To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldrawOpen lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 1601
1600  |  1602
Subject: 
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:33:56 GMT
Viewed: 
819 times
  
Steve Bliss <partsref@yahoo.com> writes:

In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Fredrik Glöckner wrote:

If so, the parts I suggest
to rename could be called

   2637 Technic Liftarm 16L with Axleholes
   2739 Technic Liftarm  6L with Ball Joint Sockets

No, I don't think that would be the way to go.


Great, I was mostly just testing the grounds.  I wouldn't actually
vote for a solution like this.



I'm with you all the way here.  But let me take it one step further:
as you noted, "beam" is a common term for Technic bricks.  So, this
new category could also include the Technic brick parts.  Then, all
technic bricks, liftarms, and half- and full-width smooth beams would
be in one place, with a nice generic label of "Beam".


While this idea would unify many elements, I don't think it's a good
one.  After all, the technic bricks with holes or axleholes (or pins!)
are still bricks.  And to make things even more difficult, there are
many hybrid elements, which cannot easily be categorized as bricks or
beams.  For example the new rectangular/quadratic elements introduced
lately.  I would say that a "beam" is mostly a straight or partwise
straight element.  Could a 4x4 brick with a 2x2 hole in the centre cut
out be called a beam?  Even if it does have some technic holes along the
sides?  Or what about a 1x1 brick with one single hole and one stud?
That can't be a beam, can it?


And what about the technic plates?  Are they beams as well?  I would say
that 1xn technic plates with axle holes on the ends are not beams.


I think we need one category for studded technic elements ("technic
bricks, technic plates") and one for the non-studded elements.  The name
"liftarm" is a bit bad, as it doesn't fully describe all the non-studded
elements.  However, until we can come up with a better name, I think the
current categories are quite good.



What about the original question, then?  Do we want

    2637 Technic Axle 16 with Axleholes
    2739 Technic Axle  6 with Ball Joint Sockets

or

    2637 Technic Rod 16L
    2739 Technic Rod  6L Steering


Personally, I would say that an "axle" is an element into which elements
(e.g. bushes, gears) can be slided.  Hence, I prefer the latter.
However, I'm not married to the second suggestion, and I am certainly
open to other solutions.


Fredrik



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) Yes, they are bricks, but they are commonly called 'beams'. (...) Good point. I don't see the open center bricks being called beams. (...) If that was the only anomolous part, I'd be willing to label it a beam. I yield to your superior counter (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
 
(...) I agree with that. (...) After thorough research (I googled 'liftarm', and found mostly legofan sites), I've come to the conclusion that 'liftarm' was made up by somebody, and is only used to describe Lego elements. I'm guessing that either (...) (22 years ago, 4-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

56 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR