|
 |
| | | 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.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2019 20:30 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | 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.
|
I don't really care too much right now about the dimensions of the part.
What I care about more is how it is named and categorized. I have never thought
of it as a "Pin Connector" because it actually can't connect pins at all.
It is basically a 1L bushing for pins in the same way
is a 1L bushing for axles.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bb1237701 | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2019 20:48 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | 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.
|
I don't really care too much right now about the dimensions of the part.
What I care about more is how it is named and categorized. I have never thought
of it as a "Pin Connector" because it actually can't connect pins at all.
It is basically a 1L bushing for pins in the same way
is a 1L bushing for axles.
Cheers,
Randy
|
So is a "pin" the same as a "stud"?
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
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 02:16 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 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.
| | 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.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 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: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 08:19 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | 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".
I have always taken a pin to be that whole part. If you have half of it, then
you have half a pin. Which is how this one is named.
And of course if you have 3/4 of it, you get this one.
But then the naming problems come with longer ones.
and so on. These should be 1.5 pins but now use the L naming instead so 3L.
Maybe normal pins should be called "pin 2L", half pins could be called "1/2 pin
1L" and so on, although just "pin 1L" would do if the L designation is used.
Especially when things like this are named
as pin double, when really they are "pin 1/2" double. And double is also used
here:
What is double here, is it two full pins joined side by side with a stop bush
inserted into the middle with an axle hole (as suggested by the name), or is
it quadruple 1/2 pins? Plus the L dimensions are not given.
Worse still, this one is now not a double, but four pins (really 1/2 pins).
Or should it be a double pin, where the pins are separated with something in
the middle, like above.
Plus this one isn't a pin anymore, whereas the one above is.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 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: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 08:45 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | 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.
|
Yeah, so why call this a pin 1/2 ...
And this ...
And everyone's favourite, the flick missile ...
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.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 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: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 09:07 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | 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
|
Yes, consistency is key. Maybe as a definition, call 1L equal to what LEGO call
1M.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 05:41 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | 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.
|
I don't really care too much right now about the dimensions of the part.
What I care about more is how it is named and categorized. I have never thought
of it as a "Pin Connector" because it actually can't connect pins at all.
It is basically a 1L bushing for pins in the same way
is a 1L bushing for axles.
Cheers,
Randy
|
How can factual correctness be less important than a choice of how to categorise
it? I'd say #1 is to get the facts straight, and after that, we can go and
organise it. But what SylvainLS points out here is a real mistake that should
be corrected. It's a small thing in itself, but the correctness of the catalog
is one of the core features that drive Bricklink. I'd say it's the main
selling point of Bricklink compared to BrickOwl.
Maybe someone thought it was 2 plates high, thus 2/3.. but it really raises the
question why it was ever approved.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 08:25 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Teup writes:
| | | | I don't really care too much right now about the dimensions of the part.
What I care about more is how it is named and categorized. I have never thought
of it as a "Pin Connector" because it actually can't connect pins at all.
It is basically a 1L bushing for pins in the same way
is a 1L bushing for axles.
Cheers,
Randy
|
How can factual correctness be less important than a choice of how to categorise
it? I'd say #1 is to get the facts straight, and after that, we can go and
organise it. But what SylvainLS points out here is a real mistake that should
be corrected. It's a small thing in itself, but the correctness of the catalog
is one of the core features that drive Bricklink. I'd say it's the main
selling point of Bricklink compared to BrickOwl.
Maybe someone thought it was 2 plates high, thus 2/3.. but it really raises the
question why it was ever approved.
|
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.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 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: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 09:29 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 32 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.
|
I submitted changes along this train of thought long ago but they were not approved.
It is a 1x1 Liftarm in actuality but functions only as a bushing. I support moving
it to a more appropriate category.
Jen
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 09:45 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | 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.
|
I submitted changes along this train of thought long ago but they were not approved.
It is a 1x1 Liftarm in actuality but functions only as a bushing. I support moving
it to a more appropriate category.
Jen
|
I had never thought of it as a 1x1 liftarm, but that makes perfect sense at least
in an algorithmic type way. A liftarm that cannot actually lift or connect anything!
Maybe go further and rename all liftarms as double bush, treble bush, etc!
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 13:47 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | 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.
|
I submitted changes along this train of thought long ago but they were not approved.
It is a 1x1 Liftarm in actuality but functions only as a bushing. I support moving
it to a more appropriate category.
Jen
|
I had never thought of it as a 1x1 liftarm, but that makes perfect sense at least
in an algorithmic type way. A liftarm that cannot actually lift or connect anything!
Maybe go further and rename all liftarms as double bush, treble bush, etc!
|
The official name for the part from LEGO is "Beam 1X1". That should tell you
exactly how they think it is classified. But I am against naming something
a liftarm that can't lift anything, just like I am against naming something
a pin connector that can't connect any pins. 
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2019 13:40 | | Subject: | Re: Lengths in “L” and 18654 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | 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.
|
I submitted changes along this train of thought long ago but they were not approved.
It is a 1x1 Liftarm in actuality but functions only as a bushing. I support moving
it to a more appropriate category.
Jen
|
I submitted changes long ago, also, and they were also rejected. Great minds
and all that!
Randy
|
|
|
|
|
|
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
USA, Ohio
)
)
United Kingdom, England
Netherlands, Utrecht
