 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> "Kevin L. Clague" wrote:
> > Do you have any evidence to back up this outlandish claim? Studded beams (that
> > are still available in technic sets)
>
> Where exactly?
> No studded beams in 8436, 8451, 8453, 8454, 8441, 8455, 8434, 8433,
> 8435. These are 'Technic' sets from last 2 years.
>
> > Studless parts really seem to be the parts that people have issues with.
>
> I don't think the people have issues with studless beams per se. I think
> they have issues with replacement of all studded beams with studless
> beams in all new Technic sets. And - this is _not_ just a part
> replacement. This is a different building system. Everything I built
> from LEGO in past 25 years (with more than few years of a 'pause') was
> bottom-to-top building, including all the Technic sets I have. Except
> the Backhoe, of course.
>
> I don't simply like the inside-to-outside building style. Studless-only
> doesn't bring anything positive in my eyes. Resulting constructions are
> 'wiggly' and the construction itself is unnecessary complex to be
> enjoyable for me. Don't talk 'robots' or something. Take 8880 or 8480
> and tell me it would be _better_ in studless. Don't forget to define
> _better_.
>
> I think that 8455 would be _better_ with studded parts. It would have
> much stronger frame, could be _easily_ motorized or even styled with
> standard bricks (new slopes/wedges are good examples for that). And it
> would be bigger. I was _really_ disappointed by Bachhoe's size. Big is
> beatiful ;-)
>
> > Studless parts have stud holes and also make good gender changers. Ever need to
> > have a double female plate? Try joining two plates studs into a studless beam.
>
> I've read somewhere that putting the studs in Technic holes is not a
> recommended technique. It does wear the parts too much. I can't find
> that message now though.
>
> > We've just seen a studded fan build a the new crane truck and start to
> > appreciate the studless beams. Yes, they are not as strong as studded beams,
> > because they don't have as much ABS. Then again, they can be used in geometries
> > not achievable with studded beams.
>
> I don't think that anybody argues on usefulness of studless beams.
>
> > - they are displacing studded parts, and therefore will be studded brick's
> > demise. I don't buy it.
>
> Isn't this fact proven by the existence of the sets I named above? [I'm
> still talking _only_ about the Technic line]. You don't name set Technic
> because it contains some parts which were used in old Technic sets. My
> childhood's favorite set 744 had studded beams, pins, gears but was not
> Technic.
>
> > I'd be happy to analyze your case that new technic is incompatible with the rest
> > of the LEGO line. Do you have *any* facts to back this up?
>
> Take 3033 and 8479. Build something.
> Take 3033 and 8455. Build something.
>
> I know this is an extreme example, but it doesn't make my points
> invalid.
>
> Right now I have reasonable amounts of 'old' Technic, and I'm going to
> vote by my vallet. Ie. no more new Technic sets. I have 2 old on my
> wishlist (Crane Truck, Airtech Claw Rig), after that I'm 'finished' with
> Technic purchases. The money are going to Designer Sets which have now
> more appeal for me.
Thanks, I'm pretty sure that was what I was trying to say when I got everyone so
angry. You said it a lot better though. A lot of old technic models had
studdless beams, but they didn't go overboard. I was asking what now defines
Lego. Current lego doesn't have to have studs or tubes in entire models, and t
can still be called Lego. I did say later after everyone started complaining
about my viewpoint that 8455 is possibly best how it is, but I suppose you're
right, the reason I thought it wouldn't work was due to size, rather than
accepting the fact that bigger might be better. A bit off my current tangent,
who can honestly say the one on the left looks better?
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
bye for now,
Peter
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
| |
Thanks, I’m pretty sure that was what I was trying to say when I got
everyone so angry.
|
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I wasn’t angry. Every time this subject
comes up, I keep hoping to see some more specific instances where the old-style
TECHNIC works better, but all I ever see is “everything”. It’s clearly not
true, or there wouldn’t be any advocates for stud-free construction.
| |
You said it a lot better though.
|
Not really, but he did say it a lot “bigger”. It’s basically the same old rant
that pops up every few months, where the only thing that changes is the set
numbers. I want to see someone cite an instance where a single studded TECHNIC
brick would be more effective than a single stud-free TECHNIC liftarm. Kevin
has stated many times that liftarms work better for robotics because of weight
and clearance issues, and I’ve found them to be much more versatile for
sculpture, like Kiki from
Sluggy Freelance.
| |
I was asking what now defines Lego.
|
The experience, as has always been the case.
| |
Current lego doesn’t have to have studs or tubes in entire models, and t
can still be called Lego.
|
Look at all of the changes that have happened to the 2x4 brick over the years.
