Well i see all of these topics that have the best so I thought why not do the worst?

I think one of the worst is the 8063 tractor

there are 2 reasons for this

a) it has all these useless functions(though it is a good parts pack and is quite large)

b)it is a copy of 8284

Edited January 22, 201312 yr by Rishab N

I think the entire Lego Technic SLIZER series sets were pretty lame:

Edited January 22, 201312 yr by DLuders

Just about anything with the Bionicle or Hero Factory name, although I'm not sure they actually count as Technic.

I think the entire Lego Technic SLIZER series sets were pretty lame:

Fact

Interesting question. I tend to agree that when Technic ventured into areas that were not really Technic (Slizers, Robo-Riders), something had gone wrong. These are not bad play sets, they are just bad Technic sets. 8063 is not a bad tractor, it is just annoying that it is a duplicate of an older model with reduced functionality. Most models are so thoroughly tested before release that any definition of "worst" will be purely subjective. There is nothing really wrong with any of them. Personally, I never liked the 8414 Mountain Rambler. I don't know what it is supposed to be. The 8244 Convert-ables set was an interesting idea in modularity, but none of the combinations really made any sense so that's not my favorite either. It is not fair to call a model bad just because it is small, so I won't mention any of the smallest. I didn't like the 8433 Cool Movers because it didn't really do anything so doesn't count as a proper Technic set. I know there is a lot of hate out there for the 8454 fire truck just because of its strange appearance, but I like it because airport fire trucks actually look like that. On the other hand, the 8446 crane doesn't look like anything real. The claw mechanism is kind of cool though. Some people also don't like the 8462 tow truck because of the appearance, but this is one of my favorite models for functionality and color. 8465 is another strange one. Ignoring the color, this looks a bit like a rock crawler but not really. It was an odd design. Seemed like just an excuse to try to make another model to use the metallic green panels from 8466.

Not everyone counts those Technic Star Wars models as Technic, but there are mixed opinions. Models like C3PO and the Stormtrooper cannot be considered Technic by any reasonable definition, but they are made of Technic parts. Turns out System builders don't really like Technic parts and Technic builders don't like models that don't do anything, so these didn't sell well. The Destroyer Droid was really cool though. I don't see how you could argue with that.

That's it. Everything else is awesome.

Not everyone counts those Technic Star Wars models as Technic....

"I'm vectoring to your sector, Blakbird!"

"I'm vectoring to your sector, Blakbird!"

I didn't say I was one of those people! Actually I have all the Technic Star Wars models. They serve a very different purpose than regular Technic, but I still like them. They also provide parts in colors that you will never get anywhere else.

I like the earlier Technic Star Wars models. I have the Darth Vader set, and I'd love to get the Destroyer Droid and Hailfire Droid models. The Star Wars sets offered some great parts in rare colors. I'm not a huge fan of ball joints used in the arms on some of the models, but otherwise, I liked them.

8479-1: Barcode Multi-Set it's a truck with a couple of functions and much of the cost was in the "program by scanning barcodes" gimmick. It was an experiment in programming and it sucked. A lot. By comparison the first Mindstorms kits were a revelation. Albeit nqc came out soon enough afterwards that even the kludgy PC software for Mindstorms stopped mattering after a short time. But the barcode set... I built it, played with it for a couple of hours and decided that I was going to use it as a parts pack. Second hand values on that set were very low for the first couple of years after it came out, making it not worth selling.

FWIW, I like 8063 a lot more than 8284. The trailer makes it for me, where the plain tractor didn't grab me at all. I do look at anything with balloon tyres skeptically, I admit, I seem to end up with a lot of unused balloon tyres+wheels in my big box of Lego wheels. I don't use them in MOCs very often at all.

