Is PF and RC an increasing trend?

[Cumulonimbus]

Since I emerged from my dark ages, I noticed that there seems to be a trend of increasing use of Power Functions (PF) and Remote Controls (RC), in official sets and MOCs. Where adding a motor used to be optional, now there are more and more TLG models with integrated PF and RC. Even worse (in my eyes) is the fact that an official set can’t be a flagship model without any form of PF.

When I see Technic MOCs in the various media, this phenomena is even more clearly visible. MOCs which get the most admiration from the community are packed full of motors, receivers, battery packs, lights, etc. The most common MOD of released sets is “RC-ing” the functions. New initiatives like the S-brick seem to confirm this trend.

I observe this and I can’t understand what the fascination is, I have always had a preference for manual controls. This tend to lead to more fascinating mechanisms and make more compact models possible (just look at the amazing MINI-contest entries). In MOCs, it forces you to think about the user-friendliness of the controls and gives valuable feedback about the load on the drivetrain and the efficiency of a mechanism.

I can understand adding one PF motor to avoid endless knob turning, although I found that adding a hand crank like on the 8288 Crawler crane improves this dramatically. But PF-ing all functions doesn’t necessarily makes it easier to control and takes away most of the feedback. With RC, I feel even more detached from the model and its functions. Additionally, I don’t like the noise the Lego motors make and I cringe every time a motor triggers the overload protection of a LA. When my 42030 and 8043 are switched off, the feel like dead weight and I notice a bigger threshold to take them from the shelve and play around with.

All this has lead me to remove the PF and RC from a lot of my TLG sets to make the model manual: My 41999, 42025, 8070 have been de-PF-ed and became more interesting by it.

In conclusion: in my opinion, PF and especially RC make a model slow, noisy, heavy, bulky and expensive. So my questions is simple: what is the fascination with motorizing a Technic model? Is it something younger generations want or demand, or is it a phenomenon driven by AFOLs?

(PS: Don’t get me wrong, this is not a rant against PF and RC, I really can appreciate their value. But I do struggle to understand the fascination with motorizing everything.)

[Rijkvv]

For the most part I agree with you. The 1994 8880 Super Car is in my opinion a way better design than the 2011 8070 Super Car, while the latter is the one with a motor. I might be a little biased towards the 8880 because of its studded construction and looks, but at least a gear shift is used to shift gears and not to shift functions that are seldom motorized in a real car. In this case I think the 8070 would've been better if there was no PF at all, and it would've been cheaper too. Today many official models use them, and often not really well executed.

In the 9 Volt era most sets didn't have motors, with the exception of supplemental packs, multi model sets and sometimes a flagship set. But often for one function only, like a compressor. As a result, middle-sized sets were relatively cheap compared to nowadays motorized middle-sized sets I think.

But I think this is something that's what people want in general. Nowadays there are Playmobil and Meccano RC-controlled vehicles, they didn't have those in my days. I'm not that old, I'm from 1988 but I think it's something that's common. At schools, people use touchscreens and some children already have a smartphone at basic school. You can see it with LEGO as well: in 2007 PF, now we already have servo motors, three different sizes of regular motors, the ability to control 8 motors independently and it's still not enough. Mostly AFOLs want small motors, some want XXL motors and you already mentioned it: S-brick.

That being said, I have to admit the ideas for TECHNIC creations I have in mind all rely on PF, with a few exceptions. It's the costs that kept me from beginning so far. Like you mentioned PF creations almost always have to be built large, to accomodate the battery box, motors, and eventually the receiver. So not only the equipment, but the vehicle itself becomes more expensive as well.

[Zerobricks]

Well my opinion is simple as this: Motors bring models to life!

To be honest I havent built a non motorized model (not including the mini contest) in two years, so I guess you could say I'm addicted to PF, yes... But as you said its a trend and in order for your models to be cool they kind of must be motorized?

[captainmib]

Hear, hear. I'm leaning towards PF-less sets as well.

