That’s not “them”, the raptor skull is made by a fan, not LEGO. So the people that you say are leaving the Porsche on the mantlepiece seem to actually be reusing the pieces (or very similar pieces) for a dinosaur. If that is not demonstrating being able to use pieces for other models then I don’t know what to say. I have similar pieces, coloured red, that came with an airplane model. They’re actually a lot more like bits of wing than bits of fairing.
That’s probably true. I do have adult friends who buy LEGO (or Chinese knockoffs), and they buy them purely as models to be constructed and put somewhere.
LEGO’s Technic sets taught me a great deal about mechanical engineering. Understanding gears, levers, springs, hinges, pneumatics, and a ton of other stuff gave me a lifelong boost in that department. But you don’t gain much from simply building a model. So I find it unfortunate that they have been getting away from that somewhat.
They do at least have their Mindstorms kits still. But they’re buried under a massive amount of Star Wars, Minecraft, Marvel, Harry Potter, and so on…
Some tiny fraction of pieces. Fine; if you combine 10 of their Technic sets then you might be able to build some random 11th object.
Again, it’s the versatility that’s lacking. I could build a ton of different mechanical devices just from one big kit. I had a few more kits, which exponentially grew what I could build, because the pieces were designed to be as flexible and interoperable as possible. Highly specialized pieces don’t have that same multiplicative effect.
That just doesn’t make sense. Underneath the fairing type pieces on that Porsche is all the same connectors, rods, gears, wheels, bars with holes, etc, that you got on an older style technic set. You can make everything you used to be able to make AND more. Nothing has been taken away.
It’s easy to check that, in fact. The Porsche:
And the Test Car:
The parts on the Porsche are way more specialized than the Test Car. Granted, the difference in unique parts isn’t quite as drastic as I thought: it’s 248 on the Porsche, and 144 on the Test Car (that appears to be driven largely by color). Nevertheless, the pieces on the Porsche are way less versatile than on the Test Car. The Porsche listing is filled with pieces like “Black Technic, Panel Curved 3 x 13 with 2 Gray Stripes Pattern Model Left Side”. The Porsche has a total of 10 gears that aren’t too specialized to use elsewhere. The Test Car has 30.
I’m not trying to say that the Porsche has literally everything in its chassis that the Test Car has, I’m saying the bones of the models are standard technic pieces that can be used just as interchangeably as you remember.
Anyway, I think I misunderstood your original gripe. When you said:
I interpreted that as saying the headlight covers, fairings etc, could only be used on that model (like @Chronos suggested), i.e., they are custom parts built just for that model (they’re not).
This was reinforced by you saying:
But I think you’re saying that they restrict your ability to make other models with just that set? That’s not really valid either. You’re looking at all of those pieces in the context of the LEGO you remember and wonder what they could be used for. A modern LEGO kid is familiar with all of those pieces because they’ve been building lots of other models with the same stuff so they see just as much building opportunity as you did with your old sets.
It’s a valid criticism that Technic doesn’t have generic starter sets anymore but that didn’t seem to be your original point.
Something that has been happening over time is that Technic pieces are becoming integrated into other themes so that many models will have Technic here and there to provide for various movement and functions. My baby grand piano, for example, has a fair bit of Technic in the guts. Technic itself has got more pieces that have an aesthetic rather than functional purpose. But I don’t see that as a bad thing. The Test Car is great, until you want to make it look more like an actual vehicle.
We may have had a rule like that. It’s been a while
This F1 car design is from the Porsche set.
A spaceship from the Porsche set.
I take it you’re unfamiliar with the wider world of LEGO MOCs… there’s nothing there that wouldn’t be repurposed - I see a lot of bits that would look great in a mech or spaceship MOC.
Depends on if you consider the other Porsche 911 set to be different enough. Those are the only two sets that use that particular shape of wheel arch, in 2 different colours. I’d say that made them unique.
So many Technic-originated pieces in the big Star Wars sets. Mostly beams and pins, but still…
And it looks like I was wrong about that wheel arch shape. Hell, it even appears in this non-Technic set (along with a bunch of other Tecnic parts including gears…):
Again, my main point is about the versatility of the pieces. Let me be generous and ignore all the pieces which literally only appear in the Porsche set–I haven’t gone through all of them (since there are a lot), but they appear to be mostly/entirely ones with stickers. Consider this piece instead:
It appears in 87 sets, so it isn’t all that rare. But can you really say that it’s as useful as any of the basic Technic pieces? It’s chiral, for a start, which means it’s precisely half as useful as it might otherwise be. On the other hand, this guy, one of the most common on the Test Car, appears in 1193 sets:
Perhaps I’m still being unfair. The most common piece on the Porsche (aside from pins) is this one, appearing in 553 sets:
It’s not too bad a part. Symmetrical, no funny angles. It’s missing the bumps, which makes it a tad less useful, but it’s ok. But the second most common part is this:
Ugh. It’s not as bad as the fairing piece above, but it’s just a really funky piece. Yes, it probably comes in handy in some rare instances, but it’s really not a good part in terms of versatility.
Probably 80% of the pieces (by type, not quantity–by quantity the car is like half pins) are like this. It’s not that they’re totally unique, it’s that their versatility is limited. They are no longer (literally) basic building blocks.
And yes, some very clever people have made models look like the Porsche went all Transformers and turned into something else. It’s impressive but I don’t think it invalidates my claim. Consider actual plastic models. They are designed to be made into exactly one thing, and every part is specialized. And yet kit-bashers like our own @Rocketeer make some very impressive and unique models out of the parts, repurposing them into something else entirely.
