Technic 2022 Set Discussion

[OnyyX]

11 minutes ago, langko said:

Yeah I think it’ll take a while for it to hit the normal stores, and a while longer to get a decent deal on it. I pretty much stick to EOFY, Black Friday, Boxing Day, Amazon etc... sales, haven’t payed full price for a set in a long time and that’s defiantly not changing now haha. I’ll let you know if I see a good deal for the Daytona. 
All the price hikes do is push more people over to the dark side, and when those sets are like a third of the price I really don’t blame people for doing so. 
 

This is true, and while I could admittedly afford the price hikes I hardly see them as value for money anymore (Even less so now than I already did). They could at least release sets without design errors and loads of instruction mistakes (looking at you Ferrari) and fix the terrible colour inconsistencies with parts (looking at you Lamborghini) to somewhat justify the $700 prices. I’ll stick to making my MOCs because the $ spent vs time/enjoyment you get out it is much much better value than buying and building sets. 

I 100% agree. The errors and overall "rushed" feel of the newer sets is a big hit to the value for money side of it. I also agree, I'm going to stick to my custom cars for a while and just wait for Lego to finally release some more hard to get parts in good and useable colours.

[MangaNOID]

Agree with these sensible comments being made. I don’t usually buy sets now, I’ve got enough parts to mix with so I’ll just pick a few bits from bricklink now and then. 
 

perhaps with the current inflation and interest rises LEGO will have to reconsider these exorbitant sets and revert to smaller sets to get sales.

although that new pneumatic handler was on my wish list being pneumatic and small but that is over priced in my opinion too.

the last set I got was the recent ATV for $79 AUD which was pallatable for my wallet. But as saidby others, so many errors in the instructions, too much colour coding and insulting our intelligence! Step 59 What the heck is that all about.

how dumbed down will we get in a few more years...
 

sticking to MOCking...haha there’s some irony

Anyway still love building with Technic, but...

 

 

[nerdsforprez]

Agree with all the above.  However, one thing I might add that may help with the disillusionment that accompanies the dummy-ing down of Lego Technic is that while the sets themselves might be decreasing in quality, sophistication, etc. I think the mass production and globalization of Technic sets is also what is at least partially driving the hobby of MOCing, and the overall hobby as we know it.  Obviously, the internet has a huge part of it, but consider the vast amount of parts available to so many people.  Yes, Lego is expensive, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of us MOC-ers with tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of pieces.   The amalgamation of these numbers is astonishing.  And this does not occur without mass producing a product, which doesn't really occur w/o globalization of the product, mass marketing it (which IMO, is synonymous with dummying something down), etc.  To increase accessibility and inclusion to more and more people TLG has to include folks that otherwise would not be interested in what began as a fairly intellectual product (i.e. including folks to the left of a standard IQ distribution).  Therefore their dummying down of things actually makes sense from their perspective IMO.  

This greater global market I think enhances the hobby and allows thousands of us to have the collections we do.  I don't think such huge collections would be available to so many w/o the above process.  In short, the mass marketing, globalization, etc. of Lego Technic while perhaps dummying down the overall product is what provides the life force of the hobby of MOCing as we know it.....

[AVCampos]

16 minutes ago, MangaNOID said:

too much colour coding and insulting our intelligence!

People in this thread build sets that don't have colour coding, and sorely miss it. Anyway, if you want a challenge and don't want to feel your intelligence insulted, you can always try building without looking at the parts callout in each step...

[nerdsforprez]

9 minutes ago, AVCampos said:

People in this thread build sets that don't have colour coding, and sorely miss it. Anyway, if you want a challenge and don't want to feel your intelligence insulted, you can always try building without looking at the parts callout in each step...

I would argue that the tread is not going towards color coding.  Color coding implies a code, or in other words a plan or some sort of organized pattern.  There does not appear to be any such thing with recent trends.  Coloring axles of drivetrain one color, axles of another function another color, etc. would be color coding.  Or certain elements on right-side one color, lft side, another, etc.  Thats color coding.  

The recent trend really is best personified IMO with the apt-phrase of color vomit.  There appears to be no rhyme or reason to alot of it.  Or at least a quantify and shade of color that actually can become a distraction itself.... 

[Maaboo the Witch]

40 minutes ago, MangaNOID said:

perhaps with the current inflation and interest rises LEGO will have to reconsider these exorbitant sets and revert to smaller sets to get sales.

