 | | Why 5 to 6?
|
|
Why is the 5-to-6 ratio supposed to be such a great thing? I still think that a 5-to-5 or 6-to-6 ratio (better known as 1-to-1) would have been much better. It would, for example, make it much easier to build things at right angles to other things (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
It's only a guess but perhaps they picked that sort of ratio to make sure that it would be easier for small kids to play with them - having a 1-1 ratio might be more confusing for kiddies who are just about getting old enough to work out which way (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) It's probably not perfect, but I suppose that a 1-1 ratio would have caused problems with the Technic bricks with holes, i.e., the holes would have to be made smaller to fit in the "stud holes" beneath the brick. Also, a 1-1 ratio would (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) Umm, because it allows you to create a nanofig-scale Borg spaceship, out of just three parts? (...) Yep, that geometry can get annoying. (...) You've got me. Maybe the great prophet Larry will expand on his previous statement. My *feeling* is (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) Uh? If we had a 1-1 ratio wouldn't you be able to create a Borg spaceship out of just one brick? :) Simon (URL) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) Hey, yeah! (And Robert should know that :-) (URL) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) But you would have to shave off the studs...THAT would get you into a lot of trouble around here. Chris (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) This sounds like an excellent answer to me. However, what _are_ the dimensions of a real-world brick, and why? Paul (25 years ago, 31-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
Brick sizes vary in the US and probably moreso across the globe. The "common" brick size is 8" x 4" x 2-2/3" nominal. Actual size subtracts 3/8" from each dimension for mortar joints. The size of the common brick is determined by human scale. The (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jul-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) The "common" brick size has a ratio of 2:1:0.667, very similar to the LEGO 2x4 brick's ratio: 2:1:0.6. Steve (25 years ago, 1-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) I know it's not the answer you were expecting, but 5:6 is close to the 'golden ratio' used by the Greeks/Romans in their architecture. They discovered/deduced that the ratio of 1:1.6 has a certain mathematical beauty (I *wish* I could remember (...) (25 years ago, 2-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) Which one was that? I say so many profound things it's easy to lose track. (not forget, mind you, I never forget.) :-) (25 years ago, 2-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) It was the statement where you were expounding on the many wise decisions LEGO made while designing/revising/perfecting the brick system. You mentioned the "mystical 5:6 ratio". Steve (25 years ago, 2-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) There's not much to say on that, really. So here are a few paragraphs anyway. It IS a mystical ratio. Were it explicable, it would not be mystical, as the mystical is inexplicable, that is, it admits of no explanation. For the numerologists (...) (25 years ago, 2-Aug-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
Well, as you discovered, 5:6 isn't close to the Golden Ratio, but it's still a good idea. Perhaps you were thinking of 10:6, the aspect ratio of the "end" face of a 2x4 brick, which is fairly close to the Golden Ratio. (...) The derivation is: 1 + (...) (25 years ago, 3-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
This is fascinating stuff, and although I am too lazy to appreciate the math:-p, I found a site that graphically depicts a golden rectangle at work: (URL) *that's* some weird wild stuff;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 4-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
Thanks for posting that URL, John. When I got back into LEGO and began to realize the geometry, the first thing I did was to compare LEGO parts with the Golden Rectangle. Being an architect I was pleased to see that the LEGO geometry is indeed very (...) (25 years ago, 7-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
Fredrik Glöckner wrote in message ... (...) i don't suppose these were considerations back when the first brick was designed in Brittain. Eric (25 years ago, 9-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
(...) Neither do I. Robert Munafo said that a 1-1 ratio would have been better than the 5-6 ratio we have today. I just wanted to give some examples where a 1-1 ratio would have been inferior to the system we have today. I did not say anything about (...) (25 years ago, 9-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Why 5 to 6?
|
|
If i remember correctly, Modulex bricks *do* have a 1 to 1 ratio. They were designed by TLG later than the basic LEGO bricks, so this *suggests* TLG retrospectively would have preferred the simpler ratio for the LEGO system as well, but were (...) (25 years ago, 10-Aug-99, to lugnet.general)
|
