A look at this year's new Technic pins
Posted by Huw,
You wait ages for a new Technic pin to be introduced, then three come along at once!
What's interesting about them is that they have yet to be used in a Technic set.
Let's take a look at what they might be useful for.
65826 4.85 BUSH, W/ SINGLE TUBE
Although this part was first found in 10279 Volkswagen T2 Camper Van I think it was designed for use in 45345 SPIKE Essential, the new key stage 1 educational robotics set, to provide another way to connect System and Technic parts together.
The hole in the end accepts a stud, so I guess can be considered as the inverse of the blue part below, 4274 CONNECTOR PEG W. KNOB, which was introduced during 1981.
Like the one with the stud on the end it is frictionless so rotates freely when inserted in a hole.
The two parts connect together, although I don't suppose that was the reason the new piece was produced.
There's a one tile wide gap between the bricks below, which is not an easy spacing to achieve normally, so the combination may have its uses.
65249 4.85 BUSH, W/ 2 MODULE CROSS AXLE
This is the white piece in the picture below which completes the set of axle/pin connectors. Like the shorter tan one, the pin end offers no friction when inserted into a hole, whereas the black and blue ones do.
It's been used in eight sets so far, including 45345 SPIKE Essential Set, so the chances are that it too was initially designed for use in that set.
I am sure it will have its uses, but it's not going to revolutionalise Technic building.
77765 4.85 BUSH 3 MODULE, W/ END STOP
This one, which has only appeared in 75296 Darth Vader Meditation Chamber to date, actually offers something new.
The existing 3-long pins, 42924 CONNECTOR PEG W. FRICTION 3M (below, blue) and 39888 3M CONNECTOR PEG (tan), have a ridge 1/3 of the way along their length which thus requires that two beams, for example, are connected to it from one end and the third one from the other.
This pin doesn't, so it will have uses for connecting three parts together in situations where the other ones can't be used, perhaps to join assembles together in a similar way to how 32054 2M FRIC. SNAP W/CROSS HOLE (red) is at the moment.
Its non-friction and when inserted into the holes in beams, the end is flush with the sides.
The hole in the middle accepts a 318 bar but only part way. When you push it in as far as it goes you can use the bar to pull the pin out, which is most likely by design.
Two are used in the meditation chamber as shown below. The existing tan 3l non-friction connector peg could have been used in this situation, so I can only guess that this one was utilised instead on account of it being grey.
I guess we will see the part's true potential and the reason it was designed in next year's sets.
Can you think of any uses for these new connectors? Let us know in the comments, and if you have an interest in Technic parts, take a look at an article we published in 2019, A history of Technic pins.
196 likes
50 comments on this article
I can understand why they do, but I wish these parts didn't have to come in such garish colours.
I can see 65826 being useful: creates opportunities for Technic to plate connections without using multiple studs into a liftarm; I can see good uses for inverse building (I have an MoC where this would be better than my current solution); also some good 90 degree SNOT alternatives.
77765 looks like it was designed to simplify building & instructions SD it has only one orientation rather than 2 for 42924 and 39888.
The other one, don't see that adding much, TBH.
These pieces are very nice, but really? Did they have to make the first one bright green? Blue is vibrant enough and that already sticks out too much, but green is taking it a little far.
Does this part fit inside the light grey 3L pin?
This way you could make longer 5 or even 6L pins
https://img.bricklink.com/ItemImage/PN/85/78258.png
Why do they not create re-colours of existing pins? Having black versions for most of these connections would help not stand out as much on Technic
@TylerMaaaaarshall said:
"Why do they not create re-colours of existing pins? Having black versions for most of these connections would help not stand out as much on Technic "
Ironically the point seems to be that they have different colors to stand out during a build (or when sorting/producing I suppose), yet stand out in a bad way on a complete model.
For the small mixel ball joint being in just 1 color has a technical reason, but not sure for pins/axles as some of them are made in more then 1 color even in 2021.
Is there a genuine reason why some technic parts (usually pins) only come in one colour? We all know that having certain parts being available in black, white, grey, etc. instead of just say red or blue would definitely be preferable.
@merman said:
"Does this part fit inside the light grey 3L pin?
This way you could make longer 5 or even 6L pins
https://img.bricklink.com/ItemImage/PN/85/78258.png "
Yes it does but two connected together would not be flush.
@GeordiePaul said:
"Is there a genuine reason why some technic parts (usually pins) only come in one colour? We all know that having certain parts being available in black, white, grey, etc. instead of just say red or blue would definitely be preferable."
