Xfing

Holy cow, these parts look amazingly useful. Hook them up with friction pins horizontally to a square frame and you've basically got a simple, unpowered vehicle chassis ready with just 7 parts (11 counting wheels). Pretty insane that Lego doesn't have these parts yet. I think they've slowly been realizing that they are being forced into incorporating some parts thought of sooner by the competition, such as the flip-flop beams you mentioned (they suddenly feel SO obvious now), or the 1x2 plate with rounded edges and fully hollow studs (https://rebrickable.com/parts/35480/plate-special-1-x-2-rounded-with-2-open-studs/) The latter has been out only since 2018, and already it's finding its way into sets in huge quantities. Meanwhile Cobi has been using that part for at least several years longer. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if they ended up releasing the entire repertoire of stud reversal options from Cobi's repertoire eventually either, since those parts are such huge game-changers for omni-dimensional building. As for studless Technic - one thing I've noticed is that since adoption until relatively recently, studless technic was just as skeletal as studded Technic before it, only more recently have the designers started mastering solid structures. I suppose that's largely thanks to flat panels. The 42078 Mack Anthem for example feautres a legit box made of panels, one that is also functional (you can store stuff inside without it spilling out). I do believe solid bodywork-like structures could be achieved sooner, had the designers not been averse to using half-pin studs and traditional System plates. I suppose they thought that in studded TEchnic era the whole point was that the mechanisms are exposed so you can watch them work, while in the studless era they may have thought the visuals wouldn't match very well. I still think there are perfectly seamless ways of meshing the two systems together, as several recent big models by Cada prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. BTW, found an article from 2014 about "Technic pieces that should exist but don't". They prepared a summary picture, check it out: A lot of these have indeed been added, but some are still missing, right?

Or LEGO could simply adapt, it's not like it would be some big, mission-breaking concession to start using studded technic again where it helps and makes sense. They've done it in the past to great success, like in the models I quoted before. Also, let's be perfectly honest here, it's not like that's CaDA's biggest selling point anyhow. Some people might notice and appreciate it, but at the end of the day most Technic-style builders care mostly about functionality and mechanical intricacy. Looks-wise, Technic has only recently come close to catching up to System, with all the various decorative panels finally letting it shed the "skeletal" look of the past. But even there, if you think for a moment, System-style bricks do come in to fill in the gaps even further. LEGO does use them a little bit as is - stud pins are being employed to attach plates to liftarms for decoration routinely now. So we might actually start seeing more of that in the future anyway, since as history has already proven, shifts in Lego Technic design sensibilities are always gradual and slow. Also, for the record - my point was never that LEGO should revert to studded Technic from studless. Studless is a mechanically denser system with much better directionality etc, especially after adding liftarms with alternating holes (something I'm not sure if wasn't first devised by competition btw), so it's ideal for creating internal mechanisms at smaller scales and more action-packed than with studded. Plus many parts produced these days are optimized for studless, and not necessarily studded (such as the newer differentials, among others), because of odd rather than even distances. However, studded Technic also has certain advantages that the newer system does not have, such as firmness, rigidity, certain aesthetics and the ability to combine easily with System bricks. Ultimately the studless system is dominant these days in Technic and for good reason, even though studded models could be very functional in their day as well. It's the same for competition too, but the difference is competition isn't restricting itself to just studless elements as a rule. To make an analogy - it's like Lego were insisting to make a good song but in a very specific genre, with no room for any deviation, while competition just wants to make a good song period. All I'm saying is LEGO might want to embrace using studded pieces in small numbers again after the warm reception of competing brand models, in order to remain competitive themselves.

That's actually still nice, a few years back they'd have used all Technic panels for that. So I suppose they might actually be looking to system parts after all

Guess that's where competing brands such as Cada come in, just look at this design for example: they got a prominent MOCer on board to design it for them, an opportunity lost and wasted by Lego simply becasue they won't put studded technic and system parts on their Technic line, even though that makes the models objectively superior.

