The existential pleasures of building to a plan

[rgbrown]

I've been building a few stock sets up recently and, in a way that I haven't really been conscious of before, I'm appreciating the different styles and personalities of the designers that created them. Recently I've rebuilt 8292 (Nathaniel Kuipers), 8295 (Alfred Pedersen), and 8043 (Anders Gaasedal). Putting aside questions of how good the finished products are, they really are completely different experiences to build. The telehandler (8295) is a completely mad design, with connectors, colours, liftarms, and gears going every which way. By contrast, the cherry picker (8292) is neat, tidy, and organised to build. The excavator (8043) is different again, but again is quite an organised, structured build.

Now, I don't have a huge collection, and thus haven't built enough to comment that much but

• Have you ever thought about this?
• Do you think you could tell if two designs were by the same designer?
• Which sets have you most appreciated the build process? (not playing with)
• How much do you enjoy the process of putting the sets together, compared with playing with them?

On this forum we have an interesting mix of great MOCers, collectors, tinkerers, dabblers, scientists, and engineers. I'm interested to hear what you think.

[RockeTeK]

From the sets I have (see my introduction), I think the 8466 and 8460 have a great building proces, though they are completely different in structure. Where the 8466 has a modular design, the 8460 has not. However, they both let you work with the gears etc from the start.

Oh wait, I haven't introduced myself yet... I'm going to make a topic right now!

Edited January 11, 2011 by RockeTeK

[Blakbird]

Now, I don't have a huge collection, and thus haven't built enough to comment that much but

• Have you ever thought about this?
• Do you think you could tell if two designs were by the same designer?
• Which sets have you most appreciated the build process? (not playing with)
• How much do you enjoy the process of putting the sets together, compared with playing with them.

I very much enjoy putting them together, and your observations are one of the primary reasons I created Technicopedia. I wanted to document the way each set works and to compare and contrast them. There is no doubt that there are a lot of different styles and techniques used over the years. I've just completed re-building every single Technic set in the last 6 months. Doing so it such a short period of time really highlighted all of these differences. It would take a long time to ponder and list any significant number of differences, but there is no doubt that many unique building styles exist among official sets.

I'll try to get more time to address your specific bullet points later.

[Out of Sight]

Although I'd just recently got back into Technic and only bought the 8047,8043 (updated late 2010 version) and 8265 these year, I'll try to give my own perspective:

1. 8043 ; very well thought of just having 4 motors to control six different functions. Yes despite the Ultimate 8043 mods that people have been doing, the stock 8043 was designed to use the least amount of motors and remotes to keep the price down while keeping the six functions intact. The ulitization of panels around the superstructure makes it one of the smoothest looking and realistic in any earthmoving machinery sets Lego had ever made..to the point that it's almost 'non-Lego-like' I'm not a fan of studded bricks, so the 8043's studless construction is 'perfect' for me at least.

2.8047 ; I don't know who designed it, but turning those knobs is actually fun and sees a swift movement of the arms. Simple things can be fun.

3.8265 ; the opposite of the 8047, turning those knobs is a chore. Again since it comes without PF, the initial price is very low, and you get a huge set for your money. Good for first timers who wants a bang for their money and having the option of upgrading it at later stages. The PF is also well incorporated in the whole design, and you don't need to disassemble the whole thing to install it. Most importantly, the PF battery box is concealed underneath which retains the aesthetics of the original model.

I enjoyed every building process of each model that I own...but there's nothing like the 8043, where I enjoyed building and playing with it occasionally..makes me feel like a kid again!

[Cwetqo]

Remeber: we are talking aboud building process, not the quality of finished models.

For me most obvious difference is between various time periods:

-most challenging but also very revarding are large sets from late studded era. I recently completed 8480 and it's really obvious that designer had gone all the way with this one. Complicated build with several not expected techniques, careful synchronization of some mechanisms and instructions with a lot of parts added in one step really makes building process challenging. Similar are other sets from this era I completed: 8880 and 8868. I think that after those designers got instruction to "step down" and make things more accesible for "normal" builders.

