Subject:
|
Re: A fan no more
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Jul 2004 05:23:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
12784 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> "Kevin L. Clague" wrote:
> > Do you have any evidence to back up this outlandish claim? Studded beams (that
> > are still available in technic sets)
>
> Where exactly?
> No studded beams in 8436, 8451, 8453, 8454, 8441, 8455, 8434, 8433,
> 8435. These are 'Technic' sets from last 2 years.
>
> > Studless parts really seem to be the parts that people have issues with.
>
> I don't think the people have issues with studless beams per se. I think
> they have issues with replacement of all studded beams with studless
> beams in all new Technic sets. And - this is _not_ just a part
> replacement. This is a different building system. Everything I built
> from LEGO in past 25 years (with more than few years of a 'pause') was
> bottom-to-top building, including all the Technic sets I have. Except
> the Backhoe, of course.
>
> I don't simply like the inside-to-outside building style. Studless-only
> doesn't bring anything positive in my eyes. Resulting constructions are
> 'wiggly' and the construction itself is unnecessary complex to be
> enjoyable for me. Don't talk 'robots' or something. Take 8880 or 8480
> and tell me it would be _better_ in studless. Don't forget to define
> _better_.
>
> I think that 8455 would be _better_ with studded parts. It would have
> much stronger frame, could be _easily_ motorized or even styled with
> standard bricks (new slopes/wedges are good examples for that). And it
> would be bigger. I was _really_ disappointed by Bachhoe's size. Big is
> beatiful ;-)
>
> > Studless parts have stud holes and also make good gender changers. Ever need to
> > have a double female plate? Try joining two plates studs into a studless beam.
>
> I've read somewhere that putting the studs in Technic holes is not a
> recommended technique. It does wear the parts too much. I can't find
> that message now though.
>
> > We've just seen a studded fan build a the new crane truck and start to
> > appreciate the studless beams. Yes, they are not as strong as studded beams,
> > because they don't have as much ABS. Then again, they can be used in geometries
> > not achievable with studded beams.
>
> I don't think that anybody argues on usefulness of studless beams.
>
> > - they are displacing studded parts, and therefore will be studded brick's
> > demise. I don't buy it.
>
> Isn't this fact proven by the existence of the sets I named above? [I'm
> still talking _only_ about the Technic line]. You don't name set Technic
> because it contains some parts which were used in old Technic sets. My
> childhood's favorite set 744 had studded beams, pins, gears but was not
> Technic.
>
> > I'd be happy to analyze your case that new technic is incompatible with the rest
> > of the LEGO line. Do you have *any* facts to back this up?
>
> Take 3033 and 8479. Build something.
> Take 3033 and 8455. Build something.
>
> I know this is an extreme example, but it doesn't make my points
> invalid.
>
> Right now I have reasonable amounts of 'old' Technic, and I'm going to
> vote by my vallet. Ie. no more new Technic sets. I have 2 old on my
> wishlist (Crane Truck, Airtech Claw Rig), after that I'm 'finished' with
> Technic purchases. The money are going to Designer Sets which have now
> more appeal for me.
Thanks, I'm pretty sure that was what I was trying to say when I got everyone so
angry. You said it a lot better though. A lot of old technic models had
studdless beams, but they didn't go overboard. I was asking what now defines
Lego. Current lego doesn't have to have studs or tubes in entire models, and t
can still be called Lego. I did say later after everyone started complaining
about my viewpoint that 8455 is possibly best how it is, but I suppose you're
right, the reason I thought it wouldn't work was due to size, rather than
accepting the fact that bigger might be better. A bit off my current tangent,
who can honestly say the one on the left looks better?
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
bye for now,
Peter
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A fan no more
|
| (...) I can't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't angry. Every time this subject comes up, I keep hoping to see some more specific instances where the old-style TECHNIC works better, but all I ever see is "everything". It's clearly not true, or (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | Re: A fan no more
|
| (...) The advantage of Technic bricks over liftarms comes when you want to add some Technic features (gears, etc.) to a mostly-non-Technic model. But for a purely Technic model like these dune buggies, the studless liftarms provide a much cleaner (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A fan no more
|
| (...) Where exactly? No studded beams in 8436, 8451, 8453, 8454, 8441, 8455, 8434, 8433, 8435. These are 'Technic' sets from last 2 years. (...) I don't think the people have issues with studless beams per se. I think they have issues with (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.general)
|
51 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
|
|
|
|
