Technic Parts We Would Find Useful

[howitzer]

7 hours ago, zoo said:

I wonder when there will be a pin 3L WITH friction ridges with stop? I am a bit underwhelmed by the 3L pin without friction ridges with stop.

If you mean this: 

I don't think there will ever be a friction version of it. It would be far too easy to insert such a pin into a frame or something where it can't be pushed out from the other side, thus locking it into place, while the frictionless one can be extracted with a bar.

[dantheman12]

2 hours ago, howitzer said:

If you mean this: 

I don't think there will ever be a friction version of it. It would be far too easy to insert such a pin into a frame or something where it can't be pushed out from the other side, thus locking it into place, while the frictionless one can be extracted with a bar.

Exactly what I was thinking, closest thing that might actually be made could be a 4L part with an axle hole on the end, like the 3L one we have already, although it seems unlikely. And even if you could access both sides, its hard enough to push the 2L part of a 3L pin with friction ridges out, so it wouldn't really work.

[2GodBDGlory]

Plus, the frictionless one was introduced for a specific purpose (motorcycle wheels on some System sets), and so I think it's more of a nice bonus that it works for Technic, than a sign that they want to introduce more general-purpose pins.

[gyenesvi]

Finally, I managed to level up my Studio part design skills to make the towball arm part that I'd really like to have for planetary hubs (as some people have already 3d printed).

And here's what we could build with it. The obvious variant; simple, strong construction with plenty of space for connecting springs / linkages. Good ground clearance, and variable width with 4L / 5L thin beams.

And if the rest of the part selection was more systematic (parts already mentioned in this thread, like 2x3 thin L-beam, towball socket with axle hole, an old CV-joint male part with 1L axle, and an updated variant of a the planetary hub with steering arms like on the Audi hubs, none of which are one-off parts, but could be used in many situations):

then it would even be possible to build a lifted variant! How cool that would be? :) A fake portal axle at 13 studs width!

Edited October 28, 2024 by gyenesvi

[Zerobricks]

I would extend it by an extra stud to make it stiffer so you don't rely just on the crosshole connection.

Edited October 28, 2024 by Zerobricks

[gyenesvi]

17 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

I would extend it by an extra stud to make it stiffer so you don't rely just on the crosshole connection.

Sure, that would be possible (would then require a 4x2 thin L-beam), but my point was to see how small scale we can go. At such small scale (lighter model / soft springs) I think even the crosshole connection would hold, the hub itself also adds some some stiffness, but if that's not enough, I'd use a 3x3 thin L-beam for the vertical / top part. That would definitely strengthen it I guess.

Or was your comment not about the axle but about the curved towball socket part? Adding an extra hole would screw it, not leaving space for springs on the top for example, and not allowing it to be used in the lifted variant.

Edited October 28, 2024 by gyenesvi

[zoo]

12 hours ago, howitzer said:

I don't think there will ever be a friction version of it. It would be far too easy to insert such a pin into a frame or something where it can't be pushed out from the other side, thus locking it into place, while the frictionless one can be extracted with a bar.

I guess you're right in that it could be difficult to remove in some applications, though that is probably true for some already existing elements as well. I see your point. I am just disapointed with the loose fitment when trying to build a sturdy beam construction.

 

1 hour ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

Plus, the frictionless one was introduced for a specific purpose (motorcycle wheels on some System sets), and so I think it's more of a nice bonus that it works for Technic, than a sign that they want to introduce more general-purpose pins.

Wasn't aware of this specific purpose. It looks like the part is quite common in technic sets as well. It feels a bit too common for it to just be a nice bonus, but who knows.

[gyenesvi]

28 minutes ago, zoo said:

I guess you're right in that it could be difficult to remove in some applications, though that is probably true for some already existing elements as well. I see your point. I am just disapointed with the loose fitment when trying to build a sturdy beam construction.

Wasn't aware of this specific purpose. It looks like the part is quite common in technic sets as well. It feels a bit too common for it to just be a nice bonus, but who knows.