-what came next are my favorites (also cunstruction wise) among technic models: 8448, 8466 and 8461. Mudular design (especially in 8448), really good instructions and right amount of studded/studdless bricks make those very nice builds. I dont know who designed those, but It's work well done.

-8455 also has good instructions but remains difficult and (at least in the first part) confusing build. Second half (when things come together) is nevetheless very enjoyable. 8285 is also nice build (but hme set itself is not very complicated).

-2008 models were (at least for me) not very enjoyable builds. 8295 with its confusing construction leads here, but other two (8297 and 8294) were also not very interesting (those aro only three of here mentioned sets I use just for parts). Similar is with previous years flagship (8275): nice for parts but not interesting to build.

-next years sets were much better: 8265 was very nice build and 8258 was exceptional. I also liked 8043, but I got the feeling it ended way to fast. I felt like i had twice the fun with 8258 (or 8480 which I built directly after 8043).

Regarding different designer: I know just those few from newer set (wabra, goose...). Do we have any information about older set designers?

[imajor]

I think I read somewhere (cannot recall where) that there is a person in their team who is responsible for the building instructions. Can anyone comfirm that?

[RohanBeckett]

I'd love to find out who designed some of the flagship models, in the last 10-15 years.. and just thank them for all the fun they've given us!

I have a decent size collection (25-30 medium-large technic sets), with a few flagships in there, and yes.. I wholeheartedly agree, that there's quite a lot of different building styles.

I enjoy the builds - especially when there's a section or mechanism that isn't fully obvious, or mentioned in the pictures... and it's only when you *build* it (even if it's a sub assembly, of the main model), that you can start moving it, and you go 'a-ha! - THAT's how it works!" Clever models will also make you operate them over and over again, to watch gears/linkages/etc in motion.

It's an old one, but one that stands out in my mind is the vintage 856 Bulldozer. (I only bought/built it for the first time 2 years ago)

The linkages of the main bucket lift is a small work of art! perfect angles, that when you lift the bucket, it scoops.. raises - then stays level! all with 1979-era parts too!

I think if I studied enough models side by side, I could probably group them by designer, or design team... definitely by era... every 5 years and they change!

I got back into Technic in 2004, with the 8436 Truck.. my first introduction to pure studless.. and to be honest, I wasn't that impressed with the build.. although it was a nice enough model.

Soon after, I got 8434 Aircraft, and was very un-impressed - it's still one of my least favourite technic sets ever..

Yet recent studless design has changed so much! looking up stats - I can't believe that 8265 Front Loader has only 34 more pieces than the 8436 Truck, but is a FAR superior model, both in looks, and technical ability.

Although I still find studless a challenge to prototype with (I need more practice!), recent models have made me hate it a lot less! ;)

I fact, I was playing around with a modular mechanism the other day.. and I ended up building it in both studded, and studless.. and surprised myself in coming up with a nice, strong, lightweight version in studless... just a shame I needed a lot of diff's, and I only have 3 of the new 3-wide ones!

In terms of enjoying the build process - any of the larger ones that have multiple mechanisms - smaller sub sections that you graft onto the larger model... these are what teach you the most, I believe.. and you are more likely to learn from those techniques, and use them in your own MOC's, without feeling too guilty about 'copying' someone else!

To pick favourites - I still can't go past the shuttle, or the 8880 supercar... I LOVE building, and aligning up *masses* of gears! - in fact, if I have to put it bluntly... gears are what makes an amazing model, for me!

As discussed in a recent thread, I enjoy the challenge of the older instructions.. I never found them difficult as a child.. and I prefer them, to the utterly banal 1-piece-per-step ones of today

I've basically got enough parts now, that I can pretty much build any technic set I want, that's been produced over the last 20 years (barring those ones with parts unique to that set only - 8448, I'm looking at you!)

