Opinions on LEGO Technic Theme

[Jim]

Of course! Any time   

One can have good discussions, with or without beers  

[Maaboo the Witch]

10 minutes ago, Jim said:

Of course! Any time   

One can have good discussions, with or without beers  

Like now.

[Bublehead]

I think the recent discussions on size, part count (which = cost) and functionality tends to muddy the waters of what is a good set verses what people think is a bad set.  Because most arguments can be swung in both directions like a dead cat and still hit their target.

Some will say big is great if function count requires the increase in size, while others will say small is great if function count is high, while others will say a set is great if part count is low but function count is high.

Its like that old saying about quality, price, and delivery time.  You can only pick two out of three.

So for Lego Technic, that would be function count, size, and price.

If you want high function count and large size it’s not going to be cheap,

If you want large size, and cheap, it’s not going have a lot of functions,

and if you want high function count and cheap, it’s not going to be very large.

 

[Maaboo the Witch]

Let's test that.

1: 42055 disproves this.

2: Again, 42055 disproves this.

3: 42004 proves this.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Maaboo35

[Bublehead]

@Maaboo35, in the vein of humor let me counter... 42055 has only two functions... move itself and move bricks. And I got mine for $150, so it was big and cheap and low function count.  I think it proves the rule.  

[Maaboo the Witch]

4 minutes ago, Bublehead said:

@Maaboo35, in the vein of humor let me counter... 42055 has only two functions... move itself and move bricks. And I got mine for $150, so it was big and cheap and low function count.  I think it proves the rule.  

Ah!... you're forgetting the truck. Steering and tipping. 

[Bublehead]

@Maaboo35, dang it! I knew you were going to bring that dump truck into this... ? 

[Blakbird]

Interesting discussion.  While recording the history of the brand writing Technicopedia I had a lot of time to ponder the changes over the years.  In the beginning there was obviously more of a sense of new discovery because the designers were just figuring out what could be done with the system and in that sense were in the same boat as the fans.  Every new set had never been done before. To a certain extent this happened again when the switch to studless happened, but that was a gradual shift that occurred over a period of about 10 years.  Besides the nostalgia for childhood, I think another factor that makes new sets seem less exciting is that everything has been done before so there's nothing new under the sun.  Even the introduction of new parts is only going to make small incremental changes possible in any new set.

The Internet has also drastically changed our expectations.  In 1982 the set you bought in the store was probably vastly better than what you could make or what you saw your friends make.  Now you can see what the most talented fans in the world have made every single day and it is not a fair comparison because there is no constraint on what a fan can build since it doesn't need to be a marketable product.  Like comparing a girlfriend to a wife.

Regarding B-models, I would be willing to guess that they result in virtually no incremental sales which is why there is not much focus on them.  By this I mean that hardly anyone will decide whether or not to buy a set based on the quality of the B-model.  That said, I think it has been a long time since we have seen a truly excellent B-model.  I'm thinking of the 8480 submarine or the 8862 combine or the 8868 garbage truck.  These really showed off what you could do with the parts in the kit.  I also miss the pure creative goodness of the universal sets.  Think of something like 8062 which was relatively inexpensive yet had 7(!) really ingenious models to build.  It seems like this concept has moved into Mindstorms.

As for the recent trend towards giant sets, I guess I'll have to take the blame (credit) for that.  Look back at the posts over the last decade and you'll see that whenever TLG was looking for feedback on the future I was asking for $300 sets or "UCS style" Technic.  Now we have it.  I don't always use my immortal power for good, but when I do, we get cool LEGO stuff.  Next time I'll work on the color vomit.

[Bublehead]

21 minutes ago, Blakbird said:

Regarding B-models,

There was a time when the B Model was presented on the reverse of the box with as much flare and limited wording which allowed retailers to display either side almost as if the B Model was the A model.  When stock got low,they could increase their “offerings” by simply turning a box backward. There were times when I got excited because I thought they had released a new model and it was just a B model of a set that I had not bought yet.  Then, and I would guess this was due to market research, they started the 2 in 1 campaign to inform parents that this toy made more things than the main model, and the back of the box started showcasing the main model features, with a small picture of the B model.  Yes, there were epic B models out there, but mostly they were somewhat limited in functionality compared to the main model.  

