What do you think? Should the new LEGO Technic Sets be with RC(s) and/or Motor(s) vs. none of the previous, or (...)?

[Idris]

Hi again,

Especially the Technic Fans part of this community, hosts people from almost all ages, say 9+

So, I think, this is a tough question:

What do you think: Should the newer sets have more models which are:

* More complex but without motor(s) and/or RC,

* More complex and with motor(s) and RC,

* Less complex but without motor(s) and/or RC,

* Less complex and with motor(s) and RC,

* Stay in the same "choice/production system by LEGO" or,

* Leave the moddings/mods to the MOC creators?

You may say that "it depends", you may say that "the topic is stupidly created because some are more into classic models with lots of mechanical but not motorized/RC parts, some do, so there is no definitive answer to this",

BUT, I would kindly like to have your OWN thoughts.

For example; I would like to see a Bugatti Chiron Set which has the same complex system, but also being able to be remote controlled and capable of reaching at least 25 km/h.

Take this topic like a poll with detailed answers with intra-members-communication, as well.

I hope I made myself clear.

Many thanks in advance and,

Best Regards,

Idris

Edited April 25, 2019 by Idris

[Johnny1360]

I like all those options and I am glad that LEGO sees fit to offer so many different sets so that hopefully there is something for everyone's taste. I imagine no matter what they do though there will always be some who will be critical of their offerings. 

[sirslayer]

 The trend for RC and motors for the 2019 sets are only maybe 2 sets I can think of..  Maybe next year the Power Up technics set might spring up..  

[allanp]

2019 will have 3 RC sets (that I know of) which I think is a record number of RC sets in one year. 

As an asset that can be added to a set, I don't have a problem with RC itself. And yet whenever I see a new RC set I know it's probably not for me (besides the summer 2019 "SUV" due to rumours of planetary gear drive!). This is because I prize mechanical authenticity above all. This is what can elevate a Technic set from being just a toy to being a miniature version of the real thing while still being a toy. It doesn't have to be difficult or complex. In fact real life gearboxes are mechanically far simpler and more intuitive that what you find in the Porsche or the Chiron especially. So if you miss a gear out in building a real gearbox you would see it immediately and you would know where it's supposed to be, even though they are all the same colour. But with the Lego gearboxes, all the colour vomit in the world won't make it any easier or more intuitive. Mechanical authenticity makes things appeal to kids of all ages with no upper limit while making it easier and more initiative in a way that colour coding could only dream of. And yet not one single RC set to ever have been released has been remotely mechanically authentic. You either get something that's got some nice complexity but is completely mechanically inauthentic, like 8043 excavator or 42070, or more often you get something that's not only mechanically inauthentic but also mechanically boring, with a motor coupled almost directly to it's function through a linear actuator. This is true for all larger RC sets. I think this is because to have a mechanically authentic RC set you have to have two sets crammed into one, with a mechanically authentic base model crammed with a whole bunch of servo motors to interface with the controls, which would be expensive. Far cheaper to do away with the authentic mechanics between the RC components and the functions they are powering, and have the RC components coupled as simply and directly to the functions as possible. This is why I personally don't like RC sets. Not because RC is bad in itself, but because of all the compromises in mechanical authenticity they make in order to include it. I did have some hope for 42100, with it's size and piece count and the new pneumatic valves being designed to seeming mesh perfectly with some new servo motor. But alas it's not to be, it turned out to be another linear actuator driven monster. RC has the potential to be a great asset to any set. There are even some real life vehicles that are remote controlled, obviously combining RC control with the cool mechanics you see in real vehicles using servo motors to interface between the two. But Lego just haven't done it yet.

[sirslayer]

I would think when I added 2 x XL Lego motors in my Lego set 42093 is mechanical authenticity!!?? Its hooked to the tiny V8 which mechanical is not accurate and my mod made it more accurate and I hope the tiny pistons don't fly to the moon because of my mechanical design to coupled the two Xl DC motors to that tiny V8 is a feat of engineering!! 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by sirslayer

[Carsten Svendsen]

1 hour ago, allanp said:

2019 will have 3 RC sets (that I know of) which I think is a record number of RC sets in one year. 

