Is the only way forward for Technic to go back?

[Xfing]

I've been following Technic over the years and noticed that in recent years the models have sort of stopped progressing in complexity and techniques, as if the Technic system has reached its peak. But I've also noticed that for the Technic line, Lego designers have been absolutely averse to incorporating any studded and System elements at all. Which does seem like a deliberate, conscious choice, given how both studless AND studded Technic have bled heavily into System-primary models in recent years, to great effect.

On the other hand, I've noticed that some alternate brand designers (where those brands even have designers at all) seem to not be working under this limitation, and while their models (especially large-scale ones) consist of studless Technic for the mechanics, they are not afraid to incorporate studded Technic bricks, especially where it would provide rigidity and integrity. Never mind the System elements used for detailing, which they're admittedly better and more versatile at than Technic decorative panels (although the latter also have uses and as with everything else, both approaches can be combined anyway). LEGO themselves did seem to enjoy incorporating studded bricks in to models in the mid 00s and early 10s - the studless Technic system was already fully realized by that time and there was no practical need for using studded elements, but the designers chose to do so anyway - to great effect in my opinion. Good examples of that would be the 42009 MkII Mobile Crane from 2013 or the 8275 Motorized Bulldozer from 2007. I believe both sets have received later reimaginings which do not feature studded parts like the earlier models do (although in case of the Mobile Crane it seems to be the opposite - the 2005 version had no studded elements while the 2013 version did!). 

But it does seem like trying to isolate Technic as its own thing as much as possible has exhausted its options and the only way to progress from here is start to seamlessly integrating studded technic and System pieces where applicable and sensible. All three systems can work on their own to great effect (for which we've got plenty evidence in the form of sets), but I feel they truly shine when combined together, the only question is in what proportions - many modern System sets already go like 80% System, 15% Studded Technic and 5% Studless Technic, so why won't Technic set designers even consider a similar, but reversed ratio where Studless Technic is dominant, and instead are going for 100% every time? 

[SpacePolice89]

I've never been really into Technic but I've always appreciated the very cool designs they used to have. Like the dinosaur and the red car. I prefer the old look  with studded Technic pieces.

This set looks so cool (picture belongs to Brickshelf member Ashik)

(picture belongs to Brickshelf member (chiabep)

[Mylenium]

I think the biggest issue is simply that they cannot come up with a future-proof motor and drive system. That's why we don't see "true" Technic sets any more. It's all tackled on a set by set basis and last year's version of Powered Up is basically deprecated and useless a few months later. Tying everything to app usage doesn't help. I also feel that ultimately Technic has merely become an alternate way of creating display models and they hang on to it so they can make life difficult for competitors by copyrighting their parts designs...

Mylenium

[shroomzofdoom]

Some of recent Technic sets have me scratching my head. I liked the VTOL plane, but really hated the other two Technic Space sets. 

Speaking of going back... I'm pretty sure that by now there have been more third party PF motors sold than Lego ones. They killed PF years ago and their fans basically ignored it.

Not sure I understand the new motor battery hub either. I feel like we're gonna see a whole bunch of uninspired bodies wrapped around this thing over the next few years.

[Yoggington]

Purely anecdotal, but myself and my brothers were big fans of technic as children. Nowadays, when building (system-style) MOCs, I often find myself incorporating some moving parts and utilising gears etc.

However, since my dark ages ended, in the hundred or so Lego sets I've bought since, I've not bought a single technic set for myself. Yet another model of a sportscar is of no interest to me :/

I did buy one set for my brother's 40th - the technic orrery. Looking over the offerings in the technic category on lego.com, of approximately 40 sets you can buy, just one is not a vehicle (and it's that same orrery model).

I'm amazed given the popularity of Great Ball Contraptions at cons, that Lego doesn't sell a set of linkeable GBC modules.

[MAB]

29 minutes ago, Yoggington said:

Purely anecdotal, but myself and my brothers were big fans of technic as children. Nowadays, when building (system-style) MOCs, I often find myself incorporating some moving parts and utilising gears etc.