They changed the material from CA to ABS, they added tubes to the inside for
better grip, more recently they’ve added gussets for strength and vertical
ridges for even better grip, and now they’re adding horizontal ridges so TECHNIC
pin flanges can clip into the undersides. Older blocky shapes are making way
for lots of curved slopes and wedge shapes.
| |
I did say later after everyone started complaining about my viewpoint that
8455 is possibly best how it is, but I suppose you’re right, the reason I
thought it wouldn’t work was due to size, rather than accepting the fact
that bigger might be better.
|
“Better” is a very subjective term. Better for you doesn’t mean better for
everyone. Being able to make the same basic model in a smaller scale means it
can be sold at a lower price point, and that means it can sell more units.
Small sets are the money-makers, and larger sets are most useful as inspiration
for kids who can’t afford to buy them individually, but can build up a
collection large enough to emulate them over time. They still need to cover
their own development costs, though, and in today’s market that means they need
to be more affordable to warrant the shelf space to display them. Wal-Mart even
stopped stocking any sets that cost over $50 because they’ve got such slow
turnaround that they might as well be display items instead of salable product.
| |
A bit off my current tangent, who can honestly say the one on the left looks
better?
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
|
It looks a lot less chunky, and the TECHNIC panels do a good job of emulating
the curvy front ends of many older dune buggies, and the liftarms more
accurately represent the round tubestock used for frames than TECHNIC bricks do.
I don’t really see myself buying either as a set just because I don’t have a
huge interest in building dune buggies, but I’d be much more likely to buy the
one on the left for spare parts.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
| |
Not really, but he did say it a lot “bigger”. It’s basically the same old
rant that pops up every few months, where the only thing that changes is the
set numbers. I want to see someone cite an instance where a single studded
TECHNIC brick would be more effective than a single stud-free TECHNIC
liftarm.parts.
|
How about whenever you try to use Technic parts in a “non Technic” model?
Something like my
theatre, for example?
Stud-free is great for some things like
Dan Siskind’s bascule
bridge (on the right), but for most stuff I’d prefer Technic bricks with studs.
Besides it’s all supposed to be part of a “system”, right? Without some studded
Technic bricks it’s hard to connect to regular bricks!
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
How about whenever you try to use Technic parts in a “non Technic” model?
|
I guess I should have been more specific and restricted my request to just
TECHNIC models. As I’ve said before, I use TECHNIC bricks quite a bit when I
want TECHNIC functions in a non-TECHNIC MOC, but I rarely use them instead of
liftarms in a fully TECHNIC MOC. TLC’s official products seem to be following
the same pattern these days, with TECHNIC bricks found in sets like the Inventor
and Designer series, and even in the 4+ series, but not in the more advanced
TECHNIC line.
| |
Besides it’s all supposed to be part of a “system”, right? Without some
studded Technic bricks it’s hard to connect to regular bricks!
|
Hard, but not impossible. If you look at a transparent 1x brick, you’ll notice
little ridges formed into the interior to provide gripping surfaces for the
flange of a TECHNIC pin, round 2x2 and 4x4 bricks and cones have axle holes, and
there’s always the stud-pin.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
Besides it’s all supposed to be part of a “system”, right? Without some
studded Technic bricks it’s hard to connect to regular bricks!
|
Bam! There’s my objection, I think. Lego used to be more of a system, and it’s
gradually turning into several different systems. It’s not that they’re not
compaitable, it’s that they’re LESS compatible, or less related. Studded beams,
while less useful in practical technical applications (due to being off-center
top to bottom, having a non-smooth surface on the top, allowing less clearance,
having square corners), are less like the rest of Lego toys. It’s hard to see
nowadays that a technic set has much in common whatsoever with, say, a Harry
Potter set, besides the little red logo in the corner.
Technic sets nowadays are more based on the peg/axle-and-hole system, rather
than the stud-and-tube system of yesteryear. It’s not that you can’t cross over,
and it’s not that each system isn’t valuable in its own right, but it’s changed.
And modern technic sets allow for less crossover, being without studs.
Personally, not being much of a technic builder myself, technic still appealed
to me back when it had studded beams (not as much as ‘System’ sets, mind you,
but still appealed). There were pieces I could use, and even lots of non-technic
pieces included. Now it’s diverged so that I view most technic sets as nearly
completely uninteresting. My guess is, however, that for people who’ve always
been technic builders, they’re likely indifferent, or if anything, prefer the
new system, since it’s more practical. To each his own, I suppose, though I will
still lament the loss of studded-beam-intensive sets...
