[MOD] UCS Slave 1 (anti-droop/bend when on stand)

[ArchieNov]

Hi. I read about an issue with the UCS Slave 1 where the front section may eventually droop with time after being placed on the stand. See topic below for reference with a picture:

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=115020entry2340804

Since I'm not a fan of the look of the Slave 1 lying on the ground, I decided to come up with the simplest solution I could think of. Here's what I used:

You'll need 2 of each of the parts in the picture. For the blue technic pin, you can substitute another black one instead if you want.

The next step is to pull off the side panels and look for the set of parts encircled in red and remove them.

After which, you will need to build this part using the two 1x2 plates from earlier, while reusing the parts you just removed (minus the 2x3 tan plates)

Place this new set of parts onto the same area as before like so:

Next up is to place the actual pieces that will help support the weight of the front section. Begin by placing the technic pins as follows (on both sides):

This next part is a little tricky if you don't do some partial disassembly (I didn't), but set the technic liftarm onto the pins on both sides.

All that's left now is to put it all back together and you're done! The front part should be pretty rock solid now regardless of the Slave 1's orientation and shouldn't bend/sag/droop anymore. Hopefully this will stand the test of time. You can see in the pic below that the gap is very minimal now.

Hope you will find this helpful or informative. Thanks for reading!

Edited February 26, 2016 by ArchieNov

[Azrielsc]

This is really informative!

I haven't noticed any droop in my Slave 1 but I wil go home and try it out.

Thanks for the step-by-step guide!

[JPN366]

Wow... such a simple but effective MOD. It's strange that LEGO didn't include this in the basic instructions and pieces. I will definitely bookmark this for when I finally get the Slave I. Thank you, ArchieNov!

[Cyanide-Tipped]

Interesting mod...I guess I could learn to live with the gap on my Slave 1 because of the relatively big gap already there around the huge dark green circular Lego pieces near it. Albeit your mod does reduce that gap as well.

Nonetheless thanks for this!

[Aethersprite]

Nice mod! I didn't know 75060 had this issue. Thanks for the instructions, I'll be bookmarking this for when I have time to mod my Slave I :)

[ArchieNov]

Thank you everyone for the kind words.

To be honest, my Slave 1 isn't that old yet (less than 3 months) and so I haven't actually seen it droop as much as the one in Anio's picture. But I did notice that the gap would widen when I changed the position from a horizontal to a vertical stance, which made me think that the technic structure needed more reinforcement. Hence I did the mod. At least now, my mind can rest at ease leaving it on the stand for an indefinite amount of time.

The thing I like about my mod is that:

• it's very discreet (almost unnoticeable from the outside)
  
• only needs very minimal disassembly
  
• only uses 10 additional parts in total, most of which are common spare parts
  

In other words, there's no real harm or effort to get it done.

Edited November 25, 2015 by ArchieNov

[JPN366]

Thank you everyone for the kind words.

To be honest, my Slave 1 isn't that old yet (less than 3 months) and so I haven't actually seen it droop as much as the one in Anio's picture. But I did notice that the gap would widen when I changed the position from a horizontal to a vertical stance, which made me think that the technic structure needed more reinforcement. Hence I did the mod. At least now, my mind can rest at ease leaving it on the stand for an indefinite amount of time.

The thing I like about my mod is that:

• it's very discreet (almost unnoticeable from the outside)
  
• only needs very minimal disassembly
  
• only uses 10 additional parts in total, most of which are common spare parts
  

In other words, there's no real harm or effort to get it done.

What makes it a good MOD is that it's correcting an oversight that should have already been there to begin with. The fact that it's so simple makes me think it actually was an oversight in the structuring. I mean... the Technic beams are already there.

Edited November 25, 2015 by JPN366

[Anio]

One question remains : When will TLG admit that the product has a problem ?

(and when are they going to fix it ; like the Wall-e set)

[Mencot]

Good mod, thanks.

One question remains : When will TLG admit that the product has a problem ?

(and when are they going to fix it ; like the Wall-e set)

good question

[YellowCorvette]

I don't have the UCS Slave 1 yet, but the solution is simple yet effective.

