| |
Three things:
1. I don’t think anyone objects to additional colors, they object to color
replacement with a different colors.
2. You might well be in a minority in not minding a mottled look to your MOCs, I
think many others would be more than annoyed. In some ways, having a properly
color coordinated design distinguishes a “refined” design from one that is built
up from multiple colored elements as if one didn’t have enough elements of a
particular color!
3. Replacement greys would mean that your investment in old greys has been cut
off in terms of future elements; it would also mean a period of reinvesting in
new greys in order to build in new greys.
Further, I really object to the “Half full” comment -- the greys are fundamental
colors to many builders. Losing access to the greys for further building does
not leave a glass “half full” -- it leaves it entirely empty!
Let’s just hope that these new greys are additions to the color line and not
replacement colors as suggested by some.
FWIW, while some of my building is done in grey, I have more commonly been
working in black and yellow lately (for quite some time). My concern is for
other builders whose entire stake in lego building is predicated on access to
the traditional greys. For myself personally, I do not need or want access to
other than the traditional light and dark greys. My castle/forestmen/13.13 witch
MOCs do not require any other greys.
I could certainly use more traditional light and dark greys though, just as I
could use more of all of the more traditional colors. And I will be just as
annoyed if and when rather than adding to the color line, they replace
traditional yellow, black, blue, red, etc. When I reach for an element of a
certain color, I really want it to match with the rest of what I am building.
An imprecise color match is a long-time complaint from many against clone bricks
-- if the color will not match, and the clutch adhesion of the studs will be
compromised, then TLC’s reign as the maker of the best elements will be OVER!
Now I love clone stuff, but “Lego” has always been the standard for the best
made stuff. I have never argued that point.
I don’t think replacing colors is a small thing -- it’s a huge thing. And I
think long-time consumers will feel betrayed and abandoned.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
richard marchetti wrote in message ...
> When I reach for an element of a
> certain color, I really want it to match with the rest of what I am • building.
> An imprecise color match is a long-time complaint from many against clone • bricks
> -- if the color will not match, and the clutch adhesion of the studs will • be
> compromised, then TLC's reign as the maker of the best elements will be
OVER!
I think this is crucial. IF it's really so that there will be
not-quite-matching replacements for some of the standard colors, and IF the
new stud design is really less clutchy (and accurate?) than the current
design and propagates throughout the line... why then, the reasons to pay
more for LEGO vs a cheaper clone become fewer and LEGO will lose even more
of its market share to clone brands. That's a bad thing for us and for LEGO.
Here's hoping that the fears and rumors turn out to be less serious than we
think.
Kevin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Depot kit: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/cat-rrd.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGO TOWN PLANNING information:
http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/COntent/Townplan/townplan.htm
BrickLink Lego parts store: http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
The Guild of Bricksmiths(TM): http://www.bricksmiths.com
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
3. Replacement greys would mean that your investment in old greys has been
cut off in terms of future elements; it would also mean a period of
reinvesting in new greys in order to build in new greys.
|
We both know that the grays do not fare well with time-- they yellow, and many
times older grays look crappy anyway. In the same vein, I would never build
with white from the 70’s.
| |
Further, I really object to the “Half full” comment -- the greys are
fundamental colors to many builders. Losing access to the greys for further
building does not leave a glass “half full” -- it leaves it entirely empty!
|
We must consider the possibility that the apparent changes may be by necessity--
perhaps a change in ABS suppliers? Perhaps they have been matched to the best
of TLC’s ability?
| |
Let’s just hope that these new greys are additions to the color line and not
replacement colors as suggested by some.
|
The “new” grays are so close to the originals that I doubt they were intended as
separate, new colors in and of themselves. Time will tell (if TLC doesn’t)
JOHN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Wilson wrote:
> I think this is crucial. IF it's really so that there will be
> not-quite-matching replacements for some of the standard colors, and IF the
> new stud design is really less clutchy (and accurate?) than the current
> design and propagates throughout the line... why then, the reasons to pay
> more for LEGO vs a cheaper clone become fewer and LEGO will lose even more
> of its market share to clone brands. That's a bad thing for us and for LEGO.