As much as I would also like to have such parts with friction (even a 2L version is listed in this thread), I also get that it might never exist for that reason. Although I am not sure it would be that hard to remove; in many cases, it is enough to remove the outer beam that it is in, it will pull the pin with itself because of the stop end. Or just loosen up the structure enough to be able to put a nail (or another stop head) under the stop head and pull it out.

And unfortunately, seeing the not so systematic nature of technic parts, I could believe that it was introduced for some other purpose, and we just got lucky to have it..

[LegoTT]

My take on this design is that all cross hole that is half stud wide or on a perpendicular connection (like the 4 on the 5x7 frame) will break on a big motorised model, and the planetary hub is made for those.

 

EDIT : oh, it's not intended for the planetar hub, but only for small cars ?

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, LegoTT said:

My take on this design is that all cross hole that is half stud wide or on a perpendicular connection (like the 4 on the 5x7 frame) will break on a big motorised model, and the planetary hub is made for those.

 

EDIT : oh, it's not intended for the planetar hub, but only for small cars ?

Which part are you referring to? Obviously, the thin liftarms can always be doubled up for more strength where needed, this is just an example build for a smaller axle with about 62mm wheels, but a wider variant would work with 81mm wheels too. And I have built large motorized models with similar thin liftarm solid axle structure and never broke anything. I mean, what big forces would act on them? The force of the motor does not. The weight of the model is dampened by the springs. I mean crawlers though, not fast ones. Solid axles are not for those anyways. Sure there would be plenty of use cases. And multiple people have made a 3d printed version of this towball socket already (I have some too, needs testing though).

Also, the same build could be made with Audi hubs. But smaller scale models can also make use of planetaries when they need torque and precision not speed, like crawlers.

Edited October 28, 2024 by gyenesvi

[LegoTT]

Sorry, I did not mean to be mean, in my mind it was like helping,

 

I was just thinking two or three round hole with the socket would make it more reliable for heavy duty, which then would not be limited to the 3×2 or 4×2 liftarm for strong connection.

 

Also when I saw it is for non-geared hub I edited my message, and you're right since it's 3d printed it can be both depending on the model size.

 

And it's true since I don't keep mocs builded I have a lot of old lego pieces,  it's must be the reason mine are breaking.

[gyenesvi]

13 minutes ago, LegoTT said:

Sorry, I did not mean to be mean, in my mind it was like helping,

No worries, I did not take it as mean, just wanted to point out that it's not the actual axle build here what is important, it's just a quick illustration, but those parts that allow such builds, and then it's up to you how you use them and how you strengthen it all. For example, in this case I could use a 3x3 L shaped liftarm instead of the vertical 3L thin liftarm, that would be more rigid next to the 5x7 frame and would also double up the axle hole at the outer end at the top. And also, instead of the 2L red axles, I would use 3L axles with stop and extra bush at the other end to make things stronger.

13 minutes ago, LegoTT said:

I was just thinking two or three round hole with the socket would make it more reliable for heavy duty, which then would not be limited to the 3×2 or 4×2 liftarm for strong connection.

For larger builds it is indeed possible to use already existing longer liftarms with towball sockets, as many of us do so in spite of these parts.

13 minutes ago, LegoTT said:

And it's true since I don't keep mocs builded I have a lot of old lego pieces,  it's must be the reason mine are breaking.

Actually, many of my 40 year old thin liftarm parts are also broken around axle holes (and they were already broken 30 years ago), but so far I never had such issues with newer parts. Maybe the material is also different, or I build more solid structures and put less stress on them..

[2GodBDGlory]

1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

Actually, many of my 40 year old thin liftarm parts are also broken around axle holes (and they were already broken 30 years ago), but so far I never had such issues with newer parts. Maybe the material is also different, or I build more solid structures and put less stress on them..

Oooh, I'd say that something like 90% of my modern 3L half-stud liftarms and maybe 70% of the 4L ones of mine are cracked at the end, at least in the colors I use. It's probably just because I've been building and rebuilding with the same parts so heavily for years, but it does get pretty annoying!

