Purism

[J_C]

15 minutes ago, Sariel said:

I postulate that you also breathe only the air from inside the Lego pieces bags ;)

no man  

But I enjoy building within limitations. That is why I like C-models the best.

to illustrate: At the moment: I have now: 42025 cmodel finished (but no time to make an instructions and pictures etc soon, another 42042 cmodel completely done - not sure if I wanna publish it, 42054 cmodel on the go (75-80% done), and 2nd 42025 and 42039 cmodel in early stages (like 40-50%).

And when I build "non project" stuff (with kids) they want build something now. Even if colours do not match or something is not perfect "if only we had 3 more of these". They do not think like that, neither do I. I rather rebuild something.

Edited May 12, 2017 by J_C

[allanp]

I have used third party tires and hoses and for a tower crane I used fishing line. I probably would use 3D printed parts if the quality was up to Legos standard. Can't bring myself to cut or glue pieces though. But is it cheating when an official Lego designer uses 3D printed parts for prototyping? I think not. The part itself still had to be designed.

Edited May 12, 2017 by allanp

[lcvisser]

11 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

Have others also noticed a trend over the years? What are your opinions on it? What are your opinions on purism vs. using non-Lego solutions? Do you use non-Lego, and if so, why? What's OK to you and what's not, and why? Custom string? Custom stickers/prints? Custom tyres? Custom coloring? Custom springs? Can you define a limit that makes clear what's within and what's outside? If it's not clear, how do you handle the gray area? If you're an extensive user of non-Lego solutions, why are you into Lego instead of scale modeling in general?

 

What are your opinions about all this?

Interesting observation, @Erik Leppen. I had observed an increase, but correlated it to my increased following of LEGO forums.

I personally draw a line at 3rd party strings: I'd try to use genuine LEGO string if I were to make instructions for a model, but otherwise I'm fine (also in others' MOCs) with 3rd party strings. I do like the quality and properties of original LEGO string though, so after prototyping (e.g. finding the required lengths) I would make an effort to replace the 3rd party strings with genuine LEGO string if I intend to keep the MOC for a while.

Other custom parts are, for me at least, not an option. Even stickers and chroming parts is a no go, although I can understand when people go for these options. Myself, I "simulate" chrome with LBG parts and I'm not building to the level of detail were stickers would add something. If I wanted to make really detailed models, I'd probably choose a different material altogether. The joy for me is in working within the LEGO system to build what I want.
To be honest: if I see MOCs with 3rd party parts, I'm always a bit disappointed. It feels like cheating, like others have pointed out, and kills the joy for me. I remember being sad when I found out (years ago) that Jennifer Clarks Demag crane had modified parts inside. I've always been hugely inspired by Andrea Grazi's tow truck as an example of what is possible within the LEGO system (please don't tell me he used 3rd party parts...), and that is what defines my goals and aspirations. With such a reference, I don't see a point in needing 3rd party parts...

[Sariel]

8 minutes ago, Ludo Visser said:

I remember being sad when I found out (years ago) that Jennifer Clarks Demag crane had modified parts inside. I've always been hugely inspired by Andrea Grazi's tow truck as an example of what is possible within the LEGO system

If I remember correctly, these two models are at least 10 years apart. Back when Jennifer built her Demag, pretty much half of today's Technic pieces didn't exist.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Sariel

[mocbuild101]

I think that using non-lego parts is okay as long it only makes up less than 5% of a model, because Lego can't make everything you need for everything you make. Although I think that you should try to make a solution out of original Lego parts first, because where is the fun in cheating?

Probably the most commonly used custom/non-lego parts are electric, such as lights an SBricks.

2 hours ago, Sariel said:

1. custom stickers
2. custom-chromed Lego pieces
3. custom remote-control systems (SBrick and such)
4. custom power supplies (BuWizz)
5. custom tires on Lego rims
6. custom lighting (Brickstuff, Lifelites)
7. 3D-printed pieces
8. painting Lego pieces
9. cutting/gluing Lego pieces
10. modified Lego electronics (e.g. gutted 8878 batteries)
11. third-party motors

Another thing that could be added to that list is string .

