General Part Discussion

[gyenesvi]

Maybe some of you realized this before, but for me it was a bad surprise; these two are incompatible. TLG just shattered my dreams of building a compact diff-lockable axle.. I wasn't even thinking to test this, I was so sure it would work, but had to realize it wouldn't after building a prototype axle. The inner ridges of the driving ring that go around the connector piece block it from sliding into the diff housing.

[zoo]

28 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

I think it's more useful as it is now for many things, the alternating holes can have more interesting connections (form locking).

What made me think of the layout of holes in the 7 x 11 frame was that I wanted to use it to brace a 4-speed gearbox with two axles go through the frame. The way the holes are oriented prevents this from being possible. If the middle three holes were horizontal to the frame this had been enough.

[Erik Leppen]

11 hours ago, zoo said:

What made me think of the layout of holes in the 7 x 11 frame was that I wanted to use it to brace a 4-speed gearbox with two axles go through the frame. The way the holes are oriented prevents this from being possible. If the middle three holes were horizontal to the frame this had been enough.

You could use four of the wonderful pins with pinhole 15100 and put them in the "wrong-way holes" of the frame, and lay out the gearbox axles one stud above the frame.

[zoo]

9 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

You could use four of the wonderful pins with pinhole 15100 and put them in the "wrong-way holes" of the frame, and lay out the gearbox axles one stud above the frame.

I am sure there are workarounds for this issue. I guess I just don't see the huge benefit with having the holes in this particular frame layed out as they are now, but I'm sure I could be proven wrong. :)

I think I'll try putting one of the new 7 long beam with alternating holes on top of the frame with some added bracing and see if it works out.

[johnnym]

23 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

Maybe some of you realized this before, but for me it was a bad surprise; these two are incompatible. TLG just shattered my dreams of building a compact diff-lockable axle.. I wasn't even thinking to test this, I was so sure it would work, but had to realize it wouldn't after building a prototype axle. The inner ridges of the driving ring that go around the connector piece block it from sliding into the diff housing.

The 3L driving ring works, so 1L plus in width, but still very compact. Though the connection between diff and driving ring side feels very wobbly, as the 2L axle between 12z bevel gear and 3L axle connector only hasl a half stud of guiding in the diff case. But it's not more wobbly than the axle on the other side of the diff.

[gyenesvi]

2 hours ago, johnnym said:

The 3L driving ring works, so 1L plus in width, but still very compact.

Of course, I know, but that makes it even width, and so does not fit into a regular odd width. So the whole axle actually has to become 2 studs wider in the end..

2 hours ago, johnnym said:

But it's not more wobbly than the axle on the other side of the diff.

Well it is more wobbly, because the other side is immediately supported by a frame, but the connector side with the driving ring can only reach any support frame in a 3 stud distance. With the old driving ring that would also have reduced to a 2 stud distance. So the whole thing is weaker. Nevertheless, I'll have to go with that as there's no other option.

[johnnym]

2 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Of course, I know, but that makes it even width, and so does not fit into a regular odd width. So the whole axle actually has to become 2 studs wider in the end..

Ah, sorry for telling you things you already know, but how should I know...

2 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

Well it is more wobbly, because the other side is immediately supported by a frame, but the connector side with the driving ring can only reach any support frame in a 3 stud distance. With the old driving ring that would also have reduced to a 2 stud distance.

I had it in my hands w/o any supporting frames or beams.

[DrJB]

On 12/5/2022 at 3:09 PM, gyenesvi said:

Maybe some of you realized this before, but for me it was a bad surprise; these two are incompatible. TLG just shattered my dreams of building a compact diff-lockable axle.. I wasn't even thinking to test this, I was so sure it would work, but had to realize it wouldn't after building a prototype axle. The inner ridges of the driving ring that go around the connector piece block it from sliding into the diff housing.

 

How about the new syncro, does not fit either?

 

 vs. or maybe even the extension 

 

I do not have the new differential and as such can't check... but still curious.

Edited December 7, 2022 by DrJB

[gyenesvi]

6 hours ago, johnnym said:

Ah, sorry for telling you things you already know, but how should I know...

I didn't mean it that way :) But since the Zetros uses that setup with the 3L driving ring, I consider that common knowledge :)

2 hours ago, DrJB said:

How about the new syncro, does not fit either? or maybe even the extension

Yes the new 3L one fits (see the Zetros), and an old extension ring can also fit. The old 2L driving ring only works with the old extension ring, not with the new one that you show above (same reason as for the new diff, cannot slide in because of the inner ridges). But as I wrote, both solutions will result in an even width, which means in practise that the axle setup becomes 2 studs wider.. That's what I thought could be spared by using the 2L ring. Anyway, I'll just go with the 3L now.

