Subject:
|
Re: Studless Technic models
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:53:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2743 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, Allan Bedford wrote:
> > In lugnet.technic, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
>
> Before I start, I'm taking three big deep breaths and relaxing.... I've got a
> lot of energy on this topic. Jindrich, I understand and respect why you don't
> like the studless beams, so please don't take this post as though I don't.
Jindrich, I also understand both sides of the argument. I see uses for both
types of pieces, so I'm not hard core in either direction.
> > > As I've built Backhoe yesterday, I still don't get that Lego move. Why
> > > did they replace _ALL_ technic bricks with studless beams? I think that
> > > the beams have 'right to live', for styling the outer parts they're
> > > invaluable and models look better.
> >
> > I'm curious about your question. When you ask about Technic bricks being
> > replaced by the studless beams, do you mean that you don't think there are any
> > studded bricks out there at all? If so, perhaps you should try some of the
> > Designer sets or even something like the UCS Snowspeeder. For instance in a set
> > like the 4403 Air Blazers I was pleasantly surprised by the number of old-style
> > Technic bricks that were there. However, if you mean that in many 'Technic'
> > sets there seem to be few old-style bricks, then yes you might be right.
Also, I hope you understood my question about what it was you were concerned
about. I just wanted to clarify that I understood your original posting. I
guess it looks like your biggest concern was the specific lack of studded bricks
in the series of Technic products... not that studded bricks had been replaced
altogether.
It was your use of the phrase, "the beams have right to live" that made me
wonder if you were worried that the parts had been discontinued. I like to check
the intentions of the original poster because I don't like to assume to always
know what people meant.
> you must be objecting that LEGO does not use very many
> of their studly technic beams in technic sets.
It does seem odd... the more I think about it... that Technic beams are seen in
a number of different sets... just not Technic sets. :)
> By definition studless (wimpy?) technic beams can be used for SNOT designs
> because they are studless. I'm sure that one of the reasons LEGO uses wimpy
> beams is for looks. Not all consumers love the stud as much as we do, so they
> are trying to make their products more attractive to the less initiated.
Perhaps they make/release them to help extend the LEGO patents, as they do with
other new parts?
> > > But the traditional approach of building from bottom to top (few technic
> > > bricks, some plates, some additional bricks and 90deg beam connections
> > > is IMO much more logical _and_(!) in line of previous Lego experience of
> > > the builder.
> >
> > I agree, and in my own building style I often rely on the bottom to top method.
>
> While this method is tried and true for buildings and things who's shape is
> static, it doesn't work for something that doesn't have back corners.
I agree. There are many building styles. I was only commenting on my own style
and my own preferences. I am impressed both by traditional approach builders
and those who turn bricks on their ears and build in any number of directions.
:)
> > > This studless way of building is IMO much more complicated
>
> I don't know if pins and holes are inherently more complicated than male and
> female stud parts. It is just different. Holes, pins and axles provide a much
> more rich building medium than studs, especially in models that change shape.
And richer still when the two types of pieces are mixed in the same model.
> > What's wrong with complicated? :)
> >
> > Isn't that what makes Technic models more interesting than others?
>
> It certainly allows you to create things you cannot create without them.
You said a lot, with just that one sentence!
> Every part that LEGO produces, the produce for a reason, to make money. The
> making of the molds is very expensive, so I'm sure a business case must be made
> for each new mold. One of the most common reasons for new part types (and
> therefore molds) is because the new part lets you do things that the old parts
> cannot.
Also true.
> > > and completely different when compared to traditional Lego brick
> > > building. Not mentioning that attaching a beam to 4-5 pins is a pain.
> >
> > Sometimes, but it's also very rewarding when you're done.
>
> Is different bad? Or just unfamiliar?
I think different is good. Unfamiliar at first, but later comfortable... and
hopefully still different. :)
> > > 4) Should we bother TLC with this issue too?
> >
> > Nope. They have plenty to deal with right now. Studless bricks (and the
> > studded ones that they are still making) are not causing problems that are in
> > any way like the other things that have lost so much money recently.
>
> If it is important to you then do what you must.
I probably should have clarified my "nope" in response to question #4 above.
The reason I said no was that I don't see studded Technic beams and the color
replacement issue as being the same type of problem. The old light grey is gone
(hopefully just for now, but who knows). On the other hand, studded Technic
beams are appearing in new sets all the time. In just the last two weeks I
bought 3 new different sets with Technic pieces in them. But they weren't
"Technic" sets. And I can see the worry that some people have with this. But
this is a set design problem, not a manufacturing problem, as it is in the case
of the old colors. Technic beams haven't been replaced... they've been
misplaced. I think there are a number of good reasons to design new Technic
sets that incorporate the old and most certainly the new pieces.
> I won't be calling in to vote
> for wimpy beams, because I think both wimpy and studly beams are here to stay.
I agree. I won't make a complaint over this problem because:
a) I don't think this is the right time. In all sincerity the color issue is a
major and potentially damaging problem that needs to be dealt with now.
Studless beams/struts/trusses/liftarms have been around for years. And again,
they haven't 'replaced' old-style studded beams, just fought them for position
in certain sets. When dealing with a number of problems within a system it's
not generally wise to make a number of potential fixes all at once. Typically
you try to fix the most urgent problem (in this case the colors) and see how the
system reacts to that. Does that make the system healthier? Yes? Good, now
it's time to fix the smaller problems. If you make a lot of changes all at once
and things get worse, then what was it that caused that to happen? If you only
make one change at a time, you know how it affects the system.
b) As noted earlier, the pieces haven't gone away. I got more studded beams in
sets during 2003 than I did in probably the previous 2 years put together. And
I bought only new sets during most of last year, so these pieces are making
their way out there. But hopefully, as has been discussed, the company will
find new, better and creative ways to work them back into traditional Technic
series sets.
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Studless Technic models
|
| (...) Yes. (...) I should have written 'the studless beams'. (...) Of course, I'm not against the studless beams. I'm against replacement of studded beams with studless in new Technic sets, rendering them incompatible with System. Technic (...) (21 years ago, 17-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
| (...) Before I start, I'm taking three big deep breaths and relaxing.... I've got a lot of energy on this topic. Jindrich, I understand and respect why you don't like the studless beams, so please don't take this post as though I don't. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 16-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
60 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
|
|
|
|
