Illegal connections

[ShaydDeGrai]

(snip)... isn't a 5 sided tower (using round bricks and other parts to make the non-90 degree anges) in a sense an illegal use of LEGO??

I see all of those attempts at making a multi-sided Roman Coliseum with round bricks used for the curvature of the sides... aren't they also an illegal use? Or am I mistaking not being on the the baseplate stud "grid plan"... as an illegal use?

I'd have to side with Aanchir on this one. Being "off the gird" is not the same as being "out of system." Were that the case, elements like hinges and turntables wouldn't exist.

Based on TLG presentations, chats with other builders and my own lessons learned from pushing the envelope a tad too far on occasion, I feel that the four things to consider when deciding what is "illegal" are:

1) Does it place the brick under unnatural, persistent strain?

2) Is the connection strong and stable enough for its intended use in the model?

3) Can it be undone without resorting to extraordinary means (teeth, pliers, paper clips, finger strength of an elder titan, etc.)?

4) Did you need to mutilate, file, drill, glue, melt, etc. any part to get it work in the first place?

As far as I'm concerned (not that that is worth much) if you answered "yes" to any of these questions, perhaps a better solution is in order. Of course, some of these rules are more subjective than others. For those whom I haven't already bored to tears, I will elaborate.

Rule one, (strain) comes in many forms (compression, tension, torquing, etc.) but usually boils down to being just slightly "off the grid" such that a connection can be "made to work" with enough force or a willingness to let the parts deform over time. You mention round walls for things like a Roman Coliseum, these could be legal or illegal, it all depends on the parts used. If you simulate a round wall with actual hinges, you're fine. Likewise, if you build a bent wall by alternating, say, 1x3 bricks with 1x1 round bricks, this is also fine (down to about a 26 stud diameter circle, much smaller and the corners of the brick start to press against side-walls of the round) as you're effectively making your own (limited swing hinge). The place where many builders push the limit is when they build regular one stud thick walls and then use the micro-tolerances in the "rectangular" block and elasticity of the ABS to "bend" the wall into a broad curve.

When building curved walls, _my_ general rule of thumb with respect to the strain rule is: "if it can't hold its shape when the two ends of the wall aren't connected to anything, it isn't legal. If there's spring-back (a tendency to become less curved when pressure is no longer being applied) there's too much strain on the bricks. My micro Minas Tirith MOC follows this rule and, I think, is a good example of going "off the grid" without putting undue strain on the bricks themselves.

Rule two (strength for purpose) I find to be the most subjective. No all connections are of equal strength and I'm willing to accept a more delicate connection for a static display model than I am for a "toy". Spaceships should be "swooshable" without fear of bits flying off or being crushed when you pick them up "the wrong way". Technic models and trains are supposed to move and carry other things so they need to be rock solid. An architecture set, where the primary goal if to look good sitting on a shelf, on the other hand, can get away with "gravity fits" and under-supported elements. Sure the Leaning Tower of Pisa isn't the most stable kit out there and Falling Water becomes "Flying Pieces" if you flip it over, but for reasonable "anticipated use" they are good enough to be "legal"

Rule Three (ability to undo) usually relates to the coefficient of friction between polycarbonate and itself (which is higher than that of PC to ABS or ABS to ABS) but also deals with "impossible to undo" connections. For example, in the Technic system, particularly with box frame parts , it is possible to create assemblies with length 2 axles that completely bury both ends of the axle and give the user no access path for disassembly. In addition, many connections that violate rule #1 (strain) violate this rule as well, such as jamming a 1x3 plate into the pin holes of a 1x4 Technic brick - it takes a fair amount of force to make the connection and similar (though harder to apply evenly) force to break it afterwards.

Rule Four (purism) usually goes without saying. I'm willing to accept things held in place by string, magnets and rubber bands (so long as they are LEGO string, magnets and rubber bands) but I draw the line at filing off bits to make a gap go away, boring a hole in the side wall of a brick to accept a randomly aligned stud, gluing bricks (or parts of sawn up bricks) together to create "new" elements, etc. I'm just not a fan of brick mutilation.

[Lego Otaku]

An example of legal but off the grid connection. Cool look but a real pain in the butt if you want to secure it onto the baseplate. The tower using 1x2 can be made smaller than 1x3, and if you used log brick, even smaller without being illegal.

[Palathadric]

First of all, you're not going to get thrown in jail for using one.