Edited January 23, 201312 yr by Moz

I agree on the 8479, but that's because I could never get it to work. How were you supposed to know what it does? The scanner didn't make a distinct sound if it caught the barcode, and the motor only seems stalling... Some other candidates is probably in my disassembled sets-bag somewhere

Besides Bionicle, Hero Factory and Technic Star Wars (which I do like) sets, I think 2001 and 2002 are the worst years for technic.

http://www.brickset....chnic&year=2001

The offroader is a pretty decent set when it comes to the build and the parts, but the looks and color scheme are horrible.

And then there's the 8465....I mean.....SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.brickset....chnic&year=2002

I am very glad TLG is now sticking to solid bright colors, instead of those glowy metallic shiny minty looking colors. In my opinion these sets are at the bottom of my list.

Edited January 23, 201312 yr by Gekke Ted

You mean 8466? For me its one of best looking Tecnic sets.

Regarding worst sets: 8482 Cybermaster is among worst for me. Its got strange colours, confusing interface and software which worked only under windows 98 and required goind through endless animations todo anything with it.Models were strange looking and instructions just electronic. And it spoke only german (I was not able to get english software anywhere).

I am not a huge fan of the 8868 crane although it has good parts this does not make up for the poor design and functionally of the model.

9398-Slow, not interesting building techniques, use of differentials in crawler, too many colour in one model.And very high price for nothing.

No matter how great the band, no matter how talented they are, you can bet they have made more than one stinker of a song. So it's no surprise that even Lego with all it's talented designers have some pretty bad sets in their portfolio. For me their worse technic set ever is the 8264 hauler. Yeah, it has some of those wheels and panels in yellow which is cool, and it gave us some, at the time, rare new parts. However in the entire £50 set you got 1 gear (minus the turntable). The entire motorised lifting mechanism was pre built in two halves, you just had to join them with a few pins and a bracket. In the first half you had the motor with internal gearing pre built for you, the second half was a linear actuator which converts a relatively fast rotary motion into a slow linear motion in one pre built part. If it was an authentic mechanism then all that would be forgiven, even praised for they way it authenticly recreates the simplicity of the real life mechanism, but this is far from authentic, in real life you need the rotary motion, rams, valves, a network of tubing, etc. This set is the embodiment of all that I hate about both LAs and having so much internal gearing done for you inside the motor and for me, this rmakes it far too simple and far too inauthentic and therefore unworthy of the name technic.

For me their worse technic set ever is the 8264 hauler. Yeah, it has some of those wheels and panels in yellow which is cool, and it gave us some, at the time, rare new parts. However in the entire £50 set you got 1 gear (minus the turntable). The entire motorised lifting mechanism was pre built in two halves, you just had to join them with a few pins and a bracket. In the first half you had the motor with internal gearing pre built for you, the second half was a linear actuator which converts a relatively fast rotary motion into a slow linear motion in one pre built part. If it was an authentic mechanism then all that would be forgiven, even praised for they way it authenticly recreates the simplicity of the real life mechanism, but this is far from authentic, in real life you need the rotary motion, rams, valves, a network of tubing, etc. This set is the embodiment of all that I hate about both LAs and having so much internal gearing done for you inside the motor and for me, this rmakes it far too simple and far too inauthentic and therefore unworthy of the name technic.

'Motorized city hauler' might be a better name then?

I do have the hauler myself,it is now in many parts.....it does have some good parts in it,But as you say the model was not very advanced.

Well, there is a very fine line between "bad Technic" sets and "Technic sets i dont like".

There are a good few sets i dont like, but those are not bad sets. Need to try not to mention those!

Anyway... Lets start

1257/1258/1260/1268 - those were all mini sets. Promotional polibags? Well they just suck... When you get normal Lego promotional set, there are at least something decent or a nice minifig. This.... this is just a joke.

All Bionicle stuff - Why are they even marked as Technic, I have no idea... there is nothing Technic about those things

Lava/Frost/Onix/dust - Again, why are these marked as Technic?

Other then that, i still think that most of sets are quite interesting. I dont really think its fair to judge some older sets now, yes, new stuff is really awesome, but in the end of the day, its evolution!

I am not a huge fan of the 8868 crane although it has good parts this does not make up for the poor design and functionally of the model.