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
| |
My guess is, however, that for people who’ve always been technic builders,
they’re likely indifferent, or if anything, prefer the new system, since
it’s more practical.
|
I think the general view expressed so far suggests that many long-term TECHNIC
builders are still firmly married to the studded system, that many people who
have gone heavily into Mindstorms have found reasons to cross over, and kids are
skipping over System and going straight into stud-free TECHNIC.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Purple Dave wrote:
> Not really, but he did say it a lot "bigger". It's basically the same old rant
> that pops up every few months, where the only thing that changes is the set
> numbers.
I'm biased basic brick user. You're biased Bionicle user.
> I want to see someone cite an instance where a single studded TECHNIC
> brick would be more effective than a single stud-free TECHNIC liftarm.
Stud free Technic liftarm is {almost} useless when you want to use other
(non-Technic) studded parts.
Technic bricks with plates make better frames for stuff like cars.
Usage of Technic bricks has almost flat learning curve. You just use
them as another brick, and learn few tricks like inserting 2 plates and
cross-strenghtening with other beam (even studless, you know).
Usage of studless beams in studless-only creation is anything but
intuitive. You've got to use _complete_ different way of building
(instead of bottom-to-top you must use inside-to-outside) and master
tens of funny new elements just to achieve something what would take you
1 minute of playing with plates and bricks.
Simply put, I really don't know what would make me build something like
the new Tow Truck (using studless bricks) when I can easily build
something like 8479 (using studded bricks).
Tell me why do you think that the studless bricks in the Tow Truck are
more effective then the studded bricks in the 8479. For me they clearly
aren't.
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
http://www.kostky.org
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
| |
I’m biased basic brick user. You’re biased Bionicle user.
|
Not true. I’ve been collecting since the days of the maxifigs and
non-articulated minifigs. Yes, I’ve found a new degree of freedom in the
BIONICLE series that wasn’t present before, but I do still build with basic
bricks. I’ve just never done been a big fan of building old-style TECHNIC
models, which is why my earliest TECHNIC set got mixed in with my Yellow Castle
parts.
| |
Stud free Technic liftarm is almost useless when you want to use other
(non-Technic) studded parts.
|
The newer TECHNIC sets get around that problem by not using non-TECHNIC parts.
If there aren’t any basic bricks in the set, there’s no reason to include
TECHNIC bricks to interface with them for that set. And while a few sets are
released with the specific intent of directly interacting with one or more other
assembled sets (the three Jabba sets, the various Hogwarts sets, and the
Exo-Toa/Tahu), they’re still designed as stand-alone sets. If a specific part
isn’t included in the set, the set isn’t designed with that specific piece in
mind. In general the TECHNIC system is compatible with the basic System bricks,
just like in general the basic bricks are compatible with the DUPLO system.
| |
Technic bricks with plates make better frames for stuff like cars.
|
They make great square frames, but very few cars these days are made in such a
box-like style. There’s the Hummer (which was designed as a very utilitarian
military vehicle), the Landrover, and a few other SUV-wannabes, but even pickup
trucks and police cars are getting more curvy.
| |
Usage of Technic bricks has almost flat learning curve. You just use
them as another brick, and learn few tricks like inserting 2 plates and
cross-strenghtening with other beam (even studless, you know).
|
So, to turn your argument on its ear, you’re complaining that the modern TECHNIC
system is too advanced compared to the old-style TECHNIC/System meld, in spite
of the fact that kids have made BIONICLE the top selling theme, and the Racers
theme is another one of the biggest sellers with the younger crowd, while the
Inventor series hasn’t seen any new sets in 2004.
| |
Usage of studless beams in studless-only creation is anything but
intuitive. You’ve got to use complete different way of building
(instead of bottom-to-top you must use inside-to-outside) and master
tens of funny new elements just to achieve something what would take you
1 minute of playing with plates and bricks.
|
As someone who often builds in weird patterns like both-ends-to-middle (which I
did with my
SpeeToa Bike), I find the stud-free design to be less restrictive, as I can
change orientations many times in a very small space. I also find myself
wanting certain parts only to see them released later on (specifically, I
desperately wanted 1x2 flat liftarms two months before they first shipped, and
the new +oo perpendicular axle joiner offers functionality that I’ve been
wanting for a very long time). To me, the sheer variety of parts is what makes
it worth using. The biggest limitation of stud-free TECHNIC is that they’re
still in the middle of building up the basic part catalog, but the more they use
those parts, the more quickly they’ll end up seeing a need to fill it out.
| |
Simply put, I really don’t know what would make me build something like
the new Tow Truck (using studless bricks) when I can easily build
something like 8479 (using studded bricks).
|
I’m noticing quite a few stud-free liftarms and such in that 8479, especially
for the moving parts. Are you sure you want to use that as your example?
| |
Tell me why do you think that the studless bricks in the Tow Truck are
more effective then the studded bricks in the 8479. For me they clearly
aren’t.
|
The blue tow truck? Have you actually tried it out, or are you just going by
visual impression? I got to play around with it at Toy Fair, and I didn’t
notice any wobbliness. It’s also 1/4 of the price, and slips under the $50
hurdle that seems to heavily influence which sets can be found in many stores.