I think the amount of sets with PF is also moving me towards wanting to PF and remote control everything.

I really want to have the 42030, so that i can build MOC's that come with this.

Usually i dont start building some of those awesome mocs, because they all use a lot of PF stuff, and i don't own them yet.

Cumulonimbus, you have started me to rethink the MOC i'm currently working on, and build it without PF.

I would encourage TLG to build a technic flagship without PF.

[torso]

I think there is a place for both. It depends on the model. A big model isn't necessarily better than a small model, and a model with PF isn't automatically better than a model without it. They should be judged on originality and elegance. If you should use PF comes down to what you're trying to achieve.

Not using PF places a restriction on what you can build, which will force you to come up with an alternative solution. If everyone seems to be doing something one way, try doing the opposite and you may be the pioneer in unexplored territory. Restrictions come in many forms: maximum part count, alternative model for specific set, seed part, build on a theme, etc. My local LUG ran a competition last winter where you had to build something on a baseplate, but no higher than one brick tall. I thought "let's use technic", and ended up building a GBC module (http://torso.me/btgbc). I would never have built it without that restriction, but it was unexpected and was well received. And no, it didn't use PF (but only because it was impossible).

My current project also has a restriction that happens to exclude PF. But after that I want to explore the area of machines driven by a single motor, which should provide some interesting challenges. Mindstorms is cheating and RC is just a play feature anyway .

I don't want to belittle the effort of people building RC cars or construction equipment, even if doesn't happen to be that interesting to me. Diversity is great, and it's what keeps me looking at other people's creations.

[Zerobricks]

Actually what was the last flagship without PF? Was it the 8285?

[zux]

Actually what was the last flagship without PF? Was it the 8285?

If 1st half year flagships count - then 42000.

While I like PF - I missed that in my childish days, I wish there were non-PF flagships too.

[JM1971]

I only get RC sets, pushing things yourself is so 1980's.

[Cumulonimbus]

I only get RC sets, pushing things yourself is so 1980's.

I'm a child of the 80's, so I don't mind pushing, pulling and turning myself. But it raises an interesting point: As an AFOL, my focus is on constructing and not on playing. I guess that the focus of the target user group (aka "kids") is more on the playing and animating the machines, where PF and RC possibly add play value.

[Zerobricks]

Well i was born in 80's but I guess I was kid of 90's... Its just less akward driving car via RC than pushing it, especially in public (and to spice up making brum brum noises for those extra WTF looks).

[Erik Leppen]

Hear, hear. This is a topic to my liking. I'd like to see more PF-less sets as well. I think the current trend is disturbing, one cannot choose a large model without even more motors anymore. I like PF - but there should be choice - and if one wants PF-less models, one can't have the largest models around. and these things easily add a significant amount to the set's price. And I don't need the parts - I already have more motors and battery boxes then I need.

But there's not only a PF trend going on. There's also a trend going on where sets become larger. Compare today's flagship with a 1990 flagship. I can remember a set like 8868 to be the largest set around. Put it next to 8285 and it looks puny. Why are sets becoming bigger (and more expensive)?

I think the same of 42009. It looks like a great set - but it's way oversized (8421 was on the edge). 8460 has almost the same functions with less than one third of the parts, and it hasn't the problem where the LA looks way out of proportion with the rest of the set. And with that size, 8460 doesn't need PF, because hand cranking a moderate-sized model isn't nearly as much of a chore as with so large a set as 42009.

I'd relaly like to see more sets in the 800-parts range - with no PF. These would be just as interesting, without the challenges caused by size and weight.

That said, PF and RC can certainly pose a challenge. 8043, having one of the most complext gearboxes around, proves this. (8043 by the way is a great example of a set that is not ridiculously large).

I think 8265 is a much more interesting set than 42030, for example. The problem I have with huge sets is that they start to look like stacked-liftarms too much. You see that with 42009 and with 42030. Most parts are liftarms. 8265 and 8043 look much more balanced.