[Sariel]

Lego string is nice, but having built 2+ meters tall truss crane I can attest that it can only take you so far (I've ended up using heavy-duty fishing line). Besides, I strongly suspect Lego is getting their string from a subcontractor, not actually making it, so maybe don't start praying to it yet ;)

Also, I'd love to use Lego lighting only, but the golden era of Lego lighting seems to have ended in the 90's, now all we have are crude LEDs and TLG apparently sees no reason to make anything else. I'm tired of ending up with a giant stack of plugs every time I need 20+ LEDs in a single MOC.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Sariel

[Didumos69]

Thanks for bringing this up @Erik Leppen. Now that you mention it, I do think there is a trend towards increased unpure building, or at least people seem to be less concerned about others doing it. I remember that I once posted an idea with the long side of a 3L pin inserted into a pinhole with a half stud offset. I got several replies that it was not legal. I don't see that happening these days.

Even though I have been tempted to modify pieces or use non-LEGO parts, I never actually did. It just didn't feel okay. I even prefer to build completely 'in-system', which brings me to another concern I have these days. When it's about the looks of models - especially when these models concern supercars - we have arrived at a point where practically every illegal connection is allowed. And this has a lot to do with the fact that Technic car MOCs are mainly judged -  also on this forum - by how they look. And this is not what Technic is about, imo.

I think Technic should be about making Technic models. And to me 'Technic model' means: Simplification of a system that brings about one or more aspects of that system's nature. Models allow us to zoom in on certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. So it's all about what exactly do you want to tell with your model. And the challenge is: How are you going to tell your story with LEGO Technic? This challenge is like laying a 3D puzzle with a fixed set of connecting parts. And when you find yourself tempted to modify pieces or make illegal connections, you should continue puzzling until you solve your issues, over and over again.

But sadly enough, there are many whose challenge is to make something that looks cool rather than something that has been built smart or works great.

[Richard Dower]

I don't see a problem using third party, or even fake parts. The White 42056 has parts that do not officially exist in genuine Lego inventory. So if you want a White Porsche then you would have to use the fake White parts or the Red rims etc.

[Sariel]

Just now, Richard Dower said:

The White 42056 has parts that do not officially exist in genuine Lego inventory. 

Because it's a counterfeit product?

[Richard Dower]

Just now, Sariel said:

Because it's a counterfeit product?

 

Just now, Sariel said:

Because it's a counterfeit product?

Of course...that is my point, if they existed in genuine Lego i would use those, since they dont i have to use the fake parts. Out 2700 odd parts around 20 are unique to the set in White colour or Red rims.

[Sariel]

It might be interesting to add "counterfeit pieces" to our list. At the extreme heresy end, I guess :)

[Aventador2004]

7 hours ago, Lipko said:

I am a purist and I also see a growing trend of non-purism, but not significant. Apart from SBrick which made it in the legal zone for most AFOLs, even our contests allow or encourage the usage of it, and I still don't know what to think about this. Especially from the popularity point of view. Even in the AFOL community, remote models get much more attention, and SBrick for that become the default solution (using PF IR nowadays makes your model "lame") so you have to be non-purist to get some attention and I'm not very happy about that because I'm an attention whore 

The it part is what I hate, I have 2 irs used frequently (ha) and I don't want to drop 50-100 dollars on a part where I can spend 30$ for 2 or receivers + they are easily gotten.

19 minutes ago, Sariel said:

It might be interesting to add "counterfeit pieces" to our list. At the extreme heresy end, I guess :)

32 minutes ago, Richard Dower said:

Of course...that is my point, if they existed in genuine Lego i would use those, since they dont i have to use the fake parts. Out 2700 odd parts around 20 are unique to the set in White colour or Red rims.

Maybe lego should allow you to choose paint?

[Richard Dower]

8 minutes ago, Aventador2004 said:

 

Maybe lego should allow you to choose paint?

If they had the Pick-A-Brick site have colour options that would be great.

[Lipko]

1 hour ago, Didumos69 said:

Thanks for bringing this up @Erik Leppen. Now that you mention it, I do think there is a trend towards increased unpure building, or at least people seem to be less concerned about others doing it. I remember that I once posted an idea with the long side of a 3L pin inserted into a pinhole with a half stud offset. I got several replies that it was not legal. I don't see that happening these days.

