Technic is just for kids, and you can build anything so stop complaining!

[Bublehead]

5 hours ago, howitzer said:

You really should invest in rechargeable batteries instead of alkaline ones. Ikea sells high quality ones for 6€/4 batteries and their cheapest charger costs 7€ and a better one 20€. If you can afford the Liebherr, surely the cost of the batteries isn't a problem.

I am not a parent so I don’t care about the amount of batteries my Technic requires, but parents, on the other hand, they look at batteries as a consumable that adds to the on going cost of the toy.  My counter argument here is, why does TLG continue to add to the battery burdened landfill when they could easily provide rechargeable lithium when we purchase the set?  I own a LOT of rechargeable bricks and use them where and whenever I can.  I still hate the shape of the new C+ motors, the inability to drive more than one motor per channel, etc... more a fan of PF, so you enjoy that new PU/C+ stuff, I’ll stick to PF for now.

[Stuartn]

6 hours ago, Bublehead said:

ut parents, knowing exactly what the battery scramble is all about, are WAY more conscious about these things... yeah, $450 is a lot of money for a box of plastic and a handful of electronics that doesn’t do a fraction of what a Playstaion5 does, and honestly, who would buy a PlayStation5 if you had to buy 12 double A batteries every 5 days?  

Didn't think of it like that, good point. It would be a good idea for Lego to make/sell rechargeable batteries, since they don't make money from reusable ones anyway.

[howitzer]

52 minutes ago, Bublehead said:

I am not a parent so I don’t care about the amount of batteries my Technic requires, but parents, on the other hand, they look at batteries as a consumable that adds to the on going cost of the toy.  My counter argument here is, why does TLG continue to add to the battery burdened landfill when they could easily provide rechargeable lithium when we purchase the set?  I own a LOT of rechargeable bricks and use them where and whenever I can.  I still hate the shape of the new C+ motors, the inability to drive more than one motor per channel, etc... more a fan of PF, so you enjoy that new PU/C+ stuff, I’ll stick to PF for now.

Nobody forces parents to use alkaline batteries, the rechargeables are widely available.

Why TLG does it instead of including LiPo in every power source? Well, the rechargeable batteries are a huge logistical pain (with all the special procedures in shipping and handling) and to be honest, it's probably also a cost cutting measure, considering that it's much cheaper to manufacture and distribute power sources which take alkaline batteries. But as I said, a small rechargeable dumb battery box would be really nice addition, even if it was expensive and had to be bought separately. You're lucky to have many rechargeable bricks but most people don't have those at all (me included) so I'll have to stick to either on alkaline, Ladda or RI hub (which appears to be better in every respect than C+ hub).

[dr_spock]

I bought rechargeable NiMH AA and AAA for my kids' batteries hungry toys. Now that the kids no longer play with those toys, I repurposed their rechargeables for my LEGO and photography equipment.  What I found useful is a 8 battery intelligent charger.  I can have 6 in the battery box while another 6 are recharging.

[Bartybum]

13 hours ago, Cumulonimbus said:

If every set is just the starting point, eventually you begin to wonder why you even buy the set instead of just some critical parts.

This is basically just what I do now

[allanp]

I heard in an interview that the designers really didn't like the term "colour vomit" which is why I immediately switched to using the term "colour coding". And believe it or not I'm actually fine with colour coding, it looks more interesting than just all dark grey and it helps a little with finding parts (although more numbered bags is far better, and as for rebuilding sets, sort your parts!). But what I don't like is the choice of colours used. An 18+ set really doesn't feel like an 18+ set when gears are bright red or blue or the wave selector is bright orange. These could be done in far more tasteful and realistic colours, of which there are many to choose from such as black, dark grey, light grey, gun metal grey, and I could even convince myself that even brown or tan could look like rust or dirty oil. That to me would be colour coding. But with all these bright goofy colours I have to say it's closer to colour vomit. 

