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

[BrickCommander]

Well, Anio wants a perfect model, I can understand that. But almost every LEGO set ever released is not perfect. Developing a set is an exercise in making many ends meet, and there are always some compromises. What seems like an easy enough fix to him might make our engineers shake their heads vigorously, or cause problems in the building sequence, make the build unneccessarily complicated, or create a breaking point somewhere else in the model that might not be so easy to fix.

75060 passed all the tests our professional model breakers could come up with with flying colors (and some of those tests are really, really mean ...). In case of sets based on reference material LEGO models just have to live with the effects of gravity, especially when the effects are so small that even after almost a year there really was only one complaint ...

For what it's worth I can promise you that the next UCS won't have this problem ;)

[khatmorg]

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 :) .

Not really sure what you mean with your comment about the ball joints. The "tail" is connected to the main body by use of beams. The clip and ball joint and only hold the side panels, they don't affect the stability of the model in the slightest.

As for the gap itself, it probably just falls under acceptable design perimeters. Much like the saggy wings on the x-wing(s). The mod works. But the forces causing the aforementioned gap, will probably cause the bricks to separate over time. If you don't reinforce the connection point.

Edited November 27, 2015 by khatmorg

[Anio]

Well, Anio wants a perfect model

No.

I am very aware of the concept of compromise. This is an essential concept to design good (UCS or regular) models. I use it in every UCS model I design.

[BrickCommander]

Meh, I think I don't want to talk about "gaps" in LEGO sets you're so obsessing about anymore, Anio. It's quite a ridiculous topic, when you get down to it. As it happens I am looking at the box of 75105 Millennium Falcon right now. Also my set. Wowser, there are quite some gaps there, big and fat right in the middle of the box front picture. And they are there all the time. And know what? No one cares. No. One. This set is just flying off the shelved like you wouldn't believe. Might even end up being the most popular set of the year. Sure, it's not a UCS, but if you believe "USC" means "seamless" than you misunderstood something.

Gaps ... Bah!

[randomwalk]

The level of complaint in this thread is quite disappointing. @BrickCommander: Thank you for designing such a great set - 75060 is one of my favorites and this "gap" issue is non-existent. It is obvious that the quality of construction of the UCS sets has improved dramatically over the years. I can't wait to see what is in store for next year.

[Cyanide-Tipped]

Oh cool...didn't know you designed the new MF as well. I love both my Slave 1 and my TFA MF. :)

[ArchieNov]

The level of complaint in this thread is quite disappointing. @BrickCommander: Thank you for designing such a great set - 75060 is one of my favorites and this "gap" issue is non-existent. It is obvious that the quality of construction of the UCS sets has improved dramatically over the years. I can't wait to see what is in store for next year.

Yeah, I wasn't expecting my topic to generate much controversy. I just wanted to share a simple solution to anyone who may find it useful. Definitely hoped this thread could have kept more positive.

But anyway, IMO the issue isn't really the "gap". I think it's common and perfectly acceptable to have some gaps present here and there in Lego sets.

What worried me was just the possibility for the UCS Slave 1's front end to noticeably droop or bend out of shape over time, or that the supporting technic liftarms might be permanently deformed if kept under stress over an extended period. But like I said in an earlier post, I haven't really experienced this yet since my Slave 1 is only a few months old. I'm basing this assumption mostly on Anio's picture and some other user comments. But nevertheless, I wanted to reinforce the structure just a little bit more to help with the weight and give me peace of mind.

The UCS Slave 1 is undoubtedly a very nice set. It's the one that convinced me to buy Lego sets again after 20+ years after all.

Edited November 28, 2015 by ArchieNov

[Kristof]

Lets start propper - nice mod. I don't own the set, can't judge how crucial this might be, yet it's clearly strenghtening the structure and with all the positives you mentioned (common parts, not many of them), I'm glad you shared it. I can imagine implementing it even as just a 'what if' type of thing.

The discussion about the gap might have been unwanted but there it is and I see nothing wrong about it. I believe people who report the issue don't lie on purpose, which means there is scope for improvement. On the other hand, let's be fair - where it is not?

This set is (at least in my oppinion) so innovative and interestingly built that I'm ready to accept several little flaws. I can't see why anyone would downrate this set as a whole.

And they are there all the time. And know what? No one cares. No. One.

This doesn't sound like the best response to (maybe objective) criticism. And reading your argument I just quote, which goes like 'why should we do better if people still buy it' is quite disappointing to be honest. And for example (and for your information), I personally do care about these MF gaps. Not saying the set is bad but in this particular case, gaps are one of the reasons for me not to buy the set. I rather hope that new and better design will come eventually.

Edited November 28, 2015 by krisandkris12

[Schneeds]

To be fair, there is a difference between a gap that is a result of the build design, versus one that is created by the forces of gravity. The MF structural design contained gaps. This was evident from the start and it doesn't deteriorate. In the case of the Slave 1, if a gap is indeed created by gravity and deteriorates over time, that is a design flaw. Quite a difference there; especially given the Slave 1 doesn't have much weight to it, unlike 10030.

