Advice on Technic set to get

[Erik Leppen]

Despite the 8466 being a great set (I have bought one second hand the other day), it is not a starter set! (IMHO)

It's rather old and lacks the technic elements you are looking for, although the wheels are awesome.

To be honest I think the tyres from 8466 are way too heavy. The suspension of 8466 feels kind of flimsy compared to those huge tyres. The suspension of 8880 is a lot sturdier, and I expect that of 8297 as well (but I don't own that set).

If there had to be one set for which I'd say the tyres are awesome, it's 8110

Buy it if you are looking to complete your collection, but stick with the suggested sets to start your collection. Opening a new box and looking at all these new wonderful parts is half the fun.

That's so true Edited August 11, 2011 by Erik Leppen

[Jim]

If there had to be one set for which I'd say the tyres are awesome, it's 8110

Absolutely! They are indeed awesome.

That's so true

It just is, isn't it

[DaddyWhale]

Quick update:

My deal to get the 8043 on ebay fell through - I got my money back though. Instead of trying to find another one, I got a 8258 instead, primarily because it's bigger and, I believe, a bit more complex.

I'm still on the first book of the instructions (there are three more), but so far 8258 looks great. Am going slowly so as to savor the experience - understand the relationships between the parts, etc.

But I'm already thinking about what Technic set to get next. I love the mechanical engineering dimension of building. So would the 8880, or maybe the 8466, be a good choice. Would like a challenge, both mental and manual, and am not concerned that it's old and lacks PF.

Would the 8880 live up to expectations? Or is some of the great things people say about it colored by nostalgia?

[DLuders]

@ DaddyWhale: You might benefit from reading the 14 reviews of the 8880 Super Car set on Brickset.

[DaddyWhale]

@DLuders,

Thanks, I've read the reviews. My question is about whether the 8880 lives up to the hype, particularly from the point of view of an adult with no nostalgia for the sets he might have played with as a kid (I only started on Lego with my two children).

Just to clarify: a lot of the reviews mention the historical importance of the 8880 in the evolution of Technic sets. That is not so important to me as I'm rather new to Lego.

@ DaddyWhale: You might benefit from reading the 14 reviews of the 8880 Super Car set on Brickset.

Edited August 21, 2011 by DaddyWhale

[dhc6twinotter]

Quick update:

My deal to get the 8043 on ebay fell through - I got my money back though. Instead of trying to find another one, I got a 8258 instead, primarily because it's bigger and, I believe, a bit more complex.

I'm still on the first book of the instructions (there are three more), but so far 8258 looks great. Am going slowly so as to savor the experience - understand the relationships between the parts, etc.

But I'm already thinking about what Technic set to get next. I love the mechanical engineering dimension of building. So would the 8880, or maybe the 8466, be a good choice. Would like a challenge, both mental and manual, and am not concerned that it's old and lacks PF.

Would the 8880 live up to expectations? Or is some of the great things people say about it colored by nostalgia?

Awesome! I think 8258 was a great choice!

I think it depends on what you want to do with the models. If you want to build a model to leave on display, than 8880 would be the set to buy. Great looking model with some great features.

If you plan on building mocs, 8466, in my opinion, has more useful pieces. 8880 is just about all studded construction, while 8466 has some studless parts mixed in. The tires on 8466 would be a great addition to your parts inventory as well.

In my opinion, if you want to buy sets just for their parts, then I would skip both and just buy 8043 and 8110 instead. However, if you want something to display, either one of the sets you mentioned would look great sitting on a shelf.

Just my $.02. It's great to see somebody else getting into Technic!

Edited August 21, 2011 by dhc6twinotter

[DaddyWhale]

Thanks for the suggestions, Daniel!

I would love to (slowly) get into MOCs. Right now I'm just learning about building techniques, which to me is more than half the fun. I think I'll go for 8880 since everyone says it's a technical marvel.

Awesome! I think 8258 was a great choice!

I think it depends on what you want to do with the models. If you want to build a model to leave on display, than 8880 would be the set to buy. Great looking model with some great features.

If you plan on building mocs, 8466, in my opinion, has more useful pieces. 8880 is just about all studded construction, while 8466 has some studless parts mixed in. The tires on 8466 would be a great addition to your parts inventory as well.

In my opinion, if you want to buy sets just for their parts, then I would skip both and just buy 8043 and 8110 instead. However, if you want something to display, either one of the sets you mentioned would look great sitting on a shelf.

