Opinion on Status of SBrick

[Rijkvv]

Some people decide to make custom parts and I see why they do it. For better functionality or better looks. But often the difference is not that big to me. Printing hubcaps for example: great designing skills no doubt, but is it really neccesary? Isn't anyone allowed to see the wheels are Lego wheels?

Some people use lots of custom parts, up until the point I really think he/she lacks building skills. If the model consists of 50% custom parts, then why don't you customize the entire creation and go entirely to scale modeling?

[Dafgek81]

Isn't anyone allowed to see the wheels are Lego wheels?

Some people use lots of custom parts, up until the point I really think he/she lacks building skills. If the model consists of 50% custom parts, then why don't you customize the entire creation and go entirely to scale modeling?

I agree with this, Lego should not consist off very large amounts of custom parts.

But in some places for functionality is fine with me.

In case of trail trucks and competition with them, sometimes Lego parts aren't strong enough, so some custom parts could be needed.

As for wheels, I hate the wheels TLG puts on the loaders 8265 and 42030, they just look off.

The tires on 8265 are also ugly, no loader has balloon tires.

The wheels on 42030 are wrong to, the tires are to low and the rims to big.

The diameter is ok, but tire/rim should be about 50/50.

And the rims should be closed with no gaps.

When I am going to build one or both loaders M-Longer has made, I will use the rims Efferman made for it and have to find some third party tires to fit them.

I will use the rim he made for the 8265 loader with tires that match the tires in diameter used in the original one.

[aol000xw]

Lego bricks are a tool, use it as you please, just don't judge others by how they use/combine their tools.

[Appie]

I think the big difference of the Sbrick compared to other custom parts is that it provides a way of communication (Bluetooth) that isn't possible with the current PF remote control (yet) and unlike other custom parts, it can be replaced by 2 Lego IR recievers. So switching the MOC to 100% Lego is pretty easy. Sbrick's Bluetooth is good for MOCs in the sun, events with more than 4 people using PF models or boat MOCs where IR gives problems.

With manuals already on tablets, I think it's only a matter of time before Lego launches PF remote control system V2 (not the 9398 IR receiver, but a complete overhaul like the V2 pneumatics in the 42043) with IR and Bluetooth combined in one reciever.

[allanp]

Ok, so what's the difference between an illegal technique and an impure model? i thought an illegal technique was where you have the potential to cause permanent damage or deformation of a part (IE by having the ridges on a connector peg permanently pressed in as in 8043 or running a motor at too much voltage to get more power) and impure was the use use of third party parts excluding batteries. If that's correct then the S-brick is legal, better!, but not pure. Is that right, or is the use of a third party part itself an illegal technique?

Edited December 25, 2015 by allanp

[Dafgek81]

Lego bricks are a tool, use it as you please, just don't judge others by how they use/combine their tools.

+1

[dr_spock]

Think of it like solving a Rubic's Cube problem. You can do it within the rules of the game by turning the sides until you arrive at the solution. You can go outside of the rules of the game by printing or buying color stickers and putting them on as a solution. You can go more destructive by peeling the stickers off the cube to get to a solution. Depending on the circumstances, you're free to do whatever to your cube. If it is a competition, how do you feel about your competitor not playing by the game rules and winning?

Lego bricks are a tool, use it as you please, just don't judge others by how they use/combine their tools.

Yup, I've used LEGO bricks to fix my car. Not really it's intended toy purpose. The 2x2 bricks worked great to replace the broken rusted clips holding up the splash cover.

[Rijkvv]

Lego bricks are a tool, use it as you please, just don't judge others by how they use/combine their tools.

I don't judge people by the way they use or combine Lego with other stuff. However, for me personally I judge the MOCs, I have an opinion with whan I like and what I don't like. If there's lots of 3D printed parts or modified parts it's less likely I like the MOC. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, each has his/her personal taste. But I try not to comment on such things in a MOC topic.

