 | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Benjamin Medinets
|
| | | (...) Sounds like an awesome idea....the 6399 had a lot of extra cool parts besides the motor and the other stuff... I wouldn't mind paying say 79.00 for the elements that came with it.... that would rock... as for the space monorail sets, they are (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Count me in. The question, as John said, is what to do in the motor/gearing area. All the rest is no problem. The gear is part of what keeps the motor on the track correctly aligned, I think. (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? + 'Future City' —Melody Brown
|
| | | | | | | (...) This little Aussie would like to agree here! I think those of us who do not ave this set would drool over the chance of picking one up, motor or not! Just not at the expensive prices that they are going for on eBay etc etc. For me, Lego has (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:Gq1s8E.9JL@lugnet.com... (...) that the (...) are (...) push (...) with (...) easy (...) set (...) motor/gearing (...) Ondrew (a fellow NILTC member) and I have had this thought after (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The motor itself is highly unlikely to be the issue. As I have mentioned before, every LEGO motor other than the micromotor I have had the opportunity to look at looks the same shape and size, and I've seen non-LEGO motors with the same shape (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I don't think racks/teeth on the monorail track will fit with current LEGO gears. Those monorail teeth might be too small to make into a plastic gear. I'm not sure about the practicality of making a metal(tooth) gear that fits onto a technic (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Melody Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Maybe a little over the top or expensive, but a solar powered kit would be interesting. The monorail could run on a smooth strip that clips to the sides of the track like a T-shape track. This could be considered a far more modern and advanced (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Jim Schifeling
|
| | | | | | I think I recall Brad saying something about not being able to make the track anymore as well. That doesn't make any sense to me though. A very easy mold with no undercuts. The points might be a real problem as they are fairly complicated (as they (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, the track segments are fairly large parts, which means (I think) the cost of developing the molds is higher. And the track would require at least a three-part mold, because there are studs facing left and right. (...) True. Steve (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Jim Schifeling
|
| | | | | | | You could get around that by running your seam down the ceter of the studs. There would still be no undercuts. Thus a 2 part mold. Probably too large a piece with no retun on investment gaurantee. Still sounds fishy to me. (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | "crunch-o-matic" <naughty.monkey@verizon.net> wrote in message news:Gq5016.G01@lugnet.com... (...) studs. (...) a (...) .... only thing is the studs on the sides of the monorail track are the hollow type which accept things the size of minifig (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Monorail track molds? Factory visits? —Jim Schifeling
|
| | | | | | | | You might be right if the molds are rigid. It could be done in 2 parts if the mold is flexible like vulcanized rubber or silicon (or low-tech like Knox gelatin and anitfreeze, or even hot glue). They were injected from the center top, you can see (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Monorail track molds? Factory visits? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) TLC's molds are machined metal (there are pictures in some of the books and examples at Legoland. The track is also "honeycombed" on the bottom. Frank (23 years ago, 19-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Monorail track molds? Factory visits? —Jim Schifeling
|
| | | | | | | | Proof positive that I don't know everything. Frank, in your opinion would you say the "honeycomb" is an inherent part of the molding processing or a way to save on material? Retaining the strength of the unit while using far less ABS? What about (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Monorail track molds? Factory visits? —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Material and weight savings while retaining strength. (...) I believe baseplates are vacuum formed. Vacuum forming is usually a one piece mold and the item must be able to "fall" out. There is another molding process which I guess is vaccuum (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.dear-lego, Steve Bliss writes: (snipped) (...) Why so? The studs could be different from the original version: instead of pressed from the top (of the stud), both halves of the mold could press the studs sideways (note that I am referreing (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Mike Walsh
|
| | | | "Benjamin Medinets" <bmedinets@excite.com> wrote in message news:Gq1rtt.7x4@lugnet.com... (...) [ ... snipped ... ] (...) I think a price point of $79 is unrealistic even without a motor. My 6399 (which I bought used for $200) has a TRU price tag (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —Benjamin Medinets
|
| | | | | (...) I am sure that there are enough of the non-lugnet public that have purchased any of the monorail sets when they were first out, or that have purchased the monorail motors on e-bay. So in that respect I think there are more of the general (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hey Brad! Why not rerelease an *unpowered* monorail set? —John Grubber
|
| | | | (...) (snip) (...) I agree mike- $79 is a bit low for a set of that size. However, I think a push version would sell fine- after all, no batteries for parents to buy. Hell, i'd be happy if they would sell the track again, and build my own (push or (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jan-02, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| | | | |
