davee123

If the rumor is true, I'd guess it's not based on company-perceived quality issues so much as customer-perceived quality issues. IE, a lot of people online are continually talking about low quality Chinese LEGO elements. And sometimes they're correct, sometimes they're incorrect. Sometimes the parts in question are due to lower QA or plastic quality in China, and sometimes it's something totally unrelated. However, regardless of what the real issue is, people have come to associate China with cheap plastic crap. That's not just an association in the LEGO community, that's an association in society at large. So when LEGO has to constantly try and defend itself from attacks of poor quality resulting from Chinese manufacturing, chances are they're fighting a losing battle. Even if the Chinese parts were HIGHER quality, they'd probably still get complaints about Chinese LEGO elements being lower quality. Hence, it wouldn't totally shock me if they decided to retreat from China in an attempt to avoid negative PR. And LEGO seems to be in a pretty good position right now-- they've increased their overall reputation in the industry, and they've made a name for themselves, as well as some sizeable profits. So it's possible that LEGO can actually afford to pull out from China, whereas in 2005, Chinese manufacture was seen as a big step towards profitability. But that's obviously LEGO's call. We don't know how much they're saving by being in China, and how much of a profit margin they've got to balance it if they migrate that production segment elsewhere. DaveE

Seems like a pretty difficult undertaking, especially considering that even humans have trouble recognizing particular elements and colors in a pile of pieces. The creation in your link would be far simpler by comparison-- you don't have to deal with camera angles, lighting, or fish-eye factor of the lens, let alone overlapping pieces. One nice thing about requiring the elements to be separated is that they'll *typically* orient themselves in a particular position. You're more likely (for example) to find a 1x1 plate resting on its stud or on the base-- not too likely that you'd randomly see it positioned on its side. But when you allow for overlapping elements, then the orientation can be widely varied. Colors are another issue-- you'll have to distinguish things like shadows, color changes, prints, etc. and also determine what the appropriate color is, depending on the camera. If you're planning on making it open-source, you'd likely want to calibrate the camera with a "fixed" few elements-- IE, the image always has to have a stack of 2x2 bricks, with white at the top, then red, then yellow, then blue, then black. Or whatever. But something to help the software detect what the lighting conditions are. I would try and start small. Write something that can individually identify various sizes of bricks-- 1x1, 1x2, 1x3, 1x4, 1x6, 2x2, 2x3, 2x4, 2x6, or some other similarly small list. Then try identifying particular known colors. And then try some harder-to-identify items like slopes, printed minfig heads, etc. DaveE

Isn't it the point, though? IE, you want to know whether or not a particular mold's life cycle is "reasonably" within a certain range? Essentially, my point was more along the lines of: if you determine that a particular mold's lifespan was from (say) 1982-1991, and then, when you try to assemble a set from 1994, and find that mold included, would you assume that it's an erroneous data point? What if the set is from 1999, or from 2006? Personally, I would guess that the answer is that you can't prove an *end* of a particular mold's life-cycle, but you probably COULD prove a beginning. Probably not much more important than identifying mold lifespans :) Ultimately, I'd say if you're looking to spearhead such a project, then it's your call. But if you want to be as anal as possible, such that nobody could ever demand anything further, then that's probably what you'd have to include. I would expect some degree of disparity, but how much would be ... interesting to see. I wouldn't assume anything until you had a pretty large chunk of data! I'd probably get a good chunk of data for each element first, and try to make sure that you know which is the cavity number and which is the mold ID. And ideally, ask someone at LEGO! That'll be the big question, I think... My guess is that a lot of people would care, but only from a point of interest perspective. I don't think you'll get a lot of people for whom this is a really critical piece of information, or who would be willing to spend sufficient effort to get an effective data set together. Honestly, if you want to make it happen, my experience is that you need to make it easy for contributors. Visual interfaces for inputting data, along with providing easy access to similar data so they can double-check themselves as they add new data. Having people submit things like text files or spreadsheets, and having to manually cross-reference things is a big pain, and can quickly discourage would-be contributors. DaveE

