I'm 40+ and the only sets I'm interested in are full rc as I gave up pushing cars around on the floor a very long time ago, 8043, 9398, 41999 are the only reasons I buy lego, the new stuff this year seems a bit backwards to me.

Edited January 6, 201411 yr by JM1971

Come to think of it, the 42023 construction crew set is very close to being a universal set. It has many of the features and functions I would want in such a set.

Come to think of it, the 42023 construction crew set is very close to being a universal set. It has many of the features and functions I would want in such a set.

I think the 42004 comes close to being a Universal set. It has two nice builds and there are three alternatives available on this site (I still need to build the third one). I grew really fond of this set.

I think that if you want to immediately modify the set and customise it then lego have succeeded.

If the set was perfectly playable from the start (after a nice long satisfying build of course like 8880, 8043, 9348 etc) then you will get bored sooner....

I don't really care what TLC comes out with. If i like IT i will buy it , if not i won't. Thats How simple it is to me.

i love to take the little pieces and put (or try) something together that pleases me. More than half of the sets i own , i have never build. I don't like to follow the stupid books that tell you what to do next .

Everything that i make has to contain motors. And the more the better. In my opinion. I don't like to turn the knobs to make something move.

I would like that TLC created more parts like gears and diffs , suspension pieces, wheels, planetairy hubs,....

My 2 euro's

Grtz

Johnny

I have always read this forum with a lot of interest, but recently I feel increasingly unhappy with the attitude in the average post here. As is the case with so many AFOL’s, the studless design brought me back from my dark ages (with the 8288 crawler crane, which I absolutely adore). I admire the possibilities for compact building, increased complexity and realistic aesthetics the studless design allows It’s no coincidence that the most complex, biggest (and I thick best-selling) Technic sets are launched in let’s say the last 3 years.

As I see it, anything is possible in Lego Technic, illustrated by some incredible MOC’s found on the world wide interweb . My personal credo is: If you don’t like the looks or some functions of a set: MOD it! If Lego doesn’t make the model you want as a set: MOC it! I have a substantial collection and almost every set I own is a MOD or a MOC.

For example, I don’t really care for RC or PF. I like figuring out the mechanics to imitate the real machine and learn from the feedback a model gives through manual controls. My 8070 convertible, wheeled 42006’s, 42999 muscle car and 42009 are all converted to manual control.

Sure, there is some repetition in the Lego portfolio, But the playability must be central (after all it is a toy). This means that it quickly comes down to race, move bricks or vehicles or lift stuff. A technic cement pump truck or fire truck? Sorry, I don’t see the appeal of that. Of course I would like to see some new machines build in Technic, but why wait until Lego does it for you? My Technic to-do list is long enough to keep me busy for a while and it becomes bigger with each new Technics set released. In my eyes, this repetition has advantages too: I you missed a certain model you can be sure a new version will come along at some point (a new Technic motorbike in 2015 anyone?). I love seeing the evolution in the models as well, each time more realistic, more aesthetically pleasing, more complex, etc.

I look forward to every new Technic set Lego makes in the hope it will inspire me. So far was never disappointed and I have never bought more Lego than last year. A big, realistic, yellow Volvo front loader? Yes, please.

Edited January 7, 201411 yr by Cumulonimbus

I have always read this forum with a lot of interest, but recently I feel increasingly unhappy with the attitude in the average post here. As is the case with so many AFOL’s, the studless design brought me back from my dark ages (with the 8288 crawler crane, which I absolutely adore). I admire the possibilities for compact building, increased complexity and realistic aesthetics the studless design allows It’s no coincidence that the most complex, biggest (and I thick best-selling) Technic sets are launched in let’s say the last 3 years.

As I see it, anything is possible in Lego Technic, illustrated by some incredible MOC’s found on the world wide interweb . My personal credo is: If you don’t like the looks or some functions of a set: MOD it! If Lego doesn’t make the model you want as a set: MOC it! I have a substantial collection and almost every set I own is a MOD or a MOC.

For example, I don’t really care for RC or PF. I like figuring out the mechanics to imitate the real machine and learn from the feedback a model gives through manual controls. My 8070 convertible, wheeled 42006’s, 42999 muscle car and 42009 are all converted to manual control.

Sure, there is some repetition in the Lego portfolio, But the playability must be central (after all it is a toy). This means that it quickly comes down to race, move bricks or vehicles or lift stuff. A technic cement pump truck or fire truck? Sorry, I don’t see the appeal of that. Of course I would like to see some new machines build in Technic, but why wait until Lego does it for you? My Technic to-do list is long enough to keep me busy for a while and it becomes bigger with each new Technics set released. In my eyes, this repetition has advantages too: I you missed a certain model you can be sure a new version will come along at some point (a new Technic motorbike in 2015 anyone?). I love seeing the evolution in the models as well, each time more realistic, more aesthetically pleasing, more complex, etc.

