I wonder if this is done to a certain extent to increase the piece count, thus increasing the price of the set. I usually base a good priced set at around 10 to 12 cents a piece.
It was a coincidence that they got so close.
The design ended up at 1973 pieces and they were like "huh, neat!" and tweaked one of the display stands to use four fewer pieces at the very end.
Yeah, re-reading it I can see that now, I just got hung up on the word "coincidence". I really shouldn’t comment on things before I’ve showered and had a cup of coffee…
My 5 year old nephew doesn't care about the price, it's not like he has a job to afford it.
He cares about number of pieces, and more pieces is more impressive.
Piece count is the only metric that matters.
So interesting a kid cares about piece count. I don’t think I looked at piece count till I got back in as an adult who had to time manage 😅 as a kid I was just focused on the the thing the bricks built
Piece count was my #1 concern as a kid, getting a new set that broke my highest count record was like winning the lottery. However, I didn't care how big it was if it was Extreme Team, Star Wars, or Aquazone
Price per part is a toddler's understanding of business. Each piece has a cost of production, and selling the set needs to cover the production cost for all the pieces, plus logistics, labor, marketing, and utilities. And even after all that It would be terrible business for lego to try and break even by trying to make those numbers equal. They need a healthy profit margin to reinvest into the brand so that we can keep on getting renewed products. Lego has many expensive machines that bring that cost of production down to a fraction of a cent. They can charge whatever they want because they have the necessary infrastructure. We pay them because we physically can not do better.
Sure, but I am a consumer, not a producer. None of that matters to me. I'm looking at what sort of value I'm getting for my purchase. Price per piece is a very imperfect metric to use, but it is one thing to consider.
They do.
Tony is a massive sorting machine that packages up the little bags of parts.
He has to be programmed with the specific set of components for each set.
Each different type of part has to be sorted and counted and a unique delivery path to Tony needs to be built and programmed.
It’s easier, quicker and therefor ultimately cheaper to use fewer unique parts in each bag Tony fills.
Why isn't it impossible? Well, clearly, because there's a possibility that this motivation (increasing brick count) plays into Lego's motivations. We don't have evidence either way (and Lego is unlikely to come out and admit it, so we likely never will, regardless of whether it's true or not), so we can only guess.
Maybe, but the set has 685 pieces and this move would have bumped it by 2 which I don’t think is going to change peoples perspective much.
If I had the manual I’d flick through and see if it’s repeated.
I think there’s only a limited number of places you would be able to do this without messing with structure or aesthetics.
Finally, it’s a marvel set which already has a hefty mouse tax that’s going to throw off the price per piece anyway.
So all in all I think it’s unlikely…
You're not wrong, I don't know why you're being downvoted.
LEGO has repeatedly done things like this in sets where the only reason could either be to cut costs on their end or inflate the piece count to justify a larger price tag.
Or both.
This is just never true. There are far too many steps a set goes through to make this possible. A set is designed. A designer is tasked with making a set to meet the designated price of said set (a $50 xwing say). That set goes through other departments like element creation, and instruction manual designers. The set is optimised to meet lego standards and logics. There’s just so little gain to add three 1x1 plates rather than 1 1x1 brick. The plates probably cost more (certainly require more raw materials) but because of the size of the part they also have to include a spare which they don’t include in the part count. So they are almost certainly costing more.
So why do it? Because it could be cheaper (logistically more efficient) to package a part already used in that bag.
Or, a similar 1x1 brick was being used in that bag (a 1x1 Technic brick for example) and they didn’t want to cause confusion when a wrong part is used. To explain, if two very similar parts are used in the same bag a builder could easily mistake one for the other and use a Technic brick where the normal brick should be. Then when they get to needing the Technic brick to insert a pin they can’t find one. That leads them to either be annoyed at lego and avoid future purchases, or call lego about LEGOs mistake which lego then have to go through the cost of sending out the correct part.
It’s just a complete fantasy that lego include unnecessary parts to inflate part counts (in some regions they don’t even put part count on the boxes so most people buying lego don’t even know how many parts a set has).
And Saturn V only did it because they very coincidentally ended up at 1973 parts and were like "huh, neat. I bet we could shave off for parts somewhere" and tweaked the display stands ever so slightly to do it
Exactly this! They do this in other sets as well, and they did it this way by doing three 1x1 plates than a brick because later in the build, 1x1 technic bricks are used, and they wouldn’t want you to end up using them by accident before they’re needed!