It's so that builders don't confuse them. For instance the with-friction and no-friction technic pins look almost identical, so the idea is that they're always locked to certain colours so kids don't get them mixed up.
However, I think there's an increasing case to be made for this being changed, particularly in 18+ sets. In the typewriter set there's a couple of brown cross axles that are visible though the side, and you really think that if you're paying £180 they could have made them in sand green; particularly since it's an 18+ set so we're definitely not kids...
/ben
I’ve personally never minded blue or axels or pins showing off in models.
@benredstar said:
" @GeordiePaul said:
"Is there a genuine reason why some technic parts (usually pins) only come in one colour? We all know that having certain parts being available in black, white, grey, etc. instead of just say red or blue would definitely be preferable."
It's so that builders don't confuse them. For instance the with-friction and no-friction technic pins look almost identical, so the idea is that they're always locked to certain colours so kids don't get them mixed up.
....
/ben"
I would think that creating a difference between friction and non-friction would make sense, but not more than that. In general, the colours should be more earth tones or something. Not the vibrant colours, unless it would suit the model better.
The history of Technic pins article was two years and eight months ago? Where has the time gone?
65826 is pretty useless tbh, there is a simple workaround for that problem by just taking a 1x1 plate and putting it with the stud into the hole. May be an illegal technique, but I live for those. 77765 doesn't strike me as super useful either. The only one that I see as kinda useful is 65249.
There’s an issue with making pins in more colours, in order to match a model. If LEGO were to make a non-friction pin in e.g. sand green, then it precludes them from making the friction version of that pin in sand green in the future. Otherwise you could end up with a pile of friction and non-friction pins that are virtually visually indistinguishable from each other. This applies even for 18+ - I don’t want to take apart a MOC and then have to go through all the pins and axles to see which are and aren’t friction.
I like the different pin colours. They help me picture how a model is built and functions.
I’ve got to question my life choices when I see Huw’s written an article on technic pins and I dive straight in engrossed, although I suspect the comments is pretty much set now in a colours vs colour coded argument (which, let’s face it, they’re never going to shift from colour coding friction vs non friction pins).
A huge advantage of 77765, from what I can tell, would be the lack of ridges allowing you to use half-width liftarms on the ends and full-width liftarms (or bricks or any other 1M Technic pin hole) in the middle (1/2 - 1 - 1 - 1/2).
Also, I would hesitate to say that 65249 "completes" the family of axle-pins since there is still no frictionless equivalent to 11214 (the dark grey or red connector with a 2M pin and 1M cross axle)
65826 is intriguing. It definitely fills a niche that no previous pin could fill perfectly. You could attach a 1x1 round plate directly to a pin hole, but that connection would have even tighter friction than a friction pin. Or you could attach part 20482 (the 1x1 round "nipple" tile) to part 4274 (the classic Technic half-pin with stud), but that would stick 3/5 of a module out from the beam, rather than 2/5 (the height of a regular tile). The bright green is a bit of an odd color choice—while I'm not opposed to colored Technic pins or axles on principle like many builders, it's much more vivid than most other standard colors for such parts (and many that do come in vivid colors like red, yellow, and blue also are available in alternate colors like black or grey). I hope that this part might receive a more muted tan or grey of some sort like the other type of half-pin in the future, so that builders and set designers can choose between the brighter color (for internal mechanics or structures where the bright color will be less visible, or education sets where ease of building and sorting takes a much higher priority than aesthetics), or a more muted color (for things like System builds where the pin itself will be more visible or prominent).
@CapnRex101 tells me that the 3l grey pin is used as the axle on the new Batman motorcycles in 76179 , which explains exactly why they are like they are.
With the 3l grey pin you’ve now got equivalent length pins to the blue 3l friction pin and the blue 1l pin with stud in grey, so aesthetically you could pull off removing visible blue pins as long as you don’t require friction, which seems to be the main complaint in set reviews.
I'm still wondering what set the good old 3673, 2L non-friction pin, was recoloured to yellow for (for the first time since 1976 in a colour other than grey!).
It's now in 6 sets according to Bricklink, but non of them Technic (not even in the CAT, where I would have expected it) and non of them obviously needing a yellow pin rather than grey.
@BrickRandom said:
"I'm still wondering what set the good old 3673, 2L non-friction pin, was recoloured to yellow for (for the first time since 1976 in a colour other than grey!).
It's now in 6 sets according to Bricklink, but non of them Technic (not even in the CAT, where I would have expected it) and non of them obviously needing a yellow pin rather than grey."