[Nazgarot]

For me I think the S-brick and 3rd party tires are ok exceptions to purism. Both can be easily exchanged for "legal" parts, and they are only filling a gap that TLG don't seem willing to fill. It's also very hard to replace tires and the functionality of S-brick with something "pure". I would say it's the exception that makes the rule work.

Though with all that said, I'm very disappointed it the progress of the app for S-brick...

-ED-

[oracid]

For me, Legos are a means, not an end.

Therefore, I have no any forbidden.

[Appie]

Ok, so what's the difference between an illegal technique and an impure model? i thought an illegal technique was where you have the potential to cause permanent damage or deformation of a part (IE by having the ridges on a connector peg permanently pressed in as in 8043 or running a motor at too much voltage to get more power) and impure was the use use of third party parts excluding batteries. If that's correct then the S-brick is legal, better!, but not pure. Is that right, or is the use of a third party part itself an illegal technique?

I always find the discussion of illegal techniques rather funny when people talk about official sets. Sariel in his review of the 42050 even mentions he considered the bending of rigid hoses in that illegal, while in the 90's official sets made all kind of bends with rigid hoses for looks and the flex system. So my rule has always been simple: if it was ever in an official set, it's legal. It's their product, they know what beating it can take.

[ctx1769]

I have just been on the smart brick forums and the amount of trouble people are having with firmware and other issues, I don't think its worth the hassle

[A Gallifreyan Cat]

I think this is a really great discussion that everyone is having here, and I will just put out my position on Purism:

Cutting Parts: No, except things like string and pneumatic hose.

Gluing Parts: No

Painting Parts: No

3rd Party Parts: Here's where it comes to a bit of a grey area. Using things like Megabloks to replace pieces that LEGO makes is a no. Personally, I am appalled by the poor quality of Megabloks, but I will not use 3rd party pieces for something that LEGO makes, or for a solution that can be made with LEGO. If, however, the 3rd party piece is something that LEGO can not equal with any of its pieces(e.g. SBrick, Brickarms) then I am OK with using it.

When people use lots of custom parts however, it seems to me that there is little reason to have any of it be LEGO. For instance, if you wanted to build a high-functioning remote-controlled front end loader, you would not consider LEGO right away as a medium. The reason I would build it in LEGO would be as a challenge, because I would have to build within certain restrictions. If you want your LEGO car to be able to climb over anything and you are willing to modify anything to do it, you might as well just get a proper RC car.

In conclusion, these are my personal views. I completely respect anyone who chooses to modify or use 3rd party parts, and I hope we can continue this great discussion.

[Andy D]

I have just been on the smart brick forums and the amount of trouble people are having with firmware and other issues, I don't think its worth the hassle

I got the same impression... S-Brick just not ready for prime time, for me, maybe later.

As for any modification of parts, I just don't do it. Part of the challenge, part of the art of LEGO is building (for me) within the confines of available parts. I usually try to build within the limitations of my inventory (not small, but I do not have everything) and try to find a work around within the LEGO System.

As others have said, if someone else wants to cut, mold or mutilate parts for their own MOCs, so be it, I have no problem with that, it's your MOC, build it your way.

But I can understand the "only official LEGO parts" for contests for several reasons, among them leveling the playing field for costs (not everyone has access to a 3D printer) and maybe if TLG is somehow involved they obviously would want only official parts to be used no matter the precieved limitations.

Just MHO, YMMV,

Happy New Year,

Andy D

Edited December 26, 2015 by Andy D

[rollermonkey]

Sbrick is legal if a contest rules say so.

Otherwise, does it really matter if you are building to please yourself?

[AndyCW]

I am one of the AFOLs who use 3d printed parts, s-bricks, modified pieces, and a robotics grade motor controller/2.4 ghz receiver. I try to do it in moderation in order to get the best reception within the community and as a challenge to myself.

I'll turn a module around and around through numerous iterations trying to avoid the use of such elements and sometimes I succeed. Other times, the non-lego solution provides a unique functionality that becomes the base of a MOC.

Each MOC is founded on something that I think is unique, I enjoy seeing other peoples builds and deriving inspiration from them, but have little interest in building someone else's MOC. That path involves discovery, not innovation and I can discover through pictures and this forum.

