Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | SylvainLS  | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 08:59 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
Yeah, so why call this a pin 1/2 ... […]
|
Because there’s no constistence to the catalogue?
| | Personally, I'd go with a naming convention of the form:
Pin 2L (with friction ridges) and Stop Bush 1L.
So a normal pin would be a pin 2L, a half pin would be a pin 1L, and so on. Anything
with four half pins would be "with 4 pins 1L" and so on.
|
Okay… provided we agree on what a “L” is and out-of-system dimensions like “2/3
L” are verified before being accepted in the catalogue  
|
 |
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 08:32 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
My point was that if you categorize it as a bushing, you don't need to worry
about the length of it at all. You don't see the axle bushing above listed
as a "Technic Bush 1L". It is just "Technic Bush". So change that one to "Technic
Axle Bush" and
to "Technic Pin Bush" and problem solved. No need to worry about the length at
all. Like I said, it doesn't and can't connect pins or axles at all,
so it is definitely *not* a "Technic, Pin Connector". And that's a fact.
|
Simple solution indeed.
No wonder you’re, er, should be, paid the big bucks
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 08:30 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | No. A "pin" is the standard Technic pin. Basically, half of
|
Why half of it? And if it was half of it, shouldn't that one be named a "double
pin". […]
|
But
has only one pin, or is the other half considered hidden inside the brick?
And
and the like are “pin”s, not “half-pin”s and there’s no room for a hidden second
half.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 07:25 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, dkillgore writes:
| | So is a "pin" the same as a "stud"?
|
No. A "pin" is the standard Technic pin. Basically, half of
A "stud" is the standard connection point on the top of LEGO bricks and plates.
|
Yes, and wes say “stud” for the distance between the centers of two studs / the
width of 1-stud-wide brick or plate.
| | | | Example, part 2817 is a modified plate, 2 x 2 with pin holder
and it is possible to attach a stud of say a 1x4 in the pin holder to do a perpendicular
build. Is the cuff for attachment too shallow on the 18654 to, say, do a reversal?
Just asking or future buying and building
|
You can do a stud reversal with
just like with any other thick Technic liftarm since they are the same thickness.
Part 18654 is pretty much just a thick 1L Technic liftarm.
|
Exactly, “BEAM 1X1” is its LEGO name.
And about puting studs in technic holes, note that a technic hole is slightly
smaller than a stud (the actual round peg), and if you attach more than one stud
to technic holes, the force needed to remove them once inserted is too strong
for a 7-year-old child. That’s why LEGO say it’s “illegal” to connect more than
one stud to technic holes.
Also, note that a technic hole is also slightly higher than a side-stud on the
modified bricks. So you shan’t mix bricks with side studs and technic bricks
with half-pins (though some official builds do).
And you shan’t have overhanging bricks on top of the technic brick. Like on
the picture below, the red plate shan’t be placed over the tan plates. (Yes,
some official builds do that too.)
And while we are talking about SNOT building, be careful with logos, they really
push the bricks that want to lay on them (second picture, if the blue brick had
studs, the red brick wouldn’t be able to attach correctly to the tan headlight
brick, and would be pushed upward by the stud).
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2019 19:49 | | Subject: | Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 120 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I’m wondering what’s the rationale for having changed the name (and dimensions)
of
from “1 L” to “2/3 L”.
I can’t see where it’s 0.67L.
Especially if I compare it to
and their variants, or with
and other liftarms/beams, or all the connectors with “# L” in their descriptions.
In the same way, its new dimensions are 1 x 1 x 0.67. As it’s a cylinder, it
means the 0.67 is supposed to apply to its height. But its height is exactly
1 stud, which is 5/6th = 0.83 brick, not 2/3rd = 0.67, and, anyway, “L” means
stud, not brick, so 1 = 1.
Therefore, I strongly believe its name should have stayed “Technic, Pin Connector
Round 1 L” and its dimensions should be 1 x 1 x 0.83.
(Actually, its diameter is a shy less than 1 stud, so its dimensions should be
0.9something x 0.9something x 0.83 but all the liftarms have the same width and
are said to be 1 stud wide.)
Not filing a proper catalogue change request because I really would want to know
the reasoning here, not play ping-pong.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
)
)
