| |
I’ve had a number of people ask me about a perceived quality issue lately: If
you take a number of plates and create two or more large stacks, they tend to be
differing heights. For example, Ben has posted some photos here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=793687
I mentioned that this is a “perceived” quality issue because on the surface it
seems to be an obvious quality issue, but in reality, there is nothing out of
place. I have checked with our Quality Assurance department for some details and
they have passed along some info.
When you build, the height difference will often be aligned as the elements
typically will vary in element height from one end to another. In order to get
the maximum deviation all the plates have to turn the same way and they have to
be from the same tool. This is not likely.
The height measure on our plates is 3.2 +/-0, 1 mm. With a height difference up
to 0.2 mm per plate it will be approx. 4.0 mm. If you build 20 plates above each
other. On the photo the difference is under 2.0 mm.
Consider that in the official LEGO models, the LEGO designers never use more
than three plates in a stack. As a model is built, the elements will equal out
and create a solid model regardless of these very very minor tolerance changes
(+/- 0.1 mm), creating a very stable model.
The tolerances used today are the same as years past.
Hope this helps clear this up. Please know (and remember) that LEGO has always
been, and will always be about quality. We have a great team in the Quality
group, manufacturing, and Design that works hard to ensure the best parts are
being created.
Sometimes there are mistakes or problems, but as you all know, those times are
rare. And unwelcomed... thus the desire by the entire company to ensure they
never happen.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
|
| |
Jake McKee wrote:
> I mentioned that this is a "perceived" quality issue because on the surface it
> seems to be an obvious quality issue, but in reality, there is nothing out of
> place. I have checked with our Quality Assurance department for some details and
> they have passed along some info.
When I check sets and brick I've bought in the last 12 months, I
perceived several quality issues I never noticed in the years before.
Not only Bens and Juergens plates, but also breaking bricks, bricks with
"wrong" grip (Studs too small, can't hold a brick & opening too small
too, hard to put down on or remove off "normal" bricks), the Knight Bus
colour (although only second hand, I've not bought such a set due to the
problems), to name a few.
Two of these problems have been adressed so far - by being labeled as
"within acceptable quality derivation". These obvious quality issues
have been wiped off the table just like that.
Yes, there have been quality derivations in the past, but their extend
seems to have grown considerably in the last months, and the handling of
these issues have become worse.
Or does the companies' statements you delivered just imply that we all
have been blind, deaf and stupid in the years before, and just suddenly
gone picky on non-issues?
Sometimes I wonder if Lego plans a Great Renaming to "Lebi" - Leg billig.
Yours, Christian
Leg Bedre! (And see you in Berlin)
|
|
| |
Jake,
I have no problem with the quality. From time to time there will always be parts
that are not perfect. Take for example the 1 dot color parts. Sometimes a part
has the bottom broken or cracked. While other times they don’t. It happens. We
are talking about plastic.
I would say that if you have 1000 or 10000 parts created it is bound to happen
that the there will be a part that is not 100% correct. Any one else think this
is a good way of thinking?
Larry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
I’ve had a number of people ask me about a perceived quality issue lately: If
you take a number of plates and create two or more large stacks, they tend to
be differing heights. For example, Ben has posted some photos here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=793687
I mentioned that this is a “perceived” quality issue because on the surface
it seems to be an obvious quality issue, but in reality, there is nothing out
of place. I have checked with our Quality Assurance department for some
details and they have passed along some info.
When you build, the height difference will often be aligned as the elements
typically will vary in element height from one end to another. In order to
get the maximum deviation all the plates have to turn the same way and they
have to be from the same tool. This is not likely.
The height measure on our plates is 3.2 +/-0, 1 mm. With a height difference
up to 0.2 mm per plate it will be approx.
|
Or >6%. I “perceive” that as being quite high(?). ;)
| |
4.0 mm. If you build 20 plates
above each other. On the photo the difference is under 2.0 mm.
Consider that in the official LEGO models, the LEGO designers never use more
than three plates in a stack. As a model is built, the elements will equal
out and create a solid model regardless of these very very minor tolerance
changes (+/- 0.1 mm), creating a very stable model.
The tolerances used today are the same as years past.
|
Surley advances in technology should have enabled tolerances to be improved?
| |
Hope this helps clear this up. Please know (and remember) that LEGO has
always been, and will always be about quality. We have a great team in the
Quality group, manufacturing, and Design that works hard to ensure the best
parts are being created.
