Worst Technic Sets of all Time

[DaveBey]

The Slizer/Throw Bot and Robo Riders already received (dis)honorable mention. Speed Slammers also deserves to be mentioned as a "gimmicky" Technic product.

The addition of tubes in the late 1990s and Modelling Elements in the early 2000s seem to detract from the technical focus of earlier Technic sets. While this doesn't make sets including those elements inheirently 'bad,' I believe you'd be hard-pressed to include any earlier sets in this list.

Cheers from Claremore, Oklahoma USA!

Dave

[Blakbird]

  On 1/23/2013 at 3:04 PM, Mtx said:

I could not agree more. I haven't found any extremely bad sets. Closer study always reveals some nice bits in every set...

That very discovery is what originally led me to do Technicopedia. In the old days the only reference I had of what the old sets were was some tiny pictures from the database at Lugnet. So when I started collecting old sets, all I had to go on was appearance. As it turns out, this is not a very good way to select and rate Technic sets. As I started buying sets, I found that many of the sets which were not very attractive were actually excellent functionally and some of them became my favorites. Therefore, the only way to judge a Technic set is based on technical function and that can only be judged after experiencing it. The web site was an attempt to give readers that experience.

Now I will hang my head in shame for not updating it for so long and wait for the cacophony of posters telling me to get on with it.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Blakbird

[Pauger]

This one is worth to mention.

Although it tries to hide its awfullness under a thick layer of stickers, it just appears to be a bad joke. This must have been made by someone who hates technic.

[Saberwing40k]

I won't say that thes are the worst, but 9395, 9397, and 9398 are all pretty bad. 9395 dosen't have that many functions, and very inaccurate wheels and engine. same goes for 9397. The claw control on the claw? seriously? 9398 is really inaccurate, and the red chassis makes it look bad. It's also not a very technical model. 8041 above is also kind of bad at being anything other than a parts pack, as it has a grand total of two functions. Same goes for 8081. The absolute stinkers for me would have to be 855 and 857, which look absoultley terrible. I'm honestly surprised that nobody had mentioned the Competition/Cyber Slammers sets yet, as those are not exactly good either.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Saberwing40k

[Paul202]

Regarding, Bionicle, I don't know what you guys were talking about. As Technic sets they weren't that good, but I always thought of Bionicle as it's own theme. In fact, Bionicle is what got me into lego, and eventually technic.

[Rijkvv]

The first Bionicle sets felt under the TECHNIC brand, I think that's why they are compared among other TECHNIC sets.

I think a verdict is very personal indeed. I see complaints about 8479 and 8868, and these two are steady among my TECHNIC top 5.

Besides the Bionicle, Slizers and Roboriders and the weird sets Blakbird mentioned, I don't really like the new 2013 pullback racers. It looks like they are just called TECHNIC because Racers don't excist anymore.

[Boxerlego]

The bionicle theme was a big mess. I think Lego almost got sued over this one.

[dhc6twinotter]

I will say that even though I don't care for the Bionicle line much, it (along with Star Wars) pretty much saved the LEGO company in the early to mid 2000s. From a business standpoint, it was a smart move. Without Bionicle, TLG may have been a very different company today, or maybe non-existent. Plus, there are a few useful pieces, like the Bionicle tooth that I used quite a bit in my last moc.

Edited January 23, 2013 by dhc6twinotter

[Blakbird]

  On 1/23/2013 at 5:46 PM, Saberwing40k said:

The absolut stinkers for me would have to be 855 and 857, which look absoultley terrible.

855 is one of my very favorite sets. Yes it is very rectangular, but when you consider the parts that the designers had to work with at the time, that set is actually a miracle. True it would not be very good now, but you cannot make that comparison. They had only plates and bricks to work with. The functions they were able to make out of plates and bricks are pretty amazing.

  Quote

I'm honestly surprised that nobody had mentioned the Competition/Cyber Slammers sets yet, as those are not exactly good either.

That's another example of a line that is not really Technic. As play sets, they are actually really fun to use and work very well. Of my whole collection, the Competition sets are those my kids like the most, so they obviously appeal to a younger audience. Same with the new pull back sets. My kids love them. I wouldn't call them Technic, but they are a good product.

[Rishab N]

  On 1/23/2013 at 5:46 PM, Saberwing40k said:

I won't say that thes are the worst, but 9395, 9397, and 9398 are all pretty bad. 9395 dosen't have that many functions, and very inaccurate wheels and engine. same goes for 9397. The claw control on the claw? seriously? 9398 is really inaccurate, and the red chassis makes it look bad. It's also not a very technical model. 8041 above is also kind of bad at being anything other than a parts pack, as it has a grand total of two functions. Same goes for 8081. The absolut stinkers for me would have to be 855 and 857, which look absoultley terrible. I'm honestly surprised that nobody had mentioned the Competition/Cyber Slammers sets yet, as those are not exactly good either.

