 | | Reply: I know exactly how you feel.
|
|
Hi Tobbe. I know exactly how you feel. In building my CAT 797 frame and steering I geared it down quite slow because I knew the end result would be a heavy model. In real life these trucks don't move very fast anyway. During Christmas I took the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: How real should it be?
|
|
(...) We're not alone in this universe. Eh. :) (...) I'm a think first, act later person. Meaning I think out a solution and go for it. If it fails at first I give it another go until it works. If it later turns out not to work... Well... (...) Ah, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: How real should it be?
|
|
(...) :) (...) This plus the recent words of Jennifer helped me so now I'm set with that saying. Thanks, like I said, LEGO do broaden my horizon! (...) So I should run my IPMOC (In Progress MOC) down a slight slope to get it in speed? :) I'll see if (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Technic MOC: Dornier DO-228
|
|
(...) To my supprise not so difficult: The wing actually has a 'skeleton' consisting out of 16 x 1 technic beams in a standard configuration... ehhh... how to explain this in ASCII.... Beam: [OOO...OOO]]OOO...OOO]......... 2x 1/3 height plates: === (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Too much crane?
|
|
"Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GsEzyM.280@lugnet.com... (...) Not quite, although they are similar, and you can use that part in this situation, it just isn't very strong. This is the one here: (URL) Hmm... I wouldn't go as (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Too much crane?
|
|
"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:qrdofi4zn9o.fsf....uio.no... (...) Well spotted! I thought things were maybe getting a bit much when I started to worry about the colour of the minifig hands being used as fake (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Technic MOC: Dornier DO-228
|
|
"Tobbe Arnesson" <tnt@arnesson.nu> wrote in message news:3c809cbb.388957...net.com... (...) It is impressive indeed, technic aircraft are always a real challenge IMHO. Was it difficult to avoid the wings sagging at that scale? I liked the work in (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: How real should it be?
|
|
-- Bob Fay THE SHOP (URL) Arnesson" <tnt@arnesson.nu> wrote in message news:3c960f8f.174264...net.com... (...) you (...) building. (...) A man was trying to remove the ink from news paper so the paper could be used again. He was unable to acomplish (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: How real should it be?
|
|
(...) Uhm, could you explain that part a little? I think my English is lacking again :) Sorry. (...) I vaugly recall seeing a mill about a year ago, is that the MOC you refer to? (...) LOL! Well, that's another thing I like about LEGO. I've broaden (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: How real should it be?
|
|
(...) Hm, I guess since the mechanical/pneumatic solution can hold the current position but not get to it w/o HOG (Hand of God - Builders hand) it's OK. But I'd write a notice next to the picture never the less. I've also found rubberbands can help (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: How real should it be?
|
|
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:28:04 GMT, Fredrik =?iso-8859-1?q?Gl=F6ckner?= <fredrigl@math.uio.no> wrote: <<snip>> (...) I kind of like problem solving but if my solution proves not to work in a later stage in building I get very disappointed and wont (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC needs more competitors!
|
|
(...) Hm... Can't see why not :) But as you say _has_ existed, I've stolen the motors from it. (...) Download my picture and put it in your BS-folder with the .dat-file so I only need to do one link and I'll put it in. A short description in a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: How real should it be?
|
|
I admit that I have encountered the same feeling(s). I am actually relieved to hear that others have as well. As a programmer by trade, I find building to be quite exciting and relaxing (and challenging)... all of which are good. However, I am used (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: How real should it be?
|
|
Making a model that will "do something" is my challenge. The saying "If you cannot solve the problem, change the problem." is the basis for my building. This requires a lot of rebuilding to achieve a design that will perform according to your (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC needs more competitors!
|
|
(...) heh, it just occured to me that "Motec" means, in Hebrew, "Sweetheart", "Honey", etc... :) Dan XFUT lugnet.off-topic.fun (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: How real should it be?
|
|
(...) I can certainly relate to your experiences. I, too, like to use LEGO as a means for relaxing and getting my mind off work and everyday's trivialities. However, I suppose I like problem solving. So when I build with LEGO, I like to experiment (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: How real should it be?
