Evolution or involution?

[MangaNOID]

 

 

4 hours ago, Parazels said:

I am always surprised, why people spend (waste) so much time on copying really existing vehicles? Obviously, it limits your creativity, because you have to follow someone's design instead of creating yours!

I disagree. I think it boosts creativity in parts usage to suit the rigid design structure which is more challenging in the build. For your own design you can easily bend that design to suit the parts which is an easier thing to do, technically speaking IMO. 

2 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

Just look at the Bugatti, about 40% through the build, all the funtionality is finished

There should be a sub category for these types of builds, they should not be technic. They should be separated to a model team type of build where parts are focused on the looks but still have some working elements perhaps. The popularity of these ‘look’ builds seems to be spilling over to proper technic and diluting substance.

[Maaboo the Witch]

Just now, MangaNOID said:

I disagree. I think it boosts creativity in parts usage to suit the rigid design structure which is more challenging in the build. For your own design you can easily bend that design to suit the parts which is an easier thing to do, technically speaking IMO. 

There should be a sub category for these types of builds, they should not be technic. They should be separated to a model team type of build where parts are focused on the looks but still have some working elements perhaps. The popularity of these ‘look’ builds seems to be spilling over to proper technic and diluting substance.

Totally with you. 

[Gimmick]

40 minutes ago, MangaNOID said:

There should be a sub category for these types of builds, they should not be technic. They should be separated to a model team type of build where parts are focused on the looks but still have some working elements perhaps. The popularity of these ‘look’ builds seems to be spilling over to proper technic and diluting substance.

So you would move Creator Expert sets like the Fiat 500 and Technic sets like the Bugatti in this new category?

[Parazels]

Just now, Gimmick said:

So you would move Creator Expert sets like the Fiat 500 and Technic sets like the Bugatti in this new category?

I guess this is not the best idea.

However I wish all Creator Expert cars had a steering system.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Parazels

[MangaNOID]

7 hours ago, Gimmick said:

So you would move Creator Expert sets like the Fiat 500 and Technic sets like the Bugatti in this new category?

No, umm im not sure what I’m saying after re reading that, I was very tired last night when I posted  I don’t think I have an answer, just a critique of looks over functions on a technic set with the use of too many panels which can look UGLY!! If done wrong. And that is spoiling the technic line imo. But it is obviously popular due to it’s ongoing effect so marketing must be good for these sets...

[astral brick]

15 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

For looks, there's almost all the other themes. Please keep Technic technical.

Thank you for having perfectly caught the sense of this thread.

15 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

The best example (in my opinion) being the demise of B models. I believe this started in licenced sets, but now pops up in generic sets too.

I totally agree and, aside licenses, I believe this is connected, more in general, to the aestethics concerns I was mentioning - including studless design, panels and specialized parts - taking over the core technical ones.

As an example, please check this model

https://brickset.com/sets/42091-1/Police-Pursuit

and this model

https://brickset.com/sets/8022-1/Multi-Model-Starter-Set

with the "same" amount of pieces. Nothing more to be said

15 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

Keeping the same "spirit" but still a personal execution.

Isn't the whole purpose of Lego?

[astral brick]

17 hours ago, Parazels said:

I am always surprised, why people spend (waste) so much time on copying really existing vehicles? Obviously, it limits your creativity, because you have to follow someone's design instead of creating yours!

It is so sad thinking that, nowadays, the excitement of many technic fans towards the incoming flagship model does not reside in what type of model will be the chosen one but which license will be selected.

17 hours ago, Parazels said:

If you have a clear idea about a sports car with certain features (size, ptoportions, fumctions), then build this car AROUND your idea! 

 

Which is exactly why the flagship cars before the licensed ones were so fascinating, they took inspiration from real cars but they were original creations of Lego designers, they were unique models.

[PhoenixWright]

On 4/28/2020 at 2:09 AM, Jurss said:

Every new part gives more opportunites, so I think, it is good. 

At the moment, technic is somehow limited, if we comapre with possibilities which provide system bricks. That is why I'm somehow bored with technic at the moment, has switched to creator expert, that is something for me now. I'm not buying lot of technics recently, as they are somehow really similar. Last set, which whas exciting, was arocs. After that set for me everything else was soemhow just building. 

And now I really like those creator sets (to comapare system sets, UCS millenium falcon is not exciting), because there are really genious combinations of parts. Technics, I would say, just don't provide so much possibilities, as there are not so much parts. 

