what is "technic"?

[allanp]

So then how many functions should a set have for it in your mind to be considered technic? I consider bionicle and mindstorms to be sort of spinoffs that are heavily technic based. it's hard to not consider a car or truck that is made out of technic parts to not be technic even if it just steers and pistons move. I mean those are 2 functions right?

Yes those are functions, many system and creator sets have functions. How many functions is dependant on the size of the model and not really what i'm getting at. The priority when designing most technic sets is their functionality. The priority of the racers sets was their looks. Blakbird made a very interesting point in reference to the 8002 destroyer droid and why, for me, it's the only star wars set that can really considered to be pure technic, whilst the others are more like technic spin-offs like racers. To be fair tho, I also think the 8000 pit droid to be pretty much pure technic, just not as advanced. The destroyer droid does look like a destroyer droid but, unlike the other technic starwars sets, it's main purpose is not to look like it's movie version. It's main purpose is to recreate a key function of the movie version and it does so in a really clever and complicated way.

Edited March 9, 2012 by allanp

[andythenorth]

I'm confused what the issue is for this thread.

If it's Technic, in my experience Lego mark the set as being part of the Technic theme.

Edited March 9, 2012 by andythenorth

[barti673]

THIS IS Technic

THIS IS Technic

THIS IS Technic

How THAT can be considered as Technic? As long as Technic is technic, it's Technic.

No shame to SW or Bionicle builders.

[timslegos]

Eh, I find it hard to get excited about technic.

You have not seen a good technic MOC than!

Although some of the lego official sets may not be very exciting, i think many Technic MOC's that AFOLs make are very exciting. Especially MOCs with lots of function. I guess that is just me.

tim

[Wiseman_2]

Somebody pointed this set out in one of the other threads and I think it is probably a very good one to ponder regarding what actually makes something Technic:

4958 is marketed as a Creator set, the set's theme (as in, subject matter) is definitely creator, and its functions are not typically Technic, but it uses motors, gears and IR control to drive it; so should it be considered Technic? I would certainly say so... but then, if those Technic Star Wars sets aren't really Technic...

I guess it comes down to the individual sets themselves at the end of the day...

[KEvron]

If it's Technic, in my experience Lego mark the set as being part of the Technic theme.

again, what about mocs?

KEvron

[tafkatb]

Honestly, I think the Potter Stewart definition is the best anyone's going to be able to come up with.

[nychase]

And here I am gonna throw a monkey wrench in the fold when everybody was just starting to agree...

NOT labeled as Technic and most certainly IS technic. Has functions, no system pieces and very few bionicle parts.

Thoughts?

[Paul Boratko]

And here I am gonna throw a monkey wrench in the fold when everybody was just starting to agree...

NOT labeled as Technic and most certainly IS technic. Has functions, no system pieces and very few bionicle parts.

Thoughts?

Very good example... That set is only comprised of Technic parts(some very rare ones and colors that only came in that set)...

There is also this set which is about 90% Technic parts:

I was thinking a little more about this subject while I was working today and thought of another situation... Say you go to a Lego show somewhere and at 2 separate areas of the show are huge Eiffel Towers on display built by 2 different people, one is made out of traditional systems blocks and the other is made from 100% Technic Beams and Pins... Now say that you run into a friend at the show and you start talking about MOCs that you liked or had seen and you say "Hey did you see that Eiffel Tower?" and he asks "Which One?" would you say "The Technic one" or "The one made out of Technic Parts"...?

I think this is a good example of where the difference of opinion lies between us in what we consider Technic and what we don't...

[Paul Boratko]

Same thing could be argued for the 8145 599 GTB or the 8653 Enzo... Say you own the 8653 Ferrari Enzo and you're talking to someone about sets that you own and you mention that you have the Enzo set and they ask "Which one?" wouldn't you say "The Technic one" since there were 2 completely differently build Enzo models that came out in 2005...?

[F0NIX]

Intresting topic.

Where do the limits go before it is a Technic MOC? How many Technic part does it need to contain before it is Technic? Does it need to have cogs and wheels to be technic? Can it have cogs and wheels and motors and still not be Technic?

I can take out my little monorail experiment here. Inside it is a lot of cogs and wheels and motors and PF things that would be considered all Technic, but I have put on an outer shell of standard bricks. Is it Technic or not? I say not...

