Subject:
|
Re: ABS... but which one?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 3 Jan 2003 22:21:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1807 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, John P. Henderson writes:
> In lugnet.general, Pedro Silva writes:>
> > 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).
>
> Hmmm. First, I also may have not been clear in my argument in that I did
> not mean to target just you, Pedro, rather the general line of thinking in
> this and similar threads.
You mean to say you were... *targeting*?
;-)
> > 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".
>
> I cannot deny that. Nor can I prove it.
Precisely. It's based on a feeling, and I'm not alone in that. OTOH, I may
be wrong - human nature is not famous for it's infallibility...
> > 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.
>
> I haven't noticed this difference, although I must admit I have become more
> careful in my handling of bricks in my adulthood.
So have I. And that's why I noticed this in the first place: the first time
I dropped a new brick, it became dented immediately - something had to be wrong.
> > 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)
>
> If we are to digress into pure speculation (just for fun), then I agree.
> Overall, I *suspect* whatever change may have occured would be beneficial in
> terms of one or more of the following: 1) keeping cost down/reducing impact
> of inflation, 2) increasing output to provide more bricks to more consumers
> in less time, and/or 3) possible manufacturing advantages that might allow
> more variety of color or style (note that certain colors were not available
> until these changes occured).
I agree with #2 and #3, but I have fairly good reasons to disagree with #1.
In fact, the biggest increase in PPP since I began to buy LEGO came when
inflation was at its lowest in Europe! Coincidentally, that happened just
around the time the process was (?) changed... so it might have been a
punctual consequence of the investment in newer machinery.
It might also be a more "normal" explanation to the losses TLC has had in
more recent years than "we lost focus" - if they know they lost focus, what
is taking TLC so long to return to their old successes, "à la Legends"? So
far I haven't seen any Legend in a toy store near me, and S@H is not that
known in Portugal - but I digress...
> It might also be possible that changes occured due to availability of raw
> material, or changes in contract with material suppliers.
Bayer is likely to be contractually forced to silence, otherwise I'd love to
hear *anything* from them on the subject. After all, they hold the key to
the product, more so than LEGO itself.
> And then there is
> also the possibility that the old methods had some drawbacks that the
> consumer would be unaware of (e.g. maybe old molds broke down more easily,
> or maybe an older type of ABS was difficult to mold resulting in more
> waste). These are things that would not directly impact the consumer, but
> would be worthy reasons for TLC to consider change.
Those would be a good point indeed, in a corporate POV. Sometimes it's just
hard to forget LEGO is a company, seeking profit... :-/
> I still make an effort to position any older bricks with that dot facing
> into a model, so it won't be seen. This can be hard to overcome with some
> pieces, like the inverted 1X2 slopes (which must face a certain way in the
> model).
Two sets where that were a real bummer: 6386 and 6392. I feel the same as
you do for that old mark...
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: ABS... but which one?
|
| In lugnet.general, Pedro Silva writes:> (...) Hmmm. First, I also may have not been clear in my argument in that I did not mean to target just you, Pedro, rather the general line of thinking in this and similar threads. (...) I cannot deny that. Nor (...) (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
|
|
|
|
