What's with all the Technic hate?

[allanp]

The 8275 didn't spoil me at all. Whilst I really like all the PF and the new tracks, the model itself was sooooo boring, all the functions were motorised because there were very few functions to motorise for a flagship. There was very little complexity in that model in my opinion. You would be better off just buying the PF parts from shop at home (I have a feeling this years excavator will be more of the same ).

The 8258 on the otherhand is very complex and interesting and had non of the issues that some others seem to have had. Obviously it would have been better had it used a motor compressor with pneumatics on the end of the stableizers and pneumatics moving the crane arm freeing up the two gearbox functions to operate the boom extention and the winch, but it's still a great model in my opinion, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than the bulldozer

Edited January 9, 2010 by allanp

[paul_delahaye]

You would be better off just buying the PF parts from shop at home (I have a feeling this years excavator will be more of the same ).

I totally disagree about set 8275, not only was it one of the most playable technic sets in a long time! that set was so heavily discounted, by about 25 - 33% in the UK meaning I paid about £75 for a £100 set,

Just adding up the power function parts on Lego.com to purchase separately:

Controller £7.49

XL Motor £7.99

XL Motor £7.99

S Motor £5.99

S Motor £5.99

Battery Box £5.49

Receiver £11.49

Receiver £11.49

£63.92 total,

So you basically get the remaining 1376 parts in this set for £11. So at 0.008 per brick, that makes this set one of the best value for money sets ever made, pretty good by any standards. There was no better value way to buy power functions components when this set was easily available!

I don't deny that this years flagship set, the truck was not a good set, I just agree with tomacwhite that the set appeared to have a lot of corners cut in the final design, especially as it was £130 and the best I found it at was £120! All you got was a battery box, a switch and an power functions XL motor. A total of £18.47 for the power function components for the 2009 flagship model, in comparison, that means the remaining 1874 bricks cost £100 so approx 5p per brick.

Not too mention all the stickers! Although I did get two sets of stickers with the 8258 truck, not sure if we were supposed to? The first time I have applied the stickers in a long time.

Paul

Edited January 9, 2010 by paul_delahaye

[vexorian]

A time when each BIONICLE set was unique? You mean the Toa Mata torso and build we used for three straight years on all Toa? Or the Toa Metru torso we used for two straight years? The Inika torso was used for only four years, and it was well worth it since it was the first torso that was actually useful and versatile, rather than a clunky gearbox. I've tried several times to visualize and/or draw a new structure for a BIONICLE character using imaginary torso parts, but besides shifting the neck joint up a stud there's no changes that don't cost twice their value to the part's versatility.

Really, the concept that BIONICLE became "more cloned" over time is a myth.

Sorry but focusing on canisters is such a silly mistake. Even so the toa mata were more varied. But I do not refer to torsos and canisters when I say that in 2001 the bionicle sets were cooler than in 2009. I refer to boxes. Each Rahi was unique and didn't actually use torsos. There are aeons of differences between the Exo-toa and Makuta. And they all come with functionality, specially the torsos. Compare it with the 2006-2008 titans, although cool they all function the same and are only different in the external parts. So, I am sorry but I don't give canisters that much of an importance when I compare years or lines the canisters are really the low end of the line and have always meant to be. Unless you count the turaga which were really promotional stuff sent into pharmacies... Well, I was just getting nostalgic about a time in which bionicle was actually part of technic and the titans/Rahi (big bionicle boxes) contained cool functionality from a technic stand-point. Was also ranting that nowadays technic is just cars. I know that they are likeable by many but that is really the reason there is so much apathy towards technic (it is not hatred, people just don't care about it -which is worse probably - ).

Something else I miss about those awesome technic times is the Destructor Droid :( .

Edited January 9, 2010 by vexorian

[CP5670]

I am the same with 8258, it just doesn't do quite enough for me. It should have a motorised boom and winch, and the motorised outriggers are pointless because they only do half a job.

Maybe we were spoiled by 8275 which was fully motorised and remote controlled...

Exactly. It was not only the fact that those functions were manual, but the control knobs for them were placed right next to the functions, resulting in no interesting mechanics in them at all. I would say that they weren't "proper" Technic functions. The outriggers were probably the biggest flaw and really feel like an unfinished design to me. I would also add the lack of a second rear differential, which would have been easy for them to add in.

8275 was never quite as ambitious a concept as 8258, but it did what it was supposed to almost perfectly and it didn't skimp on things the way 8258 did. In terms of pricing it was also a fairly good deal. The PF parts in it were worth at least half of the set's $150 US price, and of course you also got the tracks and many other useful parts.

