Technic is just for kids, and you can build anything so stop complaining!

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, allanp said:

So nerdsforprez wrote that we can change the BMW to our whim. I argue that this is not true, or perhaps I should say that it's missing the point?

I read that, but I am not going to quote it all :)

Anyway, I always liked this discussion but never quite knew how to articulate my position, but I feel like I got it now. On one hand, I do agree with @nerdsforprez that we can change any set to our whim, and I never really complain about the base set (I usually dismantle them quite fast anyway and build something else). Except for one thing, that I started to feel strongly with this year's lineup, and that's where I have to agree with @allanp: the missed opportunities to introduce new parts. Because that is really hindering me in building whatever I want.

Technic is inherently limited by its material and discrete sized parts so why limit it even further with not introducing parts that could easily exist? (Both special purpose and very generic ones like flip-flop beams; I fear we won't get them in all sizes, only as flat panels, maybe 7L besides the existing 11L and 15L, while 5L would be quite useful). That is the only thing that I'd complain about. As an enthusiast for off-roaders, I am sad that this year both the Zetros and the Ford Raptor falls short of pushing the limits of what's possible with lego parts. The Zetros missed opportunities to introduce parts to support building more realistic live axles (less bulky, with more ground clearance using those planetary hubs), while the Ford did not introduce new drivertain components (such as joints) to support driven and steered front axles at a smaller scale. And I do feel that this is kind of a laziness on TLG's part (probably not on the designers' part); it feels kind of oriented towards selling 'good' looking but less functional models, because most buyers don't care anyway.

As for the size of recent models, I do feel they are getting unnecessarily big and bulky. (But it probably works because the big CAT seems to be selling well). In fact, what I'd like to see is pushing the limits of building well functioning models at smaller scales. RC could benefit a lot from that. Lego electronics is not for big and heavy models, especially in case of cars that have to move the whole weight, not just a crane. Being able to build mechanisms at a smaller scale would put RC in a better position; lighter models, need for less/smaller electronics and it could result in more playability like reasonable speeds, and at the same time less stress and wear on the components. But all I see is Technic going in the opposite direction.

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by gyenesvi

[Thirdwigg]

24 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Except for one thing, that I started to feel strongly with this year's lineup, and that's where I have to agree with @allanp: the missed opportunities to introduce new parts. Because that is really hindering me in building whatever I want.

Technic is inherently limited by its material and discrete sized parts so why limit it even further with not introducing parts that could easily exist? (Both special purpose and very generic ones like flip-flop beams; I fear we won't get them in all sizes, only as flat panels, maybe 7L besides the existing 11L and 15L, while 5L would be quite useful). That is the only thing that I'd complain about. As an enthusiast for off-roaders, I am sad that this year both the Zetros and the Ford Raptor falls short of pushing the limits of what's possible with lego parts. The Zetros missed opportunities to introduce parts to support building more realistic live axles (less bulky, with more ground clearance using those planetary hubs), while the Ford did not introduce new drivertain components (such as joints) to support driven and steered front axles at a smaller scale. And I do feel that this is kind of a laziness on TLG's part (probably not on the designers' part); it feels kind of oriented towards selling 'good' looking but less functional models, because most buyers don't care anyway

 

I don't know, it feels like we are getting a lot of new parts these days (can somebody quantify this?). Sure, maybe not the ones we want, but goodness the amount of new tires I got this year compared to years past does impress me. Additionally, 42130 has a lot of great new parts.

I tend to give TLG more credit as they seem to know their business very well. Even if it causes us some disappointment. I would never characterize TLG as lazy. Their capacity to produce is crazy, but rather their priorities are different than ours.

[nerdsforprez]

3 hours ago, allanp said:

So, in the BMW zx111000rrkxj whateverthefrick it's called review topic, @nerdsforprez wrote (and I'm paraphrasing here) that the BMW can be modded to our whim to include all the functionality that we want. Apologies for bumping this topic but this topic was created to answer such arguments, and hopefully to contain them in this topic as opposed to repeating the same discussion in every other set topic. I have no intention of trying to change nerdsforprezs mind or anything like that, of course he's free to have that opinion but I can't help but reply to that argument 

So nerdsforprez wrote that we can change the BMW to our whim. I argue that this is not true, or perhaps I should say that it's missing the point?