All 6 sets are 4+ juniors , so far the only reason I can see that it's recolored for visual reasoning, at least for the 2 bike sets.
The 32L Axle was recolored to Sand Green this year for 2 18+ sets (green flower stems and a sand green typewriter) , and used previously twice in White for visual reasons as well (inside of big yoda saber, and an icehockey game with a white playfield)
@TeriXeri said:
" @BrickRandom said:
"I'm still wondering what set the good old 3673, 2L non-friction pin, was recoloured to yellow for (for the first time since 1976 in a colour other than grey!).
It's now in 6 sets according to Bricklink, but non of them Technic (not even in the CAT, where I would have expected it) and non of them obviously needing a yellow pin rather than grey."
All 6 sets are 4+ juniors , so far the only reason I can see that it's recolored for visual reasoning, at least for the 2 bike sets.
The 32L Axle was recolored to Sand Green this year for 2 18+ sets (green flower stems and a sand green typewriter) , and used previously twice in White for visual reasons as well (inside of big yoda saber, and an icehockey game with a white playfield)"
Yeah, for a part like the 32M cross axle, there's really little benefit to color coding as far as the building process is concerned—after all, the next closest size of cross axle is half that length, so there's really nothing it could possibly be confused with. The opposite is the case with small pins, cross axles, and axle pins—there are many parts that size or similar sizes that frequently appear in sets together, making color coding more broadly beneficial.
Even then, I'm a fan of how Lego has broadened the color variety of those axles in recent years, with most odd lengths being available in both grey and yellow and most even lengths being available in both red and black. Even having as few as two options to pick from for each allows a choice that can benefit multiple types of builds—color coding to help differentiate the parts in both complex builds and very simple builds for youngsters, but also the ability to choose whichever color complements the build better in other instances where axles are used for highly visible details.
I’m not a plastics/injection moulding expert (unlike @PurpleDave, who is), but couldn’t pins be dual moulded? Minifigure parts can be dual moulded, so why not Technic parts? It would allow pins to be colour locked without resorting to garish colours (e.g. red and blue). You could have one end of a pin be, say, black and the other dark bley. No?
Time to update https://brickset.com/article/42193/a-history-of-technic-pins
And none of these can be used to make a 3rd leg for R2D2. All I want is a cross axle with a stud.
I have two -possible- uses for 65249:
1. To replace the wheel-carrying axles in steered axles: This could reduce slag created when the axle gets pushed back when the wheel is mounted.
2. I recently had a setup with differential and gear wheel next to it. The under load the axle would be pushed out of the differential. Putting a stop on the 'far' side required additional construction in an alreeady tight space.
@Zander said:
"I’m not a plastics/injection moulding expert (unlike @PurpleDave, who is), but couldn’t pins be dual moulded? Minifigure parts can be dual moulded, so why not Technic parts? It would allow pins to be colour locked without resorting to garish colours (e.g. red and blue). You could have one end of a pin be, say, black and the other dark bley. No?"
I'm sold
I want the green ones.
While putting a round stud in a technic hole is actually used in official set like the boat windows in 40487 : Sailboat Adventure, not sure if the stud being hollow made it a "legal" technique.
65249 is still interesting, it forms a sturdier antistud on any pin hole part, as opposed to a disputed 1x1 stud (or even a 1x2 brick as seen in an official instruction alternate build of set 850 )
@TomKazutara said:
"it would be so easy ;
Gray = without friction
Black = with friction
"
I agree. In fact, it would be even easier than now, because it's not obvious what a blue or tan pin would be. Friction or non friction?
I'm just waiting for a 1L axle with a mixel joint socket
@TomKazutara said:
"it would be so easy ;
Gray = without friction
Black = with friction"
Yes, but that would mean suddenly excluding all those people again who have only been able to build LEGO sets thanks to dumbed-down instructions and abundant colour-coding.
And we certainly wouldn't want that now would we?
Hint: this comment may contain slight doses of sarcasm.
@AustinPowers said:
" @TomKazutara said:
"it would be so easy ;
Gray = without friction
Black = with friction"
Yes, but that would mean suddenly excluding all those people again who have only been able to build LEGO sets thanks to dumbed-down instructions and abundant colour-coding.
And we certainly wouldn't want that now would we?
Hint: this comment may contain slight doses of sarcasm. "
Heck, people might even become smarter building with Lego!
