Will Technic flagship models keep getting bigger?

[Tubby]

Last years flagship, the Unimog U400 8110, was their biggest to date and had the largest part count with 2061 pieces. This years Mobile Crane mkII 42009 has the largest part count ever and is a big beast in a much smaller scale.

What will TLG do for next year, or the year after that?

There are some amazing MOCs out there that are much bigger and in larger scales (I'm thinking of Sheepo's 110) but producing something of that size would be very expensive and may put some people off.

Can they get any bigger than they are now?

[Zerobricks]

There is a limit on how muc the plastic can handle, but I think we could theoretically see a model with 3x more parts.

[colinrichardson]

Interesting question - they do seem to keep ratcheting things up and it will probably be hard to pull back down. I would bet that the 2000 piece range might be a practical maximum for some time, but that the amount of PF, RC and more sophisticated parts will keep creeping up.

[N-4K0]

I think the size of the Unimog and the new crane, and the part count of the crane, should be the maximum size and part count. If it's exceeded, the models will just become too expensive for people to buy.

Looking at the price of those 2 models in my currency, it is at the peak of what a Technic set should cost.

Besides, personally I prefer a middle-sized set that offers playability and fun, with the Unimog and Mobile Crane MK II as the maximum size and part count, rather than sets that keep getting bigger and bigger.

Eventually no one will be able to purchase those sets, and then the purpose is gone.

Unless Lego eventually find a plastic that can be used to make stronger parts, I think the Unimog and Mobile Crane MK II should be the top concerning size and parts count.

[maxxens]

I think the mid 2000 range should be enough. I prefer to have more/better functionality than a high part count. I think the old 8455 is a perfect example, that complexity and functionality do not have to have a high part count.

On the other hand I would love to see a UCS kind of Technic set like the 10179. Back then this set got me out of my dark ages :)

[timslegos]

I do like sets with more parts, as it increases the amount of fun time it takes to build the model. I would also agree though that there is probably a limit in the 3000-4000 part range.

tim

[Pedro Antunes]

half of the parts are usually black/blue pins so that shouldnt even count

[Anio]

"Will Technic flagship models keep getting bigger?"

I hope not.

The best part range to have the best compromises is about 1600 part imo (playability, price, mechanism, efficiency, etc).

It can be seen pretty easily that in the last years flagships, TLG faces the limit of the system.

[Erik Leppen]

I actually think this year's mobile crane 42009 is already too big. I do not own it but it's obvious they had to cut some corners due to the size of the thing. Most obvious are the LA's holding up the boom; they look puny in comparison to the huge truck. Although the space in the upper structure is well used, and the outriggers are a technical marvel, I think the set itself is too big. Also notice how they couldn't create a big alternative model, instead they went with multiple smaller vehicles.

I prefer to see a set like 42008 (the green tow truck) which is much more modest in size, but filled to the brim with interesting stuff. Often those 1000ish part sets are quite brilliant (42008, 8265, 8109, 8289 I think are all great sets, and even 8294, 8069 and 8107 and 42005 look quite ingenious).

The 8110 Unimog was a better set in my opinion, because it just worked and it doesn't feel like concessions have been made. So I'd say the limit is about 2000 parts. Both for the wallet, as for the workability of a model.

So I hope the Lego team has realized this as well :)

[Tubby]

Some interesting points of view, thanks guys.

I agree with the comments about the functions and playability of the models, that is a key factor in their popularity imo.

When I think back to the sets I had as a kid in the mid nineties, the biggest I had was the 8480 Space Shuttle, they were just as playable and as engaging to build with 75% of the parts count of todays models.

[Saberwing40k]

I think Lego could easily do some flagship sets in the 5000 parts range. What, they had a UCS model that size, so why not a technic one? Any problem with structure and stuff can be solved with clever engineering. However, I also think that they should work on wringing out the most functions from parts count. Case in point: I liked the models from the '90s in that they had the mechanisms on full display, with only a minimal shell. Doing something like that today would leave many more parts for functions.

[andythenorth]

For me, the mog is too big. I found it an interesting technical build, but not so big on playability.

This year's crane looks good, but I don't have it yet

The 8285 tow truck was a nice size imo, with good playability. A high piece-count set of something like a trailer-truck might be neat.

This MOC was on the wrong side of 'too big'. Too heavy, stresses parts, poor playability, and took way too long to build http://www.brickshel...y.cgi?i=3054193 (those are power-puller wheels, it's >1m long).