>
> Here's hoping that the fears and rumors turn out to be less serious than we
> think.
2 words: Coke II. But I doubt it is that drastic. As for clutch, I don't think
they would have done anything major without hordes of focus groups expressing
their joy at how much easier it is to disconnect two plates. For some adults
that's all they remember about Lego: how hard it was to separate two plates.
Have we seen this on a brick or just plates?
Perhaps the new color also masks an anti-fading agent? (seems unlikely.)
-Erik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Erik Olson wrote:
> Perhaps the new color also masks an anti-fading agent? (seems unlikely.)
I wonder if some of the older dyes have become either unobtainable or have been
outlawed in Europe. Some of the older dyes, even food colourings, are now deemed
harmful. TLC may not have any choice in the matter.
As far as rounded edges on studs, it may make it easier to assemble bricks
without such a high level of manual dexterity. Perhaps TLC is having to appeal
to kids with such short attention span that they will not play with interlocking
bricks if the have to concentrate on aligning them. Sad, but a possibility ....
JB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Erik Olson wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the new color also masks an anti-fading agent? (seems unlikely.)
>
>
> I wonder if some of the older dyes have become either unobtainable or have been
> outlawed in Europe. Some of the older dyes, even food colourings, are now deemed
> harmful. TLC may not have any choice in the matter.
I did some goolging and found this interesting page.
http://www.mst.dk/project/NyViden/2001/12010000.htm
Apparently LEGO has been spending serious bucks into the plastics recycling
business. Now, the way I see it, if LEGO is putting all this money into this
then I'd think they did some serious research to make sure what they are doing
is consumer safe.
In the past LEGO has taken the measures to make sure their product is as safe or
more safe than laws state. Waaaaay back when the government said trace amounts
of Cadmium were allowed in yellow and red ABS LEGO put in the effort to use
absolutely none in its ABS (pg. 78 in "The World of LEGO Toys")
Adr.
|
|
| |
> As far as rounded edges on studs, it may make it easier to assemble bricks
> without such a high level of manual dexterity. Perhaps TLC is having to appeal
> to kids with such short attention span that they will not play with interlocking
> bricks if the have to concentrate on aligning them. Sad, but a possibility ....
That's my guess about what's happening. Chamfering would make parts somewhat
easier to assemble (just like in carpentry, the dowels for a dowel joint are
chamfered for easier insertion) at a cost of some gripping. I'll have to buy
some of these sets to see how bad the change is.
In any case, cannot be TLC "cheaping out"--this would mean a major tooling
change which would be expensive. If they did this intentionally (and it's not
just some bad molds, which I'd find hard to believe if every part in the set is
like this) then it's got to be based on some serious market research that says
it will improve sales.
Peter
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter F. Guenther wrote:
> > As far as rounded edges on studs, it may make it easier to assemble bricks
> > without such a high level of manual dexterity. Perhaps TLC is having to appeal
> > to kids with such short attention span that they will not play with interlocking
> > bricks if the have to concentrate on aligning them. Sad, but a possibility ....
>
> That's my guess about what's happening. Chamfering would make parts somewhat
> easier to assemble
Two questions:
a) At what point in history did LEGO bricks become so difficult to assemble
that a fundamental change was required to the very mechanism upon which this
construction system was based?
b) If you are already having difficulties aligning and pushing together LEGO
bricks, is this 1/2 millimeter or so of camfering really going to make your life
easier?
> In any case, cannot be TLC "cheaping out"--this would mean a major tooling
> change which would be expensive. If they did this intentionally (and it's not
> just some bad molds, which I'd find hard to believe if every part in the set is
> like this) then it's got to be based on some serious market research that says
> it will improve sales.
The questions in this case would be, "can we save money somehow by changing all
the studs on new bricks?" Making new molds to do this? We've been told time
and again by LEGO Direct that this is a hideously expensive task.