@Zander said:
"I’m not a plastics/injection moulding expert (unlike @PurpleDave, who is), but couldn’t pins be dual moulded? Minifigure parts can be dual moulded, so why not Technic parts? It would allow pins to be colour locked without resorting to garish colours (e.g. red and blue). You could have one end of a pin be, say, black and the other dark bley. No?"
There’s probably a stability issue there, with the two different components molded together. That’d have less structural integrity than a single-component mold, which is essential when the parts are being used to build complex structures with moving parts that’ll be subject to constant stress.
@Zander:
My six years’ experience was with vacuforming, so taking cut sheet and forming it into shapes, like how the flat-bottom baseplates are made. I have no practical experience with injection molding, but do have some knowledge of that process, especially for ABS, since that was the main plastic I worked with.
Now, dual-molding parts is going to create a stress point. For minifig limbs, the amount of leverage you can achieve is minimal, so a small joint isn’t a big deal. For many larger dual-molded parts, they mold one section over the other like a shell. If you start dual-molding these Technic connectors, particularly longer ones, they’re just going to snap when you put some torque on them. That’s problematic for parts that are designed to be subjected to torque.
@kyrodes:
The original half-pin w/ stud comes in white, which many people have combined with a cheese wedge to give minifig astromechs a third leg. If they did make a shorter axle w/ stud, you know they’d pick some even more garish color like pink, so really what you want is for them to make a dedicated third leg so they can avoid color-locking it.
@TeriXeri:
One 1x1 round plate in a Technic hole is considered a legal technique, but I don’t know about the version with a hollow stud (seems like that might be prone to breaking). Any larger plates are illegal. Lining up tons of 1x1’s to achieve the same effect is probably also illegal.
No mention of how the Trolls leaf pin that was random part of the day recently is a friction version of 77765? (Albeit unfortunately juniorized with the leaf on the end)
Still need a half axel with a stud for droids third legs.
@Zander and @PurpleDave: another thing to consider regarding dual-molded pins: they would cost more. I have no idea how much more, but considering how many Technic pins are in a Technic set (and some System sets!), it could add up to a noticeable increase in set prices. (BTW, I don't mind non-matching pins.)
@560heliport:
Well, yeah, there’s that, too. But given they don’t see a problem with day-glo green connectors, and the other issues with dual-molded parts, I don’t really see it getting to the point of cost being a deciding factor.
@TomKazutara said:
" @Wrecknbuild said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @TomKazutara said:
"it would be so easy ;
Gray = without friction
Black = with friction"
Yes, but that would mean suddenly excluding all those people again who have only been able to build LEGO sets thanks to dumbed-down instructions and abundant colour-coding.
And we certainly wouldn't want that now would we?
Hint: this comment may contain slight doses of sarcasm. "
Heck, people might even become smarter building with Lego!"
Not anymore sadly. :/
Because the instruction today are made for 6 year old (even on 18+ sets).
If you compare them to 80s/90s Technic instructions, and build 80s or 90s Technic sets (for example the 8868:) you feel so smart for finishing a complex model, because you yourself figured out how to build.
That is just a giant confidence boost for a kid.
And now look at the modern paper washing instructions :
use two blue pins in one step,
turn the model in one step,
use that brown axle in one step,
now use a orange technic beam in one step,
and now clip the green technic beam on the orange technic beam and fix them with the yellow axle and your red technic model is finished.
There is absolutely no learn process anymore in technic models.
Because you blindly follow boring instructions, with unnecessary color coding parts when you already just use one piece in one step, on a technic model what barely have any technic functions, and in the end looks like a clown mobile with all those coloured pins , axles and bushes popping out.
"
That confidence boost is absolutely real. I used to spend days trying to figure out some of Adam Grabowski's (aka Misterzumbi) builds as a kid, just for that feeling (I actually managed to completely reverse engineer his Mustang Shelby). Heck I still sometimes do it with other builders.
@eiffel006 said:
"I’ve personally never minded blue or axels or pins showing off in models."
me neither, that is part of the experience and what makes it "Lego"
What bugs me most is why couldn't LEGO make the 3L pin with friction dark bluish grey instead of blue? It is used in so many sets and you can count on a hand the ones where it didn't bother the aesthetics a lot. And if it was made to distinguish it more from the black 2L pin than why was the 3L axle pin w/ friction made black? Now we get green, yellow, white pins but there are so many colors that wouldn't stick out this much and still make them distinguishable, if that is the main concern. Imagine if they were transparent or transparent black...
