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

261–270 of 343 posts

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

#261

Post by FarmerPotato »

ryukoposting wrote: post #86
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…

Call me names, but I'll go to bat for stickers. Even when I was a kid, I wasn't keen on graphic designs on the pieces. I liked the uniformity of consistently-colored pieces. Most graphics only make sense in the context of the set they were packaged in. Stickers give the customer flexibility. Use them when you build the set, and remove them later if you take the set apart and don't want them anymore. Killing Mindstorm…

Silverlight. 3.0 was built on Silverlight. And I guess other 3rd party proprietary stuff.

I coached FLL 9+ and Junior FLL 6-8. FLL moved on to Boost and Java programming. These days I only do high-school FIRST.

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

#262

Post by FarmerPotato »

FinnKuhn wrote: post #100
ryukoposting wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me names, but I'll go to bat for stickers. Even when I was a kid, I wasn't keen on graphic designs on the pieces. I liked the uniformity of consistently-colored pieces. Most graphics only make sense in the context of the set they were packaged in. Stickers give the customer flexibility. Use them when you build the set, and remove them later if you take the set apart and don't want them anymore. Killing Mindstorm…

You can argue this for their sets targeting children and I don't think anyone minds stickers on those. On display sets for multiple hundred Euros however it just looks cheap due to different surfaces and colors - especially as no one is ever going to disassemble these sets.

stickers > just looks cheap due to different surfaces and colors

They are cheap!

To print on a piece you must run the inkjet assembly line, do QC on it.. With early Collectable Minifig series, I heard they outsourced that. I imagine inkjet lines that run all day for one piece type (maybe having changeable jigs.)

It's cheap to print a whole sheet of stickers!

Another approach that isn't so cheap is: in-mold transfer printing sheets. I learned about this at plastics shows around 2000; Apple used it on the all-in-one spotted iMac in 2001-ish.

Now since Lego ships perpetually ships 1x4s and 1x2s with black smileys or such, I guess carbon black in-mold transfer must be cost-effective. (That's a guess)

I know we're gonna be arguing taste in stickers forever.

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

#263

Post by FarmerPotato »

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

Yeah, that's some brilliant mold engineering!

>minimal mold lines

I think this comes from higher tonnage (clamp force) molding machines. Injected plastic exerts force at the mold seam. Pressing the mold open by even a teeny tiny amount is unpalatable. Mold lines also can result where a mold has insertable parts, like sliding rods to form inner holes.

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

#264

Post by jjk166 »

rkangel wrote: post #77

The tolerance for interference fit ("clutch power" in Lego terminology) is important, but that's fairly simple. It's the cumulative tolerance when you assemble large structures that's important. Knockoff bricks can be fine for the first few you assemble, and then as the structure gets larger things don't quite fit together. Also interesting is that in very large models, there is decoupling between sections. Lego has…

That's actually not too difficult. So long as your process variance is centered around nominal, the stackup will tend to cancel out. You might run into trouble if your kit involves hundreds of identical pieces from the same batch being assembled together, but that's rare. For large builds from multiple kits, it's very unlikely they have the same errors.

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

#265

Post by FarmerPotato »

jacquesm wrote: post #34
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…

They suck because instead of buying the rights to the bricks they outright stole the design, the packaging and the marketing materials from the original inventor. And then they sued the pants of everybody that tried to do the same thing to them.

That's a simplification of the Kiddicraft story.

Yes, it was a shame. After Lego lost in court (to Hilary Page's heirs I think by then) I believe they finally atoned for that.

Still, Lego didn't just sell the Kiddicraft brick unmodified. Lego patented the tubes inside, which gave it superior clutch power. (I have a lot of 2x4 bricks with "Pat Pend" molded on them!)

As I've heard it, Ole Kirk Christiansen had seen Hilary Page's brick as a sample from a molding machine vendor. Lego previously made wooden toys (until his son Godtfred allegedly set the factory on fire) and was casting about for what production to invest in for the future.

The Kiddicraft brick was a little rectangular box, no tubes inside. A lot of brick toys came out in the 60s that were little shells with varying clutch power.

For a museum of the many brick toys, go to https://www.architoys.net

In particular, Betta Bilda, Block City, American Bricks.

