Small Technic Challenge

[Bzroom]

I like to do this with my coworkers. When I feel like I've solved an interesting problem, I like to challenge them to come up with solutions so I can compare mine to theirs.

For me, this is one of the most challenging Technic beam connections, trying to rigidly connect these two beams in plane without adding lots of other thickness or size to the assembly.

I'm curious how you guys would approach this problem. My specific implementation adds another white beam in plane, with one stud in between the other. Feel free to add other components as necessary to rigidly mount the two together, but try to keep the space as small as possible, so that this connection can be use in the most cases.

I will post my solution after a few others have posted theirs.

If you dont have LDD, I highly recommend it. http://ldd.lego.com/

[DLuders]

I would just use a 55615 "Technic, Pin Connector Perpendicular 3 x 3 Bent with 4 Pins" part:

[Bzroom]

I completely agree. And definitely tried this first. However this illustration should show you the very tight space constraint I am under. The blue 3 stud pins are occupied with other connections.

[legomuppet9]

My solution for you:

Bzroom's Small Technic Challenge by legomuppet9, on Flickr

Edited March 29, 2013 by legomuppet9

[Bzroom]

I like it, this is very similar to my solution.

Since there is nothing else retaining the yellow beam to the white, it seems best to have as many pin connections to it as possible.

Edit:

Actually, yours is much more concise than mine, and is usable in much more cases. :)

Edited March 29, 2013 by Bzroom

[legomuppet9]

I use the connection quite a bit, it's very reliable

[Bzroom]

Here is mine. I needed the friction-less pin. Otherwise I would have used more of the red connectors.

Also, needing another yellow beam on the other end made the use of the long red connections appropriate.

I'm still interested in how everyone else would approach this problem.

I made a mistake. In my real application, the yellow beam is two studs shorter, further complicating the solutions.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Bzroom

[legomuppet9]

If there was a yellow beam the other side, then I'd probably put red connectors each side, but if not, I'd use my solution, it depends what the situation is to be perfectly honest...

[Bzroom]

I would use the red connections on both sides too, except I need the vertical friction-less pin shown.

[Alasdair Ryan]

Here is my one,If I could I would also add bracing to the outside connector.

Edit.... I see that this design does not show the triangle or the other beam,you could just replace both pin with axles and thin liftarms.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Alasdair Ryan

[Bzroom]

Your answer is a perfectly valid solution to the question asked. The only thing I fear is that the axle's hold strength is not as great as a pin, and the connection may come free more easily.

[Alasdair Ryan]

Your answer is a perfectly valid solution to the question asked. The only thing I fear is that the axle's hold strength is not as great as a pin, and the connection may come free more easily.

I would add a brace to the outside connector to both sides,you would have a 9 long beam on the other side right....?

[Bzroom]

I'm not sure exactly how you mean, but yes, in my case, there is another 9m beam on the other end.

[Alasdair Ryan]

You would end up with something like this.....

[Bzroom]

Wow that looks extremely sturdy.

[Alasdair Ryan]

Wow that looks extremely sturdy.

That might be because I am predominantly a studless builder.....

[Zerobricks]

Here's how i would do it with minimum amount of parts:

The T shaped beam cans till be atatched via 1 pin, I forgot to add a second beam, but you get the idea.

Edited March 29, 2013 by Zblj