Bublehead

Been a while since I've been here, looks like the same old song and dance? Not much has changed and I don't think that is a good thing...

There was a time when I would have jumped at this chance, but that was when I was younger and my time meant nothing to me and the desire to be an "insider" would have made me do just about anything for them. 25 years later and I am still like a junky when new sets hit the shelves, but they only get my money these days, and my time is worth waaaaaay more to me since what I have left is dwindling down to about 15 to 20 years left on this planet.

<sarcasm mode on> Hi, this is TLG, we would like you to volunteer your time, expertise, and resources to help prop up our brand... no, no compensation, just playing on your desires to be associated with an official TLG advertising campaign... you know, something to brag about on the forums and put on your resume? Its for a good cause, you know, STEM and all, so like no story here on a big corporation leveraging user fanaticism for a brand into a marketing advantage over competition, no, we would never do that at TLG... <sarcasm mode off>

I agree, that is the fun of coming up with a new GBC module, but balancing the scoring of the mechanism, combined with the scoring of theme, color choices, piece counts, longevity, robustness, point of task, etc... could actually be a hard thing to do in a touchless competition. Successfully designed GBC modules have operating requirements that are not necessarily ingrained within the GBC rules. You need to move balls from A to B at a rate of 1 ball a second... but how many balls can your module "consume" and be called successful? Lost or dropped balls should be a factor that is measured and gauged. What is the MTBF of your module? Power requirements? How do you gauge the "cool" factor? How do you put a point scale on all these variables and then judge against them? I think a GBC competition is a great idea, but not sure how it could be judged without physically observing the modules, and testing them independently (such as placing them all under a test monitor volunteer who runs them all and collects the results) So that is my take on a GBC competition, where I think it makes sense when done at an event, but not as an online competition.

I agree, but a touchless competition is what we have to work with here... I know that if some models were more heavily scrutinized by someone picking it up, futzing with it, and inspecting it, these competitions might be more balanced. Point in case, I know I can hide a TON of "sins" in a model and you would not know it, however, if I had to give up said model for inspection, the ruse would collapse. And let's face it, would you take a video of a function "not working as designed" and include it in your presentation? So what we actually see here is "the best models that can have its weaknesses camouflaged by a good video" and any "non-purist" hacks can be hidden from prying eyes. I believe this is why we get so little comments on static MOC posts as well. Nobody wants to see a picture, they all want to see a slick video presentation... almost like every model must get the "Saturday Morning Toy commercial" treatment before it gets any real attention... again just my $0.02 opinion

I agree, they should be fun, however, without a hope of winning, I see no fun in competing. I don't have the time or resources to put together some high production quality video and photo presentation just to garner a slim chance at winning some small prize and the accolades of a handful of expert builders on a very slimly focused hobby forum. I guess the real problem is the lack of granularity in the skill level required to compete, the amount of actual bricks which can be used, and the amount of time in which to complete the contest. Almost every competition winner on here, if you go by the past winners, are users with the most time/money/skill, and if you lack one of the three, your hopes of winning plummet.

While GBC does showcase the intricacies and complexity of Technic, the real world application of this is limited to, well, moving balls around. Now I am not sure about others, but the need to move balls around is something of a non-realistic task to ask a person to engineer if you are trying to inject some STEM learning into the mix. Granted, it is limited in scope, does not have a lot of "rules" per se, just those that let the devices coexist in the same GBC world and interface between each module with the least amount of hassles. I mean this could just as well be a "mousetrap" competition to build the most elaborate method of catching a mouse, but I don't find that as challenging as making a real world machine that actually performs a task. Now in the realm of Technic, we have not seen many TLG designed machines that actually perform a real world task other than lifting, dumping, sorting, moving, or loading, along with mimicking functionality of other complex vehicles. Not too many Technic models actually float, fly, or do any actual real world work (cement mixer doesn't mix real cement, bucket wheel loader doesn't actually excavate, nor does the Liebherr. They can move around bricks that simulate these tasks) So the short answer here is, nope, not interested in a GBC competition because it will undoubtedly be another "who owns the most Technic Lego" competition combined with an "over the top" display of gee-wizardry meant to do nothing but garner votes out of shear brute force of a high part count. If I was looking to hold a GBC competition, the rules would be very simple... "with the least amount of parts possible, create a mechanism that when ganged together could move a GBC ball from point A to point B, without dropping the ball at a rate of 1 ball per second average, giving the hight of point A is X and the height of point B is Y, and the distance between A and B is Z. The model should not include any driving mechanics, a completed module, or any added parts not required to actually move the ball. This way we should only see novel ways to move a GBC ball and should not see any additional "bling" added on to help harvest votes. But that would be a very boring competition to judge and would not be entered by anyone... so the current idea will probably go forward, but since my collection of Technic Lego is not as infinite as some, the actual probability of me winning is low, so my interest is naturally as low as well.