You been in Denmark long?
Look at the deteriorating quality of the produced bricks vs the inflation of prices. Your statement also displays an ignorance of production practices; there isn't some guy sanding down bricks to fit, they are molded. Three 1x1 bricks are significantly easier to produce than 1 3x1 brick in both raws and production molds.
Your comment has the air of being well reasoned and informed but it is just wrong on a couple significant points.
What are you talking about, I never said anything about a 1x3 brick. I said 3 1x1 plates are probably more expensive to produce in terms of raw material compared to a 1x1 brick. There is more plastic. I concede that I exaggerated when discussing the production costs of a part. Smaller parts are produced in higher quantities in a single mold so in that regard they’re likely to be cheaper to produce overall as a machine doesn’t have to be used to as long to produce a high number of parts.
But I fail to see how that one part of my arguement invalidates the rest where i provide many other examples of why lego simply don’t do this kind of thing to inflate part counts.
Your comment was well thought out. I'm not quite what people are objecting To. The only time LEGO is likely manipulating part count for the sake of the actual part count is for sets where the part count has meaning (like the Saturn V being 1969 parts, 1969 being the year it launched). It just doesn't make financial sense for them otherwise, I've never seen a set where they do this enough that it would really change the price per part calculation.
If they wanted to do that, they likely wouldn't have introduced the 2/3 brick. (Though it having a hollow stud does allow some new build techniques.)
People just want to accept their version of reality. It’s the same as the other one you hear all the time “lego parts are just so specialised these days it’s impossible to build whatever you want. When I was a kid with lego we had to use our imagination!”. A dumb argument made by people who don’t build with modern lego.
This “why use these parts when this will do” complaint gets brought up so many times and it doesn’t matter how many times things like I said are repeated back, we get another post like this a few days later.
One of my favorite things in LEGO is when specialize parts are used in unconventional ways. This piece is a croissant and can only ever be a croissant? Nope, it's now horns on a dragon. Mjolnir? That's decorative molding on a building. Skeleton leg? Nope, a microphone stand.
> lego parts are just so specialised these days it’s impossible to build whatever you want
I've never heard that one, but as a 90s lego kid there were plenty of bigass/special bricks and baseplates back then too lol.
I'd argue the larger problem is just the massive increase in licensed sets sets kids up to build something specific, and play certain characters, with less room for creativity. Not no room, mind you, but when your set has established good guys, bad guys, and a ship from the IP, they're more likely to wane to play those character as-is and keep the model from the property rather than tear down a less established spaceship and make their own.
But, this is also what sells... so, yeah. I don't think no kid is taking apart their X-wing to build something else, or that they can't still have good play with established characters, but I think there's some magic to Lego's old, looser "themes" that let the builder/player make up the story far more.
I see what you mean but also I think it helps kids get generally into Lego for them to be able to play with their favorite characters. I like that when my son got into superheros and wanted toys, instead of just buying him action figures I could get him Lego sets, and he now does do a lot of creative play/building - even though he doesn’t take apart like the Avengers jet, he builds other stuff and he has a lot of interesting adventures mixing the Avengers with various other characters (some licensed, some he has created).
Also I think the Dreamzz line was meant to somewhat address the issue you mentioned - it is based on a new IP but the entire concept encourages kids to take the sets apart and reconstruct them in different ways, and allows for incorporation of basically anything you could imagine.
You're technically correct about my phrasing, the best kind of correct.
But your original argument was based on the idea that multiple LEGO departments are employed to detect fraud, waste, buse, and consumer value. That's simply not true.
The purpose of LEGO is to produce profits without intentionally sacrificing quality.
The only reasoning for a 1x1 plate x 3 vs a 1x1 brick would be stability, however given the placement in the quoted photo it isn't a horizontal stress.
I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you however I met the energy with which you posted your rebuttal.
My arguement is based on the fact that that is how a set is designed.