Let's take the BMW, let's put some though into what could make it a truly great TECHNIC model that lives up to the marketing hype if "build for real" and so on. At this huge 1:5 scale there's a lot that's possible. There's a lot that was wished for and suggested in the forum, 6 speed, more realistic gearbox with all the sizes of clutch gears, working brakes, proper shocks like that large, oil filled adjustable shock found in some RC sets and an older Technic bike. And in the reviews there was comments that you can't see much of what the gearbox is doing, you can't see much happening. It took me 5 seconds to think of a solution to that, you could have the option of adding a motor to the base to drive the engine. That way you could flip through the gears and have them in the correct order, and really see the speed of the rear wheel changing. You could even have a hand crank in the base to make the same effect. It wasn't just me, there were a few members that got excited, their imaginations got fired up for all the possibilities that a 1:5 scale model could bring to the table. So it is regrettable that TLG themselves lack that same fire and enthusiasm for their own product. Sure the BMW has some fans, but the bike just feels like the lazy, bare minimum needed to make a few sales. Let's just make it bigger and good looking, and we'll add an extra gear over the Ducati and people will buy it as a display model. If there's anything I would want to change about this model, it's that lazy approach to its creation. That's the main thing I would want to change to my whim, but I can't do that. I could go over all the other things I'd like to add/change and the reasons why I either can't or shouldn't have to, but this topic has already covered that. But in short, you wouldn't expect a cake to come without any toppings or filling and be expected to add them yourself, nor should a company expect you to. And there are some things, like a realistic 6 speed gearbox that just aren't possible with current Technic parts, and yet would be so easy if only the parts were available. They have the power to do that, they could go beyond the bare minimum requirement and make Technic into something truly phenomenal with these sets that are getting increasingly larger, but it seems they lack both the passion and the will. I think that's a shame. Do they want to make their sets bigger in order to make them better? This BMW tells me no, and that the only reason they make their sets bigger is to sell us more bricks, that's the only reason.

Edit: rereading my post, lazy is probably the wrong word. I don't mean lazy. I'm sure it took a long time and a lot of effort to design. But it just feels like the very hard work of a product designer that's not really a fan of Technic.

I won't respond to everything here.  First, though, perhaps we can't change a Lego set to EVERY whim we would like it to.  But certainly can change it to many. There are never any absolutes (ooppss, I just used one) in any type of hobby.  Car-making, RC vehicles, etc.... you can't make ANYTHING to match every whim.  Didn't think that needed to be stated out loud.  

And all respect to @allanp - you make some really good points.  But I guess I am kinda bored with the debate.  All seems so subjective.  These are all personal opinions and desires, and you can't objectify or litigate those.  There are many who love everything you don't. 

I think @Thirdwiggsays it best. 

29 minutes ago, Thirdwigg said:

I would never characterize TLG as lazy. Their capacity to produce is crazy, but rather their priorities are different than ours.

I think we are underestimating the last statement.  Their target crowd is not folks here on the forum.  Based on the product they are putting out, which is likely based on years, perhaps even decades of marketing research, is that the majority of buyers are looking for a shiny, good looking display set.  That is it.  Their products reflect that.  Convergent validity.  And I am fine with that. 

[Erik Leppen]

3 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

the majority of buyers are looking for a shiny, good looking display set.  That is it.  Their products reflect that.

I think this hits the nail on the head.

Lego is not doing much wrong. But I do see it as a sign of the times I'm not happy with. Apparently, the general public wants good looking display sets. Apparently, people are interested in shiny things, instead of mechanically intricate things.

And my contention is that people are made to be interested in shiny things, becase shiny things are easier to make and sell then mechanically intricate things. It's hard to blame a commercial company for this, but it's also hard to not blame commerce for this, because I do think that it's the commerce as a whole (and social media in particular) that gave shallowness the podium it now has.

So, yeah, to become a mass product, you have to get hop on the shallowness train. Apparently, Lego, being the market leader, clearly wants to be a mass product.