I find too many people on EB to be just too judgmental. You can post an 8000 piece MOC and link to 50 pictures of it, and you get three comments and 2 out of three are negative and the third says "Looks cool and all, but a video would be better". I have posted MOCs on here that took 8 months to design and build and a lot of the posts on it were pure negativity. I've given up looking for praise on EB, So I'm not posting any more MOCs on here in hopes of praise, only when I want my creations ripped on for being too big, or too heavy, or wrong color choices, or uses illegal geometry, or violates some unwritten TLG stress reduction code. The feeling I get when I come here is "you are not worthy of our praise" so why even try? Until this changes, I've decided my MOCs are for me, I build them to impress myself, and sharing them is no longer something I will do often here. You can get way more praise and less negativity on FB Technic groups.

I used to NOT have a reason to buy the Flexari, now I have no excuse why NOT to!

Pokemon+Technic = Bionicle Bionicle + $5.00 - Starbucks = $0.00

Oh, and I asked Santa for a Control+ interface development application, a micro motor, and more servo based motorization. My three Brands/IP where Boston Dynamics, Bell-Boeing and SpaceX/NASA. The Bell-Boeing was a jab in the eye for canceling the V-22

This was interesting... I gave them my input and I hope it helps. It made me look up “Build for real” and that led to a interesting footnote on the marketing campaign at this link: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjM16ftsIDvAhUDpVsKHbAxBkQQFjABegQIARAD&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fcaples.org%2F2019-winners-results%2F%3Fid%3D34%26cat%3DDigital%20B%20to%20C&amp;usg=AOvVaw07eN8ExXWnm6fojtdLsbiq

To be honest, the hardest set to put together is the one where you made a mistake on Step 37 but don’t figure it out until step 1092... and to top it off, you used a part in Step 37 that was 5 studs long when it should have been 7 studs long, and now on this step 1092, you are short a 5 length black beam and are wondering if TLG screwed up or if I did? Yes it happened to me on the Lamborghini so it can happen to anyone.

My MOCs, when finished, are rarely revisited. They may take a while to complete, and I do go through many iterations, but at the end, it is complete, it will only get an update when a portion of the build can be improved ONLY due to a newly released element that solves the original problem and reduces what I call a “kludge monster” construct to a stronger, more reliable, and more play worthy model

The Chromatic Regurgitation is a way of quickly identifying the parts in the big pile after ripping open the bags and pouring them out. As crusty old salts that have been building with Technic since it’s debut, we can identify parts blindfolded, and most of us presort to some extent. The Uninitiated and younger Lego users see the color differences as a plus in that color can quickly identify a piece faster than observing its shape and form. TLG is capitalizing on this to help reduce build times... which seems counterintuitive for a building/construction toy, where you would think the longer it takes to build, the more satisfaction it brings to the user, but focus groups and test market trials would reveal that a set is more well received and future sales more likely when the customer actually finishes the model, and that all the functions work. So anything TLG can do to “help” the customer finish the build is better in the long run, so they are not about to change anything just because a small dedicated fan base on a public forum are making noise, because that is not about to change anything. I find it interesting that people believe they have some kind of “voice to be heard” about things dealing with the way TLG runs their business, but this only comes from the “we complained and they listened” feeling users get when TLG changes the way they are doing something that aligns with the complaint, thus reinforcing the belief that their complaints have been heard. Other than brokered licensing deals, most decisions made at TLG come from management and are based solely on one simple principle. Make more money. Which is rule one. Any further decisions on who, what, when, how, and why need only be reminded, there is only 1 real rule, any other rules are secondary and should be used only as a backup to rule one. If you can satisfy the squeaky wheels on the forums without losing money, then Ok, but TLG has tried the “do what the customers want and the money will come” attitude before to the almost utter ruin of the company. I don’t think we will ever see that kind of response from TLG ever again.

Anyone else feel that TLG has had winners in the RC/one motor per Chanel/one function per motor functionality (Wheeled loader 42030 comes to mind) as well as one motor/many functions sets like RTC? The only really bad flagship was the off road wrecker 42070 which tried to combine these ideas into one set and also put a price premium on it that made the value per $$$ the worst in history. I have owned just about every Technic flagship set over 40 years, and although I have been disappointed by some, it has still been nice buying and building them. When they stop offering a yearly Technic true flagship set, (and not rely on the UCS type Supercar sets to stand in for a flagship set) is when I will start to get worried.

