Technic Designs better with Panels or not?

[Didumos69]

With the Porsche being released the panel-controverse becomes even more clear.

In the Technic-theme there is a general tendency towards building models of real life machines and vehicles. The more they resemble the original, the louder we cheer. And panels play an important role in this development. Every time a new panel arrives, everybody gets excited.

This has brought the Technic theme to an era where we are not only able to build technical counterparts of the original vehicle's mechanisms, but we can also cover them up with panels to make the looks resemble the original too. And this development has paved the road for a set like the 42056 Porsche; a very good looking model with few technical features. A model that covers almost all technical aspects with panels, even inside.

In my opinion, a true Technic-theme model or set should have the right balance between technique and looks. The main mechanisms should be visible and the looks need only catch the essence of the original. And panels can of course be used for the latter, but should be carefully applied. But that's my opinion.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Didumos69

[piterx]

I think you have put exactly the right perspective to the topic.

Having said that, I would like to add one more thing: Lego is all about making 'models'. And to me (sorry, I have an engineering background) 'model' means: Simplification of a system (or thing) that brings about one or more aspects of that system's (or thing's) nature. Models allow us to zoom in on certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. So it's all about what exactly do you want to tell with your model. Take a look at Nico71's Mechanical Calculator. It's an amazing machine and we probably all regard it as something beautiful. Not because of it's looks, but because of what it can do, and that it can be done with Lego bricks. So in this case Nico71 zoomed in on the 'how it works'-aspect rather than the aesthetic aspect.

Now when it comes to cars, there is something delicate going on: There are typically two prevailing - yet quite opposed - aspects that make a car appealing: 1) the looks and 2) what's inside. On the one hand a car should look smooth as if it was cut from a single piece of stone and shaped by the wind. On the other hand it should cover up as many nifty features and powerfull functions as possible. So when it comes to supercars, it doesn't amaze me that using panels has gained popularity over the years. They make it possible to address both aspects.

Personally, being an old-school Lego fan, I like it the most when a Lego model captures the essence of a car - be it a real car or an imaginary car - with a minimal set of lines. Just like a portrait painting, it doesn't need to be as realistic as a photo, as long as it captures the essence.

Source: http://www.scottdesi...-im-working-on/

EDIT: I would like to add one more thing: When I started regaining interest in Lego Technic, all Lego supercars I found on the internet appeared to me as insects - also the more recent ones. I had to get used to them first before I started to actually perceive them as great designs. Just to illustrate that it's all a matter of perception.

I totally agree with you.

lines over panels

[Cumulonimbus]

The Technic vehicle/creation which still stands above anything else I have seen so far, for me, is pipasseyoyo's Subaru Impreza WRX STi.

It is very realistic in both its features and styling, and I think it is as close to a perfect model of a real car you can get in Technic. The lines of the car are so realistic because it is covered in panels and I feel that with the soft axle technique, this MOC would not have been this striking.

I appreciate the attraction of the "steam locomotive effect" where you can see the functions at work, but most contemporary machines are covered up for various reasons. Therefore, if you want realism in a set, it is my opinion you should also use panels to represent the body as realistic as possible.

[Rygar]

I am an old Lego fan. I was divided by Lego City (because the aestethics) and Lego Technic (because the functionalities). When Technic models became more "round shaped", they also became like skeletons, and it was very hard to cover them properly (unlike the previous models). The massive introduction of studless parts made things even harder, so the panels became necessary in order to add some more realism, but I guess there is only a compromise, stud and studless must "cooperate".

Edited June 3, 2016 by Rygar

[allanp]

On this I am slightly torn. I am all about the realism, and most vehicles and especially their mechanics are completely covered up. So if we want realism then panels are better than lines alone. On the other hand, I like to be able to see the mechanics in action and with generic panels that must work in many places, they rarely work perfectly in most places, so it's easier just to make the lines right. But I think you can get the best of both worlds, or at least a good compromise. As long as you know the internal mechanisms are working via sound, and as long as you know they are authentic, do you really need to see them working by sight? You can also have opening hoods to see the engine and leave gaps intentionally around gearboxes to see their inner workings. The above subaru and 42056 are good examples of being able to roughly capture the lines whilst also filling in most of the gaps, it just takes a lot more time, effort and dedication to get right.

[TheMindGarage]

Yeah - I have noticed that aesthetics are becoming far more important in TECHNIC sets than they used to be. I think that this is fine - it's so that the buyers who aren't as interested in features still buy them. However, I think the Porsche went a step in the wrong direction - it went too far towards looks.

To show this a different way:

[Blakbird]

I see your point, but I don't think it is fair to put the Porsche quite so far to the right. It may not have all the functions we might have wanted, but it does have a lot of functions. Compare this to the 8145 Ferrari which has almost no functions at all. On the other spectrum, sets 853 and 858 were pure function at the left of your scale. I'd like to see more machinery with pure function. I think the 8094 Control Center is a great example. I miss sets like this.

[TheMindGarage]

I see your point, but I don't think it is fair to put the Porsche quite so far to the right. It may not have all the functions we might have wanted, but it does have a lot of functions. Compare this to the 8145 Ferrari which has almost no functions at all. On the other spectrum, sets 853 and 858 were pure function at the left of your scale. I'd like to see more machinery with pure function. I think the 8094 Control Center is a great example. I miss sets like this.

Maybe not as far as I put it, but too far in my opinion. If it was purely intended as a display set, then it would probably be near the optimal point. But it's TECHNIC, which to me means functions. I would happily buy a TECHNIC car if it had no body at all, as long as it had plenty of working functions (like a gearbox that shifts reliably and doesn't produce so much resistance).