 | | Re: MSP Fest? —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | (...) If you put a technic brick on top instead of a plate, you have two studs in a vertical orientation exactly the right distance apart to place a 2 x 1 plate *vertically*. I can't think of any other way to have the same distance betwwn verical (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-99, to lugnet.build)
|
| | | |
| | | | | The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud (was Re: MSP Fest? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Not in just two studs. If you use two technic bricks separated by 2 plates you do it, but in three instead of two. Everybody knows that one, of course. But the one you just pointed out is so VERY cool. Of course for best effect you need to use (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-99, to lugnet.build)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud (was Re: MSP Fest? —Fred Carcanague III
|
| | | | | You're right about these youngsters having it good. I remember back around 73' or 74' having to make make due with just bricks and wheels w/a few windows and doors. Now there's more wheels in my wheel box of different sizes than I had wheels all (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-99, to lugnet.build)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Customized pieces (was: Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud) —Stephen Jacquot
|
| | | | | | (warning: topic drift, note followups) (...) Halfway within the realm of possibility: this would be a pretty good TLG sponsored contest/prize. Design the best new piece and they'll make it for you. Contest submissions could include a written (...) (26 years ago, 16-Jan-99, to lugnet.build, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Customized pieces (was: Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud) —Tim McSweeney
|
| | | | | | | (...) The "Wizzard" hat shoud be in red only. (26 years ago, 17-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Customized pieces (was: Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | (...) In a similar vein, what I would really like to see is "conversion" bricks for the pitch of a roof. For example, a 3x2x1 sloped corner brick, with the longer side being low slope, and the shorter being medium slope. (visions of rooflines dance (...) (26 years ago, 17-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Customized pieces (was: Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | (...) Take a look at (URL) red things Are what you are referrring to, I think.. Jasper (26 years ago, 18-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Customized pieces (was: Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud) —Stephen Jacquot
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hard to tell in that image, but (URL) it clear, yes, that's exactly what I need. New thread: lost pieces that were once in production, but are no more. -- Steve Jacquot sj5w@virginia.edu (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Customized pieces (was: Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) What's even better: you can also put them together, and have a large hole with two doors. (...) Yeah. By the way, the 1*2 plates with H -beam attached lego uses to support the new 9V technic motor, have exactly the same profile as the rails (...) (26 years ago, 19-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Customized pieces (was: Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud) —Stephen Jacquot
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Pretty neat. They don't even need two distinct parts: the left door is just the right door upside down (or vice versa). (...) You have to wonder why they ever went away. Lego trains all seem to be based on European prototypes - do Euro-trains (...) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Customized pieces (was: Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Exactly. The sercondary model has them horizontal, for a very flat car with doors on top :) (...) Most are containers, but occasional;ly I do see one or two boxcar types. (note, I'm not a train fanatic, especially RL ones, so that's just my (...) (26 years ago, 20-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Customized pieces (was: Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud) —Gary Louie
|
| | | | | | (...) The sliding boxcar doors already exist. There are some in the older 9V train sets, and a few more in the 4.5V and 12V sets. Can't recall exactly which sets they are in. (I'm off line at the moment.) If you need to know, I can check. I seem to (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Customized pieces (was: Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) 4563 (...) 4564 and this one has a mail bin inside that can be tilted to dump the mail out. (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud (was Re: MSP Fest? —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | (...) course (...) Actually, because the side-stud brick has a hole in the stud, you could center it under a hole on another size technic beam, but it would leave 1/2 brick gaps in your construction somewhere... (...) Th enumber of ways you can (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-99, to lugnet.build)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud (was Re: MSP Fest? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Can you expand on that a bit? Do you mean by turning the beam sideways?? (...) This is a fascinating topic in its own right. I feel that some wise fundamental decisions early on (actually not even TLG decisions, unless there was a dimension (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-99, to lugnet.build)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Why 5 to 6? —Robert Munafo
|
