Lego's other themes Technic style or Technical sets discussion page

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Hi everyone, this is a chance to make history from RacingBrick 

 

[Bartybum]

18 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

Hi everyone, this is a chance to make history from RacingBrick 

*snip*

I guess it's a neat build. But like... it's just a car. That's it. Sure it's got a couple of bells and whistles, but like... meh? We already get too many cars in Technic, why would we want them elsewhere? There's nothing spiritually creative about it.

I think that the only way for the Bricklink Designer Program to yield a Technic set as a winner is to have something that's thematically captivating with some mass appeal. Kinetic sculptures, a GBC, clockwork devices, moving animal sculptures (SO many you could do), a steampunk vehicle, a loom, you name it. Look at someone like Alexandre Rossier's YouTube channel, or some of Nico71's non-vehicle builds. Remember the Sisyphus MOC, or anything else made by JK Brickworks? I think those are potentially winning ideas, not a car.

Technic has the disadvantage of being a physically larger medium than System. Because of this it doesn't lend itself towards detail, so for the same size a Technic set just tends to be ugly, so it needs to be tarted up a little with system pieces to make itself visually interesting. But once it comes together it REALLY comes together.

Below are some Technic build concepts (some of the aesthetics could be improved) that I think could have a better chance. Noting that the pneumatic ones (assuming pneumatics aren't allowed) would need a different power source, like a pullback motor or hand crank. In my mind that pendulum clock has what it needs to be a Technic BDP winner:

Edited February 11 by Bartybum

[howitzer]

33 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

I guess it's a neat build. But like... it's just a car. That's it. Sure it's got a couple of bells and whistles, but like... meh? We already get too many cars in Technic, why would we want them elsewhere? There's nothing spiritually creative about it.

I think that the only way for the Bricklink Designer Program to yield a Technic set as a winner is to have something that's thematically captivating with some mass appeal. Kinetic sculptures, a GBC, clockwork devices, moving animal sculptures (SO many you could do), a steampunk vehicle, a loom, you name it. Look at someone like Alexandre Rossier's YouTube channel, or some of Nico71's non-vehicle builds. Remember the Sisyphus MOC, or anything else made by JK Brickworks? I think those are potentially winning ideas, not a car.

Technic has the disadvantage of being a physically larger medium than System. Because of this it doesn't lend itself towards detail, so for the same size a Technic set just tends to be ugly, so it needs to be tarted up a little with system pieces to make itself visually interesting. But once it comes together it REALLY comes together.

Below are some Technic build concepts (some of the aesthetics could be improved) that I think could have a better chance. Noting that the pneumatic ones (assuming pneumatics aren't allowed) would need a different power source, like a pullback motor or hand crank. In my mind that pendulum clock has what it needs to be a Technic BDP winner:

As was said in Racingbrick's video, it's car precisely because cars have mass appeal. Yes we get too many cars in Technic but this one breaks the pattern in that it's non-licensed and packed with functions so it should be far more interesting to Technic fans than whatever you can find in official sets.

I would also get a kinetic sculpture, GBC or clockwork any day over another car, but let's face it: there's nowhere near as much market for those as there is for cars.

As for the model itself, the functions seem great and the design is nice but I don't like the colour scheme. Somehow the white doesn't sit well at all in the model, perhaps it should be either completely red and black or perhaps the white should be replaced with some other colour. I guess this is a matter of taste and I'm still going to vote for it, just for the sake of being Technic, but if I were to ever build it, I'd try something else in the place of those white parts.

[Auroralampinen]

Ok, interesting the Ford model t has a illegal building technique:). 

 

[howitzer]

The two major flaws mentioned in the video are really bad, I mean how hard can it be to build the driveshaft properly, especially as the other end isn't connected into anything? Half-inserted axle isn't going to hold the gear end in place. For the other problem your mileage might vary, but in my view it's even worse as there's going to be stress and damage to the parts over longer periods of time.

I was seriously considering getting this set even though it's a car, as it's finally something different as far as cars go, but now I don't know.

[Divitis]

The issue with the headlight brick is inexcusable and smells like 'too much digital design' to me. In Studio the part sits flawlessly flush, of course IRL it doesn't.

[aeh5040]

That axle problem is appallingly bad. Looks as though the designer did not consult anyone with Technic experience.

[msk6003]

Axle problem is really strange. Considering axle on model is 5L, and Lego already has 5.5L.

That problem can easily fixed using 1L beam instead black bush.
And beside of that problem, other end of drive axle doesn't connect to anything. It's just axle. Than why need that gear system?

Edited February 13 by msk6003

[Auroralampinen]

31 minutes ago, msk6003 said:

 

And beside of that problem, other end of drive axle doesn't connect to anything. It's just axle. Than why need that gear system?

The drivetrain to nothing was created by cobi and lego seemingly taked notes from cobi's design:). 

 

[Auroralampinen]

Here is the racingbrick's review of the model T:). 

 

[gyenesvi]

15 hours ago, Auroralampinen said:

Ok, interesting the Ford model t has a illegal building technique:). 

I wonder what's the role of that headlight piece and what else could have been used. I it to hold a bar? Could it have been a 1x1 brick with an axle hole instead?

[icm]

14 hours ago, aeh5040 said:

That axle problem is appallingly bad. Looks as though the designer did not consult anyone with Technic experience.

The design flaws with the headlight brick and the wobbly, improperly attached steering column and fake drivetrain are really disappointing, especially since they seem so trivial and avoidable. It's a shame, especially since the rest of the set is so appealing. I wonder if this model was someone's passion project rushed out on a tight deadline without enough time to iterate, like the 2021 UCS Tumbler and the 2024 UCS Classic TV Batmobile. Neither of those have such problems with glaringly illegal techniques and obviously inadequate structures, but their lack of features and details relative to their large sizes is acknowledged to be due to a lack of development time.