I think Technic creation is constructions where the Technic parts and functions is in the focus. And you probably would see the Technic parts from the outside. But still there is a gray area where it is difficult to place the MOC in the Technic-group or not...

[KEvron]

I can take out my little monorail experiment here. Inside it is a lot of cogs and wheels and motors and PF things that would be considered all Technic, but I have put on an outer shell of standard bricks. Is it Technic or not? I say not

serendipity! wasn't this moc the topic of a similar discussion at TB's? i didn't get into it too heavily then, but i would probably assert that it is, indeed, technic. so, standard elements have been dropped from the theme recently.

the theme has a 35 year history, for pete's sake.

KEvron's first-ever Technic set, and his last lego set before the onset of his dark ages

and it's not a seperate product; technic is still lego, isn't it?

we need a word. i've dropped "technische" before, but my coinage rarely enters the vernacular....

KEvron

[Omikron]

I'm using simple criteria for such identification.

1.If TLG says it's technic - it's technic

2. If it is built mostly from technic parts - it's technic

For example this creation is not technic for me.

The majority of bricks are system, yes it has cool functions, but who said that system doesn't or couldn't.

The only technic thing there is suspension and maybe inner frame.

Power functions are a standalone LEGO series for me.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Omikron

[Lipko]

I can't think of any analogy how philosophical and meaningless this question really is... Does it really matter what is called Technic while it's Lego? If I build Flash Gordon stuff, would I really care which sub-group it is? Is it Lego City? Is it Space theme? What if I build furnitures in big scales? Do I care what theme it fits? It's Lego, that matters. IMHO

Edited March 10, 2012 by Lipko

[KEvron]

I can't think of any analogy how philosophical and meaningless this question really is

what a shame.

If I build Flash Gordon stuff, would I really care which sub-group it is?

shouldn't you pose that question in the "flash gordon" forum?

KEvron

Edited March 10, 2012 by KEvron

[AndyC]

4958 is marketed as a Creator set, the set's theme (as in, subject matter) is definitely creator, and its functions are not typically Technic, but it uses motors, gears and IR control to drive it; so should it be considered Technic? I would certainly say so... but then, if those Technic Star Wars sets aren't really Technic...

I guess it comes down to the individual sets themselves at the end of the day...

I'd definitely put the Monster Dino set into the Technic bracket, it's a very mechanism-focused set made almost entirely from Technic pieces. I see it more as the modern equivalent of the old Universal sets, hence being labelled under the more non-specific Creator brand.

[Conchas]

I've been reading your points and most of them are very valid!

We have LEGO Technic branded sets that have been changing in style overtime and some specific variations here and there, that could have been branded as something else although they were still included int the Technic theme officially.

Then we have many sets that make large use of Technic parts or functions that we may consider also as deserving the Technic label (and from which you gave some good examples), which were branded as something else for a variable number of reasons.

On top of this discussion, it may worth to think also about what the LEGO Designers consider Technic and what they consider not.

I remember that many entries made to the former LEGO Technic Challenge contests in the past two years, didn't made to the votation panel, because they were considered by the Designers as making use of an excessive number of SYSTEM parts.

And well this makes me remind that I was to write something about "The LEGO Technic Essence" for the Designers blog, for long... Maybe I'll take some inspiration here, when I finally decide (or find the time) to start this task...

[andythenorth]

I can't think of any analogy how philosophical and meaningless this question really is...

+1. The point of this thread escapes me.

[KEvron]

The point of this thread escapes me.

really, it was just an intellectual/philisophical exercise. given that, we'll understand if you feel the need to sit this one out.

they were considered by the Designers as making use of an excessive number of SYSTEM parts.

the goal posts were moved.

KEvron

Edited March 11, 2012 by KEvron

[andythenorth]

really, it was just an intellectual/philisophical exercise. given that, we'll understand if you feel the need to sit this one out

Okay, on that basis, let's try some philosophy.

This seems a bit like the 'chair' problem in philosophy. When pushed, it's surprisingly hard to define exactly what constitutes a chair. We know about chairs with 4 legs, a seat, and a back, but many people will be able to find counter-examples that don't match that pattern, but are still chairs.