As an asset that can be added to a set, I don't have a problem with RC itself. And yet whenever I see a new RC set I know it's probably not for me (besides the summer 2019 "SUV" due to rumours of planetary gear drive!). This is because I prize mechanical authenticity above all. This is what can elevate a Technic set from being just a toy to being a miniature version of the real thing while still being a toy. It doesn't have to be difficult or complex. In fact real life gearboxes are mechanically far simpler and more intuitive that what you find in the Porsche or the Chiron especially. So if you miss a gear out in building a real gearbox you would see it immediately and you would know where it's supposed to be, even though they are all the same colour. But with the Lego gearboxes, all the colour vomit in the world won't make it any easier or more intuitive. Mechanical authenticity makes things appeal to kids of all ages with no upper limit while making it easier and more initiative in a way that colour coding could only dream of. And yet not one single RC set to ever have been released has been remotely mechanically authentic. You either get something that's got some nice complexity but is completely mechanically inauthentic, like 8043 excavator or 42070, or more often you get something that's not only mechanically inauthentic but also mechanically boring, with a motor coupled almost directly to it's function through a linear actuator. This is true for all larger RC sets. I think this is because to have a mechanically authentic RC set you have to have two sets crammed into one, with a mechanically authentic base model crammed with a whole bunch of servo motors to interface with the controls, which would be expensive. Far cheaper to do away with the authentic mechanics between the RC components and the functions they are powering, and have the RC components coupled as simply and directly to the functions as possible. This is why I personally don't like RC sets. Not because RC is bad in itself, but because of all the compromises in mechanical authenticity they make in order to include it. I did have some hope for 42100, with it's size and piece count and the new pneumatic valves being designed to seeming mesh perfectly with some new servo motor. But alas it's not to be, it turned out to be another linear actuator driven monster. RC has the potential to be a great asset to any set. There are even some real life vehicles that are remote controlled, obviously combining RC control with the cool mechanics you see in real vehicles using servo motors to interface between the two. But Lego just haven't done it yet.

Sorry mate, but no one is going to read that wall of text. Break up the lines man, you ever heard of an "ENTER" key?

[Seasider]

Some of the best sets are often the non powered ones in my opinion. Like all Lego themes I think there should be a spread of all types of models. The current tracked Forrest grabber model is a great example of a good Technic set. Powered doesn’t necessarily equal great 

[suffocation]

7 minutes ago, Carsten Svendsen said:

Sorry mate, but no one is going to read that wall of text. Break up the lines man, you ever heard of an "ENTER" key?

I guess you're not very familiar with Joyce, Faulkner & McElroy

Back on topic, allanp makes some excellent points. I remember having the time of my life building 42009 just because the sheer amount of gears had me wondering what a certain section of the transmission did or how the two gearboxes would interface. Then I built 42030 and after the first handful of steps it became a snoozefest.

I designed and built one fully remote-controlled model and it was more than enough to get most of the "OMG full RC!" out of my system. I find hybrid models much more enjoyable, with RC drive and steering and then a single motor driving a series of other functions through a distribution gearbox. Hence also my morbid fetish for tow trucks.

I'd be happy to see more sets like 42008 but pushed even further, with lots of functions crammed into as little space as possible.

[allanp]

2 hours ago, Carsten Svendsen said:

Sorry mate, but no one is going to read that wall of text. Break up the lines man, you ever heard of an "ENTER" key?

Sorry  It's mostly stuff I've said here before anyway 

[Maaboo the Witch]

I like it when fairly sizeable sets (about 1000 parts) come without motors. You don't need to buy batteries to start playing with them! 

Not that I don't like PF capable models, mind you. I do think that subject matter is a major factor, as well - it's about what you like. Say you have 8264, which is a medium model with a motor, yet it only really does one thing that the much smaller 8451 does as well. It all depends on whether or not you want a big dumper! 

Furthermore, if you like bucket wheel excavators, you'll want 42055, and if you want telehandlers, you'll want 8295, 42061 and so on. I'm very much driven by what a model depicts, rather than how complex it is or is not.