The main point here is there was a time when you wanted to buy the set to discover the features, they were not showcased on the box, and every build was a discovery of what the model could do, each feature as you completed it, and then the final play mode once finished.

This included the B model. And the kicker was, if you liked the A model too much, you sprung for a second copy to build the B without tearing the A apart (if you could afford it) or just say goodbye to the A model and build the B, play with it, then rebuild the A model to put back on your shelf.  

I think relegating the B model  instructions to online download has really made the B model an afterthought, and the need for instant gratification on a model’s functions (by showcasing every one) has made the discovery element of the build a lost part of the experience.

[BrickbyBrickTechnic]

1 hour ago, Bublehead said:

42055 has only two functions... move itself and move bricks

Well in that case 42082 only has one function, move the crane, doesn't it? Why do we need 4000 pieces to move a crane? It's clear the thing is bigger than it needs to be (76cm long in closed configuration); it could have been done in 2000 pieces, even with @Jim's wheel covers.

[Bublehead]

@BrickbyBrickTechnic, my post was meant as humor, but as for size and the RTC, are you looking for functionality and low cost? I think the size creep and cost creep are here to stay.  Especially when it comes to the yearly flagship or as we have been experiencing, the twice a year offerings 1H/2H.

[AVCampos]

6 hours ago, Blakbird said:

I think it has been a long time since we have seen a truly excellent B-model.

What about the 42078 Mack truck? The 42079 forklift also appears to be well headed.

[agrof]

@AVCampos is right, the Mack is great in every aspect, the garbage truck is on pair with any A model, and 42079 seems to be my most anticipated set for 2H for me.

Though, I would warmly welcome Creator like 5-in-1 sets (500-800 pcs), of course with printed instructions. That could be also show the versatility of Technic system, and also great learning material.

Edited July 7, 2018 by agrof

[JonathanM]

A few other great B models of recent times would be 42053 and 42055. 42068 was pretty good too I think. Further back, 42024 jumps out as one that was a bit unexpected.

[Jim]

14 hours ago, Blakbird said:

Besides the nostalgia for childhood, I think another factor that makes new sets seem less exciting is that everything has been done before so there's nothing new under the sun.  Even the introduction of new parts is only going to make small incremental changes possible in any new set.

Exactly this! LEGO Technic is designed for youngsters who will play with it for about five years or so. As AFOLs we see the same sets over and over. We only see incremental changes, applied to the same type of sets.

In other words; we have seen it all. Which makes it hard to be (or stay) really really excited. Admittedly, I don't suffer from this as much as some of you do. In general, I do like the new sets, and I don't expect them to be perfect. LEGO still has it's limits. And frankly, TLG does a pretty good job improving parts for better solutions. All things considered I am still very happy with the product.

[zoo]

The main problem I see with very large technic creations (both official sets and MOCs) is the stress on the plastic parts that make up the models. Making the model too heavy will stress parts beyond their limit. Parts added purely for looks increase the weight without adding much to function.

Having said that, I usually feel very strongly for the aesthetics of a model and want it to function well while looking good. At the same time I want all parts to be technic bricks. I don't like it when I have to pay for parts like the chainsaw and logs in the 42080 Forest Harvester for example.

Edited July 7, 2018 by zoo

[Jim]

14 hours ago, Blakbird said:

The Internet has also drastically changed our expectations.  In 1982 the set you bought in the store was probably vastly better than what you could make or what you saw your friends make.  Now you can see what the most talented fans in the world have made every single day and it is not a fair comparison because there is no constraint on what a fan can build since it doesn't need to be a marketable product.  Like comparing a girlfriend to a wife.