If stores won’t buy them, they can’t afford to dump as much money into producing
them. The Rebel Blockade Runner and ISD models were released as S@H exclusives
because they honestly didn’t think they’d sell well enough to be worth
marketting to stores. In this day and age, if they did make old-style TECHNIC
sets, the medium/large ones would probably all have to be S@H exclusives, which
really cuts into how much value there is in producing an old-style sub-group in
the first place.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Purple Dave wrote:
> > Stud free Technic liftarm is {almost} useless when you want to use other
> > (non-Technic) studded parts.
>
> The newer TECHNIC sets get around that problem by not using non-TECHNIC parts.
> If there aren't any basic bricks in the set, there's no reason to include
> TECHNIC bricks to interface with them for that set. And while a few sets are
> released with the specific intent of directly interacting with one or more other
> assembled sets (the three Jabba sets, the various Hogwarts sets, and the
> Exo-Toa/Tahu), they're still designed as stand-alone sets. If a specific part
> isn't included in the set, the set isn't designed with that specific piece in
> mind. In general the TECHNIC system is compatible with the basic System bricks,
> just like in general the basic bricks are compatible with the DUPLO system.
Yes, and that's my whole point. Technic _was_ part of the System and
it's not anymore. It's more Znap than System and that's what I (and
probably some others) don't like.
> So, to turn your argument on its ear, you're complaining that the modern TECHNIC
> system is too advanced compared to the old-style TECHNIC/System meld
You misread what I wrote. Modern Technic is cumbersome, not advanced in
my eyes.
> in spite
> of the fact that kids have made BIONICLE the top selling theme, and the Racers
> theme is another one of the biggest sellers with the younger crowd, while the
> Inventor series hasn't seen any new sets in 2004.
Don't you want to pretend that primitive Bionicle / Racers sets have
something in common with advanced Technic build? Except for 3 large
formulas (at least 2 of them use studded) there's nothing that backs
your arguments here.
Bionicle is simply stuff for masses. Questioning the quality by quantity
is stupid.
> I'm noticing quite a few stud-free liftarms and such in that 8479, especially
> for the moving parts. Are you sure you want to use that as your example?
Yes. I wrote that multiple times - I have nothing against studless
beams, but I don't like studless sets. Look at its chassis. Look at all
the functionality. You're simply not going to mimic that in studless
(not to mention there are not yet the studless motors).
> The blue tow truck? Have you actually tried it out, or are you just going by
> visual impression?
I'm not going to buy it or even try it, it's ugly. Technic fairings are
pathetic and completely unusable parts.
> If stores won't buy them, they can't afford to dump as much money into producing
> them. The Rebel Blockade Runner and ISD models were released as S@H exclusives
> because they honestly didn't think they'd sell well enough to be worth
> marketting to stores. In this day and age, if they did make old-style TECHNIC
> sets, the medium/large ones would probably all have to be S@H exclusives, which
> really cuts into how much value there is in producing an old-style sub-group in
> the first place.
I'm not getting your argument here. There are giving us worse models
with less functionality. It's no wonder they're cheaper. If they wanted
even cheaper models, they shouldn't switch the Technic->Znap2 (ie New
Technic) system at all.
8479 was $164 in 1997 (1263 parts, large, lots of functions). 8455 was
$100 in 2003 (703 parts, small, wiggly, less functions)
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
http://www.kostky.org
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
| |
I keep hoping to see some more specific instances where the
old-style TECHNIC works better,
|
| |
| |
A bit off my current tangent, who can honestly say the one on the left looks
better?
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
|
|
Personally I prefer the stud-free version of this model, but I prefer the
studded beams from the standpoint of a non-Technic builder. Studded technic
beams are a great SNOT element in normal bricks-and-plates construction, either
by sticking the studs of a brick into the holes of the beam to get a 90 degree
orientation, by using half pins to get 90 degrees pointing the other way, by
sticking two studded beams side by side with pins but with the studs pointing in
opposite directions to get 180 degree orientation, or by using a pin to pivot 2
beams 1 against another to get about any angle orientation, or to make something
that can swing (e.g. a drawbridge etc). Studless beams are fine for some
applications, but for me they get tossed in my bin of very-rarely-used parts.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
> A bit off my current tangent,
> who can honestly say the one on the left looks better?
