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

[XenoRad]

Actually, taking a look here - https://brickset.com/sets/containing-part-6276974 shows that that part appears in plenty of current sets in yellow. But seeing how in that 42121 set we already had 4 in LBG it was likely cheaper to add one more in the same color rather than add a new color. Also, there's the B model where parts would be arranged differently so that could also have something to do with it. But with an uneven number of that part I'm sure they could have had one a different color and not look bad.

EDIT: Ah, beaten to that reply.

Edited February 17, 2021 by XenoRad

[DrJB]

1 hour ago, XenoRad said:

Actually, taking a look here - https://brickset.com/sets/containing-part-6276974 shows that that part appears in plenty of current sets in yellow. But seeing how in that 42121 set we already had 4 in LBG it was likely cheaper to add one more in the same color rather than add a new color. Also, there's the B model where parts would be arranged differently so that could also have something to do with it. But with an uneven number of that part I'm sure they could have had one a different color and not look bad.

EDIT: Ah, beaten to that reply.

Not so sure about that anymore (assuming I understood your point correctly). In the past, they had to pre-mix specific batches of plastic to make specific colors. And that is why on older sets all the axles are either black or gray. I believe I've read somewhere that they changed their injection machines to 'on-the-spot-color-at-will' technology and now, it's 'cheaper' to build any part in any color. The first 'explosion' of colors in axles came with the Bucket-Wheel-Excavator ... or maybe they put in some incentive (new colors) to increase sales of such set. You still need individual storage and parts management for the individual colors though. In fact, it is such injection machines that are now having a hard time keeping colors consistent ... the smaller the batch, the more difficult it is to keep the color consistent. But, you already knew all of this :)

[howitzer]

9 hours ago, XenoRad said:

Actually, taking a look here - https://brickset.com/sets/containing-part-6276974 shows that that part appears in plenty of current sets in yellow. But seeing how in that 42121 set we already had 4 in LBG it was likely cheaper to add one more in the same color rather than add a new color. Also, there's the B model where parts would be arranged differently so that could also have something to do with it. But with an uneven number of that part I'm sure they could have had one a different color and not look bad.

EDIT: Ah, beaten to that reply.

9 hours ago, syclone said:

Unfortunately 32184 is available in yellow in 3 2020 sets, and in the Monster Jam pull-back from this year. (Not to mention it has been consistently availbale each year 2016, and being first introduced in yellow in 2000)

The red 44809 also was availalbe in red that year and the previous ones as well...

So not a valid excuse, just more random decisions from TLG

Thanks for setting this straight.

It could be that putting in a single yellow version of that part would've still increased the cost slightly, as there would be one more element type then to account for. But yeah, that part really should've been yellow even if it being LBG isn't a huge issue.

[Erik Leppen]

I don't really get why this has become a topic on color coding. 99% of users don't mind and are probably even helped by it, and the other 1% is mostly on LUGs like Eurobricks and have enough parts lying around and Bricklink around the corner.

Instead of this - honestly quite broken-record-sounding - color coding "problem", we could also focus on actual problems and errors such as a (seemingly) increasing frequency of finding non-working functions in sets (42083, 42110), simplification of functions (42125), sets where more and more parts go into bodywork, (42123, 42125), the disappearing of B-models, or hiding away functions that were previously mechanic into a smartphone app as is done with PU or whatever electric systems exist nowadays, eliminating any possiblity of tinkering with it, which should be the whole reason the Technic theme even exists.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Erik Leppen

[Toastie]

10 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Instead of this - honestly quite broken-record-sounding - color coding "problem", we could also focus on actual problems and errors such as a (seemingly) increasing frequency of finding non-working functions in sets (42083, 42110), simplification of functions (42125), sets where more and more parts go into bodywork, (42123, 42125), the disappearing of B-models, or hiding away functions that were previously mechanic into a smartphone app as is done with PU or whatever electric systems exist nowadays, eliminating any possiblity of tinkering with it, which should be the whole reason the Technic theme even exists.

This.

Thinking along the same lines.

With regard to PU: And still be rather secretive about the PU firmware - the LPF3.0 protocol information was outdated TLG released it.

Best
Thorsten

[brunojj1]

8 hours ago, howitzer said:

Thanks for setting this straight.

It could be that putting in a single yellow version of that part would've still increased the cost slightly, as there would be one more element type then to account for. But yeah, that part really should've been yellow even if it being LBG isn't a huge issue.

I have read "LGBT" first and instantly linked it to the "color coding issue" in my mind whysoever... 