The non-usability of Lego technicolor yawn (as used for internals for A models) for use in B model builds is only an AFOL foible. Have you ever seen kids play with Lego? Color coordination is THE LAST thing they worry about. Children’s imaginations can see way beyond the ADHD adults have with how a model looks once complete. Also, children are way better at “making do” with the pieces they have in hand, as many understand that there is a price to be paid to the Lego ferryman, and that Lego is a premium and more expensive toy. I remember that I was way happier with my Lego compared to other toys my parents COULD have purchased, even if that meant getting less actual product for the same cost. I could have had a huge Tinker Toy collection, but instead I asked Santa for Lego. I have seen kids put 13 pieces of multi colored Lego together to “make” a toy gun and the “pew” “pew” “pew” never stopped. Did they care it was every color of the rainbow? No, and so, TLG doesn’t care that much either.

I would like to know what people really want in a Technic flagship set, is it neat mechanisms or realistic ones? Is it one motor, many functions, or one motor per function? Is it pack it full of as many different technologies as possible, like pneumatics, LA’s, transmissions, plus all the trappings of a vehicle, with fake motor, pistons, suspension, steering? Is it RC and can it be controlled completely by RC without having to switch manual functions? Is it supercars or construction equipment? Is it a certain number of functions, some motorized, some manual? Is it all motorized and completely RC? I always looked at flagship sets as a showcase of ALL things Technic, that is, it incorporates everything we have seen to date in one set... The AROCs and Unimog sets hit this mark fairly well, the RTC was a decent set, although lacking pneumatics. The off-road wrecker, however, was an abomination as far as flagship sets go, it tried very hard to check all the boxes, but was a dismal failure due to the clunkiness and crappy pricing. All this being said, it has been a while since TLG knocked a flagship set out of the park. If a Caterpillar bulldozer is the next flagship set, it will be a big disappointment in my book. We have already seen a RC bulldozer flagship, and let’s say the Liebherr was about as flagshippy as we have seen in a while, however it was not that much fun to play with once it was built. Would have really liked a B model (and Control+ profile) to extend the value of the set. But I am not whining or complaining, just stating an opinion on flagship Technic sets of the recent past.

Well, so have we devolved from a discussion on Technic to a flame war about disagreement?!?! Can I just say, Lighten up Francis! We are discussing a hobby/pastime/toy, right? In the realm of all things, can we not agree that TLG is a company out to make money by selling overpriced injection molded plastic at a markup to parents who would be willingly to kill a small herd of furry beasts just for 5 minutes of peace and quiet from their children? We can talk about the things TLG does to create a glowing persona of their corporate image as a concerned, responsive, and responsible organization and that it is equally passionate towards their customers and end users (parents and children, respectively) as parents are about the welfare and development of the children. This is a reputation that must be nurtured and protected, and guided by the pitfalls of being a corporate entity in a cut throat toy manufacturing industry. A lot of the decisions made by TLG is not based on keeping this “good will” aurora intact but just simply keeping the company afloat. At the end of the day, all that “good will” goes out the door along with the baby and the bath water if the cost of that “good will” exceeds the profitability of the goods and services that are being supplied. We must realize, when we complain about any aspect of TLG’s decisions we may be actually be arguing for the companies demise as opposed to their success? I have been buying Technic Lego for forty, yes, “4” and “0” years and I have been “mad as heck” over a lot of the decisions that TLG has made in those 40 years. I have scratched my head more times than seems possible over 40 years and one thing has been a constant... no matter what I have asked for, posted about, or otherwise complained about or denigrated them for, they (TLG) have NEVER ever gone in the direction I have thought they ought to... So, much of what is being posted here is going to have the exact same affect... which is not a whole lot, so why don’t we take it down a few notches on the drama scale?

Quite a passionate bunch in here... I agree with the comment about needing a device to “play” with a set. Requiring a smartphone or tablet to use the toy is a slippery slope that a lot of toy manufacturers believe they need to take a couple steps out onto... being left behind due to technology is a nightmare scenario many toy makers have been battling with for decades. The loss of so much revenue to video games and gaming consoles has had them scrambling to keep up, especially when hybrid building systems have taken a big chunk out of your potential customers. Minecraft and Roblox has been embraced by kids and there is no physical bricks involved at all. I believe they should keep the Mindstorms aspect out of Technic and keep the part about using a smart device more in the educational sector. The Control+ hub and smart device combo is cool, it does neat things, but does it do anything to teach kids about how to program, or develop their own Control+ models? I think a Bluetooth or wireless interface to a dedicated controller would have been a better option, I would have rather seen them improve their RC capabilities by ditching the IR interface for something more reliable outside the playroom. That being said, I have been pretty happy with the parts they have added to the catalog over the last 10 years, my only complaint is the wait and see mindset we all have to adopt as we wait for them to fill in the missing spots on the color wheel of ALL the different elements (like panels, flexible axles, and wheel arches) which should be available in ALL colors if they REALLY wanted to keep my dedication to the brand.

