Is the only way forward for Technic to go back?

[Toastie]

Here we go, studded Technic wise ...

And make that in all Technic studless whatever technique ...

I love the combination of all LEGO systems.

Best,
Thorsten

Edited September 27, 2024 by Toastie

[Mylenium]

12 hours ago, Timewhatistime said:

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.

(...)

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").

It's a debatable point, though, since none of this is an intrinsic problem inherent in the system. It has more to do with LEGO being extremely reluctant to introduce elements that would facilitate compensating these offsets or in a similar fashion give us simple direction inverter plates like other companies have. Not trying to re-open those endless old discussions, but it's more about their design philosophy than a limitation per se.

Mylenium

[Davidz90]

2 hours ago, Mylenium said:

It's a debatable point, though, since none of this is an intrinsic problem inherent in the system. It has more to do with LEGO being extremely reluctant to introduce elements that would facilitate compensating these offsets or in a similar fashion give us simple direction inverter plates

I never felt the need to have direction inverter plates, but that's maybe just me.

By odd spacing, I mostly referred to gears. There are many gear ratios that are easy to do with bricks, but troublesome with studless construction.

Also, remembering few simple brick stacking rules (literally only one - technic hole every 5 plates) is way easier than wrapping my head around hundreds of frames/connectors/panels.

[Xfing]

On 9/23/2024 at 5:32 PM, MAB said:

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.

Or LEGO could simply adapt, it's not like it would be some big, mission-breaking concession to start using studded technic again where it helps and makes sense. They've done it in the past to great success, like in the models I quoted before. 

Also, let's be perfectly honest here, it's not like that's CaDA's biggest selling point anyhow. Some people might notice and appreciate it, but at the end of the day most Technic-style builders care mostly about functionality and mechanical intricacy. Looks-wise, Technic has only recently come close to catching up to System, with all the various decorative panels finally letting it shed the "skeletal" look of the past. But even there, if you think for a moment, System-style bricks do come in to fill in the gaps even further. LEGO does use them a little bit as is - stud pins are being employed to attach plates to liftarms for decoration routinely now. So we might actually start seeing more of that in the future anyway, since as history has already proven, shifts in Lego Technic design sensibilities are always gradual and slow.

Also, for the record - my point was never that LEGO should revert to studded Technic from studless. Studless is a mechanically denser system with much better directionality etc, especially after adding liftarms with alternating holes (something I'm not sure if wasn't first devised by competition btw), so it's ideal for creating internal mechanisms at smaller scales and more action-packed than with studded. Plus many parts produced these days are optimized for studless, and not necessarily studded (such as the newer differentials, among others), because of odd rather than even distances. However, studded Technic also has certain advantages that the newer system does not have, such as firmness, rigidity, certain aesthetics and the ability to combine easily with System bricks. Ultimately the studless system is dominant these days in Technic and for good reason, even though studded models could be very functional in their day as well. It's the same for competition too, but the difference is competition isn't restricting itself to just studless elements as a rule. To make an analogy - it's like Lego were insisting to make a good song but in a very specific genre, with no room for any deviation, while competition just wants to make a good song period. 

All I'm saying is LEGO might want to embrace using studded pieces in small numbers again after the warm reception of competing brand models, in order to remain competitive themselves.

Edited September 30, 2024 by Xfing

[bruh]

I have also tried building with bricks and technic together (allegedly, not much) and it was very tricky to accurately build the mechanism and incorporate it.

[MAB]

23 hours ago, Xfing said:

Or LEGO could simply adapt, it's not like it would be some big, mission-breaking concession to start using studded technic again where it helps and makes sense. They've done it in the past to great success, like in the models I quoted before. 

 

They don't need to adapt though, Technic is doing very well these days with pretty much studless and licensed builds. What they are doing now is very successful.

On 9/27/2024 at 11:46 PM, Toastie said:

Here we go, studded Technic wise ...

And make that in all Technic studless whatever technique ...

I love the combination of all LEGO systems.

Would that be classed as Technic though, if it was an official set? To me that is mainly system parts, with a minority of Technic parts. Many system sets these days use some Technic pieces for their function but without becoming "too much" Technic. One of the good things about MOCs is people can mix and match with any ratio they want, whereas in official sets they tend to stick to one system with just as much of the other as needed. 

