13 hours ago, nguyengiangoc said:

So 42068 has 1094 parts. I was like whattt... It doesn't look like it has 1000 parts. 

Same with the little Volvo last year. Lego are very good at inflating part counts by adding lots of pins and other little parts.

Edited July 5, 20177 yr by Jim
Discussion split into separate topic

You could see the fire truck as a good set for parts/price , but I am not sure because currently there are better options: The 42064 has a lot more pieces - including panels - and its cheaper. The 42053 has more useful pieces - incluiding penumatic pieces - and also it is cheaper (Also as a model It is more authentic and has better playability)

Talking about 42069, there was some info/rumors about adjustable height - like 8297 - Too bad that this function is not present, (no info in the official website, the promotional video, and the yellow axles that go under seats are part of the butterfly doors)... Hmm  .

Anyway could be interesting to implement this function, connecting the doors mechanism (yellow axles under seats) with an mechanism similar to the one on 8297. Something like: Open the doors - the chassis go down

Edited July 5, 20177 yr by Jonfensu

7 hours ago, valenciaeric said:

Same with the little Volvo last year. Lego are very good at inflating part counts by adding lots of pins and other little parts.

TLG doesn't "add parts" to "inflate" the part count. They use what they need to create a decent model for a certain price point.

19 minutes ago, Jim said:

TLG doesn't "add parts" to "inflate" the part count. They use what they need to create a decent model for a certain price point.

Maybe, maybe not. I feel like 42053 had an awfully high part count given the functions. Also, if the above were true, 42070 would have more parts. I dunno, maybe the price point given to the designers is different from the one the marketers think they can sell it for. Or, maybe the designers phone it in to add parts to get a model to a particular price point, although lack of parts hasn't stopped Lego from putting things at different (higher) price points.

Although, I feel like this thread has degenerated into pointless speculating, because Lego is doing things we don't like for reasons we don't understand. Some of us try to rationalize, some gripe, and I honestly kind of miss it. In years past, there wasn't this much griping, and I can't tell if it's because of lower quality, or higher expectations. But, honestly, looking at what Lego did last year, and this year, I think they really dropped the ball.

I'm also majorly let down by the fact that there isn't any kind of 40th anniversary contest like the You Design It, We Make It contest, as this would have been the perfect opportunity.

Edited July 5, 20177 yr by Saberwing40k

21 minutes ago, Saberwing40k said:

Maybe, maybe not. I feel like 42053 had an awfully high part count given the functions. 

The part count doesn't have a one to one relation with the number of functions. Parts are also used for aesthetics and when I look at the 42053, it looks good. And besides, the 42053 packs quite a few functions if you ask me. And 7,7 cent per part (MSRP) isn't bad at all. So, I don't really get why this set should have had more functions, or less parts. We simply need to get used to the fact that "smaller" 2H sets (and "bigger" 1H sets) will pack more than 1000 parts.

Maybe we should spin off this discussion into a different topic.

I don't know what you guys think, but for me at first I thought the 42068 was 500-600-ish, like the Fire Plane 42040. Who would have thought it'd have twice as many parts...

Edited July 5, 20177 yr by nguyengiangoc

2 hours ago, Jim said:

TLG doesn't "add parts" to "inflate" the part count. They use what they need to create a decent model for a certain price point.

I disagree with that

I have two 75072s (Starwars arc-170 microfighter), which use a different attachment method for the top wing connecting rod, the later revision uses a solution there which uses 1 part less per side, and in return some plates in the bottom of the build are split, to increase part count back to the original number.

And while i dont have any technic examples, in the normal system themes, there are plenty of sets which include some parts where lego uses two parts rather then one, despite the fact they have the exact matching piece in inventory. Im really not a fan of this practice, considering in some cases the build as a whole can be a little bit less sturdy.

And then there are the small side builds included in some sets, adding 5-10 parts (or in the case of say larger ninjago sets, sometimes even small vehicles for bad guys) to what is otherwise already a complete build

2 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

Maybe, maybe not. I feel like 42053 had an awfully high part count given the functions. Also, if the above were true, 42070 would have more parts. I dunno, maybe the price point given to the designers is different from the one the marketers think they can sell it for. Or, maybe the designers phone it in to add parts to get a model to a particular price point, although lack of parts hasn't stopped Lego from putting things at different (higher) price points.

Although, I feel like this thread has degenerated into pointless speculating, because Lego is doing things we don't like for reasons we don't understand. Some of us try to rationalize, some gripe, and I honestly kind of miss it. In years past, there wasn't this much griping, and I can't tell if it's because of lower quality, or higher expectations. But, honestly, looking at what Lego did last year, and this year, I think they really dropped the ball.

I'm also majorly let down by the fact that there isn't any kind of 40th anniversary contest like the You Design It, We Make It contest, as this would have been the perfect opportunity.

Maybe I should have used the word "included" and not "added" lots of small parts. What I meant was that there are some times when they use 2 small pieces when one larger one would suffice or they link 2 short rods when 1 would have worked fine too.

I think that 2016 was a wonderful and exceptional year for Technic with 3 models that could have been flagships any other year (these models all made the top ten best sellers in Germany, which is unheard of for a minority interest theme). 2015 was also pretty good with the Arocs and the blue crane. 2017 seems to be an average year on a par with 2012 and 2014 where the flagship models were disappointing and the smaller ones were nothing to write home about either. There are always going to be good years and less good  years but no one is forcing us to buy all the models.

 

Edited July 5, 20177 yr by valenciaeric

2 minutes ago, vectormatic said:

there are plenty of sets which include some parts where lego uses two parts rather then one, despite the fact they have the exact matching piece in inventory. 

