Is Technicopedia Still Relevant?

[Blakbird]

Hi all.  Those of you who have been on here for a long time may still remember me.  I created Technicopedia in 2007 and worked on it on and off until 2016.  In that time, I wrote about all the models from 1977 to 2001, and then at least cataloged the new models from 2002-2016 even though I never wrote about them individually.  The intervening 10 years from 2017-2026 are not addressed at all because I don't have them (and because of other reasons including life changes and moving onto other hobbies).  I lost what was left of my original collection in a fire in 2022, so now I have the original four 1:8 cars which were hanging on the wall and the supercars which happened to be in storage in a different location.  Over the past few weeks, I have reassembled those cars for display (956, 8860, 8865, 8880, 8448, and 8070) which got the old juices flowing again so I went out and bought the McLaren P-1 and the new Koenigsegg Sadair's Spear.  In doing some research on those newer cars I finally went down the rabbit hole of YouTube reviews, and that got me thinking about Technicopedia.  I originally wrote that site in a text editor using HTML 1.0.  It uses nothing more complicated than tables and hyperlinks.  My "video" is just crude stop motion animations.  I did eventually graduate to CAD pictures of the models, but only using the oldest LDraw tools which are now archaic.  I can't help but notice that the site is hopelessly outdated, both in content and appearance.  It doesn't hold a candle to the content which is now available on YouTube.  Some of these reviewers are really good!  The long form video and audio with demonstrations of each function and the whole build process is just another level that Technicopedia doesn't have and can't compete with.  The domain renewal for my site recently came up and I found myself wondering if I should keep the static site going for posterity or just let it fade into the sunset, archived by the Wayback Machine.  I never put any advertising on the site so it was never monetized like YouTube videos.

As an aside, it has been interesting to come back to this forum and look back at some of my old topics and posts.  I really posted a lot and was deeply involved in the community back in the day!  I heard one of the YouTube reviewers use the term "color vomit", and it made me wonder if anyone remembered that I originally coined that term right here on this forum in my 42100 review back in 2013!

Anyway, it's nice to be back looking at Eurobricks again.  I have about 100,000 posts to catch up on reading.

[Good old Lego builder]

Welcome back!

I still occasionally visit the site, especially for the sets of the ‘80-s, my childhood. Really like the way all the functions are explained.

[icm]

I appreciate Technicopedia as a written long-form reference for older Technic sets. If you are interested in doing new content, what I would like most would be long-form written comparison reviews between older Technic sets and their more modern counterparts, for example:

8880 Supercar vs 42056 Porsche 911 vs 42232 Koenigsegg Sadair's Spear

8868 Air Tech Claw Rig vs 42043 Arocs

8872 Forklift Transporter vs 42175 Volvo FMX Truck and Electric Excavator

8851 Excavator vs 8837 Pneumatic Excavator vs 42053 Volvo EW160E

There's a lot of (not entirely unjustified) doom and gloom about the Technic theme lately, but I think there are still plenty of sets that hold up well as modern counterparts to the heyday of studded Technic, and I think a good comparative review that takes into account what was available and what was possible in each era would be fresh and interesting.

[evank]

PM sent

[HydroWorld Outlook]

Welcome back, @Blakbird!

It's so great to hear from you again! Yes, Technicopedia is extremely relevant nowadays. I strongly recommend and would appreciate some updates to the Technicopedia website. Believe it or not, it's actually the main website I currently reference when looking up old Technic sets because, while retro-reviews exist, I appreciate having a quick-reference site that I can just read and print if needed to keep for my records. 

Since Technicopedia was last updated back in 2016, Technic has evolved a great deal. Power Functions has been succeeded by Powered Up and now Powered Up is starting to be retired too, in a way. On top of that, we've had hundreds more sets, including the 42145 Airbus H175 Rescue Helicopter--my favorite--that are packed with functions and are most certainly worthy of a Technicopedia review. Furthermore, many of the listed sets after 2011 do not currently have entries on Technicopedia, so giving those sets another chance to get their own pages would be awesome. Plus Technic is about to have it's 50th anniversary next year, in 2027. Why celebrate that landmark semicentennial milestone without Technicopedia?

As of present, the most up-to-date documentation we have of old and new LEGO Technic sets is @2GodBDGlory's LEGO Technic Unofficial History Book, which was started back in 2021 and ceased being updated in 2024. This could be an excellent reference to use for updating the Technicopedia site, at least for sets up through 2024. For newer sets released in 2025 and later, detailed reviews on Rebrickable, New Elementary, and The Brick Architect may suffice.

So yes please, if possible, updating Technicopedia would be immensely appreciated! We would love to see it expanded to cover modern-day and upcoming sets.

Edited 10 hours ago by HydroWorld Outlook

[Toastie]

2 hours ago, Blakbird said:

Hi all.  Those of you who have been on here for a long time may still remember me.

Welcome back @Blakbird !!!

I was so hoping for this to happen. Years and years.

Here is too feeling good 

2 hours ago, Blakbird said:

I originally wrote that site in a text editor using HTML 1.0.  It uses nothing more complicated than tables and hyperlinks.  My "video" is just crude stop motion animations.  I did eventually graduate to CAD pictures of the models, but only using the oldest LDraw tools which are now archaic.  I can't help but notice that the site is hopelessly outdated, both in content and appearance.

Yes and this is absolutely fine (with me). It is fast loading, no stupid and distracting decoration stuff or super high-res 5D+ animations rendered off from AI world. The animations are perfect. It is exactly, as @evank calls it "period-correct"!!! We old farts know LEGO Technic instructions from the periods you covered. They are perfect as well. Not one piece per step, no color coding looking like vomit, no blue pins all over the place. It is a perfect match. If you ask me there is absolutely no reason for changing anything. When I was teaching myself about CodePilot, I was learning by studying the Technopedia, from your powerful and motivating words! I was so powered-up ^^ after these repeated readings, that I made a QBasic program running in DOSBox-X OR on my IBM XT that made Interface A from 1986 light up one of its output LEDs emitting the VLL codes for the dump truck. I read your comments regarding this set over and over again. And that kept me going. 

