Subject:
|
Re: Studless Technic models
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jan 2004 06:33:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3634 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.technic, James Loewen wrote:
> 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.
It isn't really like staying compatible with one little obscure product. Many
Lego sets use bricks.
> > 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 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 Wars sets and Racers. I
didn't really get into those because I'm not into Star Wars and I've only bought
a couple of the Racers sets to add to my collection of studless beams. These
sets were all kind of side themes to the main Technic line, and I think that the
introduction of the 2003 Technic sets just made it more clear that studless
designs were going to be the norm from now on.
> > 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.
I was talking about RIS 2.0, which is very similar and came out in 2001.
> 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
That's true, but those types of constructions don't take an excessive amount of
pieces and are very sturdy because they have the combined strength of both
building techniques. Also, there have been some recent pieces like these that
can simplify construction.
http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/32530
http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/32529
> 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.
I may have used the wrong word in that, I'm just saying that it's a pretty big
change and that for many years studded beams were the main structural component
in Technic sets. It's not exactly that the beams were replaced so easily, Lego
has developed many new pieces over the years that, in cooperation with the new
beams, have made studless sets possible.
Finally, I just want to say that regardless of what I think or the reasons why I
think that studded pieces should remain a part of Technic sets, it appears that
studless sets are here to stay. Many people here like them, and Lego's core
audience of kids are even more likely to accept change. I can say that I
appreciate some benefits of new pieces and new techniques that have been
developed, but I hope that, like you suggested, studded beams and other
long-standing Technic parts are kept around in some fashion, be it Inventor sets
or something else.
-James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
60 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
