Fundamentally 'wrong' renditions

[DrJB]

Working for a construction company, I have the 'luxury' of having first hand exposure to the mechanics of many of the machines we've come to build with Lego. Over the years I've noticed several 'inaccuracies' in the way MOCs and original sets are built. My most 'favorite' has to do with the all the wheel-loaders TLG has put out. A wheel loader consists of two articulated half-chassis. The front chassis holds the loader mechanism and has a solid axle fixed on both sides (left/right) of the chassis. The rear chassis (holds engine+transmission+Cab+counterweight) has a solid axle that is pivoted in the middle. This gives the wheel loader the ability to go on rough terrain and guarantees all 4 tires to always be touching the ground. In fact, this is also how many of the undercarriages of motor-graders and bull-dozers are actually done. In the lego renditions (Wheel loaders and Dozers), none of this 'detail' is replicated.

What other 'large' deviations/inaccuracies have you noticed ?

Better yet, have you seen MOCs that are more accurate?

Of course, I am not after things of the sort: real machines use hydraulics, Lego uses LA's/pneumatics. I know it's a bit difficult to draw the line but, let's try.

Edited June 29, 2015 by DrJB

[Lipko]

The Volvo flagship has the pendular suspension you say on the rear. Other official wheel-loader sets don't have a supension at all.

I can't list MOCs, but pretty much all I remember that have suspensions have this correct setup. I recall some telehandler MOCs with admittedly unrealistic four-wheel independent suspension (one of Sariel's for example), but most of them (if having a suspension) have the correct, rear pendular suspension. My upcoming and ready-in-2050 telehandler has it too.

So I don't see a fundamental misunderstanding of this machines your post implies to me.

I can't think of other examples, maybe the lack of 3 steering modes is many terlehandler and the alike models, but I think the lack of something is not the same as a fundamentaly wrong rendintion (I could only get two modes work in my far-future telehandler for example, though I know there are 3 or even 4).

[Cumulonimbus]

I'm sorry, but why do we need another topic like this? What is the point? A test how good AFOLs are at spotting "inaccuracies" as you call it? TLG needs to consider a lot of requirements and considerations when designing a set and a model is per definition always a simplification of the real deal. So what if some official TLG front-end loaders have the proper suspension and others don't? Don't like it? MOD or MOC it, as so many have. Your post is so incredibly vague that there is nothing to learn and it's impossible to draw a conclusion. Your opening assumption even isn't correct: there are many front end loaders with a single rigid frames and four wheel steering.

My apologies if this sound harsh, but I would like to see more constructive topics and less pointless complaining in thin air. Why don't you start with a concrete example of an official set you are a bit disappointed about, then put in some work and propose solutions how that set can be improved? That would be very interesting to read.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Cumulonimbus

[Anio]

I'm sorry, but why do we need another topic like this? What is the point? A test how good AFOLs are at spotting "inaccuracies" as you call it? TLG needs to consider a lot of requirements and considerations when designing a set and a model is per definition always a simplification of the real deal. So what if some official TLG front-end loaders have the proper suspension and others don't? Don't like it? MOD or MOC it, as so many have. Your post is so incredibly vague that there is nothing to learn and it's impossible to draw a conclusion. Your opening assumption even isn't correct: there are many front end loaders with a single rigid frames and four wheel steering.

My apologies if this sound harsh, but I would like to see more constructive topics and less pointless complaining in thin air. Why don't you start with a concrete example of an official set you are a bit disappointed about, then put in some work and propose solutions how that set can be improved? That would be very interesting to read.

Quality is improving.

Some time ago, we would have been compelled to wait 183 messages before reading something like that.

Kudos !

[andythenorth]

I think this is a valuable thread.

Many real-life construction machines are now steered by joysticks. The method used in official Lego Technic sets is quite inaccurate.