But... a slightly more realistic question might be, "are the molds being changed
to help secure new patents?" In the light of recent court proceedings I would
put my money on this answer.
Bottom line.... I can't believe the speculating and panic mongering that has
gone on in this thread (and a similar one in .castle). Worst of all, I can't
believe I just became part of the thread. :)
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Barnes wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Erik Olson wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the new color also masks an anti-fading agent? (seems unlikely.)
>
>
> I wonder if some of the older dyes have become either unobtainable or have been
> outlawed in Europe. Some of the older dyes, even food colourings, are now deemed
> harmful. TLC may not have any choice in the matter.
With all the new coloring products coming on the market, it would be strange if
Lego could not get exactly what it wanted in a color. Having played with them
now, I think the new colors are great.
> As far as rounded edges on studs, it may make it easier to assemble bricks
> without such a high level of manual dexterity. Perhaps TLC is having to appeal
> to kids with such short attention span that they will not play with interlocking
> bricks if the have to concentrate on aligning them. Sad, but a possibility ....
Having purchased said SW minis, I did not observe any change in the studs.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Erik Olson wrote:
> With all the new coloring products coming on the market, it would be strange if
> Lego could not get exactly what it wanted in a color. Having played with them
> now, I think the new colors are great.
replying to myself.. the new gray is not very earthy. I tried to add the 2x2
tiles to a landscape which has a lot of gray. The new gray looks very
antiseptic. How appropriate for a Star Destroyer. It looks like the float on
newly poured cement. The original gray looks like cement 3 days later. The new
gray looks like ashes. The original gray looks like clay.
The two are close enough that mixing them in a wall would be very attractive.
I wonder what users of 2x2 gray tiles will do in the next year?
Thought-provoking colors. Certainly not the end of the world.
-Erik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Adrian Egli wrote:
> In lugnet.general, John Barnes wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Erik Olson wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps the new color also masks an anti-fading agent? (seems unlikely.)
> >
> >
> > I wonder if some of the older dyes have become either unobtainable or have been
> > outlawed in Europe. Some of the older dyes, even food colourings, are now deemed
> > harmful. TLC may not have any choice in the matter.
>
> I did some goolging and found this interesting page.
>
> http://www.mst.dk/project/NyViden/2001/12010000.htm
>
> Apparently LEGO has been spending serious bucks into the plastics recycling
> business. Now, the way I see it, if LEGO is putting all this money into this
> then I'd think they did some serious research to make sure what they are doing
> is consumer safe.
This article is a quite interesting read. What jumped out at me was the mention
that different colors of ABS have different specific gravities (within a small
overall range). I wonder if the saline solution would have a detrimental effect
on the surface quality of parts. Might be an interesting way to sort your pcs by
color. Also might make a neat & non-jugemental way to code colors (by the
specific gravity).
Ray (rambling off on a Sunday morning)
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford wrote:
> But... a slightly more realistic question might be, "are the molds
> being changed to help secure new patents?" In the light of recent
> court proceedings I would put my money on this answer.
The chamfering could also help the finished piece get out of the mold
faster/easier, maybe the plates got stuck in the machine?
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery/index.htm
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Allan Bedford wrote:
> > But... a slightly more realistic question might be, "are the molds
> > being changed to help secure new patents?" In the light of recent
> > court proceedings I would put my money on this answer.
>
> The chamfering could also help the finished piece get out of the mold
> faster/easier, maybe the plates got stuck in the machine?
Wouldn't you then also surmise that you'd have to round off the edges of the
plates/bricks too?
I just can't imagine that after 40+ years the cylindrical stud with the more or
less flat top has suddenly become difficult to manufacture. Is the LEGO company
de-evolving their technology?
I don't mean to sound so negative, but some of the arguments/reasons being
presented in this thread are somewhat irrational.