[nerdsforprez]

7 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

And my contention is that people are made to be interested in shiny things, becase shiny things are easier to make and sell then mechanically intricate things. It's hard to blame a commercial company for this, but it's also hard to not blame commerce for this, because I do think that it's the commerce as a whole (and social media in particular) that gave shallowness the podium it now has.

So, yeah, to become a mass product, you have to get hop on the shallowness train. Apparently, Lego, being the market leader, clearly wants to be a mass product.

Great corollary.  I am sure the original engineers of the internet have similar grips about how their invention is turning out.  At least insofar as social media is concerned.  But that is not anything new.  How the social mass violates and twists a novel, brilliant invention - I assume there is no shortage of examples here.  We should take consolation in that we are not alone. One could probably make this type of argument with any intricate, beautiful invention that is turned over to the masses.  It gets diluted if not outright violated.  

I don't make the comment out of disparagingly.  It just is that way. When you think about it, it makes sense.  Brilliant solutions, products, inventions, etc. are produced by the top tier of a general distribution, if not a whole different distribution than the average.  Of course things don't make sense, or get twisted, etc (add your adjective) when applied to the masses (average).  

[allanp]

@nerdsforprez you also make some good points. They are doing what they need to do to sell more bricks. I would never argue that they shouldn't do that. I just lament the lack of passion to try to go beyond that.

I have stated that the new larger than ever 1:5 scale of this set afforded lots of new possibilities that I feel have been missed but I think another thing that struck a chord with me, about this particular set, is that there is indeed many new large and complex parts. There is one new wheel, 2 new tyres and two new kinds of shock absorber/spring. They are all good for only 1 thing (except maybe the smaller spring, which is also just weird having a plastic fake spring on the outside) and that's 1:5 scale motor bikes. These are highly specialised parts which people have usually argued against. I personally don't mind specialised parts as real world machinery is mostly made from specialised parts. But it still seems odd to me that they would go for parts that were souly intended to just make something bigger as opposed to something like working brakes and more realistic gearboxes that can be used for many different types of vehicles in various scales.

[Zerobricks]

I think the large number of new, sepcialized parts is a clear indicator and preparation for an upcoming series of motorbikes.

Many people are mentioning working brakes. I don't think normal, friction-based brakes will happen, since they will eventually wear down the brake components. But locking brakes/handbrakes/clucthes are totally possible, just look at the new pullbacks.

And yes, I agree with @nerdsforprez said regarding the focus of the sets. They simply reflect the focus of the average costumer, all bling but not much substance...

[gyenesvi]

I totally agree with all of you about the priorities of TLG and its well foundedness; indeed, people want those shiny sets and TLG is just serving the market need. I understand that. And I think the reason why the Technic line is used for this is because it's more appealing for adults (18+ sets).

But still, somehow, in that process, I feel the essence of Lego Technic is slowly being lost. To me, Lego is like the definition of a system of parts, from which many things can be assembled (we often use the word lego as a metaphor for such systems). However, I miss the systematicity in the Technic line nowadays. We do get some specialised parts (which is also needed and welcome), and some new generic parts as well every now and then, but I feel that instead of designing a system of parts, TLG mainly introduces parts that it needs to build those good looking models that can be sold well. And we always get the argument that certain parts are not introduced because they don't need them for official sets. At the same time, they are not really trying to push the limits of the mechanical (or structural) side of models, so it's not surprising that they don't need those parts. We can't build a better gearbox, because we don't have all the clutch gears. But we don't have the clutch gears, because they never wanted to build a better gearbox. I bet if all those missing parts were available, they'd also use them. It's kind of a chicken-egg problem, from which a more systematic approach could be a way out maybe.

[howitzer]

3 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

(Both special purpose and very generic ones like flip-flop beams; I fear we won't get them in all sizes, only as flat panels, maybe 7L besides the existing 11L and 15L, while 5L would be quite useful).

I'm sure we'll get more lengths in the future, but it'll take time as the designers must justify the need for a specific, not-existing length for a new set before we'll get it. It took 20 years for the whole range of even length bricks to be released (1977 to 1997, 2L to 16L) though the range of straight odd-length liftarms (3L to 15L) were completed in only 4 years between 2000 and 2004 and 1L was introduced in 2015, though I'm not sure it counts...

