|
 |
| | | Author: | sporadic  | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 11:52 | | Subject: | Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| Hey, forgive me if this the wrong place to post this. I'm new to the forums.
Recently when building a MOC, I put in an order that included a 32138 Technic,
Pin Double with Axle Hole with Squared Pin Holes. I got a 65098, which is listed
as a variant mold on Bricklink. However, according to Rebrickable (https://rebrickable.com/parts/32138/technic-pin-double-with-axle-hole/),
they are different. One has friction ridges, the other doesn't. I don't
have a 32138 to hand, so I can't verify it, but if so, these are very different
parts in terms of use cases. Should they be listed as variants? I thought variants
were supposed to be functionally identical with primarily cosmetic differences.
Or maybe I'm confused (likely).
Thoughts?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | iprice | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 12:06 | | Subject: | Re: Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, sporadic writes:
| | Hey, forgive me if this the wrong place to post this. I'm new to the forums.
Recently when building a MOC, I put in an order that included a 32138 Technic,
Pin Double with Axle Hole with Squared Pin Holes. I got a 65098, which is listed
as a variant mold on Bricklink. However, according to Rebrickable (https://rebrickable.com/parts/32138/technic-pin-double-with-axle-hole/),
they are different. One has friction ridges, the other doesn't. I don't
have a 32138 to hand, so I can't verify it, but if so, these are very different
parts in terms of use cases. Should they be listed as variants? I thought variants
were supposed to be functionally identical with primarily cosmetic differences.
Or maybe I'm confused (likely).
Thoughts?
|
They ARE different. There is at least one official Lego set (IIRC the AT-ST Raider
- 75254) that requires one of the variants, as the model cannot be built correctly
with the other version.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | iprice | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 12:09 | | Subject: | Re: Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, iprice writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, sporadic writes:
| | Hey, forgive me if this the wrong place to post this. I'm new to the forums.
Recently when building a MOC, I put in an order that included a 32138 Technic,
Pin Double with Axle Hole with Squared Pin Holes. I got a 65098, which is listed
as a variant mold on Bricklink. However, according to Rebrickable (https://rebrickable.com/parts/32138/technic-pin-double-with-axle-hole/),
they are different. One has friction ridges, the other doesn't. I don't
have a 32138 to hand, so I can't verify it, but if so, these are very different
parts in terms of use cases. Should they be listed as variants? I thought variants
were supposed to be functionally identical with primarily cosmetic differences.
Or maybe I'm confused (likely).
Thoughts?
|
They ARE different. There is at least one official Lego set (IIRC the AT-ST Raider
- 75254) that requires one of the variants, as the model cannot be built correctly
with the other version.
|
Yep. Found more info here - https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/ie9v0f/these_pieces_do_not_fit_together_the_way_the/
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 12:19 | | Subject: | Re: Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, sporadic writes:
| | Hey, forgive me if this the wrong place to post this. I'm new to the forums.
Recently when building a MOC, I put in an order that included a 32138 Technic,
Pin Double with Axle Hole with Squared Pin Holes. I got a 65098, which is listed
as a variant mold on Bricklink. However, according to Rebrickable (https://rebrickable.com/parts/32138/technic-pin-double-with-axle-hole/),
they are different. One has friction ridges, the other doesn't. I don't
have a 32138 to hand, so I can't verify it, but if so, these are very different
parts in terms of use cases. Should they be listed as variants? I thought variants
were supposed to be functionally identical with primarily cosmetic differences.
Or maybe I'm confused (likely).
Thoughts?
|
The new pins on Technic Pins are designed to accommodate a Bar whereas the old
pins didn't.
Variants are similar parts that also may have different functionalities. It may
not mean that it is an alternative. Sometimes they are an upgraded mold for a
good reason, just like in the case at hand.
Sometimes you will also see the Variant relationship classification so people
will be aware that a similar, yet different, part exists.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, sporadic writes:
| | Hey, forgive me if this the wrong place to post this. I'm new to the forums.
Recently when building a MOC, I put in an order that included a 32138 Technic,
Pin Double with Axle Hole with Squared Pin Holes. I got a 65098, which is listed
as a variant mold on Bricklink. However, according to Rebrickable (https://rebrickable.com/parts/32138/technic-pin-double-with-axle-hole/),
they are different. One has friction ridges, the other doesn't. I don't
have a 32138 to hand, so I can't verify it, but if so, these are very different
parts in terms of use cases. Should they be listed as variants? I thought variants
were supposed to be functionally identical with primarily cosmetic differences.
Or maybe I'm confused (likely).
Thoughts?
|
The new pins on Technic Pins are designed to accommodate a Bar whereas the old
pins didn't.
|
This statement is not true in most cases. The newer parts are usually the ones
with the squared pin holes and the older ones had the pin holes that accommodated
a bar. In this case, 32138 is the older part that accommodated bars and 65098
is the newer part that doesn't.
| | Variants are similar parts that also may have different functionalities. It may
not mean that it is an alternative. Sometimes they are an upgraded mold for a
good reason, just like in the case at hand.
|
I would call the newer mold in this case a downgrade.
| | Sometimes you will also see the Variant relationship classification so people
will be aware that a similar, yet different, part exists.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 15:28 | | Subject: | Re: Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, sporadic writes:
| | Hey, forgive me if this the wrong place to post this. I'm new to the forums.
