Your LEAST favorite technic set?

[mostlytechnic]

Since there's a topic on favorite technic sets already, I was curious about the opposite. I'll update the poll as people make suggestions.

For me, two leading candidates would be the 8264 Hauler and 8063 Tractor with Trailer. Both look nice, but have fairly little functionality for the size of the sets.

edit: poll removed, way too may options!

Edited September 11, 2010 by mostlytechnic

[Cwetqo]

For me it's 8295 - Telehandler. Very poorly made steering, non-stable chasis, lifting mechanism which requiers long and painfull rotation of knob on back side and on top of all very high price of 95 euro makes it an easy choice.

8265 - front end loader has similar number of bricks, three instead of one linear actuator, larger wheels and very nice design and it costs 10 euro less.

[phool]

I quite liked the telehandler, actually there are plenty of really awful technic sets out there which lead me into my dark ages (from around 1998). I gues everything in the competition range is awful and really was not what technic is all about.

[Anio]

8289, 8041, 8063 and some other sets are among the worst sets ever.

[Erik Leppen]

8454. It doesn't have a "main feature" like almost all other Technic sets, but seems to be the result of a bunch of small, uninteresting techniques thrown in one model. Edit: also the alternative model is bland. /edit

I think 8289 on the other hand is a very good set.

Edited September 10, 2010 by Erik Leppen

[allanp]

8043 excavator! (ducks from flying comments!)

If it wasn't for the new PF parts and tracks, 8275 motorised bulldozer would deffinately be one of the worst, it's soooooo simple mechanically. BOOOOORRRRIIIINNNNNGGGGG!

8872 forklift transport is also fairly boring, as is 8458 silver champion, 8063 tractor with trailer (and it's other tractor variant) 8436 truck and 8264 hauler which all suffer from a distinct lack of functionality/complexity considering their size/piece count.

8294 excavator had the potential to be a great set but is so badly let down by too much cranking without a motor and unreliable if not slow performance with the motor, problems also suffered by 8265 front end loader which also had a poor steering mechanism, problems also suffered by the 8295 telescopic handler (minus the unreliable performance with a motor issue, still can't lift much weight tho!) which looks great but has even worse steering. So I guess the inclusion of LAs has ruined several potentially awesome and all time favorite sets, just as it has with the 8043. In short, if the LA was a set, THAT WOULD BE MY MOST HATED SET OF ALL TIME!!!!!

Edited September 10, 2010 by allanp

[grindinggears]

@Anio

I really cannot understand why you consider the fire engine 8289 to be that bad. IMO it was very ahead of its time ( It has introduced the boom linkage that Nathanaël Kuipers has perfected in 8292). It could have been released today.

I have to agree to phool, the time from 1998 until 2002 was really dark for the Technic theme (except for 8448, 8458 and 8466).

The worst sets in this time were the Roboriders but I think noone of us would consider them real Technic.

There were almost no medium-sized sets!

The worst set in my opinion was 8457, it has only minor playability and it costs a lot.

Edited September 10, 2010 by grindinggears

[allanp]

8457 kinda suffers from the same problem as the RC bulldozer, awsome new parts (in this case those wheels) without which the set would be pretty much pointless.

[grepin]

Out of the ones I own, I'd say the worst is probably 8414. It's a small-medium set with interesting features, but the overall experience was somewhat poor.

[grohl]

My vote goes to 8274 Combine harvester. Although the main model is not that bad, the alternate is an absolute disaster.

[Anio]

@Anio

I really cannot understand why you consider the fire engine 8289 to be that bad.

It is very poorly designed. The overall shape of the vehicle is very very coarse.

The 2 outriggers are not even linked. -_- (one knob for each)

When you play with it, the cradle shacked in all directions (if you put a Technic fig there, it will have headhache, sure !)

And the rail of the cradle would only reach the knee of a Technic fig -_-).

Details are poor and stupid. Example : the is a roller but there is no hose.

In short, this model could not have been worse.

It has introduced the boom linkage that Nathanaël Kuipers has perfected in 8292).

