Looking on Technicopedia, i saw the evolution from older to newer sets and looking at todays sets, i came to a contradicting conclusion.

The old (as in 1978 onward) sets had much much less parts to do stuff with, and they looked pretty crummy. But the way they made movements happen was so much more fascinating. Physics wise (or mechanics wise?) you can learn a lot from those old sets. Some of the mechanical movements, i can’t even wrap my head around them. The steering stick thing in that big yellow plane is amazing, it’s so simple when you look at it. That one set where an arm grabs a brick and sorts it (8094), it uses this mechanical trick to do a certain function with the same gears as the other function, it made me go how? HOW? Fascinating. That 856 bulldozer used totally unrealistic mechanics to lift the bucket but it's so clever. A lot of those sets were not realistic at all (to their real-life counterpart), both looks and mechanics, but the ‘replacement’ mechanics they used were just clever. The universal sets were also great for showing what you can do with limited part count. They even had early models that didn't really work, but the mechanics behind it are interesting anyway so why not? And then there’s that crane truck and the supercar and that space shuttle.

Now, the modern sets are really something, big, pretty, complex and huge part count. I can't believe people still complain! Those gearboxes! But i can’t help feeling like they are not as ‘clever’ or inventive anymore. They use all sorts of specialized parts to make stuff happen, much of it kinda similar to real life or trying to emulate it (actuators etc.) Most sets have a gearbox, that differential thingy and suspension with fancy suspension parts. Steering with fancy steering parts. Fake engine. Big, BIG. There’s a part for everything and a lot of parts are only used for it’s one intended purpose (part of steering, suspension, etc). The smaller modern sets seem to be more inclined to have all sorts of ‘uses’ for different parts, instead of using them for the obvious, because of limited parts. But most sets (not all!) are relatively uninspired when it comes to part use compared to those old sets (except some mods where the inventors seem to have an unearthly ability to use parts in new ways). Not to mention the recycling of the same crane, towtruck, 4x4, instead of going for the more exotic vehicles out there. There's plenty of machinery out there to legofy. I just don't see your everyday kid implement a function as complex as a gearbox it its moc, and understanding it too, instead of just copying it from the instructions. As opposed to the older sets with 'simpler' solutions.

I guess the reason is that they shifted from 'initiation to mechanics and physics and invitation to creating your own things' to 'playability, looks and stick to the instruction book'? If you see what they could do with the small parts available in the 80's sets, imagine what you can do with the huge amount of parts available today?

It shows in mods too. Technic mocs i see are usually rc, cars, crawlers, trucks, with all the shebangs that the official sets have, or improvements on existing sets. While pretty amazing, a lot of these mocs are kinda the same without much innovation. If you look on rebrickable: the box that keeps flicking the switch back, the braiding machine, the computer thingy, the elevator to space and the multiple c-models of 42020, i thought these examples stand out from a grey sea of mocs (when it comes to ideas, NO DISRESPECT INTENDED). Also the small mocs with multiple functions are technic wonders (as in: genuinemodels compact excavator).

Conclusion and tldr; OLD SETS ugly, small parts pool, unrealistic mechanics but extremely 'clever' parts use, NEW SETS better looks, big parts pool, realistic looking mechanics, complex but not so 'clever' part use. Both old and new are better and worse than eachother.

Would you prefer the 'old' way of ideas vs the 'newer' way of playability and semi-realism?

Is anyone still interested in those clever mechanics of old, or is the whole moc scene flooded with rc crawlers and slick vehicles?

What are your views on old vs new set design, part use and innovation?

Is this all an illusion because of my limited knowledge of physics and mechanics (that i don't see the cleverness of the newer models cause it goes way over my head)?

Both.

I don't know. It seems every new wave of sets that come out, they are designed rather cleverly. This new studless style demands it.

I prefer the new stuff. and if you look at MOCs like Sheepo's or Nicjasno's models for example, you can see that instead of putting innovation to the old, now boring things (differential, manual gearbox, whatever), the innovation moved further, like sequential gearboxes, very realistic suspensions etc., which were nearly impossible (or very untidy/unreliable) with the old generic pieces.