Edited October 1, 2024 by MAB

[Toastie]

5 hours ago, MAB said:

they tend to stick to one system

Oh, and that is absolutely fine with me - they don't have to, though.

Technic nowadays looks much "cleaner" - as was pointed out before (with studs adversely affecting the looks). I have the impression (and that may be totally wrong) that this happened because the main theme of Technic went from "machines" to "cars" - not right, but maybe to sets, that require cleanliness rather than function. Yes, I know, you can have all the functions you want with studless Technic, and the gearbox inside such a set in (to me) a miracle, but I can't really see it in operation. You will have to use quite some panels to cover the "exposure-to-prolonged-machine-gun-fire" look when using all these beams for the "hull" of these machines. Which is also fine with me! I just can't adapt to that concept (of making Technic display super cars); I like building Technic "machinery" that does something to the extent that studs don't even come into focus, although they are there.

I yes, this is my personal view, this is the world of moccing and not of making as much money as you can.

And I am also aware, that virtually nobody in this forum finds any of my stuff appealing at all!

So - all is good!

Best,
Thorsten

P.S.: I tried to be - hmm - a little provocative with the post you referenced, so no offense!
P.P.S: Just purchase on eBay a used #8485 set - with still working (!) flex system elements - there is no better Technic set than the fully studded dinosaur attached to control center II roaring on my desk ... in my opinion

[gyenesvi]

The core topic of separating or mixing studful and studless technic and system parts is an old one I guess, but there are some interesting considerations in this thread. So here's my experience and what I think would be the way forward for Technic.

Just like others, when I was a child I also used to build a lot with studful technic bricks, so I was used to that system. When I came back to Lego as an adult (and with an engineering mind), it was already the studless era, so I had to learn a new system, and I found that it has advantages and disadvantages as well. As others have noted, on one hand, in principle the studless system allows true 3-dimensional building, as it is symmetric in all dimensions, while in the studful system one dimension (up) is special and has a different size (I like to call such a system 2.5 dimensional). That symmetry is a plus for me, and also the increased density that comes with it. I think that's essential for modern technic building. On the other hand, it felt considerably more difficult to connect parts and build solid structures, even the simplest ones like a flat frame, not to mention a 3d frame (like a cube). And that somehow felt like a big flaw in the system, when such simple things are quite hard to build, not to mention in a solid way, as they require a bunch of connectors that take up quite a bit of space. This is because the a beam has connections in 1 dimension (pinholes), while a brick has connections in 2 dimensions (pinholes and studs), which is quite a difference. Of course, over time I learned to use the new beams and connectors, and I can build okay structures with it, but I still feel that many simple things are more complicated to build than would be necessary. Much of the above problem is addressed by flip-flop beams (and frames), as they restore the property of having connections in 2 dimensions. However, even though they are essential parts and true game changers for building, their complete rollout is taking ages (just can't believe how TLG can be so short-sighted). At the same time, I guess entire families of parts are still missing for efficient building, such as these:

The beams have another key feature compared to bricks: their edge is round. This is also an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time. An advantage because they can be rotated to any angle at the end point without interfering with things next to them (an important property). But it is also a disadvantage when for example used on the outside of a model; it is not possible to build a flat surface out of them if two or more need to be put next to each other, which happens more often than necessary do to beams being only available in even sizes. This is another big flaw of the system; even the most fundamental piece (beams) is not available in all sizes. Again, requires a lot of workarounds and messy structures that are less rigid and look suboptimal.

So I do think technic could be great for building dense internals, but it is still lacking some core structural part families. And then we get to building externals. Over time, TLG realized that they need to put emphasis on that, and they started to invent new systems (panels) for that. I think this is a good direction, because I think bodyworks require entirely different parts than beams, due to the above mentioned inherent property of beams not even being good for building connected flat surfaces. Also, I think for smaller models, using a brick built body on a technic frame can work, but only up to a certain size, and only when not too high density of internals is required, because the connection between the technic frame and the brick built body requires considerable amount of connecting space due to some mis-alignments in the two system (odd vs even counts, half beams vs plate sizes). For these reasons, I think inventing a new system of panels for bodyworks does make sense. The problem is again that this system is half baked and un-systematic. Even flat panels only exist in a handful of sizes, and many curved panels (wing shaped ones) cannot generate a continuous surface even when just placed next to each other. Even connecting flat panels leaves a bunch of gaps that clutter looks. Part of the problem I see is that many parts are designed to fulfill multiple different purposes or used in too many different scenarios, and in the end they are not great for any purpose. I think it would be great to differentiate structural and aesthetic parts and let both of them be the best they can be for their purpose. I think that groups of panels, like the recently extended group of 1x2xN mini wing panels, that don't try to be too many things at once but solve one problem properly and in a systematic way, are much more useable and are the way forward for other sizes/shapes as well.

