Subject:
|
Re: Studless Technic models
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:46:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4641 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, James Loewen wrote:
> > I didn't say that studless designs were totally incompatible with bricks,
> > only that compatibility is greatly diminished. It is true that technic half-
> > pins can be added to studless beams, but this takes a lot of pieces and
> > these two techniques still don't solve all the compatibility issues.
>
> 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, you want to make them fully System compatible? That's like saying you'd
> rather ride a tricycle because a bicycle isn't self-powered.
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 pieces. The thing about the techniques described is that even
though they can provide a certain degree of compatibility, Lego isn't even
supporting them. Out of the five sets in the 2003 Technic line, only one ( #8454
Rescue Truck ) has any half pins, and there are only eight of them in the whole
set. Also, while the stud-to-technic-hole connection can be used, Lego didn't
originally intend for this to be a standard building practice. The holes are a
bit small and I've heard that Lego doesn't recommend it because of the
possibility of parts weakening over time.
> > I wasn't really trying to make a financial argument, I was just saying that
> > Lego has said recently they are taking steps to go back to the basics, and
> > changing a building system so drastically doesn't seem to fit with that.
>
> They just said that within the last year, and the stud-free beams have been
> around for about 6-7 years now. You're saying that like they just started
> tooling them up yesterday.
I wasn't referring to studless beams, just the sets that use them exclusively.
> > I just don't see the need to completely remove the studded beams from new
> > Technic sets.
>
> Once you really get used to working with the modern beams, you realize that the
> old pieces don't really have anything to offer mechanically except in cases when
> you absolutely need to attach a TECHNIC construction to a System one, or when
> you need to attach a TECHNIC-incompatible Mindstorms device (which really makes
> no sense at all). Aside from that, the only real advantage you get from them is
> that they allow fully System designs to be upgraded a bit with TECHNIC gear
> systems for steering and such.
It is true that stud building techniques are more for building structures than
moving mechanisms, but they are very useful structurally and there are many
moving parts like hinges that use studs. I think that Mindstorms is a good
example of the sudden changes in Technic because it is only 2-3 years old, uses
stud connections for all the electronic components, and it seems like Lego
doesn't think that maintaining compatibility between it and the new Technic sets
is a priority.
> > The truth of it is that the old TECHNIC pieces required lots of System pieces to
> be fully compatible with themselves. The modern pieces can be used to build a
> 100% TECHNIC construction without requiring the addition of any System pieces.
I don't totally understand what you meant by the first statement, but I know
that both systems need other parts of the same kind to work.
> I think probably what some of you are afraid of is the implication that the
> modern pieces render System bricks obsolete. Especially at a time when the
> question of color incompatibility has been brought up, that's probably not a
> happy thought.
I don't know about bricks becoming obselete, but I don't like the idea of Lego
making big changes without giving thought to compatibility.
> > In my experience, the only real advantage of the studless beams over studded
> > beams is their slimmer, lighter design,
> There's also a much wider variety of shapes, ranging from single-bent parts, to
> double-bent parts, to the new tri-beam.
That's true, but I was referring to the studless beams. (also called straight
liftarms)
> > and I don't see that as a big enough incentive to completely remove the
> > piece that has long been the cornerstone of the technic system.
>
> Who said they were getting rid of the axle?
Without the axle, most technic sets would lose their working mechanisms, but
without the studded beam, most technic sets before the last few years would lose
basically all their structure.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jan-04, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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, (...) (20 years ago, 20-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
|
|
|
|
