| |
In lugnet.general, Rocco J. Carello writes:
> Honestly, with the cost of making new molds being so high, and Megablocks
> really beating LEGO on the price/parts ratio, I don't see why they would
> spend the money on making new molds of things than can already be made by
> combining a few existing pieces. ...
I can't help myself. Since none of us will ever know what the business
justification is for making molds vs. reusing existing pieces, it's all wild
and idle speculation. But, here are my guesses, worth far less than a 2x4 brick.
- There's more than one kind of mold. The hardness of a mold determines the
amount of pressure that can be used to inject the ABS, and the tolerance of
the dimensions, and the number of times it can be used. Some parts, like
speciality pieces used only in the Microscout R2D2, appear to have a
difference consistency than normal elements. Although LEGO changes the ABS
formula to allow for more flexible parts (like minifig hands), these R2D2
parts appear to be produced by a softer, less expensive mold.
- Every element LEGO produces factors in the cost of the mold. Molds have
limited lifetimes, and only produce finite numbers of elements. LEGO must
make new molds for 2x4 bricks all the time, and will continue to do so, as
long as 2x4 bricks are sold in quantity in buckets and tubs.
- Some LEGO sets make a point of including a new element. I'm out on a limb
here, but I recall hearing that medium sized or larger Technic sets in
recent years always include a new element. This is done to copy-protect the
set. Even if a clone maker has molds for common elements, they are unlikely
to spend the R&D to produce a new mold for a set they want to knock off.
LEGO in turn produces enough copies of the set to justify the production cost.
- Molds are expensive, but their costs are coming down. Computer automation
of mold production allow existing models to create new ones at a fraction of
the former cost. For example, no R&D was required to produce an 8x8 plate
mold. Contrast that to the 60's, when every aspect of the mold had to be cut
by hand.
- R&D costs for new ideas in molds are still expensive. Creating new train
wheelsets, for instance, is much more idea intensive than creating a new
arch. Since LEGO doesn't make the wheelsets themselves, they additionally
have to factor in external R&D. Maybe this is why a high volume set like the
HP Hogwart's Express still couldn't justify a new element design.
- Newly designed parts often are targeted across the entire product line.
It's no accident that once a new part appears, like the Artic walls with
windows, it keeps appearing in other sets and themes, in part to justify the
R&D. Keep in mind that LEGO still designs most new sets two or more years in
advance.
- The cost of a juniorized part is not necessarily more than the cost of the
component parts, including the molds. If the parts are used in high enough
volume sets, then all of the molds are going to be worn out, regardless of
whether it is made with one new juniorized part or several classic parts. So
the cost of the molds must be included with the cost of producing the set.
None of this explains the very odd "castle window that's bricked up". I'd
chalk it up to human error, perhaps with some bureaucracy added in.
Cary
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: how very odd
|
| Honestly, with the cost of making new molds being so high, and Megablocks really beating LEGO on the price/parts ratio, I don't see why they would spend the money on making new molds of things than can already be made by combining a few existing (...) (22 years ago, 8-Nov-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.castle)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