The truth is that we may never know. The LEGO company is under no obligation to
release any information of this type. I am willing to sit back and wait to see
how things play out. This may be an experiment, a bad batch... who knows? The
history of other toys and construction systems suggests that this kind of thing
is almost certain to happen given enough time. Look at how many iterations of
color, sizes and shapes the Meccano system has gone through over the years. If
LEGO didn't change from time to time we'd still be in a world without minifigs,
Technic parts, Mindstorms, and the list goes on.
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Richard Marchetti wrote:
| |
In some ways, having a
properly color coordinated design distinguishes a “refined” design from one
that is built up from multiple colored elements as if one didn’t have enough
elements of a particular color!
|
Richard,
With no offense intended, this sounds as if those builders out there who
are “stuck” with the bricks they have (for whatever reasons) just can’t be as
good at MOC-ing as those who can buy the bricks they need to make the “refined”
designs look better. I disagree, and think it’s entirely a matter of
application; the perfect color scheme seems more like icing on the cake for a
good design. This isn’t to say that color isn’t important, but I don’t believe
it’s as important as building itself.
Of course, I say this from the standpoint of one who’s obviously no expert.
I do understand your point about those who base their collections on these
greys, but I believe those people - the expert MOC-ers - are in the minority.
Most of us will still play just fine.
Maybe I’m just one of those in the minority who think it’s not such a bad
thing to have new colors with which to play. With hope for those for whom this
is an important point, perhaps the new greys are merely extensions of the color
palette rather than replacements.
The glass just is.
Peace and Long Life,
Tw0nst3r
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tony Alexander wrote:
| |
With no offense intended, this sounds as if those builders out there who
are “stuck” with the bricks they have (for whatever reasons) just can’t be as
good at MOC-ing as those who can buy the bricks they need to make the
“refined” designs look better. I disagree, and think it’s entirely a matter
of application; the perfect color scheme seems more like icing on the cake
for a good design. This isn’t to say that color isn’t important, but I don’t
believe it’s as important as building itself.
|
Well, I have no problem with those that build in whatever way they choose at all
-- in my view, playing and building is the point of it all. I think we’re on the
same page there. I also don’t have a problem with additions to the color line,
but I don’t necessarily need a color of which there are limited elements
available (is the mosaic grey available only as a 1x1 plate? That’s crazy
limiting...).
I’m so easy going that I even use clone bricks of various kinds. No problem
there either. My dirty little secret is that I probably have more bioknuckle
sets than I care to admit -- I remain staunchly opposed to what bioknuckles
represents overall, however. I think “collector” stuff is wrong-headed in the
extreme. It just turns children into mindless, obsessed “collectors” rather
than builders. Such is the case that no one even questions the reason for
“dumbing down” lego sets -- it is assumed as a motive on the part of TLC -- kids
don’t build, they just consume! I also object to replacement of the technic line
with a lot of this junk. YMMV -- whatever.
And you’re right -- a good build is still a good build regardless of the colors
used. And as you say, full color coordination is icing on the cake. But some of
us have been stocking up on the icing for quite a while...
Yes, we might as well see how this plays out -- but I never really wanted to see
any of the basic colors change or get replaced. I also never wanted to see a
change in the appearance of the tubes or studs. I think we had already reached
a point of engineering stability with those issues, and I as a consumer would
have preferred they left those aspect of things alone.
My one big point is that colors should not change. Really it’s as simple as
that. TLC can add colors if it must, no problem. But don’t mess with success
in the old colors. Like I have stated elsewhere already -- when I reach for an
element of a particular color, I really want it to be a particular color and not
something else.
I have one area where I am probably less complete in traditional light grey than
with any other kind of element -- that would be slopes. Sure, I have a lot by
most people’s standards already, but I could use more of certain types for sure.
If TLC changes the color of the grey, however subtley, they will be screwing me
in terms of my previous investment in light grey slopes. I don’t want to work
with a mottled effect -- I don’t go for that kind of realism. I am not
emulating the world at large, I have a little world of plastic toys of
particular colors that I play in. I would have much preferred that things had
remain static color-wise within that world.
