Subject:
|
Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 May 2002 22:54:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
890 times
|
| |
|
|
> Does this sound like a good solution to you?
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:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=154965
Here is the MOC:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=14018
As you can clearly see the two plastic shims used on this one particular wheel.
I was not trying to hide the fact.
The rules already allow for non-technic elements, and as I already stated,
my shrimp rover would work just the same without those pieces.
How are things such as ballast be allowed in the contest where these shims
are not. Ballast effects over stablity on structures and without it, some
structures will not work. There are even lego elements which are
specifically designed for this task.
I can agree that I broke the exact interpretation of the rules, but is this
cheating? No, I dont not at all believe this is any means of cheating.
Punishable by disqualification, not at all.
Since I believe this is a severe punishment, I would like to see a break up
of who voted for it and against it.
-Brian
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 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 (...) (22 years ago, 13-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (22 years ago, 11-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
40 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
|
|
|
|
