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

191–200 of 343 posts

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

#191

Post by bombcar »

wongarsu wrote: post #87
iso1631 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nostalgia 'aint what it used to be

Maybe my perception of 00s models is colored by nostalgia, hard to know. But I haven't been alive in the 80s, so my perception of them during the 00s should be pretty uncolored

My recall was that the 90s was pretty awesome, and the 00s fell into BURPS and large pieces and tie-in sets.

But I think most people either agree there was a dark ages where they went almost bankrupt and did some really questionable themes, or the best time was when they were a kid.

The 90s catalogs rocked in a way that no website ever can, though.

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

#192

Post by cruffle_duffle »

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.

Sorting Lego is such a pain in the ass. I have like a huge stash from when I was a kid. Back then we just had it all in a few tubs and dug to find a part. But somehow now I feel I must sort them… but the “right way” is ill defined and kind of sucks the joy out of playing (especially disassembling)

And there is no “right way” that I’ve even found. Sort by color and now the little pieces fall to the bottom and are hard to dig for. The best I can see is part type and size… maybe… even then it sucks out the fun. I want to build cool shit with my daughter not spend every moment of Lego time sorting. There is no joy in sorting…

Maybe I just revert back to the “big tub” approach.

I dunno. Thanks for listening to my TED talk I guess.

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

#193

Post by abtinf »

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…

Quality is expensive.

Lego’s net profit margin is only about 19%.

They couldn’t lower prices much even if they wanted to.

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

#194

Post by 0x457 »

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.

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

That's because they are. There probably never been this many adults building lego than today.

> The Mindstorms/NXT line had huge potential but then just sort of fizzled out.

That's a small niche in today's world, a child is too young for arduino/feather/cyberbrick/whatever.

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

#195

Post by bombcar »

antonyh wrote: post #55
jiehong wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lego has been testing making some pieces out of corn-based plastic or other natural plastics. https://www.lego.com/en-us/sustainability/sustainable-materi...

Some of the first forays resulted in notably lower-quality bricks.

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

#196

Post by gchamonlive »

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…

Isn't that just capitalism? The rule is for companies to keep pushing for higher margins and profit, so given enough time any company will default to shady tactics and product enshitification.

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

#197

Post by autoexec »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #182
potatototoo99 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they have kept up with inflation, and that is the problem. Manufactured goods like Lego bricks should fall in price through innovation in processes, scale, etc. What does raise higher than the average inflation should be be labor-intensive products/services. In other words, it feels much stranger today how expensive Legos are compared to 47 years ago.

Anything that has only kept up with inflation over the last 50 years is cheaper today than it was 50 years ago relative to people's incomes, which is the relevant definition of "cheaper". Not sure exactly how Lego prices have evolved but, as others have said, Lego is a brand and is unique. Their sale prices have little to do with their costs.

For most people anything that has only kept up with inflation over the last 50 years is more expense today than it was 50 years ago because wages have stagnated while prices have soared.

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

#198

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

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.

There's nothing stopping you from buying the basic sets and only the basic sets. They didn't stop making basic sets, unless you're objecting to the new colors that go beyond blue red yellow and black?

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

#199

Post by solidsnack9000 »

I would like to better understand the reasoning behind what the author says here:

A balanced 16-cavity mold costs 3-4x more than a single-cavity mold but only produces 16x the parts, which is why they only make economic sense above 500,000 units.

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

#200

Post by vidarh »

rrr_oh_man wrote: post #9
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…

> 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.

Interesting - never come across Pantasy/GoBricks, or Lumibricks but then it's a few years since my son decided he was too old for LEGO, and I see Pantasy is just a few years old, and Funwhole/Lumibricks just a few more. Great if there are more options of similar quality.

But "should not be taken apart anymore" fits into an entirely different category for me. If you don't need to be able to take them apart any more, it fundamentally changes requirements.

Post reply on HN