[Cumulonimbus]

Erik, that's a very interesting hypothesis: the larger a set becomes, the bigger the need/desire for PF.

I'm in limbo about the growing set sizes: On one hand I love the fact that the boundaries of what is possible with standard bricks are shifting and the potential this creates. For example: I was completely overwhelmed by the 8258 when it launched. I learned a lot from building it, love the realistic proportions and functions and it is still one of my all-time favorites.

At the same time, the mid-scale sets like 42006 and 42024 have triggered my imagination the most to create MODs and MOCs. They are more manageable during and after construction and the size limitation challenges my building abilities. The new tires as on the 42024 opened my eyes for the potential for trucks at this scale.

I must say that I lost interest in some of the huge sets such as 8110 and 42030 much more quickly than medium or even small scale sets. An as mentioned, the number of functions doesn’t necessarily increase with increasing set size.

[Tommy Styrvoky]

I think that adding PF parts creates a greater challenge than building without them. The size if the parts can be difficult to incorperate into small models but with larger models the torque output can be a fun challenge to achive.

With my models, anyone could build a shell without the PF parts but with the PF parts added, it can allow for interesting additions to the drive train (RC transmissions,subtractor/adders) these can significantly improve the complexity of the model and take up even more space in the hull.

[allanp]

Some of the best ever flagships have motors, some do not. It all depends how must they are relied upon IMHO. It's like salt, sometimes you need to add a bit to make something taste just right but add too much and it spoils it.

[Appie]

I think the Unimog has a nice balance of motor use, for pneumatic and mechanical purposes and it also has some manual features, but some sets seem very heavy on PF yeah. Greatest example of that would be the 42030, which basically follows in 9398's footsteps as the new remote control Lego car. I don't mind it personally. If I did I could just de-PF it like you did. Sometimes Lego even provides it like the 8043 and 42006 or backwards with the 8265 and 42030 . Some sets or MOCs I really like more for having PF though. While the PF on the 42030 is pretty simple in its execution (very direct) I like it more than the 8265, mainly because LA's need a motor imo.

Greatest example of something I would absolutely hate without PF is the gearbox in Sheepo's Mustang. I really like that servo driven sequential gearbox and while Sheepo also made a manual model for the Mustang it just isn't the same with a manual 5+R and handbrake gearbox imo.

Seems Lego hears your pleas a little too though. Since they got models that are "PF ready" like the 9396, 42024, 42006 and 42029. Leaving the choice up to the user to PF it or not.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Appie

[legomuppet9]

I think that adding PF parts creates a greater challenge than building without them. The size if the parts can be difficult to incorperate into small models but with larger models the torque output can be a fun challenge to achive.

With my models, anyone could build a shell without the PF parts but with the PF parts added, it can allow for interesting additions to the drive train (RC transmissions,subtractor/adders) these can significantly improve the complexity of the model and take up even more space in the hull.

This

Although I would like to see a flagship without PF... just to see what the designers can come up with

[z3_2drive]

I build MOCs for the playability-trying to go as fast as possible, but If I build a small MOC for looks and functions, PF doesnt matter to me. I've made MOCs with and without PF, both being just as fun. I guess official sets now have PF more often because kids might pay more attention to toys that move without pushing them, and for big flagships it removes the tedious twisting of knobs. A good supercar like 8880 doesnt need PF, but if they can manage to make it fully motorized without taking out the original features, all the better!

[jantjeuh]

For sets I don't really care, I hardly buy any of them anyway.

For MOCs I prefer RC, nowadays it's quite easy to add RC functionality to MOCs without compromising looks, as Madoca's excellent MOCs show.

[Simarilius]

I quite like the PF stuff, bought the 9398 back in april, and loved it. Its all well and good building a fancy 4x4 transmission, but if theres not a motor there its not really doing anything is it. Also love that my 2 year old can play with it by driving it and I dont have to let him play with anything other than the controller.

