Subject:
|
Re: MOC: crawler crane
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:36:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1660 times
|
| |
|
|
> Hmmmm. I'm not sure - I thought twice about even posting to .technic, as
> there's no motors or anything, and it's definitely not "technic scale". Does
> it really qualify as technic??
Take a look at Thomas Truss bridge:
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/challenge/vote.html
Now tell me how your working crane with Technic parts in it can be
less Technic then Thomas (almost) stationary bridge? :)
Alhtough I agree it could be _more_ Technic with perhaps a micro motor
to drive the caterpillar treads etc. :)
/Tobbe
http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: MOC: crawler crane
|
| (...) I'm sure any definition of Technic wouldn't require the model to actually move. In fact being mainly built of beams I'd catagorise T.J's bridge as being very Technic indeed. I've alway avoided trying to come up with a definition for what is (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: MOC: crawler crane
|
| (...) Hmmmm. I'm not sure - I thought twice about even posting to .technic, as there's no motors or anything, and it's definitely not "technic scale". Does it really qualify as technic?? ROSCO (23 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