And this...absolutely. In the good old days, you didn't know any better. Maybe your neighbour kid had better skills, or more LEGO, so he produced better MOCs, but other than that, you had no clue what could be done with LEGO. Add Bricklink to the mix and the sky is the limit.

I tend to repeat myself, but LEGO still is a toy produced by a company to make money. The fact that TLG listens to AFOLs is awesome, but at the end of the day...money counts. The reason TLG releases a crane every two or three years is that cranes sell. It's not more complicated than that. The reason that they create a car (8070, 42039, 42077, etc) is that cars sell. Kids love cars. Complaining that these cars aren't very complicated is futile. They are what they are, cars. Maybe I'm putting myself too much in a TLG employee position, but for me it's fairly easy to understand most of the decisions. 

8 minutes ago, zoo said:

The main problem I see with very large technic creations (both official sets and MOCs) is the stress on the plastic parts that make up the models. Making the model too heavy will stress parts beyond their limit. Parts added purely for looks increase the weight without adding much to function.

Having said that, I usually feel very strongly for the aesthetics of a model and want it to function well while looking good. At the same time I want all parts to be technic bricks. I don't like it when I have to pay for parts like the chainsaw and logs in the 42080 Forest Harvester for example.

That is actually a valid point about big models. The Porsche and Bugatti are virtually non-steerable, because of the weight. The suspension isn't working, partially because of the weight (more because the friction pins). So yeah, I think you are making a valid point. Have we reached the limits?

[Jim]

8 hours ago, AVCampos said:

What about the 42078 Mack truck? The 42079 forklift also appears to be well headed.

True. BWE. 42069 also kinda neat. 42039 and 42038. I think we are doing more than okay in the B-model department.

[allanp]

Personally, regarding size and part count, I think we are quite far away from any limits as far as the strength of ABS plastic goes. The Porsche and Bugatti could have excellent steering and suspension, if there were larger steering arms and stronger springs. The Bugatti is solid as a rock with very little bending so I don't think strength of ABS is an issue proving the model it designed well enough. @Jim makes an excellent point about cars and cranes selling well, so we're going to see more of them. And no matter how many we see, or how large they become, I can always be excited for a new set if it has something new to offer. Cranes usually have planetary gear reduction in the wheels. They have a reeeeaaaaalllly long cyclinder to extend the boom. They have multiple pulleys on their hooks to increase lifting capacity. Many cranes have leaf spring  suspention. If Lego released a crane with all these new parts would anyone complain that the set was yet another crane? Or what if it was a huge American fire engine with lots of chrome pieces, realistic looking chrome wheels with enough room for the steering pivot inside the wheel, insane exterior detailing, white pneumatics to lift the white triple extending ladder, red pneumatics for the stabilisers, leaf spring suspention and light/sound module for the horn and flashing lights and beacons, would anyone complain that it was 5000 pieces or more? So for me it really doesn't matter if it's a model we've seen many times before as it can always offer something new. Its cool if the piece count goes up and up so long as it's not just for the sake of it. 

[Jim]

15 minutes ago, allanp said:

So for me it really doesn't matter if it's a model we've seen many times before as it can always offer something new. Its cool if the piece count goes up and up so long as it's not just for the sake of it. 

[Jeroen Ottens]

For me the size of the new sets is off-putting. Even though I am designing massive models myself I use that extra space for extra functionality. Having to build for 9 hours to build a car that steers, drives and has a gearbox feels for me as a too big investment in time (not to mention another 5 hours to take it apart and sort everything away). So far I have always built every (first copy of a) model that I bought, but I am seriously considering not to build the Chiron or the crane (while I will still buy them for the parts).

So from a purely economical standpoint LEGO is still doing the right thing for me because I will keep purchasing the new models for the parts, but the joy is less with these huge-size, function-poor models. I'd rather spend my time on designing compact & smaller scale models that are packed with features. For me the pinnacle of this in the last years was the Claas, that is such an intricate model packed with exciting functions. I also like the challenge of a 1:10 scale car better than a 1:8 scale car. The LEGO system is not suited for that scale I think. Beams are too short, which means you need a lot of bracing & double width beams to keep it rigid. I read that the Chiron feels quite stiff, but the underside of the car is not looking elegant at all from an engineering point of view. At some point I count 6 stacked beams in the floor...

