Blakbird

A taste of things to come ......

I've already got a volunteer via PM. Any interest in doing the hoses for 8436, 8421, 8285, or 8110?

Some of you will be pleased to know that I spent the weekend working on the 1997 models of Technicopedia and made it halfway through. (I started with the easy models, so the bigger models will take a bit longer.) While getting ready for the 8459 Pneumatic Loader, I find that my LDraw file for this model doesn't have any of the hoses in it and the page could really benefit from a complete pneumatic diagram. Does anyone want to volunteer to create the hoses? I hear that the new tool LDCad is pretty good at this.

I think I understand what you mean. The #3 red connector is not rare, it is scarce.

The motor hangs off the right side and protrudes past the edges so it cannot be attached inside the case ... unless I redesign the motor placement.

The switches are super stiff when they are new. Last time I had this issue I just worked the switch back and forth for an hour while I watched Star Trek. By the time the Tribbles were contained, the switch was nice and smooth.

Having now had this built for a while, I ran into a couple of issues. Firstly, it is very hard to move around. The model is very large and the baseplates are not very stiff. If you try to pick it up, everything gets out of alignment and that's death on this model. Secondly, it will be impossible to dust. Too many small crevices. With that in mind, I decided to build a display case and base for it. Here is a 1/2 inch thick MDF base panel with guide rails at the sides and back. These parts are all glued and screwed together. Now I line up the base with the edge of the table and slide the model on. Perfect fit! Next I install a rail along the front with two screws to hold everything in place. This is easily removable in case I want to take the model back out. Finally, I made a 5 sided box from 3/16 inch acrylic panels to drop over the base. That should keep it clean! For public displays, I am considering keeping it in the case and running it in a continuous loop to keep kids' fingers out of it. But this would require I put a hole in the side for the input axle so I could connect a motor. The problem with this is that it would be difficult to clear jams.

Sadly not possible. It was a MacOS app written for the PowerPC chip. It cannot be run on my newer machine with an Intel chip without Rosetta, and Apple ditched that a long time ago.

It becomes pertinent when deciding whether or not to include it in a historical record like Technicopedia. I had to make a lot of judgement calls concerning what to write about and what to omit. Often the line was more gray than black and white.

UPDATE I've made a smaller update to Technicopedia. Previously, I had added categories for all the play sets including Competition, Slizer, Roborider, Speed Slammer, Star Wars, and Pull-Back Racers, but there was no text or model comparisons written yet. I have gone back in and completed those categories. This process led me to an important conclusion. When I first started the site, I did not intend to include any of the models in those categories because I didn't consider them "true Technic". Later, the completionist got the better of me and I decided to add them. However, writing an entire page for each Roborider, for instance, is a daunting thought. Since each Slizer, each Roborider, and each Speed Slammer is basically the same thing and has no functions, I decided that the category pages will be all I do for these models. When you click on one of those models it will take you to the category page instead of an individual model page. I added extra description and part counts to the comparison tables to make sure all the information was still there. Once again I have cause to curse the loss of my old computer. When I replaced it I lost my copy of Photoshop and After Effects because they won't run on the new operating system. Without them, I am severely hampered especially in making animations. There just aren't that many people writing fancy new code to make animated GIFs these days, and Adobe no longer sells the software as standalone products.

Racers was never a subset of Technic. Right from the beginning it was its own thing. However there was certainly some crossover in terms of model types. The Silver Champion says Technic on the box. The Williams says Racers on the box. Nothing about Technic. On the other hand, Bionicle was a subset of Technic when it first started.

In the end I suppose it doesn't matter what category any set falls into. If you like you like it, and if you don't you don't! The same discussions whirl around the UCS sets. Some people way the Sandcrawler is a UCS, and some people say it is a play set. Does it matter? Buy it if you like it.

His brand new F1 car uses the R/C parts, and so did his older Zonda and Ford GT. You've got a point there.

Fair enough, but what percentage Technic does it need to be? Some of the UCS Star Wars sets have hundreds of Technic parts. Many Bionicle sets have large Technic content (like 8538 which even says Technic on the box). There are a whole bunch of smaller Racers sets that use Technic parts (eg. 8468 or 8473). I had considerable trouble wrestling with this question when deciding what to include in Technicopedia. My own personal opinion (which is highly subjective) is that the R/C Racers are not Technic. My reason for this is that I always felt that they were "cheating". By this I mean that putting all the electronic and mechanical R/C stuff inside a big locked box doesn't feel like Technic to me because you don't get to build the functions. It is just an R/C car with a LEGO body. I think they are good products are no doubt are fun to play with, but they are more play set than technical set. Of course by similar logic Slizer and Roboriders are not Technic either, but at least they say Technic on the box. I will say that various builders, especially Sariel, have demonstrated some pretty incredible creations which use the components of the R/C Racers. I chose not to collect them when they came out, but I regret that now. At they current price point I don't want them bad enough to pay the cost.

This is not really a forum for buying or selling. You can use the Buy, Sell, Trade forum if you are really looking for a part, but you have already eliminated 99% of the world's supply by refusing to use Bricklink.

