Subject:
|
Re: First Ever Juniorized Lego Part?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jul 2005 05:31:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1042 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Arne Lykke Nielsen wrote:
> In lugnet.general, David Shifflett wrote:
> > Oh yes you do need the larger bricks and plates.
> > You could never get good structural integrity out of only small
> > plates or bricks.
> > I have built many of the 'sculpture' sets Lego offers
> > and they need the larger plates to hold the smaller ones
> > firmly in place.
> >
> > dave
>
> So, I guess you would say that a brick like "Plate 2x2 corner"
> http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2420
> is not juniorized, as even if it could be made out of 1x1 and 2x1 plates it
> would not keep the structural strenght
> whereas its bigger and older counterpart "4x4 L brick"
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/217_2
> is juniorized, as this can be made out of other bricks without losing the
> structural strenght?
> Arne, Copenhagen
I guess I don't really know what juniorized means.
If it means creating a single part that could be made by
combining other current parts,
Then yes both of the parts you mentioned would be considered
juniorized (assuming the component parts existed
before the corner parts)
I also say that these parts are necessary for structural integrity,
especially the Plate 2x2 corner,
I just built a 3724 Dragon, which uses about 50 of these plates,
and about 150 Brick 2x2 corner.
dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: First Ever Juniorized Lego Part?
|
| (...) So, I guess you would say that a brick like "Plate 2x2 corner" (URL) not juniorized, as even if it could be made out of 1x1 and 2x1 plates it would not keep the structural strenght whereas its bigger and older counterpart "4x4 L brick" (URL) (...) (19 years ago, 12-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