What's really cool is how the general layout reminds of the raised baseplates of old. But where those were single pieces, here we've got actual stuff hidden in the interior, amazing!

Not like super new, because this piece is said to have started appearing in 2023, but this: https://rebrickable.com/parts/2391/technic-beam-1-x-7-thick-with-alternating-holes/ And you know what? I've seen an equivalent piece in a clone brand set that was released in 2022. Here, check it out, at 11:11 specifically (among other times), you can see the piece in question. The video is dated for Apr 29, 2022. Does that mean we have evidence of Lego co-opting a piece that was previously introduced by a clone brand? If so, would it be the first time it has happened, or have there been precedents like this in the past?

I've been following Technic over the years and noticed that in recent years the models have sort of stopped progressing in complexity and techniques, as if the Technic system has reached its peak. But I've also noticed that for the Technic line, Lego designers have been absolutely averse to incorporating any studded and System elements at all. Which does seem like a deliberate, conscious choice, given how both studless AND studded Technic have bled heavily into System-primary models in recent years, to great effect. On the other hand, I've noticed that some alternate brand designers (where those brands even have designers at all) seem to not be working under this limitation, and while their models (especially large-scale ones) consist of studless Technic for the mechanics, they are not afraid to incorporate studded Technic bricks, especially where it would provide rigidity and integrity. Never mind the System elements used for detailing, which they're admittedly better and more versatile at than Technic decorative panels (although the latter also have uses and as with everything else, both approaches can be combined anyway). LEGO themselves did seem to enjoy incorporating studded bricks in to models in the mid 00s and early 10s - the studless Technic system was already fully realized by that time and there was no practical need for using studded elements, but the designers chose to do so anyway - to great effect in my opinion. Good examples of that would be the 42009 MkII Mobile Crane from 2013 or the 8275 Motorized Bulldozer from 2007. I believe both sets have received later reimaginings which do not feature studded parts like the earlier models do (although in case of the Mobile Crane it seems to be the opposite - the 2005 version had no studded elements while the 2013 version did!). But it does seem like trying to isolate Technic as its own thing as much as possible has exhausted its options and the only way to progress from here is start to seamlessly integrating studded technic and System pieces where applicable and sensible. All three systems can work on their own to great effect (for which we've got plenty evidence in the form of sets), but I feel they truly shine when combined together, the only question is in what proportions - many modern System sets already go like 80% System, 15% Studded Technic and 5% Studless Technic, so why won't Technic set designers even consider a similar, but reversed ratio where Studless Technic is dominant, and instead are going for 100% every time?

Sorry for necroing but yeah, I've noticed that many competitor brands, even (or maybe particularly) respected and legitimate ones such as Cobi, go all in on stud reversal techniques and make them absolutely integral, nay, central to their designs. Cobi has plates with studs on both sides, even single studs that you can insert into the bottoms of plates to turn them into two-sided plates, allowing for reversal with literally zero extra thickness. They've even got 1x2 blocks that are hollow on both ends, allowing for the opposite. LEGO in recent sets they've been releasing has been using stud reversal occasionally, but the designers are forced into using parts that only accidentally have this function, because the company still refuses to make proper, dedicated parts for this purpose. I can understand their fears, since Cobi's stud reversal options are so extensive and versatile that the whole idea of top and bottom kinda loses meaning, and I understand that LEGO wants to preserve the "system" as going from the bottom up. Still, many MOCers who are concerned with staying loyal to LEGO are literally clamoring for stud reversal options. I think even just having those small tubes that serve as studs that Cobi has would already be enough - maybe coming with some sort of stopper so they can't be inserted deeper than 1/3rd a stud. Think part 85861, but with a stud instead of a stud socked on the other side of the outer ring. As for the issue of the profitability of introducing new moulds, it's been discussed above - but what I think can be added is that people probably started believing this myth after the 2003 restructuring of the band's philosophy. LEGO was making too many part types, many of which were extremely situational and single-use. An example of this could be a much beloved part by me (largely due to nostalgia): 6042. It looks really cool, but there really aren't many ways to use this part that would look aesthetically pleasing and be well-integrated into your creation. So the issue at that time probably wasn't getting or maintaining the moulds, but the fact of how many of them LEGO was forced to have for how few pieces they actually produced - that takes factory space which could be used for moulds for manufacturing more versatile and reusable parts. Meaning that the overall output of the company was smaller than it could have been, which is one reason I can think of why it was bad for business. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think they wouldn't have abandoned all those overspecialized parts in favor of more versatile and reusable ones if it werent' some sort of problem.