[dr_spock]

Those axles, pins, gears, etc. are also used more frequently in non-Technic sets targeted at younger builders.  For example: LEGO® Friends Party Boat for age 7+ has a moving dance floor using Technic axles, connectors and bevel gears.

[ralphie]

I prefer MOCs without PU, PF, or RC. PU/PF is sometimes necessary, but I try to avoid it. RC is way better outside of Lego, they should partner with Traxxas to make a few chassis options that are Technic compatible.

[Zerobricks]

4 minutes ago, ralphie said:

I prefer MOCs without PU, PF, or RC. PU/PF is sometimes necessary, but I try to avoid it. RC is way better outside of Lego, they should partner with Traxxas to make a few chassis options that are Technic compatible.

Won't happen, cause than kids would complain when the bricks would inevitably break outside. You can't compare open plastic-only mechanical Lego assemblies with proper RC ones which have bearings, enclosed lubricated systems, etc...  That's why almost every Lego RC model has indoor only usage smybol.

[ralphie]

16 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

Won't happen, cause than kids would complain when the bricks would inevitably break outside. You can't compare open plastic-only mechanical Lego assemblies with proper RC ones which have bearings, enclosed lubricated systems, etc...  That's why almost every Lego RC model has indoor only usage smybol.

I agree on all counts, which is why I expect Lego RC will only ever be slow. Thus, as an AFOL, my personal choice is that I don't bother with RC. PF/PU definitely has a place for models where turning a hand crank would take too long.

[DrJB]

There have been many 'flavors' of RC Cars over the past years. A while back TLG made some 'Racer' cars that were more robust than conventional builds (for example 8376). Later on, they made even more robust cars (8675), truly for outdoor use. Those came with rechargeable batteries and were very rugged (metal wheel axles).

   

[Zerobricks]

1 hour ago, DrJB said:

There have been many 'flavors' of RC Cars over the past years. A while back TLG made some 'Racer' cars that were more robust than conventional builds (for example 8376). Later on, they made even more robust cars (8675), truly for outdoor use. Those came with rechargeable batteries and were very rugged (metal wheel axles).

  

I know about these, but I wouldn't consider the Outdoor Challenger (lime) as a proper Lego set, more like a modular RC car. It used totally different materials (softer bricks) building system, etc...

[syclone]

7 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

I know about these, but I wouldn't consider the Outdoor Challenger (lime) as a proper Lego set, more like a modular RC car. It used totally different materials (softer bricks) building system, etc...

Hmmm, I'd have a split opinion on this, since the parts can still be used with Technic. By the same logic of it being a different type of system, Duplo, Bionicle/Hero factory and even Technic itself are all not "proper lego sets", since they deviate from the basic stud connection 

 

[Zerobricks]

Just now, syclone said:

Hmmm, I'd have a split opinion on this, since the parts can still be used with Technic. By the same logic of it being a different type of system, Duplo, Bionicle/Hero factory and even Technic itself are all not "proper lego sets", since they deviate from the basic stud connection 

 

I meant system, yes not Lego, bad choice of words on my part. But still there is nothing "Technic" about that model IMO and it seems like a very closed and limited system.

[syclone]

2 minutes ago, Zerobricks said:

I meant system, yes not Lego, bad choice of words on my part. But still there is nothing "Technic" about that model IMO and it seems like a very closed and limited system.

unfortunately, that's a very common misconception. It is just differently shaped technic beams, the holes are just the ususal pinholes, with same dimensions and spacing:

[Zerobricks]

Just now, syclone said:

unfortunately, that's a very common misconception. It is just differently shaped technic beams, the holes are just the ususal pinholes, with same dimensions and spacing:

I know, I have the same parts at home. But still as a whole it's really hard to combine with other systems.

[dr_spock]

3 hours ago, ralphie said:

I prefer MOCs without PU, PF, or RC. PU/PF is sometimes necessary, but I try to avoid it. RC is way better outside of Lego, they should partner with Traxxas to make a few chassis options that are Technic compatible.

It probably wouldn't be too hard to bolt some Technic liftarms to an existing Traxxas chassis for mounting a Technic built body. 

[nerdsforprez]

There are some systems out there like this.  For example: 

https://mindsieducation.com/collections/kits/products/super-rover-kit

Uses a very similar to Technic brick system, but different in that pins lock into pinholes - and there is a very limited set of parts.  Not brushless motors, but still very powerful brushed motors.  Crazy expensive.  I have been tempted to by in the past... but we are talking 2x of 42100 for something very limited....