[allanp]

I totally disagree about set 8275, not only was it one of the most playable technic sets in a long time! that set was so heavily discounted, by about 25 - 33% in the UK meaning I paid about £75 for a £100 set,

Just adding up the power function parts on Lego.com to purchase separately:

Controller £7.49

XL Motor £7.99

XL Motor £7.99

S Motor £5.99

S Motor £5.99

Battery Box £5.49

Receiver £11.49

Receiver £11.49

£63.92 total,

So you basically get the remaining 1376 parts in this set for £11. So at 0.008 per brick, that makes this set one of the best value for money sets ever made, pretty good by any standards. There was no better value way to buy power functions components when this set was easily available!

I don't deny that this years flagship set, the truck was not a good set, I just agree with tomacwhite that the set appeared to have a lot of corners cut in the final design, especially as it was £130 and the best I found it at was £120! All you got was a battery box, a switch and an power functions XL motor. A total of £18.47 for the power function components for the 2009 flagship model, in comparison, that means the remaining 1874 bricks cost £100 so approx 5p per brick.

Not too mention all the stickers! Although I did get two sets of stickers with the 8258 truck, not sure if we were supposed to? The first time I have applied the stickers in a long time.

Paul

Well it would appear that we mearly have different critirea on which we judge how good a set is. I'm more interesrted in the complexity, functionality, what parts it has and so on. Price is wholey dependent on the set and the amount of powerfunctions parts like motors and recievers a set has does not really interest me anywhere near as much as how functional or complex it is. The bulldozer was great for new parts (the powerfunctions/tracks) I grant you, having another look at it, yeah it is a good set. It's just sorley lacking in complexity, funtionality and ambition (that's the set itself, not the powerfunctions). However I do realise that most of the thought went into creating the powerfunctions parts leaving not much left over for the set itself so maybe I am being a bit harsh on it. As a platform for introducing powerfunctions it's great, as a flagship model, not so great.

The 8258 is more expensive but I would say that 5p per brick is reasonable especially for what is IMHO a much better assortment of parts. Over double the amount of gears as the bulldozer, 7 of the new gear racks, those cool new H beams and so on. It has the same amount of motorised functions as the bulldozer (which I have had no issues with) and achives them in a much more interesting way via it's gearbox and it has the manual functions on top of all that, not instead of. But yeah, like I said, it would have been better had it used a motor compressor with pneumatics on the end of the stableizers and pneumatics moving the crane arm freeing up the two gearbox functions to motorize the boom extention and the winch. Then it's only a change of colour shceme away from being one of the best technic sets of all time IMHO! I'm gonna have to get round to modding my 8258 one day.

[cbt]

What's with all the Technic hate?

Might be due to the lack of studs in today's Technic sets ?.

Might be needless to say, that the classic studded Technic beam was more or less displaced by the development of today's Technic theme towards liftarm-based designs and is to be found - often in rather large numbers, actually - in today's minifig sets.

Anyways, the winds of change keeps blowing, and if you don't like what's cooking in today's steaming bowl of Technic innovations, then perhaps the steaming bowl on another stove might smell somehow better...

[Rijkvv]

I do prefer studded sets above studless ones, because they don't really look like LEGO to me. However, there's no hate. There are worser lines (Bionicle, Galidor, Ben 10). In fact, some recent sets got my attention (8258 is just one example), as well as some awesome MOCs.

I don't think, and hope, that the studded beams won't be replaced completely by studless liftarms. I think there are some great examples to combine the two (8421, 8275, 8265, Prinoth Snow Groomer by Han Crielaard).

[Dennis]

I am amazed that many here are using Lego Sets that, without offending anyone, or not intending to, my 5 year old cusions are playing with, so see many of these sets as for kids, while Technics as more adult, due to there use in robot building and university use.

Maybe Technic are to complex for some. As the Technic forum says for the advanced builder. Technics sets have always been for like teens, and are used in Robotics and universities, so Technics I can see how adults love Technic sets.

I got some Technics sets lately as an extention to my Mindstorms NXT 2.0, and have enjoyed making the Models, my next project building the Crane Truck (8258). Technics have a place in the adult world, but have to laugh when I see adults still playing with, sorry kids lego sets, the kind of sets my 5 year old cusion is playing with. I thought they where gone as an adult LOL. Sorry don't mean to offend anyone, but don't know a better way of putting it.

We do need a Technics website dedcated to Technics as they are far more advanced sets and used by people who build robots and enginneering, etc, advanced builders. So more adult like.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Dennis

[SpiderSpaceman]

I may be about to give technic a whole lot of monetary love. or not... a bunch of sweet unopened parts is at stake. return them and get technic like I know I should? tis a dilemma.