If you think 3L flipflop beam, it's basically 32184 with just pinholes instead of axleholes, which has been on the wishlist of many people for a long time. I wonder if we'll get that too in a few years?

[Lipko]

9 hours ago, allanp said:

@nerdsforprez you also make some good points. They are doing what they need to do to sell more bricks. I would never argue that they shouldn't do that. I just lament the lack of passion to try to go beyond that.

I agree with that. Because the quality of other themes' builds seem to pass Technic. I'm not a Starwars fan, but the AT-AT seems to be on a par with the best MOCs (any easily superior structure-wise). So it can be done. But for Technic, the overall quality is seemigly getting worse (I have to admit, I haven't bought a set since 3 years now, but I always look at reviews and speed-builds of the bigger sets): far-from-optional solutions to functions and structures, weak connections, faults (suspension sitting down, non-working transmission, etc). It's not normal when many of these faults can be fixed by random fans in mere hours, even with the exact same parts.

I'm okay with the new parts by the way.

[thekoRngear]

24 minutes ago, Lipko said:

I agree with that. Because the quality of other themes' builds seem to pass Technic. I'm not a Starwars fan, but the AT-AT seems to be on a par with the best MOCs (any easily superior structure-wise). So it can be done. But for Technic, the overall quality is seemigly getting worse (I have to admit, I haven't bought a set since 3 years now, but I always look at reviews and speed-builds of the bigger sets): far-from-optional solutions to functions and structures, weak connections, faults (suspension sitting down, non-working transmission, etc). It's not normal when many of these faults can be fixed by random fans in mere hours, even with the exact same parts.

I'm okay with the new parts by the way.

Fully agreed, on the bold highlighted part it is not normal to me either. There was a time when we (as kids) would happily build and get mesmerised by functions out of the box. I appreciate how Lego take the challenge to get something into Technic out of a real life vehicle, but the expenses mentioned above specially lacking sturdiness is worrying. There is one other point I would like to mention, the designers over the years. Since you did not buy a Technic set in the past 3 years, I think you will be pleased to see 42128's sturdiness. Use of beams and frames and techniques are top notch (yet a small problem is the turntable-adjacent 20t double bevel's structure that need to be modified as addressed and fixed by Racingbrick). This is designed by Markus Koffman who is a Legend I guess. Time flies, new designers come. Not to blame the designers solely, a Technic set's design decisions are not a one man's process.

Quote

But still, somehow, in that process, I feel the essence of Lego Technic is slowly being lost. 

I think the same

Edited December 10, 2021 by thekoRngear

[gyenesvi]

On 12/10/2021 at 1:37 AM, howitzer said:

but it'll take time as the designers must justify the need for a specific, not-existing length for a new set

This is exactly what I am arguing against. What I see with flip-flop beams this year is that all models use a lot of 11L ones and a few 15L as well. I just can't believe that all models needed exactly only 11L and 15L beams. I think they were worked around (just like many other things) so that they make use of those, because those are the only ones available for now. But by this logic, 13L or 9L ones might never get introduced, because they can often be worked around, and when they can't, well TLG will not build such models. About the 3L, I think it'll never get introduced exactly because of that connector you cite; it's often not what you need, but many times can be solved with added complexity elsewhere. Of course I am a bit over-exaggerating here, it's only the first year we get these flip-flops, so we have hopes of getting more later, let's see what comes in 2022 (well, the BMW uses only 11L again..).

However, the situation is similar with flat panels and their curved counterparts, and more time has passed since their introduction. We have 11L and 7L panels, not 9L or 5L, although they would be very useful, but they can often be worked around (at the cost of looking like broken china), so they never got introduced. Look at the Raptor for example. Its doors and roof are a patchwork of panels and beams in the wrong sizes. It could have been made much smoother with panels/beams in other sizes that don't exist (like 5x5 and 5x7 panels, even the never-existent 6L and 4L beams could have been used here; even an 8L beam would have been handy in the rear door!). Actually, those doors would even look better with a stack of 7L beams. So in the end we get a lot of compromised models which only look okay if heavily stickered (and we can't even build our own models that look smooth, even on the flat sides). And I don't think adding these missing parts to the lineup would add significant cost of production/storage, they'd just be just a drop in the ocean of (less reusable) parts that do exits.