I originally started this review topic 21 pages ago, and at this point the model being discussed is no longer the model that was reviewed and there are quite a few variations out there. As an attempt to make order out of the chaos, I will try to summarize the different versions out there. This is much easier to do if we separate the carrier from the superstructure. As far as I know, there are only 2 versions of the carrier. The superstructure is a lot more complicated. Carrier Version 1: by Gerger, full suspension on all axles, complete instructions available from afol1969 (this is the version in my review) Version 2: by Gerger, no suspension, improved motorization and steering, complete instructions available from afol1969 Superstructure Version 1: by Jurgen, boom by Christophe, draft instructions available from Blakbird (this is the version in my review) Version 2: by Jurgen, boom by Christophe, additional counterweight by afol1969, complete instructions available from afol1969, functionally identical to Version 1 Version 3: by Jurgen, boom by Christophe, additional counterweight by afol1969, modified to use Firgelli actuators, complete instructions available from afol1969 Version 4: by Efferman, boom by Christophe (but extended from 5 to 6 panels), uses much larger counterweight, Efferman's 3D printed actuator, and has a tilting cabin, no instructions available but LDraw file is available For the carrier, I think the only person who has built both versions is Gerger and he prefers Version 2. I have built Version 1 but plan to convert mine to Version 2 at some point. For the superstructure, I think no one has ever built all 4 versions. I would like to convert mine to Version 4, but I'm not sure anyone has built this one, even Efferman. I do have his actuator already which I'll be painting. Version 3 seems to be the fan favorite at the moment.

As far as I know, there is no difference in the teeth of old and new 16 tooth gear.

I could have called it "Technic parts created in LDraw by Philo this year" and it would still be accurate. I have not read that book, but I did attend a lecture by the author so I am aware of much of the history.

For the history pages, I agree that things should be told chronologically. Although I try to carefully use words like "at the time" for statements about the biggest or most complex sets. For the category pages, I think they need to be up to date. If a new crane is released, it will be on the crane page and should be discussed if it is unusual. Our own archives here at Eurobricks confirm that there were indeed 1H and 2H half releases in 2009, but I think you are right that 8265 was not the 1H flagship. I think it was 8264. I'll update the page.

I didn't update the text on that category page. Looks like I need to go back and do that. Good point. I'll update. New parts introductions is always a difficult topic. In general, I only call a part new the first time it appears in a Technic set. This becomes even muddier than usual when it was previously in an "almost Technic" set like that Racer. In this case, I probably should have listed it with year 2013 and 42000 because it was a big deal when it became available that year and it is not quite the same as the 8880 tire. That's a pretty good idea. When I first created the categories, there weren't enough snow vehicles to make a usable category, but there are now. Don't forget "Arctic Action" though. All of these comments serve to remind me what a tremendous job it is not only to keep my facts straight, but to keep the files in order. I hope the errors discovered so far don't detract too much from the site. I appreciate the proofreading that everyone is doing which will allow the site to be even better.

No, I've consciously excluded those. Mindstorms is a whole other topic in and of itself, and there are already lots of Mindstorms resources out there. Thanks for the note about the square hole; that would be a good thing to mention. Axle pins (and axles in general) have always been made of a softer material than the black or blue friction pins. Axles need to be soft because of the way they slide through slots for installation. The soft material is very noticeable on the new dark bley axle pins when compared to the blue 3L pins.

Yes, there is a reason. As it turns out, deciding what is on the complete list of Technic sets isn't that easy. Is it every set that had the Technic logo on it? The Technic logo was not on the Expert Builder sets, but it was on early Bionicle sets. What about Slizers or Star Wars or Mindstorms? When I originally made my list, 8307 was not on it and that's why I didn't buy it. Looking at pictures of it since then, it is still hard to consider it a Technic set. I have its sister set, the Duel Bikes, and it is hard to consider that a Technic set either. In any case, I didn't buy it originally and I have been unable to find it for any reasonable price since then. I'm not willing to pay a high price for something I don't really want, but I'm willing to include it in the web site if I can. I'm aware of all the work you've done on the 2015 models and I've already downloaded them. Thanks! However, the year isn't done until I have the 2nd half sets as well. I've never tried to break the site into half years.

Thanks. I fixed the title, but the reason the pic for 8307 is missing is because I don't have that set. Anyone want to donate it? Keep in mind that there is no database associated with Technicopedia. All the information is just entered manually and stored in text HTML files, therefore I don't have any obvious way to do what you are requesting. I agree that it might be interesting though! Databases like Bricklink are not as useful as you might think. Firstly, there are a lot of errors. In almost every case, the year that Bricklink says a part started is actually years before it was available. I always have to go scrub the list of sets the part in and see if it is right. For the more recent years, it is easy to know which parts are new because I remember. 2015 won't go up until all the sets are out and LDraw files are available for all the sets with all the new parts. Even then, 42039 won't be listed as a supercar, it will be listed as a race car.

Fixed. I think I got all of them now. In addition to all the error reports, I'd welcome some feedback on whether or not writing about all the years and parts was a good idea as opposed to just doing all the models from one year at a time. I hope people find the update useful because it was a ***load of work. With all that overhead out of the way, I should now be free to work on the individual years' models with less pressure. However, as you can tell from the site there are huge number of models in 1997-1999 so these will be the hardest years to complete.

Done. Thanks for the interview!