The 8459 Loader is insanely playable. 2 year olds love it.

The 2013 Monster Truck (42005) is also insanely playable. My kids (20 months, 3 years) take it in turns throwing it down the slide we have in the garden, and bouncing it on stuff.

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.

I think much of this depends on the scale of the build. Obviously the larger the scale(like you build) the easier it is to replicate the real thing.

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.

nicjasno,

My comment was not meant as criticism. Not at all. I was merely highilighting that we all come to this with various interests and expectations. I am a mechanical engineer, and in Lego, I tend to look for realism with the functions. Granted, others have stated that this is only a toy and should be treated as such .... and that position is of course defendable.

Yesterday my son picked a differental and asked me what it was for ... On the other hand, if I were to try and explain how a transmission works ... I can't use the 8448/8644.

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

Sure, technic has play value I don't deny that. I also think play value is very important. But let me ask you this, do you spend more time building technic or playing with it after it's built? For me building time outweighs playing time about 10 to 1. I just think play value is not it's strongest attribute and increased authenticity almost always leads to increased play value. The authentic functions of the unimog were fun to play with, the non authentic steering was not fun to play with. There are exceptions to every rule but that's mostly how it seems to me. Remember, from the horses mouth the 3 main goals of technic is authenticity, complexity and challenging building, which I think is as it should be. I would rather they pursue those three main goal before playability despite what playability technic has and because those three goals will automatically generate lots of playability anyway among other good things as well.

Edited August 28, 201311 yr by allanp

I think Lego is designed for children, we are the ones that we can do more complex or Lego with a new Lego Technic Complex .

DrJB: i was also talking about the vehicles that have a suspension to begin with. The new Green tow truck for example needs neither an engine nor suspension, since it's so full packed with features, that those would be overkill and would not really add to the model.

But models, whose primary function is to be a model of a vehicle (jeep, supercar....) and have a suspension, the suspension design should be realistic.

DrJB: i was also talking about the vehicles that have a suspension to begin with. The new Green tow truck for example needs neither an engine nor suspension, since it's so full packed with features, that those would be overkill and would not really add to the model.

But models, whose primary function is to be a model of a vehicle (jeep, supercar....) and have a suspension, the suspension design should be realistic.

We're in agreement then ... :)

I think Lego is designed for children, we are the ones that we can do more complex or Lego with a new Lego Technic Complex .

I don't think SW UCS models are designed for children.

Playability, functionality, fidelity... I think it's safe to ask for an AFOL model every now and then that puts engineering above everything else, and still focus on playability for the 95% of the sets. Also good enginnering does no deter from playability, bad engineering can.

I can appreciate a well designed thought out model that simulates features that work well just as much as someone who builds in a larger scale with many more parts that shoots for realism as closely as they can get it. I mean lets face it, there are more things in a vehicle that are not replicated properly other than suspensions. Like for instance a Crankshaft in a V8 engine. 4 pistons don't fire at a time.

I think Lego is designed for children, we are the ones that we can do more complex or Lego with a new Lego Technic Complex .

Well actually, it's designed to make the Lego group money . Which movie makes more money? Dora the explorer (enjoyed by children only) or toy story (designed mainly for children but also to have wider appeal), and which movie is the better movie for it?

I agree that 8043 is a great set. Best released in a long time. And please god, no dinosaurs.

I thought that 8094, the Control Centre, had a number of unique "non vehicular" ideas, and wonder why we can't get more of this. Not constrained to the vehicle format, we can get both interesting machines and realism, instead of using 600 parts to build the perfect suspension and gearbox.

What I find is that the big Technic sets have more parts than they did 20 years, but they don't do more. There is far less efficient use of the pieces, and more very repetitive building. I recall how disappointed I was with the big crane 8421 a few years ago. The "biggest Technic Set" ever at the time, but a boring build and very little fun after it was built. it marked the end of my years of strong Technic interest, though I still dabble when a really good set comes along.

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.

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

I recall how disappointed I was with the big crane 8421 a few years ago.

I'm not quite sure by what 'biggest ever' means ... lately TLG includes a plethora of miniscule parts in their sets just to up the part count. Makes it very difficult to sort through all those small parts. I'd be happier with a more 'relevant' metric i.e., 'weight' of the set, but that is another topic in itself.

DrJB: i was also talking about the vehicles that have a suspension to begin with. The new Green tow truck for example needs neither an engine nor suspension, since it's so full packed with features, that those would be overkill and would not really add to the model.

But models, whose primary function is to be a model of a vehicle (jeep, supercar....) and have a suspension, the suspension design should be realistic.

I think it's just a matter of preference. You are interested in suspension, that's why you say so. Most supercars (be it a MOC or official set) has suspension at least, even if it's not fully realistic. A very few car model has breaks, friction clutch or power steering for example. There is a not fullly realistic but existing suspension while some of the most basic and characteristic functions are totally missing from most of the models...

I think the best supercars are made by Crowkillers and Tyler Reid (in alphabetical order). Yet, they are just like any other supercars or just cars in terms of functionality.

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.

That's already doable with current parts. Several of us have built mocs using turntables as planetary hubs.

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.

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

I agree, and the Control Center II is really the only set I regret not buying.

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

Exactly! Building a moc is my favorite part of playing with LEGO, and once a model is built, I really don't do much with it other than display at one or two shows. My niece and nephew like LEGO too (I got them into it ), but they don't seem to play with their built stuff much. They seem to enjoy the build and moc process better.

I think it's just a matter of preference. You are interested in suspension, that's why you say so. Most supercars (be it a MOC or official set) has suspension at least, even if it's not fully realistic. A very few car model has breaks, friction clutch or power steering for example. There is a not fullly realistic but existing suspension while some of the most basic and characteristic functions are totally missing from most of the models...