[howitzer]

37 minutes ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

Oooh, I'd say that something like 90% of my modern 3L half-stud liftarms and maybe 70% of the 4L ones of mine are cracked at the end, at least in the colors I use. It's probably just because I've been building and rebuilding with the same parts so heavily for years, but it does get pretty annoying!

Apparently there's some variation in the quality of these parts, some people report a lot of cracking issues while others seem to never encounter any problems. There has been speculation that different factories around the world have slightly different properties in the plastic, which then somehow causes some batches to break much more easily than others. This is of course just speculation and obviously it matters a great deal how you use and store your parts.

[SNIPE]

The problem with thin beans with axle holes is they crack, I'm not even rough on my lego parts, yet I've had many many thin beams crack on me, but you never know when until you pull it out of the parts bin weeks later and realize that the axle hole has no friction, because the hairline cracks are impossible to see.

[Aurorasaurus]

5 hours ago, howitzer said:

obviously it matters a great deal how you use and store your parts. 

I try to keep my parts out of the sun and dont have any problems with parts cracking. But my collection is definitely on the newer side.

Also, how can we possibly not have even length liftarms by now!?

[896gerard]

On 12/8/2023 at 8:43 PM, HorcikDesigns said:

Hi, love this thread! so much inspiration (and also depression that these parts do not exist yet).
I have also designed some parts that were "necessary" in some of my MOCs (and to justify owning a 3D printer) from past years. Some of the parts are available for free from Printables.com (link below). I will be grateful for downloads and likes, in case you find them useful too.

https://www.printables.com/@HorcikDesigns_298061/models
I attach some photos/screenshots of my most favourite ones that I released.

My take on 3 functions through one axis:

[...] 

 

 

Hi, reviewing your '3 axles through a turntable' solution..

I'm back from some old times. Hence also replying to an old post. Too bad Lego hasn't listened, after 9 years... 
video

Edited October 30, 2024 by 896gerard
video link

[howitzer]

On 10/29/2024 at 10:48 PM, Aurorasaurus said:

I try to keep my parts out of the sun and dont have any problems with parts cracking. But my collection is definitely on the newer side.

Also, how can we possibly not have even length liftarms by now!?

Yes, keeping parts out of the sunlight and in a dry and not too hot place definitely helps. I have lots of 30+ years old parts in perfect condition (except scratches and other marks of use) so it's not just about age.

Even length liftarms don't exist for the same reason as odd length bricks (except 1 and 3 studs): there's no need for them, not in such a way that would warrant the cost of producing them. Remember, it's TLG's economics calculation that decides what parts they produce and what they don't - and even length liftarms are just not worth it for them. (You can substitute 4 or 6 length liftarms with modified liftarm parts like 2x4 corner liftarm and thin liftarms and the longer ones can most of the time be designed around easily enough.)

[gyenesvi]

On 10/29/2024 at 9:48 PM, Aurorasaurus said:

Also, how can we possibly not have even length liftarms by now!?

Exactly..

11 hours ago, howitzer said:

Even length liftarms don't exist for the same reason as odd length bricks (except 1 and 3 studs): there's no need for them, not in such a way that would warrant the cost of producing them. Remember, it's TLG's economics calculation that decides what parts they produce and what they don't - and even length liftarms are just not worth it for them. (You can substitute 4 or 6 length liftarms with modified liftarm parts like 2x4 corner liftarm and thin liftarms and the longer ones can most of the time be designed around easily enough.)

The more I see about release of new parts, the less I buy this argument; it always felt somewhat arbitrary to me. I don't think it's about economics calculations, maybe some rigid old principles, and a huge amount of shortsightedness. I think a good sense of economics would dictate that the most economic way of managing a range of parts for a building system on the long run (and well TLG is there for the long run) is to have them systematically cover the base cases. Because such systematicity leads to simplicity in building and design, and simplicity leads to efficiency and ultimately, low cost.

A key thing here is NEED, and how it's defined. In some sense, nothing is needed, if you don't want to build all the things that are not possible today. TLG could just keep pumping out sets built from the current part selection for the next 10 years, it would work in a sense. However, many parts would be useful. So I think it's better to think about whether the utility of a part would outweigh its cost. And I think, that may have the wrong perception within TLG.

