Perhaps "clean" is not the best way to put it but I like the comparison. What I am talking about is MOC supercars that don't have PF motors etc.

There have been a lot of great MOCs put out there lately, impossible to list everyone's, but perhaps some that are popular are @brunojj1's M1 and recent

Laferrari hypercar, Madoca's ICARUS Supercar, the Koenigsegg one:1 by Pvdb. Many like to reproduce them. I have not built many MOCs by others, I mostly like to do my own

stuff, but I have done Paul Boratko's Vampire GT and Sheepo's Mustang. These were both great builds and it was fun to learn some of the techniques

used by some of the more popular builders. In fact this post was inspired by my latest desire to take a break from MOCing (after I wrap up all current

projects) and build the four cars listed above.

However, aside from the challenges of building MOCs with PF functions, I don't see the point of adding motors etc. The drivetrain, gearbox, etc.

everything else - YES! But motors I struggle with. I play with RC quite a bit and I will therefore never drive a Lego car/truck/crawler for the

fun of it. Never. LEGO PF cars, compared to driving RC it is like being given your favorite supercar to drive for an evening and then having

to go back to your Hyundai Sonota the next morning (if this seems like an all-to-real scenario, trust you intuition when I say this is NOT

recommended).

Now, I understand that RC and Lego are entirely different things. and that Lego was not meant to be RC. Not raising that argument. What I am saying is that for me,

once I have completed a MOC from someone else I like to display it... but I don't want to pay the $ for the PF functions to just have it sit around.

I get why the builders build with all the pf motors and such. When I am MOCing, I do the same thing..... that is the fun of building it. But if I

am just building a MOC supercar just for display, and I know I will likely never drive, and I am just reproducing the work of others, I am inclined to just build the model sans motors, battery boxes,

etc. When building something that someone else has done I don't really get the joy of creating something b/c I am not creating it. I get the joy of

trying to think like the great mind that produced whatever I am building. But if (and this is a personal "if") the only joy that comes from adding PF

is the challenge, and you are only doing the work of others (therefore this "challenge" is kinda gone or at least grossly minimalized) what really is

the purpose of adding all the motors? Anyone feel the same?

Edited April 12, 20168 yr by nerdsforprez

I like useing motors ect they add a lot more to a build for me I love them I dnt display models as this hobby is expensive and I always need parts from built models so I build one document it keep it for a while while I plan my next project then break it but for me the more power functions in a build the better

I can't see the defference between well integrated motors and well integrated gearboxes and such, from a technical point of view. Both require a good study of your model.

And in the end, if the model is to be displayed, you won't play with the gearbox as much as you won't play with the motors.

So, apart from the § factor, I really can't see your point here.

Edited April 12, 20168 yr by bj51

When I build a MOC which has PF's I decide if the functions are applicable to me.

When I built Nico71's Honda RA 300 I decided that power functions were not worth it in that car. It was quite slow and I was happy to have it static along side all my other F1 cars.

When I built the ICARUS and saw the speed of that car in the video, I absolutely was going to build it with motors. I am still waiting for a parts order to come in the finish it, but that thing whips around pretty quick inside my house and is a lot of fun to drive. My teenager son who has no interest in Lego had a blast driving it around.

When I build some of the buggies and rock crawlers I don't see any point building them without PF's and testing them out!

I think because you drive RC cars there will never be a supercar worth putting PF's in it. It can never be as fast.

So, apart from the § factor, I really can't see your point here.

It is exactly the point. From the original post...... "but I don't want to pay the $ for the PF functions to just have it sit around."

When I build a MOC which has PF's I decide if the functions are applicable to me.

When I built Nico71's Honda RA 300 I decided that power functions were not worth it in that car. It was quite slow and I was happy to have it static along side all my other F1 cars.

When I built the ICARUS and saw the speed of that car in the video, I absolutely was going to build it with motors. I am still waiting for a parts order to come in the finish it, but that thing whips around pretty quick inside my house and is a lot of fun to drive. My teenager son who has no interest in Lego had a blast driving it around.

When I build some of the buggies and rock crawlers I don't see any point building them without PF's and testing them out!

I think because you drive RC cars there will never be a supercar worth putting PF's in it. It can never be as fast.

Good response. This is kinda my approach as well I guess. MOCs that I will actually use the functions I will be putting in all motors etc. Cranes, excavators, etc. However, I don't see myself driving MOC cars around... so likely leave them all out. If I use 'em, I'll keep 'em. If I don't, then I will leave them out. I just wondered if others do the same.

I've built a few of others MOCs and have included PF in them, was not worth the cost of the PF as they mostly are displays. If the PF is visible and adds to the visual aspects, put them in or MOD it. If you're going to just display it, why pay the extra money for PF? Just my thoughts.

I worked with motors and gearboxes just for show functions, never searching performance and now I am trying to get a "clean" style like Lego Technic racers but with suspension. I like too much build realistic gearboxes but modern cars have too much speeds for me. Now my fun is doing the same with fewer parts and more modular.

