What makes a good Technic set?

[Blakbird]

It is difficult to define the elusive quality that makes a Technic set awesome. I'm sure TLG would love to be able to find the definition. It is not necessarily the part count and it is not necessarily the size of the model. The subject has something to do with it, and the functions have something to do with it. Even the color is relevant. We may never find a clear definition, or we may not even agree if someone proposed one. But I think we can all agree that, whatever this awesome quality is, these two pictures show it.

Long live 8868. May you someday be equaled.

[Benly]

Wow, studs! =P

If in terms of pneumatics, I think the 8455 Backhoe would give it a good run for it's money even if it lacks the motor and compressor. Then again, I could be biased as I don't have the 8868.

For me, a good Technic set is the level of complexity that it has or if it's something that is quintessentially unique. The 8480 Shuttle ticks both those for me =)

Edited October 4, 2010 by Benly

[dolittle]

Hi,

I like complex models where the process of building it doesn't reveal too much on how it is going to work.

For at least one such example was the offloader 8297, until I had it fully assembled I couldn't quite figure out how it was using a motor to go "up" and "down" (i.e. extend and retract).

Once it worked, it was interesting to look into and think it over.

A the 8297 is my most complex lego set as of yet, I believe that the 8043 and 8258 which I plan on buying would surpass it, but I am not sure 8258 has complex inner workings like the 8297.

In any case, those are my two cents :)

Thanks,

Noam

[RohanBeckett]

Although I love the Shuttle, and Air-Tech rig.. and Backhoe too... it's definitely not always the big sets that amaze me. (although those 3 are certainly in my top 5!)

When I was young, I loved the 8860 Car Chassis, and dreamed of it for many a decade.. when I finally got it, I was slightly disappointed (call it the rose-coloured glasses effect)

But another set from that era that made me go 'wow' when I finally obtained and built it, was the 856 Bulldozer

It's not a complex set by any means, but has a VERY nifty mechanism, and even more so - the timing and angles of the arms are perfect, so with one operation, the bucket scoops, then lifts, while keeping the bucket level!

(oh.. and with that amount of studs... the 8868 feels SO strong and rigid... not to mention surprisingly heavy! Not going to get any flex with that subframe!)

RB

Edited October 4, 2010 by RohanBeckett

[phool]

I think for me it a great technic set must have good technical functions combined with good looks These qualities are what most of the more revered technic sets (8880, 8480, 8868, etc.) have. This doesn't limit great sets to only the big sets, for instance 8858 (Rebel Wrecker) has these qualities and is one of the best technic sets imho.

[roamingstop]

Functionality

The model has really good functions, which educate and amaze during the movements. Super Rig, Space Shuttle, Old Bulldozer 856 etc, all fall into this catagory (and some more modern ones as well). E.g. the concentric rings to drive two axles through a turntable on the new excavator.

Form

This can be shape, form-factor etc. Primarily it "looks the part". It does not need to have a great function, or a great level of detail - but from the outside it justlooks right, and you instantly recognise it. Snow Groomer for example is a great model to look at. Some of the small motorbikes as well - mechanisms may be simple but it looks good.

Fun

This can also be playability (but I like F,F,F). How do you play with the model. Sometimes the really small ones such as the mini-bulldozer can be remoddeled into 24+ (and counting) submodels... Or the Forest-Loader - working pneumatics which children can play with for 4-5 hours without getting bored (im thinking of my 6-8 year old nephews who did this recently). And it lifts not only logs...

But the big rig with all working pneumatics was too complicated. They went 'wow'... (as did AFOL's) but in the end all the functions were too much in one go.

Technic is not just for building but also playing - and it is important that those who are too young to assemble the model, can at least understand how to play with it - and not have too many small (choking) pieces.

Just my $2.

[grepin]

Functionality is an obvious requirement - it's what Technic is all about. Sets like 8868, 8880, 8480 and 8455 are always considered technical marvels, but smaller sets can also have great functionality - 8858 being a perfect example.

The looks aren't that important for me, but of course we all want the models to be as good-looking as possible. Most of the ones we consider to be the best sets manage to pack great functionality into a nice form - take the 8880 and the 8480, for example. Some sets, mostly in recent years, focus more on looks, and this has resulted in stunning sets like the 8420.

Others simply are what we'd expect of them, by representing accurately the machine they're modelling - I think the 8856 fits this category.

Finally, there's the Unique factor - sets that are interesting because there's no other set of the same kind. A few good examples of this are 8094, 8839, 8485, 8480, 8479, 8263 and 8043.