Sometimes there are mistakes or problems, but as you all know, those times
are rare. And unwelcomed... thus the desire by the entire company to ensure
they never happen.
|
I feel a group hug coming on.
Scott A
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
I’ve had a number of people ask me about a perceived quality issue lately: If
you take a number of plates and create two or more large stacks, they tend to
be differing heights. For example, Ben has posted some photos here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=793687
I mentioned that this is a “perceived” quality issue because on the surface
it seems to be an obvious quality issue, but in reality, there is nothing out
of place. I have checked with our Quality Assurance department for some
details and they have passed along some info.
|
Well, perception is everything. It is a quality issue for people who build with
Lego; it is not a quality issue for the Lego Company’s Quality Assurance
department.
| |
When you build, the height difference will often be aligned as the elements
typically will vary in element height from one end to another. In order to
get the maximum deviation all the plates have to turn the same way and they
have to be from the same tool. This is not likely.
|
I perceive this as a problem for a company making parts that supposedly form a
compatible system with one another. But it’s ok, that’s just my perception and
in reality nothing is out of place.
snip
| |
The tolerances used today are the same as years past.
|
In the past, I have heard that the tolerance for bricks is .02mm (From Henry
Wiencek’s The World of LEGO Toys and other sources). It’s good to get
clarification of this mistake. I do hope that TLC will stop bragging about
their part tolerances in publications in the future, though.
| |
Hope this helps clear this up. Please know (and remember) that LEGO has
always been, and will always be about quality. We have a great team in the
Quality group, manufacturing, and Design that works hard to ensure the best
parts are being created.
|
I think TLC has high quality standards considering the intended purpose of the
toy. I think it falls short of our standard of quality expectation. But
ultimately, I believe this is just one more limitation we have to work with in
using Lego as a building medium. And, I think it’s important to understand the
limitations of Lego.
| |
Sometimes there are mistakes or problems, but as you all know, those times
are rare. And unwelcomed... thus the desire by the entire company to ensure
they never happen.
|
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@myrealbox.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Thomas Main wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
I’ve had a number of people ask me about a perceived quality issue lately:
If you take a number of plates and create two or more large stacks, they
tend to be differing heights. For example, Ben has posted some photos here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=793687
I mentioned that this is a “perceived” quality issue because on the surface
it seems to be an obvious quality issue, but in reality, there is nothing
out of place. I have checked with our Quality Assurance department for some
details and they have passed along some info.
|
Well, perception is everything. It is a quality issue for people who build
with Lego; it is not a quality issue for the Lego Company’s Quality Assurance
department.
| |
When you build, the height difference will often be aligned as the elements
typically will vary in element height from one end to another. In order to
get the maximum deviation all the plates have to turn the same way and they
have to be from the same tool. This is not likely.
|
I perceive this as a problem for a company making parts that supposedly form
a compatible system with one another. But it’s ok, that’s just my perception
and in reality nothing is out of place.
snip
| |
The tolerances used today are the same as years past.
|
In the past, I have heard that the tolerance for bricks is .02mm (From Henry
Wiencek’s The World of LEGO Toys and other sources).
|
That’s nothing. My
“Ultimate Lego Book” (Foreword by KKK himself) tells me that in 1963 ABS
allowed moulding precision to 0.005 mm (0.0002 inches).
Scott A
| |
It’s good to get
clarification of this mistake. I do hope that TLC will stop bragging about
their part tolerances in publications in the future, though.
| |
Hope this helps clear this up. Please know (and remember) that LEGO has
always been, and will always be about quality. We have a great team in the
Quality group, manufacturing, and Design that works hard to ensure the best
parts are being created.
|
I think TLC has high quality standards considering the intended purpose of
the toy. I think it falls short of our standard of quality expectation. But
ultimately, I believe this is just one more limitation we have to work with
in using Lego as a building medium. And, I think it’s important to
understand the limitations of Lego.
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
| |
In the past, I have heard that the tolerance for bricks is .02mm (From Henry
Wiencek’s The World of LEGO Toys and other sources).
|
That’s nothing. My
“Ultimate Lego Book” (Foreword by KKK himself) tells me that in 1963 ABS
allowed moulding precision to 0.005 mm (0.0002 inches).
|
I’ve got yet another doc (not sure of the source-- was emailed to me as an
Offical ‘standard Lego FAQ’ sorta thing) that reports:
“The precision molds are made at two LEGO factories in Germany and Switzerland.
