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

131–140 of 343 posts

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

#131

Post by eru »

Aurornis wrote: post #114
eru wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You can also buy (used) sets or assorted blocks from when you were a kid.

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

#132

Post by bluescrn »

hypercube33 wrote: post #124
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…

Not just NX but technics basically was a build things that do stuff mechanically and now isn't that seemingly at all. Most kits I had came with one or more alternative models you could build with the primary kit as well.

Classic Technic was brilliant, but when they switched to 'studless Technic' it became far more difficult to build creatively with it (even if it enabled far more intricate builds with complex mechanisms, like the gearboxes in the supercar sets) - there was no natural 'up' direction any more, and building anything became more of a 3D logic puzzle than just building with bricks.

Real shame that they discontinued Mindstorms, though.

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

#133

Post by bigstrat2003 »

MarsIronPI wrote: post #73
wek wrote: post #18

For me, the beauty of Lego was just a huge bin of interconnectable parts that I used to make whatever my imagination came up with. For my kids, Lego is pre-built model airplane set that they build one time and then display. I liked my Lego better :)

Maybe Lego needs to manufacture sets that are just "collections of bricks". In fact, I think they did that at least for a while. I know my past self would have loved to have a few sets that when put together would provide the kinds and variety of pieces used in books such as The Lego Play Book.

They still do that. I can go to the store right this very moment and get a bin of bricks. There's no problem here: people who want designed sets can get those, and people who want just bricks to use as building material can get those.

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

#134

Post by bluescrn »

bazoom42 wrote: post #106
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.

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

They're a bit too simplistic though.

Some of the classic 80s themes, like Space and Castle, primarily used regular bricks of reasonable sizes in a very limited palette of colours, with a few special parts unique to the theme. They were much more suited to taking apart and building your own creations.

These days, there's just too many specialised and small parts, and too many colours. Even if you buy a big grey Star Wars set, you'll find that the internal structure is often brightly coloured to make the instructions clearer - but this isn't ideal if you want to take it apart and build something else.

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

#135

Post by hibikir »

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…

If you want advancements in engineering and plastics for much better prices, see the wonders that Bandai has made with modern Gundam models. A Gundam Aerial HG is under $20, and you end up with a large multicolor model that assembles easily, has minimal mold lines, and needs no glue. And that's one of the intro models

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

#136

Post by ragebol »

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…

Ha, I noticed this too! And even my 3 y/o picked up on this.

We have a set (something with Spiderman IIRC) that attached wheels with yellow pins that allow for better rolling of wheels. The black pins are too tight for this indeed.

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

#137

Post by dsr_ »

radpanda wrote: post #118
seqastian wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, you'll always give up something.

If you want to spend some time looking at critiques from someone with experience, I find JANG's Youtube reviews of both LEGO and non-LEGO brick toys to be well-balanced. We have differing opinions, but he has decent rationales for most of his opinions.

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

#138

Post by dismalaf »

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…

Basic Lego is actually decently affordable. It's the collector's sets that adults would buy whose prices are jacked sky high, based on demand it seems.

I've bought a decent amount of Duplo and Lego kits for my son (currently 3 years old) and it's great value.

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

#139

Post by bluescrn »

Aurornis wrote: post #114
eru wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The best way to enjoy Lego is to give it to some kids and watch them get creative with it.

But there's a very limited age range in which todays kids will appreciate physical toys, before they're introduced to screens...

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

#140

Post by Xerox9213 »

dclowd9901 wrote: post #103
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.

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.

Buying buckets of used bricks is pretty cheap, too. I bought an adult's old lifetime collection for $30 CAD. My 2 year old son and I are still sorting them.
Post reply on HN