[Erik Leppen]

4 hours ago, Carsten Svendsen said:

Sorry mate, but no one is going to read that wall of text. Break up the lines man, you ever heard of an "ENTER" key?

You should really read it. It has a really good point. RC tends to come in the place of realistic functions.

I'd say that RC is a play thing, not a build thing. The tracked racers sets are prime example of this. For large sets, I prefer the single-motor -> switchbox approach that 42082 takes.

While @allanp seems to focus on realism (authenticity) of functionality, I'm more on the complexity and interestingness side of things. I actually care little whether a function is realistic. As long as there's some inventiveness and some interesting and new solutions, or if a lot of functions happen in a small space. 8043 is a good example of a relatively small set with lots of functions, and it still looks great. It may not be realistic to have such a switchbox, but it's a very playable model that's also, to me, very interesting to build.

I have the same thing with LAs. They may not be realistic in a sense, but they're a nice way to "emulate" what would be a hydraulic cylinder but driven by a motor. Their precise controllability can be an advantage that pneumatics lack. Pneumatics on the other hand, are more realistic in the way they work, (and therefore more educational) and have other benefits such as speed, and not needing a geared driving axle so easier to use in remote places of a model. I think there should be more sets featuring pneumatics.

 

[Maaboo the Witch]

7 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

I think there should be more sets featuring pneumatics.

There should be. Especially now with the new pump and valve elements, each of which have only appeared in one set.

[Idris]

7 hours ago, allanp said:

2019 will have 3 RC sets (that I know of) which I think is a record number of RC sets in one year. 

As an asset that can be added to a set, I don't have a problem with RC itself. And yet whenever I see a new RC set I know it's probably not for me (besides the summer 2019 "SUV" due to rumours of planetary gear drive!). This is because I prize mechanical authenticity above all. This is what can elevate a Technic set from being just a toy to being a miniature version of the real thing while still being a toy. It doesn't have to be difficult or complex. In fact real life gearboxes are mechanically far simpler and more intuitive that what you find in the Porsche or the Chiron especially. So if you miss a gear out in building a real gearbox you would see it immediately and you would know where it's supposed to be, even though they are all the same colour. But with the Lego gearboxes, all the colour vomit in the world won't make it any easier or more intuitive. Mechanical authenticity makes things appeal to kids of all ages with no upper limit while making it easier and more initiative in a way that colour coding could only dream of. And yet not one single RC set to ever have been released has been remotely mechanically authentic. You either get something that's got some nice complexity but is completely mechanically inauthentic, like 8043 excavator or 42070, or more often you get something that's not only mechanically inauthentic but also mechanically boring, with a motor coupled almost directly to it's function through a linear actuator. This is true for all larger RC sets. I think this is because to have a mechanically authentic RC set you have to have two sets crammed into one, with a mechanically authentic base model crammed with a whole bunch of servo motors to interface with the controls, which would be expensive. Far cheaper to do away with the authentic mechanics between the RC components and the functions they are powering, and have the RC components coupled as simply and directly to the functions as possible. This is why I personally don't like RC sets. Not because RC is bad in itself, but because of all the compromises in mechanical authenticity they make in order to include it. I did have some hope for 42100, with it's size and piece count and the new pneumatic valves being designed to seeming mesh perfectly with some new servo motor. But alas it's not to be, it turned out to be another linear actuator driven monster. RC has the potential to be a great asset to any set. There are even some real life vehicles that are remote controlled, obviously combining RC control with the cool mechanics you see in real vehicles using servo motors to interface between the two. But Lego just haven't done it yet.

Very sincerely, I can only say a big “THANK YOU”, dear allanp.

Your huge but most informative comment is incredibly informative like a “newbie-in-the-forum” like me :)

The thing I saw and wanted to emphasize in Technic Sets, is that, for example, why not make the 42009, moving with XL motors by RC, like you perfectly showed an example of how real-life giants can be remotely controlled.

In that case, yes, there may be up to 4 RC units and a lot of XL motors and other connections, and the complexity would go “haywire”, AND it will be much more expensive, but wouldn’t it be a thrill?