Edited July 11, 2013 by andythenorth

[Alternator]

I'm with one of the commenters above - a lot of those parts are just pins. Whether or not this is still an indicator of a higher count on more interesting parts or not I don't know.

For me I'm more interested in the functions, not the number of parts. So something with more interesting functions / and perhaps a greater number of functions is a model I will generally be more interested in.

With regards to a UCS level technic set, are people thinking in terms of form? or in terms of function? I have wondered in past about hybrid creator/technic style designs, but I wonder if that would be more its own theme.

For me a UCS technic set wouldn't be about being big, it would be about achieving a function set that out shines what you would otherwise see in a standard technic set.

For example, the new crane has a high part count...

But it can't really lift anything can it?!

A UCS technic crane would be a crane with similar feature set that actually could lift. And there are some MOC cranes out there that do lift relatively decent weights (not sure if they all use modified/custom parts admittedly... But even Lego will swap metal in for parts that need the extra strength).

In some ways I consider the 9398 and 41999 could be regarded as UCS, as well as perhaps one or two others from the Technic line.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Alternator

[Junpei]

I think lego should just stop at the 2600-2700 and should just leave the insane huge builds to MOC'ers that will pay the high prices. I think since technic is less popular than Star Wars and other more popular themes, anything over $200 just wouldn't be profitable.

[Cwetqo]

I'm just building 42009 and its not so big, it just has a lot of parts (over 1000 are just pins). I will do comparison,but for now it doesnt look much bigger than 8258 and Unimog appears bigger.

For me, twe sweet spot is aroun 2000 pieces and size in range of 8258, 8285 and 8421.

[leoparder]

I prefer the quality of the functions over the quantity of them. For example, 8109 had a short "2 functions" and yet, amazing set because these two are great and unique. Plus it looks good.

So I think that the Unimog was also an amazing set because look was awesome and full of details, many functions with pneum+motor ! I would love to see a new "unimog" style technic. Maybe another vehicle be given the same treatment ? Partnership with the brand etc ?

I would love a fire-fighter truck (functions would be so cool, and the style too !).

As to the number of parts, I really don't care. A large set of 4000 parts with the quality of the 8109 or the Unimog, I would buy it for 350$ anytime. Same thing for a small one, cheaper :)

Edited July 12, 2013 by leoparder

[Tubby]

I guess something else TLG have to think about is the weight of a model in built or unbuilt form. When they're finished, in most cases, they sit on shelves so they can't be too big for that. In their boxes they need to be moved around and transport costs quite a lot so to move them cheaply they must keep weight to a minimum or increase their prices which again may put a lot of people off.

[allanp]

To answer the original question, I think that if they can make a huge set (5000+ pieces) out of regular lego hold together then I see no reason why a technic set can't be made bigger than, say, 7500 pieces. As to weather or not I personally would like bigger sets, I don't really care about the piece count, in fact the larger the piece count, the better the set has to be to keep such a large build interesting, and to justify it's higher price, which btw is not achived by just being bigger. I like building technic as much as anyone but there comes a point where it feels like i'm just putting pins in beams and liftarms over and over again, especially when it comes to building overly filled in body work like 8070. I have had this feeling when building sets that are bearly over 1000 pieces, and yet never had that feeling with the unimog at twice the piece count. In my opinion I would much rather have more of the cost of a set be put into new parts that enable us to have bigger/better/stronger/more authentic/more lifelike/more reliable/more efficient functionality rather than a vast pile of pins, beams, 16t gears and drive rings, which is what most of the current sets seem to break down into

[legomuppet9]

To answer the original question, I think that if they can make a huge set (5000+ pieces) out of regular lego hold together then I see no reason why a technic set can't be made bigger than, say, 7500 pieces. As to weather or not I personally would like bigger sets, I don't really care about the piece count, in fact the larger the piece count, the better the set has to be to keep such a large build interesting, and to justify it's higher price, which btw is not achived by just being bigger. I like building technic as much as anyone but there comes a point where it feels like i'm just putting pins in beams and liftarms over and over again, especially when it comes to building overly filled in body work like 8070. I have had this feeling when building sets that are bearly over 1000 pieces, and yet never had that feeling with the unimog at twice the piece count. In my opinion I would much rather have more of the cost of a set be put into new parts that enable us to have bigger/better/stronger/more authentic/more lifelike/more reliable/more efficient functionality rather than a vast pile of pins, beams, 16t gears and drive rings, which is what most of the current sets seem to break down into