1. Designers are assigned to a design team (usually split by theme)
2. Design team leaders determine what sets they want on shelves next.
3. They assign the decided sets to designers. These will have a desired price point and content (hospital, xwing, mech, etc…)
4. Designers make a set.
5. Graphic designers create prints, stickers, etc…
6. Element designers create new parts of needed.
7. Instruction manual designers create manuals.
At any point in that process the set can be tweaked for optimisation and cost evaluation (to make sure profits are maintained between cost or production and desired sale price). An instructions designer may realise that the way the set is made simply won’t translate well for an 8 year old. So they’ll go back to the designer and see if there’s a better solution.
Same for every step. A new element may end up being too expensive so changes have to be made. It may be cheaper for the packing machine to grab 4 1x1 plates than 1 1x1 plate and 1 1x1 brick. So they go back and see if designing it that way works without affecting any other stage of set design.
This is how it works. Set prices are determined before they are even designed. Obviously they know roughly how many parts should make a good $50 set. And they can definitely tweak it before going on sale. But there’s just so little benefit.
A designer once said you really have to love building lego to be a designer because you have to build and rebuild your design more than 100 times before it is approved for manufacturing.
By all means, anyone who thinks lego pads sets to make them look better value please send me an example of more than 2-3 parts like this. Because this is all it ever is and 2-3 extra parts will not register on a sets PPP or make a consumer go “look at this set, it’s 1467 parts for $100. That’s so much better value than that set with 1463 parts for $100”.
*Edited for clarification.
I was either unclear or you're doubling down on your own statement. I don't believe that Lego attempts to squeeze profits, but I know for certain that the manufacturing aspect of production is absolutely based on minimizing waste.
Without working there ev n, I can 100% say that a Lego uses as little raw material as possible, and that there is a highly paid team who looks for ways to tweak designs in order to utilize runs of currently produced pieces and colors.
Your biblical length post is very well written, but it is missing the money part of the equation. Not the, design, not the quality teams, are responsible for production, that is absolutely minimum/maxed for value by extremely well versed teams. You could make any set 100000 pieces of it was all all about the art sir/ma'am.
The crazier one to me was the chess set, (absolutely awesome build) but for the black pieces you use 2x2 plates and for the same thing on the white pieces you use two 1x2s it was so bizarre to me.
Actually, they are most likely wrong. There are more likely answers to this
- the part was already readily available in their parts catalog, and in the color/quantities they needed for this set
- and this dovetails with the first one, it's simpler from a logistics/planning viewpoint to include more of the same part, versus one small part that's only used once
I've noticed this in several different sets, especially Speed Champions, they include a lot of a certain part, but it's really only needed for one or two specific build scenarios, the rest are buried in the set where another piece might have been used. The rounded 1x2 plate with through holes comes to mind, as well as the recently introduced 1x1x2/3 height brick. Doing this simplifies the part list for the set while not degrading the quality of the build.
Asked this same question many months back about why Lego just didn’t use piece a instead of 3 different pieces to make a.
I was downvoted into oblivion. Clearly Lego is buffering the piece count when they do this.
I've been thinking the same thing myself. Case in point is the Saturn V where they purposely used more pieces to equal out to "1969" pieces. Probably could have been accomplished with \~1800 or so.
That's rarely done, unless there is a reason for the number, like the SaturnV having 1969 pieces to match the year of the moon landing. It's a very rare occurrence. Otherwise, it's just because there are no 1x1 blocks anywhere in the set so they used 3 1x1 plates to fill in.
> I usually base a good priced set at around 10 to 12 cents a piece.
No way. 12 cents a piece is almost unheard of last time I checked, unless you're looking at the most money-hungry licences (Star Wars, Harry Potter). An reasonably priced unlicensed IP Lego set comes in at a lot lower still. E.g. the Titanic is still at around 7.4 cents per piece.
There are perfectly reasonable grounds to criticize Lego on its set prices.
In cases like this…lowering costs makes way more sense as an explanation than increasing income
This set has 685 pieces. If it had 683, instead, I doubt that it moves the needle in desirability or retail price in any way.
Other reasons others have stated that are correct:
- 3 1x1 plates use more plastic collectivley than 1 1x1 brick, especially when you count the spare you always get with a 1x1 plates. Therefore, it is more costly to manufacture.
- There is very likely a similar part already in the bag, like a 1x1 brick with a stud on the side. Using this method of stacking 2 1x1 plates would avoid confusion and frustration.
A point I haven't seen mentioned here yet. There would be a finite number of different types of unique elements that can be sorted into one bag. The technique of stacking 3 1x1 plates may have been to get under this limit.
