Does LEGO Know of All the Possible Part Connections??

[mystuffiscool]

While eating earlier, I came across a thought: could TLG know of all possible piece connections? I mean, if you think about how many subtle new connections are being found all the time, and how LEGO may possibly incorporate these connections on purpose?

Please give your thoughts, if this is a horribly outlandish concept or not,

[wobnam]

The TLG hive mind, you mean?

The "regular" connections stem from the fact that many of the internal dimensions of elements derive from a few basic units, like the bar diameter, the plate height, the brick width etc. I don't think the designers consider every possible connection when they make a part, but because they adhere to the system a lot of pieces "end up" being connectable.

Then, of course, there are some connections that have nothing to do with this system, where the pieces just happen to fit together anyway. I think there are connections of this kind that no one knows about (yet), so my answer is no, TLG does not know all possible connections.

[mystuffiscool]

*Sighs* Oh well. There goes my dreams of Set Designer office raids

[Bruce N H]

Hey,

This is a good question, and I've thought about this as well. Sometimes the connections just seem too good to be a coincidence. Take, for instance, the connected flame technique - how could that not have been planned. OTOH, if it were really planned, you'd think that all of the little pockets in the flame would fit rather than just one. Also, I don't think we ever saw that connection from an official source, even in the Legoland parks or other displays built by the Master Model Builders (or if they have now, at least not before the fan community discovered the connection). One thing that may be at play here is that perhaps the people who design the actual molds were using the same sets of tools, so even if there was never an intent for two holes on two different parts to have the same diameter, they were bored with the same drill bit.
It's fun to consider, though, the prospect of an evil genius at LEGO designing in all of the different connections and then just sitting back and thinking 'hmm, wonder if the AFOLs will ever figure this one out?'

BTW, I shifted this over to 'general LEGO' as the more appropriate forum.

Bruce

[Athos]

I heard there are some non-traditional connections that AFOLs use, which are not allowed in official Lego designs. They official models cannot connect parts in ways that overly stress the parts. I'm not sure exactly what qualifies a connection as verboten, but I think I've heard some of the round tower techniques fall in that. As well as the flame connection, referenced by Bruce.

Steve

[mystuffiscool]

Well, of course we know that LEGO would never use any of those unorthodox techniques in their sets, even though they know of most of them through the online community. I was wondering if they had all the records of the myriad of "new" techniques being discovered all the time.

Over-n-Out,

[Maedhros]

I'm not sure exactly what qualifies a connection as verboten

...or forbudt as you might say in Danish

[psu_ericksen]

I heard there are some non-traditional connections that AFOLs use, which are not allowed in official Lego designs. They official models cannot connect parts in ways that overly stress the parts. I'm not sure exactly what qualifies a connection as verboten, but I think I've heard some of the round tower techniques fall in that. As well as the flame connection, referenced by Bruce.

Steve

There was an article about this. It even had example pictures of permitted and "verboten" connections. I don't remember where I saw it, but maybe someone has a link.


Sean

[JoshWedin]

There was an article about this. It even had example pictures of permitted and "verboten" connections. I don't remember where I saw it, but maybe someone has a link.


Sean

I'm pretty sure it was the powerpoint presentation that is linked to from this site.

I'm at work and I can't download it to make sure. But I'm pretty sure.

Josh

[Memsochet]

There was an article about this. It even had example pictures of permitted and "verboten" connections. I don't remember where I saw it, but maybe someone has a link.


Sean

I'm pretty sure it was the powerpoint presentation that is linked to from this site.

I'm at work and I can't download it to make sure. But I'm pretty sure.

Josh

yes, that is the correct site. The PPP is nicely done, and explains why they determine a connection as illegal.

[footsteps]

There was an article about this. It even had example pictures of permitted and "verboten" connections. I don't remember where I saw it, but maybe someone has a link.
Sean

I'm pretty sure it was the powerpoint presentation that is linked to from this site.
I'm at work and I can't download it to make sure. But I'm pretty sure.
Josh

yes, that is the correct site. The PPP is nicely done, and explains why they determine a connection as illegal.

It never occurred to me that some of my MOCs may be against the law!

True story: many years ago, the techno-phobe mother of a co-worker called her at work, quite upset. "Mary," she whispered over the phone, "my computer is telling me that I've performed an illegal operation! Does that mean I'm going to get arrested?" She was quite sincere in her concern.

Alan

[KarenJ]

It seems logical that if a connection stresses a joint, than it is "illegal". There are a few instances where this would happen- but also millions of instances where untold, un-thought-of connections "work". But that is part of the beauty of it. Did Lego designers think of all these instances? How many thousand parts unique to each other? Probably or probably not... but the system invites connectivity on so many levels. I don't think it was a mistake that flames could interconnect the way that they do. I don't think any of it is a mistake, yet I don't think any of it was empirically "planned" past the first few thousand types of elements. I think it worked out much the same as Carbon did in the natural world. A system built on a very fine level of tolerance.

[mystuffiscool]

Yes, I suppose I was setting my hopes rather high. So then, the Production Staff at TLG basically knows little more than we online community members? Okay then.



Thanks for the feedback,

[Count Blacktron]

I would never do anything that hurt my bricks, even if a LEGO official said it was okay. Save the Stressed Connections!

[Bruce N H]

One other note on this. Sometimes I'll see a stud or hole on some random bit, often an accessory, that has absolutely no use for whatever it is that accessory was designed for, but they just threw it in anyway. I think that's pretty cool, as it allows for unplanned uses. For instance, the space gun:



As far as I can tell, there was no reason when they designed that to put a couple of studs on the side (except, I suppose, to make it look more 'lego-y'), but by doing so it became much more versatile as a greebly bit, or as parts fodder for one of Micah's creatures. Perhaps the most extreme example I can think of is the rubber band holder:



AFAIK this was never used as a component of any set - all it was was a place to put the rubber bands. Still, they threw in a couple of holes sized to technic pins, so maybe someone could find a way to incorporate it into system.

Anyway, I just think that's cool.

Bruce