Except for few official construction sets, most do not faithfully reproduce the internal workings of large machinery out there. Granted, most machinery uses hydro-static loops for actuation but nonetheless, some 'features' could be easily replicated. I'll take as an example an SSL (Skid-Steer-Loader). There are 2 (hydraulic) motors, each for the left/right side. Each motor connects to the front/rear tires via chain drives. Then there is a pump, and it handles all the hydraulic functions (I'd love to see a pneumatic 'circular' pump). Another example is the Porsche suspension, I saw it once at an auto-show, and it features a multi-link mechanism. Lego came close to such suspension in their F1 race cars, where the shocks are not necessarily mounted vertical. Here is a third one ... engines and their reciprocating cylinders are .. boring (sorry). You've seen one, you've seen all. Why not 'innovate' with boxter/Subaru self-balancing engine? Last example I'll throw at the community is the harvesting combine from few years ago ... The mechanics inside a combine are plain fascinating (rotor, sieve, shake system, header, ...) and yet, what TLG did was a simple reenditon of the outside shape but little to do with how a combine really operates. These are only some ideas as you can tell .... Any such MOCs out there?

Edited August 28, 201311 yr by DrJB

I highly recommend looking at the works of Jennifer Clark!

www.genuinemodels.com

She strived to make every model as realistic as possible given space. Her LS160 Skid-Steer is quite accurate. Also her JS220 Excavator is incredible and has instructions available...and soon to be available in more than one location

I also recommend taking a look at Sheepo

His 911 goes out of its way to be accurate as much as possible (even with Caster/Camber and Disc Brakes).

Edited August 28, 201311 yr by nychase

There are categories of realism, and Lego is not suitable to be realistic in every one of them. For example realistic mechanism/principle vs realistic behaviour (Pneumatic Cylinders vs Linear Actuators). Realistic shape vs realistic surfaces.

You can't make them all at the same time.

I think the problem is that most people look at Lego as a modelling tool instead of as a form of art. And as a modelling tool, it's not very effective (for example the plastic is weak).

Everyone says Sheepo's models are realistic. Well, the real Land Rover doesn't have sequential gearbox but has a centre differential and some difflocks. It's an awesome legendary Lego model anyway.

Edited August 28, 201311 yr by Lipko

My specialty are vehicles/cars, and from that perspective i can say, that there's A LOT of room for improovement. Lego suspensions are boring. And it's time to make some interesting setups with realistic geometries. Cmon' LEGO, you can do it.

Let's look at the priorities placed on an official Lego model, most important at the top:

-Kids should be able to build it

-The price shouldn't be too high

-The model should be recogniseable and attractive

-The functions should be fun to play with

First things first, Lego is a toy. As such, things like "fun to play with" will always be a priority over realism. Sure, it's possible to make (for example) more realistic suspension setups in cars. As a drawback, this means the model would:

-be a lot harder to build

-require more parts, making it more expensive

-require new specialised parts, making it more expensive

All of this for a slight change in geometry that most kids won't see, understand or appreciate.

It's not about whether Lego can do it. It's about whether people will buy it.

It's a kid's toy, remember? It has to stay affordable for the target group :) Often I see supercars around here reporting 2000+ parts. That's a 160+ dollar super car. Compare to 8070 which was 100 dollars or so. For us adult fans there's a significant difference in realism. But for Lego's target audience - who still generate 90%+ of their revenue - 8070 is fine and an extra 700 parts thrown at it doesn't really improve it.

Bottom line: keep in mind Lego's goals when discussing things like this.

Edit: ^^that^^

Edited August 28, 201311 yr by Erik Leppen

Why do we need Lego (the company) to build things realistically when we can do it with MOC's? I would much rather buy two or three "cheap" Technic models, and make something realistic my self, than buy one expensive realistic model and have no fun designing it...

The hobby is about designing! If you only want to collect realistic models, there is a lot of options in advanced RC models. This is what you would want if you really are looking for realism, and if it's not good enough looking, you can modify it any way you want...

-ED-

I'd settle for models other than the same old tired themes:

-car

-racing car

-truck car

-utility car of some kind

-crane

-smaller crane

-front loader

-smaller front loader

And really suspensions and gear boxes aren't that interesting to 99% of the people that build Technic models. It's the functionality that counts.

Anyone remember the Control Centres? And TLC still has not surpassed the Airtech Claw Rig for functional complexity. Even its alternate model was more interesting than most of what is being released these days.

And TLC still has not surpassed the Airtech Claw Rig for functional complexity.

That's an opinion and I disagree.