|
|
I know the problem, and sometime I just forget about it, and take a the photos when the cylinders are in the current position I want them to be. The mainproblems I struggle with are the boggilift e.g when the air goes out, the axle drops down, and (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC needs more competitors!
|
|
(...) I wouldn't mind entering your build of my bulldozer design. I think this should be legal as the finished model has actually physically existed. Also the finished product was 100% my design save for the light on the top and the small bonnet (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | SSPP power suggestion...
|
|
Hi! I'm still thinking about Ross's way cool power source in his Single Set Power Puller ( (URL) ) and I got a crazy (?) thought, How much power can you get from making a lever-powered creation? If you connected a tall lever-thingie to the drive (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New entries in Lego Contest.
|
|
(...) Cool! Any pictures? /Tobbe (URL) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | How real should it be?
|
|
Hi! I constantly forget that LEGO, after all, is a toy and get disappointed when I can't get the realism of real world applications done with LEGO. It's most often the pneumatics that have too short stroke and/or streanght. The motion envelope get's (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | MoTeC needs more competitors!
|
|
FUT lugnet.technic Hi! I realize it's not much time left with all the competitions currently running but I'd still like to see more then two entries fro this months MoTeC (Monthly Technic Creation)! I'll add one myself so it's three but I bet you (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.modelteam, lugnet.build.contests)
|
| |
| | Need Instruction Scans - Trike Buggy (set 1257 or 3000)
|
|
Been doing a little hobby project of making as many Technic motorcycles as I have parts for. One that I do not own but am trying to recreate from the box (bag?) artwork/pic is the Trike Buggy, set #1257 (or #3000 as the Kabaya Promotional Set: Trike (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | New MOCs, some entries for the TOWN Contest
|
|
I've been pretty busy lately. The following represents about two months of work and it's all stuff I built for the recent TEXLUG meeting. For the 2002 TOWN contest: D Large buildings (URL) Row Buildings 3 small connected office buildings. N Bridges (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.announce.moc, lugnet.town, lugnet.trains, lugnet.technic, lugnet.org.us.texlug) !
|
| |
| | New entries in Lego Contest.
|
|
I just built a small 4-wheel drive vehicle. It weighs a mere 12 ounces and it lifted 14 1/2 ounces. That's 120% of it's own weight. I more than doubled my original lift from my first vehicle I built. So dust off those creations and hook up the juice (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Lego Contest for Technic Builders.
|
|
Don't you have any heavier classes? (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Happy St Patrick's Day Matoran
|
|
Low bandwidth (URL) (but why, really?): (URL) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | Re: Spectrum as source of Technic Spares
|
|
"Ralph Hempel" <rhempel@bmts.com> wrote in message news:CAEBIOGHPFFJALB...mts.com... (...) (URL) mpSearchCode=SP> (...) ummm, is that US funds or Canadian cause if it's Canadian then those prices are really cheap. my 0.02USD mike "new job" fusion (23 years ago, 16-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Well of course! I'm not that crazy ;-) (...) They're my wife's weights, but believe me, if you lift those things a hundred times they do get pretty heavy :-) TJ (23 years ago, 17-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: New Lego Contest for Technic Builders.
|
|
(...) Interesting! Do you think you could include metric values as well? 1 lb = ~0.453592 kg 1 oz = ~0.028350 kg I can work the math myself but it would be far more easy to have the metric values handy at the page :) I have to see if I have them (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) nice and did not drop them at all. BTW what do you use those weights for anyway? I can't see any muscular overload with that amount of weight .) (...) Yes, they exist but I don't think they are that many. I might be wrong though :) I feel they (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
I can't really disagree with your points. (...) True enough. (...) That's subjective, but it certainly is oversimplified kiddie-cartoon quality. (...) You probably just wish they'd spend that much effort promoting the other sets. It does make you (...) (23 years ago, 16-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | New Lego Contest for Technic Builders.
|
|
I created a Lego contest for Technic builders that I hope you will take part in. Visit my website at (URL) for details. (23 years ago, 16-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) background of .technic?! I sure have. To tell you the truth though, I absolutely hate bionicle. Why? Here's a few of my reasons as to why Bionicle is the bane of bricks... (1) Over-done specialty parts that have not pareticular use outside of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) I agree with Mike Edwards that most of the traffic has moved over to BZCommunity.com. And why wouldn't it? It seems like the very mention of Bionicle here on LUGNET prompts overkill threads like this. :) I manage online communities for a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego Constructopedia
|
|
(...) The animations are nifty. I look forward to more entries. (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Lego Constructopedia
|
|
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but Lego has an online constructopedia: (URL) added a link to this on the Technic newsgroup sidebar. TJ (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) And a "Dark Age" will begin for many :< Ron (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) the biggest single Bionicle discussion wasn't about Bionicle dierctly but about the avatars on Brickshelf. A regrettably polarizing situation that was resolved nicely by the various admins. - Kyle (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Stipulated! I thought the fact of your response to the challenge was acceptance enough. :) I'm thinking of giving it a go myself, but I'm afraid the existence of such a massively recursive Technic model may open a rift in the time/space (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
The Technic Logo is conspiciously absent from _ALL_ 2002 "Technic" sets that we've seen boxes for thus far (Bionicle, Racers, Star Wars). I mentioned this in a past thread. IMHO, TLC will eventually phase out the Technic brand completely (just like (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Oh, it does move alright. Especially when you drop 16 pounds on it: (URL)Maybe bridges belong somewhere else altoghether. Do you think we need a (...) I dunno about that. Have you seen: (URL) it seems every train layout has at least 2 or 3 (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | RE: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
How about lugnet.train.bridges...n-problems for the newsgroup? :-)) W -----Original Message----- From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway...net.com]On Behalf Of Tobbe Arnesson Sent: 15 March 2002 15:46 To: lugnet.technic@lugnet.com (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) cp lugnet.train sure, why not .) (still kidding) (...) Yes, but does it qualify as technic when nothings moving? :) (...) Nah, don't think there are enough bridge builders as of yet. /Tobbe (URL) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Just to add some more fuel to this, everybody HAS noticed that the 'Technic' logo is conspicuous by it's absence on the new Bionicle Bohrok and Bohrok-Va products and catalogues, haven't they? ;-) Maybe somebody DID take it up with Lego?!? (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | Spectrum as source of Technic Spares
|
|
With all of the back and forth lately on the lack of Technic spares, I've found that Spectrum Educational Supplies in Aurora Ontario has many hard-to-get parts, including the little pneumatic pumps. Without keeping everyone in suspense... Specturm (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | RE: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
Why don't we just have one *HUGE* newsgroup and then apply our own e-mail filters! :-)) W PS - I'm not serious! -----Original Message----- From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway...net.com]On Behalf Of Thomas Avery Sent: 15 March 2002 (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) LOL Hey! Do you want to start another flame-war? ;-) I've wondered about this myself. I think bridges are of interest to both groups. My bridge is made of mostly Technic parts, and my question was about construction technics involving Technic (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) You have my word :) (...) Yeah, that's always something :) (...) Of course I have never tried to build a bridge or anything that uses a truss (sp?) as of yet. And BTW bridges should be .train or something, it's not Technic! *joking* /Tobbe (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) carry big sets not parts :( (...) Thanks but it's a little late, say two years or since I got out of my dark ages cave :) /Tobbe (URL) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) That was meaningful to me, I got my name. The useless flame-war if Tim was right or not was a pity though since both him and I had agreed already. AND PLEASE DON'T BRING THIS DISCUSSION BACK TO LIFE AGAIN :))) (...) /Tobbe (URL) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Did I mention English is my second language? Flood is obviously wrong word here, but I think I can turn this to my right :) Imagine the .technic.bionicle group has a wide stream of messages, if it get's to crowded they will flood .bionicle and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Erroded axles
|
|
(...) but (...) the (...) you (...) Right, I came to the same conclusion. They're good enough (except for the null grip) if used on a smooth surface and with not too much tension. When for any reason the links are no more exactly aligned, the force (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: anyone got hardware specifications for the RCX?