Of course ! Nathanaël does only perfect model.

It could have been released today.

2005 : 8289 fire truck

Only 3 years later

2008 : 8292 cherry picker, which, in some extent, is similar to 8289

Got it ?

No ?

=> 8292 was designed to replace 8289 which was definitely a fail.

[Silcantar]

Roboriders, and 8222 VTOL. The Roboriders don't even have clever names, like Throwbots/Slizers. "Swamp" and "Power"? Really?

8222 is a $15 set (I think) with only 1 real function: the whole wings rotate using a worm gear when you rotate the jet engine on the back. On a real VTOL, only the engines rotate. You can also spin the propellers and open the cockpit, but those don't even count. The only plus is the figure.

[Blakbird]

This is an interesting thread. It certainly reveals the disparity of people's opinions. Several of the sets quoted as the "worst" are sets which I like very much. But there is general agreement in some areas.

I gues everything in the competition range is awful and really was not what technic is all about.

I used to feel this way as well. For a long time I did not own any of the Competition sets and did not plan to even include them on Technicopedia. They do not represent real vehicles or machinery and are therefore somewhat apart from standard Technic. However, I did finally get them and they are the favorite Technic sets of my wife and kids, even though they are not my favorite. The play value is very high. So while this is not typically why I buy Technic, I still appreciate that the Competition sets bring in interest from people and age groups that would otherwise not be interested in Technic. And some of the mechanisms are pretty cool!

The same goes for the Speed Slammers. Not very technically interesting, but it turns out they are super fun to play with.

8454. It doesn't have a "main feature" like almost all other Technic sets, but seems to be the result of a bunch of small, uninteresting techniques thrown in one model. Edit: also the alternative model is bland.

I think 8289 on the other hand is a very good set.

I agree that 8454 is not too good. I think a lot of people didn't actually even know what it was supposed to be, but if you are in or around the aircraft industry you recognize this type of fire truck from airports. The opening back and side panels don't really make any sense. They are kind of pointless details. I like the steering though.

I like the 8289 quite a lot. Sure it is ugly, but beautiful models was never really the point of Technic for me. I enjoy the lift mechanism especially.

If it wasn't for the new PF parts and tracks, 8275 motorised bulldozer would deffinately be one of the worst, it's soooooo simple mechanically. BOOOOORRRRIIIINNNNNGGGGG!

It is mechanically simple, but it is very solidly built and realistic so, if nothing else, it is a great platform from which to add more complexity.

8872 forklift transport is also fairly boring, as is 8458 silver champion, 8063 tractor with trailer (and it's other tractor variant) 8436 truck and 8264 hauler which all suffer from a distinct lack of functionality/complexity considering their size/piece count.

8294 excavator had the potential to be a great set but is so badly let down by too much cranking without a motor and unreliable if not slow performance with the motor, problems also suffered by 8265 front end loader which also had a poor steering mechanism, problems also suffered by the 8295 telescopic handler (minus the unreliable performance with a motor issue, still can't lift much weight tho!) which looks great but has even worse steering. So I guess the inclusion of LAs has ruined several potentially awesome and all time favorite sets, just as it has with the 8043. In short, if the LA was a set, THAT WOULD BE MY MOST HATED SET OF ALL TIME!!!!!

The 8872 is large but technically uninteresting, sadly quite like the new 8049 forest tractor. I love the return of pneumatics, but this set doesn't do all that much for its piece count.

Speaking of pneumatics, I agree on the linear actuators. They are a cool idea in principle. I like the absolute positioning ability and the ability to stay fixed at a certain length. I also like the mechanisms which must be created to drive them. But they stink to play with. So much cranking gets old really fast. In every single case of a set with linear actuators, I have added a motor to make it playable. They are actually quite fun with a motor, but adding a motor to every set really drives the price up.

The worst sets in this time were the Roboriders but I think noone of us would consider them real Technic.

This was my first reaction and what I was going to post. Roboriders/Slizers/Throwbots were just awful and nothing about them was Technic. They were a precursor to Bionicle which is of course a totally different path with different fans.