They are precise to five-thousandths of a millimeter.”
So, I assume they mean five thousandths (0.05mm) instead of 1/5000th of a mm
(0.0002mm). Of course ‘one five-thousandth of a meter’ would match the 0.2mm
that Jake reported. Sounds like it’s possibly something that’s gotten
misinterpreted in language a few times rather than in digits, since spelling it
out can get rather confusing :)
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
| |
In the past, I have heard that the tolerance for bricks is .02mm (From
Henry Wiencek’s The World of LEGO Toys and other sources).
|
That’s nothing. My
“Ultimate Lego Book” (Foreword by KKK himself) tells me that in 1963 ABS
allowed moulding precision to 0.005 mm (0.0002 inches).
|
I’ve got yet another doc (not sure of the source-- was emailed to me as an
Offical ‘standard Lego FAQ’ sorta thing) that reports:
“The precision molds are made at two LEGO factories in Germany and
Switzerland. They are precise to five-thousandths of a millimeter.”
So, I assume they mean five thousandths (0.05mm)
|
I think you mean 0.005? (ie the same as the ULB above). Anyhow, the precision
of molds may not be the same as moulding precision?
Scott A
| |
instead of 1/5000th of a mm
(0.0002mm). Of course ‘one five-thousandth of a meter’ would match the 0.2mm
that Jake reported. Sounds like it’s possibly something that’s gotten
misinterpreted in language a few times rather than in digits, since spelling
it out can get rather confusing :)
DaveE
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote:
| |
| |
allowed moulding precision to 0.005 mm (0.0002 inches).
|
I’ve got yet another doc (not sure of the source-- was emailed to me as an
Offical ‘standard Lego FAQ’ sorta thing) that reports:
“The precision molds are made at two LEGO factories in Germany and
Switzerland. They are precise to five-thousandths of a millimeter.”
|
First, what ABS can allow moulding to is different than what the company
targets. Precision costs money. Decrease the tolerance, and you increase the
cost, because more rejects are made.
Also, the mold tolerance is different than the part tolerance. My understanding
is that the parts will have a greater variance than the variance of the molds
themselves, since the parts expand, contract, are expended by the removal robot
etc.
But that all said, I think I have to agree, the PERCEPTION of quality is
important here. Perceived quality is why people pay extra for Japanese or
European cars. Maybe Korean or American cars are just as good in terms of
reliability. But even the perception of better quality is enough to justify
buying a Toyota or a Honda over say...a Chrysler.
I don’t think our perception as nitpicking enthusiasts matters, but if this
perception slips to the end customer, who knows what will happen?
Calum
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
| |
So, I assume they mean five thousandths (0.05mm)
|
I think you mean 0.005? (ie the same as the ULB above). Anyhow, the
precision of molds may not be the same as moulding precision?
|
Doh, typo. Yeah, as Calum also pointed out, that may indeed be another great
source of confusion as to the parts vs. the molds. Makes me curious to know what
level of precision MegaBloks, etc use for their molds. I haven’t done too much
with MegaBloks, but my limited experience with Best-Lock was that they were
worse than Lego. Not really enough to be problematic on smaller models, but it
looked like larger creations might get odd with Best-Lock bricks.
DaveE
|
|
| |
Thanks for the tip about stacking plate tolerances, Jake.
A related effect occurs with some 1x2 bricks (first obvious to me with sand
red). The crack between bricks in a wall depends on which way the 1x2 are
pointing. One end of each brick is a little thicker than the other.
Since Lego molds inject into one stud or the other, I don’t see how it’s
physically possible to avoid this: the plastic is going to be a little denser at
one end, and therefore cool differently. Unless it too is just an allowable
tolerance. (Or maybe the mold is never quite symmetrical on purpose to
counterbalance the shrinkage effect, and is calibrated for white rather than
sand red... it makes my head hurt.)
-Erik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
I’ve had a number of people ask me about a perceived quality issue lately: If
you take a number of plates and create two or more large stacks, they tend to
be differing heights. For example, Ben has posted some photos here:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=793687
I mentioned that this is a “perceived” quality issue because on the surface
it seems to be an obvious quality issue, but in reality, there is nothing out
of place. I have checked with our Quality Assurance department for some
details and they have passed along some info.