[Rijkvv]

To me, the Big Five (8868, 8880, 8485, 8480 and 8479) are the best TECHNIC sets ever made. But there are some great other sets. Functions are very important, as well as looks. There are a lot of mid-sized sets that never became as famous as the yearly flagship sets, but are great for their size. A good example is the supply ship (8839 if I'm right). It was released in 1992, so it never became too famous since it stood in the shadow of 8868. But the subject is unique, and the technics used are great.

I don't have the motorized set released in 1993. But reading Technicopedia, the forklift sounds like a great model to me. And that's a modle you can't call big. A model which I do own is 8440. Although the functions are limited to Flex steering, a diff and a V6 engine, the looks are great, making this one of the best mid-sized models IMO. Too bad there are many stickers used, making it impossible to take the model apart if you want to keep the stickers. That brings me to another factor: stickers. Stickers that tend to fall off, can have a negative influence to my judgement of sets. Especially when they are neccesary for the overall looks of a model (the headlights for example).

[Zerobricks]

What makes technic set for me is, that when you start building and untill the very end you have no idea how that thing will come together or work (8258 gearbox for example). And like said before it has to work, look somewhat realistic and have some nice building techniques.

[Brickthus]

What is summed up in the two pictures is "complexity contained". It's obvious from the first picture that there's a lot going on in this model, so that builds the excitement. Pneumatic models are good for this because the switches are often a long way from the cylinders.

The second picture shows the containment of the pipes to the switches, as well as a novel (then) switch mounting scheme. Each great Technic set has to use a new technique to overcome a new engineering problem, continuing our education!

The second picture also shows the routing of the pipes through the turntable. This is the essence of how to get the functions working together without them interfering with each other.

These are the additional requirements beyond the number of functions for your money and the new parts, both of which are prerequisites on the road to Technic greatness.

8455 backhoe has the same build-up of expectation as 8868 with the pneumatic switches. 8480 Shuttle has it with its gearbox. 8479 has it in the truck because the grab arm and tipper bucket are some of the last things to be built. The key is to show the builder how many functions there are. 8485 Control Centre had it to a certain extent but was always limited to three functions, so the NXT overcomes that limit, especially with an IR Link sensor and Power Functions (now up to 11 motors from one NXT!)

8868, 8455, 8479 and 8485 have obvious functions, where 8480's are neatly hidden away. Many MOCs are great but find it difficult to show off their internal functions. This might be one reason why the biggest Technic cars haven't had complete bodies (apart from cost of parts and weight vs. suspension spring strength). For looks, I think 8480 and 8856 are the best aircraft. 8836 scores with its ailerons as a simpler set.

Another aspect is versatility of application. 8455, 8868 and 8479 are multi-tools that can interface with the non-LEGO world. 8480 is self-contained with its satellite and 8485 is self-contained with its helicopter and dinosaur. By contrast 8094's drawing machine is a real-world application, and its crane can pick up anything so I think that makes it better than 8485, despite the lack of power socket. This is where 8443 and 8049 score well, with their cranes.

Another aspect is imaginative stimulation, what it leads the imaginations of builders to produce. 8868 led to a whole host of pneumatic Finite State Machines and beyond. 8856 was an open invitation to do a proper helicopter rotor, as well as pre-8880 4-wheel drive (the swash plate doesn't hold wheels on very well but I bet TLG were doing the same with the parts before 8880 as made). This occurs mostly in larger sets but occasionally a smaller set will open things up.

Substance must also be considered. Few small sets struggle with this, so they don't have to demonstrate it, but a large crane with spindly stabilisers is bad. 8479's grab arm was close to the limit but it would lift a tyre well enough. Studless models may need more parts in places.

How about the latest sets?

8043 (with the gearing issues fixed) has the makings of a classic. It has the expectation as its PF body is built, looks like the real thing and applies widely in the real world. We have already seen gearboxes and multi-PF controls but it will push those techniques forward for anyone who wasn't around for 8480. The concentric shafts technique is where it scores heavily, so I expect to see lots of turret vehicle MOCs soon!

8052 scores best on looks because it is like the real thing. Not so many functions, but better value than 8264.

8051 is good as motorbikes go. Obvious limitation on number of functions but we have to have a good motorbike in the range and this is it.

8053 provides imagination for those who missed 8421 but looks spindly. Not as solid-looking as 8460.

Mark

[allanp]

I love that part on 8868 where the hoses pass though a single beam

Ok a good set has to function quite authentically and look authentic and have a good amount of complexity relative to it's size or piece count. And hugh piece count helps but is not vital. The addition of power functions can also help but too much can ruin a set by driving up the price and/or lowering complexity.

But what about what makes a truely great set, what makes sets like 8868, 8880 and 8480 legends.

