LEGO TECHNIC : 6641


Technic / 6641

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) this article, I only see that they are moving into other areas in addition to building bricks. On the subject of the traditional technic beams, you can still find them in newish sets like 8458 and 8466. You can hardly construct a large, stable (...) (23 years ago, 18-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

RE: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —William Howard

(...) Or even 4795 - Underwater Base! How about a "spot the technic in non-technic sets" competition? William (23 years ago, 18-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Ross Crawford

(...) Many of the LoM & bigger Star Wars sets have a smattering of technic bits. ROSCO (23 years ago, 18-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Ray Sanders

(...) Dino Head Attack had 7 technic bricks in it (including a 1x16 in black), Gungan Sub had 2 1x16s in blue, four in the droid dev kit, etc. So the pcs are out there, just bits here and there. Ray (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —John Heins

(...) I'm not denying that there are SOME traditional Technic parts out there but they are few and far between (except for in RIS sets). You will spend a small fortune in trying to obtain a quantity comparable to what you used to get with ANY large (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

RE: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —William Howard

(...) Gungan (...) out (...) SNIP (to save space) (...) Hear, hear! I'll agree with all of that and put myself up to be shot at as well! Happened to be in a very well known large department store in London, UK today ... 5yr old comes back with Mum, (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Steven Lane

(...) Oh bugger, competition! Steve (a fellow brit) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

RE: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —William Howard

(...) You can 'have' the two 8862's currently up as I've already got one (actually the first set I owned, closely followed by 8868 - and in my opinion the range has gone down hill from there with only a few exceptions (OK about 20 exceptions!)) :-) (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Ron Sedlmeyer

(...) Speaking of which, if you look closely at both of them, the pnemuatic cylinder for the "back hoe" section are different. One has a yellow top, the other has a black top. Why the difference? Ron (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

8862 pneumatic cap colours (spawned from is technic being killed off) —William Howard

There are now FOUR - they're breeding! (1707421982, 1707421982, 1706796599 and 1706922538) - the last one has yellow cylinder caps and also the pump cap! Mine has black caps. Wonder if its to do with the age of the model as I've seen instructions (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

RE: 8862 pneumatic cap colours (spawned from is technic being killed off) —William Howard

Looks like it was an age thing (URL) William -----Original Message----- From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway...net.com]On Behalf Of William Howard Sent: 19 February 2002 23:34 To: lugnet.technic@lugnet.com Subject: 8862 pneumatic cap (...) (23 years ago, 23-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

Re: 8862 pneumatic cap colours (spawned from is technic being killed off) —Rebecca Taylor

(...) All the cylinders that came with my JCB, and those illustrated in the instructions were all-yellow. The exra cylinder I ordered from the spares service came with a black cap which annoyed me a bit at the time (I was a lot younger). The (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

Re: 8862 pneumatic cap colours (spawned from is technic being killed off) —Pehter Abrahamsson

Same here, all yellow accept the pump cap. That model was apperently in two revisions, one early with all yellow cylinders with 4.5 V motor instruction and one with black and yellow cylinders with 9V motor instruction. My instructions have black and (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Allan Bedford

(...) This is the economy of lost profits that the company doesn't seem to understand. They could undercut prices found on eBay and through private sellers and *still* make more money than they're making now. If they don't get this theory, they (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

The writing on the wall —Miguel Agullo

"We're redefining Lego. It's not just about bricks" "Within the construction area, you can only grow so much" These two sentences mark a clear departure from the traditional Lego reporting approach (or should I say PR?). I used to love when articles (...) (23 years ago, 18-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Allan Bedford

(...) If the evidence isn't there, it's certainly in the sets they're releasing. (...) Which is nice if you can afford $120 plus sets. But what about the kid who wants to get started in Technic but can't come up with that kind of coin? What ever (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Ross Crawford

(...) (URL) even any of these: (URL) happened to supplemental technic sets????? ROSCO (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) How so? LEGO have been releasing items with focus on issues other than "brick building" for years, and the world still exists. The days of releasing sets with 2-by-4's exclusively is definitively over. In the light of the development of LEGO (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Dave Johann

(...) Really? The demand to release sets that weren't exclsively vehicles has existed for quite a while now. It's nice to see them finally taking notice and giving the fans what they want-FEWER VEHICLES. (...) Simple. They have to suffer just like (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I wouldn't go THAT far but let's just say it's not a set that I see a strong need to bring back. Not hardly. It's blocky, it doesn't have a lot of neat features, etc. Now if you want to talk about a set from that era that was good, how about (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Allan Bedford

