 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mike Heidemann and others make a good point here
<http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/3641.dat> about qualifying
the LDraw descriptions for tyres.
Current commercial nomenclature follows an ISO standard (see for example
<http://www.yokohama.co.nz/understand.htm>) typically using
Width"/"AspectRatio"R"RimDiameter, where AspectRatio is the tyrewall height
expressed as a percentage of the width - eg: 180/60R14 for a 180mm wide 60%
aspect ratio tyre to fit on 14inch rims. Note the mix of metric and imperial
units !!
In some cases, TLC has come close to that - eg: the "24 x 43" dimensions moulded
on part 3740 <http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/3740> are Width(mm) x
RimDiameter(mm), although the omission of the aspect ratio fails to fully
describe this tyre.
But in others, TLC reverses the dimensions - eg: the "43.2 x 28" moulded on part
6579 <http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/6579>.
LDraw nomenclature has added other inconsistencies - eg: part 3534
<http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/3634> for which the "17 x 43" represents
RimDiameter x OverallDiameter.
I'd like to propose a move to a more ISO-like nomenclature to standardise,
incorporate aspect ratio and make the link between tyres and hubs clearer.
Tyre Width[/AspectRatio] x RimDiameter [tread designation or other qualifier],
with all dimansions in mm
3740 could stay as "Tyre 24 x 43", although "Tyre 24 x 43 Offset Tread" might be
more descriptive and "Tyre 24/79 x 43 Offset Tread" more complete.
6579 should change to "Tyre 28/65 x 25 Balloon"
3534 should change to "Tyre 10/140 x 14 Offset Tread"
or we could express the rim diameter in LDraw units, leading to a better
match-up with wheel hubs and other circular parts, whose diameters are usually
expressed in LDu.
3740 -> Tyre 24/79 x 107.6 Offset Tread
6579 -> Tyre 28/65 x 64 Balloon
3534 -> Tyre 10/140 x 19 Offset Tread
If we standardise the dimensions to be different to what is moulded on the part,
that text should go into the "0 KEYWORDS" line.
Under this proposal, 3641 which started this discussion would become
Tyre 6 x 7.5 Offset Tread (rim diameter im mm)
or
Tyre 6 x 20 Offset Tread (rim diameter in LDu)
Comments, please.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
--SNIP--
> Comments, please.
>
> Chris
Hi Chris,
I really think LDU units should be used no matter the system. (Almost?)
everything else uses them so it would be much less confusing.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> If we standardise the dimensions to be different to what is moulded on the part,
> that text should go into the "0 KEYWORDS" line.
>
> Under this proposal, 3641 which started this discussion would become
>
> Tyre 6 x 7.5 Offset Tread (rim diameter im mm)
> or
> Tyre 6 x 20 Offset Tread (rim diameter in LDu)
>
> Comments, please.
I support this general notion, would like to see everything in LDU and think the
original molded description should go in KEYWORDS (perhaps with a qualifyer
"molded" or something?)
~~~~
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> Comments, please.
I think standardization is a great idea.
I'd like to see this discussion reach other "keepers of lego part names", at
least for feedback. I don't expect that a consensus would be reached.
For the units, I think millimeters would be better than LDU. It would make the
names more intuitive for people who do not use LDraw itself. Since the LDraw
part names are used on Peeron (and probably elsewhere), using an LDraw-centric
measurement unit makes little sense.
Unless I've missed something, we've never had a part title which included LDU.
I believe we've only measured in studs, brick-heights, and millimeters.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> I'd like to see this discussion reach other "keepers of lego part names", at
> least for feedback. I don't expect that a consensus would be reached.
(ahem) That might work better with crossposting to, say, lugnet.parts or
lugnet.cad.dat.parts, instead of hiding the discussion in .cad. . .
> Unless I've missed something, we've never had a part title which included LDU.
> I believe we've only measured in studs, brick-heights, and millimeters.
To clarify: that includes "local" units, i.e., stud and brick height
measurements are relative to the system (Primo, Duplo, System, etc.) of the
parts being described (with the curious exception of part 33029).
TWS Garrison
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see this discussion reach other "keepers of lego part names", at
> > least for feedback. I don't expect that a consensus would be reached.
>
> (ahem) That might work better with crossposting to, say, lugnet.parts or
> lugnet.cad.dat.parts, instead of hiding the discussion in .cad. . .
Point taken - thanks.
> > Unless I've missed something, we've never had a part title which included LDU.
> > I believe we've only measured in studs, brick-heights, and millimeters.
>
> To clarify: that includes "local" units, i.e., stud and brick height
> measurements are relative to the system (Primo, Duplo, System, etc.) of the
> parts being described (with the curious exception of part 33029).
The curious case of 33029 was discussed here
<http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=10339> with a good argument to stick with "system
scale" for Scala parts.
> TWS Garrison
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Thomas Garrison wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
I’d like to see this discussion reach other “keepers of lego part names”, at
least for feedback. I don’t expect that a consensus would be reached.
|
(ahem) That might work better with crossposting to, say, lugnet.parts or
lugnet.cad.dat.parts, instead of hiding the discussion in .cad. . .
|
Also lugnet.db.brictionary ;)
| |
| |
Unless I’ve missed something, we’ve never had a part title which included
LDU. I believe we’ve only measured in studs, brick-heights, and millimeters.
|
To clarify: that includes “local” units, i.e., stud and brick height
measurements are relative to the system (Primo, Duplo, System, etc.) of the
parts being described (with the curious exception of part 33029).
|
I support the idea of standardised names for tyres - I would probably vote for
millimetres, as that would match better with the most of the ones molded by TLC.
And I would further suggest that wheel dimensions be changed to millimetres too,
to match.
I think mm are more intuitive - even those of us used to working with LDU, it’s
not something most of us probably intuitively work with. If you pick up a part,
it’s “2 x 2 studs” or “4 plates”, or in th case of non-standard parts, usually
inches or mm. So if I pick up a wheel and want to find it, it’s easier to think
“diameter about 4mm” than to work out what that is in LDU. So inches or mm seem
more logical to me, and I put mm first because
- It’s what I’m more used to using
- It’s easily converted to/from both inches and LDU and
- It’s the standard unit in Aus, and it would be inconsistent to stick with “tyre” and then use inches...
ROSCO
| | | | | | |