I think that 9395 is pretty good

Even though it isn't accurate, it can be easily modified

And over that it has a lot of parts for a good price

I do agree about 9397 and 9398 as they are both over priced

when the 8258 came out it was 150 USD but the logging truck has less parts ant is 140 USD which is pretty bad considering that it has about the same functionality as the 8258

[Boxerlego]

Cyberslam and Bionicle both had some good sets and there are ones that are fun to play with. It was like Rock'em Sock'em Robots.

however since this is worst Technic sets I say sets like this ones below are bad.

[Moz]

  On 1/23/2013 at 9:07 AM, Cwetqo said:

8482 Cybermaster is among worst for me. Its got strange colours, confusing interface and software which worked only under windows 98

I have to agree somewhat. If anything would give the barcode truck a run, it's Cybermaster. For me what rescued this set was the hackability, I recall hanging a breadboard off my parallel port and using the receiver as a Lego remote control. Being radio rather than IR made it very handy, and having to have a computer to make it do anything was only vaguely annoying. But it was definitely a short-term thing, I remember having it but don't remember using it in any real MOCs. Then Mindstorms arrived and took hackability to a new level and it was game over for RF Lego.

[1974]

  On 1/23/2013 at 9:49 PM, Blakbird said:

855 is one of my very favorite sets. Yes it is very rectangular, but when you consider the parts that the designers had to work with at the time, that set is actually a miracle. True it would not be very good now, but you cannot make that comparison. They had only plates and bricks to work with. The functions they were able to make out of plates and bricks are pretty amazing.

855 was my favourite! Do you think you can make a better crane with those parts and with that piece/money limit? And combining that with a hacked up 850 + some spareparts, you had one EPIC Technic set. Shitloads of functions. I luved that much more than my 8860

Wasn't until '81 with the likes of 8844 that Technic (eh, Expert Builder) really to a new step (and then again in '84 with pneumatics)

Those early sets REALLY gave us plate'n'brick builders something to wonder about. Perfect for a kid born in '74

[locoworks]

  On 1/23/2013 at 11:13 PM, Moz said:

I have to agree somewhat. If anything would give the barcode truck a run, it's Cybermaster. For me what rescued this set was the hackability, I recall hanging a breadboard off my parallel port and using the receiver as a Lego remote control. Being radio rather than IR made it very handy, and having to have a computer to make it do anything was only vaguely annoying. But it was definitely a short-term thing, I remember having it but don't remember using it in any real MOCs. Then Mindstorms arrived and took hackability to a new level and it was game over for RF Lego.

i don't agree, i loved the cybermaster, i still have it somewhere. i liked the weird fold up boxes that were used with the model like a low level telehandler. driving a tracked vehicle to collect and drop off the big boxes using a PC was absolutely ACE. there was a bit of a delay, but i really liked it. the thrustmaster joystick controller was instinctive for driving the vehicle. i got the mindstorms set with the yellow brick and didn't like that much at all, and the white brick with R2D2 was also not to my liking. if i wasn't collecting all the starwars stuff of that size i wouldn't have wanted it. i am dissapointed they didn't do similar sized starwars figures with the newer characters. a jango fett to stand with boba would be nice.

[Blakbird]

I think this thread proves that one man's garbage is another man's gold, and therefore you will get no agreement on worst sets. Seems that all the sets appealed to someone.

The barcode set is my profile picture, as you can see, and is probably in my top 5 favorite sets ever, so I was surprised to hear anyone call it the worst. It was so innovative and worked so well. I can only assume the people who didn't like it got one that was damaged. My works fantastically in all the models.

I haven't heard anyone chime in and say they loved the micro sets, but I actually see their value. There isn't really a polybag sized set in Technic, and honestly it would be hard to make anything better out of 20 parts. These were a good way to introduce younger builders to Technic who would otherwise not have been in right age group for several years. Once they are interested, they will buy more complex sets when they get older.

I always considered Cybermaster to be a Mindstorms set rather than a Technic set, even though it came out too soon to technically be one.

[Moz]

  On 1/24/2013 at 12:04 AM, Blakbird said:

I think this thread proves that one man's garbage is another man's gold

Oh, definitely.

  On 1/24/2013 at 12:04 AM, Blakbird said:

The barcode set is my profile picture, as you can see, and is probably in my top 5 favorite sets ever, so I was surprised to hear anyone call it the worst. It was so innovative and worked so well. I can only assume the people who didn't like it got one that was damaged.

I think it depends a lot on what you want to do with the set. For me, cybermaster and barcode were both big, expensive parts with limited reusability. They pushed up the cost of the set without adding a corresponding amount of value. But I used to build complex MOCs with many motors, so a $100 part that could only control 3 motors wasn't really very useful.

My experiments with untethered models were limited by the cost of the batteries. We didn't have high capacity AA rechargeables, let alone LiIon batteries, back then. And designing in CAD really wasn't an option, I spent a lot of time building half a MOC, putting it on the shelf above the desk, then building the same thing again with the next bug fixed. Once it was finished I'd sometimes LDraw it. That soaked up a lot of parts, and when it meant I needed two cybermasters... expensive parts.