When you build, the height difference will often be aligned as the elements
typically will vary in element height from one end to another. In order to
get the maximum deviation all the plates have to turn the same way and they
have to be from the same tool. This is not likely.
The height measure on our plates is 3.2 +/-0, 1 mm. With a height difference
up to 0.2 mm per plate it will be approx. 4.0 mm. If you build 20 plates
above each other. On the photo the difference is under 2.0 mm.
Consider that in the official LEGO models, the LEGO designers never use more
than three plates in a stack. As a model is built, the elements will equal
out and create a solid model regardless of these very very minor tolerance
changes (+/- 0.1 mm), creating a very stable model.
The tolerances used today are the same as years past.
Hope this helps clear this up. Please know (and remember) that LEGO has
always been, and will always be about quality. We have a great team in the
Quality group, manufacturing, and Design that works hard to ensure the best
parts are being created.
Sometimes there are mistakes or problems, but as you all know, those times
are rare. And unwelcomed... thus the desire by the entire company to ensure
they never happen.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
For storage I stack my 2x3 plates with 3 studs along one edge overlapping.
There is a 3mm difference in height between two stacks of 38 2x3 plates. This
is within the tolerance you quoted of 3.2mm +/-0.1mm, since 3mm/38 = 0.0789mm
per plate. I have not deliberately sought to match thin ones together to create
these stacks - the parts are new 2x3 sand green plates from Yodas (7194) and
Statues of Liberty (3450), stacked as I sorted the parts from the new sets.
However, this is a 2.5% tolerance on the height of the plate. Your maximum
quoted tolerance of one plate being 3.1mm high and another 3.3mm high would be
6.25% of the height, such that over 16 plates height there could be a difference
of one plate.
As an experienced builder, limiting myself to a maximum of 3 plates on top of
one another would be a serious restriction. If I am building a train that has
grilles in the body sides, I use more plates to build around the grilles and
attach them to other things in order to keep the body side as strong as
possible. In some cases the full height of the body is made from plates, being
about 20 plates high. The plate thickness would not bother me as long as it
were consistent. The problem comes if there is a gap anywhere. Yoda’s head is
consructed almost entirely of plates, so even if the Lego designers limit
themselves to 3 plates in a stack, they still build much higher things out of
plates.
I have noticed when building walls out of 2x4s and 2x8s that the bricks don’t
fit together as well as older ones that have been used the same amount.
Also some new 2x8 sand green plates that I bought at LLW the other day have
formed stacks that are not straight but slightly twisted. Since I won’t be
using them as a stack, the effect on the model might be negligible, but the
effect of the warped stack on my confidence in the quality of the product is
significant.
I believe that over the years the tolerance has been widened, with the aim of
reducing production cost. When I first heard what the tolerance was, I remember
thinking “that’s a very tight tolerance, far tighter than industry standards”.
As far as I can remember, the tolerance was a fraction of a thou, which is
0.025mm, I don’t remember whether it was half a thou (0.0125mm) or a tenth of a
thou (0.0025mm). The 0.1mm tolerance you have quoted is pretty much industry
standard for non-critical parts, but insufficient for Lego plates.
I once had a role in dealing with a quality issue on some power switch wafers
that were cracking. They were produced to a particular thickness tolerance.
The problem was that they weren’t quite flat. The manufacturers agreed to add a
surface flatness tolerance tighter than the thickness tolerance, and this cured
the problem.
I have three questions:
1. Would you personally buy two stacks of 16 plates at the extremes of the
tolerance of +/-0.1mm, if one stack was one plate higher than the other? Please
would you ask members of the quality department this question. It would be even
better if they could see the stacks.
2. We are expressing concern about a height difference of 2.5% where the quoted
tolerance is 6.25%. If customers are unhappy about 2.5%, do you really think
6.25% is an acceptable difference between the heights of two Lego pieces?
3. How much would it cost to bring the tolerance in to +/-0.01mm, which is a
common industry standard tolerance for fairly precise applications (well within
moldability tolerance but still nowhere near spacecraft spec)?
I’m glad to hear that quality is still important to the company, even after the
original motto of “det bedste er ikke for godt” (only the best is good enough)
was changed. I really want to see consistent quality, then I will go home
happy.
BTW thanks for your discussion at LLW - we certainly went home happy from there,
knowing that progress is being made.
Mark Bellis
|
|
| |
In article <I0AAo9.227G@lugnet.com>, "Mark Bellis" <mark.bellis@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
> I believe that over the years the tolerance has been widened, with the aim of
> reducing production cost.