Okay, most folks don't innovate that much, but I, for one, look at Lego more as a form of Art and as a toy, than as a mechanical demonstration/experimentation tool.

Edited February 25, 201510 yr by Lipko

I have to disagree, the new parts as just as useful for creativity and interesting solutions. My 7 yr old kid took 42026, black champion racer, and 42027, desert racer, both pull back, and has managed to make - a train with both pull-back motors - one on each axle, a derrick with lifting winch, a front-end loader thingy with gears to lift the loader, and something like a clock, all with just with the parts of these two sets.

I have to disagree. Currently there a some MOCs Out there which are designed very clever even often being such "normal" stuff like cars, trucks etc. One example: Take a look at the articulated hauler of Designer Han. The rear boogie suspension is truly ingeniously designed: with only standard parts and no specialized stuff. This model combines outstanding looks with very clever mechanics. A modern masterpiece. Strongly recommended to each technic lover!

I prefer the new stuff. and if you look at MOCs like Sheepo's or Nicjasno's models for example, you can see that instead of putting innovation to the old, now boring things (differential, manual gearbox, whatever), the innovation moved further, like sequential gearboxes, very realistic suspensions etc., which were nearly impossible (or very untidy/unreliable) with the old generic pieces.

Okay, most folks don't innovate that much, but I, for one, look at Lego more as a form of Art and as a toy, than as a mechanical demonstration/experimentation tool.

I totally agree with that. The new style Technic brought me out of the dark ages - I was fascinated by the 8043 excavator which took me more than 1 day to assemble and the range of parts and the vast possibilities surprised me and since then were overtaking my mind. And every day you can discover new things - new ideas follow by themselves. You can get so much more realistic, artistic and inventive with that. This is the main reason that I don´t finish quickly - there es an even better way to make something work better and look better.... The official flagship models are beeing different by different designers and you cannot even compare them with each other and less judge them by comparing with those 10 years earlier. If you ask me (maybe many will agree) - the Technic system as it is doesn´t need more parts to be invented - only improve the cracking ones.

For me, I was always amazed at the Lift and dump mechanism on the 8848 Power Truck (1st Generation Unimog)

I'm not sure how I made it work, even following the instructions!

Well i see how the lack of simplicity in the modern studless sets appeal to adult moc builders (I mean simplicity in parts use). But IMO that's a slight disadvantage that the modern sets have on the old sets (and it's linked 100% with studless building), ONLY because i have no talent for building studless.

Look at this page from the air tech claw rig: i have a pretty good idea of what's going on, why the parts are where they are, and what's coming next. Every gear and beam sticking out has a function that's about to show up in a few pages, it's so simple. I can probably build some variation on this in a moc because the basics are pretty clear, even if i don't have a lego technic bone in my body. Most sets use the same techniques and even if they do something clever, the 'limits' of the studded brick make it easier to grasp. Every part can be categorized in a certain 'group' with a certain function.

Now look at this page from the mini dual rotor helicopter. Looking at this, i see a mishmash of parts and i honestly say i have no idea what's going on. There's parts everywhere in every direction and they're all beams with holes in em. Up to this point, this told me nothing but 'put this part there'. I do blame my lack of talent in studless building (or old age haha), but even the small sets don't naturally give away the basics of studless building (is that even possible?). I feel like it tells you that anything is possible with the hundreds of modern parts, but you'll have to figure out yourself HOW.

And i looked at the suspension of that articulated hauler and it made me dizzy. How do these people come up with that?

Not that difficult. Justrequires a different kind of thinking i guess. More 3d like, less layered.

