 | | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) Building with the old style of pieces required a lot of pieces to do anything just to strengthen the design enough that it wouldn't rip itself apart. Why is it so much worse that the modern pieces require a few extra pieces if, and only if, (...) (21 years ago, 20-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:Hrt2yu.yKJ@lugnet.com... (...) pieces to (...) Excellent point. (...) studded (...) parts, to (...) What is a tri-beam? (...) ROTFLMAO! (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) Building with studded beams doesn't necessarily require a lot of pieces for strength, it just calls for strategic reinforcements. On the other hand, studless designs have requirements of their own because they require a good deal of connector (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) Exactly. And the more reinforcements you have to add, the more _extra_ pieces it requires. To my mind, that's no different than requiring a similar number of extra pieces in instances where you desire full System compatibility. (...) Both (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) This: (URL) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) Ahem (URL) (21 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) than two reissued sets, they were pretty much discontinued in 1997, and with good reason. They have fringed ends, which have proven to be very prone to breaking, if I'm not mistaken. Especially when the fringed ends are attached to studs. And (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) In fact the RCX *does* have pin holes. Only four of them, but they are there. Two half pin holes on each side. [snip] I guess I'm not the only one who was lots of energy about the studless beam bashing. Kevin (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) They were perhaps a bit fragile but not that fragile. Here's another version still in production: (URL) Best regards, /Tobbe (URL) (remove SPAM when e-mailing) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) I seem to recall a friend of mine having a few that were missing one or both ends, and I know I've heard complaints about the old fringed half-bushings cracking apart, so I can't see how the old fringed plates could possibly be more (...) (21 years ago, 22-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
(...) It isn't really like staying compatible with one little obscure product. Many Lego sets use bricks. (...) It's true that studless designs have been around for a while. At first they were used in a few very small Technic sets, then the Star (...) (21 years ago, 23-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Studless Technic models
|
|
"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:HrwMGt.1JB1@lugnet.com... (...) both (...) be more (...) They are pretty tough, I use them all the time to support the steering arms of the steered wheels on very heavy vehicles. One (...) (21 years ago, 26-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
