| |
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.
|
|
|
