Your LEAST favorite technic set?

[CP5670]

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.

This thread is about the worst sets, not the best ones.

I agree that 8043 seems to be right up there with any of the old classics. I'm holding off on it until its problems are fixed though, and it's also a mediocre value if you take the price into account (at least in the US; it's apparently a better deal in Europe). 8258 was very good, but it had some obvious corners cut and half-finished functions. The outriggers, winch and crane extension are not "proper" Technic functions to me, as they don't involve any real mechanism.

[Pauger]

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.

We all know that this set has a design flaw, and that it's going to be fixed. Actually I think it's the most playable set I've ever had, but then I did disemble it before I got any problems with the motors.

This thread is about the worst sets, not the best ones.

I agree that 8043 seems to be right up there with any of the old classics. I'm holding off on it until its problems are fixed though, and it's also a mediocre value if you take the price into account (at least in the US; it's apparently a better deal in Europe). 8258 was very good, but it had some obvious corners cut and half-finished functions. The outriggers, winch and crane extension are not "proper" Technic functions to me, as they don't involve any real mechanism.

Oh, right... I think I've gone slightly off topic

Think of it as "bonus-functions". You don't have to use the winch and the crane extension if you don't want, it's just an extra if you need it :)

Edited September 18, 2010 by Pauger

[Anio]

The outriggers, winch and crane extension are not "proper" Technic functions to me, as they don't involve any real mechanism.

And what do you suggest for it to be better ?

[RohanBeckett]

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.

Ditto..I'm also not saying studless is rubbish...

While I don't own 8258, I do have 8455, and 8265

8455 is an awesome set.. I didn't mind in the slightest that it didn't have a single stud!

8265 (and a few other recent technic sets), re-introduce some studded construction.. and I think they are much better for it.

A blend usually produces the best result.

Anyway.. yes.. this thread is about worst sets...... just looked through my collection.. but I can't find any more that I really dislike! :)

(maybe I'm selective in what I buy!)

RB

[CP5670]

Think of it as "bonus-functions". You don't have to use the winch and the crane extension if you don't want, it's just an extra if you need it :)

The crane extension can certainly be called a bonus, but I think the outriggers are an essential part of the model.

And what do you suggest for it to be better ?

The outriggers should automatically come down as they are extended, which could be done in a couple of different ways. The outriggers extend very nicely, but the lowering "function" is basically equivalent to what this does. It's a stretch to call that a function. I would have also liked the winch control to be more remotely located, like most previous Technic winches have been (just moving the winch knob down to the arm base would be an improvement, although a PF micromotor would have been ideal here).

[Anio]

The outriggers should automatically come down as they are extended, which could be done in a couple of different ways. The outriggers extend very nicely, but the lowering "function" is basically equivalent to what this does. It's a stretch to call that a function. I would have also liked the winch control to be more remotely located, like most previous Technic winches have been (just moving the winch knob down to the arm base would be an improvement, although a PF micromotor would have been ideal here).

Sorry, I see no suggestion about how to fully motorize the outriggers and the winch in you post.

Actually, this is simply : you have no suggestion just because it is impossible to do these changes correctly with a model of this scale.

[CP5670]

Sorry, I see no suggestion about how to fully motorize the outriggers and the winch in you post.

Actually, this is simply : you have no suggestion just because it is impossible to do these changes correctly with a model of this scale.

You're getting pretty worked up over this. I remember describing to you one possible approach for the outriggers several months ago. This is a quite large model and I think it should be doable at this scale, although it would need a substantial redesign of the chassis. Alternatively, the model could have just used "swinging" outriggers like 8421 and other Technic sets, and those would be easy to fully motorize. I would have still liked that better than the existing outriggers.

As for the winch, I wasn't saying that it should have been motorized, as that would need an extra motor.

[Anio]

You're getting pretty worked up over this. I remember describing to you one possible approach for the outriggers several months ago. This is a quite large model and I think it should be doable at this scale, although it would need a substantial redesign of the chassis. Alternatively, the model could have just used "swinging" outriggers like 8421 and other Technic sets, and those would be easy to fully motorize. I would have still liked that better than the existing outriggers.

Indeed, it could have been like other sets, and so fully motorized.

But I think that sometimes it's cool to see different things.

[Fyredog]

The crane extension can certainly be called a bonus, but I think the outriggers are an essential part of the model.

The outriggers should automatically come down as they are extended, which could be done in a couple of different ways. The outriggers extend very nicely, but the lowering "function" is basically equivalent to what this does. It's a stretch to call that a function. I would have also liked the winch control to be more remotely located, like most previous Technic winches have been (just moving the winch knob down to the arm base would be an improvement, although a PF micromotor would have been ideal here).

I so agree with you on this - I have plans to make mine extend down once the arms are fully extended - I think pneumatically - as I have yet to incorporate the Pneumatics in any of my MOCS - I love the pneumatics but have to have the right application to use them. I think this would be perfect - and have some of the details worked out in my head.

[Erik Leppen]

[8258] could have just used "swinging" outriggers like 8421 and other Technic sets, and those would be easy to fully motorize. I would have still liked that better than the existing outriggers.

I guess opinions differ on this one :) I for one, really dislike 8421's outrigger system, the way they fold out is quite lame and totally unlike real mobile cranes. At least the outriggers of 8258 move out the same way as they do on real cranes. On real cranes, extending the outrigger and deploying the "foot" are two separate actions too. So I find 8258's outrigger system very realistic in that aspect. But yeah, I don't really care about motorization anyway. Technic is not about motors for me, it's about techniques. And I think 8258's outrigger system has nice techniques.

And indeed, it's a good thing they try different things. It would feel cheap if they had simply copied 8421's outrigger system. :) For this reason I like the outriggers on 8053, which are, again, a wholly different system.