Mechanisms or performance?

[CP5670]

Do you like models designed for actual performance and build MOCs with that in mind, or do you build with more of an eye towards making cool mechanisms? There are plenty of both types of models that get posted on EB.

For example, suppose you want to motorize a large car or truck. The performance-oriented solution is usually to have a motor for each driven wheel and minimize any gearing, which prevents efficiency losses in the gears. In contrast, a conventional drivetrain with differentials, a full gearbox, etc. will not work as well, but is a more mechanically interesting approach. Similarly, 8043 could have had 6 motors (like in Jurgen's version) or 8265 could have had pneumatics instead of LAs, and in both cases it would have simplified the gearing and improved the models' performance. On the other hand, the 3 drive motors on 8043 or the LAs in 8265 result in more complicated geartrains but perhaps make the models more appealing.

I'm probably more in the latter category myself. I always like to have elaborate geartrains, intricate switching mechanisms and other such things in a Technic model. I especially like models that have several functions operating off only one or two motors, such as 8480 and 8258. You could say that it's a more efficient use of resources as well.

[imajor]

I totally agree with you. Lego (and especially technic) is more about building than playing for me. I think I spend about 90% of my lego time with building. It happened that I was building something for hours, it worked as expected, but I took it apart after a few minutes play and started building something else.

8043 is a good example. To be honest I was surprised how much people were complaining about the performance of the model (some of them even marked the set as the worst set ever). I think those who has some experience with technic, and saw the building instructions on the lego website for the excavator didn't expect a big performance. Even with the weak performance of the A model the set is still quite appealing to me. Lot's of useful parts, interesting and challenging A model with good ideas, and a well performing B model. So all of these problems around the performance of the A model didn't change my mind and I still want to buy it as soon as possible. I think the main problem with the 8043 set is that lego advertised the excavator as a very powerful toy, which it isn't obviously. Some quotes from their promotional video: "you control the power", "operate the giant arm! and the powerful bucket", and one sentence from their website: "No construction project is too big for this heavy-duty excavator!"

[mahjqa]

There's a list of priorities I have when building. Most of the time, it's arranged something like this:

-Structural integrity. Functional parts should be attached thoroughly, and gears and axles should not be able to slip out / off during intensive use.

-Functionality. The functions should work correctly. Often, simpler is better. That complicated and intricate mechanism is not going to impress if it falls apart every second time it's used.

-Looks. One-stud connections, and connections that rely only on the friction of pins are minimized.

Most of what I build is for

or

, and during those times, everything should just work and keep working. During transport, only minimal damage may occur, and should be easily fixed.

[Plastic Nurak]

I agree with CP5670 and Imajor. I've purchased, luckily for just 99€ (about 126$90 at the current exchange), glorious #8865, one of my boyhood dreams (and forthcoming review, eh eh). It's amazing how gearbox, without clutches and other specialized parts, works. I like front lights mechanism. I don't mind if this model is not motorized, the important thing is the way mechanisms work and operate.

*/edited: message wasn't clear*/

Edited September 14, 2010 by Plastic Nurak

[Zerobricks]

I try to keep it simple and idiot/drive/shock proof. I can see a beauty of splitting one motor's power to 2 functions using a gearbox, but tend to see how much would I gain or loose by doing that or simply adding another motor. The less gears the better the model works in my opinion.

[Alasdair Ryan]

looks and funtions

[DLuders]

I'm a Civil Engineer, so FUNCTION is of prime importance to me. The "KISS Principle" ("Keep It Simple, Stupid") appeals to engineers because if something is TOO intricate, it tends to break, malfunction, require lots of maintenance, etc. Yes, I enjoy building complex Lego Technic sets, but if it DOESN'T WORK, then the entire effort is disappointing.

[mostlytechnic]

I want functions, and the more (and the more complicated) the better. 8043 sounds like a dream set to me. Just waiting to get some funds to buy one :)

[Erik Leppen]

I'm certainly more of a complicated mechanisms person. For example, the 8258 crane can't lift much and the stabilizers don't really stabilize, but in my opinion Lego is not meant for that. It's plastic, not steel, so I don't expect the kind of performance found in real-life products. On the other hand, all functionality in 8258 is there and the movements are realistic, and for me, that is more important. I don't really care for a strength test, but I like things to be able to make all the movements. In multi-axle trucks (mobile cranes) I always try to have the steering have realistic turning angles for each axle (which means, every axle has its own angle).

I try to keep it simple and idiot/drive/shock proof. I can see a beauty of splitting one motor's power to 2 functions using a gearbox, but tend to see how much would I gain or loose by doing that or simply adding another motor. The less gears the better the model works in my opinion.

I'm mostly the opposite. The gearbox in 8480 is amazing and the fact everything can be controlled from one motor makes for a lot of cool mechanisms. Compared to that, 8275 is a better play model, but technically a lot less interesting for me.

Also I love gear trains :) I guess that's why I like linear actuators in general and 8265 in particular. I'm probably going to like 8043 even more if I ever get my hands on one :)

But I'm not standing at large events showing creations that visitors can play with. So realibility is not a top priority for me. I never "extensively use" models :)

[Blakbird]

I've made my thoughts on this matter apparent before. I'm a technical person, and I like technical functions. I actually don't do a whole lot of "playing" with the sets, but I do a lot of building and a lot of figuring out how stuff works. That's why I'm going to build the loader from Five Star Brick even though I've been told it doesn't work right. The process of figuring out the mechanisms from the LDraw file was so intriguing to me that I know the build will be satisfying as well. I'll look at the gears as it goes together and see if I can figure out how to fix its problems.