However, since my dark ages ended, in the hundred or so Lego sets I've bought since, I've not bought a single technic set for myself. Yet another model of a sportscar is of no interest to me :/

I did buy one set for my brother's 40th - the technic orrery. Looking over the offerings in the technic category on lego.com, of approximately 40 sets you can buy, just one is not a vehicle (and it's that same orrery model).

I'm amazed given the popularity of Great Ball Contraptions at cons, that Lego doesn't sell a set of linkeable GBC modules.

I doubt GBC would sell very well. You need a lot of them to look good and they are the type of thing that look great at a convention but do people really want one running at home? Plus, I wouldn't want LEGO doing them. They are a fan creation and it would seem like LEGO are stealing the idea if they do them, and I doubt they would be as good anyway. 

Concerning vehicles in Technic, there is a huge range of subjects even though almost all are vehicles. Yes, there are cars (because they are popular and sell) but also multiple space sets, motorcycles, planes, helicopters, construction, etc. A lot of system sets also incorporate Technic parts these days to allow for movement.

[Xfing]

1 hour ago, Yoggington said:

Purely anecdotal, but myself and my brothers were big fans of technic as children. Nowadays, when building (system-style) MOCs, I often find myself incorporating some moving parts and utilising gears etc.

However, since my dark ages ended, in the hundred or so Lego sets I've bought since, I've not bought a single technic set for myself. Yet another model of a sportscar is of no interest to me :/

I did buy one set for my brother's 40th - the technic orrery. Looking over the offerings in the technic category on lego.com, of approximately 40 sets you can buy, just one is not a vehicle (and it's that same orrery model).

I'm amazed given the popularity of Great Ball Contraptions at cons, that Lego doesn't sell a set of linkeable GBC modules.

Guess that's where competing brands such as Cada come in, just look at this design for example: 

they got a prominent MOCer on board to design it for them, an opportunity lost and wasted by Lego simply becasue they won't put studded technic and system parts on their Technic line, even though that makes the models objectively superior.
 

[Stereo]

I dunno if I even agree with the basic point that they've stopped using it, there's lots of system on recent Technic sets.  For example I've highlighted the tiles/slopes used on the Jesko released this summer.  Maybe a quarter of the bodywork.  Though I suppose I agree that it's pretty much all attached with 1/2 pins, so it's not really structural.

[dr_spock]

GBCs are pretty noisy.   I think those living with you may get tired of the noise after a while and shut down your fun. 

 

[Xfing]

11 hours ago, Stereo said:

I dunno if I even agree with the basic point that they've stopped using it, there's lots of system on recent Technic sets.  For example I've highlighted the tiles/slopes used on the Jesko released this summer.  Maybe a quarter of the bodywork.  Though I suppose I agree that it's pretty much all attached with 1/2 pins, so it's not really structural.

That's actually still nice, a few years back they'd have used all Technic panels for that. So I suppose they might actually be looking to system parts after all

[MAB]

12 hours ago, Xfing said:

Guess that's where competing brands such as Cada come in, just look at this design for example: 

they got a prominent MOCer on board to design it for them, an opportunity lost and wasted by Lego simply becasue they won't put studded technic and system parts on their Technic line, even though that makes the models objectively superior.
 

What are the sales of that compared to the sales of similar LEGO sets? What opportunity was lost?

And the superiority of the use of studded beams instead of smooth ones is subjective, not objective.

[Mylenium]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

What are the sales of that compared to the sales of similar LEGO sets?

In certain markets they apparently outstrip LEGO by a mile and CaDa has made massive inroads in Western markets as well. At the end of the day it's one of the reasons why LEGO are so hyper-sensitive and are weaponizing their trademarks and protected designs. Apparently there's quite a lot going on behind the scenes and LEGO take notice of people buying alternate brands more and more...

Mylenium

[MAB]

5 hours ago, Mylenium said:

In certain markets they apparently outstrip LEGO by a mile and CaDa has made massive inroads in Western markets as well. At the end of the day it's one of the reasons why LEGO are so hyper-sensitive and are weaponizing their trademarks and protected designs. Apparently there's quite a lot going on behind the scenes and LEGO take notice of people buying alternate brands more and more...