By the way, I think using system parts such as plates, tiles, (curved) slopes attached to technic parts through half pins can be a great way to complement technic panels and finish off surfaces in certain situations, and I welcome that such techniques are used more and more in official sets as well.

So all in all, I think these are the things that Technic could improve. A good foundation of basic structural parts (beams, flip-flop beams, frames and connectors in many sizes), and a more systematic selection of panels that are better at creating good looking surfaces. Start with the basics such as flat surfaces, and surfaces that curve in one direction, and make it possible to build arbitrary sizes of those in a visually pleasing way. Then go for more complex shapes. Unfortunately I see that TLG is doing exactly the opposite, come out with complex shaped panels in a few sizes that are meant to be used in complex overall surfaces, while leaving simple things unsolved (well solved in a cluttered/clumsy way).

So yeah, in a way it could be beneficial if Technic went back to its own foundations, but not to studful building, but rather to revise the studless foundations.

Edited October 2, 2024 by gyenesvi

[bruh]

wow. everything you said I agree with.

Also, what are those parts? are they actual lego?? what is their part number?

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, bruh said:

Also, what are those parts? are they actual lego?? what is their part number?

Not Lego, just made virtually in Studio part designer, but they do exist in Cada.

[Xfing]

Holy cow, these parts look amazingly useful. Hook them up with friction pins horizontally to a square frame and you've basically got a simple, unpowered vehicle chassis ready with just 7 parts (11 counting wheels). Pretty insane that Lego doesn't have these parts yet. 

I think they've slowly been realizing that they are being forced into incorporating some parts thought of sooner by the competition, such as the flip-flop beams you mentioned (they suddenly feel SO obvious now), or the 1x2 plate with rounded edges and fully hollow studs (https://rebrickable.com/parts/35480/plate-special-1-x-2-rounded-with-2-open-studs/) The latter has been out only since 2018, and already it's finding its way into sets in huge quantities. Meanwhile Cobi has been using that part for at least several years longer. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if they ended up releasing the entire repertoire of stud reversal options from Cobi's repertoire eventually either, since those parts are such huge game-changers for omni-dimensional building.

As for studless Technic - one thing I've noticed is that since adoption until relatively recently, studless technic was just as skeletal as studded Technic before it, only more recently have the designers started mastering solid structures. I suppose that's largely thanks to flat panels. The 42078 Mack Anthem for example feautres a legit box made of panels, one that is also functional (you can store stuff inside without it spilling out). I do believe solid bodywork-like structures could be achieved sooner, had the designers not been averse to using half-pin studs and traditional System plates. I suppose they thought that in studded TEchnic era the whole point was that the mechanisms are exposed so you can watch them work, while in the studless era they may have thought the visuals wouldn't match very well. I still think there are perfectly seamless ways of meshing the two systems together, as several recent big models by Cada prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.

BTW, found an article from 2014 about "Technic pieces that should exist but don't". They prepared a summary picture, check it out:

 

A lot of these have indeed been added, but some are still missing, right?

Edited October 3, 2024 by Xfing

[Krxlion]

13 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

I remember starting my journey in Technic and at first I bought CaDa Technic set with these beams and oh boy, I was so disappointed that in Lego catalog there aren't such bricks. I still use them, not though in sets I want to present here, because there is a lot of "lego purists", which would dislike it. Although I built my models mostly with 3rd party electronic (radio transmitter, receiver, etc.), I would like Lego to go back in that direction, the responsiveness in radio system is something we lack. And don't get me started on motors, we lack power and it isn't something that bricks won't handle. There are plenty of people who proved for example that drivetrain system can hold more power that Lego nowadays provides us, without breaking or damaging bricks.

We still lack some crucial small bricks such as 2x2 beam with different variations. Basically, people already mentioned what bricks/liftarms they would find useful and I think this is something that some Lego spy should look into. :D

Edit: Oops, I just noticed that @Xfing already mentioned liftarms I meant, but the list can go on and on.