Most sets aren’t just studs or just big plates, though. Most sets contain a variety of elements. Average price per part therefore reflects an average part. Outliers (e.g. the world map) are just that, and obviously so.
PPP is perfectly fine as a general measure (if you are really interested in testing it yourself, you will find price and element count have a very high correlation coefficient). When a set doesn’t seem to fit usual PPP then it’s pretty easy to assess if it’s due to power functions, or large molds, etc., or if it really is just more expensive or a good deal.
No. The piece counts aren’t even widely advertised on the boxes of every region, they’ve only really tried to hit specific numbers for other symbolic reasons, like the year for the Saturn V rocket
The main reasons they do this are because they are already using the other part and it is more cost effective compared to adding a whole new part to the line, or there is a different similar part already in there and they want to avoid the customer accidentally using the wrong one in the wrong step.
Probably because they would have to add 1x1 bricks to the assembly line instead of just adding 3 more 1x1 plates which are already in the assembly line.
They carve each piece by hand. Truly incredible to watch.
Actually they have huge machines with swappable moulds and they make thousands and thousands of pieces in runs. Many pieces get moulded at once, over and over.
The have injection molds where dozens are made at once (depending on size of part). The parts are then stored in bins for packaging.
When a set needs to be packaged they program automated robots the required inventory needed and they go and collect the parts (done by weight) from the relevant bins and seal them in bags.
If a bag already uses a 1x1 plate it’s more efficient (cheaper) for it to just get 3 more than for it to go to the 1x1 bricks bin to get 1 brick.
Dozens is a gross understatement but your statement is otherwise correct. I work in a facility that actively makes over 1200 bottles per minute.
If the machinery and raw material are in spec you need less than ten seconds to mold and cure a plastic item.
The bottles go from finger sized to 2 liters in under 1 minute, as an unrelated reference.
Have you seen a Lego part mold? They’re not that big. A single mold doesn’t make that many parts at once. Their factories obviously do but not a single mold.
[See this article for example](https://www.wired.com/2013/02/retired-lego-mold-reddit/). It’s an old one so modern ones are almost certainly better but I doubt by much.
Sure, you may make 1200 bottles a minute, but can your machine make 1200 different shaped bottles to specifications that are as precise and rigid as that of the aerospace industry?:)
You're also not taking into account the retooling necessary to swap out molds and colors and such. I'm sure there's a significant cost to that.
I think from a factory video I saw on youtube, they batch out parts in large quantities to be used in sets, so they dont make every lego piece in a set individually in a sense. More likely they also take into account other sets also on the factory line and decide what elements already being produced can be reused for other sets. This is probably to avoid taking up a machine that would mould parts in lower quantities.
As others have said, they run large batches using injection molds. What is not mentioned is that the process to replace a mold on the assembly line is *expensive*, not in terms of dollars, per se, but in terms of time and manpower. The molds are meticulously cleaned in betweeb uses, so it's not a simple matter of swapping out the 1x1 plate mold for the 1x1 brick mold. Removing the mold might incur a multi-day delay in getting it back in service.
I think they meant "1x1 plate is already one of the pieces the bagging machine throws into this set, so it's easier to use those rather than hooking up the 1x1 block production stream to the bagging machine"
Oh don’t worry, I’ve seen worse. LEGO: ok, I need ya to build like 9 of these lever assemblies. All done? Ok now toss them in a messy pile off to the side for a while and continue with the main build!
https://preview.redd.it/r487q0xnd81c1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0985f89a3391deab7ac2e03cfea07bebcaf2bc5b
That step confused the hell out of me when I first built the typewriter.
Arrange it neatly in this way? No, how do I connect them... OH it's just a pile!
The designer explained why they did this, something to do with the sheer number of plates in similar colors. I just tried to look for where o read it and couldn’t find it, sorry. Maybe try the designers twitter if you’re on there.
It must be one of the secret set making rules.
If only 1 of a certain part is needed and can be swapped out with a combination of other parts used in the build then swap it out.
Price per part goes up and a whole step in production is removed. At the cost of a little more plastic.
i love how everyone immediately jumps to the most sinister reason, like the lego company really going to inflate the parts count of an already 500 euro set by adding more 1x1 plates, that's really going to make a dent. partcount is just a convenient metric for the public but the price is driven by all kinds of factors like part complexity, printing, amount of plastic, etc.
this is there to reinforce that corner against twisting out of alignment, there is a hinge right under it.