There was a comment that the Ferarri was too simple, and the Chiron seemed too complicated with too many functions, and another comment by @Bublehead about yet another car with steering, suspention, working gears and so on. Well the cars do sell very well, so expect to see more of them. And there's only so many functions a car can have. So what should they do? Keep releasing cars if that's what sells of course, but keep things interesting. To solve the too simple Vs too complicated, I've said this many times, but they need to make it like a real gearbox (which is far simpler and easier to understand than the Chiron or lambo gearbox) with only two main shafts, reduce the gear>drive ring>gear stack from 5 studs long to 3 studs long (yes that is possible btw) and all the different sized gears needed to make all the different ratios. They can make it more accessible by moulding a number on each gear (like the numbers on panels) that corresponds to their number of teeth, which the instructions can clearly and directly call out to to avoid any confusion. Brightly coloured parts do not stand out in a set/pile of brightly coloured parts. We still see many mistakes happening and it only spoils the illusion of "building for real". They could also have more realistic steering geometry and choose cars that have different functionality. We have had 3 1:8 cars in a row, all with paddle shifters. So what about a good ol' stick shift for the next one, but with a more realistic linkage instead of the gear stick going directly into drive rings? Or an old classic with pop up head lights? Or a transverse engined rally car with full gearbox? This would be much easier to do with a realistic gearbox like I mentioned earlier. The gearboxes of the Chiron and Sian are a good portion of the entire length and width of the whole car! Or what about adjustable seats? Or an engine with working valves and cam shafts? There is lots more they could do.

With regards to PU and MOCcing, it is rather powerful and opens up lots of new possibilities for our MOCs, however I see two main issues. Firstly, a severe lack of documentation/video tutorials or whatever. This is why I started the PU hints, tips and requests thread. It's slightly concerning to me that TLG appear to think it's the job of the fan community to make their product usable though! The second issue is reliance on smart phones. While smart phones can add something of value with feedback (like dials and battery indication and completely custom control layouts) I think the issue of total reliance on smart phones and tablets is potentially a real issue and can be best solved by increased compatibility with other devices like pc/laptop for coding and third party physical controllers (like the play station controllers) for control. The combination of pc/laptop compatibility and third party controllers offers a pathway to fully customisable PU without the need for a smartphone or tablet. 

With regards to specialised pieces, sure Lego needs to maintain its "legoness" with its wide selection of standard parts, but real world things are mostly made up of specialised parts and they can really add a lot to a set, so I have no problem with them. They are realistic after all.

There was another comment regarding the high prices of Lego sets encroaching on far more realistic looking die cast models and so on, where Lego could never compete. That is a good point and I would argue that there is one area where Technic can rise above all, and that is in being able to quickly and easily build working realistic mechanisms for a price that might seem high but is accessible. This is the true and unrivalled strength of Technic. Take the Arocs for example. Now you can get a model that has similar mechanical realism, moreso in fact as it's hydraulic, but that is big money, £3k or more. In terms of a model, build able or otherwise, that is mechanically realistic, sets like the Arocs has no competition anywhere near its price point. And I think this is also true for sets that aren't really aimed at me like the Liebherr. It may be mechanically unrealistic but I can't think of any competitor product that competes with it, but that's only true for a buildable model. If you include non buildable RC toys then it has lots of cheaper competition.

So while Technic may have some issues among the adult fan community, I don't think anything is broken to the point of being irreparable and we can think of many solutions. The question is, are they interested? 

Edited February 12, 2021 by allanp

[Maaboo the Witch]

Something else that I've been mulling over.

Was Technic not better when there were less specialized elements available, and designers had to be more creative while relying on what was at their disposal?

[Bublehead]

9 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

Something else that I've been mulling over.

Was Technic not better when there were less specialized elements available, and designers had to be more creative while relying on what was at their disposal?

It was definitely a more creative time, and somethings were more impressive because of it

[Lipko]

46 minutes ago, Maaboo35 said:

Something else that I've been mulling over.

