Subject:
|
Re: studless construction practice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:11:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2542 times
|
| |
|
|
I've recently got back into technics.. and got a few of the 2004/05 kits...
my first impression was: "This is Peg-o... not Lego!"
after my first 4 hour session of building the 8436 truck.. my fingers were
really sore from inserting so many little black pegs/connectors.
I have also noticed that studless kits are extremely bendy/flexible (and
also seem to have a LOT less gears)
..which were my favourite parts in the old lego technic kits I used to play
with 20 years ago.
I used to enjoy building a chassis, then using regular lego plates/bricks to
cover it up.. not as easy with studless..
Of course, to rectify the problem, I simply went out and bought the 8480
Shuttle on Ebay.. :-)
man.. that thing is *super* rigid... looks awesome.. and has an astronomical
(har har) amount of gears in the gearbox, and underbelly.
I have sat down on several occasions, and tried my hardest to build
something cool from scratch, with studless.. but I find my experimentation a
LOT slower, since it takes longer to 'plan out' a mechanism, and longer to
fix mistakes in the design... pulling apart pegs/beams etc..
while I have admiration for the designers of the recent studless kits, I
just find them so much harder to work with, when building from scratch.
Rohan.
(first lugnet post! :)
"Philippe Hurbain" <philohome@free.fr> wrote in message
news:It8CKG.CIt@lugnet.com...
> > Like the cross-blocks http://peeron.com/inv/parts/653 in various
> > lengths - I
> > use these all the time it seems.
> I guess you mean http://peeron.com/inv/parts/6536 ...
>
> > > Studless designs are stronger and more rigid.
> > As to rigid, I *strongly* disagree - I've
> > yet to see a studless design that rivals a studded frame for rigidity.
> > Sometimes, this can work to your advantage - a structure with some give
> > is often
> > more forgiving of stresses than a very rigid one. But if you really
> > *need* a
> > rigid structure, well... I'm open to being proven wrong here (yet again),
> > but
> > I've not seen it yet.
>
>
> I completely agree with Brian. While I do like studless construction (I
> still
> need more time to think and build with them, but the result is more
> refined), I
> use studded beams when I need stiffness. A single studless beam is already
> much
> less rigid than a studded one.
>
> And I have yet to find a way to create a compound long studless beam with
> good
> stiffness and strength. Sandwitching studless beams between plates works
> rather
> well... but it is no longer studless construction!
>
> Philo
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: studless construction practice
|
| (...) Wait until you try to take the dang things apart ;-). For studless disassembly, I find a thin sheet of textured rubber invaluable for gripping the pins to pull them out (commonly used for opening stubborn jar lids). This does point out one (...) (19 years ago, 1-Feb-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: studless construction practice
|
| (...) I guess you mean (URL) ... (...) I completely agree with Brian. While I do like studless construction (I still need more time to think and build with them, but the result is more refined), I use studded beams when I need stiffness. A single (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jan-06, 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
|
|
|
|
