Subject:
|
RE: fischertechnik
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.handyboard
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 05:45:10 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Brett Anthony <anthonyb@ecs.%StopSpam%csus.edu>
|
Viewed:
|
1105 times
|
| |
|
|
First of all, the HandyBoard works fine with fischertechnik.
I've been using fischertechnik for a variety of purposes since about 1980.
I've also used Lego Technic, although less extensively, for ten years or so.
Size/Scale: If you build identically functioning machines from both
systems, the end products will be roughly the same size. The raw parts
count on the Lego Technic machine will be 3 to 4 times greater than the
fischertechnik, however, just due to the nature of each building system.
This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Mechanics: Basically what one will do, so will the other. Ever since Lego
Technic appeared in response to fischertechnik's early success, the two
systems have been playing feature tit-for-tat (at least in Europe). There
ARE differences, but it depends on what you want to do. Generally, if you
need to build a unique actuating linkage or rotating powertrain, Lego
Technic does it more effectively, and in a considerably (maybe 50%) smaller
space. Lego Technic rotating elements (gears, pulleys, etc) fix to their
shafts more reliably and elegantly, and the free gears mesh more
efficiently. The motors are comparable in size, power, etc., but the
user-configurable gearboxes that have always come with fischertechnik motors
are far ahead of anything Lego Technic has produced. Fischertechnik also
has historically offered a wider variety of electro-mechanical gizmos and
computer interfaces. Their version of LegoMindStorms (i.e. an independent
robot kit), called "fischertechnik Mobile Computing" has been out a year or
so and uses a graphical programming "language" called LLWin. A nice piece
of work, but not nearly as powerful nor versatile as HandyBoard.
Structure/Chassis: Lego Technic has the distinct DISadvantage of being
compatible with original Lego press-together bricks. You can't just push a
Lego motor on to your machine and expect it to stay. You have to "box it
in", as you have to do with all elements that experience stress. Of course
Lego provides numerous clever ways to do this, and the HandyBoard web site
provides a document called "The Art of Lego" to help you, but the fact
remains that Lego Technic machines want to get loose and fall apart under
cyclic stress. Fischertechnik uses a different (and rather elegant) method
of attachment which is fast, versatile, and nearly foolproof. I can build
things (like crooked, jointed legs for walking robots) with ft that I
couldn't conceive with Lego.
Ease of Creation: fischertechnik wins this one hands down. I like Lego
very much for a variety of reasons, but I generally end up doing my
experimenting with ft. If you gave me a large supply of both systems and
asked me to create a particular type of machine, I could probably do it two
to three times quicker with ft than Lego. I could then tumble the
fischertechnik machine down a flight of stairs and have it still be running
with no lost parts at the bottom. (Don't do this with your HandyBoard!)
Availability/Familiarity: Lego all the way. They understand the market and
know how to take care of the customer, and if you need some more elements or
whatever, generally a quick trip to the mall is all it takes. Fischer has
never known how to market in the USA. There is one bright spot, however.
If you want to buy fischertechnik, go to http://www.timberdoodle.com , they
don't do credit cards (but you can fax them a check), the prices are very
reasonable, and the service is good. There are other sources too, if you're
interested I'll send the info.
Brett Anthony
anthonyb@ecs.csus.edu
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