I don't know about that. It depends entirely on how many police sets you have and how corrupt your officers are.

[UrbanErwin]

Rule Four (purism) usually goes without saying. I'm willing to accept things held in place by string, magnets and rubber bands (so long as they are LEGO string, magnets and rubber bands) but I draw the line at filing off bits to make a gap go away, boring a hole in the side wall of a brick to accept a randomly aligned stud, gluing bricks (or parts of sawn up bricks) together to create "new" elements, etc. I'm just not a fan of brick mutilation.

I was wondering where that line is for flextube and pneumatic tube. (I created a double stud this way once)

[Aanchir]

I was wondering where that line is for flextube and pneumatic tube. (I created a double stud this way once)

For a MOCist, the line is wherever you draw it. I know some MOCists look down on what they see as "abuses" of this freedom (for instance, cutting flex cable lengthwise or cutting it to extraordinarily short measurements), so it really depends on how you want your MOC to be perceived. There's a lot of merit to be had in finding solutions that don't require mutilating pieces in any way, but at the same time, flex cable is one of those few places where you aren't constrained by what lengths are produced in each color — cut it yourself with a straight enough cut at the right length and it will be almost indistinguishable from an official, pre-cut piece.

For a set designer, I'm sure the cutting of flex cable and pneumatic tubing is discouraged in a lot of contexts (after all, they are able to cut them to an assortment of different lengths even before the sets are packaged), but not prohibited. The Seattle Space Needle set from the LEGO Architecture sets is the most recent set of mine that required cutting flex cable, and it needed its flex cable at a very specific length — it couldn't be just a multiple of eight millimeters like most pre-cut flex cable.

Edited October 17, 2013 by Aanchir

[ShaydDeGrai]

I was wondering where that line is for flextube and pneumatic tube. (I created a double stud this way once)

This is purely my opinion so discount it appropriately, but I think strings and tubes are the only "official" Lego parts where cutting is acceptable and, in the case of pneumatic tubing, is an anticipated aspect of the part's life cycle. From an engineering standpoint it makes sense that one would "right-size" pneumatic tubing and I even recall a few kits back when the pneumatic system first came out that came with one long tube and the official instructions told you to cut it to certain lengths. So, as far as the cutting action is concerned, _I_ don't consider it the same as "brick mutilation" where, say, someone took a razor saw and X-Acto Knife to shave the tube off the bottom off of one 2x2 plate and sawed off the side walls and tube of another then glued the second inside the underside of the first to make a double-studded, single height plate. Cutting an element that was designed to be cut pales by comparison.

Now the second part of the question becomes what do you do with the tubing afterwards? Waste not want not is a long standing Lego tradition so that certainly justifies keeping odd bits around and using them in creative, non-traditional ways. The only place where I see the issue of an "illegal" connection rearing its ugly head comes back to my first rule: "Is jamming part X into part Y subjecting either part to unexpected strain that could damage or deform the parts?" This can be tricky to figure out when mixing materials, particularly in the case of hoses vs. PC or ABS because they are so much more elastic than the rigid members and are designed _to deform_ (it's how they connect to valves and pistons in the first place) without suffering (extraordinary) permanent damage (everything wears out eventually). In the case of flex tubing, those elements are designed to, well, flex; so really if a flex tube the only member in the system that is getting deformed (shy of kinks and side-wall collapse), does it really count as damage?

The thing to keep in mind though is that in a static system, the forces have to balance. If one element is squeezing another (say a block with a bundle of short pneumatic hoses shoved up its tube) the compressive force on the inside element is balanced by a tensile force on the outer element. Both elements are subject to deformation but, depending on the materials involved, some elements deform (and recover from deformation) more readily than others.

I think it's very difficult to draw a line in the sand when you start to use tubing as a structural member because you're treading on several razor blades at once: If you don't apply enough compressive force, the connection may be too weak for its expected role in the model. If you put it under too much force, you risk deforming the members that are applying that force. I think it's a foregone conclusion that it's an application we'll never see in an official set (as I doubt it has the strength to withstand the play habits of a seven year old) but I wouldn't go out of my way to report you to the Joinery Police for using one in a static display. _I_ don't think it's "legal", but as crimes against Lego go, it is at worst a misdemeanor.

[Superkalle]

I agree with the rest of you on this.

For me this "legal" thing is actually pretty simple and straight forward.

LEGO is two things:

1) A bunch of loose parts

2) A system (with restrictions) of how those parts can be connected to one another.

