Technic 2014 Discussion and Speculation

[aol000xw]

The only true big size SW UCS models are both destroyers and Millenium Falcon, and Death Star. The others are not "that big" but Is not only about size when talking Technic, is about price point.

Target AFOLs and increase budget and complexity is not a problem anymore, suddenly suspension, stearing, gearboxes, wheels etc. start improving, specialized parts get introduced and RF (not IR) becomes a reality, all of that in models no that much bigger than 8880 or 8110. In the end the only limitation is price. They have been doing SW UCS for more than a decade now, when the Techinc Market mature enougth and they see a chance for profit, they will make UCS Technic (I hope). Hell, they sell those buildings like Sydney Opera House for 300€+. So a Technic UCS is not out of the question, right?

Back to the topic, every single Technic plane I have seen is closer to a wireframe model than to the real thing, but I recall someone told something about lots of panels on the plane. So does it have a "skin" for the Body? wings? Engines?

[allanp]

I have no problem with similar models coming out as long as the build gets more advanced and new parts are introduced...

Exactly. It's doesn't have to keep getting more complex or harder to build, but a continual improvement with new parts. Some of the other 1h2014 sets have some new steering/suspension parts that allow for some functionality to be improved in some way, maybe to make it more compact, easier to fit into smaller models or more life like or even simpler, without making it harder for kids. So it may turn out that 1H2014 may yet bring something good. I know not all sets can bring such improvements but for now there's nothing to get excited about. It's just another function switching gearbox/LA set up. Wouldn't be so bad if that's how it's done in real life. As for the "it's for kids" argument, whilst that's obviously true and I can appreciate that, it still seems to be a cop out to me. Dora the explorer is for kids, and only kids, whereas the Pixar movie toy story is for kids, but has also been made more sophisticated, the challenges faced by the characters are fantasy at the surface, but they aren't as simplified or kiddified and deeper down they echo real life challenges which makes their struggles more relatable to real life situations, so that adults can also enjoy it. As such, toy story has a wider appeal and brought more success to Pixar and more universal approval that other things that are for kids. Dare I YET AGAIN mention some of the many new parts that would appease us as well as making the set builds (including this new skip truck) more varied, more functionally reliable and authentic, simpler and easier for kids to build and understand and so more intuitive for kids to make MOCs with? "OH PLEASE NO ALLANP, NOT AGAIN" I hear you cry .

[Meatman]

I think the Technic sets can only get so large and heavy before running into problems. Technic sets are designed to be played with where as UCS Star Wars sets are more like pieces of art.

[allanp]

The only true big size SW UCS models are both destroyers and Millenium Falcon, and Death Star. The others are not "that big" but Is not only about size when talking Technic, is about price point.

Target AFOLs and increase budget and complexity is not a problem anymore, suddenly suspension, stearing, gearboxes, wheels etc. start improving, specialized parts get introduced and RF (not IR) becomes a reality, all of that in models no that much bigger than 8880 or 8110. In the end the only limitation is price. They have been doing SW UCS for more than a decade now, when the Techinc Market mature enougth and they see a chance for profit, they will make UCS Technic (I hope). Hell, they sell those buildings like Sydney Opera House for 300€+. So a Technic UCS is not out of the question, right?

Technic is a different animal than regular bricks. With regular bricks, all you basically need to do is increase the size, detail and piece count and you have a set aimed for adults. 42009 had a size, piece count and price that makes it easily qualify as a UCS set if we were to use that standard but for technic, it's not that simple. Although smaller, the unimog feels more like a UCS set aimed at adults than the larger 42009. It would have to be something with huge ambition such as Sheepo's 110 landrover, and with a lot of new parts to make it more authentic, simpler (whilst retaining the same level of functionality) and reliable.

[aol000xw]

I think the Technic sets can only get so large and heavy before running into problems. Technic sets are designed to be played with where as UCS Star Wars sets are more like pieces of art.

Ok, I don't want to hear again Lego Technic can't go big http://www.burf.org....ego-wheelchair/

And don't get me started with those big cranes out there, some more than a couple meters tall and able to lift several pounds.

Edit:

Technic is a different animal than regular bricks. With regular bricks, all you basically need to do is increase the size, detail and piece count and you have a set aimed for adults. 42009 had a size, piece count and price that makes it easily qualify as a UCS set if we were to use that standard but for technic, it's not that simple. Although smaller, the unimog feels more like a UCS set aimed at adults than the larger 42009. It would have to be something with huge ambition such as Sheepo's 110 landrover, and with a lot of new parts to make it more authentic, simpler (whilst retaining the same level of functionality) and reliable.

that is exaclty what I meant,

Edited October 25, 2013 by aol000xw

[Meatman]

Ok, I don't want to hear again Lego Technic can't go big http://www.burf.org....ego-wheelchair/

And don't get me started with those big cranes out there, some more than a couple meters tall and able to lift several pounds.

Yeah, I've seen all of that stuff.

Unfortunately I said Lego Technic sets, not some MOCs that people made which I am most certain are not up to Lego's standards. Yes, there is a difference.

TLC is not going to release a motorized wheel chair as a set and then spend the next year handling all of the problems that people are having because their chair doesn't work right and then have to send out God knows how much money in replacement parts.

[aol000xw]

Yeah, I've seen all of that stuff.

Unfortunately I said Lego Technic sets, not some MOCs that people made which I am most certain are not up to Lego's standards. Yes, there is a difference.

TLC is not going to release a motorized wheel chair as a set and then spend the next year handling all of the problems that people are having because their chair doesn't work right and then have to send out God knows how much money in replacement parts.

I don't expect a technic wheelchair set obviously! I just was making a point about Technic strength.

anyways I was talking about plausible UCS Tehcnic ideas, so big like Sheepo's Land Rover is a good example and can be strong enougth, I never saw anyone reporting it broke down by the way.

[Meatman]

I don't expect a technic wheelchair set obviously! I just was making a point about Technic strength.

anyways I was talking about plausible UCS Tehcnic ideas, so big like Sheepo's Land Rover is a good example and can be strong enougth, I never saw anyone reporting it broke down by the way.

And I am making a point trying to explain that Lego isn't going to release something so large that it may have failure issues.

Didn't Blakbird say that he could only get Sheepo's Land Rover to drive properly without the body? This is what I am talking about with models getting too large and heavy for their own good.

[imajor]

When it comes to possible UCS technic set, my first thought is not necessary something big, but something unusual in functions, which kids would not like as much as the usual construction vehicles, or could not build it because of the lack of patience. For example a working lego clock like these: http://www.youtube.com/user/KEvronista

Sorry for offtopic.

Edited October 25, 2013 by imajor

[allanp]

And I am making a point trying to explain that Lego isn't going to release something so large that it may have failure issues.

Didn't Blakbird say that he could only get Sheepo's Land Rover to drive properly without the body? This is what I am talking about with models getting too large and heavy for their own good.

Hence the need for new parts.

[aol000xw]

I think assuming Lego can't go bigger than current sets and be reliable even without new parts is an error.

[jantjeuh]

Show me some Technic MOCs with 3-4K+ parts that could qualify as an official TLC set and still function well in all aspects ;-) Once you reach that kind of part count the models all become too heavy and put too much stress on the drivetrain. Now if we had stronger axles and gears.. though, those would probably cause the holes in the liftarms to wear too fast.

Edited October 25, 2013 by jantjeuh

[Blakbird]

Didn't Blakbird say that he could only get Sheepo's Land Rover to drive properly without the body? This is what I am talking about with models getting too large and heavy for their own good.

I did have some trouble getting it to shift properly with the body on, but that had nothing to do with the weight. There was an interference between the body and some of the wires that created binding in the shift mechanism. The same thing could happen to a model at any size.

Personally, I have been advocating a 3K-4K part UCS Technic set for years. All the concerns brought up in this thread are valid. It would have to be done right and have to be reliable. I think what would set it apart from other sets is that the build could be very complex and have a high age rating.

The problems with heavy models are mostly related to having self propelled. I have no need for my UCS set to be motorized at all, much less drivable. Weight is a big problem for driven models which is why we almost never see them in official sets (with the exception of the very slow crawler). I just want to see something insanely complicated. The assembly line machine from the 8888 Idea Book comes to mind. Barman's container crane is another big, complex, unusual model. Dikkie Klijn's and Grazi's tow trucks both have almost 5000 parts and work great. Another way to get the part count up would be to "shell" a big Technic model in System parts for a detailed Model Team look. This thread about the Liebherr crane is a great example.

[Meatman]

I think assuming Lego can't go bigger than current sets and be reliable even without new parts is an error.

How big are you talking? The Unimog is a rather large set both in size and part count. I also cannot see Lego running 1/2 a dozen motors off of one battery box, so then you must add a second or 3rd one which in turn will take up more space and add more weight.

