What is the REAL cost of new molds in 2021?

[Lego David]

Every time I see someone ask about LEGO re-releasing certain sets, the argument that the old molds have been destroyed is immediately brought up, and the re-release of that set instantly deemed impossible due to just one or a couple of pieces not being available anymore. But I really have to ask... are new molds really that expensive in 2021? Technology has progressed heavily in the field of 3D printing especially, allowing fans to create entire new LEGO-compatible pieces on their own for a very low cost (provided they own a 3D printer, which have gotten more and more accessible in recent years). And if a bunch of regular people can 3D print their own stuff, why can't a multi-billion dollar corporation do the same with their new molds? 

And even if let's say, they still use the traditional molding process because of quality concerns, that still doesn't explain how they seem to be so careless about which themes get new molds and which don't. They make like 10 new molds for a one-off theme like Trolls, only to get rid of them as soon as the sets retire. And even perfectly useable molds are still often gotten rid of very quickly, just because they fulfilled the original role they were made for, despite the potential to be re-purposed for other things (this often happens with the animal molds). 

And yet somehow, despite them being fine with making so many one-off molds, for one-off lines, they appear to have a problem with re-issuing older molds for potential set re-releases. I have to ask, why is this even the case? Technically speaking, shouldn't re-issuing older parts be even cheaper than creating a new mold? Since you already have the design of the old piece, you don't have to hire someone again to make a new design. 

I've always been baffled by the inconsistent way LEGO handles their new molds, and I am really curious to know what is their actual cost to produce in 2021. 

[Stuartn]

I think it is important to consider the costs associated with designing the moulds not including the actual mould or machinery. I recall from the documentary about the LEGO factory that prototype clay moulds were carved from hand taking significant time, whereas I would assume now such processes are computerised saving time and money, mould prices would be lower now and I assume TLG’s effort to make all parts in-house will also see the average rice reduce

Also most internet sources are quite dated now and the maximum price often floated around of $200 000 generally refers to complex moulds like chain elements, also the price of new moulds is offset by set sales, so  it is important to incorporate the sales of sets into whether a new mould is economical, furthermore, it is important to remember moulds are not the only consideration, regardless of the cost of a mould injection moulding machines and the factories that house them are not infinite, and supply lines need to accomodate many different new moulds as well as existing moulds, and this can impact how many new moulds can actually be introduced regardless of cost.

[MAB]

Tolerance and size are an issue. A lot of 3D printed parts made by fans are for minifigures or other pieces where they do not need clutch like regular bricks. Also if they are 0.1mm too big, it is not a big deal, since they do not need to fit in system in a reliable way. 

[1974]

It's not the moulds, it's the whole concept of re-issuing sets from a bygone era (no, the Deathstar and Taj Mahal are not from that era). TLG do not want to do that, sure there are nods to CS and CC from time to time but we are not going to see a 497 or a 6074 ever again. TLG tried that when they could with the proper moulds and colours (almost, the blue Fury was re-re'ed in bley!) and those didn't sell well enough

I'm sure the'll be something like a Cafe Corner again, perhaps even a sort of monorail, but it won't be straight up re-issues

2 hours ago, Stuartn said:

Also most internet sources are quite dated now and the maximum price often floated around of $200 000 generally refers to complex moulds like chain elements

The "quater of a million dollars mould" was the very complex dice from the games

Cheers,

Ole

[1963maniac]

TLG has a whole department that refurbishes molds so they can continue to use them. Does TLG really trash all their unused molds. I find that hard to believe unless the machines that injected those molds are no longer used.

As for rerunning retired sets, TLG probably has a good idea how much $$ can be expected and whether it's a good investment.

[AmperZand]

LEGO is a private company but is run like a public one, and public companies very rarely revert to old products. It makes them look like they’re not innovating, that the designers of a bygone era were more capable. Companies can’t be seen to be that way or admit that.

As for the sculpt development process, as recently as a few years ago, after some 2D concept art, new elements for CMFs began with hand-made, oversized sculpts. That was the process despite CAD being widely used in later stages. Likely still the case.

[dr_spock]

3D printing is great for making one offs or prototyping or a few units.  With CAD, you can design and make your own custom LEGO compatible parts.  Pretty sure I read somewhere LEGO uses 3D printing to prototype their part designs.  You can make a mold of a 3D print like for sand casting metal parts.