(...) I wasn't really suggesting it for the LEGENDS series, but rather presenting it as an example of a small scale, small piece count Technic set that could retail for less than $120. Way way less than $120. (...) Of course it's blocky.... it's (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Jonathan Wilson

(...) Personally, I dont think going back that far is a good idea. My picks for examples of great small technic sets: (being a technic fan, all of these would be sets I would consider buying either for the set or for parts) 8808 F1 Racer 8810 Cafe (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) For a small go cart, you don't even need to go that far back! The 1998 set 8219 has it all. It even seats a technic figure. I think the low seat on the 8219 looks more realistic. I like the angled engine block on 8815, though. We've also had (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Allan Bedford

(...) Indeed for another shining example (of this principle, not of another go-kart) you need go back no further than 1999. Now for those who have read some of my previous postings and know that I usually suggest 1970's sets as good examples, this (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Ross Crawford

(...) Are you perhaps talking about sets like (URL) I bought a dozen of those at AU1.95 each (my first bulk set purchase!)! ROSCO (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Scott Arthur

(...) Hmm. The 1259. My local TRU still has it for ~UKP5.00 (~US$7-$8). For me "Micro Technic" brings to mind the 8203 + 8004 which are about the same size as the 1259 (originally a promo set IRC). That said, what Brickset calls “microtechnic” (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) That sounds kinda expensive for such a small set. I think it retails for less here. (...) I think the six sets 8203, 8204, 8208, 8209, 8217 and 8218 were released simultaneously in a UK/Australia/New Zealand only launch. Apparently, they also (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree. But then, TRU in the UK is seldom cheap (the same shop still has ZNAP at full RRP). They gave the set away free with a larger set last year; I think the ones they are selling now is what was left over from that deal. Scott A (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) single shock absorber, which is kinda realistic. Most of today's road racing bikes have a single rear shock absorber, according to my experience. I also like the fact that is _does_ include one of the strangest technic bricks: The motorcycle (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Miguel Agullo

(...) I hardly knew those. Very neat! The whole range from 8202 to 8219 is worth looking at. 8216 is another beauty. (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Steven Lane

(...) I hate this part I have dozens, probably from the ebay lots I buy where people cant wait to get rid of them, but each to their own. My nomination for potw (once the current list is exhausted) would be the technic triangle which has come to the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) I didn't say I liked the part personally, I just said that I liked the fact that the motorcycle sets included them. I believe that the part makes it easier for kids to build their own motorcycles. (...) My problem with the triangle is the (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Steven Lane

(...) If you removed the 'excess' you would lose a lot of the strength of the part. Although I always thought if you removed the sticky out bit you could make an excellent heavy haulage tractor hitch. Steve (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Dave Johann

(...) I can certainly agree with this selection except for one minor detail: Even in 1977 farm equipment didn't tend to interest most kids. As much as I loved this model, that was what ultimately kept me from saving for it and getting the larger set (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Allan Bedford

(...) I agree. I'm one of the one's complaining that they release so many vehicle-related sets. But the quality of design has fallen dramatically over the years, there's little doubt. So maybe they'd do better getting back to vehicles. :) (...) But (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Thomas Garrison

(...) Two problems: 1) A current problem with Technic (which even I can see just poking around looking for Castle stuff) is that there are very few <$30 Technic sets that are not some kind of Tech Play. If people have to shell out over $100 to get (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —John Heins

(...) Regarding the $100 barrier. It IS there and it is a big one. I'm in the center of "affluent suburbia" - not at all typical of the rest of the world (or even the US). Despite the ridiculous amounts I've seen parents spend on kids, there is a (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Jennifer Clark

"John Heins" <Johnmhiii@aol.com> wrote in message news:Grt1In.Bux@lugnet.com... (...) in (...) To a large extent I think these studless beams have been unfairly criticised, and in all honesty I suspect a lot of this is due to people being unfamiliar (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

RE: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —William Howard

(...) the (...) the (...) cost in (...) of (...) cases (...) to (...) and (...) They make great booms for diggers and modern looking cab roofs I've found. I'll get the photos/dat files up somewhere to show my interpretations of your 'compact (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Jennifer Clark

"William Howard" <william@howard-fami...rld.co.uk> wrote in message (...) Indeed so! The corrugated tubes and new angle connectors, although inflexible in angle, are also great looking. (...) on (...) That would be very interesting to see as I (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

RE: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —William Howard

(...) found. (...) on (...) as (...) My humble attempts at your models, aka "what I did over Christmas" (both build with lego and learn MLcad) If you don't like MLCAD/LDRAW - don't look! (URL) advantage of MLcad/LDraw - I didn't have enough yellow (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Excavator Pics —Jennifer Clark

