Subject:
|
Re: Technic's Dead (was: I need Technic)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:29:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2495 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Brian Sadowski writes:
> I believe that Lego realized the Technic brick and plate system is old and
> there could be a better system in its place. Bricks lend themselves to stud
> building and beams are geared towards axle supported structures. Both the
> Brick and the Beam have the common pin-hole.
And both the brick and beam have their place in the LEGO parts catalog. But
what about those of us not building robots or complicated gear boxes? What
about builders who want the old style Technic bricks to use as bracing or
frameworks for larger models? There's nothing wrong with adding parts to
the LEGO inventory, it's just sad that it always seems to come at the loss
of other parts.
Personally, I don't think the brick and plate system is "old and there could
be a better system in its place". However, I do think it's fair to say that
the brick and plate system is, "old and perhaps some builders might prefer
an additional building option, such as beams". Again, don't throw out
something that has worked well for so many years just because an alternative
arises.
> Once you start using bricks, you are almost required to use plates.
I don't see a problem. :)
This is the style of building that I like. It may not be your favorite, but
that's ok. Why not offer parts for both styles?
> Functionally Beams have many advantages over bricks:
>
> -Beams are a lighter part. An 11 hole beam weights less then and 12 stud
> brick. Part weight is always an issue, and is extremely important when
> things get motorized.
> -Beams are rounded, allowing higher freedom of movement and tighter
> connections. Because the ends are not 'squared off' as in bricks, beams can
> fit into areas that a brick never could.
> -Non gender specific. Bricks and plates are studded, a male and a female
> part to each piece. This is a limiting factor, decreasing the usability of
> each piece. Rounded beams do not have this property.
Again, these factors are not as important when it comes to building
structures that aren't going anywhere.
> -Piece Dimensions, I don’t know specific dimensions but the width and height
> of a beam is a lot closer to a 1 to 1 ratio then a brick is. Symmetry is
> always preferred over non-symmetry. Non-symmetric parts are harder to build
> with. Beams are also broken into halves, where bricks are into 3rds. This
> just may be personal but halves are easier to deal with then thirds.
LEGO bricks have survived for many many years not being symmetrical. While
there's nothing wrong with striving for symmetry there's also nothing wrong
with the 3rd's rule under which LEGO bricks have always worked so well. I
find it a challenge rather than a disadvantage.
> You can also look at this situation this way. If you observer real world
> structures your more likely to find something that looks like a technic beam
> before you will find anything that looks like a technic brick.
You might just also find things like I-beams and box girders. Does that
imply that LEGO should begin producing those as well? :)
> The reason
> being is that a Technic brick is a complicated piece, male and female studs
> split with the technic holes. I'm guessing its even harder to manufacture,
> therefore costing more.
Is a Technic brick (of similar length) any more or less expensive to produce
than a standard LEGO brick?
If so, put them out in bulk packs and let the price reflect the
manufacturing costs.
If not, put them out in bulk packs and let the price reflect the
manufacturing costs.
Either way, there's no appreciable reason to abandon this workhorse of a part.
> I think the new pieces are a great addition to the technic line, even if the
> theme 'Technic' doesn't exist in the same way it used to. The problems are,
> In my opinion, Lego may have changed the line to quickly and maybe changed
> it too much for some peoples likings.
>
> I'm not new to the Lego world, but since the recent push to a beam building
> style, I would never go back.
I won't ever stop being a LEGO builder either. The question becomes, will
we both be buying parts 5 years from now? You may be. I may not be.
Though if some of the more traditional style Technic sets were offered along
with their snazzier modern counterparts, then we might both be supporting
this company.
All the best,
Allan B.
- Expert Builder website
- http://www.apotome.com/builder
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Technic's Dead (was: I need Technic)
|
| (...) Yes, I'd bet Technic bricks are more expensive to produce, because they require more pieces in the mold. To make a standard brick, you'd only need a two-piece mold - one piece for the bottom, to make the inside hollow, and another piece for (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Technic's Dead (was: I need Technic)
|
| I can agree with your feelings of the Technic theme being slowly diluted with Bionicle, Throwbots and the like and the theme 'Technic' itself may indeed be dead but I am in a huge disagreement with idea that the newer Technic parts are in some way (...) (22 years ago, 4-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