8043 springs to mind as a model hat is a lot more complex than 8868. It doesn't have more functions. But it's certainly more complex (if you ask me). Same goes for 8258 and 8110.

Even its alternate model was more interesting than most of what is being released these days.

To that I agree, 8868's alternate was a unique model and I was really surprised how it all worked when I built it.

Anyone remember the Control Centres?

It's time for a new Dinosaur, isn't it? :)

Playability > everything else

This is Technic after all not just cars and heavy machinery. What about static pieces of machinery, like detailed working cross sections of diferent kinds of engines, clocks, a cylinder press, GBC modules that teach mecanical principles, etc. So there is room for improvement, but for the mechanical systems like specific suspession setups, I agree with Nazgarot, that's what MOCs are for. That being said I paid more than 400€ for my SW UCS Millenium Falcon, so...

A Technic epic model every ¿two, three? years hitting the 400€+ euro mark with AFOLs in mind may be a good idea. I would like to see some of these in such a model:

* RC alike tyres

* RF, not IR remotes. Standard parts in Lego casings would be a plus.. Partnership with Futaba or whatever.

* High rpm motors

* Attachable reduction gear boxes to use those high rpm motors in smaller models.

* Toothed belts.

Some really exclusive Technic parts that help building components that are hard, bulky or innefficient if built with current Lego

* flywheel

* cvt

* Torsen diff

* PF pneumatic Valve

* Pneumatic brake calipers

* Adjustable shocks (like in RC models)

I got my money ready...

I wish Lego would introduce some new clutch gear sizes because building a gearbox right now is not only unrealistic, but also more complex than an actual transmission...

I think if you want all the features the real object has, you should scale up to about 1:3. That way you can build in almost everything. From the elaborate suspension to power windows. Downside is that you should forget about using cross axles for a wheel axle, you have to scale that up to. I'm thinking about 2x2 round bricks stacked on a cross axle.

You would probably need a lot of custom made parts. Perhaps colaborated with other manufacturers (think outside the box). Also a lot of regular parts. The manual would be over 500 pages, easy. Better yet, on a dvd. If it would be a real LEGO set it would exceed the €400 euro aol000xw mentioned before me.

If we are talking about a realistic sedan car, we should have all the features the real one has. Power steering, suspension, engine, gearbox, lights, dashboard, electric windows, mirrors, locks. But where would you end? And would you be happy with just the form and function or should the technique inside have to be the same as in real life? I mean, I can imagine an engine made with pneumatic linear pumps for pistons, powered by an electric pump and controlled by a mindstorm switchboard. In that case it would look like a real engine and rotates like an engine does, but it has no internal combustion. (obviously).

Basically, it comes down to how realistic you want it to be and how far you are willing to settle with comprimises. ...and it would cost a fortune, only a few mortals could afford.

Plenty of opinions here and that's a good thing. I've been at this for a while and there seems to be a repeat ... how many more TLBs (Backhoes) do we need? Maybe there is an LA version in the works for the coming years. Truthfully though, the 8455 is a milestone in my book. How about trucks and cranes? The gearbox on 8448/8644 does have 6 speeds ... but it is NOT realistic. All that is needed here is some dual floating gears and voila! The realism can be increased dramatically with few specialized technic pieces. Large agricultural and construction machinery have final 'in-wheel' planetary reduction sets. Having an internal gear set would be nice. Lego has made special parts that were released with unique sets in the past.

I wish Lego would introduce some new clutch gear sizes because building a gearbox right now is not only unrealistic, but also more complex than an actual transmission...

Thank you, exactly my thinking!

To me, one of the basic functionalities of a vehicle is the suspension. :) Also i belive lego should try to get more realism in this regard is to make kids understand. Right now lego suspensions are the oposite of what you want to have, and this is also reflecting in many MOCs i see on the internet. A model with the right geometry also steers and drives better and is more fun to play with.

Playability was never technics strong point, never was and never will be. An RC car built out of Lego will never be able to compete with a "real" RC car. So IF technic is just another toy with playability > than everything else, then it's a pretty poor and very expensive toy, remember it's far from being the only toy out there of comparable size and so on. Happily, I don't want it to be just another toy with great playablity that can compete with it's competitors. I don't want the designers to every try to do that because they will fail completely and technic will lose it's edge, forcing them to compromise and not reach the potencial of what technic can do better than anything else which is building authentic, functional, scale replicas of real life mechanics and machinery which is itself inherently awesome! I am aware that the price should not be too high and that kids should be able to build it and it has to function well and reliably. Very well then, consider these gears:

With these gears kids would be able to easily and intuatively build a working gearbox that is reliable, looks and works like the real thing and all with fewer parts than you currently have to use today. Motorisation would also be more reliable and more efficient as less power would be wasted driving the old style in-efficient gearbox making for better and more reliable play. Everything, including gearboxes, are designed to be cost effective, efficient, reliable, assembled by monkeys on a production line and so on, so by replicating what happens in real life as closely as possible you should be able to also achieve these things. It is no secret that I hold mechanicle authenticity as top priority for technic, but it's not for the sake of authenticity, it's because of all the benefits that comes with it, as well as the feeling of owning the real thing as opposed to owning just another toy version, which for me as a kid was a feeling that owning no other toy could compare to. Now compere these two sets:

The mechanics of 8265 requires more parts, are far less reliable (remember the gears that kept falling off?) and playability sucks due to getting cramp in the fingers due to hours of knob twiddling. Motorisation made the reliability issue worse and the overall cost even greater with unrealisticly slow and not very powerful movements. 8459 on the otherhand was cheaper and has more lifelike mechanics which requires less parts, is simpler and easier for kids to understand, is more reliable and better to play with and more powerful right out the box without any need for motorisation. Adding a motor pump would only make it better. It even had a working steering wheel inside the cab. So TLG, how about some more realism please, and all the benefits to both you and me and all the new parts that comes with it!

To me, one of the basic functionalities of a vehicle is the suspension. :) Also i belive lego should try to get more realism in this regard is to make kids understand. Right now lego suspensions are the oposite of what you want to have, and this is also reflecting in many MOCs i see on the internet. A model with the right geometry also steers and drives better and is more fun to play with.

That reminds me of a colleague of mine who worked on engines ..... for him, everything in the car (chassis, tires, transmission, ....) was there solely to 'support' the needs of the engine ...

Playability was never technics strong point, never was and never will be. An RC car built out of Lego will never be able to compete with a "real" RC car.

Playability != RC.

There's alot of playability in sets like 8258, 8285, 8110, 42008, 8880.

Also let's not forget the build as part of the fun. Building Lego is playing. :)

Erik: well said.

DrJB: well, i say that because if you drive the car via HoG steering (something that i love to do with small models), the suspension is the first thing that you notice, since you are the engine, basically. And the suspension geometry is very much felt in this scenario.

Playability != RC.

There's alot of playability in sets like 8258, 8285, 8110, 42008, 8880.

Also let's not forget the build as part of the fun. Building Lego is playing. :)

Well, the RC thing was just an example but in the case of the crawler yeah, playability = RC. In the case of 8265 playbility = finger cramp In 8110 and 8880 playbility pretty much = operating the real thing, because they were authentic!

But you are right, the build is a big part of the fun IF it is interesting. Maybe i've built too many sets but I have built so many function switching gearboxes that building the many many sets that use them feels like i'm building the same set over and over again, which leaves me with no desire to buy another such as 42009 and I have a hunch, next years skip lorry, which i'm guessing (but don't know for sure) is gonna be yet another multi-function gearbox which drives some LAs to move the functions.

EDIT: Reading that back to myself, that sounded harsher than I intended, I don't mean it to sound that way, but I can't really think of a better way to put it

Edited August 28, 201311 yr by allanp

Perhaps it is important to remember bad design too as it is related to this. 8110 steering is awful up to the point of beign unusable.

The 8110 steering is the best example of a recent TLC design blunder. It killed all the fun with the model.

I agree with the steering being very bad and remember, the steering was one part which was not authentic .

Edited August 28, 201311 yr by allanp

Playability was never technics strong point, never was and never will be

I disagree 100%. I played a LOT with my Technic parts/sets/MOCs in my childhood/teens, a good deal more/longer than with my other themes

Hello one and all,

I would say that where lego lacks in realistic functions it more than makes up for it in allowing creativity in finding new solutions. That's the beauty of it and a big part of it's appeal (i'm talking about technic lego here). I remember many moons ago, (this relates to town lego) I was frustrated because I did not have steering for my town van so I came up with a steering mechanism with the assistance of a biro pen.

Having seen the many creations posted on this website i'm always amazed, but not surprised, that my fellow builders find solutions for steering, suspension, lifting, opening, closing and extending. All these solutions can easily be created in the "real world". In lego world we have to work within it's limits and that's what drives creativity. Let's remain in the real world for a moment, many moons ago materials were limited which led to people creating new materials.

Of course, the argument about lego being a toy etc etc is also true.

H