Smaller sets are where it's at now if you ask me. 42133 is a prime demonstration of what matters in Technic - it packs in as many functions as possible, has some great parts, and has a cool B-model.

[AVCampos]

Well, personally I find both models of that set repetitive (but still applaud the rare existence of a B-model) and the colour scheme bad for MOCing (another chapter in the Fifty Shades of Blue saga), and much prefer the motorcycle; but that doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just that people have different tastes and it's impossible for TLG to please everyone.

[Maaboo the Witch]

23 minutes ago, AVCampos said:

Well, personally I find both models of that set repetitive (but still applaud the rare existence of a B-model) and the colour scheme bad for MOCing (another chapter in the Fifty Shades of Blue saga), and much prefer the motorcycle; but that doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, just that people have different tastes and it's impossible for TLG to please everyone.

Think we both agree that B-models are a good thing.

[LvdH]

2 hours ago, MangaNOID said:

how dumbed down will we get in a few more years...

Sets will be prebuilt next year  

[Jockos]

I don't want to sound too insatiable, but when can we expect some leaks from 2023, as other themes have already got some? :D

[Bartybum]

16 hours ago, Jockos said:

I don't want to sound too insatiable, but when can we expect some leaks from 2023, as other themes have already got some? :D

Nobody here that can answer that for certain, but you can check the 2021 and 2020 topics to see when we first got images of those

Edited August 5, 2022 by Bartybum

[MarkyMark42]

While the prices are definitely a blow, I won't say it's out of my budget but it definitely makes me more prudent when buying sets and looking for bargains. Much like in the past, if a set is what "I consider too much" then I just wait for sales

[karmadrome]

On the topic of colour coding: Color coding does make sense, but to me, Lego's colour coding is way too excessive and often illogical. Take the 42120 Hovercraft for example. Why on earth are the pulleys and the two Pin connectors in LIME?!? And those two BLUE Axle/Pin-Connectors. They make absolutely ZERO sense. Those white 2L Axle/Pin-Liftarms don't make much sense (one could argue that it's easier to find the pieces in a big pile, but come on. Really?)

On a highly complex build like 42082, some colour coding might be useful to make sure you don't make a mistake which could cause a lot of disassembling later on, but here? 42120 doesn't even have a high parts count. (And the colour coding in 42082 is also way too excessive)

 

[Gimmick]

The unsatisfying answer is: It's a mix of distinct colors for specific parts (pins, axles,...), different colors for orientation (most of the time some liftarms or plates), different colors for parts in a specific set for easier part differentiation (2L liftarm with pin and axle hole vs 2L liftarm with tweo pinholes for example), ... and using cost optimized colors for this.

And while every point has its value, if you combine everything it can be counterproductive and excessive. In this case I guess they valued the "find the parts easy"-point very high for this entry-level-set and the final result does not realy suffer from it, no harm done from my perspective.

And while they do actually care a bit more about the "overall color scheme" recently in some sets, you never get rid of the colorcoding for specific parts like pins and axles.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Gimmick

[Jim]

2 hours ago, karmadrome said:

On the topic of colour coding: Color coding does make sense, but to me, Lego's colour coding is way too excessive and often illogical. Take the 42120 Hovercraft for example. Why on earth are the pulleys and the two Pin connectors in LIME?!

They are lime, because lime is used in other sets that year. So instead of making two pulleys, LEGO only makes one. This is for optimizing warehousing etc. You often see a strangely colored part appearing in all (Technic) sets. It's because they are in stock anyway.

So, this (probably) has nothing to do with color coding.

Edit: I have checked the sets in 2021 and 2020 and I can't really prove my point. But I'm pretty sure it has to do with left over stock or usage in other sets.

[MangaNOID]

2 hours ago, Jim said:

They are lime, because lime is used in other sets that year. So instead of making two pulleys, LEGO only makes one. This is for optimizing warehousing etc. You often see a strangely colored part appearing in all (Technic) sets. It's because they are in stock anyway.

If they just made everything under the ‘skin’ LBG, DBG, or black for every set then they would have even more optimisation 

[AVCampos]

... and people would be complaining that the instructions were confusing and that parts were too hard to tell apart from each other.

[allanp]

And the argument rages on! There's a difference between colour coding and colour vomit.