No worries, I just used the j-word" there, in quotes too for that matter. I was referring to specialized parts that can be easily built using smaller ones, such as https://rebrickable.com/parts/30200/cockpit-6-x-6-x-3-13-octagonal-canopy-base/ I personally don't take issue with parts like these. They can be tricky to build around, especially if one is after modern aesthetic standards, but it can be done.

Ok, that Doosan is pretty amazing. Light on technic bricks, but makes fantastic use of System for the bodywork. I agree it's hard to combine the two systems, but for example that humvee made by a competing company with a name starting with "c" contained a huge number of technic bricks, in addition to combining liftarms with System for the bodywork. Pretty sure the model could be built with all Lego pieces without too much trouble.

While it is definitely possible to emulate old, specialized moulds with modern bricks with no significant visual deviations, as proven by the 40370 Steam Engine, some of the parts no longer in production would be pretty hard to replace. Many "<insert that tiresome argument>" parts of the late 90s can be built without too much trouble with a combination of smaller pieces, but there are some that there's still just no replacement for. Talking for example about the Aquazone octagonal pontoon-like pieces. Those had a ton of character to be sure! They may have not been used in the best of ways in the sets of the time, ironically enough, but they could definitely be put to better use combined with today's new parts and techniques. Same goes for propeller casings, those may no longer play into modern LEGO's rounded look, but they were a great part that always felt satisfying to use. The moulds for these are definitely long gone, but if TLG ever wanted to do a tribute to Aquazone, today's technology would allow them to easily recreate the moulds for these pieces. Even 3d scanning would probably not be necessary, since those pieces and even older ones are still in LDD for example.

As an enthusiast of Lego Technic, I definitely appreciate all the benefits that have come with the studless system, but we can't pretend like studded models can't be intricate either, which is well known from some legendary big sets from the studded era. Still, what really gets me going are sets which are hybrids of studded and studless. While I appreciate some benefits of the studded system, such as strength, robustness, rigidity and triviality of combining them with System pieces, what I really like about studded first and foremost are the aesthetics. My favorite example of that is the primarily studless set 8275 Motorized Bulldozer - where the designers used studded bricks pretty much arbitrarily and primarily for decorative purposes, and in most if not cases they would have been entirely interchangeable with studless beams. And yet, studded pieces make for a not inconsiderable part of the aesthetics of this model's exterior, which is a net positive IMO. If that set was designed today, I'm pretty sure it would have no studded pieces in it whatsoever, or in negligible numbers. While Lego have been pretty crazy with using studded Technic for play features of primarily System sets, ones marketed as Technic have pretty much made it a point to not use studded at all. And I think it's regrettable - as apparent from my sentiments about set 8275, I really think that set kind of embodies the healthiest approach to set aesthetics: use studless where needed, use studded where you can get away with it. Real shame Lego have moved away from this, even though when that set was designed back in 2007, a fully studless building system was already well in place, so it wouldn't have cost them anything to stay the course. So my request to you guys would be to rec me some sets, probably MOCs that successfully combine studless and studded building schools. Not necessarily in the same proportions as 8275 and not necessarily in the late 90s style (pre-beam but heavy on liftarms). I'll take anything where I can admire some nice studded/studless hybridization :D

How to get authorized to start new topics in the buy/sell/finds section of the forum and the Bazaar? I'd really like to start a topic there, as I'm really interesting in purchasing a model.

