76023 The Tumbler

[nerdsforprez]

I am ready for Christmas with my UCS Tumbler set. I looked at the piece chart and notice there are quite a few Technic elements. This made me think... if there are more Technic parts than regular LEGO parts, can we appropriately call this a Technic set?

Much to my dismay... not even close. Using bricklink as a guide (yes, I know there are flaws with this categorization, but it is a start), I counted 443 Technic elements, not even a quarter of the Tumbly's overall piece count. But... more "Technic" that I thought... and it got me thinking. Are there any sets out there, that are not technically Technic (see what I did there?) but in reality perhaps should be according to piece count? I know a lot of the SW UCS sets have tons of Technic elements, but b/c of the overall piece count of plates etc do not qualify (i.e. have more Technic elements than regular LEGO). The old "model team" sets have lots of Technic - any one know if any of those sets apply?

[zux]

Well, it all depends what is Technic for YOU. As for me, Tumbler looks more like Model Team, rather than Technic. Second thing, Tumbler don't have that much Technic pieces, less than 300 (with pins excluded) out of 1.8k - not too much.

There are other bigger sets, like in SW line, where Technic pieces are used to create stronger chassis or frame, but we never call them Technic, just because of it.

[nerdsforprez]

Well, it all depends what is Technic for YOU. As for me, Tumbler looks more like Model Team, rather than Technic. Second thing, Tumbler don't have that much Technic pieces, less than 300 (with pins excluded) out of 1.8k - not too much.

There are other bigger sets, like in SW line, where Technic pieces are used to create stronger chassis or frame, but we never call them Technic, just because of it.

Why would you exclude the pins? They may seem mundane and over-used... but think about it, Technic models would not be possible without the pins. To me, to forget the pins or to criticize their use or frequent use (like many did with the 42009) is like excluding LEGO sets with lots of a certain type of brick. You can't exclude frequently used elements just because you think they are overused.... think about what the Statue of Liberty (3450) set would be like without the 2x2 corner bricks, or the London Bridge without the cheese wedges. Pins, just like bricks, are elements too... and they are definitely Technic! :)

[Blakbird]

There are plenty of old Racers sets that count as Technic with nearly 100% Technic parts. I am including those in Technicopedia on a selected basis. (8145, 8146, 8386, 8461, 8649, 8653, 8674, 8682)

Quite a few UCS sets have a large Technic core, including the ISD, the Death Star II, the Falcon, and the Imperial Shuttle. I was amazed at how much Technic there was inside the shuttle, yet it no way would I call any of these sets Technic. Of course, there are a dozen real Technic Star Wars sets from 10 years ago, but these actually say Technic on the box. (8000-8012 and 4481)

A few of the early Bionicle sets were almost entirely Technic. I'm not talking about the figures, but the larger models like 8538 or 8539.

In the Creator line, the 4958 Dinosaur is all Technic and Power Functions.

The modern studless Technic parts don't mix all that well with System, so I don't think you are likely to find many System models that you would consider Technic.

i seem to recall that we've had virtually this same topic before but it was a couple of years ago.

[plethorabricks]

Hi all...new poster here. I don't want to light any fires about what is and isn't Technic. But from what I have seen in the past few model years, the use of Technic elements in System sets has never been better across the board. From the Creator line, to the Movie line, to Mindstorms, to the Licensed lines and the OP's Tumbler - it's never been a better time to be using Technic elements.

The 2014 Star Wars sets alone should receive an award for Most-Improved Engineering. Not only do the Technic elements make these sets the most sturdy and swooshable they've ever been, but the intelligent use of 2-ply and 3-ply locking plate surfaces and the "weaving" of SNOT pieces and plates to strengthen models allow the Technic pieces (particulary the "dreaded" pins) to contribue freely to interesting and fun play functionality. The swiveling guns on the ISD? Pins. The ability for the unfolded ISD "skin" to lay parallel to the ground and not shear off, even while lifting the model only by its all-System-brick neck? Pins. The ability for the B-Wing to hold wings at perpendicular angles while simultaneously supporting a 360-degree free-spinning cockpit? Pins. None of these sets will ever get close to being called Technic, but to me the Technic totally makes these sets the successes that they are.

