Subject:
|
Re: Studless Technic models
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:40:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3858 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, James Loewen wrote:
> Building with studded beams doesn't necessarily require a lot of pieces for
> strength, it just calls for strategic reinforcements.
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.
> On the other hand, studless designs have requirements of their own because
> they require a good deal of connector pieces.
Both styles do. In the old style, they're bricks and plates (try putting two
TECHNIC bricks end-to-end without using connector pieces). In the new style,
they're pins and axles.
> 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.
There's a huge difference between supporting them and relying on them. A
stand-alone TECHNIC construction shouldn't necessarily have to rely on System
compatibility just to be built on its own. System compatibility should only be
a _required_ aspect of the design when System and TECHNIC need to be combined
into a single model. It makes much more sense to support them by way of sets
like the Inventor series, where System pieces comprise the bulk of the design,
and TECHNIC pieces are just used to mechanize the design. It sounds like you
think the new TECHNIC sets should rely heavily on System parts for the sole
reason of maintaining full System compatibility. To me that makes as much sense
as me going out and buying a ZIP drive just so I can continue to use the single
ZIP disc that I bought when I was in college, rather than relying on the CD-RW
drive that my computer, and most of the computers at work, already have. If I
absolutely need to transfer files by ZIP disc, I do still have that option (one
of the computers at work has a ZIP drive), but I'm not going to go out of my way
to make use of it when less-clunky modern options are available.
> 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.
That's complicated, but true. The holes and studs are both completely round, so
there's no "give", like there is with the faceted interior of the stud-pin hole.
Bricks don't contact the entire diameter of a stud, so they can flex a bit.
Tubes are designed to be a little loose, so they don't need to flex much, and
they're near-perfectly round, so they don't have any major stress points.
TECHNIC holes are designed to work with pins and axles, and the pins have a lip
at the ends, so the hole has to work primarily with the pin shaft. The lip, on
the other hand, is designed to slide easily into round bricks and tubes, so the
pin shaft is actually a tiny bit smaller than a stud (check a stud-pin if you
want to see how much smaller). The result is that the TECHNIC hole is just a
wee bit smaller than the interior of a 1x1 round brick, and the design leaves a
few specific weak points around each hole (regardless of whether it's an old or
new beam). I cracked open the ends of a 1x5 liftarm by inserting a pair of 1x1
cones (which have no stopping surface below the stud) into the holes (which also
have no stopping surfaces on the inside). When I replaced that liftarm, I had
to attach the cones to 1x1 round plates, which I then inserted into the holes.
The cone stops on the inside of the plate, and the plate stops itself on the
shoulder of the hole. Still, stud to pin-hole connections are noticably tighter
than stud to brick connections.
> I wasn't referring to studless beams, just the sets that use them
> exclusively.
They've been around for a lot longer than you're suggesting, if you look at
stuff like the Cybermasters series and the earlier SW:TPM droids. It's a bit
ironic that you suggested the modern style is more difficult to learn than the
old style, when they started really pushing all-modern designs with more
kid-friendly themes.
> 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.
System hinges in TECHNIC designs have been largely obviated by the introduction
of the loose pin connections.
> I think that Mindstorms is a good example of the sudden changes in Technic
> because it is only 2-3 years old,
Try 5-6. RIS 1.0 came out in 1998.
> ...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.
For all that they keep saying that Mindstorms isn't dead, we haven't really seem
much lately to suggest that it's all that alive either. Anyways, doesn't the
RCX itself have pin holes that can be used to attach it to stuff? I agree that
it doesn't make sense to make the various Mindstorms gizmos incompatible with
the modern TECHNIC sets, but I see that more as a problem with designing them to
be incompatible with TECHNIC connections in the first place. If they do revive
Mindstorms for the retail market, hopefully they'll make it fully TECHNIC
compatible this time.
> > 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.
When you reinforce an old design with vertical bricks, you have to space the
reinforced bricks apart with 2 plates in order for the holes to line up. They
don't make 1x TECHNIC plates, so unless you want to have an extra stud-width of
plate hanging out of the other side, you need to use System plates. The modern
pieces are self-reinforcing, and don't require any System pieces for
construction.
> 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.
As has been pointed out, you can work around the loss of the old studded beams,
and apparently save a lot of money doing so. Axles, on the other hand, are an
integral part of every mechanized TECHIC model, and there's no way to work
around all of the various prime uses for those. You said the old beams were the
cornerstone of the TECHNIC system. If that were true, they wouldn't be so
easily replacable.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