I really don’t think I have to make much of an argument in pointing out that the
greys are probably a building color of choice for many. The greys photograph
well, probably far better than my black and yellow stuff. You can build
everything from spaceships to battleships to castle with the greys and they make
perfect sense. You don’t have to color coordinate per se -- the greys have been
the de facto neutral colors for any and all kinds of MOCs.
You don’t have to agree with me, but I think many do -- changing the grey colors
is a huge mistake and people aren’t going to be happy about it if that’s what
TLC has done. It’s not as if the bar to professional looking MOCs hasn’t been
made high enough already in terms of skill, money, and time.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
> I just can't imagine that after 40+ years the cylindrical stud with the more or
> less flat top has suddenly become difficult to manufacture. Is the LEGO company
> de-evolving their technology?
Lego has CONSTANTLY been perfecting the designs of pieces. Witness the hole in
the minifig head; the slots in the sides of the Technic pin; etc., etc., etc.
The camfering is another step in the ongoing development of product, though for
what reason we don't know, and as you say may never.
Which pieces in the MINIs are camfered? I bought a Mos Eisley and couldn't find
it on any pieces.
I have to say, after looking at the color differences, I'm disappointed but not
going to stop buying Lego, even if they're permanent. I actually like the new
colors better--but I don't like the fact they don't match what I've got.
Peter
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter F. Guenther wrote:
> > I just can't imagine that after 40+ years the cylindrical stud with the more or
> > less flat top has suddenly become difficult to manufacture. Is the LEGO company
> > de-evolving their technology?
>
> Lego has CONSTANTLY been perfecting the designs of pieces.
I totally agree.
What I didn't agree with was the logic being used to suggest why these changes
were being made. I was trying to express my disbelief that changes were
happening because parts were getting too difficult to manufacture. If these
changes are, in fact, happening the likely reason is either cost/profit or
patent related.
> Witness the hole in
> the minifig head; the slots in the sides of the Technic pin; etc., etc., etc.
> The camfering is another step in the ongoing development of product, though for
> what reason we don't know, and as you say may never.
Many changes over the years. Not at all unlike the Meccano system. The key
(for the company) is to make sure that each change is better than what it is
replacing. New hinge plates are an example of where they might have been better
off not making a change.
> I actually like the new
> colors better--but I don't like the fact they don't match what I've got.
But to follow some of the other suggestions in this thread I should be giving up
LEGO bricks and building. Why? Well, I only have 1 1x3 pink brick. Time to
stop building, sell my collection and take up knitting. No offense to any
knitters in the audience, but this ain't happening. Quite the opposite, I'm
trying to figure out a use for that one pink 1x3 brick in a model someday. This
is a construction toy, not a coin collection that needs to be complete to be
interesting. :)
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
> What I didn't agree with was the logic being used to suggest why these changes
> were being made. I was trying to express my disbelief that changes were
> happening because parts were getting too difficult to manufacture. If these
> changes are, in fact, happening the likely reason is either cost/profit or
> patent related.
Right--I don't agree with that either. It's not a manufacturing issue or a
cost-saving issue, it's a marketing thing probably based on ease of assembly (if
it's not a mistake, which I'm still willing to believe based on my Mos Eisley
experience and other pieces.
> The key (for the company) is to make sure that each change is better than what it is
> replacing. New hinge plates are an example of where they might have been better
> off not making a change.
Right--but "better" is relative to the audience, and they have another audience
in mind than us AFOLs. (Whether the change is better for kids either is
debatable.)
> But to follow some of the other suggestions in this thread I should be giving up
> LEGO bricks and building
I'm not about to. If other AFOLs do, then hey! More Lego pieces for me. I've
put the new color pieces together with old ones and while I wouldn't have chosen
the effect, it's not unpleasant.
