Chmashdehjare

Technic vs System definition

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure the best forum to ask this since it spans a couple of sub-areas, but I'm mostly a technic guy so I'll ask it here.

I've been reading the discussion on the Mack Anthem and seeing lots of comments about the inclusion of system pieces in a technic set. That got me curious as to what the actual difference is since I really don't know. Prior to seeing the big emphasis on this issue for this set I had tended to think of the system vs technic being more of a set issue, not a parts issue. 

I know the current technic is very studless with beams and lift arms and what not.  Is the difference simply that technic is the studless variety and system pieces are studs on top?  Is there more to it? I know I also see references in, for example, City set reviews mentioning including technic pieces because there's an axle or a gear in the set.

Going through my head I must also say is wondering why it matters. Bricks are bricks, aren't they (did I just say something sacrilegious?).  I'm writing this with "Can't we all just get along" roaming through my head.  :-)

Thanks!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the easiest one: Technic=no studs, System=studs. There are other ways to define it, but that is simplest and least pedantic.:classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Saberwing40k said:

Here's the easiest one: Technic=no studs, System=studs. There are other ways to define it, but that is simplest and least pedantic.:classic:

I want to see Saberwing make a Technic creation that includes this Technic piece - https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=13392pb02#T=C&C=157 :-)

More seriously, I think it actually doesn't matter. We can argue until we're blue in the face about what makes a piece Technic or not, but whatever definition we come up with will have edge-case parts that are (or are not) definitely Technic but the definition says otherwise, or which the definition can't determine.

Pretty much ever categorisation system humans have ever devised has the same problem, even if it's obvious for most things which bucket they go into, there will be some things that defy the buckets. i.e. A tree is definitely a plant, and a fish is definitely an animal, but there are things that are both kind-of plant and kind-of animal.

Edited by Captainowie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

Here's the easiest one: Technic=no studs, System=studs. There are other ways to define it, but that is simplest and least pedantic.:classic:

And there I was, thinking that all those engines in models were technic, and all along they've been system ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaand I've just kicked the hornet's nest, haven't I? The argument between Technic and system is rather broad, I just picked the simplest solution, which makes a lot of sweeping generalizations. Also, that dolphin does not count, even under my simple definition. It has no studs, yes, but it primarily connects to studs, so it's not Technic. I'd say there are ultimately 2 categories, but they have a lot of overlap. A chart of Lego pieces would work best as a Venn diagram, with Technic on one side, and System on the other, because there is an amount of overlap. For instance, under my rules, Technic bricks are System parts. But, they can be connected without studs, hence why the opposing category system does not work. Technic is not nearly as separate from system as some might think.

 

But, you're right. Bricks are bricks, and it should not really matter which is which.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saberwing40k said:

Here's the easiest one: Technic=no studs, System=studs. There are other ways to define it, but that is simplest and least pedantic.:classic:

I haven't really checked but to me this definition would feel odd. Hasn't Technic been using studded elements longer than it has studdless ones? Not sure when the break was but it happened after I stoped building with LEGO in the 90s and before I started again a couple of years ago. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technic = doesn't hurt to stand on! :wink:

When trying to classify a part, think of parts that are obviously technic (such as liftarms, axles, gears etc), and then consider parts that are obviously system (such as bricks, plates, slopes etc). Which does your part look most like? It's probably that one. Unfortunately, the 'original' technic parts mentioned by @zoo were 'technic bricks', whose classification under this system is nearly impossible. They're the bridge that allows the two styles to interface easily.

I think in the case of the Mack Anthem, as mentioned by @Chmashdehjare, the 'system' parts referred to are the wedge plates, slopes, curved tiles etc employed around the nose to give it some fine shaping and detailing, that would not be possible with 'technic' alone.

But who cares? I combine both in most of my builds anyway, so distinctions aren't really necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Saberwing40k Nothing wrong with kicking a hornets nest once in a while :grin:  

Edited by Boulderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.