That's CAD, circa 1995. No question that it works, but that CAD model was 50+ hours work for something that took less than half as long to build out of real Lego. It's the other way round now, because studless is so much harder to tweak.

To people who build the official models and play with them, I can imagine those sets took playability to a new level. Radio controlled Lego was (and still is) very cool. Even, to some extent, primitively programmable Lego. But again, I'm firmly in the camp that regards Mindstorms as annoyingly limited and Arduino as good for the power it uses, but really a Pi is what you want. A Pi with 20+ IO channels powering servos. So I limit my programming to custom hardware, and make Lego MOCs that work with Lego as it is, not Lego as a poor cousin of modern robotic technology. I'll build a model of something, rather than try to build the real thing out of Lego.

[allanp]

That's CAD circa 1995, with parts from 1997

I have the 8257 cyberslam set and the mechanisms are quite fun actually. With no real life counterpart I can't really say it's not realistic either, tho it's more of a play toy that an authentic model but I guess that's all it was intended to be. For what it is, it's ok. Not a good technic model by any means, but a fun little toy. I kinda think bionicle and roboriders and such don't really count. Their focus is not compareable with that of a normal technic set. I know they sometimes came under the technic name but to me, saying a bionicle is a bad technic set is like eating an onion and saying this orange tastes horrible.

[Brickend]

My worst sets are any set that used the flex system, this view is due to it's fragile nature.

[allanp]

  On 1/24/2013 at 12:04 AM, Blakbird said:

The barcode set is my profile picture, as you can see, and is probably in my top 5 favorite sets ever, so I was surprised to hear anyone call it the worst. It was so innovative and worked so well. I can only assume the people who didn't like it got one that was damaged. My works fantastically in all the models.

For some reason I can't explain, the barcode truck never gave me the same kind of WOW factor as the flagships of previous years. Tho I have grown to appreciate it more over the years. It has some really cool gear trains (two of my favorites!), the way it used a gear rack to lift the bed is much better to me than an LA (still not authentic but the gearing down required was cool) and it made very nice use of the much missed flex system. To be honest I think I was just spoilt by the complexity of the 8480 space shuttle, the stunning good looks of the 8880 Daytona VX4 supercar (to give it it's full english name) and the authentic awesomeness of the 8868 air tech claw rig.

Edited January 24, 2013 by allanp

[750ACE]

  On 1/23/2013 at 5:39 PM, Pauger said:

This one is worth to mention.

Although it tries to hide its awfullness under a thick layer of stickers, it just appears to be a bad joke. This must have been made by someone who hates technic.

You must not be looking close to the value of the part assortment vs. price point. Picked up two off ebay under $30. Gears, liftarms, panels... great for mocs. But yes very unappealing.

[SheepEater]

Most of you already listed the more recent bad ones...

How about this oldie.... why did I buy this again? Oh yeah, because it was cheap.

[Jim]

When disregarding all other subthemes, this is the list we are looking at:

http://www.brickset.com/browse/themes/?theme=Technic&subtheme={None}

How about this set (expansion pack) for value for money. A dollar per part OMG! I know it's tires and rims, but still. They could have thrown in some additional pieces.

http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=5219-1

Edited January 24, 2013 by Gekke Ted

[Kumbbl]

  On 1/24/2013 at 12:04 AM, Blakbird said:

I think this thread proves that one man's garbage is another man's gold, and therefore you will get no agreement on worst sets. Seems that all the sets appealed to someone.

well spoken... the 855 is a good example for this: Of course one can say "It's a limited crane without steering" but IMHO one can also say "What a genius design of the crane mechanics, lifting and extending boom work very very - as blackbird already said, for that time with these limited parts available, it'ts really very well done"

855 was one of my favorites when i was child... and it is a perfect basis for a MOC with 2 axle steering and a cab... if i rember right, the crane mechanics was also an inspiration of Jennifer Clark for her own mobile crane... so: no more comments necessary ;-)

  On 1/24/2013 at 12:04 AM, Blakbird said:

The barcode set is my profile picture, as you can see, and is probably in my top 5 favorite sets ever, so I was surprised to hear anyone call it the worst. It was so innovative and worked so well. I can only assume the people who didn't like it got one that was damaged. My works fantastically in all the models.

i fully agree... a very innovative set with great mechanics which is also in my Top-ten-list of the best technics sets ever but of course it is also somehow very special - so at least i can understand that people are disappointed and do not rate it high....

[chorlton]

  On 1/23/2013 at 5:46 PM, Saberwing40k said:

The absolut stinkers for me would have to be 855 and 857, which look absoultley terrible.

855 was an awesome set at the time! I got a LOT of playability from it in the '80s, probably second only to 8860.

[Timoonn]

mmh, 8277 and 8289 are pretty bad.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Timoonn