| |
As I continue to plan how I will build my next castle, as my parts are currently
used in other things, I began to think of the Castle’s Keep.
Now, every castle has got to have a place to eat, and of course my next castle
being a royal castle, my thoughts turned to a wine cellar.
So I did some searching around Lugnet and Bricklink, and came up empty handed.
All of the wine storage areas I found were just large holes for barrels. But I
wanted a wine rack. I mean, this is a royal castle! They need the really good
stuff, the stuff that only comes in small bottles and in very limited
quantities.
So I went about making my own wine rack. Here’s what I came up with:
And here’s how I did it:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/savatheaggie/Misc/winerack/winerack2.jpg
Some notes:
The wine rack itself does not hang inside it’s nook. Instead, two 1x2 slopes
and two 1x2 inverted slopes pin it in place. Otherwise it just slides into
place from above and sits nice and snug.
I wanted to do the rack in brown, but I don’t have any free, so I went for the
more ‘natural’ wood look with my spare tan which up till now has gone relatively
unused (a problem I am taking care of :)
I had thought of using nothing but 1x1s to create the construction, which would
give me a larger capacity for wine bottles, but I wanted that cross beam look
that real wine racks have. I could have used crossed plates, but once the wine
bottles were in you wouldn’t be able to tell what you used anyway.
I suppose there’s another way to make the cross beams smaller using a different
form of SNOT, but this was the easiest and least parts intensive for me.
So, be brutally honest, whaddya think?
--Anthony
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava wrote:
| |
So, be brutally honest, whaddya think?
|
Hey that is a REALLY neat idea. Too bad my secret 3CS building is already packed
for its trip to Portland or I’d be stealing that idea as we speak. But if I
stole it, I’d probably do it differently.
Instead of using bricks stud on, I think I’d try to use plates turned edge on,
and wedge tiles in between one plate and the next (between their studs) to make
a lattice.
It wouldn’t be nearly as sturdy but it might look more delicate. Did you try
that and reject it? There are challenges there with how you get one lattice row
to lock to the next I think...
Thanks for sharing... makes me thirsty!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava wrote:
| |
So, be brutally honest, whaddya think?
|
Hey that is a REALLY neat idea. Too bad my secret 3CS building is already
packed for its trip to Portland or I’d be stealing that idea as we speak. But
if I stole it, I’d probably do it differently.
Instead of using bricks stud on, I think I’d try to use plates turned edge
on, and wedge tiles in between one plate and the next (between their studs)
to make a lattice.
It wouldn’t be nearly as sturdy but it might look more delicate. Did you try
that and reject it? There are challenges there with how you get one lattice
row to lock to the next I think...
Thanks for sharing... makes me thirsty!
|
Thanks much Lar, glad you liked it!
I actually tried several different types of lattice (Thanks BTW, couldn’t think
of that word yesterday!), but this is what worked best.
I tried using 1xX plates in the same direction of the bricks (just no plates in
the back to back them up), sandwiching them together. But as I said in my
original post, once the wine bottles were involved, I might as well have used
bricks.
I didn’t try but I did think long and hard about having the plates as you
described, and I couldn’t come up with anything sturdy.
I suppose, thinking about it now, you could use the same wedge plates I did, and
then snug in 1xX tiles between the studs of the plates, creating the lattice,
but the holes would be bigger, theoretically, so I dont know how funny it’d
look.
You see, I’m a real clutz, so things that break or fall apart easy just don’t
appeal too much to me. So one of the really great things about this design, in
my opinion, is that the ‘wine bottles’ are actually attached to the studs on the
plates behind them, so they don’t fall out if you tip the lattice over.
But I’ll be looking forward to seeing anyone’s ideas on how to make the lattice
thinner.
And thanks for the reply!
--Anthony
|
|
| |
Hmm, another thought for the latice...
Are there any tubes the diameter of a stud? If so, you could use a latice
fence with tubes stucking through. I think that might get the idea across
pretty well.
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Frank Filz wrote:
> Hmm, another thought for the latice...
>
> Are there any tubes the diameter of a stud? If so, you could use a latice
> fence with tubes stucking through. I think that might get the idea across
> pretty well.
There are TECHNIC pins, but the short little stud pin is the only one with a
non-split end. Aside from that, there are the flex-system tubes and lightsaber
blades, which are small enough to go through a hollow stud. The two combined
might work nicely.
|
|
| |
Anthony,
Very cool idea. I’ve got an idea to follow up my interpretation of Edgar Allen
Poe’s The Raven with with other Poe tales every Hallowen (The Pit and the
Pendulum seems like it would be very cool. I need some Spanish soldiers for
that.) Anyway, I thought my next one would be his “The Cask of Amontillado”,
which takes place largely in a wine cellar, so I’m definitely going to borrow
your idea. Hmm, now I just need a ton of trans green 1x1 cones.