Even though I have been tempted to modify pieces or use non-LEGO parts, I never actually did. It just didn't feel okay. I even prefer to build completely 'in-system', which brings me to another concern I have these days. When it's about the looks of models - especially when these models concern supercars - we have arrived at a point where practically every illegal connection is allowed. And this has a lot to do with the fact that Technic car MOCs are mainly judged -  also on this forum - by how they look. And this is not what Technic is about, imo.

I think Technic should be about making Technic models. And to me 'Technic model' means: Simplification of a system that brings about one or more aspects of that system's nature. Models allow us to zoom in on certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. So it's all about what exactly do you want to tell with your model. And the challenge is: How are you going to tell your story with LEGO Technic? This challenge is like laying a 3D puzzle with a fixed set of connecting parts. And when you find yourself tempted to modify pieces or make illegal connections, you should continue puzzling until you solve your issues, over and over again.

But sadly enough, there are many whose challenge is to make something that looks cool rather than something that has been built smart or works great.

I don't think we see that many illegal body building techniques (...) but rather weak connections and non-locked parts (parts that can be fold out for example). And also models that look good/well-proportioned only from certain angles. Relying too much on parts in rare colours. Or stickers covering multiple parts each. Yup, I don't like that too much either.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Lipko

[Lucio Switch]

Taking Sariel's list as reference, personally I would change a couple of positions in this way:

1. custom stickers
2. custom remote-control systems (SBrick and such)
3. custom lighting (Brickstuff, Lifelites)
4. custom power supplies (BuWizz)
5. custom tires
6. custom-chromed Lego pieces
7. custom non Lego rims
8. 3D-printed pieces
9. painting Lego pieces
10. cutting/gluing Lego pieces
11. modified Lego electronics (e.g. gutted 8878 batteries)
12. third-party motors
13. counterfeit pieces

Personally I stop at point 2 (even if the ACT is at point 8, and I'm ashamed of the fact that a part of that could be done with Lego parts).
MOCs built until point 7-8 draw my attention, over not.
I never "disliked" a video, but the point 13 makes me really tempted to do it.

[1963maniac]

You are "right on" Erik!! Big time!!  If you're gonna build something with LEGO as your medium, then use LEGO completely (and your brain) and your wallet if necessary. Therefore, any LEGO contest should be a LEGO contest! This and many other webpages are LEGO based and should be about LEGO and nothing else. If LEGO is our hobby, then let's use LEGO!!

However after reading a lot of this, I do not want to swash creativity with criticism. The creative ideas must keep coming!! Let's not stop it by criticism. And besides, there are often ways to "build a better mousetrap" as they say.

Edited May 17, 2017 by 1963maniac

[Appie]

4 hours ago, Lipko said:

A last thought: Just because we don't point out every illegal or not appealing solutions we see, doesn't mean we agree with them. (and yup, taking out the spring from the shock absorber is also a no for me).

Yet when I specifically asked in my mini 8865 topic if people wanted to see the rubber band suspension version, you (nor anybody else who had a problem with this suspension) spoke up...

My very first MOC on this forum had rubber band suspension, so it's not like the concept wasn't already in my head.

Of course, for you it's a no-go to use this kind of suspension. That's fine, we differ on that.

Now you might wonder, why did I choose for this option? Well that was quite simple: I consider this suspension a grey area and I simply found the grey area aesthetically more pleasing than the completely legal alternative, especially considering his big brother. I did it just for the looks. Not because as @Erik Leppen tries to imply "I couldn't find a solution with Lego". Which I find rather insulting to be honest. Like him, I always try to solve stuff with Lego parts, because I agree: why else would you build with Lego?

I was a backer for the Sbrick, yet mine has never been used. I still use the "lame" IR as my controls for models. BuWizz, while also being a backer, is still in its box. The Sbrick might never be used, the BuWizz I might end up using with my buggy motors and even that's iffy. So while I got them and like their concept I still don't want to use them. I always keep the normal Lego IR controls in mind when building.