So I guess what I am arguing is that if these parts all existed, it could easily increase the quality of all models by a significant margin. Sure, one-by-one, they would not make a big difference, but treating them as a system, they would. And I fear that's a kind of short-sighted thinking on TLG's part, always just about the next model. I'd even bet that such an approach could cut down costs a bit on the long run (but at least come out even) due to decreased complexity.

BTW, I see similar lack of systematicity in the rollout of the PU system as well, but that's another story. Lots of potential left on the table that will never get fixed because what exists is okay enough and can be worked around. But let's see how it unfolds.

Edited December 13, 2021 by gyenesvi

[howitzer]

1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

This is exactly what I am arguing against. What I see with flip-flop beams this year is that all models use a lot of 11L ones and a few 15L as well. I just can't believe that all models needed exactly only 11L and 15L beams. I think they were worked around (just like many other things) so that they make use of those, because those are the only ones available for now. But by this logic, 13L or 9L ones might never get introduced, because they can often be worked around, and when they can't, well TLG will not build such models. About the 3L, I think it'll never get introduced exactly because of that connector you cite; it's often not what you need, but many times can be solved with added complexity elsewhere. Of course I am a bit over-exaggerating here, it's only the first year we get these flip-flops, so we have hopes of getting more later, let's see what comes in 2022 (well, the BMW uses only 11L again..).

However, the situation is similar with flat panels and their curved counterparts, and more time has passed since their introduction. We have 11L and 7L panels, not 9L or 5L, although they would be very useful, but they can often be worked around (at the cost of looking like broken china), so they never got introduced. Look at the Raptor for example. Its doors and roof are a patchwork of panels and beams in the wrong sizes. It could have been made much smoother with panels/beams in other sizes that don't exist (like 5x7, 5x7 panels, even the never-existent 6L and 4L beams could have been used here; even an 8L beam would have been handy in the rear door!). Actually, those doors would even look better with a stack of 7L beams. So in the end we get a lot of compromised models which only look okay if heavily stickered (and we can't even build our own models that look smooth, even on the flat sides). And I don't think adding these missing parts to the lineup would add significant cost of production/storage, they'd just be just a drop in the ocean of (less reusable) parts that do exits.

So I guess what I am arguing is that if these parts all existed, it could easily increase the quality of all models by a significant margin. Sure, one-by-one, they would not make a big difference, but treating them as a system, they would. And I fear that's a kind of short-sighted thinking on TLG's part, always just about the next model. I'd even bet that such an approach could cut down costs a bit on the long run (but at least come out even) due to decreased complexity.

BTW, I see similar lack of systematicity in the rollout of the PU system as well, but that's another story. Lots of potential left on the table that will never get fixed because what exists is okay enough and can be worked around. But let's see how it unfolds.

I believe more lengths will be introduced, but TLG won't do that just for the sake of doing that, they'll have to justify the cost of adding a new element in their inventory. There are tons and tons of potential and useful elements (additional gears, the panels you mentioned and many times I've wanted a 3x4 L-shaped liftarm or pin with axlehole and who knows what else), but having them all introduced at once just explodes the cost and leads to similar problems that TLG faced in the turn of the millennium. On the other hand, almost anything can be worked around, just look at some of the marvels TLG created in the early 90's and before with much more limited parts selection. They could've stopped most of the development there but they didn't, and now we have even more and better stuff available. I'm sure their R&D department has all the flipflop beams and tons of new exciting panels and gears ready to be released, when the need for them arises.

The rollout of the PU system is indeed problematic with half-baked software, nonexistent documentation and missing some important parts. But yeah, that's another discussion.

[Erik Leppen]

I really get what @gyenesvi is explaining, and I partly agree, that it would be better for the building system if they were to recognize it more as a system of interconnected parts, rather than a collection of models, but I think it's also good if they are testing whether the parts are being used at all before introducing new sizes. They wouldn't want to introduce a whole series of new parts and then find out they turned out not to be very useful. So it's a wise move to develop 1 or 2 parts, test the waters with the designers, and if they prove their worth, expand the range, and if not, forget about it with relatively little waste.