[Saberwing40k]

With inaccuracies, where do we draw the line between budget/set size requirements, and things that are genuine technical compromises? I mean, one could say that most sets are inaccurate, because they do not include suspension, or a drivetrain, but that is due to size limits, and probably budget limits. There is also the concept that certain people would not know better, but conversely, one could say that those people would not be into Technic anyway, and that Lego should teach things that people do not already know.

Glaring inaccuracies I can think of include:

8053's outriggers. There is no real world four axle crane that use star outriggers like that.

42030's steering. There is no real need for it to be by servo. Anybody in that set's demographic could work articulated steering with LAs.

8294's boom, as well as many smaller excavator sets.

There has been no bulldozer with realistic blade raising. I hope that the new cylinders in 42043 will change that.

Linear actuators in general. Plus, pneumatics are far more playable in non motorized sets.

There has been a grand total of one forklift that uses an accurate chain and cylinder to raise the forks, 8843.

There has not been a car, or for that matter truck model with a true gearbox since the '90s.

All fake engines ever only show half of the engine, omitting the cams and valves entirely.

Many sets that are called 4x4 on the box have only 2 wheels driven.

42037. Just, all of it. A real Formula Off Roader has a V8 engine, 4 wheel drive, and solid axles. Compare that to the set, which has an inline four cylinder engine, 2 wheel drive, and independent suspension. And this could have been easily been avoided by calling it a sand rail, or a dune buggy, or something.Also, the Tumbler tires would be much more accurate, because that is literally what they are supposed to be used for. (The front tires on the real Tumbler are specialized off road tires.)

Some sets had dampeners to open the doors, which is accurate to many real cars, in comparison to now, where they have geared linkages, which is not.

The lack of dual rear tires on some sets that should have them.

No water pumps in any fire truck ever.

No helicopter with both collective and cyclic control. Come to think of it, there has been no set with realistic cyclic control.

Most sets lack realistic steering geometry , like no caster angle, or kingpin inclination.

In my opinion, I try to be representative of the machine, if not necessarily 100% accurate, which is technically not possible. When building with Lego, one must accept that there are compromises that must be made when modeling a vehicle or machine.

[dr_spock]

LEGO are toys. Toys are a representation of real machines but designed with child's play in mind which has different criteria than what you're after. Having real hydraulic fluid can be messy for little kids to work with and if they eat the fluid, you could be looking at some nasty liability lawsuit. There is a fascinating world of scaled RC modeling of trucks and construction machines if you haven't explored that before. It might be more suited for the realism that you seek.

[DrJB]

@ cumulonimbus ...

You obviously have totally missed the point ... This thread s NOT about complaining about Lego, and next time you feel like lecturing, please 'move-on'. ;)

Many of us come to Lego Technic from different backgrounds (I'm a mechanical engineer), and some of us are after replicating real-life mechanisms with plastic parts. I do fully understand that these are toys we're talking about and the many reasons so many functions get 'sacrificed, but again, that is NOT the point of this thread. You must 'accept' that, for some of us, it's a prototyping / proof-of-concept medium. Sorry, unlike you (and possibly many) I want to see beneath the flashy colors and superficial RC functions. It's all about 'diversity' my friend.

As I've often said ... Happy Building/Modding/Collecting ... or whatever it is you chose to do with YOUR bricks.

The Volvo flagship has the pendular suspension you say on the rear. Other official wheel-loader sets don't have a supension at all.

Thank you, and I stand corrected. I was going by the previous sets I have ... as I have not gotten the Volvo (yet?).

Edited July 11, 2015 by DrJB

[D3K]

Well, to be fair, pretty much every decent Technic MOC wheel loader I've seen has pendular rear suspension. Some also have all engine/transmission parts in the rear (for example my Swinloader II). There are several wheel loaders out there that are not articulated, though most modern ones are

Due to (mainly, I'd say) size/weight limitations combined with the strength of ABS plastic and available parts, a lot of times compromises must be made when trying to replicate real life vehicles.