It appears that third party tires and S-brick have a fairly high level of acceptance here as opposed to other options.

Also the question of legality and what not may not be a black/white dichotomy, but exist along a grey scale. People argue about what counts all the time, if there were no argument, then the dichotomy may be true.

I am puzzled by people who assert that once you have deviated the slightest bit from some 'ideal' you might as well abandon the Lego system. That smells of, "You're either with us or against us", but only Sith deal in absolutes

v/r

Andy

[Dafgek81]

I am puzzled by people who assert that once you have deviated the slightest bit from some 'ideal' you might as well abandon the Lego system. That smells of, "You're either with us or against us", but only Sith deal in absolutes

v/r

Andy

I agree on this

[fred-eric]

I have just been on the smart brick forums and the amount of trouble people are having with firmware and other issues, I don't think its worth the hassle

After one year the android application is still not working correctly...

[Rijkvv]

@A Gallifreyan Cat: you pretty sum up how I think about purism. I couldn't agree more. I like to add I have no problem with non-Lego stickers.

I'm not sure whether or not to use a Sbrick. It would be great in some ideas I have, in fact, I have a locomotive design I can only build with a Sbrick. But I don't like being dependent of software.

but I will not use 3rd party pieces for something that LEGO makes,

I agree on this, however, I made an exception with pneumatic tube. For recreating Jennifer Clark's JCB excavator I needed very long pieces of pneumatic hose, and these are rare. It was easier to buy a very similar kind from a 3rd party. Edited December 27, 2015 by Richie

[Dafgek81]

That I will do to when I am finishing my Actros.

I will buy third party pneumatic hoses.

And I am going to paint the pneumatic cylinders on the white crane white.

[SevenStuds]

I will buy third party pneumatic hoses.

And I am going to paint the pneumatic cylinders on the white crane white.

Could using white adhesive vinyl (plain white sticker) be an option to cover the yellow on the cylinders?

And does anyone know the official story of whether LEGO actually makes their hoses or resells them from another bulk manufacturer?

I don't see "LEGO" printed on any of their official hoses.

[nerdsforprez]

Great discussion.... lots of good comments.

To summarize my general thoughts on the topic of Lego purism:

I think we need to keep in mind that we are dealing with different definitions of an abstract concept; "Lego building." Taken literally, this probably appears to be easily defined by Lego purism. If taken literally, building My Own Creations in Lego.... then I understand the concept of purism.... and can see the point of view of purists. However, as one poster acutely pointed out "only Siths deal in absolutes"

Another way to look at it is to look no further than the title of the company itself ..... "Lego". We all know what it means... almost seems insulting to spell it out.... but the insight of the original founder of the company to "play well" is a definition, that IMO, defies purists approach to Lego. "Playing well" allows Lego to defy strict categorizations and broaden its audience to include so many; that is why it is the most popular toy in the world, and the one that is most marketable to adults. Everyone's idea of "playing well" is so different. To some, it is to see who can build the most visually appealing model in bricks, to others to build the most functional; but all within the confines of what Lego provides. Great, wonderful. Others are builders first, and primarily use Lego because they simply have found that Lego is the best medium for them to do this.... but, if something better comes along, even if it is a simple piece or part, then they will use it. Many don't even build at all! I know people whose idea of "playing well" is simply buying and selling sets, investing, etc. There are whole websites dedicated to this. And if you think that these are people who engage in such a practice for the money...... think again. It is for play (I am one of them....... I love building, and always will, but I also love investing in sets, watching trends, guessing which sets will be popular, which not, etc. (I have boxed, mint, a UCS MF set, UCS Imperial Shuttle, UCS Death Star, etc....). Many are on BL as a source of income, others to fund their hobby, and others still because they simply love the art of business and find Lego a fascinating medium to engage in something they love.