The other sets which do nothing for me were the Micro Technic sets. I guess they offer the possibility of getting into Technic for younger people at a lower price point, but they have almost no functions and are not even vaguely good looking.

Other sets which I always thought were weak:

• 8414 Mountain Rambler: What is this thing supposed to be?
• 3057 Create -n- Race: Many tiny uniteresting models
• 8433 Cool Movers: Lots of instructions but no functions
• 8244 Convertables: Cool modular idea, but the modules don't combine in any interesting ways
• 8252, 8253, 8255 modular vehicles: They are supposed to combine in different ways, but all of those ways are lame.

[prateek]

Why is this a pool with only 2 sets?

[CP5670]

I wouldn't be too hard on the small, sub-$15 impulse sets. They only have one or two simple functions, but that's why they cost so little. I agree that all the Throwbots/Roboriders/early Bionicle lines were useless as Technic sets, and should have been marketed differently. The Star Wars Technic sets had the same issues and seemed out of place in the theme (with the big exception of 8002).

I think the worst sets are some larger ones that were both mechanically simplistic and expensive. 8458 looked great, but had pretty basic mechanisms and was a major letdown for its $170 price (even the nearly identical 8461 was a good $40 cheaper). 8279 and 8472 were both built around a big, specialized motor/battery core and had very little functionality for their $70 prices. Some more recent sets with the same problems are 8264 and 8063.

8244 Convertables: Cool modular idea, but the modules don't combine in any interesting ways

Yes, this one was weak. I recall that it wasn't very cheap either, coming in at $50.

Edited September 11, 2010 by CP5670

[Jurgen Krooshoop]

The most dissappointing for me was the 8653 Enzo. It looked pretty nice, but it was a big let-down that it didn't include a gearbox and didn't even have suspension considering the size.

[TechnicJuan]

The most dissappointing for me was the 8653 Enzo. It looked pretty nice, but it was a big let-down that it didn't include a gearbox and didn't even have suspension considering the size.

I actually thought it looked ugly and barely resembled the actual car. I think the 1:10 scale cars are too small to put a gearbox into and actually have it look right. The door mechanism was really cool at first, but then it semed that it would pop apart easily. The 599GTB had even less features, but looked really nice.

[Siegfried]

I'll update the poll as people make suggestions.

The polling power you have is meant as a Reviewers Academy tool only. Please keep this in mind.

[allanp]

Speaking of pneumatics, I agree on the linear actuators. They are a cool idea in principle. I like the absolute positioning ability and the ability to stay fixed at a certain length. I also like the mechanisms which must be created to drive them. But they stink to play with. So much cranking gets old really fast. In every single case of a set with linear actuators, I have added a motor to make it playable. They are actually quite fun with a motor, but adding a motor to every set really drives the price up.

I have found having a motor doesn't always make it playable (8043?), but maybe i'm being too harsh, the mechanisms needed to drive them are pretty cool even if they don't always work Maybe TLG haven't found their proper use. Afterall, with a little skill a pneumatic digging arm has all the precision of movement you could ever need (personally that game of skill also kinda enhances the playing expierience). I can't think of any set that includes an LA which requires that kind of absolute precision, especially at the cost of the authenticity, strength, control and potential speed given by pneumatics. So maybe there is nothing particarly wrong with LAs, they just haven't found a good use for them yet.

BTW as i'm writing this there are two sets I can see that can be voted on in the poll, both of which include LAs. That's probably just coincidence tho!

Edited September 11, 2010 by allanp

[dr_spock]

8063 wasn't that bad. I bought it on a clearance sale. It made good spare parts for other things, especially the wheels. :)

[Tropy]

Since there's a topic on favorite technic sets already, I was curious about the opposite. I'll update the poll as people make suggestions.

For me, two leading candidates would be the 8264 Hauler and 8063 Tractor with Trailer. Both look nice, but have fairly little functionality for the size of the sets.

edit: poll removed, way too may options!