You obviously have totally missed the point ... This thread s NOT about complaining about Lego, and next time you feel like lecturing, please 'move-on'. ;)

'Perhaps' you could 'clarify' what the 'point' is then, or what your 'vision' of this 'topic' is? If you want a list of examples, then Saberwing40k's got you covered

Edited June 30, 2015 by D3K

[Cumulonimbus]

@ cumulonimbus ...

You obviously have totally missed the point ... This thread s NOT about complaining about Lego, and next time you feel like lecturing, please 'move-on'. ;)

Many of us come to Lego Technic from different backgrounds (I'm a mechanical engineer), and some of us are after replicating real-life mechanisms with plastic parts. I do fully understand that these are toys we're talking about and the many reasons so many functions get 'sacrificed, but again, that is NOT the point of this thread. You must 'accept' that, for some of us, it's a prototyping / proof-of-concept medium. Sorry, unlike you (and possibly many) I want to see beneath the flashy colors and superficial RC functions. It's all about 'diversity' my friend.

Don’t act so patronizing. I wasn’t lecturing and once again your assumptions are wrong. I’m a mechanical engineer as well and I too aim for the highest level of realism in my MODs and MOCs as any AFOL. Additionally, I’m definitely not a fan of RC or PF. In fact both the strive for mechanical realism and the removal of PF and RC elements are my biggest motivations for MODding official sets. And of course bricks can be tools for prototyping or proof of principle test, in fact I have experienced this first hand in my daytime work. I have even operated construction vehicles such as a Volvo L90G front-end loader. All this is simply not relevant to this thread you have started.

I simply fail to see the value of topics which ask for list: which is the best, worst, ugliest, prettiest, biggest, smallest, most expensive or most complex set? The same goes for asking the biggest ‘error’ TLG made, which flagship they should make, etc. These lists simply don’t add value to anything, there is nothing to learn except that everyone has their own preferences and that TLG can’t make all its sets +2000 piece flagship sets.

Apparently I really have missed the point, because I still don’t understand your question of your OT and your motivations behind it. I’m convinced that many AFOLs here feel the same way.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Cumulonimbus

[nerdsforprez]

LEGO are toys. Toys are a representation of real machines but designed with child's play in mind which has different criteria than what you're after. Having real hydraulic fluid can be messy for little kids to work with and if they eat the fluid, you could be looking at some nasty liability lawsuit. There is a fascinating world of scaled RC modeling of trucks and construction machines if you haven't explored that before. It might be more suited for the realism that you seek.

I second this post........

I’m convinced that many AFOLs here feel the same way.

I am one of them........

[DrJB]

Maybe reading this will make us slightly 'better' forum members. Personally, if I don't get the point, I move on ... but, that's me .

**peace**

Edit: Fixed Link

Edited June 30, 2015 by DrJB

[D3K]

Maybe reading this will make us slightly 'better' forum members. Personally, if I don't get the point, I move on ... but, that's me .

**peace**

Colouring the text blue and bolding and underlining it doesn't make it a link!

[DrJB]

Colouring the text blue and bolding and underlining it doesn't make it a link!

lol ... that is true, There was in error while I edited the link ...

How about this?

Edited June 30, 2015 by DrJB

[andythenorth]

Real diesel engines (as used in a wide range of heavy equipment) rely on cylinder compression to function. The cylinders used for official Lego Technic engines do not support cylinder compression.

The difference may be too subtle to notice at first, but real engines have a closed cylinder head, apart from gaps for the inlet / exhaust valves. The Lego cylinders are completely open. Like I said, quite subtle.

[Milan]

andythenort: great post :)

Edited June 30, 2015 by Milan

[allanp]

Modding something yourself to make it more accurate can only take you so far. There comes a point where you really need more true to life parts. I am not aware of a helicopter being made by Lego that is mechanically accurate, or any kind of construction machinery as the vast majority of them have a planetary reduction stage within the wheel hub. Most trucks that have sprung suspension use leaf springs which is something I've never seen in an official set and I've never seen an official car set with a mechanically life like gearbox.

