Subject:
|
Building Philosophy: Bricks vs. Beams (was Re: Technic's Dead)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:56:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2638 times
|
| |
|
|
For clarification:
"beam" = studless beam (e.g.
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=32278)
"brick" = Technic brick (e.g.
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=3703)
In lugnet.technic, John Henry Kruer writes:
> In lugnet.technic, Brian Sadowski writes:
> > -Beams are rounded, allowing higher freedom of movement and tighter
> > connections. Because the ends are not ‘squared off’ as in bricks, beams
> > can fit into areas that a brick never could.
> That’s true. I’m not saying that beams are useless-but why use them
> in places where bricks are better?
I think each has its own place, which is governed by necessity. We cannot
compare equivalent constructions to judge the better piece. For example, if
you think of replacing a brick with a beam in a given construction, it's a
little unfair.
If you rebuilt your "given construction" with beams, it might be a lot
different than the original. The rounded corners of the beams give way to
much more compact, efficent, and differently constructed structures.
> > -Non gender specific. Bricks and plates are studded, a male and a female
> > part to each piece. This is a limiting factor, decreasing the usability
> > of each piece. Rounded beams do not have this property.
> But that adds another function! I cannot see how adding another function
> to a piece can decrease useablility. I find studs very useful, even in
> technic construction. In this case, beams just lose a useful property.
This "added function" of having studs and stud "receptors" (i.e. the bottom
of a brick) increases the function as well as the dimension of the part.
Bricks are taller than beams.
Again, there are suitable places for each part. But why use a brick if your
given construction doesn't really need studs? You can be creative, learn how
to use them, and make your model more compact and efficent.
> > -Piece Dimensions, I don’t know specific dimensions but the width
> > and height of a beam is a lot closer to a 1 to 1 ratio then a brick
> > is.
It *is* a 1:1 ratio.
> > Symmetry is always preferred over non-symmetry. Non-symmetric
> > parts are harder to build with. Beams are also broken into halves,
> > where bricks are into 3rds. This just may be personal but halves
> > are easier to deal with then thirds.
> >
> > All of these advantages means that any given structure can be built
> > smaller, weight less, and sometimes even be stronger then using bricks.
> Not always. Studs are very durable. Flex axles and regular pins
> are not as much. And anyway, you don't say that a bicycle is better
> then a car for moving between long distances just because its smaller
> and lighter. Cars move much faster. Technic bricks have more functions.
Consider the particular application of your piece. Bricks have more
functions, but why use them if you don't need them? A beam offers the
function of having only holes, but with the added benefit of having a
smaller cross section. There's a proper time and place for each part.
I've cut out the rest of this discussion, and will offer a final conclusion
on the matter.
Bricks and beams are equally useful. Trying to compare them to determine
which part is better is a bit like comparing steel beams and concrete beams.
Each has its own particular functions and properties and will suit different
construction needs in different ways.
Once you've built a highly efficient and compact model from studless beams,
you'll realize their value. They are indispensable. But Technic bricks will
always have their place too. I consider them the basic building block of
Technic construction, and they are quite important.
My advice: learn to use the new parts. Both Jennifer Clark and John Barnes
have stated their liking of the newer parts, and have commented on the
benefits of doing so. I have also learned to use them and can tell you with
most certainty that they're quite beneficial.
TJ
p.s. One quick note about studless beams: because they are solid on the top
and bottom, they are less susceptible to cracking than Technic bricks. I've
had countless bricks "die" because they've cracked from their bottoms to the
holes.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Technic's Dead (was: I need Technic)
|
| (...) Larger beams don't have axles, which then renders them inferioir to technic bricks. I'm okay with using a few liftarms and small beams when I have to. But I just find that Technic bricks are ALOT better then beams for a structual, 'chassis' (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
44 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
|
|
|
|