Colour coding:

Tasteful use of colours that would be seen in real life (black, dark bley, like bley, metallic greys, even brown might look like oil or some brass colour), and the main colour of the model itself (eg red for the Ferrari)

Used sensibly (a brightly coloured part does not stand out in a sea of brightly coloured parts)

Makes logical sense in helping to identify the function/type of part (friction pins being black, not friction pins being bley for example)

Understands that the inside of a technic model is where the mechanics (the heart) is, and should look as authentic as the outside. Authenticity that's only skin deep is not authentic at all for Technic.

 

Colour vomit:

Not tasteful use of colours (gears are bright red, blue, green, yellow, and so on)

Not used sensibly

Cares not for the authenticity of the mechanical insides of a model

Treats sets aimed at older builders like they were aimed at toddlers

Isn't even the best answer as mistakes still happen. Having bag numbers go much higher for technic sets (like they do for larger sets in others themes) has been much more effective for me when building those other sets, like the 89 batmobile whose bag numbers went to 22 I think. I also noticed that the new helicopter upper swash plate element has an arrow moulded into the part which is directly called out in the instructions. This is much better than if they had coloured the part purple (which I think puts into perspective how silly the bright colouring of parts actually is in terms of being helpful).

[Jim]

2 hours ago, MangaNOID said:

If they just made everything under the ‘skin’ LBG, DBG, or black for every set then they would have even more optimisation 

Well, that’s not entirely true. It’s about the total number of different parts used. So using LBG under the skin results in actually using more different parts instead of less.

[Erik Leppen]

People complaining about color vomit often forget that without it, we wouldn't have all these shiny new parts, as TLC thinks the target audience couldn't tell them apart by shape alone. Same goes with all the different gears, now blue and green, yes it's a bit untasteful but would you rather had these or none at all?

You should count the number of different pin molds we have today versus the different number of pin molds we had when 3L pins were black. You'd be surprised.

Count your blessings - quite literally ;)

Secondly, real-life machines also use color coding. It's not like all real-life machines are only gray from the inside, they also have color coded cables, functional bits or other elements that come in similar shapes but crucial functional differences. Usually not the chassis itself because that's mostly the same type of element (beams), but the principle is the same - parts that are easily confused but crucially different, are color-coded. It's only sensible. If you're on a desktop PC, just screw the lid off the casing and look at all the color vomit there!

Don't complain about color vomit - just pick a black part out of your own collection if you're so concerned about it, and keep the lime part for when it comes in handy.

 

[howitzer]

1 hour ago, allanp said:

And the argument rages on! There's a difference between colour coding and colour vomit.

Colour coding:

Tasteful use of colours that would be seen in real life (black, dark bley, like bley, metallic greys, even brown might look like oil or some brass colour), and the main colour of the model itself (eg red for the Ferrari)

Used sensibly (a brightly coloured part does not stand out in a sea of brightly coloured parts)

Makes logical sense in helping to identify the function/type of part (friction pins being black, not friction pins being bley for example)

Understands that the inside of a technic model is where the mechanics (the heart) is, and should look as authentic as the outside. Authenticity that's only skin deep is not authentic at all for Technic.

 

Colour vomit:

Not tasteful use of colours (gears are bright red, blue, green, yellow, and so on)

Not used sensibly

Cares not for the authenticity of the mechanical insides of a model

Treats sets aimed at older builders like they were aimed at toddlers

Isn't even the best answer as mistakes still happen. Having bag numbers go much higher for technic sets (like they do for larger sets in others themes) has been much more effective for me when building those other sets, like the 89 batmobile whose bag numbers went to 22 I think. I also noticed that the new helicopter upper swash plate element has an arrow moulded into the part which is directly called out in the instructions. This is much better than if they had coloured the part purple (which I think puts into perspective how silly the bright colouring of parts actually is in terms of being helpful).

You make many valid points, but I'd argue that tastefulness is quite irrelevant when it comes to colour coding (or not) of real life machinery. Yes, gears are on the metallic grayscale but that's entirely because they're usually made of metals and can't really be colour coded due to the requirements of their function. On the other hand, there are tons and tons of colours inside anything that has electric parts, as wires are colour coded and so are many electronic other parts and components. And I don't think the engineers designing the internals care much for aesthetics when deciding which colours to use and where. Of course Lego sets aren't electrical (PF/PU don't count here), but as they are designed to be assembled from kits, colour coding (in bright, easily distinguishable colours) does make a lot of sense. Using bunch of different greys would make for a pretty hard to read instructions and wouldn't help much over just having all parts in the same colour.