Honestly, I think the biggest problem is coordinating with people, and the volatility of the data. Most people aren't interested in being that anal. And a lot of people may volunteer their information without actually being very careful-- they think they're helping, when in actuality, they may be screwing up data. Suppose (for instance) that someone constantly transposed the cavity # and mold #, where both were relatively low and indistinguishable? You've got to make sure that you only attract persnickity LEGO experts, and you've got to make sure they keep at it. It's a hugely difficult task-- at the lest, you'll want representatives in the USA, Europe, and the far east, because sets made for different markets may have been packed with totally different types of inventories. If you open up to letting anyone submit entries, you'll have to get a way of vetting their submissions-- you don't want someone that's sloppy submitting an inventory. And if you only rely on a list of pre-approved submitters, you'll probably have to be very pro-active in identifying quality candidates. That aside, the data is pretty ... difficult. LEGO will do some pretty strange things. They may (I don't know) keep a bin of 1x6 bricks in limbo for a few years until they're ready to go into a set. Suppose (for instance) if one of their packing facilities had an extra 20 bins of 1x6 bricks, which weren't used because that facility never packed any sets containing that piece. So they sit there for a few years and eventually get "forgotten about" until the facility closes down or does some house-cleaning, at which point the elements resurface and get shipped out somewhere else to get used. Similar things have happened, so it's difficult to know "for sure" when the life cycle for a particular mold was used. Also, some sets get "refreshed" with new inventories. The worst offender is Dacta/LEGO Education, who will take a set like 9320 ("Journey into Space", AKA "Voyage into Space"), and totally re-structure the inventory. I bought a copy in 2003-ish, and it had a HUGE amount of chrome. Then I bought another copy in about 2005-ish, and it had a TOTALLY different inventory with lots of trans-neon-green parts. I think that's the reason that BrickLink says the new 1x1 cone element (4589b) came out in 1996. It obviously DIDN'T, but I believe that set 9287 has a re-vamped inventory (including the new cones). However, assuming that you get around those issues, the data itself wouldn't be overly hard to compile. IDEALLY, I think I'd go with essentially 2 tables for inventories: Inventory Row Records: - Submission ID (ties to the set number, submitter, etc) - Quantity (number contained in this submission) - Extras (number deemed "extra" in this submission) - Bag number (the ID of the plastic baggie that this element came in) - Design ID (the 4/5 digit design ID of the element, like 3710 for a 1x4 plate) - Material ID (ABS plastic, CA plastic, metal, rubber, etc) - Color ID (could be combined with Material ID) - Mold variant ID (the type of mold-- IE hollow tubes vs. solid tubes, etc) - Mold number (the one that LEGO imprinted) - Cavity number (the one that LEGO imprinted) == OR == - Sub-Submission ID (a multi-part element like a Ninjago spinner) Submission ID: - Type of inventory (Set, part, book, etc) - Inventory type (from MISB, derived, "best guess", etc) - Submitter's ID - Time of submission - Set/Part ID - Country/region of packaging - Year (most recent listed year) - SKU - Notes about the submission I ... think ... that should cover pretty much everything, although I admit it would be a PAIN to enter all that data. Imagine going through your copy of the Taj Mahal and checking the cavity and mold number on EVERY 1x1 plate that came with the set, just to make sure that you included ALL the possibilities! Yikes! DaveE

Based on the below image, I would guess it's around 200 feet in diameter-- so roughly 5 foot diameter at minifig scale? And when you add the fact that it's propped up on a platform, it's probably a little over 5-feet tall, which is... unwieldy to say the least! If you're not aiming to make it compatible with minifigs, you should probably ask yourself whether or not it's worth making it "really huge". Making really big models is fun and all, but why not shoot for, say, 1 foot in diameter instead? I would encourage you to come up with a design for the treads, and let that dictate your scale. Find a tread design that has the look you're shooting for, and then figure out how big the rest of it should be, based on that design. DaveE

Yeah, I suspected that was the case, although for some things, I thought it might have to do with the on-hand inventory of replacement parts fulfilment-- but that's just speculation on my part as to possible explanations. It sounds like you've confirmed with someone internal? Yeah, I've noticed that a few times-- a particular part may be missing for a recent set, and then suddenly show up. I know I saw that happen with the Duplo ball tube in set 5601, as well as a couple other things. My assumption was that that's when the database's history starts. When I was verifying colors with LEGO's internal DB back in 2003, the person I was working with said that he thought the database went back through the mid-90's somewhere, so 1997 seems like a possible fit. I didn't try many 1996 sets, but I think the few I tried didn't work. If that continues, though, I wonder what'll happen when/if we start to see re-used set numbers! DaveE