I get a lot of fun from building sets I could never afford years ago!

As mentioned before, I need to practice my studless building.. and I have a certain car project I want to do by April.. so I'm currently building different chassis's from various people around here (thanks for the instructions!), and with each one, I learn different, and better construction techniques! Plenty of skilled builders in here - each with different styles! I feel very fortunate that we have such a sharing community!

(first post for 2011, and a long one!)

RB

[merman]

The past couple of years there have been some amazing sets to build according to plan.

I enjoy building the chassis most. It is always interesting to see how a model starts...

I mainly enjoy building the parts with the gears.

That is also the reason why I believe 8258 and 8043 are so much fun to build: loads of interesting gears where everything has a unique place...

8421 is also very interesting. The great thing about 8421 and 8258 is that you first start with the chassis that have lots of gears and then make the crane that also has a lot of gears.

I found building 8285 also very interesting. It is my first set since the dark ages and it is so incredibly big!

I also believe 8284 Tractor/Dune Buggy is quite interesting when it comes to building the chass

Edited January 12, 2011 by merman

[allanp]

I remember reading an interview with the designer of the 8480 in a lego technic club magazine from 1996 (can't find any scans of it on the internet). All I can remember is that he said he was working on, or had worked on, a 5 speed transmission (they wouldn't give those kind of secrets away now would they!) so i'm guessing he also designed the 8448. Personally I build the models too quickly to notice the different personalities of the designers, and don't really look for that. One thing I have noticed tho, and i've said it before, is that I think they must have been allowed to spend much more time designing the older sets up to about 1996.

[Erik Leppen]

Interesting discussion :D

Anyhow, I think that the person doing the building instructions is someone else than the person designing a model, so you can't go by the instructions to look for design patterns, you have to look into the set itself (I think).

But said that, a contrast I thought was very striking is the difference between 8880 and 8448. I personally love the modular build of 8448 for example. One of the main disadvantages of building 8880 is that during the first 10 or so steps the suspension modules hang loosely from the rest, which mean they constantly move the wrong way whenever you pick up the model.

When building 8421 I thought it was sometimes too repetitive because of the three identical steering units, two identical outriggers and sometimes other small modules that were needed four times. I haven't had this when building 8258, which has the same size. I like it when things are asymmetric, like in 8258's central gearbox or crane. This way you minimize the repetition.

One set I really liked putting together was 8258 by the way, mainly the complex gear design but also attaching the rear module containig the motor and rear outriggers. I like ending up with a huge chunk of Lego, filled with gears and other functonality. That's what I liked about 8258. I didn't really like 8285 because there was a bit too much empty space for my liking, although it's a great looking model.

One set I really liked was 8265. I feel nothing for front loaders but 8265 was a great looking set with much gears in a tight space. Also my most recent set, 8069 (the 2011 back hoe), is a bit of the same and I liked seeing how they did it.

Question: are 8063 (snow sweeper), 8265 (wheel loader) and 8069 (back hoe) from the same designer? They each use small amounts of studded bricks at various places for finishing off certain parts.

I enjoy building the chassis most. It is always interesting to see how a model starts...

I mainly enjoy building the parts with the gears.

Exactly the same here (both statements). It's funny (and maybe a bit weird) that even when building MOCs and having to repeat a module (mirrored or not), I'm thinking in my head about how I would build it if I were to make instructions for this, almost "imagining the steps".

[Anio]

Do you think you could tell if two designs were by the same designer?

Yes I can. Not for all sets but...

Yes despite the Ultimate 8043 mods that people have been doing, the stock 8043 was designed to use the least amount of motors and remotes to keep the price down while keeping the six functions intact.

Very true.

And the complex gears were not a goal for the designer. They are a mean of course. A mean to make the set as cheap as possible.