[lowlead]

Great mod! I'll definitely implement this next time the fleet gets a dust off.

One question remains : When will TLG admit that the product has a problem?...

With the culprit being the sagging forces of time, my guess would be never. I can't imagine how warped my 10030 would be if I hadn't added a third forward stand.

[Anio]

With the culprit being the sagging forces of time, my guess would be never. I can't imagine how warped my 10030 would be if I hadn't added a third forward stand.

There is something much simpler to do : instead of attaching the triangular upside down, just stack them (both with studs up).

I did that with mine. Never had any problem.

[Cyanide-Tipped]

What do you mean by that Anio?

[Anio]

What do you mean by that Anio?

By what ? My post regarding the 10030 ?

Just stack the 2 triangles (with 2 plates between and vertical reinforcement of course) instead of putting one upside down, and it makes a stronger structure. Can't be more specific than that.

[BrickCommander]

One question remains : When will TLG admit that the product has a problem ?

(and when are they going to fix it ; like the Wall-e set)

Small gaps in LEGO models spotted by adult consumers are generally not considered a quality problem. If you believe your set has a defect, call consumer service. If enough people call about the same problem, action will be taken. Or at least considered. And I have seen the call sheet for this product for the past 10 months. People didn't even call about the sticker sheet. Scratches in the windscreen are a problem, and of course lots of missing Boba Fetts ... ;)

I am not worried about drooping. I have a copy sitting on the display stand untouched for two full years now, and the gap hasn't widened noticeably.

Oh, and the obvious question, of course: why didn't I put those extra beams in myself in the first place? Well, I would have to check this out in detail, but my guess would be that the new beams are not attached 100% in-system. They only fit because the whole structure is flexible so the technic holes in question can be made to align. You can do that with your own sets you bought, but as a designer most of the time I cannot do that. It may also complicate the building process, but again I would have to check that.

Designing a set isn't nearly as simple as some adult fans believe. Sometimes I wish we would invite some of you to bring your creations you believe are good enough to be sets and have a simulated quality meeting with our engineers.

But then again maybe it's better we don't do that. We would have to get mops and buckets for all the fan tears.

[lowlead]

There is something much simpler to do : instead of attaching the triangular upside down, just stack them (both with studs up).

I did that with mine. Never had any problem.

Heh, funny you mention that, I actually did both:

http://www.brickshel...ISC/isdmod2.jpg

http://www.brickshel...ISC/isdmod3.jpg

...Designing a set isn't nearly as simple as some adult fans believe. Sometimes I wish we would invite some of you to bring your creations you believe are good enough to be sets and have a simulated quality meeting with our engineers.

But then again maybe it's better we don't do that. We would have to get mops and buckets for all the fan tears.

ZZZIIINNNGG

Edited November 27, 2015 by lowlead

[ArchieNov]

Oh, are you the designer for UCS Slave 1? Wow this is so awesome! I read your interview on the manual + watched your designer video on youtube. You seem like a great guy! Anyway, I find it really fantastic that you would take the time to visit this forum

I am not worried about drooping. I have a copy sitting on the display stand untouched for two full years now, and the gap hasn't widened noticeably.

This is really good to know and was the reassurance I wanted to hear before I tried making my mod. But I think it's just fine that I did anyway since it does help in making the front section pretty rock solid with minimal effort/parts.

Oh, and the obvious question, of course: why didn't I put those extra beams in myself in the first place? Well, I would have to check this out in detail, but my guess would be that the new beams are not attached 100% in-system. They only fit because the whole structure is flexible so the technic holes in question can be made to align. You can do that with your own sets you bought, but as a designer most of the time I cannot do that. It may also complicate the building process, but again I would have to check that.

Can you let me know what you find? I would very much like to hear what you think about the mod I did. I'm not good at doing these things so I won't be able to tell if it is 100% in-system or too complicated. I'm just a new AFOL and I only started buying LEGO again just 3 months ago after a dark age of 25+ years. In fact, your UCS Slave 1 was the Lego set that brought me out of the dark ages.

Thanks for reading and I hope to hear from you again!