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

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.

Hey, I have designed many a MOC that uses multiple battery boxes and even multiple AAA sized rechargeable boxes... if I was purchasing one of my own MOCs, I would not blink at the amount of batteries, nor did I blink when I bought the Liebherr. But 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? I could tell, this guy was looking at the long term viability of the set’s “replay” value, or in layman terms, how long and how far does $450 go to keeping his child engaged and interested, and if it turns out to be a winner in the race for the child’s attention, how expensive will it be to maintain that level of engagement? At about $9 bucks a pop, you get to a hardy 10% fraction of $450 after replacing the batteries 5 times. That adds up quick.

Ok, a few more words concerning Technic and TLG’s current marketing trajectory... First off, @Cumulonimbus has pretty much done a great job summing up my consternation with TLG and the direction Technic has taken lately... but here is my big rub. Specialized pieces solving specific engineering problems without any real follow ups... or to put it more distinctly, why create the banana gear for use in the BWL and then not use this functionality in other models? The design of the banana gear is very specific to the use in the BWL, and in other models simply as a bearing surface. Unlike the large red LA in the AROCs set, where the gear rack came with a usable housing, the banana gear has no matching housing, no real parts to interface with the gear rack on it other than another banana gear. This is throw away engineering as far as I am concerned, the part is hard to use except in the limited fashion that TLG used if for to date in other sets. In the old days, it seemed like the parts were designed more generically, as in “hey this is a cool new piece, how many ways can we use it in creating new models?” And now today, it’s let’s create a cool model and include parts that can be used in only a very limited way, think the latest cement mixer truck and ask yourself, when, and where would I ever re-use the two parts that make up the mixer drum? And the new Lamborghini in such a craptastic green color that makes creating MOCs with them a nightmare of working to justify why your model is built out of neon lime green panels and flexible axles. The new Skittles color choices are nice, except there used to be a time when you only had to worry about having enough beams and lift arms the same color to build a MOC, and since the color pallet was somewhat muted to primary colors, there wasn’t a need to buy every lime green colored set just to have a decent selection of parts for your own MOCs. And now that they have started producing Technic parts in model specific color schemes, it gives us a lot of new choices, but to have a complete color palette of these parts is almost an impossibility since it will require TLG YEARS to create, market, and distribute enough models in enough colors to make that even a viable option. As it is, I generally have to wait until TLG releases a model of the right color using a very specific part in a visible place that requires it to match the rest of the model color scheme, and half the time this part comes in the color I want ONLY because a Technic element was used in a System set to match some non related object shape or functionality. After being a Technic fan for as many years as I have, you see all the ups and downs TLG has had to navigate and I have sworn several times that Technic was on its way out, but then we get a worldwide pandemic and Lego flys off the shelves. I am unimpressed by their latest Control+ replacements of PF elements, and the usability of the motors is now harder to incorporate into your own MOC designs unless they are gigantic in scale with enough room to accommodate they blocky shape of the new motors. With iall of this said, my love of Technic has allowed me to give them major leeway in the past, but as their marketing choices diverge from the historically practical to the now “low hanging fruit” sales model, my zeal for the brand is rapidly waning. When Technic has devolved into nothing but supercars and gigantic construction equipment, you start to understand why I build amusement rides and straddle carriers and basically anything that is not just another crane, backhoe, or , God forbid, another $5 million dollar automobile with the exact same list of functions... it bounces when you push up and down on it, the doors open, the wheels steer, the gears shift, the spoiler goes up and down, the pistons go boing boing boing, the boot opens and look at the cute luggage!

When one goes wishing for Technic sets, I rarely sit up late at night hoping the next flagship is another super car, especially after 3 fairly amazing ones we have gotten so far recently. I wish for models with huge lists of functions, more than one motor, and includes all aspects of the Technic line of capabilities: Power function/Control+ pneumatics transmissions and gearing supporting multiple selectable functions winches and string pistons and simulated motors linear actuators panels (especially if used in non standard ways for construction) showcasing real world machines Lets hope that 42130 falls somewhere in that mix