Basically, this is a sneaky one. Option #1 - updated inventory (pretty likely) Every once in a while, LEGO will update a set-- that is, they'll keep the set number the same, but update the parts list. One example that horrified me was 9320. It used to come with TONS of chrome elements, but then they changed the inventory totally so that it no longer had nearly as much chrome. Anyway, it's quite possible that this set is getting an updated part list, and this new tool set is being included in the new inventory. Option #2 - screwed up data (unlikely, but possible) That part list comes from LEGO-- and the source for it is... sketchy. Take a second and go to LEGO.com's "replacement parts" screen, and check out the available parts that come from set 6166. You can see the part right there: Now, the inventory data that LEGO uses is pretty reliable for "current" sets. But for older sets, it tends to be ... lacking. I did a little bit of scavenging there a while ago-- They had "inventories" for sets as far back as 1997, but there was a LOT that was missing. In other words, they'd have an inventory for 6097 Night Lord's Castle, but they DIDN'T include the red window frames in the inventory. So the inventory data was incomplete. It's also possible that some things were mis-labelled. For instance, things that have an updated element ID, but retain the same design ID. I don't really know on that one, but it's possible. All I can say is that the data for older sets isn't all that great. So it's POSSIBLE that because this is an old set, the inventory on LEGO's online parts replacement database is just screwed up for that set. DaveE

They look neat, but unfortunately, they're mostly a novelty since they don't have much clutch power. I have one of the large sets of these, and it was never as satisfying as I had hoped. I was thinking I could build living room furniture out of them, and since they're "soft", that they'd be comfortable. Turns out they fall apart pretty easily, and you'd really want about double the amount that they give you in a large set. For the record, you don't have to be an educator to buy from LEGO Education-- they're just typically more expensive than regular LEGO, because they're not produced in similar quantities, and often have extra things like teaching materials included. DaveE

For reference's sake: The Chicxulub asteroid is the one that may have wiped out the dinosaurs-- estimated at about 10km in diameter. I took the base image from Wikipedia's size comparison of Ceres, but I think it slightly underestimates the diameter of the moon-- my notes say it should be about 120 pixels in diameter in that image (assuming Earth is about 441 pixels in diameter), and the actual image shows it around 116 or so. DaveE

Uh oh: Ouch. A 2x4 brick measures 9.6mm x 16mm x 32mm. That translates to 0.378" x 0.630" x 1.260". They need a lesson in metric conversion, apparently! That's about 12.7 studs x 25.4 studs x 5.9 bricks. If they went for "roughly-same-size-but-complete" brick, I'd go with about 12 studs wide by 26 studs long by 6 bricks tall. Using 2x4 bricks, I'd lay them out in rows such that they were 3 2x4's laid end-to-end to make up the width, then 13 side-by-side to make up the length, and stacked 6 tall. So, 3x13x6, or 234 per brick, not 359, which is off by quite a quite a lot, considering that this is going to be the base of their calculations! Otherwise, if you went for an average (as in, it'll average out over distance), it's about 240.04 per brick-- still off by a more than 100 bricks! Then there's the fact that they seem to be basing their estimate for bricks based solely on the exterior walls of the house-- not including the floors/ceilings, roof, foundation, or interior structure. [edit]Also, they're basing their information on some guy's response on Quora. He doesn't take mortar into account, and assumes a 1500 square foot house would be "for simplicity" 15'x100', which is 230' of perimeter, rather than something more realistic, like 30'x50', which would be 160' perimeter (the ratio matters quite a lot!). Also, the Quora post doesn't account for pitched roofs, windows, doors, or other things-- it's just some guy trying to estimate using math, without taking into account any features of reality. ... Not that it really matters for the purposes of making a LEGO house, since you may not WANT a pitched roof, and you DON'T want to include mortar (which just adds extra spacing). FWIW, my guess for the Quora post is roughly 9,100 bricks, assuming 30'x50', 1 storey, hip roof, 0.5" mortar spacing, 12 windows, 2 exterior doors, based on a more-or-less standard floorplan layout. That's just under half of the answer given (18,400), which (if correct) means that the calculator is off by a factor of 2, just in the number of bricks needed, plus an extra 50% over-estimation based on the incorrect brick size. (I admittedly didn't take into account the overlap in corners, but that shouldn't add too much) So, about 250% overestimation for that calculator, if I'm reading it right. The far better source for a LEGO house would be to assume that it would follow the "James May Standard", using the large-scale assembled bricks that they used. The math involved is simple enough-- why would they bother trying to trace it back to some extremely sketchy Quora post?[/edit] Color me unimpressed with their calculator :( Yeah, the practicality is so out-the-window that the exact figures don't make much sense-- but they can provide you with some idea of just how astronomically large such a construction would be! DaveE