Not that difficult. Justrequires a different kind of thinking i guess. More 3d like, less layered.

i agree - but its not only the 3d, it also a little bit like playing chess - with studdless you have always think and plan 3 to 5 steps ahead, probably even more... i agree with swintendo that studless building is completely different from oldschool lego building - i have a lot of experience in lego technic building (build more or less all sets and also a lot of outstanding MOCs out there) and i'am able to modify existing designs to my needs (adding another feature etc, adding RC etc.)...but i have to admit that i would be completely unable to design something like Hans Hauler or Nat Kuipers Concept car (both are only examples, there are of course other similar talented builders out there) FROM scratch - both designs of these two examples are breathing pure elegance and ingenouity and simplicity in its best manner - i can only take my hat for such builders and i'm convinced that studless building at THIS level can not be learned by everyone - this needs a certain engineer thinking, 3d-imagination (and probably also some wizardry ;-))

back to topic: if you take a deep look at the best studdless designs out there then you will see that is a lot of clever usage of existing parts and simplicity in its best manner: a design is not perfect when you can still add something it is really perfect when you can't remove anything from it - and everyone who wants to verify this should take a look at these two examples i mentioned above (i'm sure there are way more but currently these are my favorits concerning elegance of design)

Swintendo - the two images you presented do not make your case - the air tech claw rig build at step 15 is well along in the process, and it is easy to see steering, diffs, turntables, etc. and determine their function. In step 15, in modern studless building instructions, you are just getting started in the build, what you show in the second image is merely the foundation for the functional components. This page is far more along in the process, and it is easy to see the functions to come, albeit 42020 is a much simpler set.

Here is step 15 from everyone's favorite recent large set - no clue what is going on here, but I can see a non-powered diff, two axles with ball joints, meaning there will be a suspension of some type, and a motor for other functions.

But look much further along in the build, clearly you can tell what the set is and what the functions are, at least to the experienced builder

I think we are talking apples and oranges here, and whether you like old studded technic, modern studless technic, or some combination (Model Team), it is a matter of personal taste, willingness to learn, and abilities. I don't really see the difference in complexity between old and new, other than the introduction of "specialized" parts in newer sets. If we never got modern studless building methods, like in 8110, we wouldn't have portal axles, power ball joints, etc... Without 9398, no servo or L motors, etc... Without 43043, no improved pneumatics and who knows what other treasures lie within. Also, witness the large variety of builds from the last several contests - insects, forklifts, airplanes, crawlers and climbers of all types, enabled with both studded and studless parts basic and specialized.

I don't think Technic is getting any simpler, if anything, having increasingly more and more parts and options, studded and studless, to build with, leads to so many choices that enables both simplicity as well as increasing complexity of official sets, MODs, and MOCs. Bottom line - its a toy, have fun with it! Build what you can, use specialized parts to make it simple, or use basic parts and build your own complex components.

Edited February 26, 201510 yr by JGW3000

... a design is not perfect when you can still add something it is really perfect when you can't remove anything from it ...

I've seen this somewhere else (it's not yours ). Do you know who the original author is?

of course it's not mine - it is very famous sentence: (in german): "Perfektion ist nicht dann erreicht, wenn es nichts mehr hinzuzufügen gibt, sondern wenn man nichts mehr weglassen kann." - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Terre des Hommes, III: L'Avion, p. 60 (1939)

In english: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left over"

Edited February 26, 201510 yr by Kumbbl

Thank you... this has been a 'slow' morning

i agree - but its not only the 3d, it also a little bit like playing chess - with studdless you have always think and plan 3 to 5 steps ahead, probably even more...

Well put. And if you make a simple mistake in the beginning, it can cost you in the end.

big quote

I see where i got my thoughts mixed up: when you follow the instructions, it all looks confusing cause you're not really following a design process, just a step by step instruction. When you're building a set from scratch yourself, you're much more aware of every parts` function. If you build it for yourself and discover everything for yourself, that's when you learn with studless design. So it's like nicjasno said, different thinking.

(though one complexity thing i do stick to, is that you seem to need way more parts to do anything in studless )

Studded tech bricks have 3 dimensional building ability.

Vertically, stack them and place plates between each 2 brick. And you can stack them orthogonally.

Parallel, connect side by side using pins

Extend, using plate/brick braced on the top and bottom.

