Subject:
|
ZNAP as framework (was ZNAP at GR TRU!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.znap
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 May 2000 12:48:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2821 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm building ZNAP choo-choo bridges as well. One is 6 feet long and carries two
levels of trains, so I have some feel for how ZNAP would extend to large-scale
construction frames.
ZNAP is softer than TECHNIC beams; it flexes a lot more, which has its benefits
in choo-choo bridge construction (e.g. around curves), but would probably become
a point of annoyance if it was carrying a large load. Not only do the ZNAP beams
themselves bend more, but the standard ZNAP connections are less rigid as well.
They can be shored up by using pins, but the TECHNIC friction pin in a ZNAP hole
is considerably less tight than in a TECHNIC beam. The connections between ZNAP
beams simply can't be made as rigid as TECHNIC beams.
That said, it's still a lot easier to throw together a ZNAP framework than a
TECHNIC one. And, if the ZNAP framework can't flex because it is bound by
bricks, it could still be used as a skyscraper infrastructure. In real-life
skyscrapers, flexing is a good thing; even on LEGO scale, strain-relief could be
useful.
Also, as Larry points out, ZNAP + LEGO provides an excellent use for the loads
of bricks with TECHNIC pins that come in the red bucket and tub.
Cary
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.loc.us.mi.grr, Steve Bliss writes:
>
> > Other than bridges for your choo-choo, have you built any large structures
> > incorporating ZNAP pieces?
>
> Not yet, just test assemblies. Too much stuff in my basement to work on
> anythihg serious.
>
> > I see there's a message (maybe a thread by now)
> > about using ZNAP for structural frameworks on buildings, but no positive
> > conclusion.
> >
> > I'm wondering if ZNAP has potential for use in creating rigid, load-bearing
> > frames for large-scale construction, while resulting in a lower overall
> > cost in comparision to similiar structures built entirely from traditional
> > LEGO and TECHNIC parts.
>
> I don't know for sure. Preliminary tests are good. Big problem I see is the
> change in direction challenge. Assuming you're using the ZNAP parts in the
> vertical direction, building a tower with panel pieces on more than one side
> will be tough as there is no way to turn the corner neatly. Even the ugly
> purple thing doesn't help you much. You will need to start saving up your
> "bricks with technic pegs embedded" pieces as you'll be using a lot of them.
>
> Still, I am optimistic. I am not going to go into too much detail yet as that
> detracts from sizzle when I reveal my product line later this year...
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: ZNAP as framework (was ZNAP at GR TRU!)
|
| Thanks for the report! I hadn't thought of flexibility as an advantage. Now that you bring it up, it could be really cool, because it's another fact of life in a big city that will become exaggerated in the model. Except that instead of a 100-story (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-00, to lugnet.znap)
| | | Re: ZNAP as framework (was ZNAP at GR TRU!)
|
| After a few observation sessions at the 383 Madison Av building site (that's in New York where my company is building anew) I have decided to try just a cubic lattice. No triangular beam thingies, and I don't yet know what a Znap "panel" is that (...) (25 years ago, 18-May-00, to lugnet.znap)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: ZNAP at GR TRU!
|
| (...) Not yet, just test assemblies. Too much stuff in my basement to work on anythihg serious. (...) I don't know for sure. Preliminary tests are good. Big problem I see is the change in direction challenge. Assuming you're using the ZNAP parts in (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-00, to lugnet.loc.us.mi.grr, lugnet.znap)
|
14 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
|
|
|
|
