 | | Most redundant Lego part
|
|
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 (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) I used to think the same, until I came to build the drawbridge mechanism. (URL) stack of five 1x2 bricks has 4 more "ridges" than a single 1x2x5 brick which puts just enough extra friction on the beam that it will not fall under gravity. So (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
1x1 brick. Can easily be made with 3 1x1 plates. :-) James Wilson Dallas, TX (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
(...) Excellent (and very funny!) observation. Eric (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
Eric Strand wrote in message ... (...) Aha! BUT, you can't put a technic pin up inside a stack of 1x1 plates like you can a 1x1 brick, so they are not functionally identical :-) Kevin ---...--- Farmhouse kit: (URL) TOWN PLANNING information: (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 27-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
(...) Hmm.. Is there any "truly" redundant brick in that respect? There's 1x1x5's which have a big hollow in them, usable for SOME things that a stack of 1x1 brick couldn't do (not to mention the hollow stud on the top). And IIRC the 1x2x2 brick (...) (20 years ago, 27-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
(...) It was when they juniorized the palm trees. In my mind, that's hard to top. - Mike (20 years ago, 27-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | WOW!!
|
|
(...) I never knew that! Just tried it and COOL! Sometimes I feel like I should have an entire display shelf of unusual part combinations as reminders and inspiration! Dave (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
(...) Yeah, that seemed really odd to me as well. Thinking on it from the other direction, though, I've noticed that those little palm trunk segments can be fairly tough to link together compared to basic bricks and such. Perhaps they changed the (...) (20 years ago, 28-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: WOW!!
|
|
(...) I just discovered you can do the same thing with the 1x2 log. If you look closely at the bottom, you can see the ridges. Steve (20 years ago, 29-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: WOW!!
|
|
(...) I just tried it and it doesn't well enough to convince me that it was intentional. Yes, there is something of an X-shaped socket in the middle, but the axle goes in really hard, comes out far too easy, and causes the sides to bow out quite a (...) (20 years ago, 29-Oct-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
(...) You know, I'm actually starting to like palm tree junior. They are a lot quicker to set up and tear down and much harder to damage. Great for the Pirate Game which I am constantly packing into two bags of holding masquerading as suit cases... (...) (20 years ago, 1-Nov-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
You won't believe what a piece of junk the new Castle Wall 3 x 8 x 6 from the Knights Kingdom sets is. The middle section has the shape of the Castle Wall 3 x 4 x 6, but then on both sides there are lower, straight sections of 2 studs wide each (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
snippage (...) I'm probably one of the few who LIKE the 1xXx5 bricks. My favorite window is the 1x4x5 and the 1xXx5 bricks really speed up building certain structures. I alternate layers of the 1xXx5 brick and windows with a layer of plate to tie it (...) (20 years ago, 2-Nov-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
"M. Moolhuysen" <moom@NOSPAM-chello.nl> wrote in message news:I6KGpB.1F5v@lugnet.com... (...) the (...) Wall 3 x (...) studs wide (...) intersecting (...) the (...) Lattice (...) parts (...) Dark (...) Slopes, (...) OK so its a bit juniorised but (...) (20 years ago, 5-Nov-04, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
|
(...) Yes, but then TLG would need to create 1x4x4 arches if you want to make a colonnade with 1x5x4 (half arches) and the 1x4 arches. Or perhaps a 1x4x3 arch to go along with the 1x12x3 arches in a colonnade. Or if you wanted 1x6x2 arches with the (...) (20 years ago, 5-Nov-04, to lugnet.general)
|
