Legal vs Illegal techniques

[Nazgarot]

Hi,

A discussion on the unwritten rules of Lego was started a short time ago, and quickly got out of hand. I want to start this topic to answer a legit question: What would Lego allow? I hope this will not be "flamed" the same way that "unwritten rules" was...

The thing is, there are some techniques that are considered illegal, and never is used by TLG, but there is also some that would qualify as illegal that are used... I.e. The roof of the Unimog, that stresses parts...

I hope this discussion to be a place where people can get answered whether TLG would allow their technique or not. This will be interesting in both this years challenge, and for people who want to get a model through to production on Cuusoo.

There was one ,in this aspect, very interesting post on the "unwritten rules" discussion:

again.. I have no qualms about using 'odd' connections for lego pieces, as long as it doesn't irrepairably damage the part

this is about as official as you'll get with this topic:

http://bramlambrecht...stress-bf06.pdf

Same file as Powerpoint on Lego's site: cache.lego.com/downloads/brickfest2006/brickstress.ppt

and even they admit that there's some official sets in the past, that used techniques that wouldn't be accepted today!

We wouldn't see half the amazing MOC's today, if people didn't bend the rules a bit!!! ;)

RB

I think this is a good starting point. Would for example tires stretched to larger wheels, or axles used as torsion springs be allowed in a model? Can plates be used to connect beams?

It would be nice if we can keep a clean discussion, without all the flaming. Nobody says you have to follow these rules, but if you want to get a model approved by TLG it would be nice to know what could be accepted. Maybe some of the successful models form Cuusoo can give us some clues...

I will update this first post when we agree on things that are questioned (I would also appreciate input on how this post should look).

Probable approval by TLG:

=========================

*Slight stress on beams (example 8110 Unimog roof)

*Cutting of ribbed hoses, pneumatic hoses and 3mm rigid hoses (several older official models employ this)

*New use for existing parts (several examples in official models)

Possible consideration by TLG:

==============================

*New parts that has several uses, and are easy to include in the existing lineup

*Uses that will stress parts without damaging them

*Attaching 2*n plates to beams (in a way that lets it be removed)

Illegal by TLG standards:

=========================

*Using axles as torsion springs

*Using Driving rings (6539) on a smooth axle joiner (6538c)

*Stretching tires to larger rims or other objects

-ED-

EDIT: Added some new techniques.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Nazgarot

[DLuders]

Who cares if a cheap Lego Technic part is "stressed" or not? If it breaks or is permanently deformed upon disassembly, then buy another cheap replacement off of Bricklink.

[Nazgarot]

Who cares if a cheap Lego Technic part is "stressed" or not? If it breaks or is permanently deformed upon disassembly, then buy another cheap replacement off of Bricklink.

TLG does...

[Anio]

Can plates be used to connect beams?

technically speaking, studs can be put in the holes of a beam.

We can see that on many Technic models.

For the lights of the cars or trucks, plate 1x1 or round plate 1x1 are used to reproduce light in the beams.

HOWEVER, these parts are just 1x1 plates.

Using 1x2, 1x3, 1xn plates is not allowed for official sets. Because if you can assemble these long plates with beam, it is very hard to pull them apart. At least, a kid may experience problem to pull them apart.

The clutch power became too strong if the plate is bigger than 1x1.

Hope my explanation is understandable.

edit :

Who cares if a cheap Lego Technic part is "stressed" or not? If it breaks or is permanently deformed upon disassembly, then buy another cheap replacement off of Bricklink.

Very interesting post.--'

The fact that parts can last for decades is a very big advantage for the Lego brand. They regularly explain that a kid may use the bricks of his father etc. That's the power of the brick : you can still use a brick produced in the 70'.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Anio

[AndyC]

I think this is a good starting point. Would for example tires stretched to larger wheels, or axles used as torsion springs be allowed in a model? Can plates be used to connect beams?

Stretched tires or axles used as torsion springs are pretty much guaranteed not to pass review. Some other "illegal" connections like plates used to connect beams or the odd technic pin used incorrectly (such as in 8043) might sneak through review but would/should be rejected if they are spotted.

