Why does Lego have rules?

[LordsofMedieval]

And I don't mean against, like, selling sets with illegal builds, or minifig-scale machine guns. Rather, what I'm talking about are the obvious biases against things like reversing plates (say a 2x2 plate with studs on both sides), an almost complete lack of studs-on-angles pieces (particularly following the elimination of parts like 6044) and dozens of other various weird, kind of semi-anal hangups that you run into when designing MOCs.

I consider myself fairly adept at the hobby, and yes, I definitely can overcome these restrictions. But most of the time, I find myself trying to think my way out of the same headaches over and over again. And when these same problems or gaps were easily and swiftly addressed by companies like Mega Bloks and Cobi, it leads me to believe that there is a conscious bias - an internal ruleset, of sorts - at Lego precluding the release of certain parts that, while they might be immensely useful, the company simply doesn't want out there. 

Why is this? Do they view easy stud reversals as somehow... cheating? And, if so, why? Like... why would they even care? It's a children's toy - it should be easy.

Edited November 1, 2022 by LordsofMedieval

[Lyichir]

I don't think these are "rules" so much as preferences or cases of different priorities. Introducing a new part design is expensive so in a lot of cases, a basic sort of part that doesn't add much to a set visually would only be a priority if something truly couldn't be achieved with other existing parts. For stud reversals that would mean builds that are too simple or small for existing stud reversal techniques to work, but not so simple that they'd want to avoid "studs down" building in general. For angled builds, hinges or Technic are generally more versatile than any fixed angle piece would be, since pieces like that retired one you linked to can only each work with a single Pythagorean triple.

[TeriXeri]

I think the main rules are like based on math, as sometimes pieces just have to fit together almost like a set is a puzzle.

Especially in modern times there's a lot more math applied because sideways and upside down building is becoming more norm then exception, as well as using wedge plates and hinge bricks together more often to get certain angles like Lion Knight Castle.

LEGO has made a lot more SNOT bricks / brackets lately, so maybe a plate with studs on 2 sides is possible eventually but it doesn't seem the focus right now.

Other companies seem to just make pieces on-demand if they need a certain angle for let's say a build based on a real Tank model kit.

LEGO also makes specialized pieces of course but at least for bricks, plates and tiles they are a bit more conservative based on math rules and existing parts when possible.

Edited November 1, 2022 by TeriXeri

[dr_spock]

Maybe somebody else have patented the reversal plate?  It's easy enough to draw one up in CAD and 3D print your own.

[Peppermint_M]

Part of me wonders: TLG have been so quick to litigate against anyone making plastic construction bricks with a stud and tube, that if they make some parts similar to those other manufacturers produced first then they would get a taste of their own medicine! 

Sometimes, it is also to do with life-span of a part; is it structurally sound? Will it last as long as it should, would it pass their quality control that they surely have (brown clips, I'm looking at you). If it is likely to fail on clutch power, or be too flimsy a part, then it might not get produced. 

[Mylenium]

23 hours ago, Lyichir said:

I don't think these are "rules" so much as preferences or cases of different priorities.

Yes, exactly. It's more of a design philosophy, though at times it gets ridiculous as clearly the designers often feel the lack of e.g. proper direction inverters is a hinderance to their work as well (see the rather creative use of the pistol pieces in the Singapore Architecture set): 

https://myleniumsbrickcorner.wordpress.com/2022/03/03/island-architecture-lego-architecture-singapore-21057/

23 hours ago, Lyichir said:

Introducing a new part design is expensive so in a lot of cases,

It's 2022, not 1963. There's isn't some poor tool maker polishing molds for days on end inflating the cost. You can produce a production-ready mold using latest CNC manufacturing methods within 72 hours if you have the design ready. And just see the facts for what they are: There's new heads in every Avatar set. There's like 20 new large pieces in every new Ninjago wave. They introduced a bunch of new molds in City and Minifigures this year. They have introduced a ton of new pin designs. Need I go on? In relation to the money LEGO makes off these things, the cost for molds is negligible. And further proof to that is in every of the alternate vendors introducing new molds when they need just as well. If those many times smaller companies can do it without going bankrupt, so can LEGO. Molds being super expensive is really just a myth that won't die and it's in LEGO's best interest to keep this myth alive as well. The much bigger issue, and funny enough this is something you never hear because people don't consider it, is how any expansion in the parts portfolio needs to make sense as it ripples through the whole chain of designing models with them in mind, manufacturing the pieces and logistics.