Was Technic not better when there were less specialized elements available, and designers had to be more creative while relying on what was at their disposal?

I don't think so. At that time models had very few functions.
If there weren't evolution of parts, we would see the 10000th car which main feature was a differential. Or having suspension. Maybe a few models would have both…
Now, we have 8-speed sequential gearboxes operated at the steering wheel. And suspension/differential/etc.

[Maaboo the Witch]

7 minutes ago, Lipko said:

I don't think so. At that time models had very few functions.
If there weren't evolution of parts, we would see the 10000th car which main feature was a differential. Or having suspension. Maybe a few models would have both…
Now, we have 8-speed sequential gearboxes operated at the steering wheel. And suspension/differential/etc.

Compare 8283 and 42061. Aside from the bucket, 8283 contains no specialized parts, whereas 42061 has the mini LA and rack components (and yes, for argument's sake I've omitted its own bucket) for a much simpler boom lift in comparison to the relative welter of parts used for 8283's boom.

And it does nothing new in comparison to the earlier set! Yes, it's smoother to operate, but also limits the parts for a better B-model.

Now compare those! I apologize to the designer (I am so sorry, Michael. You are still one of my faves!), but 42061's alternate sucks. Then look at 8283's B-model. No contest there - it's unquestionably better!

Now I'm not bashing 42061. I like the main model. More specialized parts can be a good thing in relation to ease of operation, and can form the basis for more advanced mechanisms. But in a lot of cases it's a shortcut, and not a good one either.

[dr_spock]

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

Something else that I've been mulling over.

Was Technic not better when there were less specialized elements available, and designers had to be more creative while relying on what was at their disposal?

AFOLs had to be creative too.  Probably how the term - nice part usage (NPU) came about. Maybe not be better for those who like complexity and form over function. I guess it was better since there weren't so many 42114 Volvo Hauler problem posts. 

Maybe they could do 18+ beginner, 18+ intermediate, 18+ expert.  Kind of like with model railroading kits. 

 

[1974]

1 hour ago, Maaboo35 said:

Something else that I've been mulling over.

Was Technic not better when there were less specialized elements available, and designers had to be more creative while relying on what was at their disposal?

ALL Technic parts are highly specialized LEGO elements. Heck even Expert Builder parts (that evovled into modern Technic) were all new highly specialized parts

Cheers,

Ole

[XenoRad]

This thread is continuing to be quite interesting and the discussion seems to be shifting from the original format of the initial questions to something much more encompassing.

If I'm reading some of the latest replies correctly I'm seeing about three different but not totally distinct lines of thought:
 

- Technic should be less specialized to maximize versatility and creative part reuse;

- Technic should be even more specialized to allow properly building complex mechanisms that function well;

- Don't care either way as long as I can get the quality parts in the right color that will allow me to create my desired MOC for that's what keeps me interested and not official sets.


For me if something is to hold interest for a long time it needs to evolve. And it needs to evolve in a way in which it remains true to its roots, but also expands to become more intuitively complex with each iteration.

As such I don't have a problem with new and more specialized parts. I welcome them, within limits, for they expand possibilities. The limits are reached when the specialized parts only look appropriate for a limited number of situations and look out of place for everything else.
On the other hand, having too many "generic" looking parts that don't look like anything can be uninsteresting.

I suppose for me then, the right direction would be for Lego to continue to offer sets which have a solid mechanical and structural founding, perhaps built up of more generic parts, while also offering some extra spice with more specialized parts that bring in new functionality and aesthetics. And do so in a reliable way, so that once a clever solution has been found, it continue to be present in sets. As opposed to some sets having brilliant solutions that never to rarely resurface.

And I guess that is the problem for some of us. Taken individually, each modern Technic set can offer something new and interesting, but Lego can't quite seem to mesh all of these different ideas and capabilities to start evolving all sets, equally and permanently.