Hmm. In the realm of tangential anecdotal evidence, I bought the Mini-Robots
(4097) set. I noticed that many of the 1x1 elements coming with the set, such as
cylinders, 1x1 bricks with technic holes, headlight bricks, etc seemed to be
having some problems.
Specifically, I find it hard to securly affix these elements to anything, because
they have a tendency to "pop" off. Making a stack of these elements is especially
unreliable because of this. On the other hand, the 1x1 bases for hinge control
sticks, when stuck on a stud, are painful to remove!
This is a new experience, buying childrens' toys is not a commonplace occurance
for me-- the only other exposure I have to lego is from the collection I amassed
as I child. These old parts did not have this problem.
For Mr. McKee to shrug these off as merely "perceived" is perhaps somewhat rash.
The precision of the human nervous system is great. If you have a person stick
their hand habitually into a tub of water of a certain temperature, and then have
them stick there hand in a tub slightly warmer or colder, they will immediately
and easily notice even a slight difference, and think it quite a dramatic one.
If people then are perceiving quality degredation, it is real. If anything, they
may be overstating the amount of degredation, but it's there nonetheless. These
people have handled these bits of plastic for many years both formative and
otherwise. They will notice anything changed and to shrug off their perception is
wishful thinking. Then they are asked to put the assuring words of another above
experiences of their own. Few modern empirical people will do so.
Perhaps costs are being cut. Some outrageous and melodramatic person might even
wonder if the very top of Lego has seen nigh the collapse of Lego Group, and in
the meantime is trying to extract profits by simple methods. Did they also happen
to find at cut rate prices a large consignment of gray dye, maybe of a slightly
bluish tint? Did they perhaps find that click hinges could be manufactured more
cheaply than three pronged hinge? Is this the shocking explanation for the
seemingly inexplicable phenomena seen of late? Perhaps Oliver Stone will make a
picture about it. :)
SD
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Bellis wrote:
| |
I believe that over the years the tolerance has been widened, with the aim of
reducing production cost.
|
OK so I just went to my box of childhood LEGO (circa 1970-80) to check this out.
Discounting the CA bricks which have known deterioration problems, I put
together 4 stacks of 10 ABS bricks, 2 red and 2 white. I made sure I picked out
the “best looking” ones to avoid damaged edges etc which may have had an effect.
I noted 2 things:
- Several of the bricks had significantly less “clutch power”, though obviously this could also be from deterioration;
- The stacks ranged from 95.9 to 96.6 mm. It would be interesting to know if the brick tolerance is +/- 0.1 or 0.3 mm, either way they were all inside it. But there was still significant difference even with these old bricks.
So I would invite others who think the tolerance has widened to do similar tests
on older bricks to back up their claim.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Bellis wrote:
| |
I believe that over the years the tolerance has been widened, with the aim
of reducing production cost.
|
OK so I just went to my box of childhood LEGO (circa 1970-80) to check this
out. Discounting the CA bricks which have known deterioration problems, I put
together 4 stacks of 10 ABS bricks, 2 red and 2 white. I made sure I picked
out the “best looking” ones to avoid damaged edges etc which may have had an
effect. I noted 2 things:
- Several of the bricks had significantly less “clutch power”, though obviously this could also be from deterioration;
- The stacks ranged from 95.9 to 96.6 mm. It would be interesting to know if the brick tolerance is +/- 0.1 or 0.3 mm, either way they were all inside it. But there was still significant difference even with these old bricks.
So I would invite others who think the tolerance has widened to do similar
tests on older bricks to back up their claim.
|
If exact brick size variation tends towards(1) a normal distribution there will
be equal numbers of oversized and undersized bricks. Measuring the length of a
“stack” of bricks will basically cancel out any error.
Scott A
(1) I say “tends towards” as I understand the ND is a theoretical construct.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Bellis wrote:
| |
I believe that over the years the tolerance has been widened, with the aim
of reducing production cost.
|
OK so I just went to my box of childhood LEGO (circa 1970-80) to check this
out. Discounting the CA bricks which have known deterioration problems, I
put together 4 stacks of 10 ABS bricks, 2 red and 2 white. I made sure I
picked out the “best looking” ones to avoid damaged edges etc which may have
had an effect. I noted 2 things:
- Several of the bricks had significantly less “clutch power”, though obviously this could also be from deterioration;
- The stacks ranged from 95.9 to 96.6 mm. It would be interesting to know if the brick tolerance is +/- 0.1 or 0.3 mm, either way they were all inside it. But there was still significant difference even with these old bricks.