Just my $.02. It's great to see somebody else getting into Technic!

[RohanBeckett]

Thanks for the suggestions, Daniel!

I would love to (slowly) get into MOCs. Right now I'm just learning about building techniques, which to me is more than half the fun. I think I'll go for 8880 since everyone says it's a technical marvel.

It's a excellent build.. and quite intricate... however the body does look a bit dated, and chunky, especially when compared with super-slick studless super cars.

If you can find a copy of 8480 Shuttle, grab that.. very unique model, with an amazing gearbox (definitely the precursor to the 8258 gearbox)

RB

[davidmull]

I have 8043,8258 and 8110 and there all great in there own way,if I was to choose it would be very hard so u should buy 8258 as it's getting hard to get then get 8043 and 8110, I really do love my 8110 tho :)

[Jim]

I have 8043,8258 and 8110 and there all great in there own way,if I was to choose it would be very hard so u should buy 8258 as it's getting hard to get then get 8043 and 8110, I really do love my 8110 tho :)

I agree with David on the buying sequence!

And I wouldn't recommend buying older sets until you don't have any interesting modern sets to buy. That said, I must admit I am not a fan of studded Lego.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Gekke Ted

[DaddyWhale]

Thanks for all the suggestions! It sounds like the modern sets benefit from the innovations introduced in the earlier ones. So I would not be missing anything from a techniques point of view by getting the modern sets first.

[Jim]

Thanks for all the suggestions! It sounds like the modern sets benefit from the innovations introduced in the earlier ones. So I would not be missing anything from a techniques point of view by getting the modern sets first.

In my opinion you don't. Some older sets have fascinating gearboxes etc. However, overall they seem a bit outdated. So I would focus on the news sets first (there are so many great ones) and see if you can buy some classic later on.

I've already posted this once (and quite some people will agree); there's nothing better than buying a new set with over 1000 (some close to or over 2000) new parts and see how Lego has evolved. Buying a second hand set will not give you this experience (imho).

Edited August 23, 2011 by Gekke Ted

[Alasdair Ryan]

I look forward to geting the 8110 for christmas,i also have the digger and the crane truck,i dont like the truck as it can't lift a crumb.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Alasdair Ryan

[DaddyWhale]

Thank you everyone on your help with choosing my first Technic set. I ended up getting 8258 and have thoroughly enjoyed the building experience. It satisfied most of the criteria I set out for a Technic build.

1. Large set. Clearly it's one of the largest Technic sets. I liked the fact that the bags the contents came in were not numbered!

2. Power functions. It's a neat use of one motor to power a number of functions. A bit disappointed that PF was not used for locomotion (which I knew would be the case). I guess to implement this would have taken adding an IR remote, which would have added to the set's cost.

3. Technical build. The set obviously has plenty of gears. I really liked figuring out what some of the Technic parts - like part 4278957, the driving ring - were used for. I wish though that there were an easy way to see the gears in action after completing the build. It seems like the only real way to understand the interrelationships well is by taking the set apart and rebuilding it.

4. Realistic detail. There were some, like the differential and the mechanics of how power is transferred from one point to another via the gears. But the hook on the crane was a bit lame. The doors don't open...

All in all, I think 8258 was a great introduction to the studless Technic line. I've placed an order for 8110, which will add the pneumatics and other elements. I may also want to look at some of the sets with studs, like 8880.

Thanks again for all the help!

Hi,

I'm pretty new to LEGO. But when my wife and I started getting our young kids LEGO sets, I started building some myself. Have really enjoyed building the large sets: Grand Carousel, Imperial Flagship, Emerald Night.

I want to next build a large Technic model. Could any of you recommend a model to get, either new or used (ie from past years)? What I'm specifically looking for are

1. Large set

2. Power functions

3. Technical build with lots of gears, etc

4. Realistic detail, such as steering, suspension, etc

I'm thinking of the Unimog, but am a bit concerned about not being able to steer using the steering wheel.

Any recommendations?

Thanks in advance!

DW

[Blakbird]

2. Power functions. It's a neat use of one motor to power a number of functions. A bit disappointed that PF was not used for locomotion (which I knew would be the case). I guess to implement this would have taken adding an IR remote, which would have added to the set's cost.