And LEGO Technic sets have always been expensive, but so is the Harry Potter Hogwarts Castle..

In that sense, I found the 42030 Volvo, very well thought, even being a 2017 set.

In the light of the above, do you think we should look for MOCs or create our owns?

Why does LEGO do not get into such sets?

Are 3-4 RC sets enough for 2019?

Finally, please think about the new Leibherr Giant to be released this August and I will buy it immediately, because this was what I’m talking about and even one of the reasons of this topic. 

What do you kindly think?

Many thanks for your contribution again and,

Best Regards,

Idris

53 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

There should be. Especially now with the new pump and valve elements, each of which have only appeared in one set.

I totally agree.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Idris
Syntax

[Mestari]

For manual only set 42069 is anexcellent example of a great set. It was a real pleasure to build and kept me interested throughout the build. It also stayed quite long in a built state, which is rare. I usually dismantle sets very quickly after building them. This one was exception.

It has great position of levers compared to the function they drive, have more functions than typically too and I think it would be not too easy to fit it all in a much smaller set. So I feel here the part count wasn't just for show.

I do like RC sets, but as allanp mentioned those are usually not as interesting to build as manual ones. MOCs , especially those from Madoca are exceptions to that rule. But have more motors than sets...

What I would REALLY like is a theme where we have model team married to technic full time :)

Edit :

I love pneumatics :D 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Mestari

[Erik Leppen]

1 hour ago, Idris said:

The thing I saw and wanted to emphasize in Technic Sets, is that, for example, why not make the 42009, moving with XL motors by RC, like you perfectly showed an example of how real-life giants can be remotely controlled.

In that case, yes, there may be up to 4 RC units and a lot of XL motors and other connections, and the complexity would go “haywire”, AND it will be much more expensive, but wouldn’t it be a thrill?

I would hate to see a development in that direction. If 42009 were as you said, not only would the technical prowess go down, the price would go through the roof. For me, Technic, above all else, is about functionality. It's not about remote control. Remote control is cool and it's good that there are some RC sets, but they're not the essence of the theme. I'd happily let the AFOLs create the wonderful RC masterpieces :)

Also, I personally consider a set like 42030 to be rather boring. It's surely very playable, yes, and looks great, but I don't think it's very interesting to build. Also, I think it's too large. I would absolutely prefer 8265, which is rather functional for its size, looks cool too, and also allows motorization.

For me, a good set that demonstrates what Technic is about, is 42075. It has steering, drive, rear suspension, winch, and a deployable light beacon thing, moveable doors and hood, all in a relatively small space, without any bloat that makes it more expensive than needed.

Edited April 26, 2019 by Erik Leppen

[suffocation]

As usual, Erik managed to brilliantly verbalise my exact thoughts

Lego Technic should indeed be more about τέχνη and less about "OMG look @ all teh moterz ive crammed in2 dis model!1!!one!1!eleven!"

[Idris]

2 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

I would hate to see a development in that direction. If 42009 were as you said, not only would the technical prowess go down, the price would go through the roof. For me, Technic, above all else, is about functionality. It's not about remote control. Remote control is cool and it's good that there are some RC sets, but they're not the essence of the theme. I'd happily let the AFOLs create the wonderful RC masterpieces :)

Also, I personally consider a set like 42030 to be rather boring. It's surely very playable, yes, and looks great, but I don't think it's very interesting to build. Also, I think it's too large. I would absolutely prefer 8265, which is rather functional for its size, looks cool too, and also allows motorization.

For me, a good set that demonstrates what Technic is about, is 42075. It has steering, drive, rear suspension, winch, and a deployable light beacon thing, moveable doors and hood, all in a relatively small space, without any bloat that makes it more expensive than needed.

 

1 hour ago, suffocation said:

As usual, Erik managed to brilliantly verbalise my exact thoughts

Lego Technic should indeed be more about τέχνη and less about "OMG look @ all teh moterz ive crammed in2 dis model!1!!one!1!eleven!"

Then I should give my opinions to you both :) 

First of all, thank you for your comments.

I perfectly understand that you are NOT into RC and motors all around.

Of course these are your opinions and I completely respect them.

