The Evolution of Styling - Connectors and FlexAxles vs. Panels

[DrJB]

I'm old enough (like many on here) to have seen Technic 'evolve' through many stages. It all started with a rather bare/studded chassis 8860 and 'minimum' functionality. Then came the Super Street Sensation 8448, the Mission 8450, and the Off-Roader 8466. They all used various connectors and flex axles to define the main 'lines' of the vehicle. Lately however, more emphasis is placed on more 'realistic/boxy/closed' looks and extensive use of panels is seen. I think panels have their place, but doesn't that take away from the Technic theme itself? What's the point in building often intricate mechanisms to, in the end, cover it all with 'non-functional' panels? The other 'side-effect' is that now, we see fewer flex axles and connectors, and when we do, they're often available in primarily monochromatic colors (black/white/grey). What are your thoughts on this?

   

Edited December 22, 2017 by DrJB

[MikroMan]

Frankly, I prefer the open approach. To me, Technic is all about seeing awesome complex mechanisms at work. I haven't yet opened my Porsche, but from what I've read, pretty much everything interesting gets covered up, which is one of the reasons I was having trouble deciding whether to buy it. All in all, I'd prefer a conservative usage of panels. But I still prefer the current panel generation to the old ones which often had shapes that were complicated to mount/not enough mounting holes.

[technic_addict]

I enjoy building the intricate mechanisms and have little interest in seeing them after that.  I know how they work after it is built.  I have all models I build on display and only build the ones I want to display.  So I prefer the closed body design.

[Boulderer]

I'm old school in my thoughts on this.  I prefer the open style with the technical elements of the build visible.  853 Car Chassis is still one of my favourite display models.  It's unmistakably Lego, not pretending to be anything else, and over the years has elicited more interest and questions than any other set or MOC that I've displayed.

The panel era has produced great models and MOC's, which I really enjoy and admire.  However, they are becoming more akin to creator or model team, where looks take over from function.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Boulderer

[zor2ox]

A nice design is a conclusion of shape, lines and functions. I think panels serve well to form the shape of design and add sturdy feeling to the model, but I love the way builders around the world use flex cables to emphasize the lines. In newer Technic set like the Porsche, the combination is on point imho. Maybe someday Lego could introduce clear panels, it would be a boom :D

[JGW3000]

For me, technic is about function - if you want a nice display model, buy Creator or City sets.  I see this in my kids also, they build highly functional MOCs which work really well, but look like crap.   In the end, I'd prefer the older means of using axles and connectors rather than panels.

[Lox Lego]

56 minutes ago, technic_addict said:

I enjoy building the intricate mechanisms and have little interest in seeing them after that.  I know how they work after it is built.  I have all models I build on display and only build the ones I want to display.  So I prefer the closed body design.

This is my thought exactly. Once you've built the vehicle, you've got the knowledge of how it functions. Personally, I prefer a little "peek a boo" approach. That is to say that if you can see a hint of the mechanism below, it makes you think of the function without completely giving away the "trick" you used to produce such a function.  

[Didumos69]

@DrJB, you started the same discussion before.

My point of view has not changed:

Lego is all about making 'models'. And to me (sorry, I have an engineering background) 'model' means: Simplification of a system (or thing) that brings about one or more aspects of that system's (or thing's) nature. Models allow us to zoom in on certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. So it's all about what exactly do you want to tell with your model. Take a look at Nico71's Mechanical Calculator. It's an amazing machine and we probably all regard it as something beautiful. Not because of it's looks, but because of what it can do, and that it can be done with Lego bricks. So in this case Nico71 zoomed in on the 'how it works'-aspect rather than the aesthetic aspect.

Now when it comes to cars, there is something delicate going on: There are typically two prevailing - yet quite opposed - aspects that make a car appealing: 1) the looks and 2) what's inside. On the one hand a car should look smooth as if it was cut from a single piece of stone and shaped by the wind. On the other hand it should cover up as many nifty features and powerfull functions as possible. So when it comes to supercars, it doesn't amaze me that using panels has gained popularity over the years. They make it possible to address both aspects.

Personally, being an old-school Lego fan, I like it the most when a Lego model captures the essence of a car - be it a real car or an imaginary car - with a minimal set of lines. Just like a portrait painting, it doesn't need to be as realistic as a photo, as long as it captures the essence.

Source: http://www.scottdesi...-im-working-on/

EDIT: I would like to add one more thing: When I started regaining interest in Lego Technic, all Lego supercars I found on the internet appeared to me as insects - also the more recent ones. I had to get used to them first before I started to actually perceive them as great designs. Just to illustrate that it's all a matter of perception.