I'm actually a huge fan of the studless system, It scared me when NXT did it because I'm a RIS 1.5 man myself... but it's been growing on me for a good while.

mmm. sometimes I think official sets aren't the best subject matter, there's some repetition, and some of the smaller sets are not as functional as I'd like. but I sit down with a good selection of technic elements and some graph paper and I'll have a blast

I am amazed that many here are using Lego Sets that, without offending anyone, or not intending to, my 5 year old cusions are playing with... Technics sets have always been for like teens... LOL... have to laugh when I see adults still playing with, sorry kids lego sets, the kind of sets my 5 year old cusion is playing with... So more adult like.

I'm amazed that you are using, no offense, speech like my 2 year old cOusin. Just playing man.

I really think everybody here can handle technic. I'm glad you aspire to engineering and recognize the joy of making things work, but you should "lose the attitude". The best engineers are the ones who hang tight with creativity, and creativity is the reason adults like a lego hobby.

Edited March 6, 2010 by SpiderSpaceman

[CBFasi]

My niece who is 7 built the huge Technic dozer, with a little help..

Ok she had some help to ge the parts to join, but we both enjoy building using the full range of lego, technic has some rather useful parts, in fact often the main models are built using technic with the rest hiding the technic!

I remember Technic when I first met it, was the Technic Pneumatic digger back in the early-mid 80's I think

In fact right now I am built a minfig scale At-At based walker and its so far predominanlty technic, especially since its the only way to get the walking motion..

Technic is definately not gone for me..

[Sid]

I'm amazed that you are using, no offense, speech like my 2 year old cOusin. Just playing man.

I really think everybody here can handle technic. I'm glad you aspire to engineering and recognize the joy of making things work, but you should "lose the attitude". The best engineers are the ones who hang tight with creativity, and creativity is the reason adults like a lego hobby.

Ditto.

I may be in the minority here, but I love ALL Lego. I have more than several TECHNIC sets including 8417 Mag Wheel Master, 8428 Concept Car, 8458 Silver Champion, 8466 4x4 Off Roader, and the list goes on and on. But I LOVE the Star Wars line. And I enjoy trains (Santa Fe, anyone?) and the HP line as well.

You walk into my room and you'd think it was a SW Lego store. Funnily enough I "played" with my TECHNIC sets when I was 14. Now? They're in the closet.

TECHNIC does not = "adult" or more "advanced". Build the UCS Star Destroyer.. that seems plenty advanced to me.

[Eilif]

Technic hate. I don't think so. Hate is far to strong a word to describe the ambivalence that many EB'ers have about Technic.

The OP bases his assumption negative reactions that aren't actually very common here, and the followup poster bases it on observation of Brickset comments.

If I may take a brief tangent...

those of us who have been around for a while know that a great number (but by no means all all) of the negative or immature brickset comments are just the regurgitation of pre-teens who have not built the set in question and are just happy to have a place they can toss up their opinions without having to register or be accountable for what they write. Brickset is an awesome resource for set cataloging, set release dates and pictures, and people's brief initial impressions of sets, and alot of good insights do appear in the set reviews/comments, but it's not the place to go to get in-depth set reviews.

Now back to the topic at hand.

Now it's true that Technic is not the Flagship of LEGO. Technic is not what most people think about when they think of LEGO, and it's not the face that LEGO often choses to show the world. That said it does form a vital part of the LEGO machine. As I first said, I think it's not so much a matter of hate, as ambivalence. While Technic does have alot of followers, many people who are primarily interested in the minifigure baseed asthetic asthetic and playfull nature of LEGO system building aren't particularly interested in the mechanical and mathematical aspects of Technic building.

[jshuiting]

It has a abstract look that's not for everyone, simple as that.
As a kid i dissliked it for the same reasons, but as a adult i've grown to love it.

Liftarms over bricks anytime! 

Also, creating a account just to revive a 10 year old thread, really?!

[Bartybum]

@LordOfHatred Technic is a theme that swings the pendulum the other way to provide something for those more interested in play via mechanical engineering than solely eye candy.

I’m the type of guy to take fully functioning suspension, a gearbox, steering, etc over a pretty model any day of the week.

Because it’s a marketable product, it can’t be too expensive or else it won’t be bought, so a line has to be drawn somewhere for functional yet aesthetic sets.

In any case, way to make your first impressions by bumping a decade old abandoned thread.

[Magical Duck]

As much as I hate thread bumping, I do feel that he has a point. In recent years it looks like Technic has lost some of its functional and aesthetic aspect. Personally, my favorite year was 2016 with the Claas, the BWE, the Volvo, the Helicopter, and other fantastic models. Since then, especially in smaller sets, it seems like the quality and overall look of builds has decreased. For example the 42106 Stunt Show Truck and Bike, which can only be described as ugly and offers 3 functions for 600-odd parts. The 42108 mobile crane had a disproportionate cab and meager body. In addition, the functionally interesting sets are often near the top of the price range for that year, such as the Bugatti and the Land Rover. Even the 42108 didn't have proper outriggers, despite being in the same parts range as the 8053 mobile crane (which also offered a nice B-model). The lack of B-model functionality has turned me away from the newer Technic offerings, and despite a few gems in recent years like the 42078 or 42110, I feel the over all quality has gone down somewhat. Sorry for pushing this old thread, but let me know what you think!