So you want more 8880 type sets, with a very rough body and very function focused? Because that's what I want to see too

[allanp]

8880 is a great example. Imagine a new supercar, in white or dark metallic grey, without the cluttered patchwork of panels (and NO COLOUR VOMIT!)but clearly defined, smooth lines making up a more bear bones but detailed, very low down and sleek/fast looking bodywork (with side vents, wing mirrors, etc), new 6 speed gearbox with lots of different sized synchros and a gearlinkage that manages to change 6 gears as nice and smooth and easy as 8880, new low profile, glossy black wheels and tyres (that actually look like real world supercar wheels and tyres) same diameter as the unimog but wider and very deep hubs (like 8448) so that the steering pivot can be mounted right inside the wheel, disk brakes visable through the spokes of the wheels, highly detailed engine with a really long, curvy chain on the front to look like the long cam belts on real engines and so on and so on, new diffs (see below) plus all the usual like suspention/steering. Bringing this post back on topic, if they came out with such a supercar, a true and worthy modern day 8880 (ie a huge leap forward in functionality, new parts and styling) then I really would not care what the piece count is, 1000, 3000, don't care just take my money!

Edited July 12, 2013 by allanp

[skriblez]

8880 is a great example. Imagine a new supercar, in white or dark metallic grey, without the cluttered patchwork of panels (and NO COLOUR VOMIT!)but clearly defined, smooth lines making up a more bear bones but detailed, very low down and sleek/fast looking bodywork (with side vents, wing mirrors, etc), new 6 speed gearbox with lots of different sized synchros and a gearlinkage that manages to change 6 gears as nice and smooth and easy as 8880, new low profile, glossy black wheels and tyres (that actually look like real world supercar wheels and tyres) same diameter as the unimog but wider and very deep hubs (like 8448) so that the steering pivot can be mounted right inside the wheel, disk brakes visable through the spokes of the wheels, highly detailed engine with a really long, curvy chain on the front to look like the long cam belts on real engines and so on and so on, new diffs (see below) plus all the usual like suspention/steering. Bringing this post back on topic, if they came out with such a supercar, a true and worthy modern day 8880 (ie a huge leap forward in functionality, new parts and styling) then I really would not care what the piece count is, 1000, 3000, don't care just take my money!

Fully agree with you. Would be an awesome model! Only played with the 8880 never ownd one myself (yet) but it was an awesome set.

If they make a Lamborghini i would buy it whatever the cost!

[Erik Leppen]

To answer the original question, I think that if they can make a huge set (5000+ pieces) out of regular lego hold together then I see no reason why a technic set can't be made bigger than, say, 7500 pieces

Of course it's possible to create a studles model of 7500 pieces. The main question is, what subject matter would be interesting enough to spend 7500 pieces on. How to keep a set of that size interesting.

And, also, why have such a set at all. Such a set has to contain something that cannot be done (or, at the very least, hasn't been done before) with 2500 pieces, otherwise there would be no reason to buy a 7500 piece - and, of course, €750 - set. :)

And this is different from, say, an Architecture set. One can have a building with 30 floors which won't be the same with just 3 floors, and one can add endless variation to a building. A truck with 12 axles doesn't have to be more interesting than a truck with 3 axles, at least as a set. It may be impressive, but a set has to do more than be impressive. It has to be interesting and enjoyable to build as well, and have some play features.

Edit: some Technic sets are interesting for the very reason they are not so big.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Erik Leppen

[z3_2drive]

Perfect Idea Allan, and I would kill to get parts like your differential, clutch gears of all sizes and wheels with proper color and dimensions! Agreed, price would be out of the question! :D

[timslegos]

I too absolutely love your idea Allan. They way you described the supercar was beautiful. I am not usually into supercar MOCs, but if TLG came out with a set similar to the one you described, I would definitely buy it.

tim

[N-4K0]

I prefer the quality of the functions over the quantity of them. For example, 8109 had a short "2 functions" and yet, amazing set because these two are great and unique.

Agreed. Keep the max limit of parts at 2800-3000 or something, and focus on the quality of the functions rather than putting as many of them into the model as possible.

A few amazing functions will always be better than many with lower quality.