Cost of the molds depends on variables like how precise do you need it, how many injection shot cycles it has to last, the type of mold material (aluminum is way cheaper than high grade tool steel), the labour costs of making the mold (hand polishing), etc.

Here is a nice video on how precise scaled model trains are made.  In there somewhere they also show how they make their molds:   https://youtu.be/WoxtnAYGwrc

At the end of the day, the business question is does making this mold makes me more money than making that other mold?

[Lego David]

2 hours ago, AmperZand said:

It makes them look like they’re not innovating, that the designers of a bygone era were more capable. Companies can’t be seen to be that way or admit that

That is understandable, but most of the time when people want older sets again, they usually just want LEGO to explore the set's general concept/idea further rather than deliver a 1:1 re-release.

In that case, nothing should really stop them from remaking the Cafe Corner in a way that is up the the standards of the current modulars. 

25 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

At the end of the day, the business question is does making this mold makes me more money than making that other mold?

This still doesn't explain why we don't see new molds in most of the D2C sets, for example. Unless they are explicitly required by some licensed character, LEGO Ideas seems to shy away from introducing new molds most of the time, despite those sets always selling very well. 

[Toastie]

Here is a link from this very forum, where Michael Gale lays it out for track molds - the entire thread is quite informative in this regard:

Such a piece of track is certainly not small nor simple.

Best
Thorsten

Edited July 5, 2021 by Toastie

[dr_spock]

9 minutes ago, Lego David said:

This still doesn't explain why we don't see new molds in most of the D2C sets, for example. Unless they are explicitly required by some licensed character, LEGO Ideas seems to shy away from introducing new molds most of the time, despite those sets always selling very well. 

Maybe from the overall big picture, they don't see it worth their while to do that.  A mold that can be used across multiple themes would be a better return on investment.

Back in the days, each LEGO theme  more or less had control to do their own molds. They had a lot of duplicates and ones that weren't fully utilized to their full potential, etc.  There was no overall cost control and oversight.  I think that was one of the reasons they almost went under. They are probably new mold shy now because some of the decision makers lived through those dark times and changed the way new molds get approved.

[AmperZand]

1 hour ago, Lego David said:

That is understandable, but most of the time when people want older sets again, they usually just want LEGO to explore the set's general concept/idea further rather than deliver a 1:1 re-release.

In that case, nothing should really stop them from remaking the Cafe Corner in a way that is up the the standards of the current modulars. 

I agree. I meant in relation to exact duplicates of sets from long ago.

[1974]

4 hours ago, AmperZand said:

LEGO is a private company but is run like a public one

What do mean by that?

What is a "public run company"?

TLG is owned by the heirs of the original founder through a network of companies

 

[Lego David]

1 hour ago, dr_spock said:

A mold that can be used across multiple themes would be a better return on investment.

And going back to one of the points in my original post, a lot of times when do they come up with new molds that could easily be used across multiple themes, they opt to just use them once and be done for. This is especially the case with the CMFs, which always introduce a tone of new molds that have the potential to be quite versatile, but most of the time they are only used once and never again. Sometimes, if we're very lucky, we might get some recolors of those molds from BAM, but that's about it. 

[Zhokker]

3D printing your own designs is something very incredible. A year ago I made the Mask of Ultimate Power, while trying to make everything look as closely as possible like the mold structure of real bionicle masks 2015-2016. 
Here are two images of what it looks like.
Looks pretty cool to me. 
https://imgur.com/oqJG6f4

Printed part

https://imgur.com/J4cJVD1

And Gif
https://imgur.com/iLuS8Bd

Edited July 5, 2021 by Zhokker

[Lyichir]

2 hours ago, Lego David said:

This still doesn't explain why we don't see new molds in most of the D2C sets, for example. Unless they are explicitly required by some licensed character, LEGO Ideas seems to shy away from introducing new molds most of the time, despite those sets always selling very well. 

The main reason for that is that Ideas sets, like other D2C sets, are produced and sold in much smaller quantities than "mass-market" sets sold at regular retail (even massively popular sets like modular buildings don't get produced and sold at anything approaching the quantities of your typical $9.99 City or Ninjago set, because the latter is stocked at more locations and falls within more people's budgets). As such, a new mold specifically for a set like that would cost a similar amount to produce as any other, but generate less return on investment overall than one that will be produced for monumentally more products.

On a practical level, requiring Ideas proposals to rely solely on existing molds also keeps expectations low. Creating a new mold, regardless of the overall cost, is a complex process, and most Ideas users likely have no idea what would be more or less feasible in terms of new parts. Obviously when it comes to the final Ideas RESULTS new molds can become possible through various avenues (for example, the Steamboat Willie budgeted its new molds into the Disney Collectible Minifigure series, which as a small, cheap "impulse" set would be produced in far greater quantities). But the circumstances and considerations that go into what is or is not practical would differ for each set and might have to be negotiated independently with licensors, so keeping the guidelines as they are and occasionally getting the chance to offer new molds in a set anyway results in less disappointment overall than giving people free reign to include new molds in their proposals and ending up having to reject the possibility in finalized sets if they turn out not to be practical in that case.

[Toastie]

Here is another reference to what are the costs of IM:

https://rexplastics.com/plastic-injection-molding/the-cost-of-injection-molding-materials

Also, just google injection molding, browse to the major Chinese manufacturers (it is there where it happens) and see what is offered in 2021.

Best
Thorsten

[Aanchir]

I mean, even if LEGO can afford a lot of new molds, they still certainly aren't cheap, particularly when compared to a lot of the other production costs they deal with, such as new recolors or printed elements. So one way or another, which sets or themes LEGO is willing to invest in new molds for typically comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.

Take your Trolls example, for instance. LEGO did make a lot of new molds for that theme, but many of them were used across several sets within that theme. And because of those sets' low-to-medium price points and widespread retail availability, they were produced and sold in large quantities. Also, incidentally, there's no reason to assume that those Trolls molds are all gone for good — Trolls World Tour was quite successful, and if Dreamworks decides to develop a sequel, it's entirely possible that LEGO might make sets to tie in with that film as well, just as they did for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.

Adult-targeted exclusives like Modular Buildings or larger Ideas sets tend to be produced and sold in much smaller quantities, on account of their more limited availability, higher target age, and far higher prices than any of the Trolls World Tour sets. They do "sell well" in their own right, but the actual number of units produced and sold is far less than that of more KFOL-targeted themes like City, Friends, or Ninjago.
 

Also, even when LEGO can afford new molds, they have to be selective about WHICH new molds they introduce. Case in point: one animal mold a lot of people have been pleading for LEGO to reintroduce is the goat. And it's true that LEGO could potentially do so for a future wave of sets, since it wouldn't really cost any more than a lot of the other new animal molds they've introduced lately, such as sheep, bulldogs, sea turtles, stingrays, angler fish, etc.

But any money spent on recreating the goat mold is money that CAN'T be spent on other potential new molds. So the goat mold is really only likely to come back if a design team that has the budget for new molds (like, say, the Collectable Minifigures, City, Ninjago, or Jurassic World design team) happens to see goats as the best possible use of that portion of their budget.
 

This also applies to other discussions of bringing back retired molds that have been largely "replaced" in modern sets, like the 1x4x5 doors in the Cafe Corner and Market Street set., There are already alternative 1x4x6 door pieces that can serve largely the same purpose in other sets and themes — so bringing back those specific molds would really ONLY be useful for the fleetingly scarce sets (mostly re-releases of long-retired sets like those two) where there's no workarounds that would allow for a taller door frame to be used in their place

What's more, new versions of those molds would sometimes be even less useful than they were back when they were originally introduced, because back then, each of those doors had a mirror image equivalent (since they were not reversible like the ones that fit in the current door frames) — and some of those beloved retired sets that AFOLs often plead for LEGO to bring back did not use both versions of those particular molds. For example, the left-hand version of the Cafe Corner's front door only appeared in one set back in the 80s!
 

Now, I will say that the cost of new molds tends to be MOST relevant to discussions about the prospect of bringing back stuff like monorails, which would involve bringing back molds for an entire system of complex functional elements (including costly electrical components that have to be tested extensively for safety and reliability). That sort of thing carries a much heftier price tag than introducing new molds on a more individual basis.

By contrast, the possibility of a new goat mold is much more likely in the long run, whether it uses the same design as the old goat or a brand-new, revised design. It would simply require circumstances where the designers feel like a goat would be better for the set or theme that they happen to be assigned to than other potential new animals that they could introduce in its place — such as maybe a new City subtheme with a mountainous rural setting, an Alpine Goatherd CMF, or a new movie license that features goats in a prominent recurring role.