Back when I made Sheepo's Mustang in white, I ordered third party white pneumatic hoses instead of soft axles for the simple reason that it was cheaper. I think they lasted a few weeks before I bought actual soft axles. I had a car that worked great, yet was only 99% Lego and that annoyed the crap out of me. The suspension I got going on the mini 8865, doesn't feel like 99% Lego to me, it's from Lego, so 100% Lego. That other people don't like it, no problem, if you bother to speak up: enjoy the rubber band version (which I'll post later).

tl;dr My only rule in my builds concerning purism is: it has to be Lego, wether it's a full Lego part or not, I personally do not care. Just Lego. Replacing IR with Sbrick and BuWizz, I don't care, but I do appreciate if that is optional on the model and that the model works with normal IR too.

[mocbuild101]

1 hour ago, Sariel said:

Also, I'd love to use Lego lighting only, but the golden era of Lego lighting seems to have ended in the 90's, now all we have are crude LEDs and TLG apparently sees no reason to make anything else. I'm tired of ending up with a giant stack of plugs every time I need 20+ LEDs in a single MOC.

I agree, which is why I'm currently making my own custom lighting for replica car lights.

33 minutes ago, Aventador2004 said:

The it part is what I hate, I have 2 irs used frequently (ha) and I don't want to drop 50-100 dollars on a part where I can spend 30$ for 2 or receivers + they are easily gotten.

Yes, but the SBrick does have other advantages.

[HallBricks]

For me, the joy with building MOCs is the challenge of figuring out how a certain function can be achieved with Lego, and Lego only. I'm currently working on three different models, and when they're completed I want to create instructions to make sure other enthusiasts can build my models. Therefore, I want to use parts that can be easily referred to on sites like Rebrickable and BrickLink. I also try to build with parts that are currently used in the Lego system. I also avoid old, outdated parts that are difficult to get your hands on, even though I might own them. For this reason, I have no interest in buying the RC Buggy motor for example since using that in a MOC would result in less people being able to build it. 

Everyone has their own tastes, but I actually like building my models in the same style as the official Technic sets. More complex, somewhat "illegal" models really can impress me, but I prefer 100% pure models with as legal building techniques used as possible. 

Nowadays, the SBrick is commonly used instead of IR receivers in custom models. It really has it's advantages for sure, but I prefer using the PF system only, despite it's limitations. Instead I hope for a future versions of Power Functions where models can be controlled in a similar way as with SBrick. 

[Lipko]

51 minutes ago, Appie said:

Yet when I specifically asked in my mini 8865 topic if people wanted to see the rubber band suspension version, you (nor anybody else who had a problem with this suspension) spoke up...

Sorry, like most people, I only look at the pictures

[Erik Leppen]

Good to see this discussion having so many people chime in and so many ways to look at things.

I think all of us look to it differently because we all pursue different goals when building.
 
I want to find out what's possible, en I enjoy working within a fixed set of options en exploring the emergent possibilies from there. I also strive for rebuildability, I try to design stuff as if I'm designing a set. The rebuildability rule means that I strive for that others can rebuild what I build. This means that in theory I could even go and use something like SBrick as soon as this becomes as commonplace as a normal PF motor (But I haven't come across cases where IR doesn't suffice, and I wouldn't know what's wrong with it to be honest.) So the rule doesn't only mean, no third-party, but also I'm wary of using out-of-production parts (although I have some exceptions, such as the old gear racks.), or even very rare parts.

 

This means that even I sometimes use non-Lego string - as long as Lego provides a functionally identical string, I'm fine, because it doesn't break the rebuildability rule.

 

I would never use stickers, I evne think the original Lego stickers are a form of cheating by Lego themselves, and only meant for the targeted audience. I never apply stickers when I build sets, they're not essential to me to a model. A model is always a representation, a simplification, of something, and adding stickers adds nothing to that representation for me. It only makes it less "focused", less "beautiful" because it uses more tyeps of components. I like emergent stuff, I like doing much with little. I like pureness; minimalism. This includes not using third-party stuff, but also includes limiting the number of types of pieces. Using fewer parts if possible, not using studded even though that would make a model nicer looking. That may also be why I don't like the Porsche set #42056 - it uses 2700 parts to do what #8070 does in 1400 parts.

 

 

Quote

I did it just for the looks. Not because as @Erik Leppen tries to imply "I couldn't find a solution with Lego". Which I find rather insulting to be honest. Like him, I always try to solve stuff with Lego parts, because I agree: why else would you build with Lego?