 

 

[DrJB]

3 hours ago, syclone said:

Hmmm, I'd have a split opinion on this, since the parts can still be used with Technic. By the same logic of it being a different type of system, Duplo, Bionicle/Hero factory and even Technic itself are all not "proper lego sets", since they deviate from the basic stud connection 

 

Don't forget the ZNAP system. Did not offer many options, but great for building large structures (a bit like Knex). I have several such sets, and they're a good 'distraction' from the conventional system/technic parts. In fact, some of the Znap parts can be used as lift-arms.

 

[allanp]

Oh wow, now 72 people have taken the time to answer the poll. That's a lot more than I expected. Thank you all so much!

[astyanax]

A very similar discussion is now raging on Brickset. Seems like TLG wants to listen?! They published their own survey...

===

EDIT: ah I now see there's already a topic dedicated to that survey, can't believe I missed that... sorry for bumping it in this thread!

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by astyanax

[thekoRngear]

On 2/24/2021 at 10:45 PM, astyanax said:

A very similar discussion is now raging on Brickset. Seems like TLG wants to listen?! They published their own survey...

===

EDIT: ah I now see there's already a topic dedicated to that survey, can't believe I missed that... sorry for bumping it in this thread!

 

I think The Technic section should now have a sub section for MOCs. There are some (including a certain set plus its mods and improvements type) threads which need to be in the first pages. However, if the sub-section for MOCs (somehow) prevents users from accessing it (just because they now have to click the sub-label again) then that might be a concern too. Thing is: new sets are kept releasing and new MOCs are also being developed at a rate def faster than it used to be 4/5 years ago.

[allanp]

So now more details of the CAT dozer are available, it's interesting reading through the results of this poll. Of course the CAT has it's fans, and that's great, but the reception so far has I think been more negative than positive. Although complaints are largely focused on the price, remember that price is only one half of the value equation. Cost is relative. If it was perceived as being vastly superior to what it currently is then the price wouldn't have been complained about so much. And I do think that reading the results of the poll may explain why the CAT doesn't really reach the level of awesome required to justify it's price tag, and also why the tow truck got lots of praise and is still selling quite well as far as I can tell. 

Many have said that it feels expensive because it has fewer pieces that 42100 and well as 1 less hub and 3 less motors, yet it's the same price! This is indeed crazy! But I think that's largely to do with costs for everything rising so dramatically since the pandemic. As an engineer with a budget, I know full well that you just can't get hold of stuff! Demand has gone up but the world hasn't been producing, so demand now out strips supply, and prices sky rocket. And as Technic flagships take years from initial concept to being on the shelves, it's understandable that TLG were slow to react. Hopefully we can leave this pandemic in the past and get back to normal. So I do understand TLGs position (I think!) but it's right that we let them know, this should not be accepted as the norm for years to come.

But what if it did have 2 hubs and 7 motors and the same piece count of 42100, there would still be complaints. The price is just low hanging fruit (an easy target) for detractors. Weather it's a motor for each function, or less motors with more gearbox action, both have their fans and both have their pros and cons, but neither are the most preferred option. There is a third option that people only really think about when it is presented to them, which is just to have more realistic mechanisms to begin with!

In the poll, I asked what appeals to you as a technic fan. The top two responses was a variety of mechanisms and realistic mechanisms. Now look at the old argument "one motor for every function" vs "fewer motors but more gearboxes" and you see that neither option necessarily fulfils the top desires of a "variety of mechanisms" or "realistic mechanisms", at least not in the way these two approaches are done in the CAT or 42100.

But there is a model that does, the tow truck, and it is almost universally praised and selling well as for as I can tell.

SO HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU! How could the CAT do this? How would you have designed the CAT o fulfil the desire for realistic mechanisms (LAs are not realistic LOL!) and a variety of mechanisms? How would you design the CAT so it can be worthy of it's price tag? 

For me, you probably already know, pneumatic, smaller servo to precisely control the valves, tilt sensor in the blade to provide positive feed back to allow for precise control of RC pneumatics, new much higher capacity motor pump (like maybe a 6 barrel axial piston pump or something), etc. 

And remember, if you do have frustrations for the CAT or any other sets released in future, well you can always come back to this thread and express your feelings all you want!

 

 

[rener]

For the CAT pneumatics would not be very realistic either, don’t you think? 
But if it was done with pneumatic, servos for each valve and sensors, I would think the price would reach the level of beyond ludicrous. Plus there would be need for a highly specialized remote control, since I fail to see how the need for many subtle controls could work via touchscreen. Cool as it would be though…;)

[Maaboo the Witch]

54 minutes ago, allanp said:

Weather

It's "whether", actually.

54 minutes ago, allanp said:

Technic flagships take years from initial concept to being on the shelves

I was under the impression that all Technic sets take about twelve months to design.

Edited August 29, 2021 by Maaboo35