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

101–110 of 343 posts

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

#101

Post by etrvic »

brazzy wrote: post #92
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.

It has almost 4 times the number of pieces, but is only about 50% longer and wider - there's just way more smaller pieces. Price per piece is very misleading when comparing older and newer sets. The newer ones have more details, look slicker, but have a lot less "meat". Which is not that great for creative play.

A 50% increase in dimensions doesn't directly transform in a 50% increase in volume.

>The newer ones have more details, look slicker, but have a lot less "meat"

I presume that the 2022 model has as target audience nostalgic adults, but otherwise I agree, the new sets seem far more fragile then the ones released a decade ago. I think this is due to a recent focus towards adults from LEGO.

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

#103

Post by dclowd9901 »

mmustapic wrote: post #62
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…

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.

I have the re-release secondhand unopened and I think I paid about that much, so even in a collector's market, not terrible at all. An expensive toy to be sure but a deeply satisfying experience if you like that kind of thing.

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

#104

Post by seqastian »

mmustapic wrote: post #62
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…

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.

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

#105

Post by SlinkyOnStairs »

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…

> Older sets had larger foundational and platform pieces which gave a good starting place for new creative builds.

They stopped doing the many unique parts because it was bankrupting them.

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

#106

Post by bazoom42 »

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.

You can still buy “generic” lego sets if you want. Look for “Lego Classic” sets.

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

#107

Post by dclowd9901 »

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.

The "Creator" sets in particular I feel harken the most to the company's roots. They usually have a few different builds per set and include all sorts of unique pieces for making your own creations. They also usually have very fun designs.

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

#108

Post by Aurornis »

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…

> many sets feel like display models than something you can play with

That’s what I thought when comparing to my childhood sets, but it doesn’t stop my kids from loving them and playing with them.

My kids are learning a lot of cool building tricks from the advanced sets that I never thought of as a kid. Lots of angle pieces, hinges, and creative building.

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

#109

Post by antonyh »

wongarsu wrote: post #84
antonyh wrote: post #76

This is why Lego has nothing to fear from 3D printing.

Not in terms of people printing lego bricks. But at least as an adult, designing things in Fusion and printing them scratches a similar itch as building lego. And 3d printing is now pretty accessible to the 14+ age group. I doubt this will completely replace legos, or that it's even their biggest threat, but I'd be surprised if it had no impact

Framed that way yes, but wouldn't it be cool to 3D print interlocking parts that can be reassembled in different ways?

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

#110

Post by antonyh »

tmaly wrote: post #88
antonyh wrote: post #76

This is why Lego has nothing to fear from 3D printing.

It would be interesting if 3D printers could reach this tolerance

I'm sure they will if they can't already, but the price of the tech & the materials could be the limiting factor. How much would a hobbyist be willing to spend on consistent 10-micron 3D printing?
Post reply on HN