 

Forgive me the exact phrasing, because I couldn't find the topic, but in fact, you used a "illegal" build exactly because you couldn't find a solution to your wishes with Lego. Otherwise you would have used that, of course. In exactly 100% of cases where third party is used, it's because the builder wants to do something he can't do in Lego. Otherwise he would have used Lego. Your wishes being aesthetic rather than functional doesn't change a thing. There was no Lego solution that satisfied your needs, so you went out of the box. I would personally have altered my expectations, by leaving a function out or making it uglier. Either solution is fine, but personally I prefer purity over aesthetics (or function). :) And I'm not intending to insult anyone. You know me well enough to know this, right? :) It's merely a matter of personal taste. I'm quite strict about these things. Your model is not a special offender in any way, I just used your car as an example of my story because it was recent and I still remembered it. It's nothing personal (I didn't even know it was yours) :)

Edited May 12, 2017 by Erik Leppen

[Aventador2004]

1 hour ago, Richard Dower said:

If they had the Pick-A-Brick site have colour options that would be great.

Agreed.

[Leonardo da Bricki]

I am almost completely purist, the only non-Lego item I have allowed myself is a set of 3rd party tires, simply because Lego's tires, while nice, just do not have enough tread for rock-crawling. Other than that one offense, I am purist ALL THE WAY!

[Appie]

45 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Forgive me the exact phrasing, because I couldn't find the topic, but in fact, you used a "illegal" build exactly because you couldn't find a solution to your wishes with Lego. Otherwise you would have used that, of course. In exactly 100% of cases where third party is used, it's because the builder wants to do something he can't do in Lego. Otherwise he would have used Lego. Your wishes being aesthetic rather than functional doesn't change a thing. There was no Lego solution that satisfied your needs, so you went out of the box. I would personally have altered my expectations, by leaving a function out or making it uglier. Either solution is fine, but personally I prefer purity over aesthetics (or function). :) And I'm not intending to insult anyone. You know me well enough to know this, right? :) It's merely a matter of personal taste. I'm quite strict about these things. Your model is not a special offender in any way, I just used your car as an example of my story because it was recent and I still remembered it. It's nothing personal (I didn't even know it was yours) :)

That's quite some different wording than what you used in my mini 8865 topic:

The problem with your posts now is that I actually could do it with Lego. I offered a choice to you and explained why I made my choice. Yet that seems to be completely ignored, only that I made the "wrong choice" by your logic is remembered by you it seems. I still stand by my choice, but you are free to adjust the model to your standards, because it can be done easily. Just don't expect me to follow and especially don't accuse me of not being able to find a solution legally with Lego, because I have. You might not have meant it that way, but offence was greatly taken.

Also in your opening post you write it down like it is a quote from me that I couldn't find a solution in Lego, yet it is no where to be found in the mini 8865 topic as being said by me (or anybody). It would praise you if you adjusted the OP to reflect that. Now you might say that by your standards and therefore logic that I might as well have said that, but fact is I never actually did.

Choose the uglier option (rubber bands) or completely remove the function? Fine, whatever makes you happy, this made me happy. I don't consider removing the spring from the Lego part any less purist than not removing it (I consider it grey because it requires disassembling a pre-assembled part). Different opinions, but no need to shout nonsense that I couldn't find a legal solution, especially when I mentioned rubber bands twice in that topic and offered to make an actual effort to meet your request by showing it to you. Not my request because I already liked the model, your request to meet your standards.

45 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

In exactly 100% of cases where third party is used

Since when is a spring from an actual Lego part "third party"?

Edited May 12, 2017 by Appie

[BusterHaus]

53 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

I want to find out what's possible, en I enjoy working within a fixed set of options en exploring the emergent possibilies from there. I also strive for rebuildability, I try to design stuff as if I'm designing a set. The rebuildability rule means that I strive for that others can rebuild what I build.

This also extends to what parts are available in the LDraw library.  Building virtual models with non-Lego parts would involve quite a bit of work and makes sharing of instructions more challenging.

A big part of this hobby is learning from what others have done and (hopefully) contributing something new to the community.  We are constantly looking for solutions to mechanical puzzles. Sharing those solutions advances our hobby to new levels.  Using non-Lego parts is a shortcut to the solution, but the process of solving the puzzle is usually more rewarding.