That being said, mine does not appear to sag at all and seems quite solid. Given how light that part of the ship is, the angle it assumes on the stand, and how solid it feels, I was rather surprised to see a picture with a gap like that.

Also, Brickcommander, are you making these comments as a spokesman for Lego? You're rather testy my friend, and at least in America you have to be careful with things like that on forums ;)

[Anio]

To be fair, there is a difference between a gap that is a result of the build design, versus one that is created by the forces of gravity. The MF structural design contained gaps. This was evident from the start and it doesn't deteriorate. In the case of the Slave 1, if a gap is indeed created by gravity and deteriorates over time, that is a design flaw.

That's my point.

I couldn't have word it better.

[Lawngnome]

Because it seems to be a mostly isolated incident, the gap could conceivably result from loosely placed parts, or parts with minor tolerance issues throwing the geometry off. Have you tried rebuilding the set to see if the problem persists, Anio? You know, just to eliminate yourself from the list of suspects.

[gaut1202]

+1 to both of you above.

I thought that the sidepanels were slipping downwards because of they connexion to the tail, but in fact, it is the whole structure that is slipping, which is finally the same problem.

It means that the structure is not adapted to the tail, surently the most beautiful part of the set. When I first saw this picture, I reckoned that the structure was well thought :

But there is an obvious problem : both arms on each side pointing upwards are not in a conventional direction. Ok, it's not a problem. But there is room for play, with the fact that technic beams are used and that the tail is pulling everything downwards.

[Kristof]

That's right and it's exactly why ArchieNov's fix is great in it's simplicity. All it does is fixing this loose tetragon shape to the refference frame, assuring that it can't rock back and forth. I agree that such extra linkage would make sense if it were thought of originally and put into Lego design. Given by the amount of rigidity tests they claim to proceed, it's a bit surprising that the problem surfaced within the design stage.

[BrickCommander]

Also, Brickcommander, are you making these comments as a spokesman for Lego? You're rather testy my friend, and at least in America you have to be careful with things like that on forums ;)

This is a very good question, Schneeds! To avoid any such confusion I do not use any official LEGO logos or job titles and put a required disclaimer into my profile, identifying myself as just ... myself. That is pretty much what you have to do if you want to communicate with fans on a public forum. Which not many LEGO designers choose to do, it appears. I wonder why this is..? ;)

Of course as a designer working on very a confidential product line there are many, many (oh, SO many!) things I will not tell you. But I am always happy to talk about released product (especially my own) and the design process. I do so in a sometimes casual way, trying to avoid talking like a marketing person - which can sometimes come across as a bit testy. I'll try to do better. But in the end, dealing with fans can be a demanding task. There is a reason the word fan comes from "fanatic", after all.

Edited November 28, 2015 by BrickCommander

[BrickCommander]

This doesn't sound like the best response to (maybe objective) criticism. And reading your argument I just quote, which goes like 'why should we do better if people still buy it' is quite disappointing to be honest.

The wording may be a bit sloppy, I give you that, but like I explained earlier this is just ME talking, not an official speaker for LEGO or a marketeer. Sloppy maybe, but nevertheless a reality in product design.

As you may know, one LEGO motto is "only the best is good enough" - which is quite often misunderstood. It does NOT mean sparing absolutely no expenses making product that, in the end, will even lose you money. That is the way into bancruptcy.

It rather means making the best product possible under the circumstances, while always striving to do even better. 75060 was the best we could do at that time, I can say that without reservation.

[BrickCommander]

That's right and it's exactly why ArchieNov's fix is great in it's simplicity. All it does is fixing this loose tetragon shape to the refference frame, assuring that it can't rock back and forth.

I am afraid it does a bit more than that. Even if that connection were "legal" (meaning 100% in LEGO-building system, which given the angles involved would be a HUGE coincidence) what it would do is greatly increase the risk of the final product breaking under stress!

The brick you are attaching to is sitting unlocked in a brick-build section of the model. This means it is only surrounded by other bricks and not attached to anything secure in a vertical way (with plates or technic beams). Only the pilot seat is supposed to connect to that brick.

But if you would connect that loooooooooong "handle" of the slave One to that element we are suddenly talking about a whole different amount of force applied than just the small turning function of the seat. Rough handling would quickly tear the bricks in the cockpit area apart and break the model.

Our engineers would have spotted this immediately. It took me as a designer a little bit longer, and you as fan builders didn't see it at all. Which is ok since you most likely handle your sets with care and don't have to worry about product quality.

But it also demonstrates why our development system make sense: professional designers designing, professional engineers checking the designers' work, and fans ... giving us all your money! :)

To sum it up: this modification would NOT be OK for a LEGO product, but is ok to do on your own 75060 - on your own risk!

[Kristof]

Thanks for clarification and for having this discussion in general. I can't say about validity of that connection but it would be great if someone proved it either way. As much as I'm friend with geometry, dimensions of lego bricks is what ruins my attempts for computation most of the time. And since there is quite huge tollerance in LDD (i wonder why, since some connections that actually are valid doesn't work there), I usually rely on the 'feel' when trying to connect and align in real.