So I would invite others who think the tolerance has widened to do similar
tests on older bricks to back up their claim.
|
If exact brick size variation tends towards(1) a normal distribution there
will be equal numbers of oversized and undersized bricks. Measuring the
length of a “stack” of bricks will basically cancel out any error.
Scott A
(1) I say “tends towards” as I understand the ND is a theoretical construct.
|
Have you accounted for common mode error? Many bricks are produced by the same
mold. If 12 2x4s are produced per machine cycle, then 1 in 12 will be from the
same part of the mold.
The randomness of the distribution depends how many machines are producing that
shape in that color and how many are produced at a time in the mold.
I think it is likely that all the pieces from one mold will be closer in height
than two randomly chosen pieces, since the mold will be checked for consistent
depth during production. Therefore a thin batch is more likely as a mold
producing 12 thinner pieces will produce 1,200,000 pieces that thin in its
lifetime.
The height of pieces depends on how the machine closes on the mold, since the
machine pushes bricks off the mold as if they were being pulled upwards off
another brick, albeit sideways. See the movie on the Lego Club website features
area.
Therefore the height of a particular brick type is likely to vary slowly over
time, since a whole run in one color for a range of sets will be molded at once
if possible. That’s probably why a stack of plates from Yoda and SoL sets were
all on the thin side. By the time we consumers notice a problem, the mold in
question will have retired long ago - the time between the parts being produced
and us buying the sets. Therefore you have to integrate over a very long time
to find a Normal Distribution.
Mark
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Bellis wrote:
| |
I believe that over the years the tolerance has been widened, with the aim
of reducing production cost.
|
OK so I just went to my box of childhood LEGO (circa 1970-80) to check this
out. Discounting the CA bricks which have known deterioration problems, I
put together 4 stacks of 10 ABS bricks, 2 red and 2 white. I made sure I
picked out the “best looking” ones to avoid damaged edges etc which may have
had an effect. I noted 2 things:
- Several of the bricks had significantly less “clutch power”, though obviously this could also be from deterioration;
- The stacks ranged from 95.9 to 96.6 mm. It would be interesting to know if the brick tolerance is +/- 0.1 or 0.3 mm, either way they were all inside it. But there was still significant difference even with these old bricks.
So I would invite others who think the tolerance has widened to do similar
tests on older bricks to back up their claim.
|
If exact brick size variation tends towards(1) a normal distribution there
will be equal numbers of oversized and undersized bricks. Measuring the
length of a “stack” of bricks will basically cancel out any error.
|
Agreed, with a large enough sample size. I hardly think 10 bricks (or even 40)
would be enough to cancel out all such errors. Besides, if my stacks reduced the
error, doesn’t that mean the older bricks are actually likely to have worse
tolerance than I found? Which supports my argument that tolerances *haven’t*
widened over the years.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Bellis wrote:
| |
I believe that over the years the tolerance has been widened, with the aim
of reducing production cost.
|
OK so I just went to my box of childhood LEGO (circa 1970-80) to check this
out. Discounting the CA bricks which have known deterioration problems, I
put together 4 stacks of 10 ABS bricks, 2 red and 2 white. I made sure I
picked out the “best looking” ones to avoid damaged edges etc which may
have had an effect. I noted 2 things:
- Several of the bricks had significantly less “clutch power”, though obviously this could also be from deterioration;
- The stacks ranged from 95.9 to 96.6 mm. It would be interesting to know if the brick tolerance is +/- 0.1 or 0.3 mm, either way they were all inside it. But there was still significant difference even with these old bricks.
So I would invite others who think the tolerance has widened to do similar
tests on older bricks to back up their claim.
|
If exact brick size variation tends towards(1) a normal distribution there
will be equal numbers of oversized and undersized bricks. Measuring the
length of a “stack” of bricks will basically cancel out any error.
|
Agreed, with a large enough sample size. I hardly think 10 bricks (or even
40) would be enough to cancel out all such errors. Besides, if my stacks
reduced the error, doesn’t that mean the older bricks are actually likely to
have worse tolerance than I found? Which supports my argument that tolerances
*haven’t* widened over the years.
|
You are correct; I should have worded that a little better. ;)
Scott A
(who thinks this would make a good high school sats project)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Bellis wrote:
| |
I believe that over the years the tolerance has been widened, with the aim
of reducing production cost.
|
- Several of the bricks had significantly less “clutch power”, though obviously this could also be from deterioration;
- The stacks ranged from 95.9 to 96.6 mm. It would be interesting to know if the brick tolerance is +/- 0.1 or 0.3 mm, either way they were all inside it. But there was still significant difference even with these old bricks.