A big supercar moc with PF seems a bit lacking because there's no speed. However, I enjoy them in small and / or slow stuff. Recently I built two smallish CJ5 Jeeps, one with fake engine / gearbox / 4wd / suspension etc and one with PF RC. Outwardly almost identical, I was kind of asking myself the same question that's being asked here. Answer: Both!

Thanks for honouring me and putting at number one in the list of "unclean" car builders ! A little correction: I didn´t build the BMW M1, only the M4 DTM.

I agree with you at one point: amongst other things Lego supercars are made to PLAY with. I´ve grown out the 6 year old who play on the floor (and build as well) moving their cars with the hand (JOKING!) and prefer to build full motorized RC cars (like I was dreaming of when I was 10 years old). By the way: currently I´m building a non-motorized supercar, not least to prove to myself that I can do it.

Guys, don´t take this discussion too serious, have fun, build and play whatever you want !

This is kinda my approach as well I guess. MOCs that I will actually use the functions I will be putting in all motors etc. Cranes, excavators, etc. However, I don't see myself driving MOC cars around... so likely leave them all out. If I use 'em, I'll keep 'em. If I don't, then I will leave them out. I just wondered if others do the same.

That's the same reason I didn't include any PF in P205 I built recently. I wish to have both models built for quite a while and burying PF stuff in them wasn't really an option as I don't intend to drive or show off very often.

Call me crazy, but I am more impressed by a clever gearbox design and it's mechanics like in the Kuipers' Predator supercar than I ever will be by a motorized model.

I suppose, like everything, it is a personal preference. I've built dozens of supercars of both types, but I tend to prefer the non-motorized variants. The reason for this is not primarily cost, but rather because you can put more complex functions in the same space without motors, and for me those functions are the main appeal. However, that is not to say I don't enjoy a motorized model. For example, I love the motorized sequential gearbox in Sheepo's Mustang. Real R/C may be faster, but they never have a gearbox like that.

I prefer manual models because I can pose them (with the servo it's not possible with modern remote models) and I like to play with the steering, I like that I can just push away or put them back on the top of the cupboard without risking braking gears due to the stalling motors.

I prefer without PF in general.

Guys, don´t take this discussion too serious, have fun, build and play whatever you want !

Correction: Guys...(and gals) take this discussion very serious --- :laugh:

Thanks for the responses everyone. Looks like I am not alone in preferring PF-free supercars (when building others' work. When my own... I add 'em!)

I don't mind Motorised if it's done well. Some of Sheepo's past models were pretty amazing in terms of density of functions. And more recently we have a few examples like the Icarus where decent performance has been obtained. In general though I would usually build super cars with no pf as I think it makes them more fun to play with and more interesting.

In general though I would usually build super cars with no pf as I think it makes them more fun to play with and more interesting.

Indeed. In fact, your Koenigsegg One:1 might be the first SEC (Someone Else's Creation) I might build because of this

I really hate to keep buying batteries for models and I don't use the PF often enough to warrant the expense of expensive rechargeable batteries (which often die on me anyway). I might consider buying the rechargeable PF battery box, but since I mostly own old 9V stuff, I usually use the old Control Centre to "power" motorised MOCs (although it's usually limited to a pneumatic pump...).

Too be honest, I am just building Madoca's Icarus - well actually helping my 7 year old son to build it. He wanted the PF in it, I explained that I don't have the required parts and went ahead and modified the internals to exclude the PF. Just building the chassis and the bodywork is an interesting experience as the building style is very different to mine.

As for PF. I really really don't like models that use 1 motor for various functions via a gearbox. Take the recent Heavy Lift Helicopter where you actually have to turn off the rotor blades to close one of the cargo doors. I know Lego must do this due to cost, but I still don’t like it.

I like challenges that offers using PF. Simplyfying drivetrain, reducing weight, increasing rigidity - it's more like real automotive challenges for me. Finding proper ideal place for AA PF battery box is one of my favorite tasks)

I like challenges that offers using PF. Simplyfying drivetrain, reducing weight, increasing rigidity - it's more like real automotive challenges for me. Finding proper ideal place for AA PF battery box is one of my favorite tasks)

To be sure. And thanks for the response. I also like building with PF functions.... as mentioned in the post.

But..... so as to not derail the conversation, again this is not a discussion about building with PF or not. I get that building or creating with PF function is a blast to do. what is being discussed here is merely reproducing the work of others in full PF. Merely reproducing the work of others kinda eliminates the creating element and therefore the question remains of the utility of PF.... if it is not in the fun of driving the end result (subjective opinion) and not in the creating element (not creating original work) then where is it?

Edited April 14, 20168 yr by nerdsforprez

9398 Crawler was most boring for me, and i wasn't happy with result. I learned nearly nothing new. I heard somewhere: "Peoples are enjoying playing games, while they learning how to play these games." I don't think it fits 100% to situation with LEGO, but unmotorized MOCs often offers more new, than motorized ones. New is always fun)