Lipko

Sorry, last reply, but I need to correct some things. Practically beams with horizontal holes will allways be weaker than no holes if there's shear force, no matter if it's evenly distributed or not (again if we neglect the dry weight of the beam). And in practical situations (excluding purely longitudinal loads) there will always be significant sheer forces. And that holes doesn't matter in case of purely bending loads is not fully true either. Because holes make the I-beam much more prone to local buckling at the holes. With all that crap said, maybe the Technic studless beams are still stronger with horizontal holes, I couldn't open the test report because of the company firewall. I can imagine that in case of horizontal holes, the amount of deformation is smaller with the same load, but at the same time the maximum load it can bare without failure is smaller than with vertical holes.

I couldn't resist. Though my "science" behind it is very rusty, it was some 10 years ago when I learnt it in university and I haven't used my structular mechanics "knowledge" ever since. This diagram is far from deep or accurate, but you'll get the idea. No holes is clearly stronger that having holes if there's shear load and if you neglect the dry-weight/load of the beam itself (and it's pretty rare to have only bending on a structural beam). Maybe in some cases by applying holes, you decrease the dry-weight (thus dry-load) of the beam more than the strenght decreases. Adding holes have some other advantages, for example leading pipes and stuff through them, but at the same time, it makes the beam more expensive to manufacture. That's the reason you don't see too much of the stuff @Erik Leppenposted. And yup, typo in the graph....

The strength depends on the load too. For a mostly bending load,or evenly distributed load (like in the case @Erik Leppen showed), the horizontal holes doesn't make the I-beam much less weaker. But it there is significant shear load (for example one end is fixed and a downwards force is applied on the other end), this setup is weaker, because the upper and lower face both can bend "parallelly". The round holes will reduce this weaknes, rectangular holes would clearly be much weaker. In case of tower cranes, you'll see huge holes, but the holes are not "round", the small beams between the upper and lower beam are always triangular and straight, which prevents this parallelogram-like deformation of the holes. The round holes in Lego is more like having only vertical beams between the upper and lower beam, which you'll never see in cranes. Imagine a ladder with sideways force on one end, it will not hold. But if you apply even load, or you apply the load in the middle, it will hold much better. I hope it's clear, I didn't find any resources to back the post up, I don't have time to dig deep into it.

Theoretically it would be stronger if the holes are perpendicular to the force (more material on the relevant upper and lower faces - arces are not doing much here), but in reality the thin material is more prone to buckling on the compressed side in this setup. I think...

For features: 8880, for awesome rugged FTW: 8865

Dat fake cylinder for tilting the blade

I love winter too. It's some +20°C here in Hungary, maybe 2cm snow all winter. I remember -20C winters from my childhood. Climate change shows itself on my own skin.

You can try to put a 2 long transparent brick on the opposite side, maybe it will be sufficient to scatter the light. Not sure it there's enough space...

I meant Lepin doesn't pay. MOCHUB is totally okay. I, for one will definitely continue to share instructions, if I ever get back to Lego. It's much more important to me than those few bucks I could make. (And I don't like trend that even crappy models from unknown builders have paid instructions now.) Of course I don't think about the top guys, like you, you can loose real money, not just a few bucks if being ripped off. I am kind of honored that at least Lepin recognizes my models. I have zero sells on MOCHUB.

It is a totally believable machine. Okay, maybe only in Russia where some pretty weird machines exists. Anyway, it is just pretty.

Why don't they just collab with us hobby designers as any proper clone brand would do? I mean really. I can design models for quarter of the Danish salary and they don't even have to maintain an office for me. Just send some parts if I need them, I can deliver a 2000-piece model every 3 months. My portfolio is in my signature Thanxby

Yes, that's right. I just wanted to say that these MOCs aren't ripped off in the same way as some others, I would treat it separately. It's like MOCHUB without giving any money to the original designers.

They are sold as MOCs, you are even credited, no? That doesn't mean it's right, my several MOCs are also sold (they all have free instructions) but at least I'm credited.

Hmmm. Collaboration is allowed? I'd be STEM man and I'd collab with a showman. STAM and PAM. I'm not drunk I swear

Sweet as a little pet

Everyone knows cars, not everyone knows machinery. Most of us often have to look into a specific machinery to have even an opinion on a particular Lego model. Cars, everyone has opinions, because everyone sees them every day. I think it's simple as that. And don't underestimate how interesting a car can be mechanically. I, for one, am not interested in real cars at all. Yet, when it comes to modeling of any kind (Lego, die-cast, paper) I' in awe.

I missed this one, and I agree with it with a little twist: I sometimes take a look at some very respected/praised models to conclude that if something is good enough for that model, that it's pretty damn good for my model too. Building one such model when I was a rookie was an enormous relief for me. Before that I struggled with making a model solid as a rock. But building that model (which was considered solid and very well designed) taught me that my models are already solid enough. In fact, that model felt much flimsier than mine. This also applies to functions. If something is enough in models that's probably the most rebuilt MOCs (that time when I was active), than it's enough for my model too. I'm referring to Crowkillers' cars. In my opinion, they are still the most balanced (cool but toy-ish looks that speak the Lego language very well, functions, playability/sturdiness, building quality) cars out there.