Ahh, OK, that explains it. I thought 142 billion sounded rather off-- I think you may want to delve into that number more precisely rather than using the calculator, though, unless you know how it works. Does it (for instance) assume a 1-square-mile house has a floor, ceiling, and 4 1-mile walls? Or does it assume support structure (like interior walls) at regularly placed intervals? As is, it would be 28 bricks thick, which is probably sufficient to hold a lot of weight, but I don't know how much. As for a flat vs. textured surface, I don't think it affects things too much. Probably affects the number by much less than 1%, considering that most of the surface is water. Another interesting prospect would be just making the surface out of 48x48 baseplates, which would take 1.8 trillion (1,786,750,000,000) baseplates. Yikes! DaveE

Hm... I get some different numbers. If you're assuming a minifig's height at 1.5" (38.1mm), and a ratio of 1:44, that should put the surface area at whatever the Earth's surface are is, divided by 1936 (44^2). Going by Wikipedia's estimate for the surface area of the Earth (510,072,000 km^2), that should be about 263,466.9421 km^2, or about 101,725.1551 square miles. (I think you took the diameter of 180 miles instead of the radius of 90 miles) As for the bricks/square mile number? I'm not sure how that number came about-- I get that it would take 5,058,570,528 bricks to cover a square mile (5 billion rather than a whopping 142 billion). So, for the surface layer alone (assuming you could get all those rectangular edges to line up perfectly, which you obviously couldn't do), you'd need about 514 trillion 2x4 bricks (514,584,000,000,000). I'm not sure how out-of-date the production numbers are per year-- That's always questionable to me, because nobody likes to source their data-- even the internal LEGO staff! They often just take the numbers that were published before, and use those, so the number that Gizmodo published in 2008 may have been a few years old at the time, which may-or-may not include Chinese and Mexican production. But at 19.1 billion per year, that's 26,941.56 years at the current rate of production! ... But that's to make just the surface-- it wouldn't hold together, and you couldn't really arrange the pieces evenly because of the curvature. What about if you filled it? The volume of the Earth is supposedly 1.08321 km^3, and the volume of a 2x4 brick is about 4915.2 mm^2 (excluding the studs, which will overlap inside of adjacent bricks). So you'd need about 2.6 sextillion bricks (2,587,100,000,000,000,000,000) in order to make the full sphere. How much mass would it have? Assuming BrickLink's estimated weight of 2.32g per brick, that'd be 6 quintillion kilograms (6,002,080,000,000,000,000 kg), which is in the ballpark of 1/1000th of all the water on Earth. Do we have enough oil? I don't know offhand. I once found a reference for roughly what percentage of ABS was oil (and it was something pretty small, like 1-5%). But a quick few Google searches haven't yielded me anything nice. Assuming my memory is correct at about 1%, we'd need 60 quadrillion kg (60,020,800,000,000,000 kg) of oil. However, I'm not sure that ABS actually uses crude oil-- IIRC it can use things like vegetable oil instead? I'm not sure. Call in the chemists! DaveE

Sounds like he's talking about the Ontario Mills mall, which is near Los Angeles, California. Now, I wouldn't think the FBI would be particularly concerned about it, regardless, but it DOES have some potential relevance since there's a lot of special attention paid to laws regarding filming in the general LA area. Could the FBI be paying some special attention in the area? I guess it's... possible. I'm not sure what JeagerEX is talking about, though. DaveE