Well firstly they have all the points listed above with the addition of bringing something new that could not be done so neatly before. These sets introduced new stuff that really enhanced the technic theme till far into the future. They don't just look authentic, they look amazing considering the parts available at the time. They didn't just work "quite" authentically, they were mechanical marvels. The only way you could get 8868 to work more like the real thing would have been to fill the pneumatics with oil! Everything functions effortlessly and realistically. Their mechanisms were not just complex, but they were elegant and efficient for the time. You can tell these sets took a long time to design, longer than they do today. I'm sure TLG see's that as a step forward in terms of shorter lead times (is that the right term?) but to me, it's one of a few steps backwards they have made in the last decade. The legends used the brick to it's full potential, now we have IMHO a better assortment of parts overall (with some exceptions!). But i'm not sure they know how to get anywhere close to the potential offered by todays parts.

[CP5670]

I like to see innovative and clever mechanisms more than anything else, in the manner I described here. A set doesn't necessarily have to be large or even very playable to stand out in this respect, although many of the best examples were flagship sets. Conversely, a set can be quite playable and featured without being interesting in this manner (e.g. control knobs located right next to a function, which we've been seeing too much of lately).

I also rate 8868 as my all-time favorite for the same reasons Mark mentioned. It was not only an excellent model with a very "complete" feel to it, but it (and its alternate model) introduced some entirely new mechanical ideas to Technic that had a big influence on MOCs, and some have never been seen in other sets since then. The emphasis on mechanisms in this model can be seen in how they did the turntable slewing function. It could have had the turntable controlled manually or running off the motor, and this would have actually worked more smoothly, but I think it would have made the model less interesting.

Other examples of this are 8480, 8082 and 8094. The two latter sets didn't exactly have realistic models, but they stand out in my mind for various unique mechanisms they used.

  Quote

The legends used the brick to it's full potential, now we have IMHO a better assortment of parts overall (with some exceptions!). But i'm not sure they know how to get anywhere close to the potential offered by todays parts.

You have a point. We have had some excellent sets in recent years, but hardly any of them have pushed the boundaries of Technic in the same way as the sets mentioned above (the only candidate is 8043). In contrast, if you look at the 8888 idea book from 1980, TLG had only the most basic Technic parts available but used them to their fullest extent. 30 years later, some of the concepts there have still never been seen in an actual set.

[hoeij]

I think you need to look at this from the viewpoint of kids. A set can be very good for one age group and be really not good at all for another age group.

It should be challenging but also doable with enough effort. When I got the 855 Mobile Crane as a little kid, it was just the right level, challenging but at the end a feeling of accomplishment. I was still young and I remember being fascinated by how the gears worked. If I had gotten a set that was either more complicated, or less complicated, then it would not have been as good at the time.

The best set I got as a kid was the car 853. But it wasn't the main model that made that set so good. The main reason that was such a good toy was that on the box, there was a picture of a Jeep. Obviously it should be possible to build that Jeep, however, there were no instructions for it. Building that Jeep from just 1 photograph was a major challenge that lead to hours of fun, building, rebuilding, improving things, etc. And it also occurred to me that if I could build something from just 1 picture, then how about making something from 0 pictures?

If it stirs the imagination, is age appropriate, encourages MOC'ing, etc, then it is truly a great set. There have been lots of those.

Take for instance the recent Tractor with Log Loader. As a pneumatic set it is about as simple as it gets, definitely not the right set for those that have built more complicated pneumatic sets. But now put yourself in the situation of a kid who doesn't know pneumatic. After building this, you suddenly start to understand a little bit how the construction equipment you see everywhere, how those things work. Now that's a great thing. So there is an age group for which this set is very good. For older kids, it's not so good.

[allanp]

  Quote

Take for instance the recent Tractor with Log Loader. As a pneumatic set it is about as simple as it gets, definitely not the right set for those that have built more complicated pneumatic sets. But now put yourself in the situation of a kid who doesn't know pneumatic. After building this, you suddenly start to understand a little bit how the construction equipment you see everywhere, how those things work. Now that's a great thing. So there is an age group for which this set is very good. For older kids, it's not so good.

The Log Loader is a good example of a set that not only looks like the real thing, but also works like the real thing, truely authentic and educational in disguise as a fun toy.

[CP5670]

  On 10/4/2010 at 7:25 PM, hoeij said:

If it stirs the imagination, is age appropriate, encourages MOC'ing, etc, then it is truly a great set. There have been lots of those.

In this respect, the best sets were arguably the Universal/Multi-model sets. These sets feel like they're the Technic designers' concept notebooks, full of quirky but clever ideas. Many of the models were unique concepts that wouldn't have sold well as actual sets, but showcased the possibilities of the Technic system. I think these sets encouraged the builder to just explore and experiment with different mechanisms, more so than regular model sets.