I wouldn't call that perfectionism (and many other examples in many posts EDIT: maybe I confused the thread with another). Perfectionism is improving something that already works good enough for the given situation. On a space space ship, nothing seems to be too perfectionist. On a Lego model, improving the suspension or bucket arm geometry to have +-1° precise angles does seem perfectionism. I think Jorge refers to this kind. I'm not a perfectionist at all as I stated earlier. But this doesn't mean I don't spend 20+ hours for just designing a hood on a simple supercar, or that I don't have 10 different prototypes to have something that does the job. In my workplace and in programming usually it takes me one shot to have a usable end product. With Lego, it takes 10. But it's no way a more perfectionist approach compared to my workplace approach. Maybe the stimulus threshold of the "everything falls into place" and "what feels good is optimal" thing depends on the person, and I have this one lower, because I do feel it sometimes even without actually having a perfect solution.

I only have one question that really bugs me. Have they ever considered outsourcing some design works or at least open designer offices outside Denmark? Or collaborations apart from the strange Ideas concept? Like copycats other construction toys companies do? If not, what's the reason? What risks do they see?

Did anyone list clocks for point 4? It's hard to imagine a GBC as a standalone project. Clocks have some different types, so that would mean more sets, yet all of them could be standalone too.

I answered "Too much IP"

I guess I'm lucky then, I'm no way a perfectionist but rather a prototypist. I' a machine designer by profession, though I program much more than I do mechanical design (and not too much of that either). I can deliver in days, even in hours. Sure, my designs have flaws and far from optimal, but I always had the opinion that early prototyping is much more beneficial in both short and long term, than overdesigning without any physical building. Because even with tons of thought there will be flaws and even major mistakes. With a prototype you can spot many of these issues very early and you even have a chance to have a pretty good product very early. I don't say there is no improvements are made, and of course you can't just prototype anything because of the expenses. I admit that this method is not sufficient for every task, but for many engineering jobs, I do think it is. And I don't know if I could work the other way.

New batch (I don't MOC lately, so these refer to the time I was active) Rarely. MOCing is usually a struggle. I envy the crap out of people who can just go with the building flow and have a proper result at he end. With other hobbies (programming, paper modelling), I got in the zone very often. Usually 2 hours, on weekends a bit more, but maybe one weekend per month I have time to build. No. One MOC at a time, except for contests and a very long project (this one). Partly because of my mindset (starting a new model almost feels cuckoldry). The other reason is that keeping a big space for many projects is a bit luxurious. No. Something is finished when you call it finished. And I can finish my models. "xxx can be never finished, only stopped" is a cliché that can be used for almost anything. "a thesis work is never finished"/"renovation can never be finished", etc. Yes. Because of contest deadline or because I fear the model might get obsolete before finishing (new parts, or a novel idea is implemented by someone else). Original. Usually I don't feel the desire, and when I do feel, the set is already in the bulk and I don't feel like sorting/collecting parts at all. I try to keep the bulk size at a minimum (having tons of Lego is a luxury for me in terms of space), so buying the set again is not wanted. Lately I rebuilt my best models (the primary reason was an exhibition), but I think they will be assembled forever. Little contradicting to point 7, but whatever… I never improve a model once it's called finished. There might be some minor color or design changes, but these are due to part availability. She's okay with it, she has creative hobbies too, but since we both work and obviously share housework too, she's not very happy if I don't do anything else, and wouldn't be happy if she had to gave up her hobbies in favor to mine. Obviously she doesn't like it when the hobby makes me go rampage. I have to add that she was the reason I got back into Lego again. If she were a tiny bit unenthusiastic about it, I wouldn't had started (or whatever is the proper tense and grammar here...). I have no idea. Since I can't photo and video properly, I have tons of raw material on the computers, and I don't care to tidy them up. WIP material don't take up significant space to care about it. As you can see, I have a professional mindset about the hobby, this is probably a reason why I'm not doing it any more... The other (referring back to the OP's point 6.), since we have a kid, I don't have time for serious MOCing. And I don't feel like doing it light-heartedly, because of point 1, so I don't MOC at all.

I don't care to look it up, it probably has some psychology term, but the moaning you see is the usual "complain bias" thing. Complainers are always much more loud, simply because likers don't feel to urge to write down the millionth "I liked it very much" comment. EDIT: It's especially strange to complain about complains in a thread that was meant to complain about Lego. Anyways, the complains have to be divided into two groups: parts and sets. I, for example, only complain about sets. Because I do love the evolution that parts have gone through, and I don't like the slow but noticeable de-evolution of set quality. The Ferrari I found outrageous because it would be an awesome parts pack but the prize pretty much rules it out as one. Same goes for almost everything being licensed. And I hate purchasing stuff on the net, so you can guess how much of a pain in my ***** buying parts is. So even if I'm not that affected about set quality, I am affected in general. (It's just hypothetical, I only do DUPLO MOCs since 2 years)

I don't think so. At that time models had very few functions. If there weren't evolution of parts, we would see the 10000th car which main feature was a differential. Or having suspension. Maybe a few models would have both… Now, we have 8-speed sequential gearboxes operated at the steering wheel. And suspension/differential/etc.