Edited October 3, 2024 by Krxlion
typo

[howitzer]

9 hours ago, Xfing said:

BTW, found an article from 2014 about "Technic pieces that should exist but don't". They prepared a summary picture, check it out:

 

A lot of these have indeed been added, but some are still missing, right?

The three gears in the middle have been added, as well as the axle-pin and 1L "beam" and some of the flip-flop beams (plus some that aren't in the photo). So I guess we're around halfway there?

As I understand it, generally TLG designers have to justify new moulds and they're encouraged to make the best possible use of existing parts and only when that fails, new mould can be introduced. The obvious problem with this approach is of course that even when a new part type is introduced it might have relatives (such as the flip-flop beams which should come in many lengths) and there will be gaps in the selection until a designer can find a way to justify the new mould. If you think of the basic Technic bricks, the first ones were introduced in 1977 and the set (even lengths from 2 to 16) was completed only in 1997, 20 years later. At the moment the flip-flop beams are going through an era of incompleteness, and while I expect the set to be complete at some point, there's no telling how long that is going to take - maybe by the end of this decade we'll have most of them?

---

Personally I'm not too happy about where the theme is today: too many cars, too little other stuff. But for TLG the situation seems to be different, apparently the cars sell really well so that's what they'll keep making. And sometimes that brings us some nice new parts and especially recolours, so in the end I don't have too much to complain about, I'll just don't buy the car sets. I feel that some of the best Technic sets are not branded Technic at all, such as the 10327 Dune Atreides Royal Ornithopter which I just recently bought. The mechanisms are ingenious and dense and something that has never before been done in an official set (not sure if there are mocs out there with anything like that either). And the build is mostly studful, except for few parts involved in the mechanisms, and I understand that some other sets like the 10323 Pac-Man Arcade also come with interesting internals, so it's not like mechanically complex studful builds aren't done anymore, they're just not branded Technic. That brand seems to be reserved for cars and some other vehicles, most of which are based on real things or at least represent something realistic - not fantastic ones like the Ornithopter nor non-vehicle stuff like the Arcade. The 42179 Orrery is an odd one out, being the only set that's not some kind of a vehicle for more than 20 years (supplementary sets don't count).

In the end I decided that I should show the best properly Technic sets together to make them complement each other:

 

[Timewhatistime]

I believe it was here in the Eurobricks-Forum that someone wrote: "The 11 L axle is the part we knew that TLG would release it some day."

It took some decades...

Observing new releases and new parts over the last 35 years, I am not fully convinced that TLG designers really avoid new parts. Rather, they seem to keep the number of new parts low, but relatively constant each year.

On the one hand, TLG tries to keep the costs for producing as low as possible - this means using the molds over years and decades without introducing too much new parts.

On the other hands, TLG has to offer reasons to buy the new sets. The only way to achieve this, is to intruduce a handful of new parts each year which cannot already be included the collection of the customers.

If TLG did not follow this strategy, customers would be able to build new sets completely with the old parts just from their personal collection (provided that their collection has reached some "critical mass" and is big enough) - and so they wouldn't buy any new sets.

 

[howitzer]

1 hour ago, Timewhatistime said:

I believe it was here in the Eurobricks-Forum that someone wrote: "The 11 L axle is the part we knew that TLG would release it some day."

It took some decades...

Observing new releases and new parts over the last 35 years, I am not fully convinced that TLG designers really avoid new parts. Rather, they seem to keep the number of new parts low, but relatively constant each year.

On the one hand, TLG tries to keep the costs for producing as low as possible - this means using the molds over years and decades without introducing too much new parts.

On the other hands, TLG has to offer reasons to buy the new sets. The only way to achieve this, is to intruduce a handful of new parts each year which cannot already be included the collection of the customers.

If TLG did not follow this strategy, customers would be able to build new sets completely with the old parts just from their personal collection (provided that their collection has reached some "critical mass" and is big enough) - and so they wouldn't buy any new sets.

 

Indeed. Some new parts must be introduced in order to keep the new sets interesting and also to make sure people buy them rather than just build from their collections. But they never introduce very many new parts in the same years, for which one reason surely is to keep the parts inventory manageable so I believe the designers really have to justify the new parts in order to get their vision into production rather than something else. Technic is also unique theme in that there's no figures of any kind whereas most other themes include those as an incentive to buy - often the bigger sets get a large collection of figures with some exclusive ones, so those serve as a lure to buying and other new parts besides minifigures might not be necessary at all (though often there are some nevertheless).