Of course it also depends on the designer. Uwe is a master in the economic use of parts, so his models are usually much lighter in terms of structural elements without sacrificing stiffness or rigidity. This gives a lot of room for extra functionality (see for instance the build-thread of @grum64 of the 8258 as a perfect example of this). Even the loathed 42070 is a beauty from an engineering standpoint I think. I actually really enjoyed that build. It uses the parts so efficiently and still packs a load of functions in it. Too bad the pricetag was so high.

So I hope the trend will reverse towards more Claas like models, maybe even larger models at that scale.

[zoo]

2 hours ago, allanp said:

I think we are quite far away from any limits as far as the strength of ABS plastic goes. The Porsche and Bugatti could have excellent steering and suspension, if there were larger steering arms and stronger springs. The Bugatti is solid as a rock with very little bending so I don't think strength of ABS is an issue proving the model it designed well enough.

I didn't mean the material was the problem. The shape of the element is a lot more important than the actual material used in regards bending resistance and so on. You say "If there were larger steering arms" and that is just the thing. The basis of my comment was that with the current parts catalogue, the largest models I see around here simply are too big. However, every new brick that LEGO designs has the potential to increase the possibilities of creating even larger models than what we see today. That is the future though, who knows what will happen?

I'll put it this way. What good is a crane if it struggles to lift its own boom?

[grum64]

3 hours ago, Jeroen Ottens said:

... (see for instance the build-thread of @grum64 ...

Careful there Jeroen. Pointing members toward my build thread is likely to cause an outbreak of mass narcolepsy 

Edited July 7, 2018 by grum64

[Bublehead]

I don’t think we will ever see TLG limited by size due to strength of ABS. If they continue with the trend of 5x7 frames and Znaps-like weldments then we will continue to see big BWE-sized models. They can always engineer something bigger than the market will bear.

As for my own MOCs, I have been asked why make it so big, and my answer is because I could. I have no limits on creation that TLG has like ROI, Market saturation, brand competition, production costs, tooling, labor, packaging, graphics, artwork, focus groups, social network presence, community outreach, advertising, promotion, media contacts, etc... etc...

There is an upper limit because of the above factors that TLG must navigate to stay competitive and stay in business.  So the trend towards bigger models will not be sustainable in the long run.  They will absolutely have to focus on the flotsam and jetsam of the smaller models to keep the theme alive. Parents buy toys incrementally as funds (dispensable income) allow. It’s way more likely a parent will buy 3 to 5 small models a year for a child than these massive Christmas or birthday present worthy flagships.

[lcvisser]

I'm with @Jeroen Ottens on this one. For me the increasing size is also off putting. I don't have a lot of space to store assembled models, and also my parts collection has limited space, so the more functions per part, the better in my opinion.

In the studfull era, about a 1000 parts was enough to build a function-packed, awesome flagship model. Look at 8868: 954 parts, giving a big truck with working V6 engine, compressor, pneumatic crane with 4 functions, and some decorative parts even (air filters, exhaust stacks, air horns). 8880: 1051 parts. 8480: 1040 parts.

Now look at the studless era. I'd argue that 42043 is 8868's studless successor: big truck with L6 engine, compressor, pneumatic crane with 4 functions... 2502 parts. To be fair, the Mercedes has suspension on all axles, outriggers and a tipper bed. Also the overall appearance is much more refined that 8868. And, of course, studless building does require a bit more parts in general, so 2500 parts seems a reasonable amount of parts to get to a function packed model. 42009 (2297 parts) and 42078 (2372 parts) prove my point.

So why the increase to 4000+ parts? Are we really getting more functions per part? Are the models really that much more refined? I'm saying no. I think the ~2500 parts is a sweet spot for a studless flagship model and I don't see why we should go to 4000 and up.

Just my €0.02