Ok.. now you're just deliberately stirring Allanp (and me!)

The only bad bit about 8868 was the pneumatics driving the rotating of the arm/cabin.. while an ingenious mechanical design.. it was far too touchy in real life, which detracted from the otherwise fun play of the set.

Yes.. it's looking a bit boxey, compared to the modern version, but it definitely still looks very much like a 'truck'

Personally: I don't count any slizer/bionicle/starwars.. I agree with blakbird.. some of them are excellent sets in their own.. but really aren't true technic

Although I don't own 8433, I can see it's a very poor set... but I own 8434, and I think it's equally as bad... I rank personally as the worst technic set I own..

*TWO* functions.. (manual spinning props don't count!!)... and to top it off.. the B model is extremely bad too.. uses less than half the parts to get an even less functional, and ugly helicopter!

At least the year 2004 had 2 other redeeming sets: 8435, and 8436 (although 2004 was a very below average year for technic)

2005 picked up.. and really.. there hasn't been too many duds in the last few years

RB

At least the year 2004 had 2 other redeeming sets: 8435, and 8436 (although 2004 was a very below average year for technic)

2005 picked up.. and really.. there hasn't been too many duds in the last few years

I got back from the dark ages in 2005, buying only those two sets from 2004. Personally I don't feel the need to get anymore older sets. I really like the way Technic evolved since 2005 and is still evolving.

You mean 8466? For me its one of best looking Tecnic sets.

That's the one. Aestethics are very personal, I guess

Well, there is a very fine line between "bad Technic" sets and "Technic sets i dont like".

That's so true. What is the definition of a "bad technic set"? It's not that it's not good looking, because that's very personal. Number of functions? (new) Parts used?

Ok.. now you're just deliberately stirring Allanp (and me!)

The only bad bit about 8868 was the pneumatics driving the rotating of the arm/cabin.. while an ingenious mechanical design.. it was far too touchy in real life, which detracted from the otherwise fun play of the set.

Yes.. it's looking a bit boxey, compared to the modern version, but it definitely still looks very much like a 'truck'

I am surprised mr-p did not spot my choice or maybe he was being sensible. (first time for every thing)

I don't have that bigger problem with it,but there must be something as I have never bought it although I did have the chance.

I am surprised mr-p did not spot my choice or maybe he was being sensible. (first time for every thing)

Oh, I spotted it alright, there are just no words right now to describe it, no words!

Good and bad are often subjective.

I personally consider a set as "bad" depending on how far it behaves from real world equivalent (except for obvious compromise on toys). A good set is one which follows the mantra "as real as it gets".

Using that analogy, 8070 is a bad set because in no car, you use gearbox to open doors

I'll go against the tide and would say that most Technic sets are not worth buying. Only some sets worth every penny. Other sets are just toys.

Of course, this is my opinion.

I'll go against the tide and would say that most Technic sets are not worth buying. Only some sets worth every penny. Other sets are just toys.

I personally think that almost every Technic set is worth buying....for some reason (certain parts, looks, some building technique). But it all depends on your budget of course. Sometimes CTRL + A simply is not an option

Edited January 23, 201312 yr by Gekke Ted

I personally think that almost every Technic set is worth buying....for some reason (certain parts, looks, some building technique). But it all depends on your budget of course. Sometimes CTRL + A simply is not an option

I could not agree more. I haven't found any extremely bad sets. Closer study always reveals some nice bits in every set...

edit. but still i'm not great fan of bionicle and other those kind of sets...

Edited January 23, 201312 yr by Mtx

Closer study always reveals some nice bits in every set...

That's also my experience. I have bought some very simple sets, which ended up to be very enlightening or intriguing. Because they are small, the designer needs to be very inventive.

edit. but still i'm not great fan of bionicle and other those kind of sets...

Same here! They shouldn't be in the Technic theme.

So our conclusion is, that there aren't any real bad sets anymore? That's a thing of the past