[PlastiBots]

I too have been around the block for many years (since Technic was first introduced). I dont mind the progress to date, but I also like the idea of seeing complex mechanisms at work.  I would pay top $$ if LEGO came out with a custom set with transparent outer panels and beams to allow the inner working (engine, gearbox, suspension) to be seen.. i.e the Porsche where all orange bits are clear.  Not the best example (or maybe it is ;-) but this is what I am talking about:

 

[DrJB]

1 hour ago, Didumos69 said:

@DrJB, you started the same discussion before.

 

You're right ... obviously your memory is better than mine :). Though in all fairness, the older thread was primarily about panels vs. no panels. In this new thread, I was motivated by another reason (highlighted in the first post)

The reason for this 'newer' thread is that I was a bit 'frustrated' by connectors becoming rare (my other thread you're contributing to). I'm ok with panels, but I do not want them to come at the expense of other parts/connectors.

1 hour ago, PlastiBots said:

I too have been around the block for many years (since Technic was first introduced). I dont mind the progress to date, but I also like the idea of seeing complex mechanisms at work.  I would pay top $$ if LEGO came out with a custom set with transparent outer panels and beams to allow the inner working (engine, gearbox, suspension) to be seen.. i.e the Porsche where all orange bits are clear.  Not the best example (or maybe it is ;-) but this is what I am talking about:

 

Yes, I agree fully that a clear/transparent' model would be a nice offering. The picture you chose clearly illustrates that what's inside a car matters a lot ... ;).

In fact there are already 'few' technic parts available in Trans colors (15L beam, few connectors, and 1 panel). I wanted a while back to ask that same question (in a dedicated thread) but we do not have a large collection of parts yet. 

Edited December 20, 2017 by DrJB

[1gor]

Imho panels have also supporting function and can make construction more sturdy thay one with flex axles...so I personaly prefer panels

[Boulderer]

I could be swayed in my views by the introduction of transparent panels. That would be a great compromise between the two viewpoints. 

[nerdsforprez]

I think this is a really good question, even if it has been discussed, in similar form, before.  I also really liked the former discussion's spectrum conceptualization, and I think it is important to consider when musing on the topic.  I am not sure there is a "right" or "wrong" answer here.... rather, the best we can do is articulate where we fall on that spectrum and why. 

But one error that I am seeing is the way things are worded.  I think, the spectrum idea, as well as other comments posted, pits looks versus function.  As if having one precluded the other.  I am not sure that is the case.  I think, if anything, lately we have seen some outstanding MOCs in terms of both looks AND function.  I also think that having an emphasis on one does not make the other irrelevant or less meaningful.  One may point to 42056 to highlight an example of looks versus function.... .but that model was a product of TLG under their self-imposed constraints.  Take those constraints away, and some of the recent MOCs we have seen lately, at least in my opinion, are increasing in both looks and function.  We have tons of "looks versus functioning" conversations, I hope this thread doesn't disintegrate into that. 

Really what I think the topic is hinting at is simply the "liking" of a paneled, covering look versus a more transparent look.  I actually like the paneled look, and don't think it distracts or takes away from the function of a model, or the appeal of the functions at all.  In fact, IMO, it increases my interest in the model.  It helps compartmentalize it.  First, by seeing its visual appeal, then, when panels, etc. are removed, to be stunned that there are surprises underneath and appreciate its function.  When people build in modular form it also helps with this compartmentalization.   I could even insert the cheesy quip "its like an onion..... there are many different layers".....

Or.... even make an even cheesier connection to like a romantic interest..... first, the visual appeal and connection to the person, then the emotional and intellectual connection/appeal.......but, I won't go there....

[Jeroen Ottens]

Even though I tend to make quite heavily paneled models myself I do think I like semi transparent models better. It has something to do with capturing the essence of a model if you can use a minimal set of elements to convey it's shape. I have a similar feeling towards the inner structure by the way. That is why I like the 42070 over the 42069. The minimalistic design of the 42070 sparks more joy in me than the dense, but (to my opinion) cluttered design of the 42069 (which is offset by the price difference, but if that difference had not been there I think more people would have liked the 42070).

@Lox Lego: I agree wholeheartily with your peek-a-boo comment. Seeing that something incredibly complex is going on inside, but not being able to distinguish what it is really adds to the excitement I think. Too open and there is no secret, too closed up and you don't even know it is there.

[Andy D]

It depends on the model. A super car or something looks good with panels, usually not too many interesting functions in there, maybe a gearbox or some suspension or steering, but that's most of it.

For models that are highly mechanical, like the BWE or 42042 or GBCs I like seeing as much as I can of the functions.

So, in my mind there is a place for both, it all depends on the model.