The Technic line is all about being practical and functional. If it isn't practical, Lego isn't going to do it. The same thing goes for the style in which they design their models.

Show me some Technic MOCs with 3-4K+ parts that could qualify as an official TLC set and still function well in all aspects ;-) Once you reach that kind of part count the models all become too heavy and put too much stress on the drivetrain. Now if we had stronger axles and gears.. though, those would probably cause the holes in the liftarms to wear too fast.

This is another good point. It is hard to expect a 3 Kg vehicle to be engaged by the small thin plastic pieces in both the 16 tooth clutch gears and the thin strips on the driving rings. And then to have these shifted repeatedly is going to cause eventual damage.

I did have some trouble getting it to shift properly with the body on, but that had nothing to do with the weight. There was an interference between the body and some of the wires that created binding in the shift mechanism. The same thing could happen to a model at any size.

Didn't you say after rerouting the wires it still had shifting issues and you just decided to drive it without the body? Something about springs or rubberbands? Or maybe I was thinking of someone else who posted in that thread.

[allanp]

That might have been me. I did get it to work well but I messed around with using different strengths and numbers of rubber bands in the shifting mechanism, as well as some other minor tweaks. The room for error was so small that somebody else could have used the exact same number of the same bands and it probably would not have worked. My copy was not build for very long but I fell had it have been left a while the bands would have weakened enough to cause problems. We really need new parts! As for insane complexity, is that an issue for non UCS sets? Todays instructions tell you exactly where and how to place every single piece. No matter how complex the final product you only ever place one piece at a time so maybe it's only a matter of attention span and personal budget, and also some specific combinations that kids find difficult to assemble, like when snapping two beams together with many pins at once.

Edited October 25, 2013 by allanp

[camaudio]

a large 3-4k part tower crane or crawler crane is doable and could use only one battery box

[aol000xw]

The argument of unreliable models due to size is somehow weak because we already have unreliable models, Unimog is a good example of what not to do Size is a challenge, bad engineering is a problem. I think 3k, 4k models are viable, it is just that they must be very well designed, and I myself don't see a problem with 2 battery boxes in a model by the way.

Where some people can see problems I see opportunities, not only for new parts, Weak parts? go NASA, double everything, bulky mechanism? go nuts, bigger scale. A Technic UCS with its associated price tag must truly stand out, and there are many ways of achieving it. Not everyone will be pleased but the same applies to everything. Just look at the new truck

For example to me 42009 is in S@H terms nice to have. but it is another damn yellow mobile crane. Now if for example it used Unimog wheels, (remove a couple axles if you will) and had more boom sections thanks to the new scale, with better extending mechanism, if it had a motorized compressor with dual reservoirs, pneumatic outriggers, everything remotely controlled, new longer and thicker cylinders for the boom and... not yellow. With matching price tag for such a beast. well... even for something as tired as a mobile crane I would be very excited and ready to pay a lot for it.

Oh well perhaps is just me, I will be happy with a loom http://www.brickshel...ry.cgi?f=521691, I need a new scarf

Edited October 25, 2013 by aol000xw

[peter_m]

I would personally vote for big scale space shuttle - it would be relatively fresh (not yellow construction machine again) - and it could easily be made of 2.5k-3k parts.

[legomuppet9]

http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=8480-1 this?

[jantjeuh]

All this talk about Technic UCS models etc. is just wishful thinking, let's get back to discussing the 2014 models MOAR PICTURES!

[peter_m]

http://www.brickset....ail/?Set=8480-1 this?

I would love to see it in refreshed PF+studless version.

[Conchas]

828 parts for about 70€.

It looks like you miss to count one bag or so... :)

[DrJB]

For example to me 42009 is in S@H terms nice to have. but it is another damn yellow mobile crane.

Agreed! I was looking at the sets that came out in 2013 ... and realized that out of the Technic theme, I only got 41999/42000. All others are so déja-vu. I do not need a crane, tractor, or backhoe every other year ... unless it is with genuine new parts. If we want to stay with construction equipment, how about a moto-grader? I have seen many MOCs and requests for an official set. Edited October 26, 2013 by DrJB

[Anio]

It looks like you miss to count one bag or so... :)

Indeed. :-S

954.

[efferman]

is it only visibilty problem or has the linear actuator a new 2L wide Linear Actuator Holder ?

source

Edit

No it was my fault, and the actual holder.

Edited October 26, 2013 by efferman