Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

thewave.engineer

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 343 posts

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#51

Post by isoprophlex »

lich_king wrote: post #49

This is an LLM-written article. It also doesn't say anything . I get it that it's a cue for us to reminisce about childhood and say that LEGO isn't what it used to be, but we're being played for clicks. Open the article and look for a single statement that actually tells us something meaningful. It's just a sequence of impressively-sounding factoids like this: > A 2x2 brick can withstand over 4,000 Newtons of force,…

I too hate it when my kids apply 4 kN of force to off-brand construction bricks and they turn to ABS paste. Only LEGO (R) for my spawn!

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#52

Post by jiehong »

scatbot wrote: post #12

Lego is one of those companies that is simultaneously amazing and kind of sucks. On one hand the core product is incredible. The tolerances on the bricks are micrometer-level precision and the fact that pieces from the 70s snap perfectly into ones made today is mind blowing. On the other hand, a lot what the company does today just sucks. Set prices are outrageous. Printed bricks get replaced with stickers and many s…

Maybe one last thing that sucks is that it’s all plastic.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#53

Post by eru »

bdunks wrote: post #41
scatbot wrote: post #12

Lego is one of those companies that is simultaneously amazing and kind of sucks. On one hand the core product is incredible. The tolerances on the bricks are micrometer-level precision and the fact that pieces from the 70s snap perfectly into ones made today is mind blowing. On the other hand, a lot what the company does today just sucks. Set prices are outrageous. Printed bricks get replaced with stickers and many s…

Agree. They seem to have a “price per piece” equation. Perhaps as a result, the 5+ sets are made of hundreds of small pieces. Older sets had larger foundational and platform pieces which gave a good starting place for new creative builds. Today, airplanes fuselages, wings, and car chassis are instead built up piece by piece. It’s hard for my 6 year old to start creative builds that are stable when he hardly has any p…

> Today, airplanes fuselages, wings, and car chassis are instead built up piece by piece.

Well, people did complain about the whole 'special pieces' trend that you praise.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#54

Post by mejutoco »

pubby wrote: post #48

Lego's original moat was their patent. This expired in the 80s, and so their new moat became their manufacturing tolerances. None of their competitors could match the quality of their product. This lasted until about the 2010s when clone brands in China finally caught up, and coincidentally, Lego's own quality started slipping. Thus, they needed a new moat, and the choice was obvious: licensing.

I wish Lego would find a digital equivalent as universal as the bricks for programming. I think it could be another moat for them. But it seems they keep changing it and it does not seems as simple or as universal as it could be. I am thinking more programming with blocks than using a tablet etc. to program the blocks. IMO it is a wasted opportunity.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#55

Post by antonyh »

jiehong wrote: post #52
scatbot wrote: post #12

Lego is one of those companies that is simultaneously amazing and kind of sucks. On one hand the core product is incredible. The tolerances on the bricks are micrometer-level precision and the fact that pieces from the 70s snap perfectly into ones made today is mind blowing. On the other hand, a lot what the company does today just sucks. Set prices are outrageous. Printed bricks get replaced with stickers and many s…

Maybe one last thing that sucks is that it’s all plastic.

True, but at least it's not single use. Is there a viable alternative? A non-petrochemical plastic that has the same qualities? It's not like they can whittle them out of wood or cast them with metal so it'll always be some form of polymer, and I'm sure they would jump at a more ecologically sound option.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#56

Post by KellyCriterion »

scatbot wrote: post #12

Lego is one of those companies that is simultaneously amazing and kind of sucks. On one hand the core product is incredible. The tolerances on the bricks are micrometer-level precision and the fact that pieces from the 70s snap perfectly into ones made today is mind blowing. On the other hand, a lot what the company does today just sucks. Set prices are outrageous. Printed bricks get replaced with stickers and many s…

> a lot what the company does today just sucks. Set prices are outrageou

This was all done planned and implemented by this one consulting guy (MCK?), who became CEO after delivering his report from his consulting company, Lego was near bankrupt back then - he started with all this subbranding shitty stuff and the "colorful" bricks and introduced all these many many "single-use-case-bricks" for more and more sets.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#57

Post by jonhohle »

mmustapic wrote: post #29
utopiah wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nostalgia... Lego was amazing decades ago so we want it to remain so. It's not anymore though. The whole raison d'etre, namely infinitely recomposable bricks to be creative, was lost the moment they realized they were a LOT more money in custom sets. Sets become collectible, perishable, trends can form, secondary markets exists, etc. It's simply about the baseline, not the principle. Sorry.

Lego sets aimed at children are still good! They work as standalone toys, and can also be reassembled, modified and combined. Very few toys are like this. Adults collect them, true, but there are whole lines dedicated to them.

I recently built the NES and Game Boy sets and thought both of those were really great. The NES is probably not priced for most people (we try to stay under 10¢ a brick), but the level of detail, whimsy, and mechanics are all really well done. There are hidden scenes and Easter eggs built into the system that are revealed as you build rather than highlighted as features on the box. I was genuinely surprised and had a lot of fun sharing that with my family as we realized what was coming together.

The Game Boy was much more affordable. Less whimsical, but brought back memories of taking apart electronics and marveling at what these circuit boards and components could possibly be doing.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#58

Post by herpdyderp »

pubby wrote: post #48

Lego's original moat was their patent. This expired in the 80s, and so their new moat became their manufacturing tolerances. None of their competitors could match the quality of their product. This lasted until about the 2010s when clone brands in China finally caught up, and coincidentally, Lego's own quality started slipping. Thus, they needed a new moat, and the choice was obvious: licensing.

What knock off brands come even close in quality? Everything I’ve tried that isn’t name brand LEGO is hot garbage.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#59

Post by dec0dedab0de »

scatbot wrote: post #12

Lego is one of those companies that is simultaneously amazing and kind of sucks. On one hand the core product is incredible. The tolerances on the bricks are micrometer-level precision and the fact that pieces from the 70s snap perfectly into ones made today is mind blowing. On the other hand, a lot what the company does today just sucks. Set prices are outrageous. Printed bricks get replaced with stickers and many s…

The expensive sets ARE display models. They still have the older style generic sets for significantly cheaper.

Re: Lego's 0.002mm specification and its implications for manufacturing (2025)

#60

Post by alexjplant »

eru wrote: post #53
bdunks wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. They seem to have a “price per piece” equation. Perhaps as a result, the 5+ sets are made of hundreds of small pieces. Older sets had larger foundational and platform pieces which gave a good starting place for new creative builds. Today, airplanes fuselages, wings, and car chassis are instead built up piece by piece. It’s hard for my 6 year old to start creative builds that are stable when he hardly has any p…

> Today, airplanes fuselages, wings, and car chassis are instead built up piece by piece. Well, people did complain about the whole 'special pieces' trend that you praise.

As a kid I loved the giant boat hull piece because it was sealed and actually floated. This in combination with some larger pylon-type pieces from the Star Wars set meant you could build floating cities and vehicles and such and mess with them in the kitchen sink.

I wish I had hobbies as cheap as LEGO now...

Post reply on HN