Most of the other Lego lines seem to be doing more with Technic but with less elements overall - Creator's Turbo Quad, the Lego Movie's Super Secret Dropship (which in the movie has a Technic "backbone" on the bottom, where it doesn't exist in the retail model, and doesn't need it), the EV3 Mindstorms set (which to me has the lowest piece count but the most balanced set of Technic parts in over 15 years), and even the DC Super Heroes line (the jaws on the batplane in the Steamroller set!) and the Tumbler chassis supporting all those surface angles. There are quite a few examples in recent Lego System sets where levers and pins are used for movement and play features, and axles and pins are locked in to prevent slippage and accidental disconnects, just as a "pure" Technic set might. These, to me, are also Technic successes, but won't be called Technic.

The only line that really seems to be missing out on the party is the Technic line itself, where piece counts go up while functionality plateaus as models move closer to being "all-clad" as a top priority. But for me this isn't about what is and isn't technically Technic. I think the way Technic is being used in System sets now should lead a Technic fan to enjoy the use of Technic even more, even if a set will not be labeled "Technic".

"Best use of Technic in <*NON-TECHNIC LEGO PRODUCT LINE*>" would be a pretty interesting series of awards to have.

[bonox]

Thanks to your fabulously eloquent comments plethora, i'm off to investigate a bunch of themes i've never considered before.

[DrJB]

In my understanding (and many may not agree), Technic usually (historically) refers to some functionality with gears and similar elements. Other themes may use technic parts, but that does not make them technic. The line gets a bit blurry with some of the Creator series and even some of the City sets (crane and construction vehicles) and later the Ferris wheel and walking dino. I wonder if, within TLG, the product lines are so 'clearly' defined ...

[weavil]

Well would it be a Model Team then? Look at 5571-1, it has less Technic and almost the same part count and is called Model Team.

[rollermonkey]

Heck, even the Chima giveaway this Fall had a 5L liftarm in red and tan pins.

[Erik Leppen]

Many studded Technic sets have a lot of System (Many of the "good olds" like 8460, 8880, 8480, 8479). Are they not to be called Technic because they have many bricks, plates, tiles and slopes?

I think the part distribution isn't really a good measure for what should be called Technic and what should not. I'd say the amount of functionality (techniques) would be a better defining factor.

[nerdsforprez]

Hi all...new poster here. I don't want to light any fires about what is and isn't Technic. But from what I have seen in the past few model years, the use of Technic elements in System sets has never been better across the board. From the Creator line, to the Movie line, to Mindstorms, to the Licensed lines and the OP's Tumbler - it's never been a better time to be using Technic elements.

The 2014 Star Wars sets alone should receive an award for Most-Improved Engineering. Not only do the Technic elements make these sets the most sturdy and swooshable they've ever been, but the intelligent use of 2-ply and 3-ply locking plate surfaces and the "weaving" of SNOT pieces and plates to strengthen models allow the Technic pieces (particulary the "dreaded" pins) to contribue freely to interesting and fun play functionality. The swiveling guns on the ISD? Pins. The ability for the unfolded ISD "skin" to lay parallel to the ground and not shear off, even while lifting the model only by its all-System-brick neck? Pins. The ability for the B-Wing to hold wings at perpendicular angles while simultaneously supporting a 360-degree free-spinning cockpit? Pins. None of these sets will ever get close to being called Technic, but to me the Technic totally makes these sets the successes that they are.

Most of the other Lego lines seem to be doing more with Technic but with less elements overall - Creator's Turbo Quad, the Lego Movie's Super Secret Dropship (which in the movie has a Technic "backbone" on the bottom, where it doesn't exist in the retail model, and doesn't need it), the EV3 Mindstorms set (which to me has the lowest piece count but the most balanced set of Technic parts in over 15 years), and even the DC Super Heroes line (the jaws on the batplane in the Steamroller set!) and the Tumbler chassis supporting all those surface angles. There are quite a few examples in recent Lego System sets where levers and pins are used for movement and play features, and axles and pins are locked in to prevent slippage and accidental disconnects, just as a "pure" Technic set might. These, to me, are also Technic successes, but won't be called Technic.

The only line that really seems to be missing out on the party is the Technic line itself, where piece counts go up while functionality plateaus as models move closer to being "all-clad" as a top priority. But for me this isn't about what is and isn't technically Technic. I think the way Technic is being used in System sets now should lead a Technic fan to enjoy the use of Technic even more, even if a set will not be labeled "Technic".

"Best use of Technic in <*NON-TECHNIC LEGO PRODUCT LINE*>" would be a pretty interesting series of awards to have.

Good post.

[Jim]

Hi nerdsforprez,

There's no need to quote an entire first post, just to say it's a "good post".

Care to explain why you think it's a good post and add something to the conversation?