Also, theoretically, technics had to be more about technical things, now, just because of customer nature (look is main selling thing), technic goes more that looks direction. So we are having more panels etc. And most complains often also here are about some gaps in panneling etc. And lego is not even trying to change something. Here also for long now are thoughts, that they should have finally something, that is not some kind of vechicle. 

What creator expert sets are you referring to?

[Bartybum]

3 hours ago, astral brick said:

It is so sad thinking that, nowadays, the excitement of many technic fans towards the incoming flagship model does not reside in what type of model will be the chosen one but which license will be selected.

That’s a no from me chief. I don’t remember us ever caring more about the license than the model.

[Gimmick]

8 hours ago, MangaNOID said:

No, umm im not sure what I’m saying after re reading that, I was very tired last night when I posted  I don’t think I have an answer, just a critique of looks over functions on a technic set with the use of too many panels which can look UGLY!! If done wrong. And that is spoiling the technic line imo. But it is obviously popular due to it’s ongoing effect so marketing must be good for these sets...

Basically I agree with this thread.But I would exclude the "super cars" from the discussion. They were added as an addition to the Technic-line with the purpose to look good. They have their own sub-theme in Technic.

I think models like 42024 or 42025 had the perfect mix of visible technic and smooth design, 42052 is already too "streamlined".

[Bartybum]

11 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

But I would exclude the "super cars" from the discussion. They were added as an addition to the Technic-line with the purpose to look good. They have their own sub-theme in Technic.

I think models like 42024 or 42025 had the perfect mix of visible technic and smooth design, 42052 is already too "streamlined".

Agreed on both parts. Man 42052 should have had collective pitch, what a shame.

[howitzer]

Supercars have been with the Technic line since the beginning, and they have always represented the most advanced technology available at the time. In the beginning they were of course just a chassis with no bodywork at all, but in time they evolved and first got proper bodywork and later licenses took over. Many people find cars fascinating and model cars representing the real thing have been a part of children's play almost since the invention of the automobile so it's only natural that TLG also wants to use licenses and frankly, I find it a bit weird that it took until 2010's for them to actually acquire such a license.

That being said, I also like the generic sets TLG has produced (with B-models and all) so I'm a bit sad to see them decline. I also have to wonder if licenses such as Liebherr actually provide significant increase in sales compared to generic sets. But I guess that from the marketing point of view it's easier to sell stuff saying "just like the real thing, only smaller" as opposed to "we made this up, hopefully it sells".

There's an obvious conflict of interest in aesthetics and functionality, in that making a good looking model with closed bodywork hides most of the functionality. I find merits in both approaches, but apparently TLG has chosen the path of making models look good rather than showing the functions. Sets like 42055 BWE are nice in that you can see a lot of the functionality due to the nature of the machine, even if aesthetics is considered in the design. 42082 RTC on the other hand is an example of a generic set with almost nothing of the functions visible even if there's a lot going on inside the machine. It looks nice but doesn't feel Technic like BWE.

[amorti]

Let's compare 8880 with the Porsche 42056

• Bodywork with lots of gaps vs. Bodywork with lots of gaps
• B model vs. none
• v8 engine vs. v6 engine when it should've been a boxer 6
• in-scale tyres vs. the other type.
• CV joints vs. weaker CV joints
• suspension which visibly worked vs. short travel nonsense
• 4 wheel steering vs. two wheel steering
• opening trunk vs. opening trunk and wobbly doors
• flip up headlights vs. no other mechanisms
• 4 speed gearbox that worked nicely vs the other kind

 

Starting to think the OP may have a point.

Where's the camber and caster angles on the suspension?

Edited May 1, 2020 by amorti

[Parazels]

Just now, amorti said:

Let's compare 8880 with the Porsche 42056

• Bodywork with lots of gaps vs. Bodywork with lots of gaps
• B model vs. none
• v8 engine vs. v6 engine when it should've been a boxer 6
• in-scale tyres vs. the other type.
• CV joints vs. weaker CV joints
• suspension which visibly worked vs. short travel nonsense
• 4 wheel steering vs. two wheel steering
• opening trunk vs. opening trunk and wobbly doors
• flip up headlights vs. no other mechanisms
• 4 speed gearbox that worked nicely vs the other kind

 

Starting to think the OP may have a point.

Where's the camber and caster angles on the suspension?