Peter
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter F. Guenther wrote:
> > What I didn't agree with was the logic being used to suggest why these changes
> > were being made. I was trying to express my disbelief that changes were
> > happening because parts were getting too difficult to manufacture. If these
> > changes are, in fact, happening the likely reason is either cost/profit or
> > patent related.
>
> Right--I don't agree with that either. It's not a manufacturing issue or a
> cost-saving issue, it's a marketing thing probably based on ease of assembly (if
> it's not a mistake, which I'm still willing to believe based on my Mos Eisley
> experience and other pieces.
So this microscopic change to the studs makes them easier to assemble? Worse
yet, this suggests that today's kids are not as dexterous as we were 25 or 30
years ago? This is really hard to believe. Any average 6 year-old can use
their superior eye --> hand co-ordination to beat me at just about any slick new
video game. And to watch them build with LEGO bricks it's easy to see that
today's kids can still function perfectly well with them. In fact, I once had a
young person tell me that she, "could have built something better if she'd had
the little bricks instead of the big ones." That was the last time I offered
her Duplo bricks with which to build. :)
Rather than being frustrated or over-challenged by LEGO I think kids are as
capable of building with it today - in it's current form - as they were 20, 30
or 40 years ago. Again, I can't possibly fathom that a change to the knob and
tube system is a result of the marketing folks running to management screaming,
"kids can't put the bricks together anymore!!! We must make it simpler for
them!!!"
To hint that kids are having trouble aligning LEGO bricks is to not give credit
to today's very smart children.
From the stories I hear from parents with whom I work today's kids don't have
trouble putting bricks together. Is someone else aware of this being a problem?
Is the company besieged with calls and emails proclaiming, "my child can't get
their LEGO bricks lined up so that they will stick together!!!" Is there
evidence that this is happening?
> > The key (for the company) is to make sure that each change is better than what it is
> > replacing. New hinge plates are an example of where they might have been better
> > off not making a change.
>
> Right--but "better" is relative to the audience, and they have another audience
> in mind than us AFOLs. (Whether the change is better for kids either is
> debatable.)
Kids are more likely to use the click hinges over and again... possibly more
than adults... possibly wearing them out sooner. It was just an example, but I
think it actually holds water in this context. I wasn't attempting to preach a
pro-adult agenda, merely suggesting that companies need to pay attention to what
types of changes they make. The history (and in part the decline) of the
Meccano system was ripe with good and bad changes.
> > But to follow some of the other suggestions in this thread I should be giving up
> > LEGO bricks and building
>
> I'm not about to. If other AFOLs do, then hey! More Lego pieces for me. I've
> put the new color pieces together with old ones and while I wouldn't have chosen
> the effect, it's not unpleasant.
And I'm not about to either. :)
I was using hyperbole to suggest that if I listened to all of the panic
mongering that has gone on in this thread I would be following a ridiculous
course of action. I don't think anyone will or should give up LEGO building
because of these changes. If the changes are good, they will be adopted as a
long-term solution. If they don't, then the company is just as likely to try
something else... for reasons likely unknown to any of us. It's just not worth
fussing over these changes, especially when there's little any of us could do to
alter the natural progression of a consumer product like this.
All the best,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
> Again, I can't possibly fathom that a change to the knob and
> tube system is a result of the marketing folks running to management screaming,
> "kids can't put the bricks together anymore!!! We must make it simpler for
> them!!!"
Not that kids can't put them together, but to make it easier--just like holes in
the minifig heads made them easier to pull off and slots in the technic pins
made them easier to pull out. Making a change to make something easier for the
user doesn't imply that the user is incompetent or less competent than in the
past.
Peter
|
|
| |
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:37:39 GMT, "Peter F. Guenther"
<peterg1974@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Again, I can't possibly fathom that a change to the knob and
> > tube system is a result of the marketing folks running to management screaming,
> > "kids can't put the bricks together anymore!!! We must make it simpler for
> > them!!!"
>
> Not that kids can't put them together, but to make it easier--just like holes in
> the minifig heads made them easier to pull off and slots in the technic pins
> made them easier to pull out. Making a change to make something easier for the
> user doesn't imply that the user is incompetent or less competent than in the
> past.