-what came next are my favorites (also cunstruction wise) among technic models: 8448, 8466 and 8461. Mudular design (especially in 8448), really good instructions and right amount of studded/studdless bricks make those very nice builds. I dont know who designed those, but It's work well done.

8466 was not designed by a single designer but by a team of several designers. Same for 8458.

Do we have any information about older set designers?

Here is a list I have :

8043 : Anders Gaasedal Christensen

8053 : Markus Kossman

8258 : Uwe Wabra

8265 : Markus Kossman

8273 : Lars Krogh Jensen

8275 : Markus Kossman

8285 : Uwe Wabra

8292 : Nathanaël Kuipers

8421 : Markus Kossman

8674 : Nathanaël Kuipers

8041 : Uwe Wabra (not 100% sure)

8049 : Lars Krogh Jensen

8284 : Markus Kossman

8063 : Alfred Pedersen & Markus Kossman

8145 : Uwe Wabra

8653 : Uwe Wabra

8386 : Uwe Wabra

8263 : Anders Gaasedal Christensen

8264 : Alfred Pedersen

8274 : Alfred Pedersen

8288 : Markus Kossman & David Bird

8289 : Alfred Pedersen

8294 : Markus Kossman

8295 : Alfred Pedersen

8297 : Lars Krogh Jensen & Uwe Wabra & Nathanaël Kuipers

8420 : Carl Arnese

8435 : Olav Krøigaard

8052 : Alfred Pedersen

edit :

8271 : Nathanaël Kuipers

Edited January 12, 2011 by Anio

[grohl]

I would add 8271: Nathanaël Kuipers

[Anio]

I would add 8271: Nathanaël Kuipers

Yep.

Actually I did my list only for the sets with more than 500 parts.

But I will add it.

If someone knows who are the designers of any other sets... :)

[teflon]

8421: Markus Kossman

[rgbrown]

Some really interesting replies. I also most enjoy building the mechanisms, and sometimes find the "decorative" features a bit tedious to put together - I start to accelerate when I'm not building the functional parts. I also find it really interesting how so often the models seem really flimsy as you build them, but eventually the reinforcement comes and you end up with a really solid block. I'm also trying to pay more attention to studless techniques, so that I can remember how to use them myself. Need to keep practising! That's what got me thinking about building styles, because there are so many different ways you can accomplish the same task, and different sets seem to have entirely different building methodologies, whereas with studded building there are much more immediate and obvious solutions.

I do appreciate little bits of Lego system building - like the SNOT work on the front of the cherry picker, the back panel of 8043, or the blades of the bulldozers. I guess as creator is my other favourite theme this is no surprise!

[DLuders]

In order to see the various building styles, I used Anio's list above to sort the various 500-piece-and-above Lego Technic models by the (primary) designers' name(s). I used Bricklink's catalog function to look up the pictures of the original set boxes. Can anybody draw any conclusions from the different building styles?

ANDERS GAESEDAL CHRISTENSEN:

MARKUS KOSSMAN:

MARKUS KOSSMAN & DAVID BIRD:

ALFRED PEDERSEN & MARKUS KOSSMAN:

ALFRED PEDERSEN:

UWE WABRA:

LARS KROGH JENSEN

LARS KROGH JENSEN & UWE WABRA & NATHANAEL KUIPERS:

NATHANAEL KUIPERS:

CARL ARNESE:

OLAV KROIGAARD:

[Blakbird]

Quick conclusions:

• "Goose" likes tracks. Otherwise 8043 and 8263 are actually quite different. 8043 is a gear system marvel, while 8263 has barely any gears at all. It uses all linkages.
• Markus favors construction equipment. His builds are very sturdy and well thought out. There are often modular components to the build.
• The 8284 "Dune Buggy" designed by Markus is actually a tractor. It was just marketed as a B model in the USA. This is the same as the 8063 tractor listed by Markus and Alfred, so we have to assume Alfred designed the trailer.
• Alfred's designs are all over the map, but he tends to utilize complex linkages instead of gear systems. He has a lot of functions that "tip".
• Uwe obviously likes trucks, and I assume he used to work in the "Racers" division. His work on the Ferrari racers that use Technic components is probably what resulted in him getting transferred to the Technic team.
• Nathanael is a perfectionist. His models are very carefully engineered. Every part has a purpose.
• Olav's 8435 is a unique model. I just rebuilt it, and many of the specific build techniques and steps do not appear anywhere else. Even the colors used in the chassis are very unusual. The engine block is dark gray, the only place that happened.