I look forward to every new Technic set Lego makes in the hope it will inspire me. So far was never disappointed and I have never bought more Lego than last year. A big, realistic, yellow Volvo front loader? Yes, please.

Well said! I don't care how many times Lego repeats a certain vehicle- If i like it I'll buy, build, and try to mod it. If you don't like their models you can always build one of the hundreds of MOCs that are over the internet

I have never really been able to get my head around people complaining about repetition in Technic... fact is, it's a toy at the end of the day, and AFOLs are not the target audience. The core demographic TLG is aiming to hit will eventually 'age out' - so it's only to be expected that some models and vehicles will be seen again. 42009 is a good example. When the first images and such were released, I do remember a fair few posts on here complaining that we already had a flagship mobile crane. And we did. Back in 2005. Lego aren't targeting the same 13-year-old who bought 8421 back in 2005; he's 21 now and probably not interested in it anymore. Instead, they're targeting the kid who was only 5 when 8421 came out, who probably only just moved on from Duplo, but who's now 13 and wants the latest, biggest Technic sets.

And as others have said, if it's not to your taste, mod it. If it's beyond that, the design one yourself; Lego is endlessly diverse, and while you might not like the sets Lego releases (it's a business at the end of the day, they put out what sells), there are plenty of custom instructions out there for far more advanced models by other AFOLs.

Yep. The problem is some AFOLs expecting Lego to market their products towards them, rather than kids. That's just silly.

Edited January 7, 201411 yr by jantjeuh

Anyone got any idea of the actual percentage of purchases that AFOLs account for?

I'd expect it to be 5% or less really. Probably only Lego has those figures.

Same with chassis design. The only new thing 8448 brought to the table was panels as a design element

And the very compact and clever 5+R gearbox. And the modular and minimalistic chassis design. And doors. And they fixed the flawed suspension of 8880. And the better wheels with hollow insides.

The other way round, 8880 adds the driven steered wheels, the the beautifully crafted and strong studded construction, the headlights knob on the dashboard, and a great alternative model.

As you can see the lists of differences between the two are very much in balance with each other. I can't really stand the opinion that 8448 is in every way a step backwards from 8880. It isn't. They're both great sets in their own right, and I consider them equal. The idea that 8448 doesn't add things that 8880 and predecessors didn't do, is provably false.

Lego is marketed for kids, not AFOLs. Lego is selling really, really well. End of discussion.

This, basically.

There seems to be a lot of hatred here because models don't cater to their wishes. Especially the "not realistic" spouted everywhere, mainly in disgust of the new LAs vs. the pneumatic system. I'm sorry but I simply don't understand the fuss about this. I have the idea that people do not realize that there are different kinds of realistic. There's realistic operation, realistic looks, realistic display, realistic play, realistic mechanism, whatever. LAs give more realistic (dis)play with a system that can be held in any position, vs. pneumatics that can only reliably be set into its two extreme positions. Especially a motorized model with LAs just operates well because the functions roll in and out very smoothly and with a steady pace. I have always disliked the "unreliableness" of pneumatic operation - it's hard to predict exactly how a system reacts on a given amount of air.

Also I have always disliked fiddling with the pneumatic hoses, I just don't enjoy building pneumatic systems. But that's just me, I guess. Also I consider pneumatic an "easy way out", just connect a few hoses and be done with it. I love all the intricate gear boxes needed to operate LAs - to me they pose much more of a challenge when building. And I like that challenge. Set 8043 is the perfect example.

But finally, as said perfectly by jantjeuh: we're not the (main) target audience. And even if we were, lots of us buy the sets anyway so why should they bother. ;)

Erik: point taken, but with 8448 it stopped. Nothing went further.

My younger kids (boy and girl) eyes light up when they see gears, axles and motors - a (two) Universal Set(s) would be the best present ever for them! They try to build vehicles with functions using what they can from their City sets, but that is limited - imagine what they would do with a carefully chosen 200-500 part Technic Universal Set. Too many kids go for the easy way out - video games, TV, simple to follow BI's; IMHO guided free build is best and much more rewarding. Come to think of it, I should round up a bunch of my spare parts and make my own Universal Set for them (next project )

I tend to agree here. My son did quite a few of the technic sets (where he must follow printed instructions) but now, he is not interested in new sets anymore and the 'pre-cooked' examples ... What he likes instead is taking all sorts of parts and build his 'own' contraption. I guess those are stages in life... where one grows out of the 'predictive' outcome and wants to explore on their own ... e.g., where a suitable Universal Set is the answer.