8295 Telehandler and 8289 fire truck among the worst...good to add pieces to the collections that's it.

[Plastic Nurak]

#8041... next to be a fraud... limited edition... bah*!

I've seen a 8297 model displayed at July LEGOfest in Ballabio, now I think it's nice to see but a failure mechanically because of the absence of a working gearbox and a realistic steering mechanism (I hate when there's only the 'hand of god' mode !). So, I add this model to the list.

*new steering part however is useful for Technic car I'm building

Edited September 16, 2010 by Plastic Nurak

[RohanBeckett]

I fully recovered from my Dark Age in 2004...

The first big set I got for my birthday was the 8426 Truck

It was my first true studless set... and after unbagging all the parts, I was unsure of whether this was still Lego... or some new toy called 'Peg-O'

Seriously.. I couldn't believe the amount of black friction pins this thing had!!

The model was ok, but I found the frame quite flexible, and the mechanics quite basic, and boring... it sorta looked OK, and at least had a couple of pumps/valves.

a month later, I got 8434 Aircraft

To me.. it's one of my all-time bottom Technic sets.. boring build, and not the most fun to play with.

If it had some sort of ratchet system to spin up the propellors.. or even just a manual crank, it would be so much better.

Oh.. and the B-Model is truely pathetic.. a very small Helicoptor.. with a lousy 1:1 gear ratio for knob to rotor.. and the tail rotor isn't even connected!

Just try and compare this set, with say, the original (852), or 2nd ever Technic Helicopters (8844), and I'm sure you'll agree which ones are better!

Also.. don't get me started on the awful dark-metallic-grey + black parts used in this kit.

Near-on impossible to distinguish, while building!

One good thing that came from me getting these 'mediocre' sets: It drove me to scour ebay/etc to buy a LOT of older 80's/90's sets that I missed out on, as a child/teenager.. and I've enjoyed them all immensely! :)

RB

Edited September 18, 2010 by RohanBeckett

[Pauger]

Is it just me or is people here very conservative?

Pepople seem to base the quality of the sets on their nostalgic memories as kids rather than the actual quality, and whining about changes like studless building, LAs and 'too many small pieces'(wtf?).

I agree that the change-over from studfull to studless did produce some rubbish sets and parts, especially the hoses and panels.

But looking at for example the flagships from the two latest years; 8258 and 8043 (assuming the LA flaw will be fixed), I can't think of anything that is close to that good when it comes to building experience, complexity, functions and aestethics (Perhaps with the exceptition of 8480). Which to me is what technic is all about. This is in my opinion the closest TLC has ever been to perfection.

[allanp]

Is it just me or is people here very conservative?

Pepople seem to base the quality of the sets on their nostalgic memories as kids rather than the actual quality, and whining about changes like studless building, LAs and 'too many small pieces'(wtf?).

I agree that the change-over from studfull to studless did produce some rubbish sets and parts, especially the hoses and panels.

But looking at for example the flagships from the two latest years; 8258 and 8043 (assuming the LA flaw will be fixed), I can't think of anything that is close to that good when it comes to building experience, complexity, functions and aestethics (Perhaps with the exceptition of 8480). Which to me is what technic is all about. This is in my opinion the closest TLC has ever been to perfection.

It's not nostalgia, I personally try to leave that well out of it when discussing a set. 8258 is indeed fairly close to perfection, not as close as some loke 8868, 8880 and 8480 but it is still ONE of the best ever. If, however, 8043 was close to perfection then surely it would bloody work! Besides even if it did work properly, thanks to the LAs it's movements are weak and so slow even for the real thing it's just mind numbingly boring to play with for me anyway. It's mechanisms for the digging arm could have been done more authentically and also in a way that makes it faster (more like the real thing) and stronger and all kinds of things. True it is complicated as a technic set should be, and excavators are an awesome subject matter for a technic set to be based on. I guess that's why what we got was such a dissapointment for me, it could have been soooooo much better and for the price, one of the most expensive sets ever, it really should have been IMHO.