I don't think the Porsche is that worse, 

but anyway it's always mind blowing, how Lego designers managed to build complex and functional models with very limited amount of parts available back in 90s!

[amorti]

It's not that the Porsche is bad, but it also doesn't seem like 20 years of evolution on from 8880.

What blows my mind is they designed and released a really good set of wishbones and CV joints... then never used them again!

Edited May 1, 2020 by amorti

[Gimmick]

14 minutes ago, amorti said:

It's not that the Porsche is bad, but it also doesn't seem like 20 years of evolution on from 8880.

What blows my mind is they designed and released a really good set of wishbones and CV joints... then never used them again!

I think there is basically no evolution in general at all. Studless system changed a lot of things of course, but besides that... LAs as an evolution of pneumatics maybe, PF/PU hmm that's it?

@your comparision

The intention behind the models is completely different. If you critisize things like "no 4 wheel steering", isn't the real point of criticism that Lego no longer produces super cars without a license?

[amorti]

37 minutes ago, Gimmick said:

I think there is basically no evolution in general at all. Studless system changed a lot of things of course, but besides that... LAs as an evolution of pneumatics maybe, PF/PU hmm that's it?

@your comparison

The intention behind the models is completely different. If you critisize things like "no 4 wheel steering", isn't the real point of criticism that Lego no longer produces super cars without a license?

I'm not sure LA's are better than pneumatics. At least with those cylinders you could pretend it was hydraulic and learn something about how the real life technology works.

PF/PU, ok the technology of bluetooth and accelerometers came along, but it didn't get faster or more powerful.

Maybe so with my comparison. But even if they create licensed sets, why couldn't they make:

• a boxer engine for the Porsche
• double wishbone suspension with realistic geometry
• The Bugatti could've had a real W16.
• The land rover could've had really interesting suspension; it got an 8 speed gearbox that by all accounts "kinda" works.

I feel Technic should teach us something about how the real technology works rather than what it looks like, and it hasn't done that (in a car anyways) in a while.

Edited May 1, 2020 by amorti

[Gimmick]

3 minutes ago, amorti said:

I'm not sure LA's are better than pneumatics. At least with those cylinders you could pretend it was hydraulic and learn something about how the real life technology works.

PF/PU, ok the technology of bluetooth and accelerometers came along, but it didn't get faster or more powerful.

Maybe so with my comparison. But even if they create licensed sets, why couldn't they make a boxer engine? Or suspension with realistic geometry? The Bugatti could've had a real W16.

I feel Technic should teach us something about how the real technology works rather than what it looks like, and it hasn't done that (in a car anyways) in a while.

... wasn't sure if I should mention LAs exactly because of that. But it's an improvement in playability so kind of an evolution, things don't have to get better in every aspect to represent kind of an evolution ^^.

That's the always the Lego dilemma. A real W16 or boxer is only possible with new very specialized parts. So if they decide to build a licensed model shouldn't they use these parts to create an optimal model? But if they do isn't that kind of the opposit of the Lego-System? So should they stop building licensed models because they cannot display the reality completely? But if we continue that thought: What about LAs? What about all engine? You know, in reality the engine moves the car, not the other way around :D And what about almost everything else, do the things really work the way in reality as they do in the Lego world especially in cheap sets? So should they just make sets with thousands of parts to build it as real as possible?

Where is the line from which "real" doesn't matter? Maybe it's fine that it looks like the engine is working, that LAs look like hydraulic cylinders and that the engine looks like it is a W16...

Maybe in some sub-sub-sub-[...]-themes it's dangerous to overthink the situation and it's more useful to appreciate the fact, that it is possible to build a car with Lego-Technic parts that actually looks like a Chiron and omg it even works - that is not a bad thing in general ;)

 

[amorti]

2 hours ago, Gimmick said:

A real W16 or boxer is only possible with new very specialized parts. 

:)

The small stuff also bothers me.

I'll get over it not having a gearbox or suspension as a matter of budget and scale, but why does the Corvette have a strange steering pivot that doesn't really work nice when the real car has a rack and pinion? All Lego cars since forever had a rack and pinion, why swap away from that on a car which has one? 

Edited May 1, 2020 by amorti

[Gimmick]

25 minutes ago, amorti said:

:)

The small stuff also bothers me. Why does the Corvette have a strange steering pivot that doesn't really work nice when the real car has a rack and pinion? All Lego cars since forever had a rack and pinion, why swap away from that on a car which has one? However I'll get over it not having a gearbox or suspension as a matter of budget and scale.

