Longer Studless Beams

[doug72]

The current 15L studless beams can be very restrictive when building large models such as cranes, large trucks etc.

17 / 19 / 21L would be useful and avoid need for joining beams end to end with short studless beams.

We have 32L axles so why not longer beams ?

Edited June 3, 2016 by Doug72

[Lego Dino 500]

It's not just because of breakage. I'm pretty sure because quality control gets more difficult with longer pieces, and they're easier to warp. Like how you mostly see 1x16 bricks being damaged or warped, compared to 2x4s and 1x6s.

[mahjqa]

The current 1 brick high bricks can be very restrictive when building tall houses. Taller bricks would be useful to avoid stacking bricks.

There are already 5 brick high pieces like this, so why not any higher?

Edited June 3, 2016 by mahjqa

[Buddy010702]

I would find it useful to have them longer, but it is probably true that they would break/get damaged easily.(I keep my 32L axle away from the Lego drawers so mine doesn't get damaged.) If they made it out of a stronger material it may work, but Lego won't ever do that.

[Saberwing40k]

The current 1 brick high bricks can be very restrictive when building tall houses. Taller bricks would be useful to avoid stacking bricks.

There are already 5 brick high pieces like this, so why not any higher?

Here's the thing, longer beams would actually be useful, as Lego vehicles often times have to deal with dynamic loading, which is not something a brick built model has to deal with.Thus, your argument is invalid. There is no possible structural reason for bricks to be higher than 1 high, but you do have one for longer beams. On the other hand, I don't know if a longer beam would actually add any rigidity, because Lego bricks are inherently elastic. You could make one out of aluminum, but that would be expensive, then we get into quality control issues. Can you imagine getting a long beam that was warped? That wouldn't be too much fun. I also don't think that having beams only up to 15L is "restrictive", or a bad thing. There is nothing a longer beam could do that can't be done currently, it would just make some things easier, it's not like wheel hubs where the Lego versions are wobbly and brick built ones are either large, or flimsy.

Also, Majqa, I know why you don't care. The stuff you build is barely 15 studs long to begin with!

[knotian]

Longer beams would look 'spindley' and would be too flexible for any strength. Offsetting double beams connected together look a lot better and are stronger. I find vertically doubled studded beams to be an excellent solution.

[mahjqa]

Thus, your argument is invalid.

I don't agree. The point I was trying to make is that the proposed parts the OP wants are superfluous, because what they want can easily be done by combining existing parts. You don't need longer parts, you need to put existing parts together the right way. A longer beam alone will not solve their problem, it'll bend. Even a beam made out of a more rigid material will eventually give out if not supported.

If you're building on a bigger scale, you easily have the room to connect a couple of parts together to reach the length you need. For proof: Lego consistently manages to make technic models longer than 15 studs.

I know why you don't care. The stuff you build is barely 15 studs long to begin with!

That's where you have a point.

Edited June 3, 2016 by mahjqa

[TheMindGarage]

If you really want them, you could always 3D-print them.

I think they would be useful to some extent - it's always annoying when I'm building an MOC's chassis/body and find that a 17 or 19-stud beam would fit perfectly, but alas, it doesn't exist. I don't think strength would be much of an issue here - I have only ever broken one beam, and that was when using it as a manual hand-crank for a gigantic flywheel-powered LEGO cannon, which is definitely NOT normal usage...

[Didumos69]

That's a really cool video! I would love to have seen that car taking part in

.

[Saberwing40k]

I don't agree. The point I was trying to make is that the proposed parts the OP wants are superfluous, because what they want can easily be done by combining existing parts.

Well, I did add a bunch of caveats, I wouldn't say that long beams are quite superflous, but they're pretty close. I'd actually say that super long beams would actually be less useful, because they are long. You could extend the logic to we don't need seperate pieces, ever, to improve rigdity, and then it would cease to be Lego. And, I've never run across an instance where I've needed or wanted longer beams.

[jgw]

Why doens't Lego release a model out of one piece? I don't get it, I mean, it is difficult enough to build 2 pieces together, let alone a complete model.

[Lyichir]

I can think of situations where longer beams could be helpful but far fewer where they would be essential. The 32m axles, by contrast, have advantages that can't always be replaced by shorter axles joined together—for instance, situations where you would need most of the length of the axle to slide in and out of an assembly.

[DrJB]

Following the same logic, why are there not technic beams of sizes 1×3, 1×5, 1×7 ... and so on?

If you pause and think about it, the reason for 1×3 is unique ... for other sizes, the reason is different.