But: (hehe)

There are people like me, who would like to sit on their armchairs and watch what they have built (even a LEGO Technic set with instructions) with so much functions that you would forget in some time.

And @Erik Leppen, why do you think that the technical prowess would go down, if the 42009 could move backwards and forewards with all those incredibly well thought wheels through motors and RCs? I think the technical prowess would get even higher because it would be a crazy task to achieve those movements. Seldom "toys" in the world would have that complexity and what's more exciting (for me) would be that I would have built (assembled) it myself. I wouldn't just get it out of a box and click on "ON" and get a fancy remote in my hand. So the word "toy" would vanish into oblivion by itself. (My opinion.)

I don't have a 42030, I didn't build it, so, I can not give any comments on the "boredness" level of the building of the set, but, still I am one of the LEGO Technic lovers who likes to play with what he builds. So yes, it becomes a "toy" in some sense, but it is a real set with thousands of pieces.

For the price, maybe LEGO can give options. Non-motorized, motorized, XL-motorized etc. And for God's sake, which complex LEGO Technic set is cheap, even without motors and RC (i.e. Bugatti Chiron). Many people save money to buy a LEGO Technic set.

And @suffocation, do you think "cramming" motors and their mechanisms into an already complex mechanical marvel is an easy thing to do?

Finally; for giving my whole opinion, there comes the HUGE Leibherr R9800. LEGO announced that giant as the new "flagship" model. Doesn't that show, that the LEGO Technic buyers are more into RC and motors AND complexity AND functionality AND technical prowess?

In the future, wouldn't you like to see a LEGO Technic drone, in cooperation with, say, GoPro with a rechargable Li-Ion super-powerful battery pack? Or a 8*8 monster which can really move like The Rover on Mars? Or even better? 

In my point of view, yes, I loved to build the Chiron, but now I put it on a special lit bookshelf. Am I happy with it? Yes. Of course, I think it is almost a masterpiece. But would I want to ALSO see it move super fast with RC and motor(s)? YES!

Of course, there are "cult sets" like the Falcon. That, should, in my opinion definitely be "preserved" after being built.

And I definitely and will always support MOCs, because even "LEGO needs to see, what can be further achieved by LEGO".

(Yes, I talk too much.)

As always, many many thanks for your precious contributions to my topic.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions, comments and thoughts, I send my,

Best Regards,

Idris

Edited April 26, 2019 by Idris
Because of syntax errors.

[suffocation]

15 minutes ago, Idris said:

do you think "cramming" motors and thier mechanisms into an already complex mechanical marvel is an easy thing to do?

It depends on how much space you've got, what functions you need the motors to perform and how the weight of and space taken up by the motors affect the model's structural integrity. Sariel's Tow Truck from 2011 is a great example of keeping a monstrously motorised build ingenious: no geartrains of note but aesthetic, creative and mechanical brilliance in spades. On the other end of the spectrum you have 42030, which is the most uninspired and uninspiring flagship I've ever built.

Of the very few (and embarrasingly mediocre) models I've designed, the most fun came from a modest little tow truck which had just one M motor efficiently driving eight functions crammed into a 30x12x16 cm model.

Edited April 26, 2019 by suffocation

[Idris]

19 minutes ago, suffocation said:

It depends on how much space you've got, what functions you need the motors to perform and how the weight of and space taken up by the motors affect the model's structural integrity. Sariel's Tow Truck from 2011 is a great example of keeping a monstrously motorised build ingenious: no geartrains of note but aesthetic, creative and mechanical brilliance in spades. On the other end of the spectrum you have 42030, which is the most uninspired and uninspiring flagship I've ever built.

Of the very few (and embarrasingly mediocre) models I've designed, the most fun came from a modest little tow truck which had just one M motor but also eight functions crammed into a 30x12x16 cm model.

Yes, I agree with you and isn't that exciting? Pushing the boundaries of space inside an already complex mechanism, weight and structural integrity?

I am watching Sariel and I am in awe with his moddings, MOCs. And yes, 42030 (I did not build it but) may be the most uninspired flagship you ever built, even though it comes from LEGO itself. But this may not be the case for the upcoming Liebherr, just because it is huge and have tens of functions and motors etc.