IMO we are just discussing different definitions of what it means to "play well." Kinda like a psychological experiment where you need to measure some abstract concept for the purpose of the study, but know that YOUR definition of that abstract concept is not an absolute, just one possibility out of many. You may think that your definition IS the best out of the known possibilities, but thinking your definition is the best does not preclude awareness that it is not the only one. Those who check out my builds know that I am not a purist, and regardless of the fact that I may think that is the best way to go does not excuse me of being aware that there are many, many different ways of defining what it means to "play well"......

[Dafgek81]

Great discussion.... lots of good comments.

To summarize my general thoughts on the topic of Lego purism:

I think we need to keep in mind that we are dealing with different definitions of an abstract concept; "Lego building." Taken literally, this probably appears to be easily defined by Lego purism. If taken literally, building My Own Creations in Lego.... then I understand the concept of purism.... and can see the point of view of purists. However, as one poster acutely pointed out "only Siths deal in absolutes"

Another way to look at it is to look no further than the title of the company itself ..... "Lego". We all know what it means... almost seems insulting to spell it out.... but the insight of the original founder of the company to "play well" is a definition, that IMO, defies purists approach to Lego. "Playing well" allows Lego to defy strict categorizations and broaden its audience to include so many; that is why it is the most popular toy in the world, and the one that is most marketable to adults. Everyone's idea of "playing well" is so different. To some, it is to see who can build the most visually appealing model in bricks, to others to build the most functional; but all within the confines of what Lego provides. Great, wonderful. Others are builders first, and primarily use Lego because they simply have found that Lego is the best medium for them to do this.... but, if something better comes along, even if it is a simple piece or part, then they will use it. Many don't even build at all! I know people whose idea of "playing well" is simply buying and selling sets, investing, etc. There are whole websites dedicated to this. And if you think that these are people who engage in such a practice for the money...... think again. It is for play (I am one of them....... I love building, and always will, but I also love investing in sets, watching trends, guessing which sets will be popular, which not, etc. (I have boxed, mint, a UCS MF set, UCS Imperial Shuttle, UCS Death Star, etc....). Many are on BL as a source of income, others to fund their hobby, and others still because they simply love the art of business and find Lego a fascinating medium to engage in something they love.

IMO we are just discussing different definitions of what it means to "play well." Kinda like a psychological experiment where you need to measure some abstract concept for the purpose of the study, but know that YOUR definition of that abstract concept is not an absolute, just one possibility out of many. You may think that your definition IS the best out of the known possibilities, but thinking your definition is the best does not preclude awareness that it is not the only one. Those who check out my builds know that I am not a purist, and regardless of the fact that I may think that is the best way to go does not excuse me of being aware that there are many, many different ways of defining what it means to "play well"......

Wow, quite the story there.

But how you said it, that is oh so true.

Just accepting each others meaning is the best way to go.

In the end we all have the same goal, having fun with our toys.

[Moz]

I have just been on the smart brick forums and the amount of trouble people are having with firmware and other issues, I don't think its worth the hassle

That's been my experience. Made worse by them deciding that posting the Volvo loader to me would cost too much so they offered me more sbricks or a (partial) refund. Yay, now I have lots of sbricks that more or less work some of the time but can't be put too deeply into a model because I have to be able to pull them back out easily. It's such a good idea, and so annoying that they don't work properly.

Just accepting each others meaning is the best way to go.

In the end we all have the same goal, having fun with our toys.

That's fine, as long as we're not trying to have a competition. Then you needs rules, and someone has to judge people.

I'm still kind of annoyed at Brickvention for their unofficial "looks like Lego" policy that means the winning models every year include non-Lego parts. You just can't build a winning model with only Lego parts because of how the judging is done. A couple of years ago the winning "Technic" model was stunning... until I realised that it only worked because of the non-Lego metal parts and lubrication. I'm inclined to forgive the non-Lego PF extensions because getting a metre of cable out of PF extensions is so unreliable. But "this works because I cut, drilled, made metal parts and glued them in place"... nope.

[clarkdef]

I use all sorts of other things to build including screws for a quick tough solution, I have heaps of fun doing it, you can really make capable things out of Lego if you can cheat a bit :p and it's interesting, because you get to solve different problems, good for the brain.