Subject:
|
Re: Technic, what happened to the good old days?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:37:22 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
DANNY@ORIONROBOTS.CO.spamcakeUK
|
Viewed:
|
7885 times
|
| |
|
|
On 19/07/06, Allan Porter <Allan.elwood@talk21.com> wrote:
> I grew up during, what was in my opinion, the golden age of technic (1992-1996
> was the best). I remember seeing a technic model in those square catalogues and
> thinking WOW. So many functions and new functional pieces. I remember staring at
> pictures of the space shuttle (8480)
You know, I still have never owned that set, and would still like to
at some point, maybe if I can buy a mint one on brickshelf or ebay I
would. It was one of the best. You know, I always thought that a
massive crossover between the space line and the technic line would
make for some really, really cool wow-factor sets. I don't mean any
Bionacle style figs either.
> and the supercar (8880) for ages trying to
> figure out how they worked (and never really being able to until I got them for
> christmas and built them, it was so exiting). I couldn't wait to get my hands on
> the new peices (gearbox and 4 wheel drive components in the 8880, motor pump in
> the airtech claw rig to name a few). I used to go toys r us and be so exited to
> see the new sets cos I could open the lid and see all those shiney new pieces in
> their tray just waiting to be put together. No other toy came close.
Exactly. But as I have recently discussed, they have not even got the
shiny presentation in the tray under the lid any more. The gloss has
gone - probably due to a more difficult market with greater costs and
more competition. I have not really seriously considered it, but how
do Lego prices now compare with then?
> 10 years later.
>
> 10 years of "improvement" and "development".
While I agree in almost every respect, one word, RCX. That definitely
was the best thing recently in the technic line. I think the NXT is
pretty cool, but the pure liftarm based kit really just does not seem
as ready to build with as the RIS did.
> The end result:
>
> A tow truck. One that looks kinda cool, and has some (but not much)
> functionality, and thats it.
>
> Even as a kid I had the parts and knowhow to build a model equally as functional,
> It offers no sense of "ah, so thats how it works".
Did you ever remember the worm gear based transforming truck technic
model? Or any of the crazy amazing designs in the technic idea books?
> No new pieces to get exited about. I'm not talking about new lift arms, existing
> pieces in new colours or a new way to connect two pneumatics end to end (from
> 2005's XXL crane). I'm talking about those pieces that give you increased
> functionality.
Yes, especially as studless construction is still in its infant state,
and is cause headaches with ways to connect the pieces.
> The functionality of the 8880 supercar was made possible because
> of the numerous new elements it had. Some may argue that the cost of designing
> new elements may be prohibitive.
But prototyping them and designing parts is now cheaper than ever.
Machining new moulds is definitely expensive though. If they played it
right, and got these parts out in the lower costing sets as well as
the higher costing ones (which would probably sell fewer), they may
make is all back.
> However TLG design and manufacture numerous new
> parts every year (flexible axles and corrugated tubing, fairings, the whole
> bionicle line, etc), so why don't they design some new parts that enforce the
> idea of the technic range (the idea of technic being functionality, not just
> looks).
Exactly my sentiment. There are many people who are now drilling Lego
and gluing stuff to get functionality, new stuff would be really well
received.
> This new tow truck model would be great if it had spline shafts and a
> differential with a crown gear on it and one or two other new elements to give
> it live axles and suspension. Last years XXL crane was good (one of the best
> things being the piece count) but it would be so much better with one long
> pneumatic instead of the two short ones. And even an extra long one for
> extending the boom and using the motor to rotate the crane instead. And those
> new pieces described earlier being used again to give it live axles and
> suspension too. DROOOOOOOOOOOOOL.
The other thing is that the technic line is much smaller than it was.
Don't forget that the technic line reinforces the mindstorms line too.
You know what I would really love to see, slip ring electrical
connectors, for both the normal Lego connectors and the new NXT ones.
Maybe with a capacity for two/three pairs of connections. This might
be a specialised version of a turntable, but there would be a lot I
could do with a part like that.
> I wonder what new technic components the people of lugnet would like to see.