For one, the cost of making moulds for such ubiquitous parts like liftarms would amortize very fast, as they would be used everywhere (sure there are other costs of managing all the part selection but that's what TLG is really good at seen by the amount of parts coming out in other themes). For two, I think TLG really underestimates the cost of working things around. It cannot easily be measured in material cost, but in engineering hours spent on designing things that are hard to build because of the non-existance of simple parts that would lead to obviously simple solutions (I think the cost of working things around is often underestimated in many companies, because the management hardly sees how much extra effort the engineers spend on fixing problems that should not have come up in the first place with proper foresight). Also, there is the cost of the extra parts in sets that are only there because of the added complexity of the workaround itself.

As for the concrete examples of 4L and 6L liftarms, here are my latest ones that came up recently (but they came up many more times).

There's this new suspension part that I thought I'd try to build something with

Only problem is that it is 7L, and TLG forgot to put a new 7L steering link into that super expensive supercar set, because, well, it's not needed, it can be sold with incorrect steering geometry as well, people won't notice anyway. So I thought, well, we have 9L steering links, so I could try to build a 9L suspension arm out of it, it has two pinholes in the ends that can be used for extending it with 2 studs, that would require a.. right.. 4L liftarm. Great :) The 4x2 L shaped version does not work here because the L shape is in the way for the suspension itself, and the 4L thin liftarm has axle holes in the end which would prevent the suspension arm to rotate in many situations because the most useful connectors to fix it have axle holes. So two obvious simple usages (for 7L and 9L) are out, and we can start finding ways to hack things around to make this new part really useful.

For the 6L, here's an example that I made a few weeks ago about the G-class. The rear doors are just a big cluttered mess, and with a couple of 6L liftarms, it could have been easily improved a lot (the 5L flip-flop could have also been useful but not that necessary for looks as it is covered by the black stripe anyway). Right is the official, left is the improved.

Sure, agin, it's not really necessary, people are already used to cluttered looks of lego cars anyways..

Edited November 1, 2024 by gyenesvi

[aFrInaTi0n]

On 10/28/2024 at 6:20 PM, gyenesvi said:

Finally, I managed to level up my Studio part design skills to make the towball arm part that I'd really like to have for planetary hubs (as some people have already 3d printed).

Oh boy, may you want to send this to MTP for them doing this in metal?! 🔥

(just went with the first sentence and no pics for better readability)

[howitzer]

On 11/1/2024 at 10:46 AM, gyenesvi said:

Exactly..

The more I see about release of new parts, the less I buy this argument; it always felt somewhat arbitrary to me. I don't think it's about economics calculations, maybe some rigid old principles, and a huge amount of shortsightedness. I think a good sense of economics would dictate that the most economic way of managing a range of parts for a building system on the long run (and well TLG is there for the long run) is to have them systematically cover the base cases. Because such systematicity leads to simplicity in building and design, and simplicity leads to efficiency and ultimately, low cost.

A key thing here is NEED, and how it's defined. In some sense, nothing is needed, if you don't want to build all the things that are not possible today. TLG could just keep pumping out sets built from the current part selection for the next 10 years, it would work in a sense. However, many parts would be useful. So I think it's better to think about whether the utility of a part would outweigh its cost. And I think, that may have the wrong perception within TLG.

For one, the cost of making moulds for such ubiquitous parts like liftarms would amortize very fast, as they would be used everywhere (sure there are other costs of managing all the part selection but that's what TLG is really good at seen by the amount of parts coming out in other themes). For two, I think TLG really underestimates the cost of working things around. It cannot easily be measured in material cost, but in engineering hours spent on designing things that are hard to build because of the non-existance of simple parts that would lead to obviously simple solutions (I think the cost of working things around is often underestimated in many companies, because the management hardly sees how much extra effort the engineers spend on fixing problems that should not have come up in the first place with proper foresight). Also, there is the cost of the extra parts in sets that are only there because of the added complexity of the workaround itself.

As for the concrete examples of 4L and 6L liftarms, here are my latest ones that came up recently (but they came up many more times).