So I would invite others who think the tolerance has widened to do similar
tests on older bricks to back up their claim.
ROSCO
|
I was making up some 1/2 scale blocks (2x2 tile on 2x2 brick on 2x2 plate) the
other night and randomly pulled out some of my old “childhood-era” (mid 70’s)
2x2 bricks, and noticed the absolutely horrible quality control it shows...
Ignore the teeth marks, and note the bad molding on bricks 1 & 2. Yes they are
Lego. Other pics show the studs.
Reminded me of this old thread :)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=907404 shows how much thinner
one wall is from the rest.
The rest of the folder http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=97977
(modded already!?!) shows the same four bricks from different views. Note the
different LEGO logos, and the underside molding differences (Pat Pend notice).
So much for the “Golden Days of Quality Control” that some were pining for...
-Rob A>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Antonishen wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Bellis wrote: • snip
|
Ignore the teeth marks, and note the bad molding on bricks 1 & 2. Yes they
are Lego. Other pics show the studs.
|
snip
| |
So much for the “Golden Days of Quality Control” that some were pining for...
-Rob A>
|
Hi all!
I know this thread is really old, but eventually I came across this discussion
while uploading a few more new quality issue pictures ast brickshelf:
new pictures of 2007
building session
So I just wanted to point out, that the picture which Rob has posted to
underline, that quality wasn’t automatically good in the “golden” past, shows
definitely CA bricks older than year 1963 (or out of samsonite production?).
The “golden years of LEGO quality” have been 1965 ... 1995(?). So this picture
tells nothing new, but only repeats that LEGO made a huge step towards
perfectionism when they changed from CA (bad!) to ABS (good!).
Leg Godt!
See more pictures of my models at www.brickshelf.com
|
|
| |
On 1/3/07, Reinhard Ben Beneke wrote:
> > <<http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ffaat/old-bricks/all.jpg>>
> >
> > Ignore the teeth marks, and note the bad molding on bricks 1 & 2. Yes they
> > are Lego. Other pics show the studs.
>
> [snip]
>
> > So much for the "Golden Days of Quality Control" that some were pining for...
> >
> > -Rob A>
>
> Hi all!
> So I just wanted to point out, that the picture which Rob has posted to
> underline, that quality wasn't automatically good in the "golden" past, shows
> definitely CA bricks older than year 1963 (or out of samsonite production?).
>
> The "golden years of LEGO quality" have been 1965 ... 1995(?). So this picture
> tells nothing new, but only repeats that LEGO made a huge step towards
> perfectionism when they changed from CA (bad!) to ABS (good!).
Not suer how you come up wit that conclusion. These bricks are from
my old sets, purchased in Canada between 1973-1978. I am suspecting
these specific bricks came from set 256-1 released in 1976. I would
doubt that these were 10 year old bricks.
-Rob A>
|
|
| |
On 1/3/07, Reinhard Ben Beneke wrote:
> > <<http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ffaat/old-bricks/all.jpg>>
> >
> > Ignore the teeth marks, and note the bad molding on bricks 1 & 2. Yes they
> > are Lego. Other pics show the studs.
>
> [snip]
>
> > So much for the "Golden Days of Quality Control" that some were pining for...
> >
> > -Rob A>
>
> Hi all!
> So I just wanted to point out, that the picture which Rob has posted to
> underline, that quality wasn't automatically good in the "golden" past, shows
> definitely CA bricks older than year 1963 (or out of samsonite production?).
>
> The "golden years of LEGO quality" have been 1965 ... 1995(?). So this picture
> tells nothing new, but only repeats that LEGO made a huge step towards
> perfectionism when they changed from CA (bad!) to ABS (good!).
Not sure how you come up with that conclusion. These bricks are from
my old sets, purchased in Canada between 1973-1978. I am suspecting
these specific bricks came from set 256-1 released in 1976. I would
doubt that ir contained 10 year old bricks...but I have been known to
be wrong (often :)
-Rob A>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
So I just wanted to point out, that the picture which Rob has posted to
underline, that quality wasn’t automatically good in the “golden” past, shows
definitely CA bricks older than year 1963 (or out of samsonite production?).