Mylenium

Edited November 2, 2022 by Mylenium
Typos

[Toastie]

10 hours ago, Mylenium said:

In relation to the money LEGO makes off these things, the cost for molds is negligible.

Yes.

10 hours ago, Mylenium said:

in every of the alternate vendors introducing new molds when they need just as well

Yes

10 hours ago, Mylenium said:

If those many times smaller companies can do it without going bankrupt, so can LEGO.

Yes

10 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Molds being super expensive is really just a myth that won't die and it's in LEGO's best interest to keep this myth alive as well.

Yes

10 hours ago, Mylenium said:

needs to make sense as it ripples through the whole chain of designing models

And that is the point.

However - they just need to fire up their public relations department, render such super special pieces  as sort of NextGenThinking, SuperbBuilding, UltimateExperience, NeverSeenBefore, RestaurantAtTheEndOfTheUniverseType, you know, the 2022 way of introducing just another piece of dead cheap ABS. OK, the Restaurant thing won't work, I guess. Then have all boxes of sets using these breathtakingly creative and innovative pieces colored in black. Wait, we had that. In dark, very dark blue. With a bright yellow but very thin line representing TheNEWWAYOfThinking, ending in a glowing neuron.

Whatever. I simply go to the DarkSide and order these pieces, make my own (ABS and superglue, along with a razor sharp Dremel circular saw bit and a nice file, they like each other), and more recently, have them 3D printed.

I came to the conclusion that it is ultimately stupid to wait for a piece popping up in LEGO universe. Did that for a couple of decades. Being stupid, I mean. I still am, but not with regard to reasonable pieces, TLG does currently not make, because it would either ripple through the LEGO universe or they just need to come up with new stuff - or the customers get bored. It's a wheel in perpetual motion ... making the customers all excited about ... a new piece. Or two.

Best,
Thorsten

Edited November 2, 2022 by Toastie

[Lyichir]

On 11/2/2022 at 7:01 AM, Mylenium said:

Yes, exactly. It's more of a design philosophy, though at times it gets ridiculous as clearly the designers often feel the lack of e.g. proper direction inverters is a hinderance to their work as well (see the rather creative use of the pistol pieces in the Singapore Architecture set): 

https://myleniumsbrickcorner.wordpress.com/2022/03/03/island-architecture-lego-architecture-singapore-21057/

Oh, for sure. Then again, as unorthodox as a solution such as in that set may seem, there's no denying that it works, which is part of where the prioritization argument comes into play—no need to introduce a simple new part in a situation where existing ones do the job, especially in a theme such as Architecture that generally tends to eschew new mold designs. Even in other themes, often creative use of parts like brackets or other SNOT parts are often possible to serve a similar function, so designers can prioritize their budget for new molds and such toward other things that make a bigger overall impact on a set's desirability. After all, as revolutionary as such a part would be for MOCists, I would wager that kids (and even casual adult fans) tend to gravitate more toward flashy character parts or action elements than a workhorse-like basic element you might not even notice is in a set unless you look up the inventory.

That's not to say a part like that could never happen! It wasn't too long ago in the grand scheme of things that something like the inverted tile was unheard of in Lego, and now they're fairly prolific. I expect if a simple SNOT plate is introduced it'll become widespread quite quickly in the kind of sets that once used unconventional workarounds—it just hasn't happened yet.

[anothergol]

It *has* to be a rule (or rather, a philosophy shared by a couple of people at the top - but get replaced and things evolve over time) against direct stud inversion, since the problem is very old. It obviously is not a "lack of focus" when Lego is releasing a new hairpiece each day.
Personally I don't care as if I need those, China makes them.