While I don't mind technical functions for their own sake, I do prefer realism. For example, a supercar with a working sequential gearbox is perfect. It doesn't matter that it will hardly react any torque and you can't really drive the car through the gearbox (motorized), the point for me is that is depicts how a real car works which is something children (and adults) can learn from the model. For models that actually do something but not necessarily like real life, use Mindstorms. This is why 8043 is better than 8275 in my opinion. 8043 would be almost as good to me if it didn't have any motors at all, but all functions were switchable from that single gearbox. 8880 doesn't have any motors and still ranks as one of the best sets ever. With that chain, the drive train will hardly carry any load at all. 8480 has only one motor but lots of functions.

With all that being said, motorized MOCs are pretty fun too. I'm still planning to build Jurgen's Little Devil and I have plenty of other motorized MOCs. "All things in balance" I guess.

[Jurgen Krooshoop]

I'm definately gooing for functionality as opposed to complexity, which mostly means that mechanics are made as simple as possible. If I make something that has to be able to do something, it has to be able to do this well or not at all. Complex models are very interesting to be able to learn how stuff works, but in my MOC's all functionality is made as simple as possible. (Less = More)

Edited September 13, 2010 by Jurgen Krooshoop

[TechnicJuan]

I think appearance should also be included here. I have seen some very interesting and great functions in some not so pretty models, while there are some great looking models that lack in the features department.

[CP5670]

There is an interesting variety of opinions on this. If you take your models to competitions or public displays, it makes sense that you would want to maximize performance. I've taken a few things to events but just operated them myself, so there was no need to make them very user-friendly.

Of course, neither extreme on this is ideal, and you want the mechanisms to work in some way even if they are complex. But many MOCs are designed with an emphasis in one or the other direction. Like Blakbird, I also think of Technic models as stylized representations of vehicles that illustrate the key mechanisms, instead of miniature versions of them meant to do the same work as the real things.

That's why I'm going to build the loader from Five Star Brick even though I've been told it doesn't work right.

I had this model in mind too when I created the thread. It can be contrasted with 8475 or 8366, which are at the other extreme.

Many models in the old Universal sets and the idea books are also like this. The 8888 progammable crane comes to mind. That model won't impress anyone who wants to pick up heavy loads with a Lego crane, but the mechanisms behind it are totally unique and set it apart from other cranes.

[dhc6twinotter]

I tend to build things that function and look as realistic as possible. I also want my projects to work properly, so any mechanisms I build are constructed as simply as possible. This usually means using motors instead of gearboxes.

For example, my current project was displayed at Brickfair, and it worked ok (I think CP5670 saw it there). I was in a rush to finish it in time, and it did have some issues. I'm currently rebuilding parts of it, and I want it to work right before posting a build thread here or taking it to any other shows. Properly working functions, as well as esthetically correct model are my primary concerns when building a model, and I will try to accomplish this to the best of my ability.

Just my $.02.

[Silcantar]

As a mechanical engineer(ing student), one thing that fascinates me is combining function and simplicity, like having multiple functions controlled by one motor (or no motors, like clocks/clockwork automatons). Not necessarily by gearbox like in 8043, but all sorts of mechanisms: differentials, ratchets, or just functions that look separate but actually work at the same time, like recoil-powered semiautomatic weapons. One of the most fascinating MOCs I've seen is Cyberarm V by Hideaki Yabuki (on page 418. Unfortunately, that's the only place it has ever appeared, I believe.). It uses the light sensor and single motor in the Microscout to control a robotic arm, essentially with three functions. I've built it myself, and it works reasonably well. (better than one would expect a single-motor robotic arm to work)

[CP5670]

One of the most fascinating MOCs I've seen is Cyberarm V by Hideaki Yabuki (on page 418. Unfortunately, that's the only place it has ever appeared, I believe.). It uses the light sensor and single motor in the Microscout to control a robotic arm, essentially with three functions. I've built it myself, and it works reasonably well. (better than one would expect a single-motor robotic arm to work)

This design is based on the robot arm in 8094 (which was rightly described as "magic" on Technicopedia ), but it has some additional features. Does that book contain instructions for it?

For example, my current project was displayed at Brickfair, and it worked ok (I think CP5670 saw it there). I was in a rush to finish it in time, and it did have some issues. I'm currently rebuilding parts of it, and I want it to work right before posting a build thread here or taking it to any other shows.

It worked quite well from what I could see there. I look forward to seeing your update though.

[Silcantar]

This design is based on the robot arm in 8094 (which was rightly described as "magic" on Technicopedia ), but it has some additional features. Does that book contain instructions for it?

You're referring to Cyberarm II on page 416. I'm referring to Cyberarm V: "Force Trainer" on page 418. The book doesn't include instructions for either, but for Cyberarm IV (pictured on page 413), which is far more complex than either of them.

[allanp]

For me it's the overall experience, but if I have to choose then I would say realism and authentisity (adding to my dislike of linear actators ). As for playability and functionality, one is kinda wasted without the other, you need both in order for it to be fun and challenging. Take away any of these ingredients and it just doesn't feel like technic.