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

91–100 of 343 posts

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

#91

Post by kevinsync »

KellyCriterion wrote: post #56
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…

> a lot what the company does today just sucks. Set prices are outrageou This was all done planned and implemented by this one consulting guy (MCK?), who became CEO after delivering his report from his consulting company, Lego was near bankrupt back then - he started with all this subbranding shitty stuff and the "colorful" bricks and introduced all these many many "single-use-case-bricks" for more and more sets.

I was just about to reply about their financial woes over the years too [0][1][2]

Being a collector of stuff ever since I was a kid (toys, comics, cards, physical media, printed collateral, etc), and being in my 40's (target market / demographic for expensive nostalgia) living in 2026 (the world is a casino! everything's a collector's item!), it is a little annoying to see LEGO appear to turn into something that it wasn't .. but objectively that doesn't eradicate the fundamentals of LEGO, and I'd rather see them be a healthy company with longevity (via current product strategy) than wither and die on the vine out of stubbornness.

That said, aside from leaning on the AAA IP that drives prices through the roof in some lines, I do wish they'd stop with the tech gimmicks (Hidden Side, Smart Bricks), renew one of their focuses on real tech/engineering-adjacent platforms (Mindstorms / NXT / a modern version of these), and acknowledge that wealthy adults aren't the only customers. It really prices out young, fertile minds who a lot of their product and ethos should be directed towards.

Of course, that's a huge problem right now with anything that can command aftermarket prices as collectibles! [3]

[0] - https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/innovation-almos...

[1] - https://blog.firestartoys.com/how-the-lego-company-almost-we...

[2] - https://www.toypro.com/us/news/710/learn-the-story-behind-le...

[3] - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7FZWovUTmL0

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

#92

Post by brazzy »

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.

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.

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

#93

Post by em-bee »

m3kw9 wrote: post #14

If you buy any knock off legos, you are guaranteed 3 things, 1. Crappy instructions 2. Noticing the snap pressure is inconsistent and often too tight our bouncy. 3. Swearing at that manufacturer after every page.

not true at all for most alternative brands (they are not knock offs, the patents are expired so they are legal, and comparable in quality), same for cloned sets (shady companies cloning lego sets using alternative bricks (the bricks are legal, the cloned sets aren't). the quality of alternative bricks is good. the quality of the instructions as well.

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

#94

Post by onlypassingthru »

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.

Wow, childhood memory unlocked. I had set 497. And, yes, it was a very expensive toy in its day.

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

#95

Post by StilesCrisis »

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.

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.

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

#96

Post by closewith »

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…

But you can only remove them once, and then never recreate the original set. Not great.

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

#97

Post by mmustapic »

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 is a set for nostalgic adults. In fact, it is 50% larger so a grown up can hold it in their hands and feel it massive, like kids did in the 80s.

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

#98

Post by StilesCrisis »

throw310822 wrote: post #19
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…

> 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.

How many plastic things from the 70s still work perfectly with no cracking or warping?

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

#99

Post by bluGill »

wongarsu wrote: post #78
bluGill wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard your same rant in the 1980s - only small details have changed (not mindstorms then ...) But kids who want to build have always been able to, and most sets mix and match for those kids.

> I heard your same rant in the 1980s The two options would be that either the perception is unsubstantiated but persists, or there has been a continuous decline for the last 40 years. I'm strongly leaning towards the latter. I also having the same issues in the 00s looking at old sets from the 80s, and looking back now the 00s look much better than what we have today. Obviously not in every way, and not all recent s…

Lego was always very expensive. They have long made weird custom pieces and those sets have sold well - despite not having the long staying ability that the more basic sets have.

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

#100

Post by FinnKuhn »

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…

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.

Post reply on HN