As for 8844, I've got quite a lot to say actually! This set is so archaic that it predates such Technic mainstays as friction pins and dented 2L axles. It also uses the nowadays outdated 3651 connector extensively, something the earliest Technic sets were well known for. This set however steals the show with two things: its ubiquitous and varied use of older parts with teeth as well as nice examples of joining Technic elements with "Technic-ized" System bricks (or at least System bricks with Technic functionality not usually brought to the forefront). The rear propeller for example is entirely System, and it's mounted on an axle via two 4032s - it's a simple and frankly unthinkable solution for today's standards, but it's also so.. obvious! It makes you go "well duh, of course you can do that!". The most amazing thing in this set though has got to be the elaborate cockpit built from a series of 4273s, locked together at differing angles. It took quite a lot of time to assemble this and frankly it was quite difficult, as it required more precision than later years' Technic sets (of this size at least) usually did. This set also creates a setup where the toothed half bushes lock with ends of 4262s for extra sturdiness and stability. In terms of these, tooth connections probably couldn't be beat, though I imagine they could break quite easily under heavy torque - the system has also been largely superseded by elastic parts etc. The chain for working the landing gear mechanism is a nice touch, as are the multiple instances of using Technic parts in their System-friendly roles, such as the three bushes embedded in the 2x4 plate with holes in the rotor mechanism. Later helicopter sets didn't have rotors this elaborate if memory serves. This beautiful set also necessarily has its disadvantages though - first and foremost it feels quite flimsy, mostly due to its reliance on non-friction pins for holding it together. The rear wheel also has to bear the brunt of the model's weight, but it's supported only by a mere 6L axle, putting it under considerable strain. Not to mention issues with proper gear contact, axles with uncapped, protruding ends (unelegant), and parts that should stay more or less in one place flying around due to no friction on the pins they're on, like what's supposed to be the steering handles of the copter. All of these issues can be easily remedied by non-purists equipped with newer and more functional pins and connectors. 3L friction pins here and there would also be quite a boon for this set, improving rigidity considerably, while the rear wheel leg would be much sturdier if made with several 2L axles joined with two-way connectors. Too bad the seller included the newer hinges rather than the old ones without mentioning it. I'm really anal about this sort of stuff and I'll probably try to replace these hinges with proper ones, which are bound to be wildly overpriced I'm sure. Still, I'm really happy with this set, it looks great on a shelf and contains a wealth of generally useful parts for other purposes. Overall what I'd recommend this set for is intricate use of the toothed connectors and bushes, fully realizing the potential of these pieces, as well as designs merging modified System plates with bushes and other Technic pieces. Once again, I'm really hoping to get a 954 to compare the two and see the progress made between the designs in just 2 short years. EDIT: Oops! I only just realized that the 1979 Sky Copter is just a re-release of a 1978 set. I wonder whether to buy it anyway simply because I like it... I don't think the other 1978 sets offer any palpable improvement over the1977 ones, and the similarities between them make me think they probably all come from a single designing session anyway.

My 8844 1981 helicopter just arrived, beautifully packaged in its original box and all - I'm starting to assemble it as I write this post. Wish I had the 954 Sky Copter from two years earlier to compare it to. There is one dude on Bricklink selling it for a mere 50 dollars, but he says he doesn't ship to the EU. I wonder if I can convince him to do that :P

8414. The sets I already own are crossed out on the list, so I can keep track. I got that set because it looked pretty damn spiffy at first glance, and it wasn't extremely large to the point of being inflated in price. 8437 is probably a much more interesting set, but it was a little big for this purpose. I might get it someday anyway, but not necessarily for this project here.

I might do a writeup and analyze every set in-depth, but I'll leave it for after I've got all of them :P Noted. And I actually agree, this set you're recommending does look much better than the one I chose. I like yellow too, it's very pleasing to the eyes. I'll even update my list right away :D

Back at it after a long break! Making money again, so I can afford some extravagance, namely buying one set every month. I've been unable to find a 954 Sky Copter in Europe, and one seller in America is unwilling to ship (I'll try to convince him otherwise next month), so the first new old Technic set that arrived in this new wave was the 8044 Universal Pneumatic Set. I'm really liking the functionality and considerably well-developed fully studded technique compared to the earliest sets. The 1979 and 1980 sets rely to an extreme degree on regular bricks without even stud holes, here the balance has shifted significantly in favor of bricks with holes. The nicely integrated pneumatic functionality is also nice to have. The next set I've already bought and am waiting for the arrival of is 1981's 8844 Helicopter. That oughta be fun :D

Ok, thanks a lot, guys! I've already notified the guys at Rebrickable, the set should be added pretty soon.