[JM1971]

Well i was born in 80's but I guess I was kid of 90's... Its just less akward driving car via RC than pushing it, especially in public (and to spice up making brum brum noises for those extra WTF looks).

That is what is missing from PF, the brum brum sounds and maybe some tire squeal and smoke.

[miguev]

I'm another kid of the 80's and love both small models with compact, friendly, PF-less controls as well as bigger models with PF/RC. It's also a lot of fun to give the controller to your toddler kids and let them play (relatively) quietly for a while :)

[rollermonkey]

As someone who started using LEGO even before the 1978 introduction of Space, let alone before Technic, and was in the Dark Ages from about '87 until 2013, I've got a different perspective on this.

I had just one motor back in the day, and it was HUGE. Like 4 bricks tall, 6 studs wide and 12 studs long and black. You had two choices of what to power: 4 wheels or two treads. SNOT was virtually non-existent so apart from some black vehicles I think the only thing I ever made was a windmill. The battery pack took either 2 c's or 2 d's, and was enormous. It was connected to the motor by a 10" wire and had on and off positions.

Technic sets were still pretty rudimentary, but I had 850, 871 and this as my flagship set, and one of my absolute last sets before 'growing up':

.

.

.

Now that you know where I'm coming from, I hope that you're not horribly offended when I say:

Are you frickin' serious? Whining about sets being too big? Complaining about being able to power almost any function you can imagine and control it remotely?

Please just, just please. If you don't like a massive, multi-motor remote controlled set, DON'T BUY IT.

But complaining about its existence is just asinine. If you want to make things like we used to you still can:

(please not that these sets came with bricks in ALL THE COLORS! I guess there were only 5 colors in the world back then. )

But while you're at it, I'll be more than happy to build some of these, and maybe MOC from them, too:

Edited August 15, 2014 by Blakbird
: Removed oversized image.

[Blakbird]

I think the introduction of motors has changed the demographic of both kids and adult fans a bit. As an adult fan of mechanisms, I really couldn't care less if a model is motorized or not. I care how it works, and to a lesser extent how it looks. My kids on the other hand, are drawn to the motorized models like bees to honey. TLG did their marketing research, and there is a reason there are a lot of motorized sets these days. I had 4 nephews visiting my house this week between the ages of 6 and 14. The only thing they wanted to look at in my vast collection was motorized models.

Taking an existing set and adding motors to it is an interesting MOC exercise, but rarely actually makes the model any better. On the other hand, it is pretty easy to make it worse. When it is done really well (like Jurgen's Ultimate 42009), it is quite impressive.

I do think motorization is approaching the point of being overdone. It has two problems. The first is that it makes an otherwise reasonably priced set very expensive. This can be solved by making the Power Functions optional add-ons. The second is when motorization is used in place of actual mechanical ingenuity. 8264 is a perfect example here. It doesn't really do anything, but it does have a motor! The other end of the spectrum is 8258. Here we have only one motor, but it is used in a marvelous way to complement the mechanical complexity of the model.

As for model size, TLG is still a long way from making a model that I would consider too big. I'm still waiting for something that I would call "UCS" which would be in the 5000+ part range. In my dream world, this set would have no motors.

For MOC'ing, I like both motorized and manual models. I generally resist models that actually drive because they just really don't work very well. But construction equipment works great. Sheo's Terex shovel is a great example of a model that deserves all the motors it has. Crowkillers' cars are a great example of how good a model can be without motors.

[rollermonkey]

^Of course a 5000+ piece Technic set would likely have over a thousand pins.

[piterx]

no way i will ever push one of my models around :D

motors give so much more challenge to the building process!

you have to think wisely how you're gonna make things otherwise it will be a failure and you have to hide all the stuff so the moc doesn't get ruined by pf pieces...

and if you want good performances you'll change the way you build things :)

i think that's the best part of RCing everything..