1x1 brackets, why don't they fit at their bottom?

[astyanax]

Given 2 of part 36840 , I thought I could put them together like so:

It works out in LDraw, but not in real life. The brackets' bottoms collide, forcing one of them to launch from the plate's bottom.

Does this seem logical? Or are my brackets poorly molded?

[caiman0637]

I think that's just how they work, or don't work, I guess. May I ask why you put them together like that?

[astyanax]

3 minutes ago, caiman0637 said:

May I ask why you put them together like that?

Just trying different SNOT building techniques.

The bracket side should have size 1x1 module (2.5x2.5 plates), such that 2 of them fit under a 2M brick or plate in any orientation. But apparently the shown orientation doesn't work, which doesn't make sense to me, geometrically speaking.

[1963maniac]

I think the little stud inside the bottom of the 1x2 plate is a little bit too large for that connection to work.

[astyanax]

Here's how it looks in reality, compared with the downward bracket:

My conclusion is that the hollow stud on the bracket is not centered but very very slightly raised. I have no geometrically sensible explanation for this.

Again: LDraw insists that the hollow stud is perfectly centered. Apparently LDraw isn't the ground truth, who knew.

[deraven]

5 hours ago, astyanax said:

I have no geometrically sensible explanation for this.

My guess is that it's because of how the bracket may be used in-System.  Because it is an upward-facing bracket, it is conceivable that it would be placed on top of a plate or brick in the middle with studs on either side, and the height from the bottom edge of the bracket to the lowest point of the outward-facing stud needs to accommodate the upward-facing stud from the plate or brick under it.  Older upward-facing brackets do appear to have the studs centered and so have a collision of approx 0.1mm, so I'm guessing they moved this stud up by about that amount to allow it to "legally" connect flush in that configuration.

I don't have any handy to try; if you try it IRL does this bracket still have that issue where the bottom plate of the bracket won't quite sit flush if there's a stud under the side-facing stud of the bracket?

[dr_spock]

A little bit of sandpaper should make it work like LDraw. 

 

[caiman0637]

47 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

A little bit of sandpaper should make it work like LDraw.  

 

You couldn't!

[Mylenium]

14 hours ago, astyanax said:

Does this seem logical?

Yes, it's logical. The stud is not on an even fraction of the raster. Putting them together like you do would cause an offset in the opposite direction, moving it completely off grid and preventing this kind of construct. The metrics of brackets are explained somewhere, but I can't seem to find the link right now.

Mylenium

[Lira_Bricks]

If only Lego would standardize the sizes... No logo on the studs, technic-bricks and SNOT-bricks having the holes at the same height, brackets being able to fit as mentioned in the OP,...

9 hours ago, dr_spock said:

A little bit of sandpaper should make it work like LDraw. 

Only problem is that you get plastic dust you need to dispose of. Does not sound healthy to breath in.

[astyanax]

4 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Yes, it's logical. The stud is not on an even fraction of the raster. Putting them together like you do would cause an offset in the opposite direction, moving it completely off grid and preventing this kind of construct. The metrics of brackets are explained somewhere, but I can't seem to find the link right now.

But it's not consistent. For example, the side-facing studs on don't have this ~0.1mm offset. So 2 of those can fit under a plate with their bottoms facing each other:

10 hours ago, deraven said:

My guess is that it's because of how the bracket may be used in-System.  Because it is an upward-facing bracket, it is conceivable that it would be placed on top of a plate or brick in the middle with studs on either side, and the height from the bottom edge of the bracket to the lowest point of the outward-facing stud needs to accommodate the upward-facing stud from the plate or brick under it.  Older upward-facing brackets do appear to have the studs centered and so have a collision of approx 0.1mm, so I'm guessing they moved this stud up by about that amount to allow it to "legally" connect flush in that configuration.

I don't have any handy to try; if you try it IRL does this bracket still have that issue where the bottom plate of the bracket won't quite sit flush if there's a stud under the side-facing stud of the bracket?

I had to read that a couple times, but I think you mean something like this:

Yes, in this case, the white and black studs touch, but the black bracket sits flush.

But I don't see why this is of concern. Now both the black and white stud are useless. If you want the black bracket to sit on a larger plate, we have a whole selection of partially studded plates like ...

[Mylenium]

1 hour ago, astyanax said:

But it's not consistent. For example, the side-facing studs on don't have this ~0.1mm offset. So 2 of those can fit under a plate with their bottoms facing each other:

You have to think within the system and how those plates/ brackets and bricks with studs are designed to go together in specific orders, with additional plates inbetween if needed. What you have there is at the very least "off-label-use" and likely even an "illegal" technique. LEGO designers would never officially use it, I'm sure, as opposing plates are typically butted against each other and held in place by other elements built on top of them/ around them, without the plates actually being connected.

Mylenium

[koalayummies]

LDD as well.

[deraven]

4 hours ago, astyanax said:

I had to read that a couple times, but I think you mean something like this:

Yes, in this case, the white and black studs touch, but the black bracket sits flush.

But I don't see why this is of concern. Now both the black and white stud are useless. If you want the black bracket to sit on a larger plate, we have a whole selection of partially studded plates like ...

Yes, sorry- I wasn't able to post an image at the time so did my best with words.    And I do agree with you- it seems like a pointless configuration, but if it was simply part of a new set of more rigid standards for newer parts or something along those lines it could explain it.

Although... does it still fit flush like that on a standard plate or brick?  The stuf from the white bracket is hollow and without the logo print, and I think the "LEGO" is where the 0.1mm of collision comes from.