But in studless, Parallel is the only option. Other connections must use connectors, or additional beams. Proper use of connectors is very important and challenge, with considering hole location, structure sturdiness, and simplicity.

ps. I love studded more than studless :-)

I agree that many of today's sets do lack simplexity.

In Lego, I would define simplexity as the ability to deconstruct a complex design and to reorganize it into simpler process. As every set is first designed for kids, simplexity is a key concept that every models has to have, from the City line to the the Technic line.

Kuipers models are IMO the best example of what simplexity is in Technic. Look at concept car NK01 chassis. It does seems so simple, but it was very hard to come up with such a simplified model. Very few AFOL do have the skills to design things like this.

Simplexity also lies in the look, where it is important to captures the key line of the model, and to reproduce them with few parts. 8674 is a good example.

Modular design is generally a very good clue of simplexity. I try to achieve this on my MOCs, and I have to say that this method works damn good. But it does require good planning.

I think that many of the recent Technic do fail to that purpose, and do try to "compensate" with very heavy setups to impress.

42008 is obviously the best example. It is so poorly structured... 8295 is not better. 8110 is not so good either. It makes the model difficult to "read/decrypt" for a newbie.

I am afraid that 42043 will be the same : 1 switch (battery box, or actual PF switch), 1 lever to choose between pneumatical and mechanical functions, 1 lever to choose tipper or outriggers, maybe another one for the turntable, and 4 pneumatic switches... ouch ! This model will very probably be a pain to play with.

Only motorizing the compressor (arm and tipper ; no LA), and making other functions manual would have make the model so simplexer... Never forget that complexity is not a goal in itself.

Saint Exupery's quote is of course a very good wording of what simplexity is. I made this quote my motto for a while now. =)

I think some of the issue is building inside out vs bottom to top. I mean who builds a car starting with the gearbox, then adding the chassis. It may not look straightforward to begin with, but is ultimately just as good. The tradeoff is that you get to build more realistic and complex mechanisms. And while it is comparatively easy in this Internet age to find mechanisms to copy, there are a lot of guys pushing the boundaries to build more realistic and complicated. Newer parts help with that. But we stand on the shoulders of those who came before.

I mean who builds a car starting with the gearbox, then adding the chassis.

Every new car model that I design starts with a new concept or idea for a gearbox and then spreads from there... I would imagine that it would be really difficult to built a car chassis first and then try and fit in some new gearbox into it..

I grew up with sets like 8857, 8030, 8020, 8040 and 8843. They were awesome sets for me at the time. But looking back at them i remember always wanting to do more and being limited by the parts. I came back to Technic LEGO by buying 8043. It blew my mind, it was complex, clever and inspiring. So many new parts and possibilities. These days when i think of a new idea, the parts are there to build it. In my mind Technic LEGO has changed a lot: new parts, building techniques and complexity. They give LEGO enthusiasts the tools to build really awesome things, much more so than in the 80's. However I do agree that they could do with a little more variety and originality in the sets they produce. A lot of the sets we see these days are rehashes of the same themes. It would be cool if they could break some new ground there too. Then again I do understand that there are some good reasons why they might not want to do that. All in all I am pretty happy that I grew up with Technic LEGO and I am still enjoying it greatly.

Edited February 28, 201510 yr by Kelkschiz

I always start with the front suspension/engine bay, since it has to fit a pneumatic V8 :)

Edited February 28, 201510 yr by nicjasno

I'm still a fan of the earlies. I recall when i got 8020, not building the little van or range rover lookin thing, but regearing the crap out of the windmill with a borrowed 24 tooth gear to 27:1 and needing to spin the propeller blade by hand in order to get the geartrain turning enough to handle the torque required. Then adding a second steering kingpin back onto the original power input shaft to do same before laying into the third gearset overdrive i added to get that initial breakaway result instead.

And the joy of 8841 having a piston (even if i MUCH later learned it was just a revision of 854) that i could with a 40 toother alter the stroke and feet per minute mean piston speed with higher gearing to the point where it "threw a rod".