There's this new suspension part that I thought I'd try to build something with

 

Only problem is that it is 7L, and TLG forgot to put a new 7L steering link into that super expensive supercar set, because, well, it's not needed, it can be sold with incorrect steering geometry as well, people won't notice anyway. So I thought, well, we have 9L steering links, so I could try to build a 9L suspension arm out of it, it has two pinholes in the ends that can be used for extending it with 2 studs, that would require a.. right.. 4L liftarm. Great :) The 4x2 L shaped version does not work here because the L shape is in the way for the suspension itself, and the 4L thin liftarm has axle holes in the end which would prevent the suspension arm to rotate in many situations because the most useful connectors to fix it have axle holes. So two obvious simple usages (for 7L and 9L) are out, and we can start finding ways to hack things around to make this new part really useful.

For the 6L, here's an example that I made a few weeks ago about the G-class. The rear doors are just a big cluttered mess, and with a couple of 6L liftarms, it could have been easily improved a lot (the 5L flip-flop could have also been useful but not that necessary for looks as it is covered by the black stripe anyway). Right is the official, left is the improved.

 

Sure, agin, it's not really necessary, people are already used to cluttered looks of lego cars anyways..

But TLG doesn't need a comprehensive system of parts which covers as many use-cases as possible. They need a system which allows constant, steady stream out of new parts to entice builders to buy more sets and if they were to release a complete system of all permutations in every basic part type, there would soon be no longer any need for new parts, or at least they wouldn't be nearly as effective in getting people to buy new sets as their old collection would allow them to build practically anything. So from the point of view of an AFOL the glaring holes in the parts selection is really bad thing but from the TLG's point of view they're not. Some new and very useful parts are released now and then but only when the designers can justify their necessity to the beancounters. Of course there might also be some rigid principles behind these decisions, remember that in the 90's there wasn't and in addition to the useful parts we all know and love they were releasing tons and tons of very specialized and obscure parts, and the company nearly went bankrupt for it so there's a reason for the existence of those principles.

I agree that 6L link would be really, really useful, as would other lengths, and 4L standard liftarm would be nice too as, like you said, sometimes the thin ones or 4x2 can't really be used in its place. The 6L liftarms exist as thin versions and those can be used where 6L liftarm is required, for example in the G-class, the doors really do look messy and cluttered and using doubled 6L thin liftarms would've fixed it without the need of a new part type but just recolour of an old one. As for the steering geometry of the McClaren, using incorrect length there is barely noticeable and while it's not realistic, I don't think the supercars aren't great example of realism in other respects either so while correct length should've been used, it's sort of understandable why it wasn't - what's one more incorrectly designed part among the sea of unrealism? 

[gyenesvi]

3 hours ago, howitzer said:

But TLG doesn't need a comprehensive system of parts which covers as many use-cases as possible.

Well, I just explained why I think it would be beneficial for them cost-wise.

3 hours ago, howitzer said:

They need a system which allows constant, steady stream out of new parts to entice builders to buy more sets and if they were to release a complete system of all permutations in every basic part type, there would soon be no longer any need for new parts, or at least they wouldn't be nearly as effective in getting people to buy new sets as their old collection would allow them to build practically anything.

I don't agree with this for two reasons. For one, I'm talking about basic structural parts. Even if all those would be covered, there would be tons of other opportunities to release new interesting functional and aesthetic parts and keep AFOLs excited. Second, such AFOLs who keep track of the part selection and are longing for new ones are a very small minority. Most people who buy lego have no clue about what parts exist and are not collecting parts. They are collecting sets. They don't really care what new parts the sets contain, they mostly care about how it looks or what it models.

3 hours ago, howitzer said:

Of course there might also be some rigid principles behind these decisions, remember that in the 90's there wasn't and in addition to the useful parts we all know and love they were releasing tons and tons of very specialized and obscure parts, and the company nearly went bankrupt for it so there's a reason for the existence of those principles.

