em121231 Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) I need a recommendation for a good, big(many pieces) and not too expensive non-studless (<150E). Hope i'm not asking for a lot :) Edited April 26, 2009 by em121231 Quote
em121231 Posted April 26, 2009 Author Posted April 26, 2009 Darth Legolas said: Meaning... technic? exactly :) Quote
Darth Legolas Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) em121231 said: exactly :) Oh yeah, should of realized this was in the mindstorms and technic section. Sorry though. I have a lot that come to mind but I don't know any of their prices. P.S. Wouldn't non-studless mean not studless therefore having studs? Edited April 26, 2009 by Darth Legolas Quote
Blakbird Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 em121231 said: I need a recommendation for a good, big(many pieces) and not too expensive non-studless (<150E). Hope i'm not asking for a lot :) Kind of like NASA's attempt to do "faster, better, cheaper", it turns out you can't have all three. "Good, big, cheap" -- you'll have to pick two. If you want big and cheap, I'd recommend 8277. Has loads of long beams, the models are giant, and it wasn't very popular and is therefore cheap. If you want big and good, 8480, 8868, 8862, and 8880 are the best. If you want good and cheap, consider a smaller set like 8838. Feel free to look over the photos and descriptions on my website if you don't know what all of them are. Quote
CP5670 Posted April 26, 2009 Posted April 26, 2009 With a 150 euro limit, any of the big flagship sets from the 90s can be had for that much if you're willing to buy used. The ones Blakbird brought are up are great choices. I would add 8479 to that list as well, although its code pilot unit seems to have had QA problems and is prone to breaking over time. Quote
em121231 Posted April 27, 2009 Author Posted April 27, 2009 i don't mind if it's used...as long as it's still in a "playable" condition and allows rebuilding and btw Blakbird very very nice website :) When did Lego began to introduce studless sets? Quote
gogoba Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 I got 8856 off ebay for £18 recently. Not a ridiculous amount of peices, but a fun complicated build compared to newer sets, and lots of functionality. Quote
Blakbird Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 em121231 said: When did Lego began to introduce studless sets? That's a highly subjective question since studless parts were introduced very gradually over a long number of years. The first part that I would call "studless" in that it has no studs and is still used in current design would be the 1x4 liftarm which started in 1989. Next would be the triangle in 1991. But these were just individual parts, the overall design was still highly "studded" and these new parts were typically hidden deep inside. By 1998 there was a significant amount of hybridization. Consider 8462 which was still studded, but had quite a number of liftarms as well. By 1999 with the Super Street Sensation, LEGO had settled on a happy medium where the frame was built from traditional bricks but the body was built from panels and liftarms. This continued for a few years with many good examples including the Silver Champion. By contrast, the 8674 Ferrari F-1, which appears very similar at first glance, is almost entirely studless. I would say 2003 was the first year that the current building method really took hold. All models of this year had virtually no studs and were built from the inside-out instead of from the bottom-up. 8455 is a great example. I hope that helps! Quote
CP5670 Posted April 27, 2009 Posted April 27, 2009 Yes, I would say it started in 1998 (not so much with 8462, but with 8428 and other sets), but became much more pronounced over the next two years. By 2003, the sets had become 100% studless. I'm not a fan of that construction style and would like TLG to go back to the balanced studded/studless combination they had in 1998 and some 1999 sets. They originally moved towards studless construction to make stronger and more lightweight models, and the original semi-studless sets were in fact very well built, but the completely studless sets are a step backwards from that. One example I noticed recently is the 8275 Bulldozer's frame, which slightly sags under its own weight. Quote I got 8856 off ebay for £18 recently. Not a ridiculous amount of peices, but a fun complicated build compared to newer sets, and lots of functionality. Good choice. It's a surprisingly large model and the ebay prices have always been pretty reasonable given its age. Quote
Rijkvv Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 (edited) I think you can call the 8275 not entirely studless. The blade and ripper are studded. Also the 8421 has still a lot of studded parts. Also the not yet released 8265 Front Loader has some studded parts. But the main frame of these three sets is still studless. Edited April 30, 2009 by Richie Quote