[Saberwing40k]

8 hours ago, LordOfHatred said:

let me put it simply: technic sets look awful.

I know some may value the mechanism so much that they can tolerate imperfect looks, but im not one of them. the reason why I still play lego is that lego can make things look like the real thing while being made up of bricks. technic set don't look pretty and realistic. take those cars for example, i cannot tolerate the poor, rough, and rigid interior and those noticeable gaps between pieces. if they can make every technic set look good like set 4002017 employee gift nutcracker, im down for it.

i was actually able to find some Chinese brand technic sets (called sengbao or senbao) that both satisfy my needs for complicated mechanism and good looks. they don't have those awkward looking interiors and huge gaps of lego technic sets. plus they come at much much cheaper costs. to me lego just doesn't do an acceptable job with their technic sets

Why did you need to bump a 10 year old thread just to add some negativity? I mean, you may not like Technic, but going out of your way to voice your dislike in this manner is not a good look. Also, more often than not, the Chinese branded Technic stuff are stolen from MOC creators, like some users of this site, so that's why it's so much better.

Just now, Magical Duck said:

As much as I hate thread bumping, I do feel that he has a point. In recent years it looks like Technic has lost some of its functional and aesthetic aspect. Personally, my favorite year was 2016 with the Claas, the BWE, the Volvo, the Helicopter, and other fantastic models. Since then, especially in smaller sets, it seems like the quality and overall look of builds has decreased. For example the 42106 Stunt Show Truck and Bike, which can only be described as ugly and offers 3 functions for 600-odd parts. The 42108 mobile crane had a disproportionate cab and meager body. In addition, the functionally interesting sets are often near the top of the price range for that year, such as the Bugatti and the Land Rover. Even the 42108 didn't have proper outriggers, despite being in the same parts range as the 8053 mobile crane (which also offered a nice B-model). The lack of B-model functionality has turned me away from the newer Technic offerings, and despite a few gems in recent years like the 42078 or 42110, I feel the over all quality has gone down somewhat. Sorry for pushing this old thread, but let me know what you think!

I think your point is a lot more legitimate. Lately, I feel like Lego is dumbing down Techinc, to broaden the appeal, but I don't see the point in that, given how they have other lines to appeal to younger builders, and lots of advanced stuff, too. I don't think that Technic should be like Racers, which it sometimes seems like Lego is trying to turn it into. I do agree, since 2016, Lego has dropped the ball with Technic, a little bit. I mean, even last year, 42097 was a much better set than 42108, which is kind of bad.

[andythenorth]

Wow, you've all been on forums how long?  And you fell for this 'promote my brand' I-have-1-post shitposting?  You must all be bored on lockdown.

[SNIPE]

I know some people on youtube are not interested so much in technic but that's OK. I have started becoming more interested in system style pieces and building in the past few years.

One problem is models that are technic on the inside and system on the outside often get deleted for being 'non technic' on certain technic facebook groups.

I was never into bionicle, sizzlers, sports, throwbots, hero factory, etc for example because the parts in them are too specicalized to fit (much) in the lego system athough there are good exceptions like the bionicle tooth piece is used a lot in technic sets now.

note when I say 'in the lego system' I dont mean the theme 'lego SYSTEM' nor do I mean the classificaiton of non technic parts as 'SYSTEM'

Edited April 12, 2020 by SNIPE

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, SNIPE said:

the bionicle tooth piece

Funnily enough, it was first used as an eye.

[nerdsforprez]

5 hours ago, Magical Duck said:

As much as I hate thread bumping, I do feel that he has a point......

Fair enough; but the point of making a point, is to..... ummm... MAKE A POINT.  In other words, have your voice heard or be taken seriously. 

I think this is something that unfortunately so many folks don't understand.  Seems like there are so many out there who think that just because they say something others will listen.  Doesn't necessarily work that way. 

There is a tact, or social grace that comes with communicating one's thoughts.  And even if you have a valid point about something, to voice it without this tact leads to being ignored.  IMO, rustling up a decade-old thread, and expressing it in the way it was, well, IMO missed that tact big time.  I'll be honest, I read this post when it was first posted, snickered and moved on before even considering its value.  I'll bet there were many who read it whose response was similar; only to snicker rather than actually consider its legitimacy....