Edited November 27, 2015 by ArchieNov

[Daedalus304]

Very nice mod! I was a little worried it would be difficulty to get the beams lined up, but it actually went very smoothly and as far as I can tell nothing has been stressed at all. The gap isn't entirely gone, but the whole thing is locked into place nicely. Now I just need to find a quick fix to keep the sides from flaring out as much!

One thing I did change from your mod was to use these instead of the 2-long technic pins inside the cockpit. This made it incredibly easy to lock the 5L liftarm into place without having to bend or strain anything.

Thanks for sharing!

Edited November 27, 2015 by Daedalus304

[ArchieNov]

Very nice mod! I was a little worried it would be difficulty to get the beams lined up, but it actually went very smoothly and as far as I can tell nothing has been stressed at all. The gap isn't entirely gone, but the whole thing is locked into place nicely. Now I just need to find a quick fix to keep the sides from flaring out as much!

One thing I did change from your mod was to use these instead of the 2-long technic pins inside the cockpit. This made it incredibly easy to lock the 5L liftarm into place without having to bend or strain anything.

Thanks for sharing!

Glad you found it helpful! And the pin you used is a good idea too; really should make it a lot easier to place it in. I didn't have a spare one of those so I just made do with the 2-long technic pin hehe. Thanks for sharing that great alternative :)

Edited November 27, 2015 by ArchieNov

[Anio]

Small gaps in LEGO models spotted by adult consumers are generally not considered a quality problem.

Sure. But in what universe is this a small gap ?

but my guess would be that the new beams are not attached 100% in-system.

Certainly.

Then the point is precisely to find a way to attach the parts in the system. I am sure it is possible. With frictionless pins if necessary.

You can do that with your own sets you bought, but as a designer most of the time I cannot do that.

That is quite unconvincing...

The wings of the very same Slave 1 rely on parts flexibillty...

If parts were absolutely stiff, wings wouldn't be able to rotate with more than 45°.

Or 8110 roof. Every experienced builder was chocked how the part 33299 was used.

These are only 2 examples I can think of. There are certainly many other.

[Cyanide-Tipped]

What Anio says about the gap rings true.

People didn't even call about the sticker sheet.

I wish that were true for the UCS X-Wing #10240. That windshield should DEFINITELY been printed on and NOT a sticker.

[BrickCommander]

Sure. But in what universe is this a small gap ?

Why, in the LEGO Star Wars universe, of course! ;)

Where, i might add, the Slave One is in good company with the UCS Millennium Falcon having more and even larger gaps.

And now be honest, how hard were you pulling on the poor model in the photo? :(

[Anio]

I didn't. That's the problem...

[Lobot]

No set is perfect, but it's definitely one of my favourite UCS sets. I only displayed mine for a week (before my usual fear of dust and light damage persuaded me to return it to the safety of its original box!) but my initial impressions were that it was a solid design. I really enjoyed building it, although perhaps the underside greebling is a little 'sparse' compared to the original model. Personally, I would have preferred a slightly higher price-point to remedy this, if the production cost was an issue.

However, the box art is without question the best of any set I've owned, it's just beautiful :wub:

[gaut1202]

Really a huge gap, which is very surprising for an official model.

But I don't understand one thing : is the connexion between the tail and the body already forcing right after the finshed build with the ball joints and clip connexions ? They are for sure angles which are out of the Lego system. If it does, how could it be validated in the production process ?

Ball joints offer many possibilities, but can they be considered as usable when linked to heavy elements, such as the tail here ? I never used these kind of parts.

And last but not least, was this gap really noticed during the design process ? If yes, what were the solutions you could offer to solve it ? I'm pretty sure that with the variety of tests and TLC expectations you were praising, you could have anticipated it.

And it shouldn't be taken as a sad fact. To me, it means that TLC doesn't care about quality, and sells unfinished, botched products.

The worse is that it's not the only model to suffer from design problems, and we can only hope to encounter as many exceptions as already seen in the past in the future. And I didn't even mentioned the #10221, made by the guy who designed the #10215 and #10240, which are both excellent sets. So where does the responsability in a design process of both TLC and the designer begins or ends ?

Nevertheless, there are still very good, well thought, simple and clever models. I'm only looking forward to seeing these kinds of sets to be still produced :) .