| |
In lugnet.robotics, Elijah Meeker <emeeker@austin.rr.com> writes:
> So, there are 3 types of 1/2 bushing:
>
> smooth
> http://img.lugnet.com/ld/4265c.gif
>
> type 1
> http://img.lugnet.com/ld/4265a.gif
>
> type 2
> http://img.lugnet.com/ld/4265b.gif
>
>
> Can anyone tell me why I would want type 1 vs. type 2? Are type 1
> functionally different or just the a first try?
They're pretty much the same. But I think Type 1 bushings often have a
tighter fit than Type 2 bushings. It really depends on each specific part
and its particular tolerances. I have some Type 1's that are extrememly
tight fitting, and others that fit loosely.
I keep all my Type 1's and Type 2's in one bin and use them without looking.
> Also, anyone have an
> idea why they dropped all the toothing I see on older pieces?
I think the biggest reason is that the Type 1's and 2's were prone to
splitting in half. The teeth introduce a high stress concentration and a
crack can easily form. I have split many of these.
Also, the teeth are not often used for anything (e.g. used to lock an axle).
When I use 1/2 bushings, usually I just need a bushing 1/2 thick. I rarely
need to lock an axle from rotating. Besides, the new 1x2 technic bricks with
axle-holes do a much better job of locking an axle.
TJ
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
| (...) Based on my experience, out of over 200 Type 1's that I own, only a few have ever split in half. Having recently acquired a used 8880 supercar (which uses Type 2's), I now have over 20 split Type 2's, and that number keeps increasing with use. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic)
| | | RE: bushing (bush) question
|
| (...) Type 2 is newer, probably because the Type 1's were too hard to take off the axle. I've noticed that most of my loose Type 1's have a hairline fracture on one side. (...) All the parts with teeth were essentially replaced with functional (...) (23 years ago, 24-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic)
| | | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
| (...) Note also that Type 1 & 2 are also slightly wider than a smooth 1/2 bush - about half the thickness of a tooth wider. Two of them butted together (tooth side) is exactly the same width as 2 smooths (or a single full bush). And as TJ says, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.technic)
| | | Re: bushing (bush) question
|
| (...) looking. (...) axle). (...) with (...) Note also that Type 1 & 2 are also slightly wider than a smooth 1/2 bush - about half the thickness of a tooth wider. Two of them butted together (tooth side) is exactly the same width as 2 smooths (or a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | bushing (bush) question
|
| (I never thought about this until just now, I know these things as "bushings" and they are listed as "bush", which only now seems appropriate when they are activly in service, as opposed to sitting in a bin. If I had an www.oed.com account I would (...) (23 years ago, 23-Aug-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
13 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
|
|
|
|
