Subject:
|
Re: More studs in holes...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.build
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:12:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
424 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman writes :
> In lugnet.robotics, "Jonathan Perret" <jperret@cybercable.fr> writes:
> > Recently there was a mention here of the problem with studs fitting
> > into beam holes. Fred Martin's "The Art of LEGO Design" was quoted
> > as saying that such a configuration was not intended and that the studs
> > or holes could become damaged over time. I clearly remembered reading
> > that.
> > [...]
>
> I don't think it's correct that such a configuration was unintended. In
> fact, I think it most definitely *was* intended. All the classic LEGO
> measurements are magic multiples of 1/5 the standard interstud spacing,
> which also equals 1/6 the standard brick height (not counting the height
> of the stud). Thus a 1x1 brick is 6 of these units tall (not counting the
> stud) and 5 of these units wide. Both a stud a Technic peg are 3 of these
> units in diameter, and a plate is 2 of these units thick (plus 1 more if you
> count the height of the studs). There are also half-units of this unit which
> show up along the peg-hole rims of beams and around the perimeters of holed
> studs.
Interesting. I tend to measure pieces in terms of plate heights, but
I have almost the same measurements. Except that the stud height is NOT
equal to half the plate height. I discovered that last night and I'm still
wondering about it. A stud is actually slightly taller than half a plate.
To see this, take a 2x4 plate and try to insert another 2x4 perpendicularly
between the studs. The edge-to-edge stud spacing is exactly the plate
thickness, so that dimension is fine. The problem is that if you line
up the studs you can't fully insert the plate - the studs "conflict".
The difference seems to be around half a millimeter.
I have searched LUGNET a bit for discussions on this but couldn't
find anything. Didn't look very hard though ;)
> Here is what Fred Martin's paper[1] says on page 14...
>
> "You will not see this configuration in LEGO's model plans, because the
> top studs are _slightly_ too big for the axle holes, and a model left
> in this state will gradually experience solid flow as the stressed
> plastic expands. The official LEGO solution is to use the 'connector
> peg with stud' parts (see Figure 22), but this method is actually
> stronger (or at least until the LEGO parts deform)."
>
> ...so he doesn't actually make the claim that it wasn't intended. He just
> warns that the plastic may deform if left like this for long periods of time.
Umm... Not trying to nitpick here, but at least his statement that
"you will not see this configuration in LEGO's model plans" is plain
wrong, since I saw it in 8448 and possibly it was used earlier.
Btw, I've found another appearance of the configuration in 8448 though
it's not as obvious as the first : at the rear there are two brown
"#3 axle with stud" parts whose stud is fitted into a beam hole (step
#2 of the #7 box, page 126).
Hmm, re-reading Fred's last sentence about the "official LEGO solution",
I'm confused. He seems to imply that the stud on the 'peg with stud'
(and presumably the 'axle with stud' as well) is different from the
brick/plate stud... I'm beginning to think that the whole paragraph is
mistaken. It would be interesting to know where he found that
information.
> I just checked the grip on several batches of Technic beams laying around
> at home and none of them gripped studs any tighther than the tubes on the
> bottom of bricks grip studs or the square holes on the back of 1x1 bricks
> with recessed side studs[2] or 1x2x2 standing control units with 3 studs[3]
> do.
Intuitively a beamhole _should_ grip a stud tighter than a square hole
since the entire circonference of the stud is gripped instead of just
4 points. On the other hand, because of the "rim allowance" of a beamhole
the bottom half of the stud is not gripped at all. _Except_ in the case
of the axle-with-stud (or the peg-with-stud) whose stud goes all the way
into the hole. In that case the grip does seem tighter to me than a
regular brick grip.
> So if, in practice, studs actually become deformed from long sittings in
> such configurations, then it must be due to manufacturing errors rather than
> design errors in the parts. LEGO wouldn't've goofed something like this up
> in the design stage, and wouldn't've made the diameter of a peg exactly the
> same diameter as a stud if it wasn't intended to work this way.
Um, it seems your last sentence is self-proving : given the hypothesis
"they made the diameter of a peg exactly the same diameter as a stud"
it's obvious that a stud can fit into a beamhole ;-)
The problem is giving substance to that hypothesis...
Anyway I'm convinced now that studs can go safely in holes.
Regarding LEGO goofs : I'm seeing quite a number of them in the
instructions : parts visible where they shouldn't be, parts
changing color, etc. I actually love to collect them ;)
Do you have/know of a website that collects LEGO goofs (on
paper or otherwise) ? I think they're very interesting because
they give us some insight into the otherwise impenetrable
fortress that TLC is... There's not only goofs that deserve
to be collected too, also a host of trivial facts like the
placement on each LEGO part of the "bellybutton" (you know,
the place where it has been detached from its mold).
The only reasonable explanation I have found so far is that
they are not using a 3-D package to compose the instructions at
all. I'm still having a hard time believing this but I can't explain
the mistakes otherwise.
Cheers,
--Jonathan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: More studs in holes...
|
| Jonathan Perret <jperret@cybercable.fr> wrote in message <snip> (...) Yes, it is seemingly impossible at the beginning but I've seen a 8880 instruction error related to a 1x1 technic brick with hole, and I still don't have any clue how a 3D CAD (...) (25 years ago, 17-Dec-99, to lugnet.build)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