The 2) is very important. It's the restrictions that is challenge and grandness of LEGO. It's what the whole product is all about.

So what does this imply? Well, some base rules:

1) Bricks should connect properly to each other using the dedicated connections

2) Bricks shouldn't be destroyed over time (Not over-stressing the bricks)

3) Models should be possible to handle (at least somewhat) without falling apart.

4) Only defined system parts should be used *)

....and a few more which doesn't need to be mentioned now .

If you step away from these key principles, then there is little from stopping you from also using glue, paint or even use clay or balsa wood? Yes, a bit or ranting, but still.

Sure, everyone can do what they wan't with their own bricks and I'm OK with that, but when it comes to viewing MOCs, I personally get more satisfaction from looking at a model that is built in System, and where it's obvious the builder has spent those extra hours to get a nice solution without resorting to "odd" methods.

*) With this I mean parts that are listed at the back of the building instruction (i.e. has an ElementID and can be ordered from the LEGO Customer Services). That's why minifig hands, arms, loose lever sticks etc can't be used....they are not part of the LEGO System and cannot be used by the TLG designers.

[Lego Otaku]

What about this one:

According to rules, this is legal building. No stressed pin or weird modification needed to make it yet it can't be done.

Makes me wonder how would LEGO handle this if I sent this plan via the discontinued Creation by Me program??? The building instruction by LDD claims it can be done by magically making the last brick pop in.

[Aanchir]

What about this one:

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Lego-0taku/misc/illegal.jpg

According to rules, this is legal building. No stressed pin or weird modification needed to make it yet it can't be done.

Makes me wonder how would LEGO handle this if I sent this plan via the discontinued Creation by Me program??? The building instruction by LDD claims it can be done by magically making the last brick pop in.

The rules about what is "legal" or "illegal" are not at all limited to the ones on that slideshow... that was just a "crash course" in illegal connections. I think you'd be hard-pressed to convince any LEGO design team to approve a set with a construction like that which is physically impossible to build.

LDD is not perfect software by any means, and issues like this are hardly "legal" just because the software doesn't recognize the problem. It's not human, and typically only recognizes illegal builds when there are actual collisions between brick volumes — any other exceptions have to be programmed in more or less individually.

Regarding your last question, keep in mind Design byME (and LEGO Factory before it) always had a VERY limited parts palette, and I don't believe that ever included those Technic frames in any size. Perhaps that was a deliberate precaution, since the designers knew a kid might inadvertently stumble across an impossible build like that.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Aanchir

[LiamM32]

I have never thought of that connection specifically before. One problem I have with Technic frames, especially the smaller ones; is that they could (theoretically) make an assembly very difficult to undo. If someone put element 6538 connector in one of those frames and slid 2 2L axles in through the pinholes then it could be very difficult to pull them out. It may be good to include a feature on the Brick separator to remove axles from pinholes. Maybe I'm overthinking an unlikely problem, but there may be some children who have a day when they feel like doing something that they know is a bad idea, and they trap a connector and 2 axles in that frame piece.

Now here is an assembly to test yourself on. Legal or illegal? (Click)

[Lego Otaku]

Some of the round connector has a block in the middle that prevents technic rod from going through completely. So if someone puts this together, they can't get it apart without ruining one of the part.

[zux]

Some of the round connector has a block in the middle that prevents technic rod from going through completely. So if someone puts this together, they can't get it apart without ruining one of the part.

These aren't illegal (as you said there is no stress) but impossible to build/disassemble connections. Somewhere on Technic forum there is whole thread with this kind of examples (I cannot find it).

[ShaydDeGrai]

Some of the round connector has a block in the middle that prevents technic rod from going through completely. So if someone puts this together, they can't get it apart without ruining one of the part.

Well, in general, there's a difference between "illegal' and 'darn, that was stupid!' (unless you live in a nanny-state like Massachusetts where they try to pass overly complicated laws to ban actions that one's common sense should have vetoed from the onset).

Then again, as a veteran of many 'darn, that was stupid!' moments, I actually own a tiny set of needle nose pliers that can grab the end of an axle even while recessed in a technic hole - It chews up the last couple millimeters of one fin of the axle but all parts remain usable.