|
|
(URL) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Ok I'll adjust my above statement to read Bionicle is bad for Lego Technic. (...) This whole argument reignited because of my one word retorical response to Tobbe's original post. (And it would be rude not to reply to reply's) (...) I wouldn't (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | RE: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) And don't forget the very, very meaningful debate about what MOTM should be called! Think that one got 72 per hour at one point. Discussion is healthy, its what sets us apart from the apes (or should that be Rahi?) William (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | RE: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) his (...) Nah! I like the Bionicle bits - lovely colours, great parts, love the ball and socket stuff, but the only thing you (may) be seeing from me are pneumatic walkers using the lift arm with ball parts as legs and other such creatures. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) This is a complex argument to start with. For Lego the company, Bionicle has been very, very good. For the proliferation of Lego Technic sets that are big and fancy, perhaps Bionicle is bad. I could accept the argument that Lego will produce (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Find your nearset supplier at (URL) your bank balance!) ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Only problem is they don't have the full range of elements. Try finding half thickness lift arms for example. Or, my favourite, black beams, or any colour, but in the size/number I want. For example, I'm building a crane boom, and need 4 16U (...) (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: anyone got hardware specifications for the RCX?
|
|
(...) Hi Jonathan, Kekoa Proudfoot has a very detailed page about the RCX internals here (URL) it's a large page - there's *lots* of info there! ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | anyone got hardware specifications for the RCX?
|
|
Since there are projects like legos (or whatever its called now) that replace the firmware of the RCX, there must be some hardware documentation out there. What processor does it use? What other hardware is in that box? Memory maps? (23 years ago, 15-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) It seems that William has taken up the challenge to put his parts where his mouth is. (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes: <snip> (...) flood the Technic group? My definition of flooding would be scores of posts in a matter of days. Since the beginning of 2002, there has been a grand total of 123 Bionicle posts. It seems like (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | RE: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Isn't that an oxymoron? William (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Indeed. I did it slightly differently (but same basic idea for my harbour bridge (URL) This was forced on me by the weight of the arch - not having the symmetric main beams would've damaged the connection axles, or the holes they went through. (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Well, start practicing on those trusses ;-) (if you plan to build a lattice boom, that is) TJ (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) No! No more "good-bye" posts, please. No harm done, I think. Just the butting of a few heads. It keeps life interesting. (...) If you solved the rotation problem, then you could work out something with this. Again, the geometry will be more (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
That was just an idea that struck my head, I dont have any plans to build a brigde, but I want to build a crane someday... "Thomas Avery" <thomas.avery@intec-hou.com> wrote in message news:GszDHs.JyM@lugnet.com... (...) at (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Now that would be something! How about an Expert Builder version of Bionicle? LOL- a challenge indeed. TJ (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
I personally think the objections to Bionicle here is the storyline side, not the building side. The storyline just has little interest in those of us who are not into the fantasy aspect of LEGO. I have to admit having the same feeling reading some (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) I think I'm going to stop posting soon, two flame-wars originating from my posts *sigh* Better learn something about action and reaction soon... (...) Cool. (...) Could you use the medium pulley and half beams in any way? Something like this: (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) I'd have to say lugnet.build.mecha is the missing piece between technic and bionicle and quite frankly I find the Mechas utterly cool! I'm even building my own right now. But it's still a long way to bionicle and technic. Mecha seems to be in (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) If they only would ship _outside_ US I'd be set (and broke)... (...) Bionicle is part of the Technic line of some reason. I would not mind having the bionicle folks in their own subgroup but they constantly flooded the technic group aswell. I (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Do you have any pictures to share with us? thanks, TJ (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Thanks JT! You can make things a little easier by not connecting all the member ends at one common point (like you did with the diagonal connection). Also, take a look at Ross' truss bridge: (URL) joints don't meet at a common point, or (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(URL) this out! I think this might help you alittlebit! regards jt (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
(...) Amen. (...) I just recently built a Truss bridge as well and pretty much ended up in the same place you did. I don't think using liftarms would help much in my case since all my members were created using 1x2 beams attached to 1xN bricks with (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Truss Joint Construction Details
|
|
Hi All! I hope I can distract everyone from the Bionicle vs. Technic discussions and focus on something more constructive for a moment. I built a little bridge recently: (URL) details will follow later, after I put together a webpage) I'm not (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Yes, but very expensive. IIRC, when Lego used to sell those accessory packs, they were about 1/2 as much. Granted it's been a long time since, I don't think they'd be as much if Lego still sold them. TJ (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Kyle Beatty writes: Kyle you expletive deleted, You set the FUT to bionicle, now everyone in Technic will miss my responce, and I'll be open to more tirade's from bloomin Bionicle's fans. Grrr My response for those using e-mail or (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Well I wasn't expecting 100% absolute conformality wth my word's. You must be the exception that prove's the rule. (...) Did you actually read my post. I've never trashed your right to enjoy Bionicle that's an assumption on your part. I don't (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | Re: Bionicle folks went away?