Essentially any part that is left under stress or in tension is probably an illegal technique, since it will shorten the lifespan of the piece and may increase complaints to TLG, or worse break and risk a child being injured on sharp fragments. AFOLs may not care much if a technic pin breaks, but it really does matter to TLG. I'm actually a little surprised to see the Unimog does seem to violate their rules, although I guess with larger Technic it's often much harder to judge than with more classic System models.

[mescalinum]

technically speaking, studs can be put in the holes of a beam.

We can see that on many Technic models.

For the lights of the cars or trucks, plate 1x1 or round plate 1x1 are used to reproduce light in the beams.

HOWEVER, these parts are just 1x1 plates.

Using 1x2, 1x3, 1xn plates is not allowed for official sets. Because if you can assemble these long plates with beam, it is very hard to pull them apart. At least, a kid may experience problem to pull them apart.

that brings me to memory the following assembly:

(8466 page 81)

it was almost impossible to pull apart!

[Erik Leppen]

technically speaking, studs can be put in the holes of a beam.

We can see that on many Technic models.

For the lights of the cars or trucks, plate 1x1 or round plate 1x1 are used to reproduce light in the beams.

Using 1x2, 1x3, 1xn plates is not allowed for official sets. Because if you can assemble these long plates with beam, it is very hard to pull them apart. At least, a kid may experience problem to pull them apart.

The clutch power became too strong if the plate is bigger than 1x1.

Well, just for fun, try to take apart set 9390 (the mini Unimog), and imagine you're in that set's target age. Often with those tiny Technic sets I have my concerns about how hard they are to take apart. I sometimes wonder if TLC even tests this on children.

But I love the technique you describe. It's a very strong way to connect beams to create a rigid frame (see e.g. http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2459880)

---

Officially, there is a height difference between the height of a hole in a studded Technic brick, and the stud on the side of a headlight brick or brick-with-studs-on-side. Officially this is 0.12 mm, and as far as I know this has been a forbidden construction officially. Yet I use it extensively when snotting, partly because it simply opens a lot of new possibilities, but also because I think that height difference shouldn't be there.

---

Some mention the illegal 3L pin construction in 8043 (same as this one: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=5555724). Interestingly, I asked on another LUG "would you do this" and there overwhelming majority saying "yes, I would". I can understand it and the way DLuders things about it, and indeed - it's only a pin and I a thousand of those. But it somehow doesn't feel right if I'd use a construction like it in an instruction. The part is essentially being stressed.

[Anio]

Officially, there is a height difference between the height of a hole in a studded Technic brick, and the stud on the side of a headlight brick or brick-with-studs-on-side. Officially this is 0.12 mm, and as far as I know this has been a forbidden construction officially. Yet I use it extensively when snotting, partly because it simply opens a lot of new possibilities, but also because I think that height difference shouldn't be there.

Yep.

We discussed about that on SeTechnic. None understood why Lego created such a difference. It can be seen on that pic.

If someone has the explanation, I'm very interested.

I can understand it and the way DLuders things about it, and indeed - it's only a pin and I a thousand of those.

Yes, WE are AFOLs. We have a lot of parts, and we can buy parts. Or if an adult has a problem, he may be able to BL the part.

But what a bout a 8yo kid ?

I mean he may not have tons of Lego or may not be able to BL what he need to replace. This is something TLG has to consider, and this is why each kit must complies with strong standards.

edit @ mescalinum : oh yes, I remember the same thing on 8448. That what a pain in the ***

Edited September 23, 2012 by Anio

[Aanchir]

When it comes to techniques that seem to stress parts, something that should be considered is that parts are designed to undergo a certain amount of stress-- that is to say, they have built-in tolerances. It sounds like what you're describing in the Unimog goes beyond those tolerances, but I am not a Technic builder so I don't know the exact situation.

While LEGO does care about whether building techniques stress their parts enough to damage them (since parts damaged from prescribed building and play hurt the company's brand image), it should also be considered that illegal building techniques sneak into sets on a semi-regular basis. The reason is probably that unless parts become visibly warped or separated during quality control tests like the heat test, an illegal connection used accidentally (or sneakily, if the designer realized that it might cause problems) might never be noticed throughout the rest of the design process.