[gyenesvi]

4 hours ago, howitzer said:

As I understand it, generally TLG designers have to justify new moulds and they're encouraged to make the best possible use of existing parts and only when that fails, new mould can be introduced. The obvious problem with this approach is of course that even when a new part type is introduced it might have relatives (such as the flip-flop beams which should come in many lengths) and there will be gaps in the selection until a designer can find a way to justify the new mould. If you think of the basic Technic bricks, the first ones were introduced in 1977 and the set (even lengths from 2 to 16) was completed only in 1997, 20 years later. At the moment the flip-flop beams are going through an era of incompleteness, and while I expect the set to be complete at some point, there's no telling how long that is going to take - maybe by the end of this decade we'll have most of them?

I totally get that it may work like this, but isn't that totally insane and short sighted? It literally goes against the very idea of Lego in terms of systematicity. And when they finally introduce those parts, they are used in dozens of sets and the cost of the molds get amortized quite fast I guess. Also, I think many people are pretty fine with having to pay extra for the new parts. I bet much of the cost of molds for interesting new basic parts could be recuperated just by individual B&P sales, not to mention the sets they are included in, especially if those models end up being clearly superior due to new building techniques / visual elements. So I just don't get the short sightedness around this. I understand that they don't want to introduce a bunch of new parts at the same time. But they could at least group them conceptually. When they decide to go out with a game changing concept like flip-flop beams, go out with them in all sizes in the span of a few years, not 20!

14 hours ago, Xfing said:

A lot of these have indeed been added, but some are still missing, right?

Those pinhole/axle-hole lattice parts would be really useful indeed! And that is what I call systematic approach..

[Timewhatistime]

Well, TLG's business is (nearly) all about selling complete sets for astronomical prices - not about providing us AFOLs and MOCers with the single parts "we find useful" or consider as "systematic".

So, the a-few-new-parts-per-year-policy is even more important for TLG since single parts are available via Ebay, Bricklink etc.

Edited October 3, 2024 by Timewhatistime

[Xfing]

I definitely agree that extensions to the system should be introduced in bulk rather than piecemeal, especially revolutionary ones such as the alternating hole beams. To play the devil's advocate here a bit, I think the system is already so rich that it is really difficult for a designer to draw a blank on how to design something and say "damn, I just can't do it without a new part". That trend will keep worsening too, as there are less and less conceivable parts that might need introducing that would serve a purpose. No one ever thought of the flip-flops before Cada did (apparently), and while they do literally revolutionize Technic, the designers' job is to make sets that can be sold, not to come up for uses of potential new parts that someone higher up decides to introduce. That wouldn't be a bad thing though (at least IMO). I think Lego are just still following the principles laid down during the 2004 restructuring of the company. Previously there were tons of ultra-specialized parts made for very narrow uses (thinking 90s sci-fi System themes), since there was seemingly no regulation on that. Many of them were either <insert that tiresome argument> or very un-MOCable, and Lego are seemingly trying to avoid making that mistake again. The only problem is they're erring on the side of caution, but erring nonetheless - since introducing a family of extremely versatile and useful parts is the opposite of liberally adding new unprofitable molds just for the sake of it. The strategy has so far done Lego good, as modern sets tend to rely on multi-purpose parts much more than older ones, but that does hold them back when it comes to introducing stuff that's actually useful and revolutionary and should be boldly gone all in on. 

speaking of, is there some place where they list notable newly added pieces by year? I know bricklink has that function, but it's a bit annoying to have to sift through literal hundreds of new minifig arm paints and 1x2 printed bricks, I'm more interested in actual new molds.   

[gyenesvi]

6 minutes ago, Xfing said:

To play the devil's advocate here a bit, I think the system is already so rich that it is really difficult for a designer to draw a blank on how to design something and say "damn, I just can't do it without a new part".

Well, I think that's not that hard :) I routinely bump into such situations.

For one, if you try to build mechanisms that are not the typical, already solved problems, even in case of cars/vehicles, like various types of suspension.

Another good exercise is to try building compact, small scale stuff. You'll quickly run into cases where you see there could be a possible solution if a given connector existed, or an existing part in the correct size was available. Technic models are often oversized just for the sake of being impressive, and fairly empty inside; that does not put much pressure on parts, as it gives enough space to hack things around with existing parts.