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava wrote:
| |
But I’ll be looking forward to seeing anyone’s ideas on how to make the
lattice thinner.
|
I realy like yor idea, and the challenge you lay before us. It got me thinking
and my first (futile) attempt was this:
But that looked more like a buisness fair display stand from the 60’s than a
midieval wine rack. ¹)
Then, it dawned to me that the diagonal distance between adjacent studs is
Squareroot of 2 x 20 LDU = 28.2843 LDU. That happens to be just over 1 stud wide
+ 1 plate high, perfect for a wine rack made of tiles with brick-wide gaps in
between. I’ve made a MLCad mockup:
Ofcourse, this just shows the principle, and white and red color are for
distinction only. Size is at your own whim, and a frame hiding the edges and
keeping the long tiles in place are amongst the things you have to work out for
yourself.
The *.ldr file posted at http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dat/ideas/?n=202
illustrates best how the principle works.
With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen
¹) It could have been a prop from the movie “Playtime” directed by Jaques Tati.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Manfred Moolhuysen wrote:
| |
Ofcourse, this just shows the principle, and white and red color are for
distinction only. Size is at your own whim, and a frame hiding the edges and
keeping the long tiles in place are amongst the things you have to work out
for yourself.
|
Ooh! I think I got it! There’s a new
piece that’s coming out this year. It’s a 1x1 brick with studs on two sides.
If you take a plate and a bunch of these new bricks and place them with
alternating orientation, you can attach tiles to the two side studs and it
should give you something roughly similar to what you’ve got with the above
image. Each brick would have two tiles attached to it and two more held against
it by adjacent bricks on the non-stud sides. The resulting look will have
tile-thick square gaps at each junction, but everything will be attached pretty
solidly.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Laswell wrote:
> Ooh! I think I got it! There's a <http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=44972
> new piece> that's coming out this year. It's a 1x1 brick with studs on two
> sides. If you take a plate and a bunch of these new bricks and place them
> with alternating orientation, you can attach tiles to the two side studs and
> it should give you something roughly similar to what you've got with the
> above image. Each brick would have two tiles attached to it and two more
> held against it by adjacent bricks on the non-stud sides. The resulting look
> will have tile-thick square gaps at each junction, but everything will be
> attached pretty solidly.
Also you would keep the ability to atach bottles to the studs, something not
possible when using the headlight bricks. I think I will try to build the two
solutions for real (maybe even a combination of both), to see how practicly
feasable these are.
With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Manfred Moolhuysen wrote:
> Also you would keep the ability to atach bottles to the studs, something not
> possible when using the headlight bricks.
That's true, but your version shouldn't require headlight bricks, should it?
> I think I will try to build the two solutions for real (maybe even a
> combination of both), to see how practicly feasable these are.
I did a quicky test using a 1x1 with four studs just to see if a tile will fit
between the two bricks, and it does work. Since you'd be using 1x1 bricks to
hold everything on, you know you'll have enough width for the tiles to fit
between each other. The only feasibility problem is that it'll require parts
from a ton of X-Pods to do a goodly sized wine rack. To do just an 8x8 rack
you'd need 32 of them. Currently Peeron just lists two available with the green
X-Pod, and Bricklink doesn't have any available. I don't have any yet, hence
the distinct lack of demo. Actually, I just realized something stupid. If you
alternate between 5-stud bricks and regular 1x1's, you can put all of the tiles
around the 5-studs and just use the 1x1's to fill in the gap and pinch the tiles
in place, making it considerably more feasible for the average builder.
The long-tiled look will still look a bit more realistic as an actual wooden
construction, though (BTW, have you considered putting a 1x8 tile in the middle
slant so you don't have a break in the middle that would allow the pieces to
spill out?).
|
|
| |
It's nice to see such fruitfull and inspiring feedback.
In lugnet.castle, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.castle, Manfred Moolhuysen wrote:
> > Also you would keep the ability to atach bottles to the studs, something not
> > possible when using the headlight bricks.
>
> That's true, but your version shouldn't require headlight bricks, should it?
My LDraw mockup has been modeled with headlight bricks, based on their common
availability, and because I prefered to point the smooth top surface of the
tiles 1x2 all upwards in the same direction, instead of alternating bottom side
and top side up.
> > I think I will try to build the two solutions for real (maybe even a
> > combination of both), to see how practicly feasible these are.