There has never been a wheeled Technic set which uses Power Functions for locomotion, and I don't think there ever will be. The primary reason is not cost, it is the limitations of part strength. The loads and torques associated with powering an entire (heavy) vehicle are too great to make it through LEGO's quality standards. While it is true that AFOLs have made powered MOCs (like trial trucks), they tend to break or bend a lot of axles and gears. For this reason, I can't imagine an official product would be offered unless a completely new set of parts were made available. The new portal axle housings are one possibility for a (slow) motorized set.

The use of the XL motor at all has been pretty rare. Most PF sets (and there are a lot of them) use the M motor. Again, I don't think this is a matter of cost as much as the fact that the XL motor is capable of destroying LEGO parts and therefore has to be used carefully. Therefore you won't see it in a low age group (<10 years) set, and probably only in age 14+ sets. The Creator dinosaur may be one exception.

[DaddyWhale]

Thanks, Blakbird, for the helpful response. I'm new to Lego, having bought my first sets for my kids about a year ago, and don't know anything about engineering. Why is it then that 10194, the Emerald Night, can incorporate a PF XL motor for locomotion. I know that this set is not Technic. But shouldn't the same mechanical principles apply? It's also a large set, though not quite as large as 8258. Is it because 10194 runs on rails - would this reduce the required torque (or something)?

There has never been a wheeled Technic set which uses Power Functions for locomotion, and I don't think there ever will be. The primary reason is not cost, it is the limitations of part strength. The loads and torques associated with powering an entire (heavy) vehicle are too great to make it through LEGO's quality standards. While it is true that AFOLs have made powered MOCs (like trial trucks), they tend to break or bend a lot of axles and gears. For this reason, I can't imagine an official product would be offered unless a completely new set of parts were made available. The new portal axle housings are one possibility for a (slow) motorized set.

The use of the XL motor at all has been pretty rare. Most PF sets (and there are a lot of them) use the M motor. Again, I don't think this is a matter of cost as much as the fact that the XL motor is capable of destroying LEGO parts and therefore has to be used carefully. Therefore you won't see it in a low age group (<10 years) set, and probably only in age 14+ sets. The Creator dinosaur may be one exception.

[davidmull]

There has never been a wheeled Technic set which uses Power Functions for locomotion, and I don't think there ever will be. The primary reason is not cost, it is the limitations of part strength. The loads and torques associated with powering an entire (heavy) vehicle are too great to make it through LEGO's quality standards. While it is true that AFOLs have made powered MOCs (like trial trucks), they tend to break or bend a lot of axles and gears. For this reason, I can't imagine an official product would be offered unless a completely new set of parts were made available. The new portal axle housings are one possibility for a (slow) motorized set.

The use of the XL motor at all has been pretty rare. Most PF sets (and there are a lot of them) use the M motor. Again, I don't think this is a matter of cost as much as the fact that the XL motor is capable of destroying LEGO parts and therefore has to be used carefully. Therefore you won't see it in a low age group (<10 years) set, and probably only in age 14+ sets. The Creator dinosaur may be one exception.

Blakbird do u like the idea of the motorised 8110,the xl motor in this set is great and the portal axles work great with this,I can't be leave how well the motor fits into the chassis and I'm still convinced Lego left it this way for us to add a motor!the 8110 is so well set up with the drive chain and suspension I think u just have to add a motor to appreciate the realistic 4wd system.

[Nazgarot]

Thanks, Blakbird, for the helpful response. I'm new to Lego, having bought my first sets for my kids about a year ago, and don't know anything about engineering. Why is it then that 10194, the Emerald Night, can incorporate a PF XL motor for locomotion. I know that this set is not Technic. But shouldn't the same mechanical principles apply? It's also a large set, though not quite as large as 8258. Is it because 10194 runs on rails - would this reduce the required torque (or something)?

The rails wheels have a lot less friction than rubber tires, and the Emerald is relatively light compared to large Technic models, so it doesn't have the same torque on the gears.

-ED-

[Blakbird]

Thanks, Blakbird, for the helpful response. I'm new to Lego, having bought my first sets for my kids about a year ago, and don't know anything about engineering. Why is it then that 10194, the Emerald Night, can incorporate a PF XL motor for locomotion. I know that this set is not Technic. But shouldn't the same mechanical principles apply? It's also a large set, though not quite as large as 8258. Is it because 10194 runs on rails - would this reduce the required torque (or something)?