Still, not doing something dumb in the first place is an even better solution ;->

[Paul Boratko]

The 8272 Technic snowmobile required the cutting of a ribbed flex tube in half...

http://instructions....wmobile#Page:63

Edited November 4, 2013 by Paul Boratko

[LiamM32]

The 8272 Technic snowmobile required the cutting of a ribbed flex tube in half...

Interesting; a 2007 set that had cutting. I knew that they used to instruct to cut pneumatic tubes to the right length, but I thought that they started to precut them instead because they no longer wanted to remove cutting from the Lego building experience.

Good that Mr Boratko is here, because I was thinking of something in the Vampire GT;

See the grey axle between the two U-joints for the steering. Because of the way that it's angled, it would either be a bit loose or a bit stressed. How does it fit in?

[Paul Boratko]

I actually have one of that chassis right here in front of me and everything lines up perfectly... There is no stress on the axle or the U-Joints.. Everything moves very freely... Have you built this chassis..?

I am not sure why you think it would be either stressed or loose... Nothing is touching or rubbing anywhere... When you remove the steering wheel axle and 1/2 bushing, the universal joint lines up directly with the hole for the steering wheel axle... I am not quite sure what you mean by the angle making is too loose or stressed... What do you mean how does it fit in..? The 9L axle..?

The key piece for everything lining up properly is the 5.5L axle with stop being used with the second black 12 tooth bevel gear and universal joint(The one on what would be the bottom gear on the front in the picture you posted)

[Boxerlego]

See the grey axle between the two U-joints for the steering. Because of the way that it's angled, it would either be a bit loose or a bit stressed. How does it fit in?

There is no problem with the way that grey axle and its angle. That is what the u joint is designed for. The U joint are even phased correctly.

[DrJB]

I mutilated an 'old' differential few days back ... simply because I needed a 'larger' clutch gear than those available. To some, this is illegal, to others it is looking into the future and hoping TLG would make such a part standard, but to ALL, this opens up new possibilities. BTW, this is the first time I 'cut' a lego part and I do not intend on making this a habit.

The technic backhoe 8455 also came with 2 long hoses (dark grey + light grey). And the instructions called for cutting the hose to length as the build progressed.

[Takanuinuva]

Forgive me for bumping this but I wanted to know if this connection is legal? 

Trying it irl seems to give the parts a tiny amount of flex.

[Toastie]

On 7/9/2022 at 2:56 AM, Takanuinuva said:

Trying it irl seems to give the parts a tiny amount of flex.

Well, I am really not qualified to answer this - look at my avatar. Do you want to put this on "IDEAS"? Well may be bad. Do you want to sell this off, or any other profit oriented business planned? I would not do it. Just my perspective.

Is it for your own build? Just do it! Looks very good to me. Should there be any issue in about a thousand years (cracks in the bricks) - so what . 

When you make it work like that for your build, it is by definition legal, as it has your authorization. And this is all what counts, in the personal LEGO universe. In my opinion.

All the best,
Thorsten

[Takanuinuva]

8 hours ago, Toastie said:

Well, I am really not qualified to answer this - look at my avatar. Do you want to put this on "IDEAS"? Well may be bad. Do you want to sell this off, or any other profit oriented business planned? I would not do it. Just my perspective.

Is it for your own build? Just do it! Looks very good to me. Should there be any issue in about a thousand years (cracks in the bricks) - so what . 

When you make it work like that for your build, it is by definition legal, as it has your authorization. And this is all what counts, in the personal LEGO universe. In my opinion.

All the best,
Thorsten

Was for my own build. So thx.

[LEGO Historian]

Wow... 9 year old thread... but still worth reopening...

When TLG introduced the new 2x2 (reinforced underside) macaroni brick in 2008....

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=85080#T=C

It rendered the old hollow bottom (1955-2014) obsolete...

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3063#T=C

So the new macaroni bricks can no longer be used to create this type of staggered macaroni brick build...

https://brickset.com/sets/801-3/Space-Rocket

I assume that the old staggered macaroni built builds were considered illegal in today's definitions... but I remember that old build type was also used in older versions of the Jefferson Memorial columns in Legoland Billund...

 

[Toastie]

46 minutes ago, LEGO Historian said:

but I remember that old build type was also used in older versions of the Jefferson Memorial columns in Legoland Billund...

Well in Billund, they also use stainless steel/aluminum supports for the bigger models - and glue (yes I know, all outside in bad weather, and all the folks wanting to steal bricks (what? ME? NOOWAY! Uhmm, I mean ... no)

Best,
Thorsten