[rgbrown]

Quick conclusions:

• "Goose" likes tracks. Otherwise 8043 and 8263 are actually quite different. 8043 is a gear system marvel, while 8263 has barely any gears at all. It uses all linkages.

I was surprised to find these by the same designer - but at second glance they actually look fairly similar - clean, panelled finish, with small amounts of SNOT to add to the look

• Alfred's designs are all over the map, but he tends to utilize complex linkages instead of gear systems. He has a lot of functions that "tip".

I think Alfred is the proverbial mad scientist of the group

• Nathanael is a perfectionist. His models are very carefully engineered. Every part has a purpose.

I agree - it's a shame he's not there any more

[richthelegodude]

I remember reading an interview with the designer of the 8480 in a lego technic club magazine from 1996 (can't find any scans of it on the internet). All I can remember is that he said he was working on, or had worked on, a 5 speed transmission (they wouldn't give those kind of secrets away now would they!) so i'm guessing he also designed the 8448. Personally I build the models too quickly to notice the different personalities of the designers, and don't really look for that. One thing I have noticed tho, and i've said it before, is that I think they must have been allowed to spend much more time designing the older sets up to about 1996.

Would love to see a scan of that magazine. It would be nice for lego to document the designers of the past too - even if it's just listing their names.

[legolijntje]

Would love to see a scan of that magazine. It would be nice for lego to document the designers of the past too - even if it's just listing their names.

I know a site where you can get some old scans of old lego magazines. I don't now if the good one is in their list:

http://www.miniland....ine%20lezen.htm

Edited January 14, 2011 by legolijntje

[Tobbe Arnesson]

Could only find one magazine from '96 and it only has one page "about" Technic:

Edit: There's also only one issue from '94 and '95 and neither seem to have any Technic in them.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Tobbe Arnesson

[Erik Leppen]

Notice how the four yellow sets designed by Markus have sections built with studded bricks, three of which having a lot of studs (8275, 8421, 8053) and these three seem to be the only sets having studs in abundance. Also all Markus's sets seem to have very few Technic panels, while e.g. Uwe's sets all have a lot of panels.

[legolijntje]

Notice how the four yellow sets designed by Markus have sections built with studded bricks, three of which having a lot of studs (8275, 8421, 8053) and these three seem to be the only sets having studs in abundance. Also all Markus's sets seem to have very few Technic panels, while e.g. Uwe's sets all have a lot of panels.

Yay, you're right!

I never saw that.

[allanp]

Those magazines are a great find, those old mania mags bring so many memories! Unfortunately it was a mag from the lego technic club, which i've still not been able to find.

As for building to a plan, how many people plan their MOCs in MLcad (or anywhere on computer or paper) before building anything in real life? I do sometimes and these are sometimes my favorite plans to build from.

[Erik Leppen]

how many people plan their MOCs in MLcad (or anywhere on computer or paper) before building anything in real life?

Sometimes. But I rarely exactly duplicate the MLCAD plan in real life. I use MLCAD for generic planning, e.g. checking whether it will fit, what the dimensions will be and how the drive trains for all functions will flow approxaimately, but when I go to real bricks I usually start improvising again with the planning only in my head. I have sometimes printed MLCAD-images, but never for whole models. Only for complicated parts.

By the way, maybe this could be a separate thread, it might not be fully on the topic of this thread.