GregoryBrick

That's exactly what I said? The generalized message from AFOLs is sometimes too inconsistent or inappropriate for TLG to follow directly. It's some mixture of 'No more Fire/Police stations' or 'Do something different [but not that, that's too different]') or 'LEGO should make [very specific and niche product]'. LEGO is primarily going to make sets children want, and if AFOLs expect something otherwise, they will be in perpetual disappointment. I want LEGO to keep doing what they're doing, because that's the appeal. They're toys. Anyway, I don't think the smaller snowcat should have been more elaborate. That would have bumped it into a higher pricing tier where it would be less impressive (even with additional parts and tracks). I'd rather get a set that has tons of value for $15 than a set that is 'pretty good' for $30-$40. You already get a parka-guy, an axe, a crane+hook, an ice-ball, tracks, etc.

Well, TLG is in a hard spot, because some AFOLs don't like seeing 'yet another Police/Fire station' and yet something different like Arctic is too far out there. They have to make a series of City sets that will appeal to a broad audience, so very specific wishes (e.g. I need a blue bakery for my LEGOpolis) aren't something one should count on TLG making. For what it's worth, I'm looking forward to the two smaller sets.

And it's precisely this distinction which is a red herring, which is my point. If someone thinks that the reason any set (monorail or otherwise, new molds or otherwise) is discontinued is because it lost money, then the implication is that a set which makes money has reason to be produced. This implication is false, and it's an implication reiterated by the posts which say "I and all my AFOL buddies would totally buy a new monorail, therefore it would make money, therefore TLG ought to make it". That argument is predicated on the assumption that the important distinction is 'didn't pay for its costs' vs. 'would pay for its costs and also generate additional revenue', and that assumption is false. The important distinction is whether producing a set would optimize profit for TLG in the long run or not. While TLG doesn't seem to deal in loss leaders, the "yes/no" for producing a set can't be reduced to "made money/lost money", taken in isolation. I'm not disputing the historical facts around monorail production.

Yeah, for the past monorail sets. But I was clarifying that "Why don't they sell X? I would buy it, and they would make money" isn't enough reason for a company to make product X now or in the future. EDIT: And now I don't see how your description is anything different from what I said, after reading both of them carefully. "Was a loss" is the same as "didn't make enough money [to warrant continuing their production]".

I'm not ignorant about how many AFOLs love the monorail sets and I'm not sure how this changes anything about my point. Could you elaborate?

When it's said that the monorail (or any other product) didn't make enough money, I assume it's not simply whether there was a profit or not. It's whether the profit on the investment necessary for a monorail was greater than the profit on a different use of TLG's resources. This includes consideration of spin-off effects, like brand appeal, customer attraction/retention, or whatever. This is why a contemporary monorail requires more than simply people who will buy it, even if it sells at a profit when looked at in isolation. It would have to generate enough return that it would be more appealing than an alternative application of TLG's resources.

Yes, but if "could already be made out of existing elements" were reason enough for TLG to not design a new element, then there's roughly a zillion elements which shouldn't exist, and many of those are recently developed ones.

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet: A jumper brick. Basically a jumper plate but three plates high. It could be rectangular like the existing 1x2 bricks, or tapered up to the stud on top. Part name: Brick 1x2 W. 1 Knob (See part #15573) Part description: A 1x2 brick with 1 stud on top in the middle instead of two. Part usage: Borderline limitless? I imagine the TLG wizards could use this in all kinds of ways both decorative and structural.

Well, you did say "they definitely would have made it, if not for the competing sets", so I thought it was more than speculation. Thanks for clarifying.

I can't find any source for this, do you have one? The conflict may have been the reason, but if that hurdle wasn't there there certainly could have been others. Once there is an initial, compelling reason to not approve a CUUSOO proposal, I doubt TLG / The CUUSOO team are going to bother to see if there would be any other further obstacles which might also result in a failure to approve the proposal.

I agree that this is a very nice set. Considering TLG has never compared this set to the modulars, as far as I know, then it seems silly to fault it for not meeting some self-defined 'mini-modular' or 'modular-compatible' standard. I take the set on its own merits and find it quite appealing.

Every other LEGO set, especially from the CITY and Creator themes, has been recognizable without having self-referential stickers on it. Even where those stickers exist (e.g. Shell) it's pretty obvious that a gas station is a gas station without those stickers. Why do you think this set would this be any different?

Costs never go down without quality or timing suffering? This seems to go against an awful lot of economic history.

Not all ABS is the same, and variations do not sit on a gradient from 'high quality' to 'low quality'. ABS properties can be changed based on the proportions of its components, method of manufacture, and any additives (including pigments).