Sure they looked crude, but it was never really about the styling back then (if you wanted frippery there was the model team stuff). I got 5510 one year for christmas and though it looked nice, it was boring as batshit. I fitted a pair of pins and a six hole belt/steering wheel to two of those big pretty white wheels to allow them to transmit drive to a crownwheel and built something else entirely instead. I may now older and better equipped for parts and sets locate all its pieces one of these days and rebuild it to appreciate it for what it was but back as a kid it was more limiting than it was inspiring.

I always wanted 8860, everything about it was cool and out in the open on display.

Turning it upside down is in fact pretty plain (slight better look at the diff but thats about it) as all the workings are right there to see from the top. I am glad i picked up 8880 but it feels less "pure" and though the body is crude, it was there. I'll get hold of 8865 (beginning of the end. Still plenty of function, but form was getting its toehold) as i look forward to owning the better gearbox and its now to my jaded older eyes a classic in its own right, but i loved things unshrouded and am toying with rebuilding it and 8880 as an open chassis with a few vertical beams here and there to keep whatever (mild at best) structural rigidity that that depletes.

I hope 8110 is going to be the marvel i read about but though its packed with features, its not exactly breaking massive new ground to my mind. Lots of nifty subsystems quite neatly packaged into a though compact massive model made possible by new part designs and some very neat assembling tech. Insofar as as the shape of it, i am impressed and by perusing the features and instructions online theres a pretty good argument for its existence. But theres a bloody great big (even if again its compact. Never owned or really wanted 870 but its "add on" asect appealed to me, without it you just had a wheel on a shaft to turn to negate any need for it) electric motor and battery and compressor and sychros to have it do its thing that are covered by a tray body and its direct non ratio alterable drive to the crank in spite of a centre diff and a dummy steering wheel in the cab of as little consequence as a steering wheel in a lego town set when cars were 4 studs wide, the windscreen wipers on 5510, or arguably even the very cool to me still seating on 8860. I've no doubt i'll love it and be in awe, but the purity is gone.

Technic has let me learn many basics that i've carried into the generally less adaptable to purpose (don't like the internal ratios of your VW Beetles gearbox? Lets see you substitute a pair of 16's for a 24 and an 8 without removing the entire drivetrain and either hunting down a gearset from an alternate model or having a new main and layshaft forged, splined, tooth cut, machined and hardened) world of full scale motorcycles and cars that i let take over from it for which i'm forever grateful. But as it evolved up, and i grew on, i find i can easier and more affordably buy a project bike (i recently picked up a free 1976 yamaha TY175 trials bike in basket case form off a friend and had it rideable from a stripped engine in a bucket for 28 dollars in parts, and hours of fulfilling free to self labour) or old car to restore than the $350 that 8110 has cost and isn't yet delivered.

And sadly, my fingers ain't as small for fiddly things as they once were ;)

Kuipers models are IMO the best example of what simplexity is in Technic. Look at concept car NK01 chassis. It does seems so simple, but it was very hard to come up with such a simplified model. Very few AFOL do have the skills to design things like this.

Simplexity also lies in the look, where it is important to captures the key line of the model, and to reproduce them with few parts. 8674 is a good example.

indeed - just could get one in veryvery good condition (BTW with box etc for just 37€) andf have built it today with my son... as always with Nates models a pure pleasure and enjoyment to build the moduls and see how some parts just fall into each other after certain steps of modul-"preparation"... in addition this model is real masterpiece in panelling - incredible astethic curves and lines just with a few panels of different sizes and some soft axles...

I also own the predecessors 8458 and 8461 - both from the studded area combined with some liftarms and panels - and i have to state, that these models (especially the blue-white 8461) are also very nice and cute but Nates ferrari is a much much better design concerning simplicity, elegance and modul-usage - BTW: the front suspension works much better and is by far the best of all Lego F1-racers...

Anybody who wants to see a studless design where each(!) part has a function and no parts are superfluous and the whole model breathes simplicity and elegance should build this Ferrari F1 8674...

to make a long story short: i fully agree with you Anio