Do you consider these 2002 & 2003 sets Technic?

[SheepEater]

This is obviously a subjective topic.

Some Racers sets from the early 2000s are obviously technic, some others not.

How about those two, from 2002 and 2003 respectively. Back when they came out I considered them as Technic and immediately bought them.

8475 was sorely needed since it was the only true "new" technic set for 2002.

8366 was much more of a "complete" set than 8475, and it perfectly complemented the fantastic technic lineup of 2003 along with the Backhoe.

It's QUITE big! Don't judge it by the box image.

If you didn't buy them when they came out, it's really too bad: you REALLY, really missed out since they are just about impossible to find now.

They included very interesting elements for the steering, and contrary to the crappier RC cars that came shortly after, the main receiver unit featured an extra power outlet to which you could install a smaller 9v motor, and which could be triggered by extra levers on the RC remote. (They didn't do anything otherwise).

Technically, one could build a remote-triggered bomb with these babies.

They also introduced a few parts to the technic line.

The black high strength motor (that appears in the 8421 crane from 2005, and the 2006 motor set) first appeared in these

two RC sets.

The wheels from BOTH sets first appeared in their respective sets as well. 8366' wheels in particular reappeared in quite a few sets.

Now for the special parts:

- The main receiving unit contained I believe, the first ever Lego servo motor. Think of an earlier version of the servo motor appearing in 9398.

its axle hole is visible on the lower right of the image. 7 angles are possible.

- The red connection is for the main motors, and the gray connection is for the auxiliary.

- Being true RC, the antennas dont need to have an unobstructed "vision" to be able to communicate. You can drive your RC from the other side of a wall.

The steering unit is probably the most special and "one-trick-pony" part of the 2 sets. The gear rack is inside. You link it to the servo motor and attach technic links on both sides. There is also a nifty switch to offset minor steering imbalances so the car runs perfectly straight.

Steering arm

Steering hub, part A. Fits in steering arm.

Steering hub, part B. The 3 pins fit in the front wheels.

The remote. Not shown, underneath are 2 levers that turn on any motor plugged to the gray connector on the main receiving unit.

The main motors are controlled by the left lever and about 4 speeds are possible.

3 frequencies are possible (1 less than the PF remote).

Don't get me wrong I loved the 9398 but it was a complete farce next to the 8366 in terms of speed or playability. Think, 4 or 5 times as slow.

Power functions are neat but the vehicles are slow. My first reaction to the 9398 was, "been done before".

Yet these sets are completely ignored these days and never talked about.

Edited May 21, 2015 by SheepEater

[Meatman]

I consider any set is comprised of technic elemnets to be Technic set. Even if it says Racers on it.

[nerdsforprez]

All I know is I wish I weren't in my dark ages during the 2000's. I missed out on all the buggy motors

[Blakbird]

I consider any set is comprised of technic elemnets to be Technic set. Even if it says Racers on it.

Fair enough, but what percentage Technic does it need to be? Some of the UCS Star Wars sets have hundreds of Technic parts. Many Bionicle sets have large Technic content (like 8538 which even says Technic on the box). There are a whole bunch of smaller Racers sets that use Technic parts (eg. 8468 or 8473). I had considerable trouble wrestling with this question when deciding what to include in Technicopedia.

My own personal opinion (which is highly subjective) is that the R/C Racers are not Technic. My reason for this is that I always felt that they were "cheating". By this I mean that putting all the electronic and mechanical R/C stuff inside a big locked box doesn't feel like Technic to me because you don't get to build the functions. It is just an R/C car with a LEGO body. I think they are good products are no doubt are fun to play with, but they are more play set than technical set.

Of course by similar logic Slizer and Roboriders are not Technic either, but at least they say Technic on the box.

I will say that various builders, especially Sariel, have demonstrated some pretty incredible creations which use the components of the R/C Racers. I chose not to collect them when they came out, but I regret that now. At they current price point I don't want them bad enough to pay the cost.