Just to increase the part count? That doesn't make sense. To reduce the costs, maybe. To increase the part count, I highly doubt that.

There are a million reasons TLG designers use certain technique or elements, but I highly doubt that increasing the part count is more important than other factors (durable build, profit, etc).

Yeah agree with Jim. In the Technic interview the designers already said part count is not the highest priority or consideration. They'll use some pieces when the design, or the requirements, or the constraints require them to.

Edited July 5, 20177 yr by nguyengiangoc

I believe one of the reasons to "split" parts in two smaller parts is to decrease the total number of different parts in a set. If a 1x8 plate is split into two 1x4 plates, it's probably true that the 1x4 plates are already needed somewhere else in the model. My guess is that not requiring a separate new part (the 1x8 plate) reduces packaging costs.

In Technic, you see this with coloring. The 42066 Air race jet has 1x11 and 1x15 beams in black, and 1x13 in gray. This is both easier for builders and requires fewer part-color combinations to be packaged.

As inflated part counts go - anyone who thinks sets have too many pins should really check out some MOCs on Rebrickable. You will see exactly the same thing. It's just needed for pure studless Technic models to have half your parts be pins and axles. That's pretty much a given these days. And with the recent pins with pin hole, you see that pins are even used to connect other pins, so the ratio of pins will climb further. (But one of the reasons for this is that we decided to call the pin-with-pin-hole part a "pin" at all. You could also call it a connector.)

23 minutes ago, Jim said:

Just to increase the part count? That doesn't make sense. To reduce the costs, maybe. To increase the part count, I highly doubt that.

There are a million reasons TLG designers use certain technique or elements, but I highly doubt that increasing the part count is more important than other factors (durable build, profit, etc).

plastic wise, two parts in the same space will always use more material then one, and i can only assume that producing two parts (two mold-slots etc..) is more expensive too.

I dont think lego designers specifically work with part count as an initial concern, but im sure that in tweaking, they will make some choices such as splitting parts or doing small side builds to fill out the budget

My 5 cents or maybe two: I am also observing a higher part count recently, especially in technic models. But I think the main reason for that is drive (or demand) by the community like ours to make more perfect sets. Recently I have rebuild two 10ish years old sets: 8421 and 8285. And I was somewhat disappointed by building experience. It seemed a bit non-adventurous, at least compared to modern ones. I think contemporary technic models are near perfect. Surely, each year we find a reason or two to complain about this and that but I think we are in the golden age of Lego technic. I just hope it will last.

Regarding pins - have you noticed that there is less and less bushes in the models. The bushes were omnipresent but now we only get few tens. Not complaining, just thinking out loud - larger pin count could be related to that. Special pins and axles eliminated a lot of need for bushes.

12 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

I believe one of the reasons to "split" parts in two smaller parts is to decrease the total number of different parts in a set. If a 1x8 plate is split into two 1x4 plates, it's probably true that the 1x4 plates are already needed somewhere else in the model. My guess is that not requiring a separate new part (the 1x8 plate) reduces packaging costs.

I would agree with this, because I have come across many instances of it - far too many to ignore. I also think they limit the number of colors of identical parts used in a set.

In technic case, they sometimes need to do some "strange" things, because that part is needed in B model.

Maybe TLG does it to increase the number of parts, but I think that we have to consider that:
1. Maybe the B model needs the part that we think it is not necessary in the A-Model
2. Maybe they have a stock of parts that need to be used
3. We don't know the cost per unit of the producing process, maybe is cheaper to produce 2 parts of a type than 1 of another.

Just suppositions

It´s true that part counts are on the up across the board - just look at the list of top 10 biggest sets and the majority are from the last 3 years. That could be due to a focus on AFOLS and larger scale UCS/advanced sets, which are more profitable for TLG.

In Technic, we are also seeing closer building techniques with less gaps and more panels- compare the 8880 supercar part count with the 8870 supercar and you´ll see similar part counts. 8880 is bigger and has more features but has less detailed bodywork.

Same could be said of little Volvo and the new fire truck - mechanically they are very basic but they do look much better than the bare shell models from 20 years ago.

It will be interesting to see what weight the 2017 2hy sets have as this will also give an idea of value.

I remember building 42009 and being surprised at the huge number of black 2L pins where blue 3L pins would suffice:

Has there been any explanation of this at the time of the model?

Has anyone noticed when the 42052 came out, it had a spare flex axle, but no use in set. This was probably put there on purpose for afols, due to lack of that part.

2 minutes ago, schraubedrin said:

I remember building 42009 and being surprised at the huge number of black 2L pins where blue 3L pins would suffice:

Has there been any explanation of this at the time of the model?

I don't know, but someone else might, I guess for the b model.

18 minutes ago, Aventador2004 said:

I guess for the b model.

I thought about this too, but according to blakbird's review, there are several 2L pins unused:

I'm guessing that use of black 2L pins, which require more pin holes than blue 3L pins, will make the structure stiffer.

Just now, JGW3000 said:

will make the structure stiffer

I don't quite see how, as the central beam doesn't gain stiffness from it's holes being filled with elastic pins and the side walls would have the same amount of holes filled with blue pins. This lot of Pins only seems to add weight.

In the designers interview they talked about using black pins in place of blue pins to cut down on colour vomit. And in the case of the 42009 boom you must admit that it looks much better with the black pins than it would have done with a load of blue pins. 

You beat me to it, i just had the same idea

On the subject of black 2L vs. blue 3L pins, I personally prefer to use blue 3L as I generally feel they have more friction and makes the connections I make, stronger.

Like Erik Leppen mentioned in regards to MOCs, I find myself needing quite a lot of pins to get the sturdiness and friction I feel necessary when I make a bigger MOC.