Subject:
|
Re: ABS... but which one?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 3 Jan 2003 19:15:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1251 times
|
| |
|
|
I have bought some lately (bulk) that seem to not even want to stay
together. Out of a stack of 25 2x4 bricks. I usually find 1 or 2 that fall
apart from its proposed partner. I always just find another spot for them
or take them out of the model.
-Rob
"Pedro Silva" <el_gordo@netc.pt> wrote in message
news:H85JK8.t5@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Pedro Silva writes:>
> > > What I'm curious now is knowing how the more recent bricks will be in 25
> > > years. If they look "less good" than the previous at this point in time,
> > > perhaps in 25 years they will have become *wrecks*.
> >
> > I fail to see the logic in this statement. These stories talk about how
> > older bricks *today* click differently than new bricks *today*.
>
> I didn't say that; perhaps I was not clear enough.
> What I meant was: brand new bricks bought 10 years ago (before the claimed
> ABS change), and brand new bricks bought *now* click different from each
> other. In fact, the more recent ones don't even seem to click, they • squeeze
> into each other (and out too easy, to my great dismay).
>
> > But I have
> > seen no reference to how well old bricks were when *they* were new.
>
> See above, my impression. It refers to 10 years ago, back when I began to
> notice this kind of stuff. I figure it would have been similar in the 15
> precedent years, given that I had older LEGO and never noticed anything
> different in it.
> Now the bricks seem different when they are "just out of the box".
>
> > Considering the poor nature of human memory, especially from childhood
> > decades ago, how many of us can be certain the the old bricks were so
> > "clicky" when they were new?
>
> I am pretty sure they were made of a harder ABS back then. If you want • proof
> of it, check the resistance of bricks' corners to impact: the newer bricks
> will be damaged from simply falling to the ground! In comparison, a
> relatively low portion of my older bricks has corner damage - and I'm • pretty
> sure they fell numerous times when they were new.
>
> > Is it not possible that they became "more
> > clicky" over time, with wear, use, or maybe some aging process of the
> > plastic? Is it not possible that maybe today's new bricks might become
> > "more clicky" over time?
>
> My answer to both: yes. It is possible.
> My doubt for the second case: Will they *become* clickier? I fear not.
>
> > My point is, given the evidence we have seen, the
> > new bricks might degrage or they might not; we have no way of knowing • until
> > it happens.
>
> I agree. I fear it will not happen with newer bricks, and I add reasons • for
> my fear. I HOPE I'm wrong.
>
> > ...Through my own experience, I agree that new bricks seem to have an • oily
> > texture that I don't recall them having prior to five or ten years ago.
> > This oiliness seems to fade though. The idea that it might be due to a
> > change in ABS formula is pure speculation. It could equally be any • number
> > of things, including a modification to the molding process, an upgrade to
> > factory equipment, or simply a change in the speed they produce new • bricks.
>
> In which case, has the change been:
> a) benefical for the consumer?
> b) irrelevant for the consumer?
> c) bad for the consumer?
>
> (My oppinion: a+b+c, in different fields)
>
> I tend to think there was indeed some sort of change done to the molding
> process *of bricks*. I have no experience on the matter, so out of
> speculation alone I guess it may have interfered with the timing of the
> process; of course I will accept any other plausible explanation.
>
> > Certainly, each of these things has changed before (anyone notice how • older
> > style bricks have those little dots where the mold was injected?
>
> Yup. Really inesthetic in 1x1 bricks, when I had to make narrow pillars • they
> were a headache! :-)
> (I for one think the 1x1x5 pillar was a great innovation...)
>
> > They don't
> > anymore, so something changed, for the better IMO.).
>
> I'm not saying innovation is bad; I claim ONE particular innovation might
> have had a negative side effect. You pointed out a positive side effect it
> might have had. In the end, a question arises: can the good effect be
> achieved without the bad one?
> Further innovation is needed! :-)
>
> > I personally doubt we
> > will ever do more than guess about this sort of thing unless someone from
> > TLC were to drop us a hint.
> >
> > (Psst, TLC, that was a hint for you to do so.) :)
>
> I'm just as curious as you are, John.
> To circumvent all difficulties regarding "the secret process", a cool hint
> from LEGO would do the trick: have things changed in the molding process -
> no need to say what! - in the past couple years?
>
> I'd be happy just to know that.
>
>
> Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: ABS... but which one?
|
| (...) I didn't say that; perhaps I was not clear enough. What I meant was: brand new bricks bought 10 years ago (before the claimed ABS change), and brand new bricks bought *now* click different from each other. In fact, the more recent ones don't (...) (22 years ago, 3-Jan-03, to lugnet.general)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