[darksheep]

I agree with your statement 100% Blakbird. I wish lego would make Power functions stuff that used and RC remote and not infrared and had faster stronger motors to me that would be heaven.

I remember as a kid taking lego axles and fitting them in to rc motors to make my own lego rc cars . Was really cool and all the other kids at school just though i was a bit crazy for doing this . I was also the only one at the age of 12 still playing with lego .

They where all to cool and to old for it at 12 ! .

[SheepEater]

I always felt that they were "cheating". By this I mean that putting all the electronic and mechanical R/C stuff inside a big locked box doesn't feel like Technic to me because you don't get to build the functions. It is just an R/C car with a LEGO body. I think they are good products are no doubt are fun to play with, but they are more play set than technical set.

I will say that various builders, especially Sariel, have demonstrated some pretty incredible creations which use the components of the R/C Racers.

I view them as modular technic parts. You're correct that it IS cheating a bit. I place them in the same category as the linear actuators, as those I consider "cheating" too.

As you pointed out, Sariel and some other ingenious builders back in 2002-2003 built some REALLY cool RC stuff with those by extending the servo motor's power across a large chassis. I wish I had saved more pics.

Of course by similar logic Slizer and Roboriders are not Technic either, but at least they say Technic on the box.

What it says on the box is irrelevant when the PARTS themselves have TECHNIC engraved on it!

Blakbird, I understand that your encyclopedia is already quite large and I'm sure most people would be quite forgiving if some set or another lacked 3D images or descriptions or other details.

Edited May 21, 2015 by SheepEater

[Blakbird]

I view them as modular technic parts. You're correct that it IS cheating a bit. I place them in the same category as the linear actuators, as those I consider "cheating" too.

As you pointed out, Sariel and some other ingenious builders back in 2002-2003 built some REALLY cool RC stuff with those by extending the servo motor's power across a large chassis. I wish I had saved more pics.

His brand new F1 car uses the R/C parts, and so did his older Zonda and Ford GT.

What it says on the box is irrelevant when the PARTS themselves have TECHNIC on it!

You've got a point there.

[Rishab N]

They're definitely technic. Sure they brought some unusual very unique parts, but they used Technic construction

[RohanBeckett]

and really.. does everything have be 100% pure to each line?

I consider them a 50/50 crossover Technic/Racers

vs the Racers sets that were built from 99% system bricks.

and yes.. they are a heck of a lot of fun! I'm fortunate enough to have 3 of them, and when nephews are over, we often race them around outside..

They aren't as robust as the later Racers RC vehicles (eg: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?S=8675-1 which started getting quite distant from Lego) - as the front wheel brackets do fall off a lot, when they are driven/crashed into edges

[Saberwing40k]

I have both of these mentioned, and I love them! I originally got them to build a trial truck that I plan on taking on an actual off road trail, but I have not gotten around to building. Personally, I would say that these sets are Technic, and that Lego definitely has to make some true radio control stuff for power functions.

[allanp]

I would say that a Technic set, among other things, has to include some form of mechanical function that you have to build yourself. This is not the case with these two sets as they are all pre built assemblies pinned together with some Technic parts on top for a body so to me they really don't feel like Technic.

[sabangzhi]

I consider any set is comprised of technic elemnets to be Technic set

[zux]

I would say that a Technic set, among other things, has to include some form of mechanical function that you have to build yourself. This is not the case with these two sets as they are all pre built assemblies pinned together with some Technic parts on top for a body so to me they really don't feel like Technic.

Well, that's pretty much the same as pull-back models released last couple of years. And they even have less functions than Racers sets.

[allanp]

Yeah but they are small and cheap sets.

[PKW]

those sets in My opinion are technic exactly as manas arent bionicle, I think that The amount of technic pieces is not more than 50% of The space, but those Big unit and brackets can be used in dofferent Way exactly as pf does, someone use them also like tank receiver so their shape don't say that they are made only To be playable as built in The set.

