|
 |
| | | Author: | Stellar  | | Posted: | Sep 20, 2021 15:47 | | Subject: | Split part 53540 from 30526 | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | | For: | Catalog Associate | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Same as with other pins lately, please split this part, a bar does not fit the
right one 53540.
In the picture 30526 is on the left and 53540 is on the right.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Sep 21, 2021 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Split more parts | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
| | Same as with other pins lately, please split this part, a bar does not fit the
right one 53540.
In the picture 30526 is on the left and 53540 is on the right.
|
Same happens with part:
The alternate ID 42194 has the "Squared Pin Hole"
And others that that changed the pin too:
So the same as these:
* | | 14682 Vehicle, Exhaust Pipe with Technic Pin, Flat End and Pin with Round Hole
Parts: Vehicle |
* | | 65571 Vehicle, Exhaust Pipe with Technic Pin, Flat End with Squared Pin Hole
Parts: Vehicle |
* | | 41532 Hinge Cylinder 1 x 3 Locking with 1 Finger and Pin with Round Hole and Friction Ridges on Ends
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 57697 Hinge Cylinder 1 x 3 Locking with 1 Finger and Pin with Squared Hole and Friction Ridges on Ends
Parts: Hinge |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2021 08:38 | | Subject: | Re: Split more parts | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
| |
And others that that changed the pin too:
|
Do you have a variant of 2460 or 2458 that can take a bar without stressing the
pin? I have checked a few parts from different sets but even the round pins are
too small to insert a bar more than 2-3mm. I guess that is because these two
parts are from the 1980s (much older than most other parts with technic pins)
and were developed without thinking about the possibility to insert a bar.
The following parts, however, do have a variant which can take a bar so I think
they should be split.
(For 30592 I found the variant with squared pin hole in a set from 2010 so the
change from round to square took place many years ago.)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2021 10:50 | | Subject: | Re: Split more parts | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
| |
And others that that changed the pin too:
|
Do you have a variant of 2460 or 2458 that can take a bar without stressing the
pin? I have checked a few parts from different sets but even the round pins are
too small to insert a bar more than 2-3mm. I guess that is because these two
parts are from the 1980s (much older than most other parts with technic pins)
and were developed without thinking about the possibility to insert a bar.
|
When doing the list I just checked the pin variations visually, but I did some
testing and yes, you are right that these 2 parts doesn't take a bar inside
and so a split is not needed.
| |
The following parts, however, do have a variant which can take a bar so I think
they should be split.
(For 30592 I found the variant with squared pin hole in a set from 2010 so the
change from round to square took place many years ago.)
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2021 08:54 | | Subject: | Re: Split part 53540 from 30526 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| Is that actually a legal building technique, necessary for any sets? If not,
the cost of splitting them may outweigh the benefits.
In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
| | Same as with other pins lately, please split this part, a bar does not fit the
right one 53540.
In the picture 30526 is on the left and 53540 is on the right.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2021 10:23 | | Subject: | Re: Split part 53540 from 30526 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Teup writes:
| | Is that actually a legal building technique, necessary for any sets? If not,
the cost of splitting them may outweigh the benefits.
In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
| | Same as with other pins lately, please split this part, a bar does not fit the
right one 53540.
In the picture 30526 is on the left and 53540 is on the right.
|
|
This is exactly why most of them have not been split. The ones that were split
were necessary so that some sets absolutely have the correct version needed to
complete the build.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2021 10:56 | | Subject: | Re: Split part 53540 from 30526 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Teup writes:
| | Is that actually a legal building technique, necessary for any sets? If not,
the cost of splitting them may outweigh the benefits.
In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
| | Same as with other pins lately, please split this part, a bar does not fit the
right one 53540.
In the picture 30526 is on the left and 53540 is on the right.
|
|
This is exactly why most of them have not been split. The ones that were split
were necessary so that some sets absolutely have the correct version needed to
complete the build.
|
Won't somebody think of the children? I mean, the MOC builders...
In that list of parts if the pin is not closed a bar can pass through fine without
stress. If closed, then just fits in.
Do we need to have a set use that exact design ID as a reference for splitting?
I think not, as other parts with the same pin connection have been used in other
sets and then were split. So I'm asking about differentiating the connection
point that all these parts share.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2021 11:01 | | Subject: | Re: Split part 53540 from 30526 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Teup writes:
| | Is that actually a legal building technique, necessary for any sets? If not,
the cost of splitting them may outweigh the benefits.
In Catalog Requests, Stellar writes:
| | Same as with other pins lately, please split this part, a bar does not fit the
right one 53540.
In the picture 30526 is on the left and 53540 is on the right.
|
|
This is exactly why most of them have not been split. The ones that were split
were necessary so that some sets absolutely have the correct version needed to
complete the build.
|
Won't somebody think of the children? I mean, the MOC builders...
In that list of parts if the pin is not closed a bar can pass through fine without
stress. If closed, then just fits in.
Do we need to have a set use that exact design ID as a reference for splitting?
I think not, as other parts with the same pin connection have been used in other
sets and then were split. So I'm asking about differentiating the connection
point that all these parts share.
|
If a specific variant is not needed for any set builds, then these parts just
go on the enormous list of part variants that are not differentiated. They are
no higher priority than any of the other 500 or so parts already on that list.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Sep 25, 2021 11:06 | | Subject: | Re: Split part 53540 from 30526 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, randyf writes:
| |
If a specific variant is not needed for any set builds, then these parts just
go on the enormous list of part variants that are not differentiated. They are
no higher priority than any of the other 500 or so parts already on that list.
|
I agree this is a smart policy. I understand why some want the catalog to reflect
every detail of LEGO building, (it would be cool if it could) but as a seller...
well, every split variation is more work and more chances to make an error.
Jen
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 10:23 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 10:44 | | Subject: | Re: Split part 53540 from 30526 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
like the Site Suggestions
graveyard where 2,300 ideas currently rest forgotten and in peace.
|
Some are dug up from time to time. Poor things, brought back from their ashes
like a common vampire.
And there’s many duplicates… 🤔 Hmm, the same idea in several tombs… What does
that mean for them? Creepy 😱
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: Split part 53540 from 30526 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Hmm, the same idea in several tombs…
|
For some reason, that made me laugh.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Nov 20, 2023 11:19 | | Subject: | Re: Split part 53540 from 30526 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
For some reason, that made me laugh.
|
Happy to help 
|
|
|
|
|
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
Germany, Niedersachsen
Netherlands, Utrecht
USA, Ohio
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine