Modifying Lego: Acceptable or Heresy

[MAB]

Agree with GregoryBrick, as I mentioned earlier - designers can't just arbitrarily make new parts; new molds are very expensive, and they have to make a great case for the need of a new part, in addition to it's future usefulness.

Not all new parts need new molds. Many new parts are just existing parts in a new colour. For example, the common old 2x2 (part number 3003) was introduced in medium nougat for The Simpsons house. The designer probably could have got away with using two 1x2 bricks instead, that already existed in medium nougat but they got a new part which is currently exclusive to that set.

The AFOL wouldn't have had that choice - they would either have to glue two 1x2 together, use a different colour, or cut down a larger brick (if it existed).

[L@go]

Not all new parts need new molds. Many new parts are just existing parts in a new colour. For example, the common old 2x2 (part number 3003) was introduced in medium nougat for The Simpsons house. The designer probably could have got away with using two 1x2 bricks instead, that already existed in medium nougat but they got a new part which is currently exclusive to that set.

The AFOL wouldn't have had that choice - they would either have to glue two 1x2 together, use a different colour, or cut down a larger brick (if it existed).

As far as I know, this is not a very accurate description of how it works - new parts and colour changes are two very different things. The designers are allowed a number of colour changes on any model depending on various factors, like how big it is and how much of a profit it's assumed to make. The threshold for getting new parts made is much higher. Just this weekend at the LEGO Fan Weekend in Denmark, Jamie Berard told the participants in his talk on the design process of the Fairground Mixer about how the Creator Expert designer generally won't get new parts for their sets (but they regularly do colour changes), and therefore if they have an idea for a new part which they'd like for a project, they'll go to designers for other themes and lobby for that new part, so maybe they'll get it made.

[GregoryBrick]

Not all new parts need new molds. Many new parts are just existing parts in a new colour. For example, the common old 2x2 (part number 3003) was introduced in medium nougat for The Simpsons house. The designer probably could have got away with using two 1x2 bricks instead, that already existed in medium nougat but they got a new part which is currently exclusive to that set.

The AFOL wouldn't have had that choice - they would either have to glue two 1x2 together, use a different colour, or cut down a larger brick (if it existed).

You say the AFOL wouldn't have had the choice to recolor a part, but as has been said, the amateur AFOL also doesn't have to go through the process of getting a new element/colour approved. The shade-tree modification isn't comparable to the decision to introduce a new element (or colour of an existing element) in the way you've presented them.

So, I'm not sure what you're saying. I don't think anybody is ignorant that new elements are produced and I don't see how it conflicts with anybody's principles on this.

Edited September 30, 2014 by GregoryBrick

[Boxerlego]

I am guilty of modifying electrical components too.

Another key point to consider when it comes to modifying LEGO is the beneficial use factors behind the modification. Now idealistically there are a number of beneficial factors that can be attached to the modification but does the positive out weight the negative here. In most cases you don't want to modify on LEGO when there is possible path of least resistance that requires no modification to be done to achieve the same thing. Take for example the modification on the Lego PF battery boxes Dr Spock made above. This is a great modification due to several beneficial factors like the 5.5mm DC electrical power connection that the battery box has and the various factor behind using a transformer over batteries. Powering the motors with the transformer has several advantages though there are some limitation behind transformers that don't stand up to batteries in certain cases. Transformers are good at providing a constant power output over time then batteries do and can also provide more power to make the motor turn over with more torque & rpm but that is all relative to the transformer rated output. Simply put the positive out weighs the negative here with Dr Spock battery box modification.

Now I will show you a modification of mine where the positive and negative factors are both heavy in weight. Now below is a picture of a modification I done to the PF cable that is able to connect with a 8 cell 12V battery case and basically any other battery that has the 9Volt battery style terminal connection. Thought there are some limitation and dangers in doing this. Just because I can connect the receiver up to a 12volt battery case it doesn't mean the receiver will be able to handle that amount of voltage. Component wise I believe the receiver can only handle voltage upwards to 10.5-10.8volts and that is dependent on the variation of the receiver so its important to measure the voltage on the 12v battery case to make sure then supply voltage is with in the operating voltage range of the receiver is able to handle. This is the negative to be looked at because you don't want to destroy the PF receiver by the unfortunate circumstance where you put to much voltage on the receiver, Though in contrast to that you want to get the best operating condition out of the receiver possible more voltage more power available for the motor and that is the positive that is to be wanted here.

[Ardelon]

I belong in the camp that thinks the limitations of the existing parts present a challenge that should be embraced rather than trying to find short-cuts by modifying parts. I dont think I could cut or recolor parts, because of the feeling that I am destroying a perfectly good part that I wont be able to use as originally intended. Of course, not having any experience with modification, I would also be afraid of doing a sloppy job and destroying the part completely.

Although I have no experience with electric or railway parts, so maybe in those cases the limitations may be impossible to overcome without modification. And of course I cant how other people work with their LEGO, so different strokes for different folks and all that.

[Andy D]

I have been thinking about this topic. It seems the OP just modified some parts he had to become another existing part he did not have. I don't think he created a new part type, just substituted one part for another instead of ordering.

I think this might be a reason I might consider modding a part, just to create another existing part, not create a new part type.

But if someone wanted to create a new part type... Well that's up to them.

Just MHO. YMMV,

Andy D

Edited October 26, 2014 by Andy D