>
> I did a quicky test using a 1x1 with four studs just to see if a tile will
> fit between the two bricks, and it does work. Since you'd be using 1x1
> bricks to hold everything on, ...[snip]
Sorry for that, I expressed myself a bit sloppy. I meant feasibility of using
long tiles and keeping these in place or combination of long tiles and bricks
1x1 with 3 studs. I believed you on your word (and on my imagination) that using
1x1 bricks with 3 studs and only 1x2 tiles would fit.
> Actually, I just realized something stupid. If you alternate between 5-stud
> bricks and regular 1x1's, you can put all of the tiles
> around the 5-studs and just use the 1x1's to fill in the gap and pinch the
> > tiles in place, making it considerably more feasible for the average builder.
Good thinking.
> The long-tiled look will still look a bit more realistic as an actual wooden
> construction, though (BTW, have you considered putting a 1x8 tile in the
> middle slant so you don't have a break in the middle that would allow the
> pieces to spill out?).
Yes, I drawed the principle mockup fairly quickly (during my work break) not yet
knowing 100% what tiles would end up where. For a real attempt I agree I would
probably limit the heigth or witdh of the rack so that the maximum required
diagonal could be made with a single tile 1x8.
With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Manfred Moolhuysen wrote:
> My LDraw mockup has been modeled with headlight bricks, based on their common
> availability, and because I prefered to point the smooth top surface of the
> tiles 1x2 all upwards in the same direction, instead of alternating bottom
> side and top side up.
Yeah, that was something I wasn't happy about with my idea, but I figured it
wouldn't be so bad if you made sure the hollow-up tiles were covered with
conveniently-placed wine bottles. Fortunately, it's actually possible to leave
open smooth-up tiles when you use the 5-stud bricks instead of the new 3-studs.
Another possible variant on your design would be to use 1x1 TECHNIC bricks with
stud-pins instead of headlight bricks. That would take care of the problem of
not being able to attach the bottles to studs, though it might not be as
structurally sound.
> Sorry for that, I expressed myself a bit sloppy. I meant feasibility of using
> long tiles and keeping these in place or combination of long tiles and bricks
> 1x1 with 3 studs. I believed you on your word (and on my imagination) that
> using 1x1 bricks with 3 studs and only 1x2 tiles would fit.
No problem. Until those 3-studs get released in greater quantities, I'm
thinking that version is effectively off-limits for those with smaller pockets,
but your version and my 5-stud version should be fairly simple to produce.
> Yes, I drawed the principle mockup fairly quickly (during my work break) not
> yet knowing 100% what tiles would end up where. For a real attempt I agree I
> would probably limit the heigth or witdh of the rack so that the maximum
> required diagonal could be made with a single tile 1x8.
I don't think it'd be too difficult to pull off. After all, if you want taller
racks, you can always flip the design up on end and build more skinny sections,
and there really shouldn't be any limit to how long you can extend it in one
direction.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava wrote:
| |
I suppose there’s another way to make the cross beams smaller using a
different form of SNOT, but this was the easiest and least parts intensive
for me.
|
In looking at the “Parable of the harsh master” that BPS just posted I saw this
pic
http://www.thebricktestament.com/thegospels/parableoftheharshmaster/lk1915b.html
I’m wondering if that is of any use. As in I wonder if tiles will fit between
those diagonally turned 1x1s and be held tightly enough to work out... the gaps
look a little wider than a tile but maybe it would work?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava wrote:
>
> > I suppose there's another way to make the cross beams smaller using a
> > different form of SNOT, but this was the easiest and least parts intensive
> > for me.
>
> In looking at the "Parable of the harsh master" that BPS just posted I saw
> this pic
FTX messed up the URL:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_gospels/parable_of_the_harsh_master/lk19_15b.html
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
I’m wondering if that is of any use. As in I wonder if tiles will fit between
those diagonally turned 1x1s and be held tightly enough to work out... the
gaps look a little wider than a tile but maybe it would work?
|
The gaps are just a tiny bit wider than the thickness of a tile, as mentioned in
Manfred’s post nearly a month ago. The
1x1 tiles are laid out in pretty much the same pattern as Manfred’s headlight
brick idea, or my 3-stud 1x1 brick or 5-stud 1x1/basic 1x1 brick variations on
his idea. You need something to hold the tiles in place. 1x8’s can be held in
with bricks or plates at the very ends if you limit yourself to 4-5 studs
opening in one direction, but you need studs to hold the opposing tiles in,
unless you really want to spend the time necessary to twist all of those pieces
enough to grip the tile edges with their corners.
The sad thing is that while we were discussing the same pattern layout, the
subject of using it for wall decor never came up (it looks better with tiles
than plates, though), and even sadder is that it wasn’t until after I had done a
sample layout with tiles that I realized it was the same pattern we’d discussed
here.
|
|
|