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

#266

Post by tsoukase »

To make a bunch of plastic toy bricks a multi billion company you have to produce very special ones. LEGO is a marvel of human entrepreneurship, mechanical, designing and marketing. Diverse and totally different professions should cooperate together with a lot of innovation. To make one characteristic is doable, all of them is very difficult.

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

#267

Post by sixo »

mcphage wrote: post #250
sixo wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prices are constrained by demand moreso than by cost of production. Lego pieces are expensive because they can be, they still sell, and this is largely due to the quality. As long as the quality moat persists, they can charge as much as people will pay, and--good for them! That you personally would prefer lower prices does not mean they "should" be lower. Those lower costs of production, to Lego company, "should" mea…

> As long as the quality moat persists The risk Lego faces is that they don't actually have a quality moat any longer. You can get non-lego sets with no stickers, plenty of prints, LED lighting, at a cheaper price, and with the exact same piece quality. I purchased this set: https://www.lumibricks.com/collections/steampunk-world/produ... over Christmas, and I paid $105 because it was on sale. The pieces were indistin…

A reputation moat is still a moat. It seems to me that Lego prices will drop as soon as they are forced to by competition, and not before, and this is fine.

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

#268

Post by derriz »

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…

Historically Lego was a construction toy. This is what it was in my youth. These days Lego sell model construction kits - most are constructed once and then the owner plays with the model. This represents a radical and fundamental change. I’m not sure when it happened or how suddenly it happened as there is a large (decades) gap in time since I played with Lego as a kid and my current exposure to Lego via my own kids. Our home is full of Lego models but I don’t recall seeing my kid using his vast amount (compared to the shoe box I used to store my Lego as a kid) of Lego to actually construct something. The “studless” change - with its inside-out building technique makes it virtually impossible to alter a model once built - unlike the old bottom-up approach where it’s trivial to alter. It makes me sad because I remember with nostalgia the hours I spent building all sorts of fanciful constructions with my box of generic Lego pieces but I also acknowledge that model building — which I do with my kids - is also fun. But it’s just not the same play/toy as it was years ago.

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

#269

Post by FarmerPotato »

Paratoner wrote: post #116
throw310822 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The precision in tolerance over the years is truly breathtaking.

It speaks to Ole Kirk Christiansen's impossible standards: "Even the best is not good enough" (Det Bedste Er Ikke For Godt.) (usually translated "Only the best is good enough.")

Much more strenuous in Danish than the usual quoted translation! but I know some Danish, and most of all that's how Kjeld Kirk Christiansen explained it to an American audience at Brickfest 2003 (IIRC the year).

As I commented elsewhere, it's not 60 years. Sure, the outer dimensions have not changed and are very strict metric Lego Units. [1] But there have been continual improvement that render old and new less than wonderful to use together. You don't really want to mix 70s-early 80s bricks.

Conversely, if you're reselling those old sets, you need to find vintage pieces (though also Lego would use up older pieces and begin to use newer ones in that set)

But bricks from the mature design of the 80s even didn't age so well (clutch too hard, walls can warp), and there have been many improvements to the interior of a brick. All for sound engineering reasons. Thinner walls and internal voids to prevent warp, subtle changes to fine-tune clutch power.

It's a story of continual improvement, but it makes the old bricks seem less wonderful.

Weird thing Lego started to advertise in the 2000s: Lego bricks reach the proper clutch power after 7 insertions! I guess you have to stress-work the new plastic...

[1] I've used a micrometer on pieces of various age and can't get a difference from the outside. Doesn't help that they compress under measuring.

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

#270

Post by crooked-v »

jdwithit wrote: post #163
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.

Definitely agree on the reduced usefulness for creative play. My kids got a lot of Lego sets as gifts when they were younger. Which is great, I love them playing with Legos. But once they're done with the instructions that's just kinda it. A Star Wars or Frozen or Minecraft themed kit ends up being all weird one-off specialty pieces. They are necessary to make an extremely detailed replica of the Millenium Falcon. Bu…

The Creator 3-in-1 sets are basically what you're looking for, they just don't get advertised much. A lot of them are more generified and rebuildable, sometimes even more refined versions of more expensive sets or parts of more expensive sets. Maybe the most obvious are the 3-in-1 dragon and dinosaur sets, which to me feel obviously like more generic reworks of D&D and Jurassic Park builds respectively, and have a lot more in the way of generic tiles and bricks than the licensed sets they're derived from.
Post reply on HN