<p>It's an illegal brick technique due to you breaking the bricks and it makes the bricks wear away faster and the technique was never in offical Lego sets.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-05T08:57:48.753Z
Do you have any sources (studies, expert opinion, experiments, etc.) for these statements? I know the last one ("The technique was never in official Lego sets") is not possible to prove, but the "it makes the bricks wear away faster" should be citable.
zovits
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-05T10:43:57.040Z
I think my question is clear enough about damaging the bricks - using part 6143 will dent plates (and is therefore clearly illegal), but I'm asking about part 3941 *et al*, as pictured.
IvanSanchez
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-03T04:27:00.447Z
When I asked a similar question in an FB group, in a MOC where I wedged one plate by its edge, on another at its edge at a right angle to each other, I was told an unusual move that doesn't damage pieces is called 'unorthodox'.
MocBird
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-05T05:00:43.383Z
2022-10-05T08:54:15.313Z
2022-10-05T08:54:15.313Z
link3
<p>I've played enough with 2x2 round plates and 1-stud-wide plates to know that it's possible to attach a plate underneath a 2x2 plate and perpendicular to it, like so:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/K7B5A.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/K7B5A.jpg" alt="round plate connected to 1-wide plate" /></a></p>
<p>The same connection is possible using 2x2 round bricks instead, or using 1-stud-wide tiles.</p>
<p>An observation: each of the 4 wall sections of a 2x2 round brick/plate can flex slightly. This does not happen with the continuous walls in a square brick/plate.</p>
<p>So:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Is this connection &quot;legal&quot;? (i.e.: Does this connection stress the parts involved?)</p>
</li>
<li><p>Has this type of connection been used in any official sets?</p>
</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<p>A word of warning: Do not attempt this technique on part <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3941" rel="noreferrer">6143 &quot;2x2 round brick <em>reinforced</em>&quot;</a>: it won't work, and you risk denting your plates (as I just did). Do look for a flat wall section at the bottom of the round plate/brick.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Ql6pf.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Ql6pf.png" alt="comparison between similar round parts" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-05T08:15:42.563Z
Nice find! I have yet never seen this connection style, neither in an official model nor in a collection of illegal techniques - but my lack of experience doesn't mean anything conclusive.
zovits
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-05T08:34:14.060Z
TBH I "discovered" this during the 90s (with the supports from [6930-1](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=6930-1)); but it was only yesterday, while trying to reverse-engineer the SNOT technique used in [this other question](https://bricks.stackexchange.com/q/17332/13403), when I realized I haven't seen this technique documented anywhere.
IvanSanchez
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-05T08:56:25.250Z
Does the receiving plate/brick have to be round? Seems to me that a plate fits between any center tube and the element wall...
Michael Verschaeve
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-05T09:37:36.970Z
The fit between a plate and a pre-2004 brick is way too tight IIRC - tiles can easily get stuck inside and require pincers to get removed - so I suspect that would stress the wall of the brick. Post-2004 bricks have thinned walls (to save on plastic, AFAIK) so the wall-tube gap is larger than the thickness of a plate/tile. In other words: the connection is loose. Also, an observation: the "wall" in a round 2x2 plate/brick can slightly bend "outwards" without being supported by other walls; this intuitively tells me that the connection is flexible.
IvanSanchez
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-05T10:10:06.400Z
Thx for the clarification, however "to save on plastic" is in my opinion not the reason walls were thinned... The thinning was done to have a more uniform thickness of injected ABS in the mold. Non-uniform thickness causes warping because different parts of the element cool down at different rates...
Michael Verschaeve
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-05T10:43:12.043Z
I was hoping to see a question here on bricks stackexchange about the thinning of walls, but I can only find information about the great bley schism. :-/
IvanSanchez
<building><connections>
Plate perpendicular to bottom of 2x2 round: is this connection legal?
IvanSanchez
# Plate perpendicular to bottom of 2x2 round: is this connection legal?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-08-04)

I've played enough with 2x2 round plates and 1-stud-wide plates to know that it's possible to attach a plate underneath a 2x2 plate and perpendicular to it, like so:

[![round plate connected to 1-wide plate](https://i.sstatic.net/K7B5A.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/K7B5A.jpg)

The same connection is possible using 2x2 round bricks instead, or using 1-stud-wide tiles.

An observation: each of the 4 wall sections of a 2x2 round brick/plate can flex slightly. This does not happen with the continuous walls in a square brick/plate.

So:

* Is this connection "legal"? (i.e.: Does this connection stress the parts involved?)
* Has this type of connection been used in any official sets?

---

A word of warning: Do not attempt this technique on part [6143 "2x2 round brick *reinforced*"](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3941): it won't work, and you risk denting your plates (as I just did). Do look for a flat wall section at the bottom of the round plate/brick.

[![comparison between similar round parts](https://i.sstatic.net/Ql6pf.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/Ql6pf.png)

**Tags:** building, connections

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Nice find! I have yet never seen this connection style, neither in an official model nor in a collection of illegal techniques - but my lack of experience doesn't mean anything conclusive.  
> **username_0**: TBH I "discovered" this during the 90s (with the supports from [6930-1](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=6930-1)); but it was only yesterday, while trying to reverse-engineer the SNOT technique used in [this other question](https://bricks.stackexchange.com/q/17332/13403), when I realized I haven't seen this technique documented anywhere.  
> **username_2**: Does the receiving plate/brick have to be round? Seems to me that a plate fits between any center tube and the element wall...  
> **username_0**: The fit between a plate and a pre-2004 brick is way too tight IIRC - tiles can easily get stuck inside and require pincers to get removed - so I suspect that would stress the wall of the brick. Post-2004 bricks have thinned walls (to save on plastic, AFAIK) so the wall-tube gap is larger than the thickness of a plate/tile. In other words: the connection is loose. Also, an observation: the "wall" in a round 2x2 plate/brick can slightly bend "outwards" without being supported by other walls; this intuitively tells me that the connection is flexible.  
> **username_2**: Thx for the clarification, however "to save on plastic" is in my opinion not the reason walls were thinned... The thinning was done to have a more uniform thickness of injected ABS in the mold. Non-uniform thickness causes warping because different parts of the element cool down at different rates...  
> **username_0**: I was hoping to see a question here on bricks stackexchange about the thinning of walls, but I can only find information about the great bley schism. :-/  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2022-10-05. Score: 0

It's an illegal brick technique due to you breaking the bricks and it makes the bricks wear away faster and the technique was never in offical Lego sets.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Do you have any sources (studies, expert opinion, experiments, etc.) for these statements? I know the last one ("The technique was never in official Lego sets") is not possible to prove, but the "it makes the bricks wear away faster" should be citable.  
> **username_0**: I think my question is clear enough about damaging the bricks - using part 6143 will dent plates (and is therefore clearly illegal), but I'm asking about part 3941 *et al*, as pictured.  
> **username_4**: When I asked a similar question in an FB group, in a MOC where I wedged one plate by its edge, on another at its edge at a right angle to each other, I was told an unusual move that doesn't damage pieces is called 'unorthodox'.  

---