Would be nice if it were designated in any way :P

I received this thingy as a friendly gift when I was in England earlier this year. It's very, very small and has no minifig, it doesn't have a number designation either. Of course I tried looking for this set online, trying to identify it visually, but neither Rebrickable, nor even Brickipedia has it, not even among their listed polybag sets. It looks like a promotional thing like those you'd find attached to McDonalds Happy Meals or something. The bricks are legit LEGO bricks though and the theme agrees, so I don't think this is counterfeit. Has anyone seen this set previously? I'm asking because I'd like to add it to my Rebrickable profile, and I'm not sure what to even search for.

I just bought it as part of my "one Technic set per year" exploration series - this was the first 2000 set bigger than 200 parts or so, which is my minimum piece value required, so I needed to get it. I don't think if that was such a great idea after all. The build was quite fun, but I agree that the functionality is weird for a Technic set. To top things off, the person selling the set to me forgot one part (luckily unimportant, the round pin connector used only in the alternative Dragster build). That said, the set contains a truckload of all essential Technic parts of all kinds and therefore gives you considerable MOCing abilities, the motor part be damned. I would have to say that 2000 was overall quite a weird year when it comes to Lego Technic - only the Super Street Sensation was a noteworthy model. Other than that they did the Robo Riders line and some small sets, the number was off the charts. I liked the experimentation with the liftarms etc, but other than that this year was yeah, rather weird. I got this set thinking it looked good, and it does. The suspension is also an interesting thing for someone unfamiliar with those. But the lack of steering and the wheels being hooked into the engine diminish the fun value of this set considerably. Also, the engine ejection functionality struck me as pointless and stupid, lol So like I said, at least it gives you plenty of parts to rebuild with, some with nice, rare colors too. And that's the biggest redeeming quality of this set.

I checked out the model you were referring to on Rebrickable. You mean Part 18651? It supposedly has traditional, full friction ridges. Also, it's a semi-rare part, but I wouldn't call it rare. Rebrickable says it's found in 13 sets already, and it's only been introduced this year. MOCers seem to have liked it a lot. http://rebrickable.com/parts/18651

I've been observing recent Lego System and Technic sets, all the while buying for myself older Technic sets to observe trends in design. In recent times we can observe an amalgamation of sorts of Lego System and Technic, mostly the older, studded variation. I remember someone posting some data which told us that the percentage of Technic pieces in System sets has grown significantly over the years from around 2-3% before to over 10% today. And today many sets, especially the larger ones, have started including studded Technic bricks quite liberally - either to be used on their own or even with pins and axles to form mechanisms. By contrast, studded Technic pieces in recent sets seem to be at an all time low - only used where they provide functionality that the studless beam doesn't (which is pretty seldom). I've been watching some speed builds of large models on the BrickBuilder channel on Youtube, and I've noticed that Lego System and Technic are being amalgamated in very creative and satisfying ways in many sets - sometimes extending beyond even the studded Technic pieces naturally capable of combining with System pieces, and also featuring genuine studless mechanisms. We're therefore noticing an interesting tendency - old, studded Technic didn't actually die, it just slowly changed domains and got reincorporated into System, while studless Technic developed further away on its own. Do you think a Model Team revival is headed our way, or at least a theme that tries to use System, Studded and Studless pieces more or less evenly? Do you think Lego will ever again go for a mixed approach with Technic, as it did in the years 2000-2005 (counting from 2000 as this was the year the actual studless axle was introduced)? What do you think of this overall design direction? Are you happy with it?

Ok, I'll totally check out those sets.