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

111–120 of 343 posts

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

#111

Post by mmustapic »

seqastian wrote: post #104
mmustapic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lego was always expensive, you can compare prices adjusted for inflation. For example, the 1979 Galaxy Explorer https://brickset.com/sets/497-1 > was around $32, that's $144 today. The reimagined set from 2023 https://brickset.com/sets/10497-1 > was sold at $99, $106 today. Not only it is cheaper, but much larger and with many more pieces.

There are so many better alternatives these days it’s mostly fanboys and people who don’t care who are still buying original Lego.

Lego is some kind of cultural icon now, and many people want to participate. That's why they have tons of sets aimed at adults over many themes, like plastic flowers, formula 1 helmets, old video game consoles.

Many of them are a really bad and expensive purchase if you only care about the theme itself, like the latest Death Star (or almost any Lego Star Wars set). You can usually buy a similar and cheaper non-lego model. Or the Titanic set too.

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

#112

Post by esafak »

seqastian wrote: post #104
mmustapic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lego was always expensive, you can compare prices adjusted for inflation. For example, the 1979 Galaxy Explorer https://brickset.com/sets/497-1 > was around $32, that's $144 today. The reimagined set from 2023 https://brickset.com/sets/10497-1 > was sold at $99, $106 today. Not only it is cheaper, but much larger and with many more pieces.

There are so many better alternatives these days it’s mostly fanboys and people who don’t care who are still buying original Lego.

Like what?

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

#113

Post by Aurornis »

utopiah wrote: post #16
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…

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.

The existence of specialty sets doesn’t subtract from creating building.

My kids get some of the specialty sets, build them, then hours later they’re either taken apart or heavily modified.

The specialty sets can provide some interesting unique pieces too. My kids have a photographic memory of each of those special pieces and which set they came from. They’ll remember them and search until they find that exact piece.

> Sets become collectible, perishable, trends can form, secondary markets exists, etc. It's simply about the baseline, not the principle. Sorry.

I don’t know what this is supposed to mean, but you can completely ignore secondary markets and collector sets if you want.

There are more sets and pieces than ever. You don’t have to collect anything.

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

#114

Post by Aurornis »

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.

Lego suffers from a fandom problem among adults: They have strong nostalgia for how it was when they were kids and they think everything since then is against the natural order of Lego.

The best way to enjoy Lego is to give it to some kids and watch them get creative with it. Unlike all of the Internet complaints, kids have no problem having fun with Lego and being creative in their own ways.

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

#115

Post by antonyh »

em-bee wrote: post #85
antonyh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

lego compatible bricks made from wood do exist. they probably don't last as long though.

I'm sure they don't unless made from a stable hardwood or coated somehow to resist expansion/contraction which would defeat the whole point of using a sustainable material. Lovely idea though, I really like wooden objects.

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

#116

Post by Paratoner »

throw310822 wrote: post #19
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 fact that pieces from the 70s snap perfectly into ones made today is mind blowing Is it? It's not like it's hard to keep producing the pieces to the same original specifications. If they snapped then they snap now.

Did you even read the article? No, even just the Title? Nothing is ever impressive I guess. Certainly not a 60 years running manufacturing process where your childhood pieces can be passed down and combined seamlessly with a set you just bought for your kid. So trivial and easy to do guys.

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

#117

Post by Aurornis »

throw310822 wrote: post #19
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 fact that pieces from the 70s snap perfectly into ones made today is mind blowing Is it? It's not like it's hard to keep producing the pieces to the same original specifications. If they snapped then they snap now.

> It's not like it's hard to keep producing the pieces to the same original specifications.

It’s extremely hard to build consistent products to the spec.

There are a lot of knock-off LEGO on the market now. We get them as gifts. Some of them stack okay, some are too tight, some are too loose.

It’s hard to manufacture at scale at these tolerances and keep it that way for decades.

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

#118

Post by radpanda »

seqastian wrote: post #104
mmustapic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lego was always expensive, you can compare prices adjusted for inflation. For example, the 1979 Galaxy Explorer https://brickset.com/sets/497-1 > was around $32, that's $144 today. The reimagined set from 2023 https://brickset.com/sets/10497-1 > was sold at $99, $106 today. Not only it is cheaper, but much larger and with many more pieces.

There are so many better alternatives these days it’s mostly fanboys and people who don’t care who are still buying original Lego.

I feel like I’ve seen essentially this same comment every time a Lego thread comes up but there doesn’t seem to be unanimous agreement on which brick toys are better. Sure, some people have good experiences with brand X but others will say they’ve had bad luck with the construction. Someone else will talk up Brand Y and someone else will point out how terrible the instructions are. Are there any brands that actually do consistently deliver a Lego-quality experience without the Lego price?

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

#119

Post by normie3000 »

voidUpdate wrote: post #22
vidarh wrote: post #6

More than just bricks fitting into each other at a superficial level, it matters how firmly they fit together, and it's one of the areas where LEGO is generally superior to the similar types of bricks. A detail I didn't realise until I was an adult was the difference between the black and grey technic connecting pins. They look interchangeable, and for a lot of things they are. But there's a fraction of a mm raised l…

Do you mean between black and light grey? Light grey pins have always been the kind you use for rotating connections (low friction), whereas black was for non-rotating ones (high friction). Newer blue pins are also high friction, IIRC. I haven't bought new lego technic in a while, so I don't know if there's been any new colours added EDIT: I think I also had some dark grey pins, but I don't remember if they were high…

> Light grey pins have always been...

I think the black ones were a later addition, likely late nineties.

Post reply on HN