Subject:
|
Re: Droids (8000, 8001, 8002)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:32:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1262 times
|
| |
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:e3eHOKMT+KtvuTDDE0369QgRfDdA@4ax.com...
> In lugnet.technic, Grant Elliott wrote:
>
> > The
> > Destroyer is absolutely incredible. It is one of the best purely • mechanical
> > sets I've seen come out of Lego.
>
> > The new pieces are a novelty and that novelty will eventually wear
> > off.
>
> I think these two statements are contradictory. Seems like the • construction
> material and techniques used to make "one of the best purely mechanical • sets"
> would be more than a mere novelty.
I agree Steve. I think that the new parts were engineered with *a lot* of
careful thought. At first, as they trickled in back in 97, starting with
the two angled beams (and actually before if you count the triangles and
liftarms), many of the Technic folk cried foul. It was partly because these
seem so arbitrarily designed. Now, as we've become used to them, and lego
has filled in the gaps with some 'missing parts', and we've seen some
really great examples of how to use them, people are starting to come
around.
These parts are superior, in many ways, to the classic technic beam system.
> The new beams work *very* well in the look-and-feel of these droid kits. • They
> wouldn't look nearly as cool with traditional studded-beam construction. • And
> they probably wouldn't work as well.
Certainly.
> I think I prefer a mix of the two. The new supercar is very cool, but the • body
> looks even less substantial than the previous one. That's too bad, even • for
> Technic.
Yes the SSS body is a bit flimsy, and that is a shame. Same for the Indy
Storm (8445). But, I think that very sturdy, yet still asthetically
pleasing
exteriors are possible using the new flexible parts, as long as they are
used sparingly, and complimented with beams and/or cross-axles and
connectors.
> Interesting that in the 8448, the frame is built *mostly* using • traditional
> studded beam, plate, and pin construction.
It is, but it's not too surprising, since the non-angled, non-studded beams
did
not debut until this year.
Now that I have a few of the non-angled beams (from the Speed Slammer sets),
I've been tempted to haul out some of my very old 9xx set instructions and
see
if I can build the models using them, and the newer angle-block cross axle
connectors (#1, in particular). I figure I can simulate 7 holed non-studded
beams using two 7 holed half beams back to back, and I can simulate 3 holed
non-
studded beams using #3 half beams, back to back, and of course 15 holed non-
studded beams are now available. Of course, there is no analog for regular
bricks and plates, so substitutions will need to found on a case-per case
basis.
I may give this a try if I think of it. "Modernizing" the 956 would be a
particularly cool place to start. Hmm... :)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Droids (8000, 8001, 8002)
|
| (...) I think these two statements are contradictory. Seems like the construction material and techniques used to make "one of the best purely mechanical sets" would be more than a mere novelty. The new beams work *very* well in the look-and-feel of (...) (25 years ago, 20-Jan-00, to lugnet.technic)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
