howitzer

That's a genius idea, I wonder why nobody seems to have thought it before... well I guess there has to be a first time for everything.

But TLG doesn't need a comprehensive system of parts which covers as many use-cases as possible. They need a system which allows constant, steady stream out of new parts to entice builders to buy more sets and if they were to release a complete system of all permutations in every basic part type, there would soon be no longer any need for new parts, or at least they wouldn't be nearly as effective in getting people to buy new sets as their old collection would allow them to build practically anything. So from the point of view of an AFOL the glaring holes in the parts selection is really bad thing but from the TLG's point of view they're not. Some new and very useful parts are released now and then but only when the designers can justify their necessity to the beancounters. Of course there might also be some rigid principles behind these decisions, remember that in the 90's there wasn't and in addition to the useful parts we all know and love they were releasing tons and tons of very specialized and obscure parts, and the company nearly went bankrupt for it so there's a reason for the existence of those principles. I agree that 6L link would be really, really useful, as would other lengths, and 4L standard liftarm would be nice too as, like you said, sometimes the thin ones or 4x2 can't really be used in its place. The 6L liftarms exist as thin versions and those can be used where 6L liftarm is required, for example in the G-class, the doors really do look messy and cluttered and using doubled 6L thin liftarms would've fixed it without the need of a new part type but just recolour of an old one. As for the steering geometry of the McClaren, using incorrect length there is barely noticeable and while it's not realistic, I don't think the supercars aren't great example of realism in other respects either so while correct length should've been used, it's sort of understandable why it wasn't - what's one more incorrectly designed part among the sea of unrealism?

Yes, keeping parts out of the sunlight and in a dry and not too hot place definitely helps. I have lots of 30+ years old parts in perfect condition (except scratches and other marks of use) so it's not just about age. Even length liftarms don't exist for the same reason as odd length bricks (except 1 and 3 studs): there's no need for them, not in such a way that would warrant the cost of producing them. Remember, it's TLG's economics calculation that decides what parts they produce and what they don't - and even length liftarms are just not worth it for them. (You can substitute 4 or 6 length liftarms with modified liftarm parts like 2x4 corner liftarm and thin liftarms and the longer ones can most of the time be designed around easily enough.)

Apparently there's some variation in the quality of these parts, some people report a lot of cracking issues while others seem to never encounter any problems. There has been speculation that different factories around the world have slightly different properties in the plastic, which then somehow causes some batches to break much more easily than others. This is of course just speculation and obviously it matters a great deal how you use and store your parts.

If you mean this: I don't think there will ever be a friction version of it. It would be far too easy to insert such a pin into a frame or something where it can't be pushed out from the other side, thus locking it into place, while the frictionless one can be extracted with a bar.

This is a really great mod which begs the question: Why didn't TLG do it like this in the first place... (Yeah, I know they have discontinued the air thank, which is a shame...)

Vast majority of Technic sets don't have a scale in relation to real life vehicles, as they are not based on real things - just inspired by them. The obvious exceptions are licensed sets, but I don't think there's a comprehensive catalogue of them by scale. Cars are pretty easy, most are 1:8 or 1:10 and the small ones are I think somewhere around 1:15? But for other machinery the scaling varies quite a bit.

Yep, that or a friction pin place of of the bar.

Production runs are planned years ahead and the sets which this part was designed for are indeed probably coming in 2025 but the part was made available for designers already in this year so they went ahead and used it because why not.

It's not just the moulds, they are only a small part of the total process. It's more like TLG has only a certain amount of production slots, divided among every element currently in production, and they have to be careful so as not to attempt to put out more elements than this production capacity allows to ensure that every set gets every part they need in large enough quantity and in timely manner - otherwise there will be production delays and associated financial losses. They could of course invest in additional production lines, but while a single mould is relatively inexpensive (=five or six figures of euros depending on the complexity of the mould), an injection moulding machinery and associated production line certainly is not. So it's not that simple to add new parts to the portfolio of parts in production, either they have to do costly expansion or some other part has to go unproduced and this is a balance they have to tread constantly. This is also why the new parts get used a lot as soon as they are released: when the whole line has been set up they'll want to use it as much as possible. So the end result is that we'll get parts to fill the gaps only sporadically - sometimes there's "an opening" in the production slots and the designer can get away with using a long awaited part relatively easily while other times they are told to just work around the need.

Indeed. Some new parts must be introduced in order to keep the new sets interesting and also to make sure people buy them rather than just build from their collections. But they never introduce very many new parts in the same years, for which one reason surely is to keep the parts inventory manageable so I believe the designers really have to justify the new parts in order to get their vision into production rather than something else. Technic is also unique theme in that there's no figures of any kind whereas most other themes include those as an incentive to buy - often the bigger sets get a large collection of figures with some exclusive ones, so those serve as a lure to buying and other new parts besides minifigures might not be necessary at all (though often there are some nevertheless).