The offroad one was one of My first set when I was 6 untill now i'm playing with lego and i made some creations with it, unfortunatelly here radio interferences make it works only at 1 meter distance so i don't use it often, they are two of The Best racer set imo! (Hope I can finish My Crawler and post a video of My rc molotov baikal To show how different it can be used)

[zux]

I'm looking at these Racers sets by the connection system they are using. In this case - pins and axles, which is exactly the way Technic system works. Like if system would be based on studs, that would be System/City; if based ball joints - Bionicle/Hero Factory.

Yeah but they are small and cheap sets.

Small/big, cheap/expensive have nothing to do with defining what's Technic.

[allanp]

Well personally, and this is just my opinion, I don't consider a set to be a Technic set just because it is made of Technic parts. To me, Technic is defined by mechanical complexity, authenticity and challenging building, all relative to their size and price point. Neither of these sets exhibit any of those traits. They are not complex, authentic or challenging in relation to their size and price. When looking at what makes something Technic, I don't think you can include the connection system in the definition because before stud-less, Technic sets were studded with the majority of part connections being done via studs. Take 8480 for example, or any pre stud-less sets, and I think you'll find that there are many more studs pressed into parts then there are axles/pins. So to me, it's not the parts or the way it is built which defines a set as being Technic as that would exclude every pre stud-less Technic set, it's those three traits which these sets do not have.

But then again I suppose Technic is what ever TLG decide is Technic.

Edited May 22, 2015 by allanp

[Blakbird]

In the end I suppose it doesn't matter what category any set falls into. If you like you like it, and if you don't you don't!

The same discussions whirl around the UCS sets. Some people way the Sandcrawler is a UCS, and some people say it is a play set. Does it matter? Buy it if you like it.

[SNIPE]

Racers was a subset of Lego Technic at one point.

Now it is a seperate lineup, or is discontinuted/dormant.

The Ferrari models and the Silver Champion/Williams F1 were Technic-Racers sets.

Hope this clears it up.

Edited May 22, 2015 by SNIPE

[DrJB]

I call that era, when we had slizers and the early bionicle, the 're-birth' of the Technic theme. In fact, some people (TRUs sales) called bionicle the 'next technic'. During those years, it appears the technic line went itself through dark ages.

Edited May 22, 2015 by DrJB

[Blakbird]

Racers was a subset of Lego Technic at one point.

Now it is a seperate lineup, or is discontinuted/dormant.

The Ferrari models and the Silver Champion/Williams F1 were Technic-Racers sets.

Racers was never a subset of Technic. Right from the beginning it was its own thing. However there was certainly some crossover in terms of model types.

The Silver Champion says Technic on the box.

The Williams says Racers on the box. Nothing about Technic.

On the other hand, Bionicle was a subset of Technic when it first started.

[Kelkschiz]

As far as I can see they are composed out of technic parts, so they should be considered technic models. Similarly I would call the mindstorms models, technic models. If you compare them to mindstorms then there are some similarities: large remote controlable battery section and very large motors. However I don't see the need to classify it. Some people don't consider them technic, and they have their reasons, others do feel it's technic and they also have their reasons, but whether it's technic or not doesn't seem very pertinent.

[Blakbird]

Some people don't consider them technic, and they have their reasons, others do feel it's technic and they also have their reasons, but whether it's technic or not doesn't seem very pertinent.

It becomes pertinent when deciding whether or not to include it in a historical record like Technicopedia. I had to make a lot of judgement calls concerning what to write about and what to omit. Often the line was more gray than black and white.

[Kelkschiz]

It becomes pertinent when deciding whether or not to include it in a historical record like Technicopedia. I had to make a lot of judgement calls concerning what to write about and what to omit. Often the line was more gray than black and white.

Ah yes, now that you mention it, I see why that would be important. BTW thanks for working on that.

[paul_delahaye]

For me, if it does not say Technic on the Box, (or expert Builder) it's not Technic. I totally appreciate it's made of 99% Technic parts, so many would say it's Technic, but to me this is part of the Racers theme. I have to draw a limit as I'm running out of storage space, so this is my view on the product category.

Paul

Edited May 23, 2015 by paul_delahaye