Nevertheless, the old 2L ring + old extension ring combo can be useful in some cases vs the new 3L ring, nice idea, because it has the outer cut for the selector in a different position which may matter in some cases (how the control linkage can be mounted).

[johnnym]

1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

I didn't mean it that way :) But since the Zetros uses that setup with the 3L driving ring, I consider that common knowledge :)

So if you knew that the 3L driving ring fits, why did you believe the 2L one would, too? Both do need different recepticles.

[gyenesvi]

6 hours ago, johnnym said:

So if you knew that the 3L driving ring fits, why did you believe the 2L one would, too? Both do need different recepticles.

Well if one works does not suggest that the other would not. They are supposed to be combinable lego pieces after all. My reasoning was this: both the 2L and the 3L rings fit the 16T clutch gear, and also both ends of a straight 4L differential. So why would only the 3L ring fit the latest differential?

But now that you made me think about it in more detail, here is the catch: there are two types of 16T clutch gears (old and new, they also differ in being one sided or double sided) for the two types of driving rings (probably the new driving ring fits the old gear as well, but in a less stable way). The difference is the size of the inner ring on the clutch gears: the older one has a narrower ring, the new one is wider, that is why the old narrow driving ring collides with the wider inner ring of the newer gears, including the new difffs. The 20T clutch gear is also newer type, so I am guessing that the older driving ring does not fit that one either. Or any other ones produced from now on.. That is a real pity.

[Zerobricks]

The reason the new clutch gears don't accept the old rings is because the new ones are designed to work on pins. But for that they need a thicker wall to accept the pin's ridge. The thicker wall is what is stopping the old rings from engaging.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Zerobricks

[gyenesvi]

5 hours ago, Zerobricks said:

The reason the new clutch gears don't accept the old rings is because the new ones are designed to work on pins. But for that they need a thicker wall to accept the pin's ridge. The thicker wall is what is stopping the old rings from engaging.

Indeed, the old ones don't work on pins. I did not think about that, thanks!

[DrJB]

Perhaps you have a MOC where you wanted to use the propeller below, only to find out such propeller has a pin (not axle) hole .... hmmm ... How do you spin it then?

Well, you look closely on the back, and you realize that such part can mate with the gear-syncro ... and voila!

 or 

Oh but wait, there are two rows of blades on that turbo-fan, and the pitch angles are opposite. Thus, no matter how fast you spin such part, you will get zero net flow, and a lot of vorticity... too bad :(

[JGW3000]

2 hours ago, DrJB said:

Oh but wait, there are two rows of blades on that turbo-fan, and the pitch angles are opposite. Thus, no matter how fast you spin such part, you will get zero net flow, and a lot of vorticity... too bad :(

May make a good micro mixer for your fruit smoothie, though 

[DrJB]

hehe .. you're the cup half full kind-a-guy ... *cheers*

[weavil]

This   +    +    Equals this:

I had that issue when making the rocket van for TC21.

[Lira_Bricks]

17 hours ago, DrJB said:

[...]

Oh but wait, there are two rows of blades on that turbo-fan, and the pitch angles are opposite. Thus, no matter how fast you spin such part, you will get zero net flow, and a lot of vorticity... too bad :(

You could still cover the inner or outer circle. It would have been better if they were in the same direction though

[DrJB]

On 12/12/2022 at 5:28 PM, weavil said:

This   +    +    Equals this:

 

I had that issue when making the rocket van for TC21.

Yes ... friction will do the trick as well.

[aminnich]

Kind of an odd question… but is there documentation that would help determine real LEGO technic from all the 3rd party stuff. 
 

If the piece has “LEGO” printed on it, it’s obvious, but I’m either finding official stuff without a marking or finding 3rd party. Not sure what I’m looking for on some parts and/or how to sort it.

 

 Thanks!

[DrJB]

Typically, most lego parts have the part ID molded in on them. Get yourself a lighted magnifier though as those markings are very small, and often difficult to find, especially on the small parts. Some very small parts do not have such markings at all.

Edited December 15, 2022 by DrJB

[howitzer]

Yep, and there's also some mould patterns that vary between brands, like the shape of the recessions between pinholes in liftarms which makes them easy to distinguish. By careful examination with a magnifier you should be able to identify vast majority of parts. The other forum also has a thread for identifying parts.

 

[shroomzofdoom]

Saw these on PAB...not sure why I bought them...but I did. The Lego equivalent of 'drunk dialing' I guess. My girl tells me I have too much disposable income lol

I was thinking how cool it would be to build one of my MOCs in trans clear using alt-bricks.

In case you're wondering. Comes in: https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/the-crystal-king-temple-71771

[Void_S]

They, as being made of polycarbonate, should be more rigid but fragile in comparison to regular non-transparent beams made of ABS.

[astyanax]

@shroomzofdoom I've got the same inexplicable and useless love for transparent liftarms... I'd totally see myself making a similar order