Andy D

[Erik Leppen]

Panels, or flex axles, or bricks and plates, or tiles and curved slopes, are all design choices. I think they are equally valid, and each poses their own unique set of challenges (weight, structural integrity, number of parts available/required, etc.) and they also have their own styles, and different substyles in each, and combinations. Each style choice can be appreciated. One of the things I really like in a model, is a sense of coherence. Coherence in style, coherence in detail, etc. That is, that the different sections of a model have the same amount of detailing and the same style. If one section of the model has much more closed forms and another section is open, it doesn't seem to "flow" as nicely. (I notice how hard these kinds of things are to put in words).

In official sets, I am also lucky enough to have seen a large part of the transistion, my oldest set being 8853. I think every age has some really good-looking sets. I think 8880 is a beautiful model, for example, because it has a very clear style. A few years further, you arrive at 8479 (the green Barcode/Scanner Truck) which I find one of the best-looking studded sets which has a bit of a Model Team vibe to it. A few years later you get 8462, the futuristic blue tow truck whose design is sometimes frowned upon by fans, but I really like it because, although the style may not be my taste, I personally find it really well-balanced and coherent.

8448 is also really nice, because it's good at suggesting shapes that aren't actually there. @Didumos69 in his post explains how modeling is about representing part of a system, which means modelling is also about leaving certain things out (abstracting them away). As a modeler you can use the brains of your viewers to fill in the gaps for you (artists do this; painters, musicians etc). You draw a few curved lines and the viewer's mind sees a windscreen. That way you can create something without actually creating it.

A fallback in design quality came ardound the time of 8436, where the studless has more or less "taken over" with panels becoming more important but the newer panels not yet designed. And personally I feel that bulldozer 8275 (which has completely its own style concidentally) marks a turnaround point from when the Technic designers started moving more and more towards the current mainly-paneled "design style" they kept for the last 10 years.

[Jeroen Ottens]

Just now, Erik Leppen said:

Panels, or flex axles, or bricks and plates, or tiles and curved slopes, are all design choices. I think they are equally valid, and each poses their own unique set of challenges (weight, structural integrity, number of parts available/required, etc.) and they also have their own styles, and different substyles in each, and combinations. Each style choice can be appreciated. One of the things I really like in a model, is a sense of coherence. Coherence in style, coherence in detail, etc. That is, that the different sections of a model have the same amount of detailing and the same style. If one section of the model has much more closed forms and another section is open, it doesn't seem to "flow" as nicely. (I notice how hard these kinds of things are to put in words).

A fallback in design quality came ardound the time of 8436, where the studless has more or less "taken over" with panels becoming more important but the newer panels not yet designed. And personally I feel that bulldozer 8275 (which has completely its own style concidentally) marks a turnaround point from when the Technic designers started moving more and more towards the current mainly-paneled "design style" they kept for the last 10 years.

I second the coherence argument. It is one of the things I also admire a lot in models.
I am not sure the panel style was 'kept' for the last ten years. I feel that this has evolved towards more and more paneling and less flexaxles and less suggestions of form. I do hope we will get a next step in that evolution which will bring (back) that balance between looks and functionality.

[Erik Leppen]

I think you're right Jeroen. My wording wasn't optimal. I think what I try to say is that over the last years they kept moving in a certain direction.

[Bartybum]

While panels do offer structural rigidity, I’ve gotta say that for cars I’m a much bigger fan of flex axles, because of the curved contours and shapes they allow for, unlike panels. For example, 8448 does this beautifully, whereas 42077 and 42039 suffer from a very boxy aesthetic. This is especially noticeable when looking at their wheel arches. The point of panels is to cover up gaps, and you can’t do that on curved bodies without either using a crazy amount of pieces or leaving gaps in the bodywork, which to me makes the model look rather unfinished. The rear quarter panels and nose of 42056 suffer from this. Flex axles make a model look much more graceful.

42056’s nose also suffers from an ugly bump due to the 3x11 curved panel which could be avoided with the use of flex axles instead.

For sets such as 42009, 42055, 8258, etc. the panel system works very well because the vehicles in these sets are boxy to begin with.

I’d prefer flex axles to be much more prevalent than panels in Technic cars.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Bartybum

[Leonardo da Bricki]

An interesting discussion to read through. I'll add my voice, and just say that I think a mix of the two works best, looks best, and is best. Flex axles are used to round out anything, like fenders and windshields and bumpers and whatever else, in order to give a nice, and accurate shape. Then, a few panels are added into the model, their purpose is, with the rectangular ones, for use in the chassis as reinforcement and support. The others are used to artistically fill in some of the larger gaps, and to add details where needed, like on a spoiler, or as part of the grille, or something else. The overall result is a model with distinct lines, one that is aesthetically pleasing, and hints at the functions inside, whether through exposed gears, a visible engine, a driveshaft, or some sort of linkage among it's bodywork.

