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

141–150 of 343 posts

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

#141

Post by ibizaman »

hibikir wrote: post #135
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

You weren’t kidding. I just took a look and the models are gorgeous!

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

#142

Post by arkh »

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 basic brick sets. With lot of nice color nowadays. Like the CLassics or Creator lines: https://www.lego.com/en-us/themes/classic

And for $100 you get a lot of bricks to play with and let your imagination go wild. Just don't buy sets aimed at adults and IP fansumers.

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

#143

Post by nkrisc »

StilesCrisis wrote: post #95
brazzy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I bought a set recently which was definitely padding its piece counts. The interior structure of a solid shape was constructed out of dozens of small 1x2s and could easily have been a handful of much larger pieces with no downside. I didn't consider the "more pieces = more perceived value" logic until this comment.

I always charitably assumed that they designed models to utilize surplus pieces for the internal structures, pieces that might be hard to use elsewhere.

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

#144

Post by tylerflick »

Xerox9213 wrote: post #140
dclowd9901 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to mention you can 3D print Duplo compatible bricks.

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

#145

Post by bena »

SoftTalker wrote: post #127
bena wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The elements that are 1/3 the height of a brick is a plate if it has studs, and a tile if it does not. Lego did not have Star Wars sets until 1998. The original Lego Millenium Falcon set 4504 would have retailed for right around $100. Which was high, but just as high as the bigger Castle sets at the time.

They definitely had lunar/space themed sets in the '80s, but they were generic (at least the ones I had). I don't recall when the Star Wars sets came out, they might have been one of the first cross-promotional tie-ins that Lego did?

Star Wars sets started coming out in 1998. They weren't the first licensed sets, but the first fictional license.

Prior to Star Wars, they had Shell, Exxon, and Esso branded sets. I think sometimes they licensed the Ferrari brand as well.

And yes, Lego has had a Space theme since the late 70s. But it was a general "Space" theme. They would later make Space Police, Blacktron, Magnetron, etc.

But actual Star Wars was 1998. I have some of those sets. It was a big deal to get an actual lightsaber hilt and blade.

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

#146

Post by CapricornNoble »

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…

I guess it depends on what a "Lego-quality experience" means to you.

I grew up with the mid 80s to mid 90s kits, mostly castles and pirate ships, a few space sets. I think it's a very different experience compared to the nightmares I read about building the Mould King Eclipse-class Star Destroyer ( https://www.reddit.com/r/lepin/comments/1pdfx5y/mould_king_e... ). The concept of "bad luck with construction" is foreign to me, because most of the kits I remember building as a child were comparatively simple.

I'm working on this house with my 5yo daughter now: ( https://ja.aliexpress.com/item/1005006068361257.html ). Costs ~$20, we work on it about 30-45 minutes several times a week, so it takes months to finish. If she tears it apart 6 months from now to build something from her imagination, mission accomplished.

I hear people rave about this Cyberpunk-style kit, maybe this is closer to what you expect? https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/_a_a4b2bvISsP6pyjkSxLw (Chinese language review) I plan to buy it at some point....for myself, not for my kids!

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

#147

Post by dfedbeef »

samrus wrote: post #15
rrr_oh_man wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's one of the areas where LEGO is generally superior to the similar types of bricks Imho, this is, objectively, not true (anymore). Pantasy with GoBricks are superior in coloring and fit; Cobi are excellent for things that should not be taken apart anymore (like tank models); Lumibricks are excellent in fit and have amazing illumination solutions that are lightyears (haha) ahead of lego.

True. But lego has stood the test of time. Thats way harder

Lot of time left, by my count

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

#148

Post by ijk »

StilesCrisis wrote: post #95
brazzy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I bought a set recently which was definitely padding its piece counts. The interior structure of a solid shape was constructed out of dozens of small 1x2s and could easily have been a handful of much larger pieces with no downside. I didn't consider the "more pieces = more perceived value" logic until this comment.

For a while the complaint was that Lego was making too many big, specialized pieces, so I'm amused that the current complaint seems to be that they're using too many small generic ones.

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

#149

Post by bombcar »

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.

It's the other way around - because pieces cost roughly based on their size (amount of material) modern Lego sets are "denser" and heavier on average than similar sized sets of the past, because as piece count (and detail) goes up, piece size has been going down.

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

#150

Post by bombcar »

nkrisc wrote: post #143
StilesCrisis wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bought a set recently which was definitely padding its piece counts. The interior structure of a solid shape was constructed out of dozens of small 1x2s and could easily have been a handful of much larger pieces with no downside. I didn't consider the "more pieces = more perceived value" logic until this comment.

I always charitably assumed that they designed models to utilize surplus pieces for the internal structures, pieces that might be hard to use elsewhere.

They may do that (designers have a "part budget" they can spend in various ways) but the real reason for weird colors inside models is to make it easier to build; especially since many of the models consist entirely of various shades of grey and black.

Various piece size also makes it easier to see if you got the wrong piece.

Post reply on HN