The three gears in the middle have been added, as well as the axle-pin and 1L "beam" and some of the flip-flop beams (plus some that aren't in the photo). So I guess we're around halfway there? As I understand it, generally TLG designers have to justify new moulds and they're encouraged to make the best possible use of existing parts and only when that fails, new mould can be introduced. The obvious problem with this approach is of course that even when a new part type is introduced it might have relatives (such as the flip-flop beams which should come in many lengths) and there will be gaps in the selection until a designer can find a way to justify the new mould. If you think of the basic Technic bricks, the first ones were introduced in 1977 and the set (even lengths from 2 to 16) was completed only in 1997, 20 years later. At the moment the flip-flop beams are going through an era of incompleteness, and while I expect the set to be complete at some point, there's no telling how long that is going to take - maybe by the end of this decade we'll have most of them? --- Personally I'm not too happy about where the theme is today: too many cars, too little other stuff. But for TLG the situation seems to be different, apparently the cars sell really well so that's what they'll keep making. And sometimes that brings us some nice new parts and especially recolours, so in the end I don't have too much to complain about, I'll just don't buy the car sets. I feel that some of the best Technic sets are not branded Technic at all, such as the 10327 Dune Atreides Royal Ornithopter which I just recently bought. The mechanisms are ingenious and dense and something that has never before been done in an official set (not sure if there are mocs out there with anything like that either). And the build is mostly studful, except for few parts involved in the mechanisms, and I understand that some other sets like the 10323 Pac-Man Arcade also come with interesting internals, so it's not like mechanically complex studful builds aren't done anymore, they're just not branded Technic. That brand seems to be reserved for cars and some other vehicles, most of which are based on real things or at least represent something realistic - not fantastic ones like the Ornithopter nor non-vehicle stuff like the Arcade. The 42179 Orrery is an odd one out, being the only set that's not some kind of a vehicle for more than 20 years (supplementary sets don't count). In the end I decided that I should show the best properly Technic sets together to make them complement each other:

What's this monetization you're speaking of? I haven't seen TLG selling instructions for alternatives, just sets, which you can fully enjoy as intended with no additional costs beyond the set itself and TLG even provides digital instructions for free. Instructions for mocs are a third party service with little benefit to TLG (maybe someone buys a set for its third party alternatives but I imagine that must be a vanishingly small portion of total sales). It's nothing like Apple where they push all kinds of additional purchases to get more than the most basic of utilization of the device you buy. Both companies of course have relatively high pricing, there's no question about that.

IANAL but I believe that legally they could sue someone using their brand and design when selling instructions. But they don't, because as you said, it isn't worth it for them to go after someone making a few bucks for something that's in no way competing with their actual business. Then there's the fact that moc makers, whether they sell instructions or not, are doing basically free advertising for whatever brand they're representing in their creation, not to mention the inevitable public backlash if they did try to sue the creators. It's entirely in the best interest of big companies to just ignore instruction-sellers.

I find it kind a funny in a sad way when someone publishes their new nice moc and then someone (usually new or not very active member) starts asking for instructions, free of course and often in a very entitled fashion, like it's a duty of creator of the moc to provide free instructions. It never ceases to be baffling how some people don't think any further than what they immediately happen to want. Official sets come with instructions so I guess that these people just assume that instructions appear out of thin air when a model is finished or something?

I agree with you, it's really annoying to not have certain parts made at all while marketing ploys get new stuff, but I guess the logistics of making a new element for set is quite a bit more demanding than making a small-scale limited single-use production run of some element, especially if it's just a recolour instead of totally new part. I also guess that money for making these parts comes from marketing budget of TLG instead of set design and production budget, so that might be a factor in it.

I think the 42179 Orrery must be one of if not the best set of this year, because it captures the spirit of Technic so well with interesting mechanics that you can actually see instead of everything being hidden behind panelling. It's also something entirely new and different and mostly well executed, though I feel aesthetics could've been a bit better. The 42167 Mack truck is a great set on the smaller end with interesting and novel main function. The 42175 Volvo truck+excavator seem nicely executed and all around good set in the spirit of Technic, though adding third movement for the bucket would've been a great improvement. The 42182 lunar rover seems also nice set with novel functionality and is a must for any space fans. The 42174 boat also has some nice functionality, but as is the case with most watercraft in Technic, it suffers from not being able to show the functions off in any capacity, while also being probably too big to be playable. The other Space sets are nice, themed addition to the lineup and I'm sure kids will love those. The rest, entirely forgettable and good only as parts packs. Not terrible year but not very good either.

I don't think TLG cares much about having some specific part count, not even when it could be used in marketing. The 8868 had 952 parts so only a little short of 1000, which would've been first 1000-part Technic set ever, and it even had many opportunities for additional parts (could've included doors for example) but still they opted not to do that. As for the Saturn V, my guess is that the set designer wanted it to have exactly 1969 parts and the set's design allowed for that so it happened, to because marketing department saw it as anything important to consider.

Most of it was not at all about the set or its alternatives but discussion about sales and pricing of instructions in Rebrickable. I'm sure @Milan will allow talk about the G500 instructions, but more general discussion about the market on third party instructions should have it's own topic (which I believe could be very interesting to read even for someone such as me who has never bought any third party instructions.)

Looks like a very interesting building experience, and an impressive display model. I'm seriously tempted on this one.

The contrast is indeed nice, though some other colour would suit even better. Maybe we need those rims with the same colour as the body

Yep, works as it used to. But this gave me also a scare, it's so useful site.

Stacking two thin liftarms is mariginally flimsier yes, but looks-wise it's not an issue, the thin liftarms stack with much less of a seam than thick liftarms as they have much sharper edge profile. So yes, stacking two 6L liftarms would work well unless the build requires rigidity.

Actually the old version of the pin joiner was assembled from two parts to make up for the lack of slot so it clicks and is strong and good-looking, but much more expensive to manufacture than the slotted version as it's 2 separate parts to be moulded and also requires assembly.

Yep, I used it in this fashion in my TC20-entry.