Subject:
|
Re: Most redundant Lego part
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:40:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
807 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Gerhard R. Istok wrote:
> 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.
Functionally yes, aesthetically no.
If you're abutting 1x6x2 and 1x4 arches (in a colonade say -
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=531574) 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 that is introduced that breaks up the
line.
And the great thing about aesthetics? Even if you all disagree with me, I'm
still right! As beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;-)
William
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
19 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
|
|
|
|