These are really nice; it would be neat to see this done in an official set.

Sure, I just read that release more conservatively than others, I guess - it could be further minifigures and not sets, especially since the clause about 'turn[ing] up production' is appended to the phrase 'the launch of the characters'. Thank you for reminding me of it.

Where have they done this?

In regards to their 'duck faces', when the Simpsons characters are faithfully rendered in 3D, that's exactly what they look like. Between the demands of being show-accurate and meeting the requirements of the license holder, I don't know how else these minifigures could look. Every non-LEGO Simpsons figure which has tried to be show-accurate, as far as I can tell, has looked exactly the same as these. Is there some example out there of how you think they should look? All the mock-ups of Simpsons characters which use regular minifigure heads look downright alarming to me, so I remain confused at what people think should have been different.

Have you thought this through? The Burj Khalifa, Rockefeller Center, Villa Savoye and Farnsworth house all to the same scale?

I'm not really interested in the Simpsons but it looks like the designers did everything right with this. The minifigures were done correctly in my opinion and the build is large enough that there could be tons of detail inside. Now just to actually see that interior. Tangent: There are lots of valid auto-antonyms, idiomatic phrases, and double negatives in english and other languages, and the phrase in question is one of them. The semantic content of these phrases can't be derived by treating them like logical notation. PM if you would like some links to professional linguists on this matter.

Yes, but the part I linked to allows the pins to fully expand. There's a recess inside, so the pins can snap into place like with any other technic hole. Once in there, it spins freely. It's not like putting a pin into a 1x1 round brick if that's what you are thinking. Perhaps there is still compression that is not noticeable to the average user, or perhaps the molding is cheaper with the new part. The old one may be a press fit of two+ parts to create the recess, I don't have it at hand right now. So - the introduction of the slot as a means to dislodge stuck bricks makes perfect sense, which led me to wonder where Superkalle got his info that it was for molding reasons. It's not that I don't believe Superkalle, just curious. Edit: The piece I linked to leads to stuck pins if you use two half-pins/stud elements, one in each end. Otherwise you can just push one out with an axle, of course.

Are you sure? They had previously molded such elements without the slots, seen here, which holds pins just fine (and as a result can lead to stuck pins if you use a half-pin/stud). For an element which appeared in 1995 and lasted until 2010 I don't see how molding issues would have motivated the redesign.

I like creating things out of LEGO bricks which look like they could have been official sets. Most, if not all, MOCs I see do not do this. A recent exception on this forum is in the Sci-Fi forum where user Nuju Metru built an entire theme. Is there a term for this, or a group of builders who build in this style? Here's some clarification about what I mean: Official LEGO sets feature: an economy of parts, both in the number of elements used to create something and the variety of elements in a set. stability. They don't fall over or fall apart in the hands. visible studs. 'legal' connections only. Most MOCs from AFOLs I see feature or value the opposite: whatever parts the user sees fit, whether each element is only used once or a large proportion of the elements are all the same brick (e.g. 500 pieces of foilage). The same goes for colour - either a huge swath of colours or almost all bricks are the same. very dense construction. lots of greebles. no visible studs if at all possible. illegal connections, minifigure hands separate from bodies, bricks just laid in place or with fiddly construction methods. There's nothing wrong with either approach, but I prefer the challenge and aesthetics of the former. Is there anybody building in this manner?

Faefrost, I'm surprised to read this from you - there's no need to smear feminism nor academia, considering they're two of the few institutions which actually try to understand and address gender inequity. Without that kind of pressure, there is far less incentive for the status quo to change. I don't want to use her to fuel the kind of reactionary "it's just a toy, get over it" dismissal of LEGO's social implications (not that you are doing that, but I see it whenever gender comes up in the LEGO context). Anyway, Wiles' blog post seemed to be a rumination in good faith and hardly anything to get upset about. I read this thread and then read her blog post. I'm amazed how angry people are over an easy-going suggestion that expresses a huge fondness for LEGO. Two points to the thread in general: 1) Just because LEGO is a toy doesn't mean it doesn't have social and political implications. Toys don't just reflect the world, they shape them. 2) Scientists, like most people, are capable of having multiple opinions and doing many things in parallel. There's no way Wiles' blog post was done in lieu of 'useful' research.

I strongly doubt it, as you'd have to know the actual file type as well as the standards for LEGO element design, including tolerances, structural issues, molding issues, and more, I imagine. Otherwise they'd have to redo it all anyway, wouldn't they? Not to mention that they don't solicit ideas like this for a number of other reasons.