Sets can't escape Technic?

[JCC1004]

After becoming a more seasoned AFOL, I've realized many sets can not escape Technic parts. It does make a lot of sets more accurate and adds detail. Personally I don't like Technic parts. The colors used can turn a potentially good set into a not so good one. The pins are black, blue, tan and so fourth. It can really degrade a set. The 1X? brick with Technic holes are used. They do help but are sometimes used in bad places. With 6211 Star Destroyer this problem is present. It takes away from the set. If I want technic I'd buy Technic. I seems TLG purposely tries to incorporate them into sets. I can not think of a set with put Technic off the top of my head. I'm not sure what to think of it. A lot of the detail TLG uses Technic for can be achieved by SNOT or hinges. I could be paranoid, or not. I'd like to see some more traditional building techniques. I hope this doesn't become too much of a problem. Any ideas, comments, concerns, or want to speak your mind?

[Natman8000]

The way I see it, is that most of the time technic is used to give a system set features that cannot be achieved with regular system bricks. And besides, when these little technic pieces are so common in the system sets, you can barely separate them from regular bricks. There are certain sets that would not be as good with out the technic parts holding it together.

[Carbohydrates]

The only time I have a problem with it is when it's visually distracting, like Technic beam infrastructure showing through panels or blue half pins in exposed places. Otherwise, I'm fine with it. I like it when it adds function or strength, and pieces like the 1x1 with axle hole and 1x2 with 2 axle holes are very useful for SNOT, especially when used with half pins.

[MacK]

I've noticed this as well, and do get rather annoyed by it when I try to MOC. I supose that for the most part it's to reduce cost as building with only system bricks is pretty expenive; plus it could make for a rather bulky and/or weak model.

[ILikePi]

I seems TLG purposely tries to incorporate them into sets.

That is because they actually try to do so. The "random" colors (blue and tan) are there so that the kids who are building the sets will have an easier time doing it, since the colors act as reference points on where to put the next pieces.

Also, the Technic pieces usually make the set stronger, so kids can play with them without pieces constantly falling off.

A lot of the detail TLG uses Technic for can be achieved by SNOT or hinges.

Yes, but then the building instructions would be too complicated for a 6-12 year old child to follow.

Keep in mind that almost every single LEGO set is made for kids, not all you AFOLs out there. The designers do not make the sets completely realistic because it helps the kids build them more easily. Kids are the main age group that LEGO sets are for, and usually the designers ignore most of what AFOLs would want in the design. The only LEGO sets that are designed for AFOLs are the ones with the special packaging (like the upcoming Imperial Flagship's box art) and the UCS sets.

And that is why I vote for it being a good balance.

Edited October 21, 2009 by ILikePi

[CP5670]

It's great to see Technic in minifig-scale sets if it actually adds functionality to the set. However, a number of sets have used Technic construction just to build a frame, which results in empty and hollow models and is probably only being done to save on production costs.

I do agree with you about the profusion of colors in basic Technic pieces, and it looks bad even on the actual Technic models these days. The tan pieces look fine, but the blue and red ones really stand out on some models.

[Brickthing]

In SYSTEM sets, TECHNIC offers the possibilities of SNOT, but with the stability required for kid-playable sets as well. Without it, a lot of today's sets would have much more boring shapes.

To add to what ILikePi said about the pin colours, the different colours also makes it easier to differentiate between all the different small connectors. It can be an eyesore at times, but it's nothing that can't be avoided in MOCing or fixed in the set itself with some of the older colours.

With the current way that my small TECHNIC pieces are organized, it's much more convenient to use blue pin/axles than black ones, because I can actually find them among all my black 2/3 pins.

[mikey]

Generally I do not have a problem with a degree of technic in system sets, but...

The only time I have a problem with it is when it's visually distracting, like Technic beam infrastructure showing through panels or blue half pins in exposed places. Otherwise, I'm fine with it. I like it when it adds function or strength, and pieces like the 1x1 with axle hole and 1x2 with 2 axle holes are very useful for SNOT, especially when used with half pins.

I do not like to see random colours either, but this can happen with none technic parts in many system sets. Of course these are usually easy to change to more complimentary colours. I also find the new studless technic beams to quote usefull sometimes. My biggest complaint would be the dominance of the Blue Half Pin in system sets, whilst I can understand the importance of using these in a complicated Technic Build, often in system sets these could be replaced with Black or Blay, and the instructions still easy enough to follow.

I vote for 'A Good Balance', I am happy with the amount included at the moment, but would not want to see more of it in the future.

Edited October 21, 2009 by mikey

[Sandy]

My problem with the Technic pieces is that I have a box full of them, but I don't really know how to use them in MOCs.

I think many of the Technic-features and action-elements provided by them in modern sets are cool, but I can't really make them myself, since I'm not a very technical person. So, my stock of pins and axles remains largely unused...