And as a last note, I sure as heck wish Lego used more flex axles in more colors, I cannot afford them while trying to get through college! $5 a piece?! What is it?! 14K gold?!

Edited December 21, 2017 by Leonardo da Bricki
Curse of Misspelling was cast

[Lipko]

I agree with the peek-a-boo comment and also with the coherence. That's why I don't like the new Mack. Smooth, studded fully closed face with a panels-and-gaps hood and a pinholes here-and-there body. That plate at the end of the cabin with the studded 30-year-old 2x8 technic plates is extremely ugly and out-of-place.

Paneling can be an art on its own. The perfect balance between parts and gaps, lines and surfaces, recurring motifs (be it a simple part fixing method) makes a model stand out visually. Like Francisco Hartley's models (he's my favorite builder in therms of visuals). It's also interesting that the style I like in others' models is not the same I would like to see in my models (I want to build more closed models and I focus on legal and exciting connections much more). It's similar to music. I don't want to play music similar to the ones I like the most.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Lipko

[Boulderer]

As ever, extremely coherent and well rounded points of view. I can relate to all, to a greater or lesser extent. I think my fear is that, by focussing on aesthetics more and more, TLG start to develop pieces that are less modular and look more like the specific feature they are representing thus detracting from the creativity of the brick build.

[valenciaeric]

When Lego was going through its crisis period in the late 90s, one of the decisions they made to turn around the company was to go back to more realistic looking models away from stuff like Jack Stone. It could be part of that same philosophy that they started using panels in Technic but there has definitely been an increase in the last 3 years. 42025 was one of the earlier exponents with panels making up a huge % of the inventory.

[agrof]

For me: I don't think that evolution is the exact word to describe the relation between connectors, flex axles and panels. I see each of these as individual parts and see the opportunities how one can use them. I am a big fan of out-of-the-box way thinking, panels are not only covers, but great and light structural elements too. It is the designer who decides which direction to go, we have great examples for with panels and without panels kind of MOCs.

Just quick examples - speaking about cars, I took 2 examples below. Both are fantastic, and the most important: use consequent design language, with taste.

LIpko made it right, it would be a mistake to hide the detailed roll-cage, and the technical bits, like suspension, etc. The shape is to be estimated, and the flex axles, connectors help perfectly to drive the eye.

Madoca uses with very good feeling all the parts: connectors, flex axles, panels to create a very appealing bodywork. Although technically it is also very unique and great on the inside, let's be honest, there is not much to observe on 4 L motors, BB, and Sbrick - they are just big gray blocks. To "compensate" this, the bodywork was made extremely well.

So each part has the deserved place in the building spectrum for me, You can not blame parts for making a model looking good or not, it is the design choice of how to use them. Maybe for official sets it is not the best decision to use wheel arches like today, I like them neither - too blocky for being one piece, or feels too overdone, out-of system, like the Porsche fenders. But I am for open wheel vehicles anyway.  

Still, there can be a "good" reason to follow this dressed-up trend: it is getting harder day to day to get the attention of people in this rushed world, vibrant colors, appealing look comes first (selfies - sounds familiar?). If there is a flex axle beside the wheel arches, which forms nicer shape, it will pop out immediately as one grabs on. Reaction? "Oh, it falls apart, this is shit!" - and will be shouted around the internet. Yeah, things are not like in the old days. But no reason for moaning, we can build whatever we want, this was not taken away, right? 

Edit: I consider look as function too, especially in Lego, but in real life as well: think about aerodynamics.

Might be my conclusion: for models with interesting moveable drivetrains, solutions, I prefer open chassis, for models where not much to see under the shell (RC, pneumatics sometimes - 42053) I like good looking paneled job too.

Edited December 21, 2017 by agrof

[Didumos69]

I can resonate with practically all of the things said here. A very accessible book comes to mind, which has been a valuable guideline throughout my career sofar: 'Machine Beauty: Elegance And The Heart Of Technology' by David Gelernter:

"When something works well, you can feel it; there is a sense of rightness to it. We call that rightness beauty, and it ought to be the single most important component of design. This recognition is at the heart of David Gelernter's witty argued essay, Machine Beauty, which defines beauty as an inspired mating of simplicity and power."

It addresses the fact that Technology is more - if not only - successful when it goes hand in hand with elegance. He speaks of rightness when there is good balance between function and design. I think the things mentioned here, like the peek a boo approach, the coherence, a good balance between looks and technical functions, etc, all attribute to that rightness.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Didumos69