I applaud you for your design (even if I didn't watch/see it) and I think that tow truck design of yours is another marvel.

And you yourself wrote the word "crammed" when explaning your own design... I believe that is an accomplishment for you and constructive indirect progress for LEGO Technic in general.

Don't you think we are on the same page?

Edited April 26, 2019 by Idris
Liebherr, not Leibherr... I hate syntax errors.

[suffocation]

13 minutes ago, Idris said:

Don't you think we are on the same page?

Not really - cramming lots of motors, typically one per function, is one thing; cramming functions driven by one motor and coming up with a transmission efficient enough to let all the functions run smoothly and even simultaneously is quite another and, in my experience, far more challenging and educational.

[sirslayer]

Unless you really have done a MOC "RC" Lego Technic with all the motors and wizardry.. This is reality and a lesson I want to share .....  I thought it was a joke when anyone buys a Buwizz and adds  one 1 Medium  or even a 1 L motor  to the 42075 or the 42093 and at Ludacris mode, the single motor hooked up to the diff...  is no faster then the dust devils in the Mojave desert,,,  The Lego set 42093 needs power and speed to recreate the horsepower the real Vette needs... if it took 2 XL and you think just plug it in and it would work... then you're wrong!!!!!  The Coupled Xl motors wil shear the gears off your axles and this is where the real mechanic to build and design begins !!!!!  I don't think your MOC or MOD can handle a Buwizz at full power!!!!!   kids please help the confused ones!!! 

Edited April 26, 2019 by sirslayer

[Erik Leppen]

51 minutes ago, Idris said:

And @Erik Leppen, why do you think that the technical prowess would go down, if the 42009 could move backwards and forewards with all those incredibly well thought wheels through motors and RCs?

I think you're correct that the 4-axle steering would indeed be quite cool. The reason I still think it would be less interesting, is becuase you'll lose the switchboxes that control the functions. In the current model, all functions are driven from he same motor, so everything is connected. There is a whole drivetrain rom the motor to the crane functions, including those marvellous outriggers and it has to be designed so that a single motor can do all that work. If you can just put a motor directly at each function, you'd lose this connectivity, and to me, it then feels like a model becomes a bunch of seperate functional modules clicked together.

But this is very much personal taste. I don't "play" with my models after I built them, so I care relatively little about that.

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by Erik Leppen

[Maaboo the Witch]

10 minutes ago, sirslayer said:

Ludacris mode

Is that when your MOC has speakers that play "Pimpin' All Over The World" at full volume? 

[sirslayer]

Its actually sweet lord from the Beatles but I did speel that wrong.. my bad!!! 

Edited April 26, 2019 by sirslayer

[Idris]

22 minutes ago, suffocation said:

Not really - cramming lots of motors, typically one per function, is one thing; cramming functions driven by one motor and coming up with a transmission efficient enough to let all the functions run smoothly and even simultaneously is quite another and, in my experience, far more challenging and educational.

I didn't say that: One motor for one function is simply not efficient. And that would not be a technical prowess. Especially when there are servo motors now. 

For example, to do 50 functions with 10 motors or less, I call that efficiency, ingeniuity, technical prowess and fun.

Now, are we on the same page?

21 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

I think you're correct that the 4-axle steering would indeed be quite cool. The reason I still think it would be less interesting, is becuase you'll lose the switchboxes that control the functions. In the current model, all functions are driven from he same motor, so everything is connected. There is a whole drivetrain rom the motor to the crane functions, including those marvellous outriggers and it has to be designed so that a single motor can do all that work. If you can just put a motor directly at each function, you'd lose this connectivity, and to me, it then feels like a model becomes a bunch of seperate functional modules clicked together.

But this is very much personal taste. I don't "play" with my models after I built them, so I care relatively little about that.

 

I totally understand you and respect your thoughts. And I agree with you on functionality other than putting every XL-motor in every space available to make a set "move".

I really like to "play" with what I build, therefore we differ in this area.

But that's the soul in LEGO Technic. Some think in one way, some think the other.

Many thanks again.