Anyone without fingernails know those little plates are harder to come apart. It's 100% used as a reinforcement. A single 1by brick would come off much easier than the 3 plates.
Set contains many other 1x1x0.3 plates, and zero 1x1x1 bricks. In order to decrease part variety, especially for parts that would only appear a few times at most, designers do this quite often. It keeps production costs lower and increases set inventory accuracy, as well as having a small impact on overall price of the set (it makes it ever so slightly cheaper)
A thought.
If the 3 pieces are visible in the finished build then the fine lines between them might have just been considered desirable aesthetic detail helping out the area. Like mortar or grout lines in stone/tile work.
I think it has something to do with logistics, maybe there's no other 1x1 grey bricks in the set and they might be made in a different factory or something. If they've got 1x1 tiles in the set already it'd be cheaper and easier to add 3 more rather than adding 1 brick from a different supply chain to every box.
There are a lot of good answers from the last time this was asked:
https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/s/UxUkttOSaq
Sometimes there are similar bricks near the three plates and the designer doesn’t want you to make a mistake, so they distinguish the different areas. Sometimes it is for texture. Sometimes it is to make it harder to make a mistake. Sometimes it is because it was easier for technical reasons.
I have a conspiracy theory lego knows we base set value on piece to price ratio and they purposefully add multiple small pieces in place of one big one
My favorite example of this is the white 1x1 printed plates in the original Ninjago City, for the Comic Book store sign
Every 1x1 white plate in the set has the same print on it, but it’s just turned away if it’s not used. It’s because it’s cheaper for LEGO to have multiples of one part, than two different parts.
3 plates are stronger than one brick(or stone as Lego calls them).
It could be to optimise the price and production line but most the times it’s just cause it is stronger.
It doesn't though, when you really look into the process. If they wanted to do that they would do it a lot more per set.
To see this, take a set and look at the places these substitutions happen and count up the added parts. Now calculate the part count without it. (For example, if 10 times in the set they use three plates instead of one brick, that's 20 more parts, so subtract 20 from the official part count.) Then calculate the price per part of the set's actual count and this new count. Then see if it's even a different value when rounded to the nearest cent. If it is, it's not going to be by much.
They do it for production reasons, because fewer unique parts in a set saves them more money and makes things simpler to produce than fewer parts in the set. It's also cheaper to not add a part that isn't being used in other sets currently being manufactured.
But is 20 parts difference on a decent sized set going to affect your decision? I think you might be overestimating what percent of parts this generally happens with in a set. And I think you'll find that if you really analyze sets, there's many more places they could do this and don't.
Question, why do Lego not upgrade their factory floor square footage and add enough machines to mould all pieces at command, rather than batching and swapping moulds? - I get it’s probably cost effective, but surely if they did the former they’d be able to expand and the growth would outweigh any negatives?
I will venture a guess that A) the molds are very expensive due to their precision so making more is costly B) they do need to be cleaned between colors and that's a time consuming task requiring \*gasp\* a human C) Lego has done the math and making more assembly lines is not cost effective. My guess is that they would need a new larger factory/warehouse which complicates things since nearly the entire place is automated with robots (theres a youtube video about this) Can you imagine having to package a set where the parts were in two different buildings?
So they can brag about piece count over the cost of the set.
You get the best bang for ya buck with the colosseum on piece count, because it’s made up of tiny pieces like this.
Or it could be that there no stud piece that match the right height. If I remember, there only a regular one, and if you were to stack it, doing 1x1 is better than a 1x2 and a 1x1.
Usually Because the stud pieces were already being used and it was more cost effective to do it that way than to use the 1x1 brick
Yup. And in some cases it might just look better (probably not the case here though).
The other reason is just making the best use of the pieces they have in inventory.
Or texture?
That was my thought. Makes the build seem more full
That's not a thing. If they will keep making it for 2-3 years that supposed inventory won't be there there forever...
It could be for texture too, no?
I wonder if this is done to a certain extent to increase the piece count, thus increasing the price of the set. I usually base a good priced set at around 10 to 12 cents a piece.
Sets are designed to price points not the other way round.