[brickzone]

I'm sure for real fans, pure Technic sets are still great, but to be honest, I never got into them. Despite being a Lego builder and someone with an engineering degree (computers and electronics), technic sets just seem a bit too intimidating for MOCing and I prefer stylised Lego set models over functional ones. For me, the amount of technic in ordinary sets is just about right for me, and I like using it to add features/support to ordinary models (kind of like it is used in many Lego sets). I'm gradually getting more used to technic as I build sets using particular technic mechanisms.

I would presume that it is the same for people generally and kids too, that the technic features in normal sets expand their building horizons. At the very least, they often add fun play features.

I think the idea of Model Team was good (never had the money for it as a kid/teen) but in some ways certain larger sets today are following the same line, albeit more fun (and the lesser degree of intricacy is probably better too)! I'm currently building the Imperial Star Destroyer (bought minus figs and 1 or 2 special parts for €8!!) and it is a fun playset with ordinary Lego plates etc. and yet uses a lot of technic for something that is not a technic model.

I'm quite happy to have a stockpile of Technic even if I don't use it all, because you need a good selection for even just occasional mechanisms. Even for the opening gate/moving/lowering platform for the scrambler in my Lego Agents base, and the opening "missile silo" doors, I had to hunt around for the "correct" technic parts. And of course studded technic beams are very useful in any larger ordinary Lego construction.

I do find the collection of black friction pins that I've built up to be somewhat alarming, and I have a box of random parts with pin-holes (not even bionicle - just the weirder brackets etc.)

The parts I truly find I use least, apart from Bionicle, are the ratcheting knuckle and ball/socket joints from exo-force, but I probably just need to build some of my own mechas at some point to rectify that (I like the idea of making "transformers" out of Lego, but some playing around suggested it to be a lot more difficult than I had imagined).

[Legostein]

Hello!

An interesting topic! I hope we are allowed to expand the discussion to the use of TECHNIC pieces in MOCs as well.

Although I'm just a mini builder, TECHNIC pieces are totally indispensable, in my opinion and for my creations. I agree that SNOT can do a lot, as I love to use it very much, but not everything especially at very small scale. These parts include especially smaller 1x1 and 1x2 bricks, fat and flat beams of short length, and many of the angled connectors.

Let me give just two little examples if allowed.

This little hailfire droid uses lots of TECHNIC pieces. Without the angled connector it would not have been possible, as conventional hinges don't allow for an additional connection at the hinge center. And the large gears are the perfect choice for the wheels.

Another example is this small droid starfighter which consists (almost) entirely of TECHNIC pieces. Any conventional plate technique would have resultet in a more bulky construction.

In summary I agree that many TECHNIC techniques can be replaced by conventional building, however sometimes the TECHNIC constructs proove to be more stable. When building very detailed or at small scale, TECHNIC pieces often resemble the only way to obtain a certain accuray.

That's my humble opinion.

Have a great day,

~ Christopher

Edited October 21, 2009 by Legostein

[ziljin]

For MOC's, pins can be used to make double sided stuff for symmetry.

Haven't used it yet, a pic from the Kraken Attackin' review.

And the technic pins can be used to connect structures/dioramas/etc. Large scale MOC's

[Rijkvv]

I understand the reasons why people vote against technic in non-technic sets. For me it's just another way to make model more sturdy and add functions. Some big Star Wars sets were way more fragile if there weren't technic parts included.

[Rick]

I'd say its generally a good balance, although I don't like the blue pins in the masts of my Brickbeard's Bounty. As long as it's sort of hidden and doesn't mess with the aesthetics too much, I don't mind.

[Zorro]

Well, IMO its easy as well, sometimes they are just needed for improving the balance, stability or sturdyness.

Although some can be replaced by normal bricks, this could end up being more expensive while loosing some of the above...

[allanp]

I do agree with you about the profusion of colors in basic Technic pieces, and it looks bad even on the actual Technic models these days. The tan pieces look fine, but the blue and red ones really stand out on some models.

Well I am a total technic fan. Nothing but technic ,and the occasional large non technic set, for me (tho I'll try not to let that make my opinion baised in any way ). And in my view I agree that even in technic sets some of the colour choices for parts are quite frustrating so the problem must be even worse for regular sets whose main function is more about aesthetics than functionality. But apart from the colour issues I think that there is quite a good balance in the non technic sets I have. It can also add alot of strength and also allow models to increase in size without stretching the price so much (to do the ICS imperial star destroyer the same size without using technic would have made for a much weaker and even more expensive set). I also think some sets would have been much better if they were nothing but technic (the eiffel tower for example). But that's just me!

[Big Cam]

Great topic idea JC.

As a person who had lots of LEGO as a kid and 15 years later got back into it, I was shocked at the amount of technic pieces I found in all of my new SW sets. But after building a few it dawned onme that the great designs would not be possible without the technic pieces.

If LEGO had never existed and they opened their doors today and released all the current sets and didn't call the technic pieces technic pieces, we would never know, they would just be bricks with holes in them, or round pieces.

