 | | Re: I thought as much
|
|
(...) Bricks have studs, Beams do not, They are good, For some SNOT. (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: I thought as much
|
|
(...) That set description was supplied by LUGNET data admins, not by TLC. The curly brackets indicate this. AFAIK, the traditional TLC name for those parts with studs and pin holes are "Technic Bricks". But "beam" has been commonly used for some (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic's only in a coma (WAS Re: Technic's Dead )
|
|
(...) (URL) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic's only in a coma (WAS Re: Technic's Dead )
|
|
"Steven lane" <steveroblane@aol.com> wrote in message news:H0F3x6.BLy@lugnet.com... (...) Remember (...) The service catalogue was still active until relatively recently in the UK, certainly I ordered bits from it after the release of the 8448. I (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: I thought as much
|
|
(...) argument. What better way to destroy the memory of the old part than to reuse it's name. Actually as I said before they're both beams. The old type is the default beam so gets the short hand 'beam'. In order to distinguish the new type from (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: I thought as much
|
|
(...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | I thought as much
|
|
(URL) scan shows an old accessory pack of (pre studless) Lego elements. It cleary describes them as beams. So can we stop calling beams, bricks, when they're obviously beams, and can we call the new imposters studless beams therefore creating a (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic's only in a coma (WAS Re: Technic's Dead )
|
|
(...) I never had the 8860, I had the 851 red tractor (URL) actually liked that car actually, still don't. I supplemented my bricks with expansion sets and motor sets and then got the JCB. And I used my plentiful colletion of system sets to provide (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic's only in a coma (WAS Re: Technic's Dead )
|
|
(...) My 853 was and still is my pride and joy. Never crashed - even the box is still quite good. I guess that's the difference between men and women drivers ;-0 (ducks and runs) Mark (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic's only in a coma (WAS Re: Technic's Dead )
|
|
"Steven lane" <steveroblane@aol.com> wrote in message news:H0DzB7.83t@lugnet.com... (...) You mean you never crash tested your 8860 to destruction as a child? That front bumper was surprisingly tough! Jennifer (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic's Dead (was: I need Technic)
|
|
Technic is dead. Mindstorms is alive. However, the first set of the Mindstorms product line -- the original RIS -- is also the best set in the line. Now this worries me a lot. You may still find some of the original spirit of Technic in today's (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: 8461 Williams F1 Team Racer ----- Silver Champ Variant!!!
|
|
What I can see from the picture: The original panels have been replaced by smoother ones: even more impossible to use, but they show the Corporate Decals much better.... The bottom of the side pots is the obvious exception. No Logo's there, so (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead)
|
|
(...) The styling panels may not have structural purposes, but to me they make a Technic set somewhat more attractive. The reality is that very little in the real world is just grids of structural members, there are decorative (or functional) (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead)
|
|
(...) I've always gotten a kick out of how you described that container to me once: "The Bucket of Shame." j. FUT .fun (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead)
|
|
(...) Oh, sure. I agree with that. It's having enough beams that's the problem! (...) Well, it just depends on what you need for a given situation. Studs can really help, if you need them. If not, they're just an added complication. But you're (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead)
|
|
(...) Yes, that's true. It's disappointing to get a set with little or no Technic bricks in it. I think one frustrating thing about the new pieces (and I'm thinking of studless beams as well as liftarms, or 1/2 width "beams") is that because there's (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic's Dead (was: I need Technic)
|
|
Ralph Hempel wrote: >[...] (...) On the contrary, Ralph, that's fascinating! Thanks. -Suz (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Technic's only in a coma (WAS Re: Technic's Dead )
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Tim Courtney writes: One of the most-asked questions at our train shows is 'are these (...) Wouldn't it be brilliant to fake a lego box of a large, obviously one off Moc, set it up at a public show and everytime your asked that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead)
|
|
(...) I completely agree that bricks have there own place and can be very useful, but I do believe the style of rounded beams and liftarms are a better means for technical modeling then the Technic brick. I still use bricks in all of my models, but (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead)
|
|
(...) I totally agree! I think I overdid it. I totally agree that beams and bricks have their uses, I just don't like how Lego is making the beam 'superioir' these days. The thing that ticks me off, though, is flex axles and 'styling panels.' I just (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
