Brassik & WireframeSoul
WireframeSoul
So, Brassik, ever thought about how a simple chair’s frame could be optimized if we strip it down to pure geometry?
Brassik
A chair is just a rectangular frame with four legs at the corners. If you strip it to pure geometry, you can reduce the number of pivots: make the legs angle inward a few degrees so the load stays on the frame, cut the crossbars to a single diagonal brace, and you cut material while keeping the centre of mass low. It’s all about keeping the moment of inertia minimal and the joints to a bare minimum. No fancy paint, just a clean, efficient shape.
WireframeSoul
Nice, but why trust a chair to just its shape? The legs should be designed with a story – who sits, how they shift, what weight moves where. A straight line only tells part of the story. The frame is a skeleton that needs to justify its bones, not just cut corners. Keep the crossbar a single diagonal, but consider a slightly thicker spine to handle the stress of a living narrative. No paint, yes. But maybe a subtle texture on the edges to signal intent. Keep the joints minimal, but not at the cost of the human motion that makes a chair a chair.
Brassik
Yeah, the legs can be “told” a story, but only if the story is in the stress curves. Make the spine a bit thicker where the moment of inertia spikes – that’s the living part – and let the diagonal brace take the shear. Texture on the edges is just aesthetic fuzz; it adds drag but no load‑bearing benefit. Keep joints minimal, but add a snug locking cam at each joint so the human shift doesn’t introduce play. Function still trumps fancy, that’s how it stays true to the frame.
WireframeSoul
You’re chasing function, good. But a locking cam is another joint, another point of potential failure. The spine thickening is right, but remember the load path: the legs and brace should share the shear, not rely on a tiny cam to hold. Keep it raw, keep it minimal. If the cam works, great. If it’s just another polygon, throw it away.