[Brickthus]

  On 10/4/2010 at 11:40 PM, CP5670 said:

In this respect, the best sets were arguably the Universal/Multi-model sets. These sets feel like they're the Technic designers' concept notebooks, full of quirky but clever ideas. Many of the models were unique concepts that wouldn't have sold well as actual sets, but showcased the possibilities of the Technic system. I think these sets encouraged the builder to just explore and experiment with different mechanisms, more so than regular model sets.

Absolutely and, while we're at it, bring back micro motors (8082) and the Flex system (8074)!

8082 used one motor to vary the switch setting of another in one model. I did that here with Power Functions too; it allows a few machines to activate each other remotely.

We miss these sets and the ideas books that encourage exploration of new ideas and inventions. LEGO education needs to encourage that kind of thinking in kids, rather than just pandering to the instant gratification of this generation. The NXT is one good thing here, answering the need whilst also including modern technology, but something for a lower age group should be considered too.

Mark

[hoeij]

  On 10/4/2010 at 11:40 PM, CP5670 said:

In this respect, the best sets were arguably the Universal/Multi-model sets. These sets feel like they're the Technic designers' concept notebooks, full of quirky but clever ideas. Many of the models were unique concepts that wouldn't have sold well as actual sets, but showcased the possibilities of the Technic system. I think these sets encouraged the builder to just explore and experiment with different mechanisms, more so than regular model sets.

I think that most of the creator sets are very good, especially the ones where the models are quite different from each other. For young lego users it can really be an eye opener to see that with the same pieces, you can build three things that look very different. Seeing that makes you wonder, what else can I build with this? The lego hobby train set 10183 was also very good. Thirty different models!

The Mini Telehandler is also a nice set. It has only two models (this set is only $10 so that's OK) but the two models are quite different from each other. Makes a good gift for the younger ones, as a first technic set.

[rgbrown]

  On 10/5/2010 at 2:31 PM, Mark Bellis said:

Absolutely and, while we're at it, bring back micro motors (8082) and the Flex system (8074)!

8082 used one motor to vary the switch setting of another in one model. I did that here with Power Functions too; it allows a few machines to activate each other remotely.

We miss these sets and the ideas books that encourage exploration of new ideas and inventions. LEGO education needs to encourage that kind of thinking in kids, rather than just pandering to the instant gratification of this generation. The NXT is one good thing here, answering the need whilst also including modern technology, but something for a lower age group should be considered too.

Mark

Couldn't agree more. I only had two sets growing up: 8055 and 8074. They gave a really good selection of parts for building a wide range of interesting models, and having books with many ideas was really helpful. 8074 had some fantastically functional models for their size, and 8055 used some pretty educational techniques (like the gear box with the spinning arms)

Where do we find models like that these days? The new small studless models (apart from the cute bulldozer which is awesome) have a lot of building to get the reward of only one worm-gear driven function.

Here's an idea:

It would be neat if a selection of current parts was chosen to make a new unofficial universal set, maybe centred around an m-motor, and a competition held to create the best four models to put into it. Perhaps the Technic Designers would be interested in seeing the results of such a challenge. Of course, Grohl would win

[bord4kop]

I think the answer to this question, is at least twofold IMHO.

And highly depends on the point of view (as said before in this thread).

When target group is -younger- children; a good set should be fairly easy to build, has a high playability factor and should be as a realistic as possible.

For the more enthousiastic technic buyer, other factors are more important. You have basically two or maybe three kinds of buyers.

One group finds technical challenge and versatality (what else can be made/built with it?) most important.

While others like realism more.

And maybe a small group which wants best of both and are willing to make consessions in that.

And as for TLG itself; always most profitable and price are taken into account. A highly overpriced set will be bought only by a small amount of people. The more people, or different target groups are attrackes the more buyers it will have.

Re-use of parts, looking best for as little parts as possible, etc.

For me:

I am willing to pay 100+ euro for a set which has;

* A lot of -usefull- parts

* A lot of different parts, only bricks or only one kind of gears are no use, off course

* A challenge in building and a technical challenge (taken). So dificulty basically

* learning capabilties, when building the set one learns -new?- ways of taken technical burdens.

Nice would be;

realism and playability. But these are not as important. As I am not likely to go around playing several days (unlike children).

The 8043 and 8285 sets I own, are good examples.

The Tow Truck looks very nice but is not very challenging, technically. But it is huge in parts

And I got it second hand for a reasonable price

Whereas the Excavator has complexity, realism, good parts (& 4 motors + remote controls!) and is playable as well.

The 8043 is by far the best set around at the moment in my opinion.

(too bad it has the problems with the LA 's

Edited October 8, 2010 by bord4kop