[howitzer]

13 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

I wonder what's the role of that headlight piece and what else could have been used. I it to hold a bar? Could it have been a 1x1 brick with an axle hole instead?

It's used to receive stud sideways, see the video Auroralampinen posted above at 5 minutes in. A 1x1 brick with axlehole could've been used in it's place.

5 hours ago, icm said:

The design flaws with the headlight brick and the wobbly, improperly attached steering column and fake drivetrain are really disappointing, especially since they seem so trivial and avoidable. It's a shame, especially since the rest of the set is so appealing. I wonder if this model was someone's passion project rushed out on a tight deadline without enough time to iterate, like the 2021 UCS Tumbler and the 2024 UCS Classic TV Batmobile. Neither of those have such problems with glaringly illegal techniques and obviously inadequate structures, but their lack of features and details relative to their large sizes is acknowledged to be due to a lack of development time.

This could be an explanation, as these problems indeed seem really easy to solve and these kind of flaws should never get through a proper quality control.

[Jundis]

Very strange indeed...

16 hours ago, icm said:

I wonder if this model was someone's passion project rushed out on a tight deadline without enough time to iterate

My guess is on the latter one, looks like no one with technic sensability was involved here. Multiple strange solutions:

- Steering wheel connection is way to wobbly (or was this intended?)
- whole steering mechanism is a little over-simplified in such a huge model with very small steering angle (compared to the real thing)
- Yellow axle on drive shaft has only a 1/2 stud connection to the 2 stud connector piece. Why not use the 5.5 stud axle with stop and spare the 1/2 bush?
- Hand crank for engine start is only held by one connection, although there is a pinhole right behind. Only the yellow stoppers for steering had to be removed and placed elsewhere

[gyenesvi]

15 hours ago, howitzer said:

It's used to receive stud sideways

I know what it does in general, but it's not used for that in this build. Instead it seems to hold a bar, but it wasn't explained in neither of the videos above, at least I could not find.

5 hours ago, Jundis said:

Yellow axle on drive shaft has only a 1/2 stud connection to the 2 stud connector piece. Why not use the 5.5 stud axle with stop and spare the 1/2 bush?

Exactly this. What the heck, Lego? Someone really does not know the part list there.. Maybe a 5.5 axle could have been used in the steering system as well. Or the new (4.5?) axle that's coming out this year? Probably could have been solved..

 

[howitzer]

2 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

I know what it does in general, but it's not used for that in this build. Instead it seems to hold a bar, but it wasn't explained in neither of the videos above, at least I could not find.

Did you not watch the video at the time point I mentioned? It's place in the build is shown there quite clearly and if you watch it, you'll see that it indeed receives a stud and not a bar (66909 in particular). On the other side (where the illegality occurs) is also headlight brick, but raised one plate so the sideways stud of the headlight brick collides with the backside of the other one, this is all explained in detail there. Oh and I meant the video by Tiago Catarino which was linked on Thursday, not Racingbrick's video which ignores the entire matter.

[Stereo]

The weird thing is it's right next to a brown 1x1 Technic brick with a stud stuck in it, so they obviously know there are other parts available... why is it a headlight brick?  I have heard that Technic brick pinholes don't line up with SNOT, but... surely that's a smaller problem than what they did do.

Edited February 14 by Stereo

[gyenesvi]

22 hours ago, howitzer said:

Did you not watch the video at the time point I mentioned? It's place in the build is shown there quite clearly and if you watch it, you'll see that it indeed receives a stud and not a bar (66909 in particular). On the other side (where the illegality occurs) is also headlight brick, but raised one plate so the sideways stud of the headlight brick collides with the backside of the other one, this is all explained in detail there. Oh and I meant the video by Tiago Catarino which was linked on Thursday, not Racingbrick's video which ignores the entire matter.

Ah, okay, I did watch it and understood the bricks in the context, my confusion was the part 66909, I thought that continues with a bar, not a stud. So yeah, in that case, a brick with an axle hole does not work, but a brick with a pinhole would, no? The simplest fix.

Another thing I could think of, is that maybe, originally, the other headlight piece behind it was at the same level, then it would work, and maybe that one was raised later for some reason, and screwed this up.

[icm]

I don't see any reason why the headlight bricks behind the problem ones couldn't be at the same level. That's the most puzzling thing about it.

[howitzer]

5 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

Ah, okay, I did watch it and understood the bricks in the context, my confusion was the part 66909, I thought that continues with a bar, not a stud. So yeah, in that case, a brick with an axle hole does not work, but a brick with a pinhole would, no? The simplest fix.

Another thing I could think of, is that maybe, originally, the other headlight piece behind it was at the same level, then it would work, and maybe that one was raised later for some reason, and screwed this up.

Yes, pinhole would work, even though pinhole sits very small amount (1/20th of a brick) higher than the studhole on the side of the headlight brick so in theory it wouldn't be exactly on grid either, but such a small difference is insignificant.

These flaws scream of a rush job with much of the quality control skipped.

[Erik Leppen]

16 hours ago, howitzer said:

Yes, pinhole would work, even though pinhole sits very small amount (1/20th of a brick) higher than the studhole on the side of the headlight brick

Much less than 1/20. If I remember correctly, the difference is 0.12 mm, which, if correct, would be 1/80 of a brick height.

[Auroralampinen]

Here is the hail mary speed build:).

 

[Auroralampinen]

Here is the racingbrick's review of the hail mary:). 

 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Who thinks @Maaboo the Witch would want this review? I do, I do!

 

 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Hi everyone, this is a 100 year travel in aviation history from RacingBrick