I vote for leaving Technopedia as it is. It is perfect. 

If you are willing to extend Technopedia, sure, new "formats" >may<, but absolutely don't have to, be applied.

All the best - I am so glad you are back.

Yours
Thorsten 

  

Edited 9 hours ago by Toastie

[Jay Psi]

Another happy welcome back @Blakbird. I still re-read your Grove GMK6400 review from time to time, which absolutely holds up to modern written reviews in terms of presentation and technical detail.

@Toastiehas raised a fantastic point: the simplicity of Technopedia is now a strength in an age where many other outlets go overboard for various reasons. For a pre-2000s internet user it's easier to search and access. The site is no-frills in the most positive way - all the information you need, and nothing you don't.

Selfishly, I'd love for the set reviews to be updated in some way (maybe just the recent purchases?) but if not, please leave the site up.

[Blakbird]

Thanks for the kind words so far.  I apologize if my message gave anyone the wrong impression about the future, so I'll be perfectly transparent.  It is extremely unlikely that Technicopedia will ever be updated again.  Even if I were to have the time and inclination, I simply don't own any of the models anymore and, for the newer models, have never owned or built them.  That makes it impossible to write about them in any useful way.  My question is more about the future of what has already been written.  Should I preserve it as a reference for the past, or has it been overtaken by more useful modern resources?  Is comparing the helicopters that were made 30 years ago of any benefit in deciding whether a helicopter made in 2025 is any good?  I'm not sure.  The expense involved in maintaining the site in its present static form is pretty minimal, so if people are still using it and/or find it valuable, I'll keep it intact for the foreseeable future.

[Toastie]

3 minutes ago, Blakbird said:

Should I preserve it as a reference for the past, or has it been overtaken by more useful modern resources?  Is comparing the helicopters that were made 30 years ago of any benefit in deciding whether a helicopter made in 2025 is any good?  I'm not sure. 

Yes, no, yes (in that order). I am absolutely sure. No doubts at all.

Some people here (including me) are actively pursuing the installation of some kind of "Vintage Technic Electronics" subforum for the "Technic" forum. And it seems to resonate with the folks running this place. In other words: There seems to be demand for such sites.

Best
Thorsten 

[2GodBDGlory]

Is it still relevant? I got into Technic in 2016, I suppose just after the last update to the site, and I ate up the website! I've probably read every article on there at least two times, some more, and the appeal of the site for me was always seeing old sets, rather than new ones. It may not be up-to-date anymore, but I don't think it's the kind of website that needs to be, so I'd say it's still just as relevant as it was a decade ago, when I got tons of enjoyment out of it.

Now, "do people still use it?" is a different question, and maybe people don't, with YouTube being a much more visible way to learn about old Technic. At least for people like me, seeing actual text and clean animations beats YouTube any day, and I do still refer to the site on occasion, but I'm likely in the minority.

It's entirely up to you if you want to keep up the expense of hosting the site, especially if not many people still use it, but I'd say it's still just about as relevant as it always has been

[HydroWorld Outlook]

2 hours ago, Blakbird said:

It is extremely unlikely that Technicopedia will ever be updated again.  Even if I were to have the time and inclination, I simply don't own any of the models anymore and, for the newer models, have never owned or built them.  That makes it impossible to write about them in any useful way.  My question is more about the future of what has already been written.  Should I preserve it as a reference for the past, or has it been overtaken by more useful modern resources?  Is comparing the helicopters that were made 30 years ago of any benefit in deciding whether a helicopter made in 2025 is any good?  I'm not sure.  The expense involved in maintaining the site in its present static form is pretty minimal, so if people are still using it and/or find it valuable, I'll keep it intact for the foreseeable future.

Thanks so much for clarifying this. We respect any decision you make, though I would like to raise a gentle suggestion. Have you considered expanding Technicopedia into a community project? Even though you may not own most or all of the sets you previously logged on the website, there may be other members on this forum and in the wider LEGO community who still have such sets, along with other sets not currently covered by the website, who would appreciate the opportunity to contribute to Technicopedia, perhaps even sharing in some of its running costs through donations if the additional image and .gif animation file hosting necessitates additional funding sources. This would be similar in structure to how mainstream Wikipedia operates, except on a much smaller scale.

Again, we respect your decision not to expand Technicopedia any further if you don't feel open to it. Whichever decision you make, we will respect. It is completely up to you.

Edited 6 hours ago by HydroWorld Outlook

[MangaNOID]

Hi, I would love technicopedia to stay up! I infrequently reference it but much prefer this or @Jim reviews with text and photos over YouTube reviews if I want to see a set I do not have for whatever reason.

Thank you for keeping it up this long 

[BatteryPoweredBricks]

I still remember working night shift and browsing Technicopedia all night on my pre-touch screen phone.  There were so many sets I never knew existed or never knew how they worked.  It was fascinating to learn about all of them.  I loved the renders showing only the mechanical elements, in fact the 8880 render was my desktop background for many years (pictured below) and still is on a couple of my older laptops.

This site means so much to me, I doubt I'm the only person here who would offer to help with the site costs.  If only so I won't have to update the descriptions of a few of my videos to an WayBackMachine link .

Edited 4 hours ago by BatteryPoweredBricks
fixed image link

[2GodBDGlory]

Another question: Do we know how well the animations would work on the Wayback Machine? I'm not sure how well content like that would translate, and it is an important part of the website