Mylenium

Well competition is supposedly good for consumers, so let's hope they become even more widespread than the markets where they are beating LEGO. If people want technic with studs, they can switch brands.

[johnnytifosi]

@Xfing I agree with your post. I will preface that I am a huge 90s Technic fan. Studded Technic just had a feeling of quality and sturdiness that studless Technic has never achieved. Even large, overbuilt sets like the Arocs or the red rough terrain crane still feel soggy when pressed or twisted. Technic lost one of its two modes of connections (studs and pins) and everything is held together only by pins, which usually make now 1/3 of a set's pieces and makes for less enjoyable building and disassembly. Putting together studs is way more satisfying than pins. Moreover, I never really got into understanding how studless Technic is built. Studded Technic was very intuitive, building from the bottom up and it was a seamless transition from System. Assembling new studless sets with an ever increasing inventory of special connectors and panels trying to make up for the inability to stack liftarms vertically feel more like assembling a puzzle rather than Lego.

Then there is the topic of motorization that other people brought up. Powered Up has been a huge failure for the known reasons (ho hardware controller, software dependence per set, no unified motor and battery box, extremely limited availability in sets), and it is obvious from the fact that MOCers still cling on to the now defunct since 6 years Power Functions system because it just works. Then consider the fact that now Technic is essentially a licensed merchandise theme, releasing the same copy pasted 1:16, 1:10 and 1:8 car year after year, and the B-models are eliminated, and it is nowhere near close what it once was when I grew up.

Then tackling your question: will it go back? My opinion is definitely not, Technic seems to be still selling well no matter whatever crap Lego keeps churning out and how many features they remove. Technic seems a lost cause since 2018 for me and there does not seem to be any signs that things will change. Returning to studded building after 20 years is out of the question in my opinion. Lego seems to ideologically avoid studded Technic pieces even at points where you would think they would be really needed. Modern Technic sets are all about covering everything with panels, and the studded look will look weird to current clients. Even new System sets are all about hiding studs nowadays with SNOT building and tiles. I don't have high hopes for non-licenced models or B-models making a return, or Lego releasing a better motorization system either.

 

[Toastie]

12 hours ago, johnnytifosi said:

Technic lost one of its two modes of connections (studs and pins)

This.

I believe this is truly "pivotal".

Plus all the "decoration" routes, apparently "pure" Technic (^^) can >never< accomplish.

BTW - I also >never< got my head around any question about studless vs studded Technic. LEGO is LEGO. Studs or not. Hell, they made Technic holes into studded beams. What the heck is wrong with that???

Best,
Thorsten

[Mylenium]

21 hours ago, johnnytifosi said:

Technic lost one of its two modes of connections (studs and pins) and everything is held together only by pins,

Cause and effect, I suppose. As long as models are "soggy", as you put it, any extremely rigid connection throws this system out of wack. Funny enough I do understand why some models are built this way when I put my mechanical engineering hat on with regards to force loads, torque and other factors. Not saying that it's perfect and they always get it right, but occasionally it makes perfect sense (beyond LEGO just trying to cut corners).

21 hours ago, johnnytifosi said:

Moreover, I never really got into understanding how studless Technic is built.

For me it's the other way around. Since I'm only doing LEGO since 2016 and started out with Technic it feels just as natural. No doubt having been involved in engineering stuff before and having seen some odd solutions probably also pre-conditioned me. That said, I would agree that the number of special elements has exploded in the last few years and it often feels like they are designed to make it easy for newcomers and/ or contribute to the visual appearance rather than being genuinely necessary technical solutions.

Mylenium

 

[MAB]

On 9/25/2024 at 9:12 AM, Mylenium said:

Cause and effect, I suppose. As long as models are "soggy", as you put it, any extremely rigid connection throws this system out of wack. Funny enough I do understand why some models are built this way when I put my mechanical engineering hat on with regards to force loads, torque and other factors. Not saying that it's perfect and they always get it right, but occasionally it makes perfect sense (beyond LEGO just trying to cut corners).