You should ask them, and find out what they say. They may say "no, we have a strict policy about filming in the store", or they might say "Sure, that's fine, do whatever you want", or "I can't answer your question, but talk to our district manager, who can tell you", or "Tell us what you want to use it for, and then we'll tell you if it's OK or not". If you get written permission from whoever owns the property and from the LEGO company (regarding use of their materials), then they'll be hard-pressed to have any problems with whatever you're doing. But since that's very hard to get, hard to enumerate, etc., it's probably just easier to ask informally and go from there. DaveE

Even if you ask permission from whom? Connected to the FBI? What makes you say that? DaveE

If you avoid recording footage or audio of anyone present at the store, or if you get their explicit permission to do so, then those particular people can't file suit against you. However, it doesn't preclude the store, property owner, or LEGO from POTENTIALLY suing you. But I wouldn't worry about it. Just ask the store owner, and they'll probably say it's fine. The most likely reason that they'd say "no" (I would imagine) is that you'd cause an annoyance to other customers during filming. I don't think they'd mind the actual filming at all. But yes, TECHNICALLY, they can still sue you. In fact, I'm sure they can technically sue you for a slew of things that aren't important, even if you played by all the rules. Again, I wouldn't worry about it. DaveE

I would guess it depends on your budget, your collection size, and your level of collecting vs. MOC building. If you're just starting out your collection, you probably want sets. You may not have an immediate need for more 1x6 black plates, but if your collection only has 20 of them, you'll probably want more SOMEDAY. Hence, all that extra "fluff" that you get in sets slowly builds up over time and gives you a diverse collection. As you get a large collection, though, this isn't economical-- both in terms of money and space. When you have 480 1x6 plates, you actually DON'T WANT MORE, because you'll never use them, and they'll just sit in an overflow bin taking up space. All that "fluff" starts going to waste, but you're still paying for it when you buy a set. Even if someone offers you 100 red minifig legs FOR FREE, you might not want to take them, because you've already got way more than you'll ever uses! If you're a collector, you obviously want sets. Particularly valuable, rare, or memorable sets. If you're a MOC builder, though, you probably couldn't care less, and should just get the elements you want as you need them. I generally went the set-buying route, and I now have a pretty unmanagable collection. However, on the plus side, I have just about enough of anything I ever want already on-hand, and I don't often have to order anything through BrickLink. DaveE

You mean what if you filmed some footage in a toy store like the LEGO store, WalMart, or Toys R Us, and then used that footage in a commercial for LEGO? Chances are, LEGO won't care. Technically, in the USA, you usually need permission from the owners of the property in order to film there. That means (in the case of a LEGO store) that you need permission from the mall, and possibly from LEGO. You also (legally speaking) may need to make it clear to any people present that they may be filmed, and potentially audio-recorded. Note that visual recording and audio recording are two very separate things as far as the law is concerned. So, what happens if you do it? Probably nothing. I'll give it a 99.99% chance that nothing happens, and you're fine. Most likely, your commercial won't go viral or anything, and won't be featured by any broadcasting companies. I'm guessing you'll upload it to YouTube, or show it to your friends, and that'll pretty much be it. If, for some reason, your video makes it big, then it might matter. Technically, the LEGO company, the store where you filmed it, the property owners, or people on film in your video (or other stakeholders if you use copyrighted music, sound effects, or images), can IN THEORY, cause you problems. Again, chances are, if one of them doesn't like the video, they'll just get it taken down from YouTube, or (if they're REALLY serious) send you a Cease & Desist, and order the materials destroyed. Absolute WORST case (almost guaranteed not to happen), they could sue you for damages. That means you'd have to pay them something, and probably would need a lawyer to represent you, which costs you more money. But that's RIDICULOUSLY unlikely. Basically, people do that sort of amateur filming ALL THE TIME, and nothing ever comes of it. Pretty much worst case? They just get you to take it down-- you don't have to pay anything or go to prison or anything-- they just say "hey, you didn't have our permission to make this, so stop it". It's only in very extreme cases where they'd actually try and go after you. DaveE

They actually quote the speed on the page: "0.259 m/s or 0.93 kmh". About 1 length of long straight track every second, which is pretty common for monorail speed, in my experience. Assuming minifig scale of 1 stud per foot, that's about 22 miles per hour, or 35.5 kph! DaveE