It's different for other parts, though.
-plates+stud brackets: has to be a rule because they would be extremely useful. Either to sell more combinations of bracket bricks instead of letting you doing them yourself, or because they judge there are not enough attach points (I doubt it)

-standalone studs (I love these): this one is easy, Lego will never make them because kids would lose them inside bricks and cry. They would have to revisit every part in order to add blockers to prevent that. Not gonna happen, these will always remain Chinese

-stud-to-stud: we already have these when the gap is above 3 plates, or even 2 plates when you have the room.

But what I REALLY hate Lego for is the lack of useful bar+clip stuff. We are stuck with parts that started as minifig utensils and thus have decorations that block everything. And when they finally release GOOD parts for that, they put them in a pack.. can't buy them seperately, no!
A bar + a small clip, we don't even have anything like that. The robot arm bar+clip is so idiotic that it doesn't even plug on the new-and-already-replaced 25893 (and when you clip it onto its replacement 79194, you can't even rotate it). But hey, we get new hairpieces.

8 hours ago, Lyichir said:

That's not to say a part like that could never happen! It wasn't too long ago in the grand scheme of things that something like the inverted tile was unheard of in Lego, and now they're fairly prolific. I expect if a simple SNOT plate is introduced it'll become widespread quite quickly in the kind of sets that once used unconventional workarounds—it just hasn't happened yet.

I think competition will force them to. It has already happened for some parts. You could still argue that Lego "didn't copy, just lagged behind", but the fact is that we got new parts that other brands already had

[Mylenium]

11 hours ago, Lyichir said:

no need to introduce a simple new part in a situation where existing ones do the job

Generally I agree with that, but the circumstances for my pistol example are very specific. Apparently the same solution would not work if there weren't the large hollowed out spaces. If you only have a 1 x 2 or 1 x 1 area it's over, because you need a 2 x 2 area at least to accommodate the handle.

2 hours ago, anothergol said:

It *has* to be a rule (or rather, a philosophy shared by a couple of people at the top - but get replaced and things evolve over time) against direct stud inversion, since the problem is very old.

LEGO is extremely pick-ish about structural issues, that's why. Turning things upside down changes the whole equation in terms of pressure on models when they stand, shear, torque and bend forces and so on. The irony of course is that none of that is a problem in practice. Those models won't last for forever, either way, and most customers simply don't care. That and of course it would be even less of a problem if LEGO's bricks hadn't such bad quality, which lately is really becoming an issue.

Mylenium

[anothergol]

1 hour ago, Mylenium said:

LEGO is extremely pick-ish about structural issues, that's why. Turning things upside down changes the whole equation in terms of pressure on models when they stand, shear, torque and bend forces and so on. The irony of course is that none of that is a problem in practice. Those models won't last for forever, either way, and most customers simply don't care. That and of course it would be even less of a problem if LEGO's bricks hadn't such bad quality, which lately is really becoming an issue.

Mylenium

I doubt it, I don't see the possible structural problems with simple plates with studs on 2 sides. It doesn't even need to be full on both sides, the ones out there are normal plates with a hollow stud that protrudes underneath. Half-plate stud inverters are also pretty safe.
Stud inversion -in itself- can cause structural problems, but so does all SNOT in general, and we still have brackets (and I'm not gonna rand about brackets again, but China does them better, to me Lego's are flawed). And Lego's own models are SNOTted everywhere and they do stud inversion as well.

 

[MAB]

For inversions, I find I use quite a lot of these.

As well as a lot of mainly studded technic bricks/beams with holes with half pins in.

I guess some might want a thinner inverter, although having studs around the edges can also help as you can build / decorate the edge in the +-x and +-y directions as well as the +-z direction.

[Mylenium]

20 hours ago, anothergol said:

I doubt it, I don't see the possible structural problems with simple plates with studs on 2 sides.