Yet in general, people simply seem to have no problem identifying chairs when they see them.

Defining the meaning of 'technic' precisely is boring dictionary semantics. Sure, someone could try. Not that interesting.

But what can we claim about technic?

1. technic (mostly) doesn't involve mini-figs. I can't think of many sets or mocs that are definitely technic, yet also involve mini-figs extensively. Sure, counter-examples can be found, but I think this one stands up as a general claim.

2. Function is integral to the gestalt of a technic model. What's a gestalt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology

Technic sets and mocs have function as an inherent part of the design and the playability. Of course, City and other themes have this too. However technic is the theme where functionality is the absolute primary element. When you perceive a technic model, you perceive that it has a demonstration of functionality embedded within it.

3. Claims about types of pieces used won't stand up. There are far too many counter-examples. It's an absolute principle for Lego that all parts fit together.

4. I think that claims could be made about 'resolution', but I'm not sure they stack up. I'm looking right now at the small technic mog tow truck, towing the city car + caravan (on the floor, where my two year-old left it). They have similar sizes, similar parts for front grilles, lights etc, but the resolution of each is quite different. It's the equivalent of different styles in art (or computer generated imagery): e.g. cartoon rendering (black outlines) versus photo-real rendering etc. However I think there are too many counter examples in sets and mocs.

5. There is an absolute claim for official sets that if TLG mark it as Technic it's Technic; they maintain the canon, not the fans.

cheers,

Andy

Edited March 12, 2012 by andythenorth

[Meatman]

3. Claims about types of pieces used won't stand up. There are far too many counter-examples. It's an absolute principle for Lego that all parts fit together.

I am confused with this statement. There are tons of parts that don't work and fit with each other, especially in the Technic Theme.

What I mean is that most Technic parts don't fit with Traditional parts.

[1974]

Technic=function(s). That's why TLG invented those toothed thingies to put on axels that go through holed bricks

Just because a set uses many typical Technical parts that does not make it Technic (I'm looking at you, Starwars!)

Technich is not bricks. It's a philosophy, it's a way of building and a way to achive (movable) results. I think that's been clear from the 70's

I've never been in doubt about that, not have I seen TLG been in doubt. Yes, Modelteam (and a few others) have been crossover, but it's still not Technic is it?

Technic have slipped into all (well, not Duplo, Belville, Friends etc) other themes and Technic uses ordinary bricks as well, but such is Lego/TLG

What I mean is that most Technic parts don't fit with Traditional parts.

That makes no sense. They do, all of them. You can see tons of typical Technic 'bricks' in just about any theme. Add you can find typical bricks in just about any Technic theme

Technic is LEGO!

[Paul Boratko]

I am confused with this statement. There are tons of parts that don't work and fit with each other, especially in the Technic Theme.

What I mean is that most Technic parts don't fit with Traditional parts.

That makes no sense. They do, all of them. You can see tons of typical Technic 'bricks' in just about any theme. Add you can find typical bricks in just about any Technic theme

Technic is LEGO!

I am not entirely sure what he Meatman meant by his statement, but This Piece does not fit with This Piece so by you saying that they all do isn't true... And this is just one of probably hundreds of examples...

[Jan]

For me it has always been quite simple. Technic is about action and reaction systems build into a scale model.

Turn a knob - something moves

turn a steering wheel - something steers

pull a lever - and so on and so on.

That's what makes it Technic to me.

So it can be the sliding doors in the set 8038 battle of Endor, and also the mechanism for the walker in the same set. But not the poseable star wars figures.

For me Technic is more than just a few sets with that name on it, it's a building "style" that can be in any Lego theme.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Jan

[andythenorth]

What I mean is that most Technic parts don't fit with Traditional parts.

Examples? Bricklink list 26,785 parts. For many of these parts, you could pick any two, and they will connect together somehow, or via the use of only one other part (also this without the use of illegal building techniques).

To prove your claim of 'most', I think you'd need to show at least 50% of technic parts don't fit with any of the other thousands of parts. I'm guessing, but I don't think you can show that.

@Paul Boratko - the example you gave is totally valid. You could connect them with this bionicle tooth though http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=42074 (first example I found on BL)

Edited March 12, 2012 by andythenorth