Of course we've all heard about this and this is exactly what I was referring to. But it should not apply here. Again, exactly for the reason that I'm not talking about specialized on-off parts, but about basic, generic, reusable ones. But I think this past problem and the resulting policy has its (adverse) effect today. If this is the case then it should be revised, because I believe it is now hurting more than it is helping.

3 hours ago, howitzer said:

The 6L liftarms exist as thin versions and those can be used where 6L liftarm is required, for example in the G-class, the doors really do look messy and cluttered and using doubled 6L thin liftarms would've fixed it without the need of a new part type but just recolour of an old one.

I brought this specific example, because I think even using a recolor of the thin ones would look a bit messy (though better that the original), because you'd need to stack 8 of them into the door construction I showed above.

3 hours ago, howitzer said:

As for the steering geometry of the McClaren, using incorrect length there is barely noticeable and while it's not realistic, I don't think the supercars aren't great example of realism in other respects either so while correct length should've been used, it's sort of understandable why it wasn't - what's one more incorrectly designed part among the sea of unrealism? 

I agree it is practically unnoticeable in the McLaren, mainly because there the suspension arms are almost horizontal and the suspension travel is minimal, in which case it does not cause toe in/out. It would manifest itself in a longer travel off-road suspension. But if the idea was to make parts that can be used in other circumstances as well, then an expensive supercar set would have been the perfect place to introduce that new part that would be required in other places to accompany that suspension arm. I wonder if they will use the suspension arms in something off-road, and whether they will introduce the 7L link, or just go with incorrect geometry again. That happened in case of the Ford Raptor. For that they did not introduce the 5L link and it was possible to feel the toe out when plying with the model. My problem is that there are only a handful of official models every 2-3 years that could introduce these new suspension parts, and they keep missing these opportunities.

[howitzer]

1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

Well, I just explained why I think it would be beneficial for them cost-wise.

I'm not so sure it would be beneficial cost-wise. For the more widely used parts they probably need more production lines anyway to keep up with the demand and the moulds will wear out and need replacing now and then, so after a certain point the economies of scale don't apply anymore for production, and storage and logistics are easier when there's a small number of different parts in large quantities rather than large number of different parts in small quantities.

Quote

I don't agree with this for two reasons. For one, I'm talking about basic structural parts. Even if all those would be covered, there would be tons of other opportunities to release new interesting functional and aesthetic parts and keep AFOLs excited. Second, such AFOLs who keep track of the part selection and are longing for new ones are a very small minority. Most people who buy lego have no clue about what parts exist and are not collecting parts. They are collecting sets. They don't really care what new parts the sets contain, they mostly care about how it looks or what it models.

It's true that vast majority of TLG's sales are directed towards the non-AFOL population who don't care at all if a 5L link or 4L liftarm exists or not. This is exactly the reason why we keep seeing tons of new panels where some basic structural and functional parts remain absent. As is said many times before, the designers have to justify introducing new parts, and if there are ways to design around them as is often the case, there won't be a new part. The new panels however allow for more accurate and cool aesthetics, which is an easy selling point while unnoticeable toe-in/out in a shelf queen is completely irrelevant.

Quote

Of course we've all heard about this and this is exactly what I was referring to. But it should not apply here. Again, exactly for the reason that I'm not talking about specialized on-off parts, but about basic, generic, reusable ones. But I think this past problem and the resulting policy has its (adverse) effect today. If this is the case then it should be revised, because I believe it is now hurting more than it is helping.

Specialized one-off parts are one thing but there's surprisingly high quantity of generic and widely reusable parts as well, when you account for the variations in colour too. Not having even-length liftarms gets people used to having to deal with this limitation so they (both TLG's designers and MOC makers) try to design around those and so far it has been successful strategy for many decades. Introducing new parts to fill the even-odd gaps would effectively double the inventory of the most basic parts, which are used in very high quantity everywhere and complicate further the already-surely-very-complicated logistics of TLG. And if liftarms, then why not introduce odd-length bricks? And also plates and Technic bricks and tiles and every other category where this logic could be applied? The number of new parts would get very large very fast.

