New moulds with hollow studs and inner stopper ring

[Owen Burgoyne]

After having recently opened up a small can of worms on the Parts Tracker with introducing the hollow stud with the inner stopper ring, it got me thinking about parts that have this inner stopper ring as part of their recent moulding but still have the same Design ID from their inception.

For example, 3665 "Slope Brick 45 2 x 1 Inverted" is now produced with this inner stopper (I have a spare one to hand) but is only modelled in LDraw without. However, this inner stopper does have implications on the part's function, as a 4 LDU bar can now only be inserted so far.

Therefore, would it be worth producing a "b" variant of this part with the inner stopper ring? BrickLink doesn't recognise it as a separate part, but it is functionally slightly different.

[Chris Dee]

Yes - that is how we handle such things. I have renamed 3665 to 3665a and s\3665s01 to s\3665as01. Please feel free to submit the b versions.

[Rene Rechthaler]

Sorry for digging up this old thread, but I made some more versions based on my real parts:

also see here: https://rebrickable.com/parts/3660/slope...tud-holes/

- 3660c: normal hollow stud and flat bottom pin and ridges
- 3660d: medium hole and round bottom pin (this version has a wider lip than the others)
- 3660e: small hole and round bottom pin
- 3660f: small hole and flat bottom pin

in addition to the existing ones:

- 3660a: normal hollow stud and round bottom pin (does this variant even exist in reality?)
- 3660b: stopper ring and flat bottom pin and ridges (this is the newer version, i only have this in dark bluish grey, 3660c only in old dark grey)

Based on that the c and f are the most common old versions we should check our printed versions (they are mostly with the b version which is too modern for the prints).

[Rene Rechthaler]

Hello, while searching through my slopes i found another printed slope: 3660pb007 (BL number, the version with bottom fade)

Does anyone want to do that pattern?

Its the version c with bottom ridges and complete hollow studs.

[Gerald Lasser]

Hello, while searching through my slopes i found another printed slope: 3660pb007 (BL number, the version with bottom fade)

Does anyone want to do that pattern?

Its the version c with bottom ridges and complete hollow studs.

That is a weird print, exists once with a fading to the top and once to the bottom

[Rene Rechthaler]

That is a weird print, exists once with a fading to the top and once to the bottom

Yes, also noticed that, but I only have this version.

Would it be better for that if the background versions would be two subfiles and the common part (Red borders, AT-ST and Crosshair) in another for both versions?

[Magnus Forsberg]

Sorry for digging up this old thread, but I made some more versions based on my real parts:

also see here: https://rebrickable.com/parts/3660/slope...tud-holes/

- 3660c: normal hollow stud and flat bottom pin and ridges
- 3660d: medium hole and round bottom pin (this version has a wider lip than the others)
- 3660e: small hole and round bottom pin
- 3660f: small hole and flat bottom pin

in addition to the existing ones:

- 3660a: normal hollow stud and round bottom pin (does this variant even exist in reality?)
- 3660b: stopper ring and flat bottom pin and ridges (this is the newer version, i only have this in dark bluish grey, 3660c only in old dark grey)

Based on that the c and f are the most common old versions we should check our printed versions (they are mostly with the b version which is too modern for the prints).

Using the Rebrickable page as a base, I made this image.

   

   

I think we should use Flat Bottom Pin, or just Flat Pin. Flat Pin was used on the Plate 1x2, 3023a.dat.
I want to change the description of 76959 to "... with Hollow Bottom Pin". (btw. the subfile is also missing "... without Front Face").
And we should add the missing hollow pin design in 76959. We can't have it in the description and then not model it.

I also think Rene is correct. The a-version doesn't exist. Rebrickable have the best summary and it only has 5 versions. Not 6.
So how should we handle our a-version?
I suggest that we change 3660a to use the design in e-version, and move f-version to 3660e.

[Rene Rechthaler]

Searched my collection of Slopes and found at least one more version (but these parts are so rare we dont need them on the PT):

-3 slopes with round pin, medium holes and extra wide curved lip (would go across the stud but has normal hole to the inner slope)
-1 slope with small holes and bottom ridges from the newer versions (I guess it is a mismould, also the logo is upside down compared to all other ones)

apart from that, its hard to define a "standard" version because they have been used for a long time...
f was the first standard, then c and then b. d and e are exots (i have 200+ 3660 and of these only 7*d and 8*e. the rest are equal amounts of b, c and f.). Then I would say make f the new a version.

[Magnus Forsberg]

I suggest that we change 3660a to use the design in e-version, and move f-version to 3660e.

This is wrong.
We can't change 3660a to look like the e-version. That would break backwards compatibility. We should obsolete it.

[Rene Rechthaler]

Hm, 3660 already has been obsoleted (replaced with 3660a)...

Then we also have to check all existing prints (I think versions b and c should be swapped in the prints).
For example, 3660bp01.dat is now b (the most modern) but should be f (I already did that as 3660fp01.dat).
I have 3660bp01.dat in blue version f and 3660bp01.dat without the white rim (3660fp02.dat) in white version f and c.

Anyone else having some more printed slopes?

(and if we dont have enough work, the inverted slope 1x2 3665 also has a old version with small hole)

René

[Rene Rechthaler]

Any progress here?

I would say to use the B or C as the new standard (most used, best compability)
the A version needs to get obsoleted (doesnt exist)
F is common in old sets (does anyone have a clue when the change was)
D, E and G are Exots (exist, but are rare)