Yep.

We discussed about that on SeTechnic. None understood why Lego created such a difference. It can be seen on that pic.

If someone has the explanation, I'm very interested.

The reason for the height difference is that the space for the stud underneath the Technic brick necessarily pushes the hole upward-- when a stud is inserted into the bottom of the brick, there is very little clearance, unlike bricks with side studs which don't reduce the interior space of the brick at all.

The difference could be eliminated if the walls of the Technic hole were thinner, but that might be problematic for other reasons (perhaps it could cause mold defects where the inner wall is too thin, or perhaps it might lessen the clutch power these bricks have on Technic friction pins).

The reason bricks with side studs don't have their studs moved up to match the Technic ones is that a part attached to those side studs would then have its own walls rise above the "ceiling" of the brick with side stud. I hope this description makes sense to you.

Thankfully, Technic beams are designed with this difference in mind, so a Technic element like a beam attached to the side of a Technic brick will generally not create illegal connections. The same, unfortunately, can't be said for System elements attached to the sides of these bricks.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Aanchir

[Phoxtane]

What's the illegal build step in the Unimog? I just got mine and didn't notice any issues with how it was put together.

[Lipko]

I don't know why using plates other than 1x1 with beams is not allowed. Sure, it's hard to pull apart, but much easier than pulling apart 2 same sized plates, where there isn't anything to "grab". It's a magnitude harder to pull out a axle-pin from 2 half-beams (especially from 2x1 half beams) than getting the plate off a beam.

You are allowed to use tools, and use some creativity (pushing the plate with an axle from the other side). Okay, maybe we can't demand that from kids, but I remember form the old times those handy one-page tutorials at the beginning of booklets which showed how to pull apart some specific parts. Maybe it would be useful to reintroduce these?

EDIT: DOH, I've just took a closer look at that 5x1 plate + 5x1 halfbeam.

Frightening.

And another thing that TLG does all the time in booklets: Pushing beams together while having pins on BOTH pieces in the "contact zone". It's very hard and stressful to push these together, they only click when they are almost perfectly aligned. I often just re-plug the pins on one side then push the beams together.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Lipko

[Carsten Svendsen]

And another thing that TLG does all the time in booklets: Pushing beams together while having pins on BOTH pieces in the "contact zone". It's very hard and stressful to push these together, they only click when they are almost perfectly aligned. I often just re-plug the pins on one side then push the beams together.

That's because most of their designers think it's easier to do that, and I've read on the technic blog somewhere. I find that very hard to believe because, as you say, it really is much much easier connecting beams while all the pins are on the same beam

[Meatman]

That's because most of their designers think it's easier to do that, and I've read on the technic blog somewhere. I find that very hard to believe because, as you say, it really is much much easier connecting beams while all the pins are on the same beam

LOL. It is VERY MUCH easier to connect beams where the pins are on the same beam. It can be a nightmare trying to get just 2 pins on one beam and 2 pins on another to line up.

[Erik Leppen]

The reason for the height difference is that the space for the stud underneath the Technic brick necessarily pushes the hole upward-- when a stud is inserted into the bottom of the brick, there is very little clearance

That's the argument I have heard as well.

I then always reply with the following rebuttal:

Can someone explain how, in the light of the above theory, they managed to create this hole 1,6 mm lower than that in technic beams?

---

Also I agree with the above gripe on pins on both sides of two to-connect beams, or larger constructions. And yes, I read it on some website as well. I almost didn't believe it ;) What I usually do is for all pins where it is possible, only add them after the beams are in place. However I can't remember sets doing this so often. Does someone have an example?

[Lipko]

That's the argument I have heard as well.

I then always reply with the following rebuttal:

Can someone explain how, in the light of the above theory, they managed to create this hole 1,6 mm lower than that in technic beams?

---

Also I agree with the above gripe on pins on both sides of two to-connect beams, or larger constructions. And yes, I read it on some website as well. I almost didn't believe it ;) What I usually do is for all pins where it is possible, only add them after the beams are in place. However I can't remember sets doing this so often. Does someone have an example?