You get sets that function well, but don't look good. You get sets that look good but don't function well. You get sets that may do both, but neither as well as well and not consistently. So progress is tilted and not balanced across all aspects of sets. Maybe this is what's been bothering some of us.
The fact that there's so much potential out there with all of these different parts and already learnt solutions and yet Lego isn't making the best of it. Progress isn't happening at the level it potentially can.

 

 

 

 

 

[pdw]

13 hours ago, Bublehead said:

parents, on the other hand, they look at batteries as a consumable that adds to the on going cost of the toy.

As a parent, and a user, it's not the cost of batteries that bothers me, as we use rechargeables for everything, it's the inconvenience.  I've not got any PU stuff, but the PF battery boxes are both an utter pain to get the batteries in and out of, and most chargers will only do four batteries at a time.  My BuWizz powered models I just plug into a USB cable like pretty much every other battery powered device in the house.  Buying something as expensive and sophisticated as the 42100 and then having to deal with AAs seems bizarre to me.

18 hours ago, howitzer said:

PU motors btw. are 1 stud longer than the equivalent PF ones, but come with more connection points so they are actually easier to integrate in a MOC.

That's true of the XL motor, I think, but the L has exactly the same, and the M has one fewer hole and more studs.

The interesting one for me is the servo.  The PF servo is flawed and has an awkward shape, but the ability to get an axle out of both ends is very useful, particularly for 4 wheel steer.  You can also mount them back-to-back and get two independent servos in less than 10 x 7 x 3 studs.  Compact 4WS is much harder with PU L motors if you want to avoid gears in steering.

[howitzer]

2 hours ago, pdw said:

As a parent, and a user, it's not the cost of batteries that bothers me, as we use rechargeables for everything, it's the inconvenience.  I've not got any PU stuff, but the PF battery boxes are both an utter pain to get the batteries in and out of, and most chargers will only do four batteries at a time.  My BuWizz powered models I just plug into a USB cable like pretty much every other battery powered device in the house.  Buying something as expensive and sophisticated as the 42100 and then having to deal with AAs seems bizarre to me.

That's true of the XL motor, I think, but the L has exactly the same, and the M has one fewer hole and more studs.

The interesting one for me is the servo.  The PF servo is flawed and has an awkward shape, but the ability to get an axle out of both ends is very useful, particularly for 4 wheel steer.  You can also mount them back-to-back and get two independent servos in less than 10 x 7 x 3 studs.  Compact 4WS is much harder with PU L motors if you want to avoid gears in steering.

AA's are a hassle, yeah. PF isn't any better in that regard though (I'm not sure how easy or hard it is to change the batteries in the C+ hub as I don't own one, but with PF battery box it's pretty painful. The old 9V battery box was much better in this regard.)

M is intended more for System use, so yeah, more studs. Still, it's not that hard to use with Technic either.

PU angular motor also allows insertion of axles from both ends so it can replace the PF servo in your application.

Edited February 12, 2021 by howitzer

[dr_spock]

Changing batteries in PU hubs is easier than the PF.  The batteries are in a holder and it is removable.   It would be simple for anyone to make a holder that supports lithium batteries and some battery management circuitry

 

[Maaboo the Witch]

6 hours ago, 1974 said:

ALL Technic parts are highly specialized LEGO elements. Heck even Expert Builder parts (that evovled into modern Technic) were all new highly specialized parts

Cheers,

Ole

Sorry mate, I was born in the 90s and so to me there's a clear division between general parts (axles, pins, beams studded and studless, liftarms and so on) and purpose-built parts (buckets, shovels, concrete mixer drum halves, Arocs gear rack, etc.). Heck, my mileage even varies on some panels, like mudguards.

[2GodBDGlory]

 

43 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

Changing batteries in PU hubs is easier than the PF.  The batteries are in a holder and it is removable.   It would be simple for anyone to make a holder that supports lithium batteries and some battery management circuitr

I believe a company already has for the AAA box!