Blakbird Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Richie said: I think you can call the 8275 not entirely studless. The blade and ripper are studded. Also the 8421 has still a lot of studded parts. Also the not yet released 8265 Front Loader has some studded parts. But the main frame of these three sets is still studded. Yes, in the last couple of years LEGO has backtracked a little bit on the studless thing. I think this is largely in response to feedback from the AFOL community who were afraid that the traditional "studded" beams were going away altogether. The models are still primarily studless, but there are a few beams thrown in here and there. I'm hoping to see the same kind of response to the concerns over the disappearance of pneumatics with the introduction of the linear actuators. I think both have a place in modern building. Quote
CP5670 Posted April 29, 2009 Posted April 29, 2009 Richie said: I think you can call the 8275 not entirely studless. The blade and ripper are studded. Also the 8421 has still a lot of studded parts. Also the not yet released 8265 Front Loader has some studded parts. But the main frame of these three sets is still studded. Well, both 8275 and 8421 look a lot more studded than they actually are in the pictures, since the studded elements are all used on the exterior and are just decorative in some cases. The chassis and internal sections containing the mechanics are entirely studless. I would actually like to see it the other way around. Quote I think this is largely in response to feedback from the AFOL community who were afraid that the traditional "studded" beams were going away altogether. The good thing is that studded Technic beams are very common in other themes these days, so they have remained easy to come by on Bricklink for MOCs. Quote I think both have a place in modern building. Exactly. Quote
Rijkvv Posted April 30, 2009 Posted April 30, 2009 Quote But the main frame of these three sets is still studded. Oops, I meant studless. Quote
Brickthus Posted April 30, 2009 Posted April 30, 2009 gogoba said: I got 8856 off ebay for £18 recently. Not a ridiculous amount of peices, but a fun complicated build compared to newer sets, and lots of functionality. Despite the swash plate being used for the whole rotor in the 8856 set, you can use it to make a proper helicopter rotor with full collective and differential pitch control of the blades. It's also another use for those 1x3 steering parts! I bought two 8856s years ago and used the two rotor swash plates to make 4-wheel drive before 8880 came out, but the swash plates couldn't hold the wheels on very well. Glad TLG made the 8880 4WD parts. Mark Quote
CP5670 Posted April 30, 2009 Posted April 30, 2009 Mark Bellis said: Despite the swash plate being used for the whole rotor in the 8856 set, you can use it to make a proper helicopter rotor with full collective and differential pitch control of the blades.It's also another use for those 1x3 steering parts! Very nice rotor design. It might be possible to make it more compact though, especially using the various newer connectors that are available these days. This is actually a MOC project I have had in mind for a while, to build a helicopter with a realistic pitch control and mount it on a stand that gives it various rotational movements, similar to the 8485 helicopter. I got the extra rotor pieces off Bricklink a while ago but haven't gotten around to using them yet. Quote
Brickthus Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 CP5670 said: Very nice rotor design. It might be possible to make it more compact though, especially using the various newer connectors that are available these days.This is actually a MOC project I have had in mind for a while, to build a helicopter with a realistic pitch control and mount it on a stand that gives it various rotational movements, similar to the 8485 helicopter. I got the extra rotor pieces off Bricklink a while ago but haven't gotten around to using them yet. The swash plate moves vertically, with collective pitch, but also tilts with cyclic pitch. That means it needs ball joints to transmit leverage to the blades. The blades rotate about their axes but the tilt of the swash plate at 0 degrees to that axis means ball joints are needed at the top of the levers as well. This pic shows one of the lever mechanisms that adds the differential and collective pitch together. The alternative of differential gears would have had too much play in the system. I cheated slightly with the splined ball by filing its axle slot, allowing it to slide more easily on the axle. There are also a few other modded parts at the bottom of the rotor tower - cranks pre-dating the 1x2 liftarm with two cross holes. I first built the rotor system in 1996. It