"William Howard" <william@howard-fami...rld.co.uk> wrote in message news:NFBBICINOLKHMIO....co.uk.... (...) taken ages to create them in MLCAD and I'm looking forward to viewing the models in greater detail when I get home. Interesting that you've (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

Re: Excavator Pics —Jennifer Clark

(...) tube parts for MLCAD? I've not come across those before. Jennifer (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

RE: Excavator Pics —William Howard

(...) They're 'unoffical' parts from the ldraw parts tracker database. Most pneumatics are by Marc Klein in .dat files that start mk000. The flex hose is file 75.dat and the ribbed hose is 78.dat - you can make these any length you like by following (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

RE: Excavator Pics —William Howard

(...) I think it actually took longer to ldraw the excavator than to build it - but I had fun in the process so who cares. I also had to dismantle most of it in the process so I effectively built it twice. The excavator started with the boom, then (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

Re: Excavator Pics —Rebecca Taylor

(...) Hi all, It's my first post to the group so by way of an introduction I suppose, there are a few pictures at www.brickshelf.com/c...?m=techgrl . Jennifer, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a kinematic singularity a point in the motion of a (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

RE: Excavator Pics —William Howard

(...) point (...) one-cylinder (...) I actually understood that - thanks! The real reason for the redesign of the boom/bucket linkage on the excavator is that I've used a different bucket and the attachment points have a different geometry. But, (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

Re: Excavator Pics —Jennifer Clark

"Rebecca Taylor" <arellcat@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote (...) www.brickshelf.com/c...?m=techgrl . The modifications to the JCB are very interesting, especially making the boom offset. (...) point (...) one-cylinder (...) Well as it happens that, like (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

Re: Excavator Pics —Jennifer Clark

"William Howard" <william@howard-fami...rld.co.uk> wrote in message n (...) the (...) Given the space constraints I certainly couldn't find any other way, and it took me long enough to work out that one. For a long time in fact I had my doubts it (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

RE: Excavator Pics —William Howard

(...) The bit I had real trouble with was working out how to turn the turntable! Mind you, I've spent an awful long time fiddling around with gear trains for cat-tracks as I built a chassis that only needed one motor for forward/turn by using one of (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

RE: Excavator Pics —William Howard

For those who'd rather see (poor) photos of the built thing, I've uploaded some William (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

RE: Excavator Pics —William Howard

(...) And they're all 'stepped' - boy was that fun! W (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Kyle Beatty

(...) Ah, to play well! Clearly the sanest attitude possible. - Kyle (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —John Heins

(...) I don't mind SOME of the new style smooth beams. My complaint is that the new style smooth beams and axle/rod/flex tube connectors have almost completely displaced "traditional" technic components. It's like the new "Technic" is a whole (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Mark Koesel

"John Heins" <Johnmhiii@aol.com> wrote in message news:Grv2G6.zH@lugnet.com... (...) [snippage] (...) Not to beat this to death, but this is plainly false. Here are some ways to connect non-studded technic parts to studded parts. - simply stick the (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Ray Sanders

(...) This subject is curiously similar to the "how do we connect znap to system" issue. I posted some pictures of various ways of doing that on brickshelf ... (URL) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Gaurav Thakur

Some great points have been made here. I actually really like most of the new parts (particularly the various axle connectors), but it does seem that the functionality of the average Technic model is less advanced than that of five years ago. The (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —John Heins

(...) Not wanting to be too argumentative, but most of the ways listed use parts that conform to the "traditional" technic model - something that mounts to studs on a brick or plate and then uses a connector or pin to interface to the "newer" parts. (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Jennifer Clark

"John Heins" <Johnmhiii@aol.com> wrote in message news:Grv2G6.zH@lugnet.com... (...) bricks. Forgive me if I am missing something obvious here, but it is possible to use the holes in studless beams and liftarms to clip directly onto studs in bricks (...) (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —John Guerquin

(...) Another example of the use of the new smooth technic beams is the Caterham Super 7 replica by Neil Everett. If you look at the pictures or DAT files of the chassis, or the front suspension/steering assembly, you'll see what I mean. I've built (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)

Re: Is "traditional" Technic being killed off? —Mark Koesel

"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:qrdg03zfdgp.fsf....uio.no... (...) Yes, but how long will this continue, I wonder. (...) I must disagree. In fact, I can construct a very rigid chassis of arbitrary size using (...) (23 years ago, 19-Feb-02, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.dear-lego)