I think the best supercars are made by Crowkillers and Tyler Reid (in alphabetical order). Yet, they are just like any other supercars or just cars in terms of functionality.

Let me limit this to "a" supercar. Any supercar.

The purpose of each supercar in the past was to surpass its predecessor in the functions it had. The supercars were basically the flagship models of the technic line.

This kinda changed with the 8448, which for the first time made a few staps back from the brilliant 8880 (still the best supercar imho).

What i'd like to see, and what is entirely possible with the current crop of parts (aldough a better wheelhub and some 8448-esque rims would also be good) is realistic suspension geometry and interesting suspension designs. I'm really tired of the vanilla double wishbone setup we see in every lego supercar/offroader (except the live axles in the crawler and unimog).

Also, we need car bodies that are stiffer, like the 8880. If you want the suspension to do its work, the car body must not twist like chewing gum. And as people before mentioned, we need different sizes of clutch gears, to make a realistic gearbox. And i'd also love to see a variation of the 8880 CV joint, so we could make proper front wheel or all wheel drive cars.

I'd love to see a lego "hot hatch" with transverse engine, macpherson front suspension, multilink rear suspension, realistic gearbox and front wheel drive. If done properly, the parts count could be relatively low, thanks to panels. And the model could be awesome.

This would also spark a whole new wave of mocs and would give people the appreciation on how their actual cars are made.

Brakes are optional, since this is something, that is really hard to do without very specialised parts. I'm talking about brakes with actuall stopping power, not something that just increases the friction a bit.

Looking forward to peoples thoughts on this. :)

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.

I have to agree. I tried it out before disassembling mine, and it was way too heavy to function normally. Even on a plain table it was heavy.

It would be like a real Unimog with the servo-less steering from a 50 year old tractor.

I think it's just a matter of preference. You are interested in suspension, that's why you say so. Most supercars (be it a MOC or official set) has suspension at least, even if it's not fully realistic. A very few car model has breaks, friction clutch or power steering for example. There is a not fullly realistic but existing suspension while some of the most basic and characteristic functions are totally missing from most of the models...

I think the best supercars are made by Crowkillers and Tyler Reid (in alphabetical order). Yet, they are just like any other supercars or just cars in terms of functionality.

I also prefer car models to be more Lego-like in build. Pushing the limits is fine if the build is clean IMO.

I'm starting to think that i enjoy building more than playing with the set. Mostly i think that this is because of the limited play value of newer sets. The 8110 comes to mind. Such a nice model and a terrible flaw. My spent about a year on a shelf but are now being parted out. Regarding cars, would it be too much to ask for a bit more functions normally not found in Lego vehicles. Examples like windshield vipers and windows that can be lowered. The would certainly make the model realistic, but i don't know if it can be done. Suspension is the thing that either lets you or prevents you from moving the model so if anything that really need to be proper.

8110 steering is awful up to the point of beign unusable.

8110 is pretty much unplayable. The build is long and boring, there's nothing neat or clever in the functionality, and the resulting toy is pretty poor - heavy steering, poor crane control, too big, too heavy, limited functions. My kids prefer the pull-back motor racers, or the helicopters, or the 8285 tow truck...or 8070 car, or pretty much anything compared to 8110. We have a cupboard full of recent technic sets, most of which will stay intact. 8110 might get stripped for parts.

Edited August 28, 201311 yr by andythenorth

The 8110 could have been so much better. Simpler, lighter, with better suspension. But at least there's my front suspension mod to alleviate the steering issue.

I also prefer car models to be more Lego-like in build. Pushing the limits is fine if the build is clean IMO.

That reminds me about building the 8880. Near the end several sections could be build alone and then mounted on the model. This is something a miss nowadays, large substeps. It used to be that you build something "big" to put onto a model and there could be several of those and some important function would be added. Now you just add small parts in a substep, the finished thing mostly being some kind of mounting plate for something else. The cranes are an exemption from this. In 8421 you built the steering assemblies and then added them and in 42009 it was the outriggers.

Also please for the love of god try to add more parts per step and make more substeps. I can't even remember every time while building 42009 that i felt that certain steps could have been part of an earlier step and thus saved space and made the instructions smaller. And it would also make the model more fun to build since now it feels that it drags on forever. Sorry for the OT rant.

I agree. This is also how cars/vehicles in general are made. You build a frame/chassis, and then attach the front/rear suspension bridge, drivetrain, bumbers, doors, interior...

Right now it's all a blob, where you can't remove any part without dissasembilng half of the model.

The one thing that I did like in the SSS compared to the 8880 was the 10L damped shock absorbers for opening the doors/roof. The SSS felt more like a car to me than the 8880. The 8880 seemed more like an all terrain/dune buggy type vehicle because of the massive body and lack of doors(which also helped to stiffen the body). I really don't think the SSS was that far behind the 8880. The SSS had some neat things going on. It is still amazing to me that the 8880 had less parts than the SSS.

Edited August 28, 201311 yr by Meatman

That's what I liked so much about 8448...the modularity of the build.

It took me a while to appreciate/adopt the studless designs, but now, I find the SSS/8448 much nicer looking than the 8880. Then of course there is the 8644. IMHO, the 'other' supercar (8070) was meant to demo new functionality ... where what looks like a transmission, is in fact used to lower/raise hood/doors/spoiler. Neat concepts, but way non-realistic.

That's what I liked so much about 8448...the modularity of the build.

And the fact that you can make it either a FWD or RWD in a snap.