[TeamThrifty]

9 hours ago, Maaboo35 said:

Was Technic not better when there were less specialized elements available,

No. I started with 851 and 853 in the late 70's early 80's and Technic today is the stuff of dreams.. I genuinely cannot understand the moaners. If you don't like it, re-design it. There seems to be a sub-culture of people that treat lego like an airfix model to be sat on a shelf. Utterly and totally missing the entire point completely. A set is just a launching point. My building time 99% moc's.. i like a new flagship to build every year, but everything else is just me trying something, failing, retrying, failing, trying something different. That is the whole point of lego. Not sitting it on a shelf and moaning that the suspension sags a bit or something else equally trivial. If it sags, fix the bugger?! This issue doesn't just affect lego - there are courses now for adults to learn how to fix a bicycle puncture. ADULTS?! What has happened to these people that they're so incapable of anything that punctures are an engineering challenge (i fixed my own from age 6 on my bmx..), and lego has to be perfect otherwise it offends people's entitled sensibilities?

Utter lunacy. I love technic, even the sets that aren't for me, i still love them. The amount of moaning some do, they should stick it all on ebay and go get a hobby they enjoy, cos the amount of whinging and whining they do, Lego clearly isn't for them... maybe they should sign up the puncture repair course and discuss how best to delete history. Poor sensitive souls...

[howitzer]

35 minutes ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

 

I believe a company already has for the AAA box!

Which company?

Still though, LiPo insert to replace the battery holder is only slightly better than having to change the AA cells as it still can't be charged while connected (without mutilating the casing anyway...) but the RI hub can, so beyond the price I don't see much use for the 4-port C+ hub, the AAA hub at least justifies its existence by being smaller so if you don't need more than two motors, it saves a bit of space and weight.

[2GodBDGlory]

1 hour ago, howitzer said:

Which company?.

I'm not sure; I just remember seeing a YouTube review by either RacingBrick or Zerobricks (one of those "bricks" people). You should be able to find it with a search.

[Bartybum]

@TeamThrifty I'm happy to wait for you to actually go read over this thread and craft a more constructive response. What an utterly worthless comment

Edited February 13, 2021 by Bartybum

[dr_spock]

2 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

 

I believe a company already has for the AAA box!

That would be Keybrick One.   It replaces the battery holder and bottom part of the PU train hub.

Philo has a 3D printable holder STL file for making your own LiPO adapter. https://www.philohome.com/pupbat/pupbat.htm

 

 

[Maaboo the Witch]

12 hours ago, TeamThrifty said:

 

You've completely missed the point of what I'm saying.

[allanp]

@TeamThrifty If you think Technic is fine the way it is then I'm happy for you. But there's no need to belittle those that can see room for improvement, or areas where they feel they are going down the wrong path. Many of us are life long Technic fans and it would be foolish to tell them to move on to another hobby for what we see as issues that are easily fixable by TLG. I gather you don't see any issues and again, that's fine, but not everyone has the same opinions you do. 

And again, it is in no way entitled or self centered to say what we like or dislike about where Technic is currently at. And whilst I also lament the decline in basic skills like repairing punctures or changing plugs amongst the adult population I'm not sure what relevance that has here. I shall assume you're not saying that tyre manufacturers should be allowed to sell tyres with punctures in them just because adults should know how to repair them, as that would just be silly of you. And no, we don't expect it to be perfect as nothing ever is. But if they are going to tell me as an adult Technic fan that "We have developed this set for adult fans like you, and we hope it sells well, so you will buy it for £400"  why shouldn't I be able to say "well no actually. I don't think this is for me because of X,y and z"? Why can't we have this conversation which for all either of us know is helpful to them. I know they have listened to us, and I think they have done well by trying to cater to adult fans as they seem to be upping their adult product every year. So why should we suddenly become silent now?