I think it's only because technic was it's own entity for so long, that we have this great separation. To me technic pieces aren't a hassle in a set, when I see them I say, sweet, this LEGO set is going to do something that it probably shouldn't be able to.

I personally say more power to LEGO to combine their knowledge to make great sets.

[Ronan Dragonov]

Great topic. I've pondered it at various times looking at the bin full of Technic parts off (mostly) Star Wars sets that I've bought over the past few years (I have a few ideas...)

I voted no as to over-use. Using Techinc in non-Technic sets demonstrates good LEGOneering. Aesthetic concerns are valid too. Though I usually buy sets for their general brick offering I do build the official set before adding the parts to my MOC inventory. Technic parts don't always blend well such as mentioned earlier with 6211 Star Destroyer. Take it as an opportunity, build the MOD1 of the official set and put it right.

[Milan]

I am buying more parts then sets, recently, but I have no problem with Technic pieces in non-technic sets IF they increase strength, functions and realism of the set. I do not like, however, when those pieces are visible and in different colors than set overall.

Also, in creations that I am building now, I try to build Technic frame, for rigidity of 3kg+ model, and then add bricks around it, to camouflage them.

[JCC1004]

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Technic. Some sets wouldn't be possible with out it. I've noticed it's used almost in every set. TLG also puts them where they are not necessary. It seems sets can't escape Technic.

About the pin color. Kids must have really bad eyesight. I think they could distinguish light gray from black. I don't think that the blue pins are needed. Out of all the colors blue is the worst. It really can take away from a model and be horrid.

If TLG would use SNOT in a easier way it could work. If the instructions are clear enough TLG could get any technique to be easy. Somethings would be to hard to get across.

I think many of the Technic-features and action-elements provided by them in modern sets are cool, but I can't really make them myself, since I'm not a very technical person. So, my stock of pins and axles remains largely unused...

I'm not much of a technical person either. I have a big box of just pins and such that I cannot incorporate into MOCs.

Great topic idea JC.

You call me JCC or JCC1004! Don't leave out that C! You're hurting it's feelings.

[davee123]

I've been annoyed with the overuse of Technic. Things like Exo-Force models are frequently a technic skeleton with some other elements slapped on the top to make it look like a solid construction. They look cool from a few angles, but often I find I'm very disappointed with the lack of brick-built areas of a model.

Personally, I think it's marketing. Kids won't buy something that's brick-built because it'll probably look clunkier. And if you make a brick-built model full of SNOT and wacky building techniques, then it's either too complicated, too fragile, or uses techniques that are frowned upon by LEGO. Hence, we get Technic-esque models.

What was interesting to me was this:

LEGO has what's sometimes known as "play table brick". It's random elements thrown together from overstock, returns, and other sources. And LEGO will frequently use this stuff at events for kids, or use it to donate to charitable causes or other events. Enter some damaged Exo-Force sets. Actually, I don't know if they were deemed "damaged" or "overstock" or both-- but let's just say that LEGO wasn't going to sell them to customers. Their first recourse was to open up the boxes and dump them into the play table brick. However, this action was prevented, because there weren't enough "bricks" in them. Effectively, the sets were too "technicy" to be put into the stuff they typically give to kids! (Note, it's not saying that the elements were too small for younger kids, etc. The play table brick actually does frequently seem to have small technic elements.)

Now, my guess is is that this is because kids are easily frustrated and/or bored with piles of technic elements, and that those elements don't present a good creative building environment. Effectively, that kids are comfortable building with normal rectangular bricks, plates, and slopes, but are NOT comfortable building with technic. So, essentially, what it says to me is that not only are these sets not good enough for LEGO play tables, but they're also probably discouraging to build alternate models with for kids at home. Effectively, that creative play is being hindered by this style of building, because it's too advanced.

Anyway, LEGO's action says to me that at least some groups at LEGO would agree with the sentiment that technic is overused in many sets.

DaveE

[prateek]

I don't like it, but I think most of the sets that do have Technic pieces need them to stay stable or else they will fall apart.

[Bricktrain]

I like it, I mostly buy the sets with more technic pieces, but I agree it would be nice to have the pins and axles in the full colour range to blend in with the models.

[starwarsfanatic]

About the pin color. Kids must have really bad eyesight. I think they could distinguish light gray from black. I don't think that the blue pins are needed. Out of all the colors blue is the worst. It really can take away from a model and be horrid.

I agree. Blue is the worst except in models with blue as part of the colour scheme. Why can't TLG just use the same mold in a different colour? All of a set type of element seem to be the same colour, excluding technic bricks!

[Big Cam]

I agree. Blue is the worst except in models with blue as part of the colour scheme. Why can't TLG just use the same mold in a different colour? All of a set type of element seem to be the same colour, excluding technic bricks!

I can't really think of a set where the blue pins show after the final set is completed.

This has never bothered me for that reason.