Yes, the same principles apply. However, if you ever hold 10194 in your hands you will find that it is vastly lighter than one of these big Technic sets. Not only that, but because it is a train it always runs on smooth, mostly level surfaces and never has to go over obstacles. If you could drive your Technic set in a straight line on a smooth floor without having to turn or abruptly start and stop, then you could make such a set reasonably reliable. But these sets are for kids and no kid would ever play with it that way. First order of business is always to try to drive over the cat.

By the way, the motor in 10194 is also right next to the wheels so there is very minimal gearing or axles needed to transmit the torque. In something like 8110 or 8258 the motor would be located far from the wheels and the torque would have to travel through many elements. It only takes one weak link to break the whole system. There are no differentials or universal joints in 10194. In order to make a good R/C car, you have to have differentials and u-joints and it has to be fun to drive and robustly designed against damage.

Blakbird do u like the idea of the motorised 8110,the xl motor in this set is great and the portal axles work great with this,I can't be leave how well the motor fits into the chassis and I'm still convinced Lego left it this way for us to add a motor!the 8110 is so well set up with the drive chain and suspension I think u just have to add a motor to appreciate the realistic 4wd system.

I totally agree. Without motorization, all the fancy 4WD parts in 8110 are really just for show. You don't get to see them really do anything. As a demonstration of a 4WD system, a happy medium would be to motorize it but put it up on a stand so the wheels all turn but it doesn't actually drive. Because of the portal axles, 8110 is the closest set yet to being able to be motorized without having to worry about breaking anything. You can protect parts with the clutch gear, but then you aren't really getting the full power of the motor.

To make a LEGO set be a "real" R/C vehicle, you would need motors many times more powerful than even the XL motor, metal parts, and mechanical fasteners (screws). Since those things defeat the whole purpose of building with LEGO, I don't think it is going to happen. I could be wrong though. Thankfully, the fact that the parts exist at all allows we adult fans to experiment as long as we are willing to sacrifice some parts along the way. I've always found failure to be the best learning tool!

[davidmull]

Yes u are totally right,but I'm glad u do agree that 8110 is probably the first set ever that actually suits a motor,I'm an auto mechanic by trade and I'm very impressed with the 8110 set up,the portal axles are a gift as u can change ur gear ratios too.would u ever add motors to ur unimog blackbird? Also the m motor and clutch set up that giojunkstyle made an LDD file for is integrated very well and works great too!

Edited September 8, 2011 by davidmull

[timslegos]

i also have the digger and the crane truck,i dont like the truck as it can't lift a crumb.

i agree completely. I was super disappointed when i tried to use the arm for lifting things, it couldn't lift anything!! Although i have seen this trend with a lot of Lego sets, they look good but when it comes down to actually putting load on it, it fails completely!!

tim

[DaddyWhale]

Thanks once more, Blakbird. Everything you write make sense!

BTW I visited your Technicopedia website. It's very informative and helpful.

Yes, the same principles apply. However, if you ever hold 10194 in your hands you will find that it is vastly lighter than one of these big Technic sets. Not only that, but because it is a train it always runs on smooth, mostly level surfaces and never has to go over obstacles. If you could drive your Technic set in a straight line on a smooth floor without having to turn or abruptly start and stop, then you could make such a set reasonably reliable. But these sets are for kids and no kid would ever play with it that way. First order of business is always to try to drive over the cat.

By the way, the motor in 10194 is also right next to the wheels so there is very minimal gearing or axles needed to transmit the torque. In something like 8110 or 8258 the motor would be located far from the wheels and the torque would have to travel through many elements. It only takes one weak link to break the whole system. There are no differentials or universal joints in 10194. In order to make a good R/C car, you have to have differentials and u-joints and it has to be fun to drive and robustly designed against damage.

I totally agree. Without motorization, all the fancy 4WD parts in 8110 are really just for show. You don't get to see them really do anything. As a demonstration of a 4WD system, a happy medium would be to motorize it but put it up on a stand so the wheels all turn but it doesn't actually drive. Because of the portal axles, 8110 is the closest set yet to being able to be motorized without having to worry about breaking anything. You can protect parts with the clutch gear, but then you aren't really getting the full power of the motor.

To make a LEGO set be a "real" R/C vehicle, you would need motors many times more powerful than even the XL motor, metal parts, and mechanical fasteners (screws). Since those things defeat the whole purpose of building with LEGO, I don't think it is going to happen. I could be wrong though. Thankfully, the fact that the parts exist at all allows we adult fans to experiment as long as we are willing to sacrifice some parts along the way. I've always found failure to be the best learning tool!

Edited September 9, 2011 by DaddyWhale