>
> Peter
I thought the holes in the minifig heads were for safety reasons, to
prevent choking if a child were to attempt to swallow them. I think I
saw that mentioned in a LEGO book somewhere...
C
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter F. Guenther wrote:
> > Again, I can't possibly fathom that a change to the knob and
> > tube system is a result of the marketing folks running to management screaming,
> > "kids can't put the bricks together anymore!!! We must make it simpler for
> > them!!!"
We now know that this is a moot point, but something worries me about your
logic:
> Not that kids can't put them together, but to make it easier--just like holes in
> the minifig heads made them easier to pull off and slots in the technic pins
> made them easier to pull out. Making a change to make something easier for the
> user doesn't imply that the user is incompetent or less competent than in the
> past.
Your statements are true.... IF we are talking about a product or design that is
relatively new... perhaps only a few years old. Then there is the
expectation/obligation for the company to respond to consumer
complaints/requests and fix parts of the product's design that are not working.
But the tube/stud design is more than 40 years old! Does this suggest that LEGO
is really really slow in changing bad designs?
Had this change actually been true it's highly unlikely it would have been a
result of consumer complaints. Those complaints would have been coming in since
before man landed on the moon! But if the change had been made to help kids,
then it suggests either kids who aren't as agile as they were decades ago
(completely untrue) or it suggests a way to either save money or protect product
patents etc.
What really worries me though is that apparently the change to the grey color
was partly driven by consumer feedback. Who are these people? Who called the
company to express discontent over the shades of grey their kids were building
with. I've heard parents complain that Mega Bloks don't click together well,
that LEGO is too expensive, that there aren't play sets for Bionicles... and the
list goes on. I've never heard a kid, parent or adult builder complain that
light grey was making their LEGO building less enjoyable. :)
Signed,
Head still spinning Bedford
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Adrian Egli wrote:
http://www.mst.dk/project/NyViden/2001/12010000.htm
>
> Apparently LEGO has been spending serious bucks into the plastics recycling
> business. Now, the way I see it, if LEGO is putting all this money into this
> then I'd think they did some serious research to make sure what they are doing
> is consumer safe.
>
> In the past LEGO has taken the measures to make sure their product is as safe or
> more safe than laws state. Waaaaay back when the government said trace amounts
> of Cadmium were allowed in yellow and red ABS LEGO put in the effort to use
> absolutely none in its ABS (pg. 78 in "The World of LEGO Toys")
Wonders what LEGO molds with the new bricks ?
Plus what colours are the result ?
|
|
| |
Well if you actually READ the article, it is clear that they mold whatever they wish,
as the granules are used in the standard process. And the colors are grey and black.
pete white wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Adrian Egli wrote:
> http://www.mst.dk/project/NyViden/2001/12010000.htm
> >
> > Apparently LEGO has been spending serious bucks into the plastics recycling
> > business. Now, the way I see it, if LEGO is putting all this money into this
> > then I'd think they did some serious research to make sure what they are doing
> > is consumer safe.
> >
> > In the past LEGO has taken the measures to make sure their product is as safe or
> > more safe than laws state. Waaaaay back when the government said trace amounts
> > of Cadmium were allowed in yellow and red ABS LEGO put in the effort to use
> > absolutely none in its ABS (pg. 78 in "The World of LEGO Toys")
>
> Wonders what LEGO molds with the new bricks ?
> Plus what colours are the result ?
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Thomas Stangl wrote:
> Well if you actually READ the article, it is clear that they mold whatever they wish,
> as the granules are used in the standard process. And the colors are grey and black.
WHICH grey genius ? READ the thread.
>
> pete white wrote:
In lugnet.general, Adrian Egli wrote:
http://www.mst.dk/project/NyViden/2001/12010000.htm
> >
> > Wonders what LEGO molds with the new bricks ?
> > Plus what colours are the result ?
>
|
|
|