Food for thought: Said plate would get pressure from both sides without being able to "evade it" by bending ever so slightly, so ultimately the forces need to be absorbed by the intra-structural elements such as the (hollow) studs themselves or the anti-stud rings. It's perhaps not a problem on some models, but since such stuff is cumulative and tends to be quite damaging, the long term repercussions could be notable. It's the same thing like when you build your model all too solid and then people wonder why after a few years their precious MOC crumble. Not meaning to turn this into an endless academic discussion, but from a engineering standpoint these considerations matter. In fact even your brackets example could be mentioned here because it's the same problem. Don't get me wrong, personally I wouldn't care and the lack of straightforward direction inverters drives me up the wall just as much as anyone else, but I do understand LEGO's reasoning from this side of things.

Mylenium

[Johnny1360]

Exactly and all plates bow slightly towards the stud side, by design as mentioned.

[ForgedInLego]

On 11/4/2022 at 5:08 AM, Mylenium said:

LEGO is extremely pick-ish about structural issues, that's why.

If they were, the 60080 space shuttle wouldn't've had that ball joint part connecting the shuttle to the fuel tank... snapped in half twice before I gave up and took the whole thing apart.

[62Bricks]

 

Get out your saw!

[Killian]

On 11/2/2022 at 9:10 AM, Peppermint_M said:

Part of me wonders: TLG have been so quick to litigate against anyone making plastic construction bricks with a stud and tube, that if they make some parts similar to those other manufacturers produced first then they would get a taste of their own medicine! 

Yeah. Lego seems to have forgotten that Lego is a Knock-Off brand itself   

 

https://www.inverso.pt/legos/clones/texts/kiddicraft.htm

[Peppermint_M]

Precisely.

I would love to get my hands on some of those. Just for my collection.

[MAB]

Kiddicraft bricks occasionally show up at boot sales. Although if the seller knows what they have, they are usually priced accordingly.

I remember playing with my dad's and uncle's old kiddicraft bricks when visiting my nan's house I was a kid, along with their old Bayko building sets that were from the early 60s.

[Peppermint_M]

My friend was clearing up her Grandparents house, I was able to buy some Airfix Betta Builda bricks. My collection of comparisons grows. 

Of course, I still have the larger LEGO stock. It will be interesting to see what new elements could appear as they seek to squash competition.

[MAB]

Ive got some of those Betta Builda parts. The ones with the green interlocking roof tiles with little pegs that fly everywhere when you put too much pressure on them.

[Peppermint_M]

On 12/7/2022 at 7:40 PM, MAB said:

Ive got some of those Betta Builda parts. The ones with the green interlocking roof tiles with little pegs that fly everywhere when you put too much pressure on them.

Exactly! It is a nice little collection I picked up but building with it has been rather... expletive filled. Though it settled an argument with my father who claimed that LEGO had green roof tiles in the past and thus was way "too simple" with the sloped bricks now. (Quote my sibling who cares not for bricks and building "you are arguing with her about LEGO??")

Sometimes you can see why TLG won the brand battle.

[Stepwise]

On 11/5/2022 at 1:40 AM, Mylenium said:

Food for thought: Said plate would get pressure from both sides without being able to "evade it" by bending ever so slightly, so ultimately the forces need to be absorbed by the intra-structural elements such as the (hollow) studs themselves or the anti-stud rings. It's perhaps not a problem on some models, but since such stuff is cumulative and tends to be quite damaging, the long term repercussions could be notable. It's the same thing like when you build your model all too solid and then people wonder why after a few years their precious MOC crumble. Not meaning to turn this into an endless academic discussion, but from a engineering standpoint these considerations matter. In fact even your brackets example could be mentioned here because it's the same problem. Don't get me wrong, personally I wouldn't care and the lack of straightforward direction inverters drives me up the wall just as much as anyone else, but I do understand LEGO's reasoning from this side of things.

Mylenium

This caught my attention - the comment about building things too solid and then having things crumble - 

I also saw the comment after that about not turning this into an "endless academic discussion," but I've been building small-scale things for years and haven't run across this idea. Can you elaborate a little bit, or, can you point me in the right direction to get more information?

[1974]

-

Edited February 11, 2023 by 1974

[1974]

On 12/31/2022 at 1:41 PM, 1974 said:

.