| | | | | | Why is the 5-to-6 ratio supposed to be such a great thing? I still think that a 5-to-5 or 6-to-6 ratio (better known as 1-to-1) would have been much better. It would, for example, make it much easier to build things at right angles to other things (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | | | | It's only a guess but perhaps they picked that sort of ratio to make sure that it would be easier for small kids to play with them - having a 1-1 ratio might be more confusing for kiddies who are just about getting old enough to work out which way (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | (...) It's probably not perfect, but I suppose that a 1-1 ratio would have caused problems with the Technic bricks with holes, i.e., the holes would have to be made smaller to fit in the "stud holes" beneath the brick. Also, a 1-1 ratio would (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Eric Brok
|
| | | | | | | | Fredrik Glöckner wrote in message ... (...) i don't suppose these were considerations back when the first brick was designed in Brittain. Eric (25 years ago, 9-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Neither do I. Robert Munafo said that a 1-1 ratio would have been better than the 5-6 ratio we have today. I just wanted to give some examples where a 1-1 ratio would have been inferior to the system we have today. I did not say anything about (...) (25 years ago, 9-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Eric Brok
|
| | | | | | | | If i remember correctly, Modulex bricks *do* have a 1 to 1 ratio. They were designed by TLG later than the basic LEGO bricks, so this *suggests* TLG retrospectively would have preferred the simpler ratio for the LEGO system as well, but were (...) (25 years ago, 10-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Umm, because it allows you to create a nanofig-scale Borg spaceship, out of just three parts? (...) Yep, that geometry can get annoying. (...) You've got me. Maybe the great prophet Larry will expand on his previous statement. My *feeling* is (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Simon Robinson
|
| | | | | | | (...) Uh? If we had a 1-1 ratio wouldn't you be able to create a Borg spaceship out of just one brick? :) Simon (URL) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Christopher Masi
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But you would have to shave off the studs...THAT would get you into a lot of trouble around here. Chris (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —David Leese
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I know it's not the answer you were expecting, but 5:6 is close to the 'golden ratio' used by the Greeks/Romans in their architecture. They discovered/deduced that the ratio of 1:1.6 has a certain mathematical beauty (I *wish* I could remember (...) (25 years ago, 2-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Robert Munafo
|
| | | | | | | | | Well, as you discovered, 5:6 isn't close to the Golden Ratio, but it's still a good idea. Perhaps you were thinking of 10:6, the aspect ratio of the "end" face of a 2x4 brick, which is fairly close to the Golden Ratio. (...) The derivation is: 1 + (...) (25 years ago, 3-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | This is fascinating stuff, and although I am too lazy to appreciate the math:-p, I found a site that graphically depicts a golden rectangle at work: (URL) *that's* some weird wild stuff;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 4-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —John Matthews
|
| | | | | | | | Thanks for posting that URL, John. When I got back into LEGO and began to realize the geometry, the first thing I did was to compare LEGO parts with the Golden Rectangle. Being an architect I was pleased to see that the LEGO geometry is indeed very (...) (25 years ago, 7-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) Hey, yeah! (And Robert should know that :-) (URL) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Paul Baulch
|
| | | | | | | (...) This sounds like an excellent answer to me. However, what _are_ the dimensions of a real-world brick, and why? Paul (25 years ago, 31-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —John Matthews
|
| | | | | | | | Brick sizes vary in the US and probably moreso across the globe. The "common" brick size is 8" x 4" x 2-2/3" nominal. Actual size subtracts 3/8" from each dimension for mortar joints. The size of the common brick is determined by human scale. The (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The "common" brick size has a ratio of 2:1:0.667, very similar to the LEGO 2x4 brick's ratio: 2:1:0.6. Steve (25 years ago, 1-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Which one was that? I say so many profound things it's easy to lose track. (not forget, mind you, I never forget.) :-) (25 years ago, 2-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) It was the statement where you were expounding on the many wise decisions LEGO made while designing/revising/perfecting the brick system. You mentioned the "mystical 5:6 ratio". Steve (25 years ago, 2-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why 5 to 6? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) There's not much to say on that, really. So here are a few paragraphs anyway. It IS a mystical ratio. Were it explicable, it would not be mystical, as the mystical is inexplicable, that is, it admits of no explanation. For the numerologists (...) (25 years ago, 2-Aug-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud (was Re: MSP Fest? —Terry Keller
|
| | | | (...) Well, there is the 1x1 brick with 4 side studs. But at times, it would be better to not have the excess studs. And the fact I only have _2_ of them really limits their use. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 11-Jan-99, to lugnet.build)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The virtues of the 1x1 with side stud —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | (...) I have a couple of those too (because I bought all the LEGO of a friend whose brother is two years older than me, so he had older LEGO :), but they're so hard to find in my messy organization scheme, that I rarely use them. --Bram Bram (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-99, to lugnet.build)
|
| | | | |