> Parts for a helicopter that enable the blades to tilt in all directions and
> change pitch in a sleek and compact design (and with little friction to make
> life easier for a motor) maybe.
As well as some really well designed helicopter blades, which could
actually generate lift. I would imagine that a Lego helicopter that
could actually take off when motorised would be a massive hit. I would
certainly happily blow my salary and bonuses on a model like that.
> Or a rotary pneumatic actuator.
And similarly, a rotary pneumatic valve, which when combined with a
motor, would become a functional solenoid valve, or better still a
true compact solenoid with the electrical connections, and
position/state sensing for the NXT. How about pneumatic pressure
sensors for the NXT?
> Power steering parts perhaps. I would really like the syncromesh gears done in all the sizes of
> the normal gears
And how about turntables which interface better with the size ratios
of other normal gears.
> and a couple of well designed components that allow you to
> mount the gear stick anywhere and with smooth gear changes like the 8880
> (changing gears in the super street sensation was horrible).
> Drive/steer/suspension elements with very low friction and can take lots of
> torque without breaking and can be packaged into a medium sized model (like the
> dakoter wrecker) or a large one (like the 4x4 off roader).
How about tread links with rubberised grip on them for building tank
like constructions, which could double up with the right mounting
points as parts for grippers on robots.
And another great one would be plates designed for studless
construction - with mounting holes around the outside, and a flat
middle, with maybe a set of holes in the middle. These could be in
squares, triangles, rectangles. Also, how about a studless beam with
alternate studs at 90 degrees to each other.
> Bring back the old box design too (with trays, I like my instructions and
> sticker sheet intact and being able to see all the pieces by lifting the lid,
> and all the special new pieces in a display tray) and an alternative model that
> isn't just a variation of the first model!
Yes please. Bring back idea books too.
> I really think a model can be made as complex as you like. If the instructions
> are clear then 11-16 year olds will have no problem assembling them.
With studless construction, models do need to be modular to save the
massive disassembling reassembling that I have had to do a couple of
times when I have gotten a studless construction wrong. I have been
building things using the Bush + pin parts to push in and link modules
together.
> Just my two cents! Any thoughts?
Good stuff, this is exactly what I have been thinking for a while. I
did take a look at those other part designs, wow, orbital gears - how
cool would that be.
Also, how about a variation on the 8t gear to stop it falling into the
beam holes slightly. What about a few new gearbox parts? How about
larger axles designed to deal with more torque?
4 stud long pins - with a solid ridge in the middle, and two minor
ones outside of that. 3 stud long pins with 1 solid ridge, 1 minor
ridge, and axles either side of it - both in a friction and
frictionless mounting. A piece with a bush at one end, and simple
frictionless pin on the other.
I, for one, would welcome a new mindstorms and studless based technic
golden age which would allow me to do things with Lego that I could
never do before.
One idea I have would be a really serious part editor, using
Constructive Solid Geometry technics, and that is aware of additional
primatives like studs, technic holes, pin ends, axles, Lego gear teeth
sizes and so on as well as working in Lego units. This could not only
be used to export for LDraw and improve the existing database, but
could also be used to design new pieces (much like the brickshelf link
you provided - http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=185759),
which could be uploaded to Lego for production at cost. I do not know
how much it would cost for Lego to do something like that, and it
could be prohibitive, but the ability for the community to request
part shapes in standard Lego ABS and colours would be absolutely
amazing.
Danny
--
Danny Staple MBCS
OrionRobots
http://orionrobots.co.uk/blogs/dannystaple
(Full contact details available through website)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Technic, what happened to the good old days?
|
| (...) I agree. A space themed technic based line could really showcase some cool stuctural building techniques and could be tied in with lego system quite nicely. These should be completely new and not limited to designs in a movie franchise. (...) (...) (18 years ago, 21-Jul-06, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Technic, what happened to the good old days?
|
| I grew up during, what was in my opinion, the golden age of technic (1992-1996 was the best). I remember seeing a technic model in those square catalogues and thinking WOW. So many functions and new functional pieces. I remember staring at pictures (...) (18 years ago, 19-Jul-06, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