Does that mean plain plastic models are just as versatile as LEGOs or other building sets? Of course not. You pay a high cost to “translate” one thing into some other thing.
That’s not the point of LEGO, for me. I want to imagine a machine and build that thing, not start with a collection of pieces and try to think of what it might plausibly turn into.
If you look at it like an asymmetric corner, it might not seem that versatile. Stand it up like this: L, and it’s the basis for a lot of fun builds.
And it’s perfectly symmetrical. Despite you thinking its “versatility is limited”, it’s a very basic building block that, again, shows up in lots of other sets. Across multiple themes, not just Technic. It’s essential for the minifig-scale Millennium Falcons. It’s the AT-AT, Boba-Fet and the Mando’s ships, the VW Camper van, the Grand Piano, the Police Station… I could go on.
LEGO stopped being just stud+block decades ago. Technic-style beam-and-pin construction and SNOT techniques are now mainstream LEGO. They are “basic building blocks” now, showing up in the Friends and Harry Potter sets my 8 year old daughter builds…
You’re just repeating the premise. Yes, it’s very clear that they have moved in this direction, largely in part because they are selling models based off licensed brands. The Porsche looks way more like a real car, but mechanically is way simpler, despite having far more parts. And the car I had wasn’t “peak Technic”; that title probably belongs to the 8880 Super Car.
In short, their new sets are much less useful for learning mechanical engineering, and I find that disappointing.
And just as a mini-rant, in my experience the new models are way mode fragile than the old. Pick them up the wrong way and half the greebles fall off or the entire thing splits in two. The Porsche has over 500 pins and I’ll bet it’s still not enough (admittedly, I haven’t seen that one in person; most of my experience with “modern LEGO” is with their big Star Wars stuff).
I’m not seeing the lack of engineering in Technic sets like the Bulldozer or the Excavator, but they also produce other themes than Technic that more directly are geared (heh) towards that side of things, like the aforementioned Mindstorms, the Lego First league, and the SPIKE sets. Anyone interested in that side of things can still get their hands on all the gears they want. Of course, if you only look at Technic, you might not notice that diversification.
And the existence of beam-and-pin and SNOT doesn’t mean studs no longer work. Almost all the old pieces are still in circulation in sets. And the existence of Bricklink etc means modern LEGO engineers are spoiled compared to when I was a kid.
I notice you didn’t address the counter to your charge of lack of versatility of a part like the 3x5 corner
beam - care to do so now? 712 sets is not “handy in rare instance”
It’s a matter of degree. As I said, it’s not as bad as that wacky body panel piece. But it’s obviously not as versatile as straight pieces. You have to find a 3x5 place to put it. What if you need 5x5, or 3x3, or anything else? Beams of varying lengths would get you that. Of course, you then need to work out how to stiffen the arrangement. That’s where the engineering comes in, such as depending on triangles.
And yes, LEGO hasn’t completely abandoned “classic” Technic. It’s just been highly diluted with the branded stuff. Maybe it doesn’t matter as much now that they don’t have to fight for shelf space at toy stores, but it’s still disappointing to search for Technic stuff and find mostly models.
The good kits also happen to be really expensive. Yeah, this kit is pretty amazing, but it’s $450…
I don’t see the difference between needing straight beams of different lengths, and using the 3x3, 2x4 and 3x5 corners as-needed (which cover most use cases, really). I can understand if you just have the one set and 3x5s are all you have - but in that case, you’re not going to have a diversity of straight pieces, either.
Like I said, there’s lots in the Education themes now. Something like the Simple Machines kit is not that expensive. For LEGO. And there are still lots of non-branded Technic sets. OK, last one I bought was a snowmobile, so it’s been awhile. But they’re there.
Huh? There are 4. Just 4. The wheel arches. I’m not sure you understand your link. A piece that comes with a sticker you can choose to put on or not, is not a piece unique to the set.
Again you are viewing modern pieces in the context of old sets and completely failing to recognise that in the context of modern lego, they are excellent pieces. The piece you complain about being chiral for instance, all lego wing pieces are chiral, they have to be, and they have been in circulation since, I don’t know, the 70s perhaps? The technic fairing/wing pieces allow you to put a skin on your bare bones skeleton. I don’t see that as a downside at all. Being able to use technic connectors instead of studs to attach wing pieces is an excellent step forward. It provides far more versatility for LEGO in general even if the specific pieces are slightly less versatile. Don’t forget, the original pieces still exist and you can even order them individually. You can design whatever you like, electronically, then order the bits if that’s your thing.
You original complaint was that you could only use the Porsche bits for the Porsche model. When I showed that was simply not true, you’ve gone on to suggest that only really clever builders can make other models with the Porsche set. Do I really have to do an internet search on “slightly shit lego models using the Porsche set” to show that you don’t have to be a genius to create something from that set?
Im surprised you don’t think LEGO jumped the shark when they gave their minifigs faces (yes I still have some old faceless minifigs!)
I recognise that you have fond memories of a simpler time in the LEGO world, but you sound a lot like those YouTube commenters who are always banging on about “oh they don’t make music like they used to”.
With hindsight, seeing all the sheer possibilities of pin&beam and SNOT, that “simpler time” looks so limited now.
Right. Back then we had to use our imagination to flesh out the models. Now we can use our imagination to build fleshed out models.