[TheMindGarage]

I can think of situations where longer beams could be helpful but far fewer where they would be essential. The 32m axles, by contrast, have advantages that can't always be replaced by shorter axles joined together—for instance, situations where you would need most of the length of the axle to slide in and out of an assembly.

That's a good point. The most speeds I've seen in a simple non-synchronised linear gearbox with a 16m sliding shaft is 5 (Sariel). With 32m, you could potentially get much more speeds - possibly up to 13. I believe 13 is the limit for these types of gearboxes with an input shaft, sliding shaft and output shaft - there are only so many ratios possible (9:1 5:1, 3:1, 25:9, 9:5, 5:3 and their inverses, plus of course 1:1).

As for places where longer beams are essential, I can't think of any, but they would really save weight and space. As an analogy, LEGO differentials aren't ESSENTIAL, but building a custom one is a pain, and it'll take far more space and weigh much more.

[Richard Dower]

more valid point....why not even numbered parts?......1x6, 1x8, 1x10 etc?

[dr_spock]

LEGO could now be shy in having too many different and unique parts after their near death experience back in the early 2000's. Maybe their designers don't have a good strong enough business case for those sizes to be produced.

There is a 1x6 half width liftarm.

It would be nice if they made a 1x13 half width that can be used as a connecting rod for LEGO train steam engine MOCs.

[oracid]

I am waiting for my 3D printer. When I will get It, I will make all beams from 1L to 34L with holes in each side. For me the goal is assembly solutions. No matter about breaking.

Edited June 4, 2016 by oracid

[1974]

LEGO could now be shy in having too many different and unique parts after their near death experience back in the early 2000's. Maybe their designers don't have a good strong enough business case for those sizes to be produced.

There is a 1x6 half width liftarm.

It would be nice if they made a 1x13 half width that can be used as a connecting rod for LEGO train steam engine MOCs.

There are 16L 15L half withds out there

Edited June 4, 2016 by 1974

[dr_spock]

There are 15L half withds out there

I could find 1x16 half width (thin) on BL. I need 1x13. I found a 1x13 STL file on Thingiverse. I have to figure what easy software can edit it down to a half width.

[1974]

I could find 1x16 half width (thin) on BL. I need 1x13. I found a 1x13 STL file on Thingiverse. I have to figure what easy software can edit it down to a half width.

Yeah, 16L sorry, not enough coffee yet

[Saberwing40k]

Can I has one or two of those micromotors? Please? Pretty Please?

Anyway, I don't see Lego doing thin liftarms longer than the existing ones, you might actually be able to break them at longer lengths. And, they're not like plates. But, somebody did indeed make some custom connecting rods, as seen in this topic:http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=74662. Also, Dr_Spock, you could always ask Efferman if he could whip you up something, if none of those ones fit your needs.

[doug72]

There were times when building my various crane MOC's that a 17L or 19L beam would have solved a problem in installing all the motors, gears and winding drums in a limited space without fouling on the supporting structure.

To join beams end to end requires another short beam on one side taking up valuable space or touching rotating parts.

An extra 2L or 4L would not impact greatly on the strength of a longer beam. only if a point load were placed at mid point would that occur.

To make a 17L beam at requires THREE parts, ie. 7L + 9L beam (or other combination that adds up to 16L) with a 5L beam connecting them on the side which leaves a gap of 1L between ends of the other two beams thus making the overall beam less rigid.

Longer beams would make building lattice structures (crane jibs. towers etc.) more easy and would require less parts making them look less bulky.

As a boy I played with Meccano and they had girders up to 36" (915mm) long.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Doug72

[TheMindGarage]

more valid point....why not even numbered parts?......1x6, 1x8, 1x10 etc?

It's because odd lengths give you better symmetry. In a studless car for example, you'll want the driveshaft in the middle, and that takes up 1 stud. If you want say 12 studs on each side of the driveshaft, that adds up to 25. If you wanted it 26 studs wide instead, your driveshaft would be off-center by half a stud - ugly ...

On the other hand, bricks come in even lengths because their holes are positioned differently. For example, a 4-stud brick has 3 holes in it, with the middle hole being exactly in the middle. That's why it makes sense to have even bricks and odd beams.

[1974]

Would be nice to have 2.5L, 3.5L, 4.5L etc axles

[nerdsforprez]

To the Op - check out this shop:

http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=Eezo

Liftarms as long as 32L - not ABS mind you, aluminum. Expensive yes,.... but strong? even yessier......

I am on the side of agreement that I think there certainly are some uses for LAs longer than 15L. Would they be worth it for TLG to produce? I think that perhaps is another story. But I will say that the argument about their weakness at longer than 15L I dont think is very valid. Axles are much weaker and they make them up to 32L .......