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Steven Lane writes: <quotes snipped> (...) I am here to tell you that your assumption is in error. I read the Technic posts (the ones that aren't screeds about devolution of parts and the like) and get much from them. (...) That's (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Everyone probably already knows about this, but I thought I would get this out here anyway. LEGO Technic elements can easily be obtained by contacting (URL) resource for raw elements. $0.02 By the way, why doesn't LUGNET just make a BIONICLE (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) That the two groups are combined is a Lugnet issue. The fact we hate Bionicle is a Lego issue, their two seperate and distinct arguments. The easy test that we're right is that if the two groups had split, no one would bother to argue that (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) The reason Bionicle and technic should not be in the same group is because thir is no cross-fertilisation between the two. Their is also an age gap between the two products. All that happens is that our respective posts get in each others way (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
Dean certainly has my vote on this Bionicle stuff. (How about a "Burn the Bionicle at the Beach Bonfire"?) When the Technic figure was first introduced back in 1986 (the 8600's sets) it was an interesting idea. One that could spark both interest in (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
Every so often, I feel compelled to comment. So excuse me but ... As an AFOL, what I do with Lego, specifically Technic and Mindstorms parts are very likely not what kids do. They couldn't - most of them don't own quite as much of the stuff as the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Apology accepted ;) And thanks for bringing another three words to my poor vocabulary! :) /Tobbe (URL) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Don’t take it too seriously, despite my jest ((URL) I do own quite few of the sets. I’m happy to give them a place in my little Lego/Technic world. Anyhow, most of the jibes were aimed at Bionicle-heads rather that Bionicle-sets. ;) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) ...and I thought they were all just busy at school. ;) Scott A =+= Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet? (URL) reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: killing off technic
|
|
Yes, but one only need look at Gallidor or whatever it is to see that they don't understand what "lost focus" means. Plus software, watches, etc. It is clear that the marketing people think they have to go after this "new kind of kid" who isn't (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) It is a concern that LEGO seams to be doing so many things wrong (not only my opinion, but a reasonable deduction based on their recent financial losses). And I find nothing wrong with people expressing their concerns in this forum. I event (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Getting Crown gear to mesh with new-style dif (Was: Re: Technica 4)
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes: Been tempted to do the same thing myself about twenty times. I've got an articulated dump truck MOC based on some John Deere and LBXco specs that needs a smaller and stronger drive axle-to-differential (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: killing off technic
|
|
This is a quote from an article in Business 2.0 [October 2001]: (URL) a private firm, Lego doesn't have to explain itself to anyone in the outside world, but in March the company issued a press release announcing that it had had a lousy year in (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) I'm going to have to agree with Kyle on this one. A lot of people here have been rather snobbish about the whole Bionicle thing. Not just because Lugnet filed it under Technic, which frankly is where it belongs because Lego put it there. No, (...) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | the Kirotai and the Madsgahartaa
|
|
the Machines of God- the demon Kirotai: (URL) angel Madsgahartaa: (URL) (the Rascal King) (URL) (23 years ago, 14-Mar-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.announce.moc, lugnet.technic.bionicle)
|
| |
| | Re: Erroded axles
|
|
Why not try spray graphite ? It's dry so dust won't stick : ) Robert Seifert <seifrob@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Gsuz9F.GDE@lugnet.com... (...) axle (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Bi*nicle folks went away?
|
|
(...) Sorry to have obtruded on your sacrosanct purview. IOW: nice attitude. (23 years ago, 13-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Erroded axles
|
|
(...) The come apart when side-loaded, or when they snag on something (like carpet). They also can come apart when put into too much tension. (...) You can attach small 1xn plates to the links, but the connection isn't very good. You can't count on (...) (23 years ago, 13-Mar-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