Also, as things evolve, the expectations for looks is going up too. More and more parts will be required for bodyworks.

6 minutes ago, Xfing said:

That trend will keep worsening too, as there are less and less conceivable parts that might need introducing that would serve a purpose.

So you guessed by now that I disagree with this. I actually even think that a good system should be overcomplete, meaning that there should be multiple ways to build the same structure, because depending on the context, some solutions can become unavailable (for example due to space availability due to surrounding parts), or unstable in certain directions (lack of form locking). I have been in situations where in principle I could have come up with 3 different ways to build something, but none of them was available because all solutions were missing a (non-existent) part.

6 minutes ago, Xfing said:

No one ever thought of the flip-flops before Cada did (apparently),

As far as I have heard from a former lego designer on this forum, TLG did already think about them about 20 years ago, and had prototypes of them way before Cada came out with them. One thing I suspect that has stopped them from bringing them out could be strength, maybe older manufacturing technology was not deemed good enough to manufacture them to the required strength..

6 minutes ago, Xfing said:

and while they do literally revolutionize Technic, the designers' job is to make sets that can be sold, not to come up for uses of potential new parts that someone higher up decides to introduce. That wouldn't be a bad thing though (at least IMO).

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. New parts could result in better products that sell more.

6 minutes ago, Xfing said:

I think Lego are just still following the principles laid down during the 2004 restructuring of the company. Previously there were tons of ultra-specialized parts made for very narrow uses (thinking 90s sci-fi System themes), since there was seemingly no regulation on that. Many of them were either <insert that tiresome argument> or very un-MOCable, and Lego are seemingly trying to avoid making that mistake again. The only problem is they're erring on the side of caution, but erring nonetheless - since introducing a family of extremely versatile and useful parts is the opposite of liberally adding new unprofitable molds just for the sake of it. The strategy has so far done Lego good, as modern sets tend to rely on multi-purpose parts much more than older ones, but that does hold them back when it comes to introducing stuff that's actually useful and revolutionary and should be boldly gone all in on. 

I think this is the problem here, that they are being too cautious now. All those one-off special moulds were clearly a big mistake, as they were not contributing to a good building system. But now they are sabotaging the system by erring on the other side, by not introducing parts that would make a good system.

6 minutes ago, Xfing said:

speaking of, is there some place where they list notable newly added pieces by year?

This page has a fairly nice summary of new parts every month:

https://www.newelementary.com

[Stereo]

19 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

As far as I have heard from a former lego designer on this forum, TLG did already think about them about 20 years ago, and had prototypes of them way before Cada came out with them. One thing I suspect that has stopped them from bringing them out could be strength, maybe older manufacturing technology was not deemed good enough to manufacture them to the required strength..

It's presumably a more complicated mold since they have overhangs in multiple directions, the Technic bricks have the same problem due to holes top bottom and sides, while liftarms can be done as 2 piece molds.  And I think that's a period when they were cost cutting on the parts inventory?

Edited October 3, 2024 by Stereo

[Xfing]

Hey guys, you know what? I found out by accident that Lego introduced a 1x3 brick with 3 axle holes aligned with studs this year (part number 5565). It came in white and red only, and was featured only in licensed sets such as Fortnite, Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario. I checked out the instructions for set 76997 - Tails' Adventure Boat. It uses two of these pieces at both sides of the rear of the boat. But the use is to insert a 2-pin assembly anchored by a 2x2 plate with 2 pins (part 15092). The thing is, this could have easily been accomplished using just a 1x2 brick with 2 pin holes (part 32000) coupled with a simple 1x1 brick for filler. So it doesn't seem like the addition of that part was justified by necessity. 

I checked out the instruction for the remaining models that feature this new brick and it's generally always the same story. The other Sonic set, 76998 also uses the part in a manner I don't find really justificatory of its use - the same could be accomplished with a 32000 combined with a 1x1 brick again. Then again, perhaps a little more stability was offered thanks to the new brick here at least. As for the Mario set 71438, the function from single piece used there could most definitely have been achieved by using a 1x2 once again (and in fact, the vertical assembly produced there features that very brick right above this one - in general showing how you can cleverly mesh studded and studless Technic by connecting all the studs with a liftarm later on). Last but not least, the Fortnite set 77072-1 featuring a sculpture of Peely Bone features 5 of these in white, they're used in limb assemblies, showcasing the convenience of being able to have pin holes aligned with studs. Still, in no instance are all 3 pin holes used, so whatever these pieces achieved in this set could definitely have been achieved by just using its shorter cousins. The stability, robustness and reach of one extra stud of length was convenient, but in no way necessary. 

