 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