Recently when building a MOC, I put in an order that included a 32138 Technic,
Pin Double with Axle Hole with Squared Pin Holes. I got a 65098, which is listed
as a variant mold on Bricklink. However, according to Rebrickable (https://rebrickable.com/parts/32138/technic-pin-double-with-axle-hole/),
they are different. One has friction ridges, the other doesn't. I don't
have a 32138 to hand, so I can't verify it, but if so, these are very different
parts in terms of use cases. Should they be listed as variants? I thought variants
were supposed to be functionally identical with primarily cosmetic differences.
Or maybe I'm confused (likely).
Thoughts?
|
The new pins on Technic Pins are designed to accommodate a Bar whereas the old
pins didn't.
|
This statement is not true in most cases. The newer parts are usually the ones
with the squared pin holes and the older ones had the pin holes that accommodated
a bar. In this case, 32138 is the older part that accommodated bars and 65098
is the newer part that doesn't.
|
Wow, why would LEGO do that? They did just the opposite on part 6628, which I
thought was a good move.
| |
| | Variants are similar parts that also may have different functionalities. It may
not mean that it is an alternative. Sometimes they are an upgraded mold for a
good reason, just like in the case at hand.
|
I would call the newer mold in this case a downgrade.
|
Indeed.
| |
| | Sometimes you will also see the Variant relationship classification so people
will be aware that a similar, yet different, part exists.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | sporadic | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 14:30 | | Subject: | Re: Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | Variants are similar parts that also may have different functionalities. It may
not mean that it is an alternative. Sometimes they are an upgraded mold for a
good reason, just like in the case at hand.
|
Thank you. This makes sense. My understanding of what is a variant was probably
being influenced by the recent variant merging discussions.
They are variants, though whether the 65* newer part is an upgrade or not
is definitely debatable it sounds like.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 15:30 | | Subject: | Re: Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, sporadic writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:
| | Variants are similar parts that also may have different functionalities. It may
not mean that it is an alternative. Sometimes they are an upgraded mold for a
good reason, just like in the case at hand.
|
Thank you. This makes sense. My understanding of what is a variant was probably
being influenced by the recent variant merging discussions.
They are variants, though whether the 65* newer part is an upgrade or not
is definitely debatable it sounds like.
|
Yeah, I got confused with part 6628. I agree, 65098 is a downgrade towards 32138.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | oukexergon | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 15:23 | | Subject: | Re: Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| Yes, these are different parts, with different functions.
In Catalog Identification, sporadic writes:
| | Hey, forgive me if this the wrong place to post this. I'm new to the forums.
Recently when building a MOC, I put in an order that included a 32138 Technic,
Pin Double with Axle Hole with Squared Pin Holes. I got a 65098, which is listed
as a variant mold on Bricklink. However, according to Rebrickable (https://rebrickable.com/parts/32138/technic-pin-double-with-axle-hole/),
they are different. One has friction ridges, the other doesn't. I don't
have a 32138 to hand, so I can't verify it, but if so, these are very different
parts in terms of use cases. Should they be listed as variants? I thought variants
were supposed to be functionally identical with primarily cosmetic differences.
Or maybe I'm confused (likely).
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, sporadic writes:
| | Hey, forgive me if this the wrong place to post this. I'm new to the forums.
Recently when building a MOC, I put in an order that included a 32138 Technic,
Pin Double with Axle Hole with Squared Pin Holes. I got a 65098, which is listed
as a variant mold on Bricklink. However, according to Rebrickable (https://rebrickable.com/parts/32138/technic-pin-double-with-axle-hole/),
they are different. One has friction ridges, the other doesn't. I don't
have a 32138 to hand, so I can't verify it, but if so, these are very different
parts in terms of use cases. Should they be listed as variants? I thought variants
were supposed to be functionally identical with primarily cosmetic differences.
Or maybe I'm confused (likely).
|
There is some confusion but the reason that they are listed as separate parts
instead of one just being an alternate number for the other is that there is
a functional difference.
Of course the seller could simply have made a mistake if (for example) they're
storing the different parts in the same place.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | sporadic | | Posted: | Feb 21, 2024 19:10 | | Subject: | Re: Are 32138 and 65098 really variants? | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, peregrinator writes:
| | There is some confusion but the reason that they are listed as separate parts
instead of one just being an alternate number for the other is that there is
a functional difference.
|
Yeah. It was my misunderstanding of what 'variant' meant in Bricklink
speak. Now that I have a clearer understanding, it all makes sense. I always
thought they were separate parts but the whole 'merging variant's threads
of late had given me an impression of variants that was not actually the case.
| | Of course the seller could simply have made a mistake if (for example) they're
storing the different parts in the same place.
|
That is in fact what happened and they're sending a replacement, so that's
not an issue.
But while doing detective work to understand what had happened I saw the variant
parts and it made me wonder if I'd misunderstood something. Which I had.
So it's all good now.
Thanks, everyone, for the clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, California
United Kingdom, England
Portugal