Edited January 7, 201411 yr by DrJB

As I've said before, for me it's not about TLG releasing many cranes and so on, it's that they all seem to be the same build and the same mechanisms regardless of what the model is. It's always knob wheel/motor>gears>la, which would not be so bad if that's how real vehicles work, but it's nothing like that. And as I've said many times before (I've said all this many times before!) I get that it's for kids but that argument is invalid when you think about the fact that you do not need to have the same old stale and unrealistic mechanisms to appeal to kids, quite the opposite in fact. They could design sets that were mechanically authentic with more realistic gearboxes for cars and scrapping LAs in favour of the next generation of pneumatics (we are only on the second) which are RC enabled and it would appeal to kids all the same or likely even more so, whilst also appealing to long time AFOLs more, which may not be the majority but their numbers are large enough to make a very noticeable difference to their profits. And as for designing your own models, how does that help TLG sell their sets when I can build an equally bad and unrealistic front end loader from my own parts as one released by them, and then release building instructions for it? If I want to build something pneumatic, I either have to double up all the cylinders which looks horrible or build to a smaller scale (surely a mould for a longer pneumatic would be a better investment than a mould for a new type of axle pin or whatever), or if I want to make something RC again I have to make it small or use lots of gearing after the diff which is just crappy because the current diff can't handle much torque. With all the extra parts required to double up pneumatics or make a capable RC car why not just release a longer pneumatic or a better diff? If I want to have planetary reduction in the wheel hubs like most construction machinery you have to use turn tables which places the steering pivot far outside the wheel which is where it usually is because the wheels are not deep enough to begin with, so why not put more thought into the design of the wheels? I'll spare you with any more examples but the point is the current parts assortment is too limited and not well enough thought out to allow technic to get even close to it's potential, not just for pleasing me (I certainly do not expect them to aim their sets at me or AFOLs looking for realism alone) but for making truly remarkable models and sets that kids will love more than ever as well as bringing in more adults with their increased spending power to the hobby. Don't get me wrong, technic is good but it could be so much better and more appealing to many more people that it is now, they just don't seem willing to try anymore. Just carry on with the same stuff every year. Its not like any of this makes me angry and whilst profits may be steady I don't see how relying on the Lego name whilst introducing this staleness, lack of imagination and lack of realism that leads to a kid feeling as though he owns the real thing will help them move forward. It just seems lazy.

Greetings,

Design limbo? Not sure I agree with the title having missed many a set as a poor child or more recently as an overworked adult. Now i'm back into it I find it hard to be negative about lego. I've graduated from city/town lego as a child into Technic. I can see how some are frustrated because you want Lego take things to another level, which in someways I feel they have. Looking back at the recent years sets their are some great models, 8258, 8109, 9396, 9398, 9397 and many more over the years. I wish I had obtained all the sets I've mentioned and I know some of you have. The comment about lego being aimed at children is correct, but it does say on the boxes (technic) for ages 7 +, there is no maximum age. Technic lego is used in Universities and colleges across the world so there must be a recognition by lego that their product is used by adults. The very existance of this forum, the many other forums etc etc proves that recognition. So where lego thinks of it's target audience, i'm sure there is an element that thinks of those of us who have grown up with lego.

Yes. I would love to see a fire truck on the scale of the latest crane with a massive sky lift or a RC tank, similar to what you guys come up with. I'd love massive pneumatics (as said before), larger springs, the return of mini figs (technic men) and much more but we're not there yet. I'm sure the business people in lego have their costs to think of. Lets think of the positive. Lets create great models with our parts and maybe one day when I've built that fire truck or when one of you have made that great supercar with gulwing doors, a seven speed gear box (including reverse), automated folding roof, pop up head lights and hubless wheels and full RC, maybe then someone from lego might think, "What a great idea for a set. Our target audience will love it. Those guys at Eurobricks are great!"

H

it would appeal to kids all the same or likely even more so

How do you know this?

(surely a mould for a longer pneumatic would be a better investment than a mould for a new type of axle pin or whatever)

Apparently, at this point in time, Lego thinks otherwise.

I agree with Horace T; all these propositions need to be more tangible, and also supported by evidence rather than prejudice or plain nostalgia. For all those saying Lego should produce a certain new part; you can actually go and 3D print these parts.

. Otherwise, you just look silly, endlessly complaining about a child's toy.

I have always read this forum with a lot of interest, but recently I feel increasingly unhappy with the attitude in the average post here. As is the case with so many AFOL’s, the studless design brought me back from my dark ages (with the 8288 crawler crane, which I absolutely adore). I admire the possibilities for compact building, increased complexity and realistic aesthetics the studless design allows It’s no coincidence that the most complex, biggest (and I thick best-selling) Technic sets are launched in let’s say the last 3 years.

As I see it, anything is possible in Lego Technic, illustrated by some incredible MOC’s found on the world wide interweb . My personal credo is: If you don’t like the looks or some functions of a set: MOD it! If Lego doesn’t make the model you want as a set: MOC it! I have a substantial collection and almost every set I own is a MOD or a MOC.

For example, I don’t really care for RC or PF. I like figuring out the mechanics to imitate the real machine and learn from the feedback a model gives through manual controls. My 8070 convertible, wheeled 42006’s, 42999 muscle car and 42009 are all converted to manual control.

Sure, there is some repetition in the Lego portfolio, But the playability must be central (after all it is a toy). This means that it quickly comes down to race, move bricks or vehicles or lift stuff. A technic cement pump truck or fire truck? Sorry, I don’t see the appeal of that. Of course I would like to see some new machines build in Technic, but why wait until Lego does it for you? My Technic to-do list is long enough to keep me busy for a while and it becomes bigger with each new Technics set released. In my eyes, this repetition has advantages too: I you missed a certain model you can be sure a new version will come along at some point (a new Technic motorbike in 2015 anyone?). I love seeing the evolution in the models as well, each time more realistic, more aesthetically pleasing, more complex, etc.

I look forward to every new Technic set Lego makes in the hope it will inspire me. So far was never disappointed and I have never bought more Lego than last year. A big, realistic, yellow Volvo front loader? Yes, please.

+1

you do not need to have the same old stale and unrealistic mechanisms to appeal to kids, quite the opposite in fact.

Source?

for making truly remarkable models and sets that kids will love more than ever

Again, source?

From your post you seem to be thinking you know what will 'appeal to kids', what 'kids will love'. Do you have research to back that up? I'm asking, because to be honest, I reckon Lego has in fact done research on this, and we can see the outcome of that. You might not agree with it, but that doesn't mean it's the wrong choice for Lego.

Also to be honest I think 8421 and 42009 are very different. Yes they have the same features. But their execution for many of them is very different (mainly the double-acting outriggers). But that might just be me ;)

Why not a bigger version of something like "Cool Movers"? Like a fairly simplified "car carrier" truck, that also comes with 3-4 fairly small/simple cars? Functions would be moving the ramps to load all the cars on the trailer, and it'd be different from other stuff they've made in the past, and hopefully still appeal to the "kid crowd"?

Why not a bigger version of something like "Cool Movers"? Like a fairly simplified "car carrier" truck, that also comes with 3-4 fairly small/simple cars? Functions would be moving the ramps to load all the cars on the trailer, and it'd be different from other stuff they've made in the past, and hopefully still appeal to the "kid crowd"?

This. This is something that would appeal to me, and lots of cars/vehicles I'm sure would be popular with kids. If they were made cleverly we wouldn't be able to complain for functions (As long as it wasn't turn a knob and the bonnet opens)

In terms of their design, I will agree that the ideas might be getting a bit stale, variation wouldn't go amiss but however each iteration of a design like the mobile crane for example has its own charm and fun when building/playing. 8053 is a mobile crane. On no level can it be said it is "the same" as 42009. Different scale, functions, design etc. I dont own 8421 but I'd bet the case is similar there.

In summary, ideas are stale, not the execution. Each set ia very different, just recycled ideas.

If I were a purist I would be bored with technic as it is, electrical complexity I add to make it more challenging and interesting. What's the point in having a well set up suspension system if the car only goes 5kph... It is what it is, and it does what it does to get the job done.

Speaking of design, has anyone really justified the decision to switch the 1/4 cylinder panel to the new style?

To me, Technic panels are simply there for aesthetics, to fill the voids and the chassis-esque designs of the old days and cover the mechanisms.

So why the need to compromise this for the sake of connectability? The new panel reduces the smoothness and increases the gaps in a model that a panel was supposed to eliminate in the first place!

And as if to add insult to injury, the new connections are necessary. I managed to build the entire 41999 using the old-style panels. Yes the instructions required the connections, but it was incredibly easy to connect the old panels by moving around a few pieces without compromising the looks or functions (in other words, it was unnoticeable)

Please tell me I'm missing something here..

The designer claims that the new panel was needed for the 42009 to make the boom construction stronger.

Maybe this is the case for the 41999, but for other models it might be useful. So overall it increases the usability/connectability of the part. This obviously prevails over aesthetics.

I for one do like the fact that the part is more versatile.

The designer claims that the new panel was needed for the 42009 to make the boom construction stronger.

There you have it