I do not feel that pointing out these things is a bad thing or equal to complaining. Whilst there may be other threads like his, there are many more new voices with this same feeling. Would you like them to keep bumping older topics? More mechanical authenticity is something many of us would like to see and is the main thing that draws us to buy and build Technic in the first place, and if TLG take inspiration from our ideas and wishes then all the better. I think to mock those that have a different opinion by suggesting purposely silly ideas is small minded, petty and immature. Just because someone has a different view does not make them wrong.

Edited June 30, 2015 by allanp

[dr_spock]

I think there is a difference in asking what can LEGO do to make their Technic sets more realistic for AFOLs versus what did LEGO do fundamental wrong? Some ideas may not be business case viable for LEGO to pursue, then maybe an enterprising 3rd party can produce them. Over in trains, we have more realistic 3rd party compatible wide radius curves that can be used with LEGO trains.

[DrJB]

I do not feel that pointing out these things is a bad thing or equal to complaining. More mechanical authenticity is something many of us would like to see and is the main thing that draws us to buy and build Technic in the first place, and if TLG take inspiration from our ideas and wishes then all the better. I think to mock those that have a different opinion by suggesting purposely silly ideas is small minded, petty and immature. Just because someone has a different view does not make them wrong.

Thank you, you understood (and clarified) exactly what I was after. Cheers.

[nerdsforprez]

@dr_spock - Agreed. Although it is fun to hold LEGO to our adult standards, I think it is somewhat irresponsible. Ego-centrism aside, LEGO sets just aren't built for adults.

Now, that being said, no one should feel embarrassed that there are some adults on sites like this one who just do amazing things with LEGO. Quite the contrary….. it makes it awesome! But, I kinda think that an adult pointing out that LEGO doesn’t create things realistic enough is like an adult pointing out the lack of color variety in Crayola Crayons. The obvious retort would be, they just aren’t made for adults! And the fact that I point this out does NOTHING to take away the awesomeness or appropriateness of adults employing their awesome skills to do something great with something that was and is built for a different purpose or population in mind. Such is life and many times something that occurs both in ART, ENGINEERING, and MEDICINE. I know there are many engineers on here, I work in medicine, and I know there are many artistically inclined folks on here as well. Each of us, I am sure, could point to several examples where something meant for some purpose was actually used for another, with great results. But, great results notwithstanding, if I use something that was built for something else or another population in mind, I would look kinda foolish for pointing out that the certain something does not meet my certain need.

In my field, CAT scans are great for a certain medical need and most often for certain populations. However, many physicians can and do great things with CAT scans outside of the parameters that they were originally designed for. Nothing wrong with that…. in fact it is great. However, I think that it would be somewhat meaningless for them to point out: These CAT scans aren’t very accurate when it comes to detecting more mild brain injuries, or that their resolution is really poor, etc. etc. They weren’t designed for that purposed and despite the fact that some people can do really ingenious reads with them they really shouldn’t be held to those standards. There are other types of machines that were and are built for those needs and different clinical populations.

Not trying to pile on DrJB's post. I understand the background here. I just, like others, kinda question the point of the post. We all (and admittedly, I don't have the training or expertise of many on here) understand the inaccuracies of LEGO Technic sets. And that really is not a bad thing......it opens up a whole world of MOCing and MODing.....

Edited June 30, 2015 by nerdsforprez

[DrJB]

... I think there is a difference in asking what can LEGO do to make their Technic sets more realistic for AFOLs versus what did LEGO do fundamental wrong? Some ideas may not be business case viable for LEGO to pursue, then maybe an enterprising 3rd party can produce them. Over in trains, we have more realistic 3rd party compatible wide radius curves that can be used with LEGO trains.