9396 has it somewhere. As far as I remember 8070 too.

A particular question I'm struggling with at the moment:

is it illegal if a driving ring only goes into a clutch gear with one click instead of two? It seems that it's not less stable, but looks a bit wrong anyway.

[Erik Leppen]

A particular question I'm struggling with at the moment:

is it illegal if a driving ring only goes into a clutch gear with one click instead of two? It seems that it's not less stable, but looks a bit wrong anyway.

I don't know if it's illegal, but I find it unreliable. Often when I have such a situation, when I exert some force on the gear train, it slips back into neutral position if the driving ring is not securely held into the offset position (which happens, for example, if the catch that put the ring there, is slid away to control another driving ring).

Speaking of driving rings by the way, what I have once done is using a driving ring over a smooth axle joiner, instead of the ridged one, this reduces the friction of sliding the driving ring - it goes much smoother. I used that to be able to control the driving rings with e.g. a spring system, or a motor. Of course it is also much easier for the ring to slide back, so the construction has to keep it in position. I'm pretty sure that's an illegal construction, because it bends the little clamps on the driving ring (that normally do the clicking-into-position on the axle joiners).

[mescalinum]

is it legal to use 6538c instead of 6538b with the 6539 driving ring ?

I use that when the driving ring is not hand-operated (e.g. operated by motor, or by some mechanism, so the ridge would just be annoying.

Although, it's not possible to connect them in LDD, so perhaps TLG has established they should not be used together (part number says the opposite )

[Meatman]

Aren't there tiny clips inside of the driving ring that are constantly stressed and can't relax back to normal when the new style is used?

[Erik Leppen]

Aren't there tiny clips inside of the driving ring that are constantly stressed and can't relax back to normal when the new style is used?

Wasn't that exactly what my post already says?

[lockdownTF]

I had no idea there was so many rules for building lego models. I thought pretty much anything outside of gluing pieces together or cutting them up to make new pieces would be fine.

[Blakbird]

is it legal to use 6538c instead of 6538b with the 6539 driving ring ?

I use that when the driving ring is not hand-operated (e.g. operated by motor, or by some mechanism, so the ridge would just be annoying.

Although, it's not possible to connect them in LDD, so perhaps TLG has established they should not be used together (part number says the opposite )

There are more differences between these parts than just the ridges. If you hold them end to end, you will see that the smooth version is actually larger in diameter as well, so it doesn't really fit right inside the driving ring. You can make it go though.

Years ago Philo did a comparison of all the different versions of this part when he was making the LDraw models of them for the library. I seem to remember that there were two versions of the smooth one. The oldest is the same cross section as 6539b but without ridges. Then later it was made bigger to match all the angle connectors. Look here.

[Nazgarot]

Hi,

I've added the techniques that we have discussed, and defined, to the first post.

Please feel free to suggest more dubious techniques... I really find this useful, as it helps me a lot to understand what might be required to have a model approved for cuusoo, and Lego competitions.

And, thanks for keeping the discussion clean and on topic!

-ED-

[Philo]

Years ago Philo did a comparison of all the different versions of this part when he was making the LDraw models of them for the library. I seem to remember that there were two versions of the smooth one. The oldest is the same cross section as 6539b but without ridges. Then later it was made bigger to match all the angle connectors. Look here.

Just to make things clear - the two versions of smooth joiner existed only in the LDraw library during a short time. AFAIK the smooth joiner physically exist only in one version, with dimensions that match angle connectors.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Philo

[Meatman]

Wasn't that exactly what my post already says?

I was skimming through the thread and missed what you had said. I noticed the post directly after yours asking about them being legal or not, so I assumed that the answer had still not yet been given.

[SNIPE]

I don't call it illegal, what would anybody have against it, I doubt lego really care nor would they care of you broke or damaged one of your parts.

In fact you can use the end of a full size bush with this not just axle connectors and even other parts.

The smooth axle connector has a tiny dot on it which catches on the selector barrel a bit which is a bit annoying.

Edited September 26, 2012 by SNIPE