I wish I had the budget for the set, now even more than before - this interests me a lot, yet I feel quite inappropriate in the discussion since I only judge from building instructions and pictures.

Nevertheless, I may slightly disagree about the risk of breaking that brick built studs up section. The orientation of the force applied to that DBG technic brick is less than 45% from horizontal, which means it tries to pull the brick sideways rather than upwards and studs can hold this really well. especially since there are several more rows of bricks and plates above. Also the loooong handle you mention doesn't work like extra leverage here. It's just the mass of the tail section which matters. Thus, assuming that the original construction is strong enough, there isn't much stress added to the cockpit section, I would swear on that :) Actually there should be (if the connection is valid) almost no force bond if we state that the tendency for the gap to even appear is really low (which I still believe, despite some counter examples, i.e. Anio's pic)

Still (again, sorry for repeating myself), it's excellent set, gap or no gap. Probably the UCS set I desire the most.

[Anio]

The brick you are attaching to is sitting unlocked in a brick-build section of the model. This means it is only surrounded by other bricks and not attached to anything secure in a vertical way (with plates or technic beams). Only the pilot seat is supposed to connect to that brick.

But if you would connect that loooooooooong "handle" of the slave One to that element we are suddenly talking about a whole different amount of force applied than just the small turning function of the seat. Rough handling would quickly tear the bricks in the cockpit area apart and break the model.

True.

I can see such things on my own design as well.

Regarding the Slave 1, putting a simple vertical reinforcement on the DBG 1x6 brick solve the problem.

To do so, designing the cockpit slightly differently might be necessary. Removing/changing the black plate 6x8 is probably an option (thus, the vertical reinforcement can go through and deep in the model).

Swoping some hardly visible details in the cockpit against stability and reliability of the build is a very good thing.

[gotoAndLego]

...There is a reason the word fan comes from "fanatic", after all.

I thought it came from fantastic. LOL

[took9]

75060 passed all the tests our professional model breakers could come up with with flying colors (and some of those tests are really, really mean ...). In case of sets based on reference material LEGO models just have to live with the effects of gravity, especially when the effects are so small that even after almost a year there really was only one complaint ...

For what it's worth I can promise you that the next UCS won't have this problem ;)

I wonder, that there ist no software full of all these plastic parameters which can examine these gravity effects (bending) after months and years. Because Lego is famous for its long life (or a life period) material and spend a lot of money in material development.

[BrickCommander]

Regarding the Slave 1, putting a simple vertical reinforcement on the DBG 1x6 brick solve the problem.

Anio, if you want to lock vertically down the whole inside of the cockpit, an 11 unit long technic beam would be off by only 1 plate. That's actually not that bad - raising the 1x6 technic brick the seat is attached to by one plate would make it fit.

Unfortunately doing this would almost certainly get you a "NO GO" (as in "no fricking way!!!") from the building instruction collegues who know they simply cannot show the placement of locking beams going down as far as these INSIDE the model in the instructions the way they want, even if there weren't other beams in the way already at that point.

[Cyanide-Tipped]

As it happens I am looking at the box of 75105 Millennium Falcon right now. Also my set. Wowser, there are quite some gaps there, big and fat right in the middle of the box front picture. And they are there all the time. And know what? No one cares. No. One.

I do somewhat care about those gaps though...and so does Lawngnome who created this post to change the model.

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=117518

Did I still buy it...sure! Do we love the set...of course we do. But we will mod our sets to get rid of gaps. No hate...I love all my SW Lego sets. :)

[BrickCommander]

Did I still buy it...sure! Do we love the set...of course we do. But we will mod our sets to get rid of gaps. No hate...I love all my SW Lego sets. :)

Modifying sets and posting pictures is perfectly fine of course, be it cosmetic improvements or more technical upgrades like a landing gear for the 75105 Falcon*. In fact I like checking out what fans come up with. Been there myself once :)

It just becomes a problem when certain individuals, a lit torch in one hand and murder in their eyes, get on a crusade because the final set wasn't designed the way THEY think it should have been. On a LEGO set there is always a reason why things are how they are, and those reasons are not always obvious.

*the modded landing gear on that 75105 has no stopper in down position, the liftarms are pushing against the plates on which the rest of the ship is built on - an absolute NO GO in a set. It would also be considered tedious and not fun for kids having to operate all 4 landing legs manually. Just in case you were wondering why the Falcon has fixed landing legs in the set

[Backgild]

BrickCommander, thanks for these glimpses into the design process. It is fascinating to learn more about the constraints that you are under as a designer.

[H_Solo]

I had this beautiful set out on display from day one, "the gap" was today still not so so big as shown on page one of this thread... but it was noticable, if you knew it was there...

I just recreated the mod shown here as I had all the needed parts on hand... The model feels more solid now and looks exactly as on day one.

I'll keep an eye on if there is more strain on the brickbuilt cockpit area... I understand the issue, but as I don't swoosh it around, I kind of doubt that there will be a problem.