For me it's the other way around. Since I'm only doing LEGO since 2016 and started out with Technic it feels just as natural. No doubt having been involved in engineering stuff before and having seen some odd solutions probably also pre-conditioned me. That said, I would agree that the number of special elements has exploded in the last few years and it often feels like they are designed to make it easy for newcomers and/ or contribute to the visual appearance rather than being genuinely necessary technical solutions.

Mylenium

 

It is interesting, I learnt to build in technic first time around with the old studded beams, then had a long lapse of 25 years, then re-learnt to build in technic with liftarms. I find when I use studded technic, I think more like I am building system designs with lots of other system parts, just with technic holes and functions as a secondary feature. Whereas when I use modern technic, I use many more technic parts than system, and don't tend to grab system parts (and studded beams) where they might be the solution. When I started building with modern technic, I did need to follow quite a few official builds to learn how to use the parts, especially how to connect large parts together to get the right angles for what I wanted to build. In that sense, the studded beams are much more system like and felt obvious how to use them if you already are familiar with system. Personally, I don't think either is the right or best way, just different.

However, when it comes to the look of the final build, I mush prefer the modern studless designs over the somewhat boxy and studded designs of the older sets. As LEGO has progressed through time, I think most people have come to expect designs to hide at least some of the studs giving a cleaner, smoother look. Some people might remember the (system) Beetle of 2008 (10187). Some people like the studs, but this got a lot of bad feedback at the time for being covered with studs when MOCers were already starting to use SNOT techniques to make much cleaner designs. When the Beetle was redone as 10252 with minimal studs showing, it looked much cleaner. I think the same has happened in technic. Not that it always works, sometimes the gaps between panels look unsightly although as builds have become bigger this becomes less of an issue (but cost becomes more of an issue).

 

I think it is also worth pointing out that many of the "old" technic part range still exists and if anything has had a resurgence recently, just that this has been in system sets and not in technic sets. For example, the humble 1x16 studded beam / technic brick has appeared in 27 sets since 2017 but was in just 18 sets in the previous 20 years between 1997 and 2016. And of those 27 sets since 2017, just 2 were technic sets. I think this is an indication that LEGO sees these as system bricks with holes in, rather than technic beams with studs on.

Edited September 26, 2024 by MAB

[JesseNight]

11 hours ago, MAB said:

I think this is an indication that LEGO sees these as system bricks with holes in, rather than technic beams with studs on.

That's an interesting way of putting it... and I think it's very true. Many system sets still make use of sturdy frames, and bricks-with-holes are the easiest way to integrate that. When working with liftarms, you're limited to either still use such bricks as a conversion method, or using half pins as studs which isn't exactly the strongest connection.

I stepped out of my childhood LEGO phase in the mid 90s when bricks with holes were still the norm (like my 8880 Super Car), and liftarms were slowly starting to make appearances (like the angled ones making the doors of 8480 Space Shuttle, which was my final set in those days).
I have to admit that when I came back decades later, and saw modern Technic sets... I was very unimpressed and even disappointed. So many smooth surfaces and large panels, it lost its LEGO appeal to me. It wasn't until I started looking at the mechanics under the hood, and saw how good the modern 1:8 cars looked, that I began to grow a new appreciation for it.

It's just... different. In some ways better, in some ways not. It all comes down to our expectations.

Edited September 26, 2024 by JesseNight
Some corrections

[Aurorasaurus]

On 9/23/2024 at 7:09 PM, Xfing said:

That's actually still nice, a few years back they'd have used all Technic panels for that. So I suppose they might actually be looking to system parts after all

Personally, I prefer fully studless technic, because IME its a lot more sturdy than anything with studs. The little boxes on top of 42069, the roof box on the defender, the weird pillars on the ford ranger, they all feel like they come off too easily. But I fully agree that when it comes to accuracy, they're simply superior. Ultimately, I think system pieces can go on display sets, but not play sets.

6 hours ago, JesseNight said:

It's just... different. In some ways better, in some ways not. It all comes down to our expectations. 

