Resolved: K'nex are better than Legos

I would like to begin this debate by saying that I am a structural engineer in training, so this is an issue I find to be close to my heart. A) Versatility K’nex can be used to make almost and object imaginable-the only limit is the imagination and creativity of the builder. Especially unique about K’nex is the ability for anyone to make impressively large models. While Legos can in principle be used to make large scale models, in practice the amount of pieces and time required to do so renders it infeasible for an amateur. Take a look at some of the amateur Knex models and note the diversity in content and scale: Clock: Boat: Start Trek Spaceship: What is key to note here is that K’nex makes the design dreams of any builder within reach. 10 year old me could never hope to build a 12 foot tall Lego tower- I had neither the Lego connection nor time to do so. That same project was well within the grasp of a 10 year old child when the building materials under consideration were K’nex. The fundamental building principle of Legos is one dimensional: you stack bricks on top of each other. In contrast, K’nex snap together via the knobs on the ends of the rods or via the ridges along the length of the rod- giving two principle means of connecting pieces and allowing almost any 3-D configuration imaginable. Legos had to overcome this one dimensionality by adding special pieces, but anyone who has spent any time with legos knows how frustrating it is to be in need of just the right joint and having to pick through the lego bin hoping that one piece you need surfaces. The versatility of K’nex in comparison to Legos is underscored by the way in which the two are sold. My first K’nex kit came in a simple orange box and was accompanied by a book of a hundred different things you could build with just that box. Lego kits come in boxes that show one type of model on it and instructions to build that one model. Each kit had pieces tailor made to build that model; over the years hundreds of unique types of lego pieces have come out. B) Moveable Structures One of the most notable aspects of the K’nex franchise is the ability to use the pieces to construct models which have motion at the core of their function. Tank with functioning treads: Crane: Custom Rollercoaster (see video) http://www.youtube.com... Simplicity of design makes K’nex motion achievable with only the basic building pieces. From that original orange box I received as a child I was able to make crank powered ferris wheels and amusement park rides. Yes, Lego is able to achieve limited motion through some of the later models that include axles and gears and motors- but it is important to note that Lego motion requires special pieces, and even then is unable to achieve the range of moveable structures offered by K’nex. C) Engineering Education K’nex provides easy analogy for the development of intuition in structural engineering. The basic building form means that most structures are build from trusses, allowing children to lean from an early age how trusses function to distribute the load. When I built K’nex bridges as a child, I noticed that a flat bridge sagged but that if you built a truss the structure stayed rigid and could span a gap. Additionally, K’nex structures fail in ways that inform engineering intuition. Lack of adequate bracing on tall structures causes supports to bow outward and fail (buckling). The flexibility of K’nex also makes them useful for engineering education. A common program that engineering universities hold involves getting 5th-6th grade students to build small towers using basic principles of earthquake engineering. These K’nex structures are then placed on a “shake table”- a table that simulates an earthquake so that the students can see how an earthquake causes buildings to respond and fall down. The moveable structure aspect of K’nex also gives rise to engineering challenges, providing the impetus for kids to think critically about how to overcome problems with innovative design. One project I worked on was the design of a “drop ride” – a ride that lifts a car up a tower, drops the car at the top, then safely stops the car at the bottom. This project required me to figure out how to cause the car to automatically release from the lifting mechanism as the top of the tower and then to stop without crashing at the bottom. This was an engineering challenge I had come up with on my own and that I had to solve using my own creativity. For a toy to engage a 5th grader in such a way is truly valuable. D) Cultural Appropriation The popular Lego line “Bionicles” uses words of Maori origin as well as relying on Maori folklore for the basic storyline premise. The Lego line uses Maori words like “Tohunga” (native healer) and “Toa” (warrior). The use of such words prompted a lawsuit by a group of ethnic Maoris to block the copyright of their culture for the purpose of marketing toys [1]. This behavior on the part of Lego is an instance of cultural appropriation and is problematic for two reasons. First, it represents the fictionalization of a culture of a group of peoples indigenous to New Zealand who have historically been the victims of unjust treatment at the hands of Western culture. This fictionalization has the effect of erasing Maori culture and replacing it with the story of plastic Legos. For 85% of American boys, “Toa” are nothing more than the name of the next item on their Christmas list [2]. Second, it represents the nonconsensual use of native people’s culture for the profit of a corporation. The Maori people were not consulted in the appropriation of their language nor did they receive compensation. Essentially their culture was used to make a quick buck by the Lego corporation. We should not stand for the abuse of indigenous peoples and so should universally reject the product of any company involved in such activity. Toys should come with a clean conscience. [1] tinyurl.com/bubvh7t [2] tinyurl.com/cq24l43