Will Technic flagship models keep getting bigger?

[EyesOnly]

I think such a dump truck would be very dull, unless they gave us longer pneumatics to tip the bed obviously .

Obviously I didn't think about commenting on tipping but of course it should be able to tip. Let's not start a discussion again regarding the mechanics though. I for one could go with a gear rack built to length. Would be stronger than "other" solutions and more fun since you would build a moving part instead of just inserting it into the chassis.

Edit

Yep i can agree on sets need complexity but i really have my doubts about those prices. $200 i believe is about the limit unless it has some really nice electric stuff in it.

Edited July 17, 2013 by EyesOnly

[Tubby]

I think that, practically speaking, a ceiling of ~5000 parts and a price tag of 400 USD puts a cap on what we're likely to ever see in a high-end set; but price (within reason) should not be the sole limiting factor as it is the nature of a "flagship" kit to command the biggest price tag and likely sell a smaller volume than the low-end "bread and butter" kits of the line. TLG has been in this business long enough to have a good sense for what the market will support and will always constrain its designers accordingly.

That said, 5000 parts as an upper bounds is still nearly double what we've seen to date, but I think the real question isn't about piece count or price, so much as it about about features and value.

Technic has always had broader appeal to a slightly older audience than 'traditional' LEGO, so "play features" take on a slightly different meaning than flick-fire missiles, hidden compartments, posable horses, etc. I think of technic "features" as more a measure of fidelity to the details, range of motion, and automation of the real-world designs that inspired them. Can Technic flagship models continue to increase that fidelity without driving the part count through the roof. I believe they can and I certainly hope they do.

As for value, a price per part ratio is not always the best metric. With most large models what the part count really reflects is how many bags of connector pins you're going to be getting - where's the fun in that? I've already got bins of pins - yes, they are an essential part of the build, but they're not where the perception of value lies.

I, for one, find value in complexity. I'm more interested in discovering a new linkage, transmission or drive chain design than I am in how many parts it took to implement it. By building bigger flagship models, this opens the door for designing to a level of complexity that simply doesn't fit in smaller models.

I find value in novelty as well. One of the reasons my personal consumption of higher end Technic models has slowed in recent years has been due to redundancies in the design; I look at the latest car or truck and think to myself, this thing has a V-Block piston engine, rack and pinion steering, strut suspension - been there, done that, what's new? I've been buying Technic kits since they were first marketed as the "expert builder" series back in the 1970's so I expect a certain amount of repetition at this point. Still, it gets a bit tedious seeing the same techniques, same parts and same sub-assemblies repeated over and over. Perhaps if flagship models were built to a grander scale, it might encourage TLG to mix things up a bit in the guts of the models as well; to use the extra space as a gateway to introducing newer, more interesting internal "plumbing".

The value in novelty also extends to the the subject matter of the kits themselves. I now have a fleet of super-cars, 4x4s, mobile cranes, etc. I thought the Unimog was kinda ugly actually, but it was _uniquely_ ugly and its aesthetic was consistent with the actual vehicle it was trying to model. Could larger flagship models enable TLG to tackle subjects they haven't revised three or four times over (or at least haven't done recently)? I'd certainly hope so and would happily spend the extra money for something that really stood out on my display shelf rather than just being another excavator, or whatever.

I'd love to see a larger, updated remake of the space shuttle or a Mars rover that felt like a real, all-terrain mobile science laboratory. A flagship fire truck could be interesting (yes, it's basically a mobile crane in red, but it's an excuse for lights, sound, pneumatics and power functions and fire-fighting equipment has been under represented in the Technic line compare to, say construction equipment.)

So I guess, in summary, I'd say that yes, flagship models can keep getting bigger, provided that there is a _reason_ to be bigger. The best reasons I can think of are to provide a level of fidelity, complexity and novelty above and beyond what has come before, and I, for one, hope that they do.

Great post and very interesting points.

Food for TLG's thoughts most definitely.

[chief test pilot]

I think that, practically speaking, a ceiling of ~5000 parts and a price tag of 400 USD puts a cap on what we're likely to ever see in a high-end set; but price (within reason) should not be the sole limiting factor as it is the nature of a "flagship" kit to command the biggest price tag and likely sell a smaller volume than the low-end "bread and butter" kits of the line. TLG has been in this business long enough to have a good sense for what the market will support and will always constrain its designers accordingly.

That said, 5000 parts as an upper bounds is still nearly double what we've seen to date, but I think the real question isn't about piece count or price, so much as it about about features and value.

Technic has always had broader appeal to a slightly older audience than 'traditional' LEGO, so "play features" take on a slightly different meaning than flick-fire missiles, hidden compartments, posable horses, etc. I think of technic "features" as more a measure of fidelity to the details, range of motion, and automation of the real-world designs that inspired them. Can Technic flagship models continue to increase that fidelity without driving the part count through the roof. I believe they can and I certainly hope they do.

As for value, a price per part ratio is not always the best metric. With most large models what the part count really reflects is how many bags of connector pins you're going to be getting - where's the fun in that? I've already got bins of pins - yes, they are an essential part of the build, but they're not where the perception of value lies.

I, for one, find value in complexity. I'm more interested in discovering a new linkage, transmission or drive chain design than I am in how many parts it took to implement it. By building bigger flagship models, this opens the door for designing to a level of complexity that simply doesn't fit in smaller models.

I find value in novelty as well. One of the reasons my personal consumption of higher end Technic models has slowed in recent years has been due to redundancies in the design; I look at the latest car or truck and think to myself, this thing has a V-Block piston engine, rack and pinion steering, strut suspension - been there, done that, what's new? I've been buying Technic kits since they were first marketed as the "expert builder" series back in the 1970's so I expect a certain amount of repetition at this point. Still, it gets a bit tedious seeing the same techniques, same parts and same sub-assemblies repeated over and over. Perhaps if flagship models were built to a grander scale, it might encourage TLG to mix things up a bit in the guts of the models as well; to use the extra space as a gateway to introducing newer, more interesting internal "plumbing".

The value in novelty also extends to the the subject matter of the kits themselves. I now have a fleet of super-cars, 4x4s, mobile cranes, etc. I thought the Unimog was kinda ugly actually, but it was _uniquely_ ugly and its aesthetic was consistent with the actual vehicle it was trying to model. Could larger flagship models enable TLG to tackle subjects they haven't revised three or four times over (or at least haven't done recently)? I'd certainly hope so and would happily spend the extra money for something that really stood out on my display shelf rather than just being another excavator, or whatever.

I'd love to see a larger, updated remake of the space shuttle or a Mars rover that felt like a real, all-terrain mobile science laboratory. A flagship fire truck could be interesting (yes, it's basically a mobile crane in red, but it's an excuse for lights, sound, pneumatics and power functions and fire-fighting equipment has been under represented in the Technic line compare to, say construction equipment.)

So I guess, in summary, I'd say that yes, flagship models can keep getting bigger, provided that there is a _reason_ to be bigger. The best reasons I can think of are to provide a level of fidelity, complexity and novelty above and beyond what has come before, and I, for one, hope that they do.

Good points. Especially your last....there needs to be a reason for the sets to be bigger. Just making a set bigger for the sake of doing so doesn't mean anything. There has to be a good subject, well thought out design, playability and functionality. The right balance of those elements are what make a set a 'flagship' set.