If I were the Big Boss at TLG, I might choose less vibrant colours for gears but still have them use colours beyond the grayscale so that they would be easy to distinguish even in variable lighting conditions and for people with lowered vision. As for axles, I'd choose 2-3 colours and then use them by the length, making a sequence of alternating colours. Of course tons of weird axle colours exist for decorative purposes, but those wouldn't be used in Technic functions. Colouring pins depending on if they have friction or not is a good idea, though I'd probably make more colour-coded categories for axle-pins with and without friction too. Beyond these, colour coding should indeed be used sensibly to indicate position and orientation and it's true that using it too much defeats the purpose.

[Johnny1360]

I sometimes wonder if some color coding is done just for the sake the robots, putting all the parts in the bag.

[nerdsforprez]

1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

Secondly, real-life machines also use color coding. It's not like all real-life machines are only gray from the inside, they also have color coded cables, functional bits or other elements that come in similar shapes but crucial functional differences. Usually not the chassis itself because that's mostly the same type of element (beams), but the principle is the same - parts that are easily confused but crucially different, are color-coded. It's only sensible. If you're on a desktop PC, just screw the lid off the casing and look at all the color vomit there!

Don't complain about color vomit - just pick a black part out of your own collection if you're so concerned about it, and keep the lime part for when it comes in handy.

Recent posts have addressed this.  I really think we are in danger of a false comparison here.  We bandy about the phrase "color-code" between what TLG is using and what is seen in the real-world applications like they are the same thing.  I am not sure that is the case. 

I do not see what TLG is doing is color coding AT ALL.  There does not seem to be a rhyme or reason to their color patterns and applications to certain drives, functions, etc. The only so called pattern I see is "make this look different from that", which, in models containing 200+ lots at times we can easily have, i dunno, haven't counted, but 10-20 different colors, often in very bright psychedelic colors, in ONE chassis?  This is not color-coding.  This is, aptly described as "color vomit."  I don't think anyone realistically wants NO color differentiation.  All we are asking for is some pattern, some plan, some cohesiveness between colors and functions, lateralization, etc.  I personally, do not see that in recent large models.  I see vomit.  

And to your second point, I see this as unhelpful.  We are already putting down 3-4 hundred dollars (I am in the US) on larger sets, sometimes more.  So I am supposed to replace all the internals to an already overpriced set?  Also, have you ever even practiced what you are recommending?  I have.   It is extremely time-consuming and boring. 

I know we all fall somewhere on the continuum of complaints with TLG, overall, for me still a big fan.  Love MOCing, assembling official sets, not so much.   This is one of the primary reasons.  I do not feel I am assembling a premium set.  I feel, like my wife's voice whining in my head, that indeed I am simply assembling a child's toy.  

[Erik Leppen]

 

1 hour ago, nerdsforprez said:

Also, have you ever even practiced what you are recommending?

No, because I don't dislike the coloring. To be honest, I sort-of build like that myself. I hate to build grayscale-only. So when I build, like, anything, I fill the interior with all kinds of stupid colors, usually trying to pick colors I don't expect to need anytime soon, or I simply pick a color I know I have good quantities of the given part. Or just the first color I find 4 of the same color, if I need 4 of something. Also, using more colors makes sorting less tedious.

And you're completely correct that actually using color to code for certain functions would be really great. It would also be more educational for builders if color coding was used like that. However, I'm afraid that being educational isn't TLC's main goal...

What I'm getting at is, we can complain, but it's going to bring us so little... Color usage isn't going to become more sensible, I'm afraid... I would also redesign the whole coloring for gears or pins or axles if I could redesign everything, but I assume TLC know what they're doing. So I try to see the bright side of it. That's why I keep saying, without the wicked colors we wouldn't have all those very useful parts. Now, I know I'm guilty of complaining about set's focus on looks, but I think it's a bit of a shame to see people spend their energy complaining about part colors, if it's something you can change (yes, I understand it can be cumbersome, time consuming, expensive, etc.) But most parts are available in more neutral colors.

In the meantime, (to bring things ontopic a bit...) let's all get that awesome new helicopter. And then, people who hate the neon yellow can replace it with white or normal yellow, and then sell the neon yellow parts on Bricklink so I can buy them cheap :D

[nerdsforprez]

9 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Color usage isn't going to become more sensible

This we can agree on, sadly.  And your right, it does nothing to complain... except personal catharsis.  Which ashamedly, I am not above.  

My airbus came last night.  Excited to build my first set in several years.  And yes, I will be replacing colors    and hopefully modifying/improving it.