I agree with this completely. But I also wonder, how much is reasonable to expect of TLG? I think that might be the next big question for the community..

Anyway, sorry for my rambling and unclear post, its just my thoughts as they come.

[Sokolov Edward]

The use of a specific type of Lego parts determines the style of the model. Mixing styles is a matter of taste for the authors and consumers. I like "non-studded Technics", and I consider a large number of bricks a disadvantage of the model. IMHO, maintaining the purity of style is also an art. In Technics models, not only design is important, but also functionality. There are a number of Technics models where the authors managed to get an excellent look without using brick superstructures. On the other hand, Technics parts are used in brick construction as decorative elements.

[TeamThrifty]

On 9/21/2024 at 10:05 AM, Mylenium said:

I also feel that ultimately Technic has merely become an alternate way of creating display models

Sadly you are correct and its leading to the death of technic.

No one i knew as a kid ever built  a set and left it.. it was 100% normal for 100% of people to make stuff up - long before it got its own label (moc). It didn't need a label because thats the point of lego. It comes to bits for a reason. The shelf queen mentality is driving lego's decision making - thats why there's 3000 cars released every year and its boring as hell. But it keeps the airfix-in-disguise assemblers happy. It was unimaginable that you didn't moc.. now it seems there's more topics about display options and plastic boxes to line up a thousand cars that are built once and never recycled into something that might be actually interesting.

Totally Void of Imagination. No ability to take on a challenge, how can i solve this new problem? .... No need, just blindly follow the instructions, have no understanding of the mechanism you're building, then stick it in a display case...

And this is why technic is fecked because TLG respond to this culture with a repetitive and dull output. Lack of imagination is a contagious disease and TLG are infected. 

[MAB]

That is not restricted to Technic though, system sets get built and displayed too. 

People make MOCs with system parts, people make MOCs with technic parts, people make MOCs with both system and technic parts. Just because some people display their sets built with instructions,  it doesn't stop others being creative. 

[Timewhatistime]

We underestimate three important properties of studless beams - which are imho big advantages over the studded predecessors:

1.) Density

For example, three stacked studless beams/liftarms take less space than two studded beams (with two plates between them to allow bracing).

This property allows more functions, mote complex gearboxes etc.

 

2.) Built-in SNOT: Studless beams don't have the privileged orientation which studded beams have. It's much easier to "build in every direction". Again, this is required for density and complexity.

 

3.) Easier mathematics: Building studless means easier configuration of the distances needed, e.g. for meshing gears.

Constructing the correct distances with bricks and plates always was a pain in the a$$; same for pythagorean triangles and other angles.

[Davidz90]

11 minutes ago, Timewhatistime said:

Easier mathematics: Building studless means easier configuration of the distances needed, e.g. for meshing gears.

I'd argue with this one. Many odd spacings are easier to do with bricks, at least for me.

One advantage of studded beams is rigidity. Bricks connected with plates will always beat anything connected with pins. But that advantage may be somewhat niche - in my specific case (Lego clocks) I'm working with extremely low power levels on the order of microwatts, even the littlest amount of friction due to axles in misaligned holes results in the mechanism seizing up. My studless constructions always need 3-4 times more power than studded ones.

[Timewhatistime]

2 hours ago, Davidz90 said:

I'd argue with this one. Many odd spacings are easier to do with bricks, at least for me.

Yes, this is true.

However, we have to evaluate if we really want to have odd spacings; and if we do, to what extend and with which consequences.

Odd spacings are followed by many more odd spacings - it takes some effort to get rid of this oddity afterwards: Once you build an oddity, some unpleasant obligations result to bring things back to "normal" spacings.

 

In the studless world there are - mostly - just two basic measurements: 1 L and 0.5 L

This makes it very easy to achieve the usually needed distances - in all three dimensions.

 

Whereas in the studded world some spacings are very privileged (3 L e.g., by brick + 2 plates + brick) and some others spacings are nearly impossible to build (4 L e.g., if not in the "main dimension").

Edited September 27, 2024 by Timewhatistime