Quote

I brought this specific example, because I think even using a recolor of the thin ones would look a bit messy (though better that the original), because you'd need to stack 8 of them into the door construction I showed above.

I agree it is practically unnoticeable in the McLaren, mainly because there the suspension arms are almost horizontal and the suspension travel is minimal, in which case it does not cause toe in/out. It would manifest itself in a longer travel off-road suspension. But if the idea was to make parts that can be used in other circumstances as well, then an expensive supercar set would have been the perfect place to introduce that new part that would be required in other places to accompany that suspension arm. I wonder if they will use the suspension arms in something off-road, and whether they will introduce the 7L link, or just go with incorrect geometry again. That happened in case of the Ford Raptor. For that they did not introduce the 5L link and it was possible to feel the toe out when plying with the model. My problem is that there are only a handful of official models every 2-3 years that could introduce these new suspension parts, and they keep missing these opportunities.

There's would actually be 2+2+4 stacks of thin liftarms, and I'm sure it would look quite a bit better than the solution we got, and not very much different from normal liftarm solution.

It's true that the new suspension arms must be accompanied by a correct length link if they are to use it in sets with larger suspension travel - for the McLaren there was no need. I really hope they will introduce that link in the future.

[gyenesvi]

7 hours ago, howitzer said:

I'm not so sure it would be beneficial cost-wise. For the more widely used parts they probably need more production lines anyway to keep up with the demand and the moulds will wear out and need replacing now and then, so after a certain point the economies of scale don't apply anymore for production, and storage and logistics are easier when there's a small number of different parts in large quantities rather than large number of different parts in small quantities.

If so then why are other themes adding new (even technic) parts and recolors like crazy? Some of them never used in the technic line. They are even adding technic parts that could have been very useful if actual technic usages would have also been considered. Just a few recent examples:

Some more buildable/reusable towball arm would have been more useful.

Would have been more useful with 2L pin instead of that long bar that sits there uselessly.

Not bad, but expected this with 2L axle first, maybe more usages for that variant.

Recolored for a botanical set where it's hardly visible, but not for multiple recent green technic sets..?

Such a part would have never been recolored for a technic set I guess. Especially not to a color that is very similar to the only existing color (yellow). I don't even understand how this got recolored, even the yellow would have looked okay in that star wars set..

These examples just tell me that 1) the addition of new parts is not really a big issue, 2) they don't really try hard to bring the maximum out of the part selection. I guess they have some part quotas to limit new ones, but they don't really try to think systematically or negotiate across themes.

7 hours ago, howitzer said:

 The new panels however allow for more accurate and cool aesthetics, which is an easy selling point while unnoticeable toe-in/out in a shelf queen is completely irrelevant.

Yeah, I understand that and agree with it unfortunately.

7 hours ago, howitzer said:

Introducing new parts to fill the even-odd gaps would effectively double the inventory of the most basic parts, which are used in very high quantity everywhere and complicate further the already-surely-very-complicated logistics of TLG.

Actually, the most practical ones missing are only the 4L and the 6L, not too many parts.

7 hours ago, howitzer said:

And if liftarms, then why not introduce odd-length bricks? And also plates and Technic bricks and tiles and every other category where this logic could be applied? The number of new parts would get very large very fast.

Bricks are quite different in my opinion, because in system builds, it is much easier to join bricks to form longer parts. Bricks are meant to be stacked with overlaps and also they are designed visually to form a continuous looking surface. These are not true for liftarms though.

7 hours ago, howitzer said:

It's true that the new suspension arms must be accompanied by a correct length link if they are to use it in sets with larger suspension travel - for the McLaren there was no need. I really hope they will introduce that link in the future.

Even though I wished for many lengths of links in this thread, in practise, introducing just the 5L and the 7L would go a long way already, exactly because we can almost build 5L and 7L suspensions, all other parts are available (towball arms, driveshafts), except the steering links. In fact, if I had to bet, I would have thought the 5L to appear sooner than the perpendicular version of the 6L.

[msk6003]

Considering recently introduced parts, 3x19 frame and 11x19 technic base plate, we need 19L liftarm too.

Edited November 4, 2024 by msk6003