUCTONZ? And when I reply there are none, I build everything from my head they look in disbelief. I even had some claiming I am lying and that there are instructions, etc... Its sad, kids today can be so smart yet so stupid at once. They know how to google and fix every program, but cant tie their own shoes.

Edited December 17, 201410 yr by Zblj

This post has taken an interesting turn .... started by lamenting sparse functions in 4x4 Technic sets and now we are comaring generations...

This post has taken an interesting turn .... started by lamenting sparse functions in 4x4 Technic sets and now we are comparing generations...

I don't think anyone saw that twist coming

Sorry for spamming, but the debate turned that way - it seems clearly childern are educated (in schools, by TV, adverisments, etc.) to become lazy (stupid) consumers - this type of behavior is expected from tomorrow's citizens of our civilization of "blind" sheepish followers ... this situation is more complex than I can imagine, and it is sadly, that toys like LEGO, that are primarily made to increase childern's imagination and problem-solving skills, is going this way too. Another aspect is our - AFOL's point of view, when we see outstanding models on the net (or at some different, more realistic places), and compare the official sets, that are designed in that strange way, to fulfill all society's needs... It is strange world we live in, or we all are strange, it is relative :D

I think every generation has its technical and non-technical people. Some people are meant to be engineers and others aren't as my engineering professor used to say to those repeating the 101 class.

From the examples: $100USD or less sets such as 8081 or 42029 don't have 4x4 but $200USD sets such as 8110 set does. The 8081/42029 are designed for ages 9/10 to 16. The 8110 is designed for ages 11 to 16. Is having a 4x4 drive train too complex for 9 and 10 years-old? Or parents aren't willing to pay more for the additional parts to get 4x4?

*yoink*

Is having a 4x4 drive train too complex for 9 and 10 years-old? Or parents aren't willing to pay more for the additional parts to get 4x4?

I'm more inclined to believe the latter. I put 8466 together when I was 8 or 9, so the ability is not the issue. If kids can't handle something like that, then Technic isn't for them, and it should be a simple as that. I think all to many people of this and the previous generation suck, for a number of reasons, and this is just one of many symptoms. Another is reality TV

I think we're all blowing this way out of proportion. Of all the technic sets that have ever been released only a handful have had 4WD drivetrain. And they weren't all bunched up together in one era either. I think 4WD and gearboxes have always been novelty features even in large scale technic models.

In fact IFS and IRS used to be one of these features as well but we're seeing it way more frequently now.