 | | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
|
<<snip>> (...) <<snip>> Hi, once more I manage to grow a big thread in lugnet.technic. I've read 'em all up to now and it looks like the "Yes"-side is bigger then the "No"-side. Still, I feel I don't want to let the modified and "pure" MOC's fight (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
|
(...) Nope, and I'll tell you why. It is my MOC which is subject to debate. In my shrimp rover, on one of the wheels I used the non-lego parts which are in question. Here is the picture: (URL) is the MOC: (URL) you can clearly see the two plastic (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
|
(...) Nope, and I'll tell you why. It is my MOC which is subject to debate. In my shrimp rover, on one of the wheels I used the non-lego parts which are in question. Here is the picture: (URL) is the MOC: (URL) you can clearly see the two plastic (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Sorry for Double Post
|
|
Opps, sorry, I did not mean to double post that (23 years ago, 11-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Brian Sadowski writes: [Additional stuff added from Tobbe's post] (...) [snip] (...) I agree, and I don't see any problem specifically allowing non-LEGO elements such as yours in future MoTeCs, however the current rules (as (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
|
(...) There were personal e-mails between me and Tobbe. In an e-mail to me, Tobbe tells me, I have been found breaking the rules. He also goes on to say how he does not know a punishment, and he will ask the group. My understanding, from his (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
|
(...) What I meant was to ask the group if modifications should be allowed or not. Sorry if my English made you think otherwise. It's not always easy to write in English when my mind keep thinking in Swedish. Here's my text I wrote to you: "I'm (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
|
(...) I think it's the 2x6 weight you refer too? It's very hard to find that part outside US w/o using Bricklink since Dacta is limited. Still, they are very expensive. Come to think about it a batterybox should do the trick in most cases. The rules (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
|
But can you actually put batteries in the battery boxes? Lego doesn't make batteries! <grin> (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Key aspect and my vote
|
|
(...) I am as hard-core a purist as they come, but the above argument sounds pretty definite to me, and more so if we take into account the ballast question. Cosmetic changes, those non essential to the workings of the machine are ok. It's not like (...) (23 years ago, 13-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
|
(...) The only reason I brought it up was because of the another paragraph and the subsequent e-mail. "Personally I don't mind modifications as long as, say, 90% is LEGO. But the rules are there and if your entry does not qualify I might have to (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
|
<<snip>> (...) You're back in. I thought you had all six wheels set up like that. Sorry about all this fuss. I hope it did not damage your reputation in any way. I've only had two or three votes since this issue came into public and they should not (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jun-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
