Subject:
|
Most redundant Lego part
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:56:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
798 times
|
| |
|
|
Do you ever wonder sometimes why Lego developed some particular part and say to
yourself "what were they thinking?".
The one piece that comes to my mind is the 1x4x2 arch. I mean it is virtually
identical to the 1x4 arch plus two 1x1 bricks attached to the bottom of each
end. Why was this even created? It would have been nice if the 1x4x2 was a
pointed arch, but no, it was just like the regular 1x4 arch. Very much a
redundant part. This is Juniorization at its' minimum.
Any other redundancies folks can think of? (Except of course for those 1x1x5
and 1x2x5 bricks.)
Gary Istok
A Lego addict since 1960.
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
| (...) How about (URL) 'Panel Double Wall 3 x 6 x 6' It appears in one set (apart from a brief Dacta appearance) and whilst its a handy part to have, the function it performs in the only set it is in could equally well be done by 2 of these (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
| (...) Hi Gary, if you stack 5 bricks together it will not be quite stably, so the 5 high bricks make a sence for me. But i cannot see any sence in this two bricks: (URL) and (URL) Specially if you stack 3 2x2 bricks together it will be very stably, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
| (...) Functionally yes, aesthetically no. If you're abutting 1x6x2 and 1x4 arches (in a colonade say - (URL) using 1x4 arches with 1x1 bricks to make up the height is just not as pleasing as using 1x4x2 arches - sorry but I don't like the extra seam (...) (20 years ago, 5-Nov-04, to lugnet.general)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