It looks like the flip-flop beams are used enough to warrant adding new lengths, so let's hope for the best. Personally, I expect 7L and 5L to be the next ones to come up, so that all the side lengths of panels are covered.

[nerdsforprez]

Above I mentioned I was "bored" with this topic.  Well, I guess not completely  b/c here I am posting again....

Not trying to be divisive, and certainly not trying to throw shade any which way... this is just an observation.  

But lately I am noticing a trend that I wonder shoots us in the foot as AFOLs of the Technic genre.  This trend has once again been tickled by the new BMW motorcycle set, (42130) which some are already clamoring has problems with the gear shifting mechanism. But others have no problem with it.  The observation goes something like this: 

Its clear that for folks on this forum we would prefer to see more complex, sophisticated and mechanically accurate builds.  We are constantly complaining about the simplicity of sets emerging, especially those that are dubbed more for adults than kids, by what is printed on the box, price, etc.  

However, if a set comes out of the box and does not work absolutely perfectly, or requires a bit of deductive, or heaven-forbid even inductive reason to figure out, then we nail TLG for being sloppy, lazy, etc.  Again, not saying anything is wrong with that... I get the reasoning of "a 2, 300 dollar set should come with all the tools needed to be working properly" - I do.  That is a rationale argument.  But I am wondering if it shoots ourselves in the foot a bit.  Lemme explain by a little example.  

Its been a while ago, but for a sec I took a break from Lego and bought several of the Ugears models.  https://ugears.us/ They are pure assembly models b/c they are made out of wood.  Can't take apart and build something new. First one I did was the antique car.  Took several tries to build and get working properly.  You lubricate with wax, and need to sand pieces, etc. so it makes sense that there would be a little thinking and variability in the building process.  At first I was mad.  Frustrated.  I viewed it as a flawed product that reflected poor marketing and production on the part of Ugears.  But the more I thought about it, working with wood, etc. I though perhaps part of the experience is solving the problem.  Not so much an error on the part of Ugears, but I recognized how complex and nuanced the task was.  Once I saw the problem in this way, I set myself to work on it.  And like I said, in a few tries I had the model working perfectly.  Since then I have bought several more, and they all needed some deductive and even inducting problem solving to figure out.  Lot of sanding, using wax, etc.  But the process has been incredibly rewarding.  And I know some have had similar experiences building others MOCs.  I have built many where the instructions are just piecemeal, or not perfect.  Alot of thinking goes into building a MOC like that.  More truly building than just pure assembling.  

My point is if we complain too much that sets are too simple and inauthentic, but also complain if a mechanism doesn't work perfectly, every single time, with no application of our own problem solving devices, I can see TLG being confused.... and thinking "why would we create more complicated builds if you can't build the mechanisms that we already have in place?"  

Now.... word of caution... I get that stark design flaws are different and should not applied to the above.  And such have found themselves into Lego models in the past and likely will continue to do so.  But I do think there are situations where there is no stark design flaw, or perhaps no flaw but something could have been more efficiently built, and because it does not work right away we throw up our hands and say "design flaw!" and turn away.  That really is a slippery slope... because its not just Lego models that could be built more efficiently... but news flash, virtually ALL builds that have ever been built can probably be built more efficiently.    

This is just my opinion and experience, but even official models should be viewed as "building" and not "assembly".  To me at least, it entails some thinking on my part, beyond just the instructions.  More than a simple "paint-by-numbers" sort of thing.  Though it takes more time and energy, I find the process more rewarding.  And I think building a Lego build, with 2-3,000 pieces, gearbox, etc. will ALWAYS at least have some element of "building" (i.e. thinking beyond mere following instructions) as opposed to mere assembly, and IMO that is a good thing.....

[R0Sch]

Thanks for the poll. Hope it will be read by LEGO too. But what happened to the LEGO Technic poll from February this year? Did the LAN post the results or what was the outcome of this? Surely the conclusion wasn't that we need 4 pull back sets and only cars and bikes without close to 0 functions...

[allanp]

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

Not trying to be divisive, and certainly not trying to throw shade any which way... this is just an observation. 

No of course not. The main point of this topic was so that we could share our views no matter what they might be without any fear of being called divisive or whiney or anything like that, so please do 

I do have a lot of sympathy for much of what you said. If all we ever do is complain and moan then TLG employees will find this place too unwelcoming, and I definitely wouldn't want that. So if anyone from TLG is reading this, that pneumatic tow truck is fantastic, we all love it!   As much as I complain, it's because I know Technic is fantastic and it can be better. Knex or Lego's counterfeit competitors don't interest me enough to care. And yes I probably will give in and get that bloody bike at some point!

I also take your point about us asking for more complexity vs expecting things to work properly first time, and how these two concepts are at odds with each other. I can't speak for others, but personally I do try to keep this in mind when expressing my own wishes. Take the more realistic approach I advocate for when it comes to gearboxes for example. I don't ask for more complexity here. In fact I think Lego's gearboxes are too complicated and should be simpler to be more like real life gearboxes. Same thing with LAs driven by complex gearboxes vs pneumatics. LAs driven by gearboxes are also too complex leading to too much power loss. The often mentioned outriggers of 42009 barely have the power to move because of this. The same motor driving a pneumatic pump driving 4 pneumatic cylinders would lift the whole crane off the ground no problem.

But ahhhhh, I'm doing it again, I really should make more effort to be more positive on this forum. Part of my job as an engineer is to not be limited by the problems I currently face but to invent some kind of "vision" for something better and come up with multiple solutions. Maybe my work attitude bleeds too much into my hobby. Maybe I should just chill and enjoy it for what it is. But then I also enjoy the mental exercise of trying to come up with something better that I would get more excited by.

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by allanp

[CP5670]

I like the direction they are going on with Technic, with more complex and realistic models. The licensed sets are a mixed bag and often overpriced, but some sets like the Chiron and Sian are excellent, and have great looks and functionality. However, it does feel like there is less innovation in Technic now compared to 20+ years ago. Maybe it's just hard to do models or mechanisms that they haven't already done at this point. I'm not against color coding, but bright colors like blue or red look really bad. They should use neutral colors like the grays or tans. As for B models, a handful of past sets (usually large ones) had outstanding B models, but most were just lamer versions of the A model.

I actually really like 42009 despite the weak outriggers because the mechanisms were interesting, at least for its time. Much more so than something like 42100, which works well enough but is expensive and boring. In terms of pure "performance" (like RC cars), Lego is never going to compete with anything with metal parts anyway. I generally prefer manual functions or pneumatics over lots of motors, especially the overpriced Powered Up motors. Among the current sets, my favorite is the tow truck 42128.

One thing I miss are the old universal sets. They often had unique models that would not have sold well as a regular set (8094 or 8485 for example), but were more interesting than most traditional B models and had some great ideas that inspired modifications.

 

On 12/10/2021 at 5:15 AM, gyenesvi said:

This is exactly what I am arguing against. What I see with flip-flop beams this year is that all models use a lot of 11L ones and a few 15L as well. I just can't believe that all models needed exactly only 11L and 15L beams. I think they were worked around (just like many other things) so that they make use of those, because those are the only ones available for now. But by this logic, 13L or 9L ones might never get introduced, because they can often be worked around, and when they can't, well TLG will not build such models. About the 3L, I think it'll never get introduced exactly because of that connector you cite; it's often not what you need, but many times can be solved with added complexity elsewhere. Of course I am a bit over-exaggerating here, it's only the first year we get these flip-flops, so we have hopes of getting more later, let's see what comes in 2022 (well, the BMW uses only 11L again..).

It's always been like this. I remember back in the day, they only had 7L, 11L and 15L Technic bricks for a long time, and introduced 9L and 13L bricks many years later.

[Lipko]

16 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

Above I mentioned I was "bored" with this topic.  Well, I guess not completely  b/c here I am posting again....

....

I don't see fixing flawed sets as too educative. It's like learning to cook from following f.cked up recepies. Frustrating and dissappointing for a beginner, frustrating for a pro, and fun for a few crazy guys  Not the best analogy, but your's with the Ugears isn't the best either. You don't have to modifiy the assembly, only to tweak stuff. With some Lego sets, you have to modify the assembly, lubricating and tweaking is not enough.