Nice solution :D

I do not own the corvette, but I thought the steering system one of the better things? Small, creative and works well? :|

[Parazels]

41 minutes ago, amorti said:

why does the Corvette have a strange steering pivot that doesn't really work nice when the real car has a rack and pinion? All Lego cars since forever had a rack and pinion, why swap away from that on a car which has one? 

The Lego designer made an efficient steering system.

If a designer of a real car finds a smart solution to build more efficient steering system, he will do that without paying attention on previous solutions.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Parazels

[amorti]

In every model and alternative model, it works and it is efficient for space. But it always binds just a little bit and doesn't feel 'nice'.

Meh, maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree.

[XenoRad]

Hi guys. I think this is an interesting discussion and would like to add my input.

I don't think there's an ideal panels vs gaps or functions vs aesthetics ratio that can please everyone. TLG can release various licensed or unlicensed sets, big or small, complex or simple and see which sell and which don't. Then they can create future sets based on market preference.

I personally would have little interest in generic sets. I'm more about cars and collecting car models and I only got into Technic due to its licensed Corvette set, 42093. A generic model like 8880, even a modern version, wouldn't really be that interesting to me.

On the other hand a licensed set, but with big gaps like 8145 would not be aesthetically pleasing.

I suppose the only way that we could come close to having sets that cover more of the spectrum would be to have the chassis, mechanicals and body panels be built separately and in such a way that they can be easily put together or taken apart. This would mean space for parts to move so either bigger sets or more gaps.  But the biggest change then would be in the construction process. Rather than starting with a chassis piece and continuing to add to it in one large assembly, you'd need to build multiple separate assemblies like individual parts and only later join them together. You'd need to have a clear delimitation between structural and non-structural pieces. I see some MOCs come close but many and especially the smaller ones still use what would realistically be different pieces as one assembly that cannot be easily taken apart.

Realistically for any two Technic pieces that you wish to join or separate you need space for at least three pieces so you can remove the pin holding them together. This equation complicates exponentially with different angles or more pieces tied together. This fact alone has a huge impact on both the design and the functions that can be included for any given size.

 

[Gray Gear]

6 hours ago, amorti said:

Let's compare 8880 with the Porsche 42056

• Bodywork with lots of gaps vs. Bodywork with lots of gaps
• B model vs. none
• v8 engine vs. v6 engine when it should've been a boxer 6
• in-scale tyres vs. the other type.
• CV joints vs. weaker CV joints
• suspension which visibly worked vs. short travel nonsense
• 4 wheel steering vs. two wheel steering
• opening trunk vs. opening trunk and wobbly doors
• flip up headlights vs. no other mechanisms
• 4 speed gearbox that worked nicely vs the other kind

 

Starting to think the OP may have a point.

Where's the camber and caster angles on the suspension?

I agree with most oft your points, but this: "opening trunk vs. opening trunk and wobbly doors" you might wanna mention 8880 dind't even have opening doors in the first place 

And this: "4 wheel steering vs. two wheel steering" The real car does not have 4WS as far as I know, so where is your point?

But other than that you hit the nail on the head...

[Erik Leppen]

2 hours ago, Gray Gear said:

And this: "4 wheel steering vs. two wheel steering" The real car does not have 4WS as far as I know, so where is your point?

Maybe this is part of the problem... the whole fact that there's a "real car" to begin with. With 8880, there was no real car, which means they can go all out and make the best Lego Technic set. They added folding headlights because it made the Lego set better. With 42056, they had to adhere to some kind of "real car", so that means 4 wheel steering is out of the question, even though that would have been really cool. Same for suspension height adjusting, foldable roof, a jack system, a nice B model, or whatever designers would think would improve the Lego set.

The licence limits design freedom. Suddenly, there's not one but two companies which have requirements that must be met.

But apparently, we have a market now that wants "Porsche" above a fantasy car that would have novel functions. In the end, it sits on a shelf, and then "being a Porsche" is apparently cooler than having all those functions. I say "apparently" because I assume Lego builds what they have researched sells best.

But if I'd be the kind of guy to want a Lego Porsche. I would much prefer a Creator Expert Porsche. Those bricks are much more suitable for the sculpting needed to recreate sleek supercars accurately.