>
> http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
I can. I think it looks a lot better without all the studs.
The advantage of Technic bricks over liftarms comes when you want to add some
Technic features (gears, etc.) to a mostly-non-Technic model. But for a purely
Technic model like these dune buggies, the studless liftarms provide a much
cleaner look.
The only advantage to the one on the right is that it's obviously LEGO to the
novice eye. The lack of studs on the left one may fool the casual observer into
thinking it's some other brand of construction toy. But you asked which looks
better, not which looks more like classic LEGO.
--Bill.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:49:35PM +0000, Bill Ward wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
> > A bit off my current tangent,
> > who can honestly say the one on the left looks better?
> >
> > http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
>
> I can. I think it looks a lot better without all the studs.
>
> The advantage of Technic bricks over liftarms comes when you want to add some
> Technic features (gears, etc.) to a mostly-non-Technic model. But for a purely
> Technic model like these dune buggies, the studless liftarms provide a much
> cleaner look.
>
> The only advantage to the one on the right is that it's obviously LEGO to the
> novice eye. The lack of studs on the left one may fool the casual observer into
> thinking it's some other brand of construction toy. But you asked which looks
> better, not which looks more like classic LEGO.
You expressed several good points including some I had. I think a lot of
the rants are coming from people who remember the first technic models and
how easily they could mix basic parts in technic models and vice versa.
Today it is a bit harder for old-timers to build using pieces from both
systems primarily because of a lack of pieces with both studs and holes
(beams) that we are used to using. Instead, we are given plenty of 2x2
bricks with pin and axlehole and 2x4 brick with 2 pins. Several of the
Studios sets did this quite effectively.
For an example of using Basic, Technic, Znap, Castle and Mindstorms
simultaneously (I need to add space and pirate somehow) check this out:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=666233
It's not easy but then again, I build for the challenge and enjoy tying
different technologies together.
Doug
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Doug Eaton wrote:
> You expressed several good points including some I had. I think a lot of
> the rants are coming from people who remember the first technic models and
> how easily they could mix basic parts in technic models and vice versa.
You know, even though you probably weren't trying to, I think you just answered
my biggest question. I've always been looking at the old TECHNIC parts in terms
of combining TECHNIC aspects into System constructions, which is a big advantage
that they have over the stud-free parts. I hadn't really been thinking in terms
of getting a TECHNIC collection off the ground as a standalone system vs. being
dependant upon that big pile of basic LEGO bricks that you've already got
sitting in front of you. That's probably the deciding factor between AFOLs who
have no desire for stud-free construction, and the very young crowd who are
skipping over System bricks and diving straight into TECHNIC in its modern form.
Without a pile of System bricks to give you a big advantage for going with the
studded parts, it basically boils down to the merits of the system on its own.
Kids go for the stud-free stuff because it can give you the same functionality
at a more affordable price (and when you're not pulling down a five-figure
allowance each year...), but many AFOLs have considerably more building
resources available when they can use basic bricks as filler material.
> For an example of using Basic, Technic, Znap, Castle and Mindstorms
> simultaneously
You're missing DUPLO.
> (I need to add space and pirate somehow)
You could add some wings so it can fly in space, and give it a crow's nest so it
can have a spotter looking for land masses in its path. ;P
> It's not easy but then again, I build for the challenge and enjoy tying
> different technologies together.
I find that I often work from the other direction, tying different systems
together when necessary to achieve the look that I want.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
> The only advantage to the one on the right is that it's obviously LEGO to the
> novice eye. The lack of studs on the left one may fool the casual observer
> into thinking it's some other brand of construction toy.
The ironic thing is that there is no TECHNIC clone on the market (making the one
on the left more distinctly "LEGO"), and parents often get confused about what
is truly LEGO product vs. what is a clone product.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
> > The only advantage to the one on the right is that it's obviously LEGO to the
> > novice eye. The lack of studs on the left one may fool the casual observer
> > into thinking it's some other brand of construction toy.
>
> The ironic thing is that there is no TECHNIC clone on the market (making the one
> on the left more distinctly "LEGO"), and parents often get confused about what
> is truly LEGO product vs. what is a clone product.
I wasn't talking about clones; I was talking about other types of toys like
K'Nex. But you're right, it's an interesting irony that the one on the right
might be closer to say MegaBlocks than the one on the left.
| | | | | | |