Congrats! I'm glad to see the attempts at record breaking continue! ... Of course, now we'll have to try and re-claim the record! How did you find the lengths of the track? I tried to start a discussion about this a while ago in a few places-- the easiest one I can find being LUGNET: http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=55530 Here's what I found when I did my checking (these were the numbers used for NELUG's record): Straight lengths were pretty straightforward: - Straight Long: 32 studs * 8mm per stud => 256mm - Monoswitch: 16 studs * 8mm per stud => 128mm - Straight Short: 8 studs * 8mm per stud => 64mm Curves were difficult, because monorail track doesn't form a perfect circle-- it's adjusted slightly so that the midpoint of a curve aligns perfectly on studs: - Curve Long: (4 * ((pi - 4)/(1 - sqrt(1/2)) + 14) studs ~=> 44.277 studs * 8mm per stud => 354.216mm - Curve Short Left & Right: 354.216mm / 2 => 177.108mm Ramps were even more difficult. I couldn't find a good guess as to the "perfect" geometry, so I measured using a scanner. However, because it wasn't an exact method, I simplified and used 262.4mm for NELUG measurements. - Ramp Lower Part: 262.5328mm (262.4mm) - Ramp Upper Part: 262.3224mm (262.4mm) Points (when straight) were simple, but I actually never figured out what they were when curved. They don't follow a perfect curve, and I didn't have a good method for determining their length. I DID count the teeth in each direction, but since the tooth spacing isn't consistent, it didn't really help. Hence, for our purposes, we simply used a half-curve measurement: - Point Left & Right: 177.108mm (curved), 256mm (straight) DaveE

I don't believe they were intended as a temporary solution, but they weren't around for as long as LEGO would have liked them to be. When LEGO developed the 'modern' minifigure, one of their staff left to go work for a competitor. Since LEGO feared that their idea might be copied, they rushed the minifigures out to market before they were ready. That's why you'll see some sets like the #600 Police Car, where the figure doesn't even fit inside the vehicle. My guess is that if LEGO had more time, they would have maintained the "stubby" figures for another year or two. I expect that the reaction to the stubby figures was positive enough for them to warrant a more versatile figure. Hence, it was probably always a possibility, but not a foregone conclusion that they'd release something fully pose-able like the modern figure. DaveE

Looks like it might be custom? I assume you're talking about the font used here: And with some stylized bits here: I tried plugging these into WhatTheFont?, but with no luck. Granted, the samples aren't really big enough to do a good job with-- if you can track down bigger images, maybe you'll have some success. DaveE

Note, it does say "Store Number: 113987", which could mean that it was made by LEGO for internal use in their retail stores (or something similar). But it doesn't take much to figure out that it was never intended for general sale to the public. It's too poorly done to be officially for sale-- the lettering, logo, figures, and series numbers are obscured by the print on the clock face. It's doubtful that LEGO's going to release anything where their logo isn't more prominent-- especially considering there's PLENTY of space for the logo ABOVE the minifigures. Heck, the "Store Number" text even overlaps the clock text, and both are in white font! My guess is that someone with less-than-stellar design skills (possibly internal at LEGO, possibly not) decided to print up some clock faces on some halfway-decent printer paper, and stuck them on a do-it-yourself customizable plastic clock. And maybe those clocks were actually used in a LEGO retail store somewhere (or other store that sells LEGO, perhaps). And now they're either selling the copies that were used in stores, or just selling replicas of the ones they made. [edit]Oh, never mind. It's fake. They also are selling scads of OTHER corporate logo-themed clocks, ALL with the same exact "Store Number" on them. Probably not worth LEGO's time to file a lawsuit, but technically probably not legal in the USA.[/edit] DaveE

I know they don't own the facility, but I'm not sure whether or not there are actual LEGO employees involved in the process, or if it's totally a partnership deal. DaveE

Didn't they also try and confiscate the materials (which they had donated to him) on the grounds that he mislead them? I recall that part of the fiasco was that LEGO actually SUPPORTED the artist, and LEGO wanted to make it clear that they did NOT support the final product, and wouldn't have supported it initially if they knew what the final result would be. DaveE