The “golden years of LEGO quality” have been 1965 ... 1995(?). So this
picture tells nothing new, but only repeats that LEGO made a huge step
towards perfectionism when they changed from CA (bad!) to ABS (good!).
|
I wouldn’t assume that 1965 was necessarily as good as, say, 1990. But you’re
right insofar as quality from the 60’s and 70’s is not necessarily the same
quality as the 80’s and 90’s. If someone’s really looking for proof or disproof
of quality degradation, it’s gonna take a lot more evidence. Say, 10 stacks of
15 plates from each of 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and
2007. The plates don’t even need to be consistant sizes.
It’s a rather over-the-top data collecting effort (especially since verifying
the year of a plate possibly means opening (GASP!) an MISB set). But it’s a
decent enough sample set such that I doubt anyone would argue with the
conclusion if such an effort were made. And hopefully, if someone’s crazy enough
to try it, they’ll somehow avoid cracking open their MISB sets :)
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> On 1/3/07, Reinhard Ben Beneke wrote:
> > > <<http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ffaat/old-bricks/all.jpg>>
> > >
> > > Ignore the teeth marks, and note the bad molding on bricks 1 & 2. Yes they
> > > are Lego. Other pics show the studs.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > So much for the "Golden Days of Quality Control" that some were pining for...
> > >
> > > -Rob A>
> >
> > Hi all!
>
> > So I just wanted to point out, that the picture which Rob has posted to
> > underline, that quality wasn't automatically good in the "golden" past, shows
> > definitely CA bricks older than year 1963 (or out of samsonite production?).
> >
> > The "golden years of LEGO quality" have been 1965 ... 1995(?). So this picture
> > tells nothing new, but only repeats that LEGO made a huge step towards
> > perfectionism when they changed from CA (bad!) to ABS (good!).
>
>
> Not suer how you come up wit that conclusion. These bricks are from
> my old sets, purchased in Canada between 1973-1978. I am suspecting
> these specific bricks came from set 256-1 released in 1976. I would
> doubt that these were 10 year old bricks.
>
> -Rob A>
Hi Rob,
thanks for your feedback! In that case I would think these are US-made bricks,
since the LEGO-logo on top of the bricks is of the old design. This has been
used within Europe (= Billund made bricks) only in combination with CA-bricks
(before 1964 and possibly for a short time later?).
From Gary Istok I have learned that Samsonite was using old moulds and partly
even CA-material in the 70ies.
So I would guess that the "mismoulded" bricks, which you have shown, are from
that era. Can you tell, if those bricks are ABS or CA? You will hear the
difference when you drop them on a hard table surface or on floor tiles.
But I have to admit, that I have no knowledge about the Canadian market.
I only can assure you: in Germany we had no such bricks (with this kind of logo
on the studs) in the 70ies and later.
Leg Godt!
Ben
|
|
| |
On 1/3/07, Reinhard Ben Beneke wrote:
> So I would guess that the "mismoulded" bricks, which you have shown, are from
> that era. Can you tell, if those bricks are ABS or CA? You will hear the
> difference when you drop them on a hard table surface or on floor tiles.
That's an experiment that I will have to try when my collection is
closer at hand :)
-Rob A>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> On 1/3/07, Reinhard Ben Beneke wrote:
> > So I would guess that the "mismoulded" bricks, which you have shown, are from
> > that era. Can you tell, if those bricks are ABS or CA? You will hear the
> > difference when you drop them on a hard table surface or on floor tiles.
>
>
> That's an experiment that I will have to try when my collection is
> closer at hand :)
>
> -Rob A>
I would be interested in the result, Rob.
Just for your information:
CA has a much higher material damping coefficient in comparison to ABS. So CA
will make less noise and sound very dump when it hits the ground.
Especially for the classical 2x2-windows this is the easiest way to tell. For
other bricks it often depends how they hit the ground (with corner, top or
sidewall). And I found it is helpful for black bricks as well. While red and
yellow CA looks somewhat shiny and transparent, black CA looks nearly identical
to black ABS.
So the dropping sound test is the easiest way to tell the difference. (Of course
the modified wall thicknesses etc. have an influence on the sound as well).
Happy testing!
Ben
|
|
|