But I guess the main idea I'm trying to get across is that "LEGO can afford to make new molds, but the ones that are the biggest priority for them aren't necessarily the ones that are the biggest priority for us". LEGO could have made a new goat mold for the Mickey Mouse sets this year, but chose to make a sheep mold instead. And there are still numerous OTHER farm animal possibilities that they could potentially introduce in the future like a donkey/mule, turkey, calf, piglet, chick, sheepdog, llama/alpaca, updated foal, etc.

Similarly, even if LEGO decided that the modular buildings are now selling well enough to justify new door or window molds, it's still likely that they'd focus on ones that would open up new possibilities for the future (like, say, a set of French doors for the 1x6x6 frame, or a taller and/or wider version of the new bay window frame, or a taller and/or wider version of the latticed window pane), not on recreating molds that were retired many years ago and have largely been replaced by more versatile counterparts.

1 hour ago, Lego David said:

And going back to one of the points in my original post, a lot of times when do they come up with new molds that could easily be used across multiple themes, they opt to just use them once and be done for. This is especially the case with the CMFs, which always introduce a tone of new molds that have the potential to be quite versatile, but most of the time they are only used once and never again. Sometimes, if we're very lucky, we might get some recolors of those molds from BAM, but that's about it.  

Counterpoint: look at how many CMF molds there are that HAVE shown up more widely in subsequent sets and themes: the afro, mohawk, "beehive" hairdo, mullet, hair with bun, "cavegirl" hair, short beard, beret, stocking cap, football helmet, bowler hat, hot dog suit, tutu, "space marine" armor, cat tail, horse tail, Santa hat, swaddled baby, teddy bear, chihuahua, seagull, cat, rabbit, boombox, maracas, microphone, electric and acoustic guitars, saxophone, rescue buoy, surfboard, snowboard, skis/ski pole, roller skates, ice skates, mountain bike, baseball bat, tennis racket, fan, paint palette, paint roller, Erlenmeyer flask, genie lamp, "nanofig" and cup-style trophies, wind-up key, toolbox, syringe, pot/cauldron, ray gun, round shield, rapier, short sword/gladius, dual-molded spear, etc.

In cases where particular CMF parts haven't shown up more widely, it's often just because designers haven't encountered situations where they needed them. Sometimes that's because they haven't yet fit any other sets and themes in development, like is often the case with certain "costume" figures' headgear. Other times it's because designers of other sets and themes had other, more readily available options that could be used in place of CMF molds.

And in some cases it's even just because the CMFs in question are so recent that their parts weren't yet available to set designers from other design teams when they were working on other current or recent sets. Keep in mind that different themes are often developed on differing schedules, so even if a mold has already begun appearing in sets, it might not have been finalized when other current or future sets were in development!

All in all, there's no reason to think that an accessory being exclusive to the CMFs for now means it will remain that way, especially now that the CMFs are being produced in the same factories and on the same machinery as parts for "ordinary" sets, rather than contracted out to a separate manufacturer like they were for the first several series.

[MAB]

5 hours ago, Lego David said:

In that case, nothing should really stop them from remaking the Cafe Corner in a way that is up the the standards of the current modulars. 

 

There still needs to be a business case of making a modular that looks like an older one, rather than producing something new and exciting.

[1974]

There's no technical reason for TLG not to make ANY set/part going all the way back to wooden toys, 'cept you know it wouldn't make any sense to TLG

[Toastie]

58 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

Now, I will say that the cost of new molds tends to be MOST relevant to discussions about the prospect of bringing back stuff like monorails, which would involve bringing back molds for an entire system of complex functional elements (including costly electrical components that have to be tested extensively for safety and reliability). That sort of thing carries a much heftier price tag than introducing new molds on a more individual basis.

Wait, wait. We are getting too far away from the original "keeping the myth alive" turn, @Mylenium and others were addressing.

There is no doubt, none whatsoever, that a huge for-profit company as TLG resembles (simply gauged by its revenue and foremost: net profit) will have the >smartest< business people on board, the most powerful software packages running, and the best market analysis folks, programs, and (indirect) "polls", i.e., the full suite of what set sells at what margin around the globe in stores. And you all laid it out very nicely!