Why haven’t they made these in clear translucent colors? For when u don’t want the bright reds,green,blue,black and grey to show? Why not clear color? And can you imagine if they did that u can put lights in them? Come on lego make these technic parts more useful and think about the possibilities if these were ever in translucent colors?
Anyone agree?
@Quiltmoma6:
Easy. Material compatibilities. Back when the 4L lightsaber blade was introduced, it was soon discovered that shoving a trans-colored one into a trans-colored 1x1 cone was a great way to break one or both parts. Both were made of polycarbonate, and it turns out the clutch between two parts of that material is quite a bit higher than between two ABS parts, so it would feel like they had been bonded together when you tried to disconnect them. They’ve made trans-colored Technic liftarms, so they probably want to avoid doing the same with pins. Besides, the shape of the part may make them more prone to breaking when made of certain materials.
@PjtorXmos said:
" @TomKazutara said:
" @Wrecknbuild said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @TomKazutara said:
"it would be so easy ;
Gray = without friction
Black = with friction"
Yes, but that would mean suddenly excluding all those people again who have only been able to build LEGO sets thanks to dumbed-down instructions and abundant colour-coding.
And we certainly wouldn't want that now would we?
Hint: this comment may contain slight doses of sarcasm. "
Heck, people might even become smarter building with Lego!"
Not anymore sadly. :/
Because the instruction today are made for 6 year old (even on 18+ sets).
If you compare them to 80s/90s Technic instructions, and build 80s or 90s Technic sets (for example the 8868:) you feel so smart for finishing a complex model, because you yourself figured out how to build.
That is just a giant confidence boost for a kid.
And now look at the modern paper washing instructions :
use two blue pins in one step,
turn the model in one step,
use that brown axle in one step,
now use a orange technic beam in one step,
and now clip the green technic beam on the orange technic beam and fix them with the yellow axle and your red technic model is finished.
There is absolutely no learn process anymore in technic models.
Because you blindly follow boring instructions, with unnecessary color coding parts when you already just use one piece in one step, on a technic model what barely have any technic functions, and in the end looks like a clown mobile with all those coloured pins , axles and bushes popping out.
"
That confidence boost is absolutely real. I used to spend days trying to figure out some of Adam Grabowski's (aka Misterzumbi) builds as a kid, just for that feeling (I actually managed to completely reverse engineer his Mustang Shelby). Heck I still sometimes do it with other builders. "
The problem is that for every bright kid who gets a sense of accomplishment, there are many more not-so-bright or young ones who get frustrated and lose interest. LEGO likely knows that from its consumer tests and figures that commercially it’s better to disappoint the former with too much simplicity than the latter with too much complexity.
Returning to the article I don't see what the grey 3 length (1.5 pin) offers from the cream or blue pin apart from allowing you to change the order of joining beams together, but the end result of 3 joined beams is still the same?
I can see 65826 will have new uses, but what would be really useful is a 1.25 pin similar to the 3/4 pin 32002 when joining beams with thin 0.5 half beams etc. with the split either 1 and 0.25 (half beam at end), or 0.75 and 0.5 pin (half beam in middle) lengths.
@ambr said:
"Returning to the article I don't see what the grey 3 length (1.5 pin) offers from the cream or blue pin apart from allowing you to change the order of joining beams together, but the end result of 3 joined beams is still the same? "
As I commented above, it turns out that its raison d'être is for axles of the 2022 Batman motorcyles.
@ambr :
Half, full, full, half, as @Lyichir pointed out. Or as @Huw noted, half, double, half works just as well. The existing 3L pins are really only designed to handle full, full, full, or full, double.
@Bhahouighf :
Ah, yes, the portholes on the Éloïse. That was one of the few pleasant surprises, where my brain has kind of pushed that whole thing to the side until I’m ready to try fixing all the other things that aren’t seaworthy.
Here’s the thing, though. The Technic pin hole is tighter than an antistud, and I know that compressive force (look up Prince Rupert’s Drops) isn’t as bad as other kinds, like shear force, but the hollow stud makes it possibilities to collapse the part of force is applied unequally. Prying one of those out of a Technic pin hole by one edge of the flange will apply force more from two opposing sides, risking collapse of the part. And I built some bees using some of those round plates, only to find all the yellow ones on one of the bees have shattered.
I was hoping the green one was like 4274, but with friction. What it does is cool, but 4274 with friction would be nice.
@You_reDoingItWrong:
While I’ve certainly had times when that would come in useful, I don’t think they’ll ever release a friction 4274, if only because of how hard it would be to reposition or remove.