So in summation, it would seem that LEGO are stealthily expanding the system without a pressing need in some cases, which would go against what we know about their policy to only introduce necessary parts, without which something can't be accomplished. And like that we now have 1x1, 1x2 and 1x3 Technic bricks with pin holes aligned with the studs, with the fist two introduced just 3 years apart back in '93 and '96, and the next in line taking 18 years to come. But indeed, it wasn't really needed - which, again, makes me think Lego are in fact starting to become more liberal and adding parts just for the sake of it, in case they might come in handy in the future. All these models look like they're a testbed for this new part, rather than that the part was added to make them possible.

Bit of a shame they're taking this approach with the studded Technic bricks in particular and of all things - which like we've discussed in this thread plenty enough, are not really being used in Technic-branded sets in the first place. At this rate, in a few decades we might have a complete odd-length studded system to go along with the studless one xD Guess that wouldn't be such a bad thing after all and make the studded and studless styles even more easily combinable. Maybe that's what they're stealthily going for?

[schraubedrin]

4 hours ago, Xfing said:

makes me think Lego are in fact starting to become more liberal and adding parts just for the sake of it, in case they might come in handy in the future

I'd rather think there are models coming up, which need this part.

[Xfing]

5 hours ago, schraubedrin said:

I'd rather think there are models coming up, which need this part.

Still, making some models a testbed for the part like this where it's not at all necessary doesn't sound like a characteristic thing to do, by their logic they should be introducing the part in only the sets that particularly need it.

Edited October 5, 2024 by Xfing

[gyenesvi]

5 hours ago, Xfing said:

Still, making some models a testbed for the part like this where it's not at all necessary doesn't sound like a characteristic thing to do, by their logic they should be introducing the part in only the sets that particularly need it.

Well, I think we have seen in many cases that once a part is made, it is quickly used in other sets as well, and sometimes the first set that uses the part is not the one for which the part was designed, but they are trying to use it in more and more places to amortize the cost of the new mould. For example, the yellow differential was introduced in the Ferrari Daytona, but it was most probably made for the motorized Audi, which came one year later. So I agree that there might be other sets coming in the future where it is required. Another example is the new suspension arm introduced for the P1 supercar, and the same part being used in the Mercedes G-class, even though it would have been quite easy to replace (even would have been better if a proper rear suspension system was designed).

[howitzer]

On 10/3/2024 at 6:33 PM, gyenesvi said:

I totally get that it may work like this, but isn't that totally insane and short sighted? It literally goes against the very idea of Lego in terms of systematicity. And when they finally introduce those parts, they are used in dozens of sets and the cost of the molds get amortized quite fast I guess. Also, I think many people are pretty fine with having to pay extra for the new parts. I bet much of the cost of molds for interesting new basic parts could be recuperated just by individual B&P sales, not to mention the sets they are included in, especially if those models end up being clearly superior due to new building techniques / visual elements. So I just don't get the short sightedness around this. I understand that they don't want to introduce a bunch of new parts at the same time. But they could at least group them conceptually. When they decide to go out with a game changing concept like flip-flop beams, go out with them in all sizes in the span of a few years, not 20!

It's not just the moulds, they are only a small part of the total process. It's more like TLG has only a certain amount of production slots, divided among every element currently in production, and they have to be careful so as not to attempt to put out more elements than this production capacity allows to ensure that every set gets every part they need in large enough quantity and in timely manner - otherwise there will be production delays and associated financial losses. They could of course invest in additional production lines, but while a single mould is relatively inexpensive (=five or six figures of euros depending on the complexity of the mould), an injection moulding machinery and associated production line certainly is not. So it's not that simple to add new parts to the portfolio of parts in production, either they have to do costly expansion or some other part has to go unproduced and this is a balance they have to tread constantly. This is also why the new parts get used a lot as soon as they are released: when the whole line has been set up they'll want to use it as much as possible. So the end result is that we'll get parts to fill the gaps only sporadically - sometimes there's "an opening" in the production slots and the designer can get away with using a long awaited part relatively easily while other times they are told to just work around the need.