was important to attach the blades securely to the hub, to prevent blade loss during rotation. The grey plates fix additional load-bearing parts to the central 4x4 brick. Back in 1996 I had a plan to fit two 12V train motors for rotor power. Now I can use PF XL motors instead, as well as controlling rotor speed by PF IR rather than a long wire! PF has been great for controlling big rotating things! There remains the challenge of adding aerodynamics to the rotor! I think the existing blades with plates will just about lift themselves enough to be flat rather than drooping at the tips, but it would be nice to have the blades lift up above horizontal or even reduce the overall weight of the model if it were resting on scales. Back to topic - the model is definitely stronger and more rigid for using studded beams. The 80s and 90s sets had those beams with sloped ends, which are great for the Apache's weapon pylons. Of course this was built before the advent of studless full-width beams. In 1997 I had the 5-, 6- and 7-long thin liftarms, so I suggested to TLG that they made shorter and longer ones. Unfortunately they went for wider ones. Perhaps thin ones longer than 7 would have been judged as too weak, though both the 12V signal mast and the new 1x12 plate are longer and thinner. Shorter ones are no problem with an abundance of 5-, 6- or 7-long ones, a modelling saw and a file A 1-long one would make a good spacer for use with pegs. Mark Quote
Blakbird Posted May 1, 2009 Posted May 1, 2009 Mark Bellis said: There remains the challenge of adding aerodynamics to the rotor! I think the existing blades with plates will just about lift themselves enough to be flat rather than drooping at the tips, but it would be nice to have the blades lift up above horizontal or even reduce the overall weight of the model if it were resting on scales. Well, if you actually want the rotor to produce noticeable lift, you have 4 choices: Increase the rotation rate of the main axle. Obviously this comes with it's own problems and will require a lot of power. Decrease the weight of the blades. This will serve only to make the tips lift easier, but will not actually improve the lifting power of the heli as a whole. Increase the pitch of the collective. The lift coefficient increases with angle of attack, but only to the point of stall. Flat plates (or LEGO plates with bumps all over them) stall at a pretty small angle and then you actually lose lift. This leads me into the 4th option. Give the rotors and airfoil cross section. This will decrease drag and increase lift. It will also allow you to achieve a much higher pitch angle before stall occurs. Ideally you want a rounded leading edge and a sharp trailing edge. The trick is that you'd have to be able to accomplish this profiling without adding significant weight or the whole thing is pointless. But it sounds like you are up for a challenge! Seems like a studless beam on edge could make a good strong leading edge, and also provide the thickest point at about the 1/4 chord point. You'll want the trailing edge to be as smooth as possible to prevent flow separation. I look forward to copying you when you have worked it out. Quote
CP5670 Posted May 3, 2009 Posted May 3, 2009 Mark Bellis said: The swash plate moves vertically, with collective pitch, but also tilts with cyclic pitch. That means it needs ball joints to transmit leverage to the blades. The blades rotate about their axes but the tilt of the swash plate at 0 degrees to that axis means ball joints are needed at the top of the levers as well. This pic shows one of the lever mechanisms that adds the differential and collective pitch together. The alternative of differential gears would have had too much play in the system. Thanks for the explanation. I see how that gives the swashplate the full six degrees of freedom. Quote Back to topic - the model is definitely stronger and more rigid for using studded beams. The 80s and 90s sets had those beams with sloped ends, which are great for the Apache's weapon pylons. Of course this was built before the advent of studless full-width beams. In 1997 I had the 5-, 6- and 7-long thin liftarms, so I suggested to TLG that they made shorter and longer ones. Unfortunately they went for wider ones. Perhaps thin ones longer than 7 would have been judged as too weak, though both the 12V signal mast and the new 1x12 plate are longer and thinner. Shorter ones are no problem with an abundance of 5-, 6- or 7-long ones, a modelling saw and a file A 1-long one would make a good spacer for use with pegs. I have found myself wanting a half-width 8-long beam numerous times, both for the thin profile as well as the even length. The closest thing we have to that is the 8-long gear rack, which TLG actually used like a normal beam in several sets around 2000. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.