[karmadrome]

17 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

Its been a while ago, but for a sec I took a break from Lego and bought several of the Ugears models.  https://ugears.us/ They are pure assembly models b/c they are made out of wood.  Can't take apart and build something new. First one I did was the antique car.  Took several tries to build and get working properly.  You lubricate with wax, and need to sand pieces, etc. so it makes sense that there would be a little thinking and variability in the building process.  At first I was mad.  Frustrated.  I viewed it as a flawed product that reflected poor marketing and production on the part of Ugears.  But the more I thought about it, working with wood, etc. I though perhaps part of the experience is solving the problem. 

This also applies to the PV production GBC's. There's a lot of complexity here, and we're talking about plastic parts that have play in it. Tweaking and adjusting big GBC's like the 42082 or 42055 C-Models for example, are absolutely necessary and part of the building experience, just like with UGears models. A complex gearbox in a tight space is no different.

 

And there will always be people who complain about everything. Personally, I didn't expect the BMW to have a sequential gearbox because from the beginning it was to be exptected that this would be a display model: the 18+ rating mostly hints to display models, with little to none technical features.

[howitzer]

42 minutes ago, karmadrome said:

And there will always be people who complain about everything. Personally, I didn't expect the BMW to have a sequential gearbox because from the beginning it was to be exptected that this would be a display model: the 18+ rating mostly hints to display models, with little to none technical features.

I think the Sian has pretty nice technical functions, but despite that it's just a display model with very little play value. So you're entirely correct, the 18+ rating appears to be for sets which are first and foremost display sets and stuff that's made to be playable is rated for younger people.

[jorgeopesi]

Are we really sure that technic is just for kids?, I can not imagine kids playing with flagships...

[gyenesvi]

On 12/12/2021 at 3:56 PM, nerdsforprez said:

My point is if we complain too much that sets are too simple and inauthentic, but also complain if a mechanism doesn't work perfectly, every single time, with no application of our own problem solving devices, I can see TLG being confused

I do like this point, because indeed both happens, and that puts TLG into a difficult position, but at the same time I suspect that it's not necessarily the same group of people asking for more complexity and failing to assemble gearboxes properly.. There are surprisingly many people who don't understand how flipping a differential effects a drivetrain and how to solve it when it happens accidentally (and won't even try to experiment a bit).. Most probably not the same guys who can improve the smoothness and compactness of the Sian gearbox.

Unfortunately there's much more of the first type (with a lot of buying power), and I guess if TLG wants to broaden the target audience of Technic, they are sadly better off simplifying things.

On 12/12/2021 at 4:59 PM, allanp said:

But then I also enjoy the mental exercise of trying to come up with something better that I would get more excited by.

That's my problem too!  That's why I keep thinking about possible lego parts..

[nerdsforprez]

11 hours ago, Lipko said:

I don't see fixing flawed sets as too educative. It's like learning to cook from following f.cked up recepies. Frustrating and dissappointing for a beginner, frustrating for a pro, and fun for a few crazy guys  Not the best analogy, but your's with the Ugears isn't the best either. You don't have to modifiy the assembly, only to tweak stuff. With some Lego sets, you have to modify the assembly, lubricating and tweaking is not enough.

All due respect @Lipko...I don't think you read my entire response.  I specifically mentioned that my comments don't apply to poor design, or flat out design errors, which 42056, etc. all suffered from.  My comments more apply to the construction of mechanisms, especially gearboxes ... where aligning axles, checking fluidity at each step, making sure liftarms don't sandwich gears too hard, etc. are the issues at play.  

When you have one builder saying he/she is having a problem, but another saying their works just fine, there is one exercising a little more ingenuity than the other.  That is what I was speaking to. 

[2GodBDGlory]

I wonder how it would work out if Lego went back to its old Tech Play/Tech Build monikers for play-focused and tech-focused sets, perhaps with different set number prefixes again. Though I guess a lot of 18+ sets wouldn't fit in either... Probably they've got their business case figured out, but it would potentially be less confusing!