Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 18:36:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
866 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Fredrik Glöckner wrote:
> Steve Bliss <partsref@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Fredrik Glöckner wrote:
> > 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.
Yes, they are bricks, but they are commonly called 'beams'.
> 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?
Good point. I don't see the open center bricks being called beams.
> Or what about a 1x1 brick with one single hole and one stud?
> That can't be a beam, can it?
If that was the only anomolous part, I'd be willing to label it a beam.
I yield to your superior counter examples! ;) Forget I mentioned a "Technic
Beam" category.
> I think we need one category for studded technic elements ("technic
> bricks, technic plates") and one for the non-studded elements.
I don't think that would work out -- I can't see the logic in putting bricks and
plates into a single category, separate from other Technic elements. Even
calling it "Studded Elements" wouldn't be accurate, unless we included other
studded parts, like gearboxes.
> 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.
After going through all this, I'm tending to agree.
> 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
I'm not keen on 'rod', that sounds like a mechanism for pushing. These parts
are *generally* better for tension than compression.
Maybe this is an Americanization, but how about 'tie-rod'? That is (basically)
a synonym for 'link', and includes the word 'rod'. And also connotes the usage
in steering assemblies, which 2739 was initially used for.
How about:
2637.DAT Technic Tie-Rod 16L with Holes
2739.DAT Technic Tie-Rod 6L Steering with Towball Sockets
Another problem is the i-beam parts come from Freestyle, not Technic...
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
