| Discussion Forum: All Replies to Message 1450570 |
|
 |
|  | | Author: | randyf  | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2024 19:32 | | Subject: | Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
| | | | With the cross supports,
you can put 10247 as a jumper on solid studs; without the cross supports, you
can put 10247 as a jumper on open studs. That makes a difference in the build
too!
|
Wrong examples again, you really should check the parts before imagining functional
differences that don’t exist.
10247: the difference with 2444 is shown on a secondary pic on the parts’ pages.
It has absolutely no relation to what you’re saying. The center support prevents
putting some parts inside the pin hole… but it’s not clear why one would want
to do that.
|
The difference is actually more significant than that.
cannot clutch a 1x2 jumper plate or any other hollow stud for that matter attached
to the center tube underneath.
clutches them with ease.
|
Hmm, okay. I’d have thought the underside pin would be enough to grip a hollow
stud but I don’t have any 2444.
(Anyway, that’s not the use case argumented by icm.)
|
The underside pin on 2444 is not the same size as a 3.18mm bar. It's smaller.
| |
| | The only thing about this one is that I do not have the time to look through
all 555 sets that use 10247 to see if it ever "officially" mattered.
However, the question I keep coming back to is why redesign the part in the first
place if not to use that additional functionality? And I believe the answer is
somewhere in those 555 sets.
|
Well, I still think the redesign is about blocking the pin hole in order to not
manage to stuck 2780 the wrong way
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|