Again, this was not bitching about Lego nor was it about what makes sense from a business point of view. We're all professional/mature individuals and need not fall into this non-sense. I was not asking why Lego built 'wrong' models, I do know why. I was merely asking what the community has noticed in terms of departures from real-life. To you this is just another empty thread, so be it. I respect your opinion, but keep in mind that it is the lack of real features that pushed many to build more 'realistic' MOCs ... be it the transverse car engine or the many sequential gearboxes out-there. Once you know there is a gap, you can go and MOC it.

**peace**

We all (and admittedly, I don't have the training or expertise of many on here) understand the inaccuracies of LEGO Technic sets. And that really is not a bad thing......it opens up a whole world of MOCing and MODing.....

Kudos, that's exactly the point. Though, I'm not sure I agree with you when you say we ALL know the inaccuracies. How many on here know of the intricacies of hydraulics in a telehandler? How many have operated a motor-grader and got to 'appreciate' the many functions and degrees-of-freedom it has?

While 'weak' by some standards, to me, the best rendition ever was the 8455 back-hoe, both in functions and realism ... but I'm digressing.

[allanp]

@dr_spock - Agreed. Although it is fun to hold LEGO to our adult standards, I think it is somewhat irresponsible. Ego-centrism aside, LEGO sets just aren't built for adults.

Now, that being said, no one should feel embarrassed that there are some adults on sites like this one who just do amazing things with LEGO. Quite the contrary….. it makes it awesome! But, I kinda think that an adult pointing out that LEGO doesn’t create things realistic enough is like an adult pointing out the lack of color variety in Crayola Crayons. The obvious retort would be, they just aren’t made for adults! And the fact that I point this out does NOTHING to take away the awesomeness or appropriateness of adults employing their awesome skills to do something great with something that was and is built for a different purpose or population in mind. Such is life and many times something that occurs both in ART, ENGINEERING, and MEDICINE. I know there are many engineers on here, I work in medicine, and I know there are many artistically inclined folks on here as well. Each of us, I am sure, could point to several examples where something meant for some purpose was actually used for another, with great results. But, great results notwithstanding, if I use something that was built for something else or another population in mind, I would look kinda foolish for pointing out that the certain something does not meet my certain need.

In my field, CAT scans are great for a certain medical need and most often for certain populations. However, many physicians can and do great things with CAT scans outside of the parameters that they were originally designed for. Nothing wrong with that…. in fact it is great. However, I think that it would be somewhat meaningless for them to point out: These CAT scans aren’t very accurate when it comes to detecting more mild brain injuries, or that their resolution is really poor, etc. etc. They weren’t designed for that purposed and despite the fact that some people can do really ingenious reads with them they really shouldn’t be held to those standards. There are other types of machines that were and are built for those needs and different clinical populations.

Not trying to pile on DrJB's post. I understand the background here. I just, like others, kinda question the point of the post. We all (and admittedly, I don't have the training or expertise of many on here) understand the inaccuracies of LEGO Technic sets. And that really is not a bad thing......it opens up a whole world of MOCing and MODing.....

Now this is how you present an opposing point of view. Thank you

I feel that Technic could do very well financially if it was to aim as much for adults as it does to kids, just like Pixar movies doing much better financially than movies aimed just for kids. Personally I do not agree with your crayon analogy because we are not talking about Lego Duplo but Technic.

[Cumulonimbus]

In hindsight, my previous posts were fueled by real world frustrations and were more aggressive than intended. This really isn't my style in normal circumstances, my apologies for this.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Cumulonimbus

[DrJB]

In hindsight, my previous posts were fueled by real world frustrations and were more aggressive than intended. This really isn't my style in normal circumstances, my apologies for this.

No biggie, and we all have our days. This was a healthy discussion nonetheless, and some of us are more passionate than others ... passionate because this hobby means so much to us.

All the best,

JB

[Paul B Technic]

As was said above, it is " just" a toy :)