This is the sole one thing I really do not like, and believe me, a good part of my private life and fun is >dedicated< to TLG's products: Don't tell me, it is the cost of a mold that renders production of a piece from the past virtually impossible. That is utter nonsense. Instead, please tell me, it does not make sense, profit-wise. And I am very happy, as I do understand that argument very well. I would do it the exact same way, if I were to run the joint.

That's all there is.

Best,
Thorsten

   

[Aanchir]

29 minutes ago, Toastie said:

This is the sole one thing I really do not like, and believe me, a good part of my private life and fun is >dedicated< to TLG's products: Don't tell me, it is the cost of a mold that renders production of a piece from the past virtually impossible. That is utter nonsense. Instead, please tell me, it does not make sense, profit-wise. And I am very happy, as I do understand that argument very well. I would do it the exact same way, if I were to run the joint. 

TBH, I hardly ever see anybody claim that the cost of new molds makes bringing back a particular individual mold "virtually impossible". Perhaps that's what you feel is implied when people argue against bringing back a retired mold for cost reasons, but I don't think anybody believes new molds cost more than LEGO can afford — just that it's a high enough price for LEGO to be a little picky about which sets and/or parts can justify that sort of investment.

[Stuartn]

5 hours ago, 1974 said:

What do mean by that?

What is a "public run company"?

TLG is owned by the heirs of the original founder through a network of companies

 

They are privately owned by the original founder's descendants as you have said, whereas a public company is owned by shareholders.

7 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

just that it's a high enough price for LEGO to be a little picky about which sets and/or parts can justify that sort of investment.

I agree, TLG won't bring back an old mould or reintroduce a new mould regardless of whether it would be profitable, if they can make more profit from using an existing mould in a different set.

7 hours ago, Lego David said:

This still doesn't explain why we don't see new molds in most of the D2C sets, for example. Unless they are explicitly required by some licensed character, LEGO Ideas seems to shy away from introducing new molds most of the time, despite those sets always selling very well. 

I think much of the reason why this is is mainly stylistic, as 16/18+ sets very rarely introduce new elements, the same is said for creator and I would assume that the reason 16/18+ sets do not have new moulds is an extension of the creator aesthetic from when 18+ was creator expert. I believe for most D2C sets, especially in licensed themes, they focus on iconic characters and scenes which generally already have moulds, and for unlicensed themes these are generally built at a larger or smaller than minifigure scale, so new moulds for accessories or headpieces aren't required (which is generally where new moulds for licensed themes go) or they depict modular buildings, winter village sets or microscale structures which really don't need new moulds.

[AmperZand]

5 hours ago, 1974 said:

What do mean by that?

What is a "public run company"?

TLG is owned by the heirs of the original founder through a network of companies

 

Public companies are ones listed on an exchange such as the NYSE or LSE and in which anyone can buy shares. 

As well as sharing certain regulatory requirements and accounting standards, public companies have some cultural commonalities, accepted ‘best practices’ and shareholder expectations. One such is to always be innovating as that is seen by markets as key to growth. Replicating old products is usually seen by investors as an admission of failure to innovate - so public companies very rarely do it.

LEGO, as a privately owned company, is not bound by the same restrictions and requirements as public companies. But in practice, it’s easier for it to operate like a listed company.

[Lego David]

8 hours ago, Aanchir said:

TBH, I hardly ever see anybody claim that the cost of new molds makes bringing back a particular individual mold "virtually impossible". Perhaps that's what you feel is implied when people argue against bringing back a retired mold for cost reasons, but I don't think anybody believes new molds cost more than LEGO can afford — just that it's a high enough price for LEGO to be a little picky about which sets and/or parts can justify that sort of investment.

Well yes, but you just listed earlier your reasons for why re-introducing the monorail would be impractical, like the complex rail molds and the electric componets that need a lot of testing. So I can easily see why your post came off as "monorails are too expensive to bring back".

Also, I just want to add, that LEGO could very easily just re-use the Powered Up electric system from their recent City trains instead of trying to come up with an entirely new electric system, so the cost of creating a new set of monorails wouldn't be nearly as high. The only real new expensive parts they would have to introduce would be the new rail parts.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Lego David

[1974]

I know it's a private company, and i know the difference between a a private and a public company, but none of you answered my question "run like a public company"

What exactly does that entail?