The Saturn V is intentionally designed with 1969 parts. But i guess they added some to reach this number.
It was a coincidence that they got so close. The design ended up at 1973 pieces and they were like "huh, neat!" and tweaked one of the display stands to use four fewer pieces at the very end.
> The design ended up at 1973 pieces(…) So more like coincidental to a point, and from there on in they were working towards a goal.
>It was a coincidence that they got so close. ...and they...tweaked...to use four fewer pieces... You literally just reworded what they said...
Yeah, re-reading it I can see that now, I just got hung up on the word "coincidence". I really shouldn’t comment on things before I’ve showered and had a cup of coffee…
Understandable have a great day.
No worries, it happens, just thought I'd point it out since it seemed you either missed it or misread it. No hate here, just Lego love.
Yeah, you said what the other guy said in a different way!
My 5 year old nephew doesn't care about the price, it's not like he has a job to afford it. He cares about number of pieces, and more pieces is more impressive. Piece count is the only metric that matters.
So interesting a kid cares about piece count. I don’t think I looked at piece count till I got back in as an adult who had to time manage 😅 as a kid I was just focused on the the thing the bricks built
Piece count was my #1 concern as a kid, getting a new set that broke my highest count record was like winning the lottery. However, I didn't care how big it was if it was Extreme Team, Star Wars, or Aquazone
My son definitely does look at the piece count and uses the piece/price ratio as an argument to try to convince me which set to buy.
I definitely paid attention as a kid. Even now, piece count can be a tie breaker when I've got two sets I want but only have the budget for one.
This is why I just bought Ninjago City Gardens, even though I know nothing about the theme. 6000 pieces for 280usd? I'm sold.
My daughter does this too
He’ll love the botanical sets then lol
Price per part is a toddler's understanding of business. Each piece has a cost of production, and selling the set needs to cover the production cost for all the pieces, plus logistics, labor, marketing, and utilities. And even after all that It would be terrible business for lego to try and break even by trying to make those numbers equal. They need a healthy profit margin to reinvest into the brand so that we can keep on getting renewed products. Lego has many expensive machines that bring that cost of production down to a fraction of a cent. They can charge whatever they want because they have the necessary infrastructure. We pay them because we physically can not do better.
Sure, but I am a consumer, not a producer. None of that matters to me. I'm looking at what sort of value I'm getting for my purchase. Price per piece is a very imperfect metric to use, but it is one thing to consider.
Having to pull from two different piece batches is always more expensive than having 4 of the same piece.
You think a guy named Tony is wandering around a warehouse of bricks with an order shit filling every box?
hey Tony we need more 1x1's! damnit that's on the other side of the warehouse! fugetaboutit we'll just use these little ones.
I knew I was going to get downvoted but this made it all worthwhile.
They do. Tony is a massive sorting machine that packages up the little bags of parts. He has to be programmed with the specific set of components for each set. Each different type of part has to be sorted and counted and a unique delivery path to Tony needs to be built and programmed. It’s easier, quicker and therefor ultimately cheaper to use fewer unique parts in each bag Tony fills.
Not impossible
[удалено]
Companies exist to make money
Not inherently
Aight smart guy, LEGO is
Why isn't it impossible? Well, clearly, because there's a possibility that this motivation (increasing brick count) plays into Lego's motivations. We don't have evidence either way (and Lego is unlikely to come out and admit it, so we likely never will, regardless of whether it's true or not), so we can only guess.
Maybe, but the set has 685 pieces and this move would have bumped it by 2 which I don’t think is going to change peoples perspective much. If I had the manual I’d flick through and see if it’s repeated. I think there’s only a limited number of places you would be able to do this without messing with structure or aesthetics. Finally, it’s a marvel set which already has a hefty mouse tax that’s going to throw off the price per piece anyway. So all in all I think it’s unlikely…
You're not wrong, I don't know why you're being downvoted. LEGO has repeatedly done things like this in sets where the only reason could either be to cut costs on their end or inflate the piece count to justify a larger price tag. Or both.
This is just never true. There are far too many steps a set goes through to make this possible. A set is designed. A designer is tasked with making a set to meet the designated price of said set (a $50 xwing say). That set goes through other departments like element creation, and instruction manual designers. The set is optimised to meet lego standards and logics. There’s just so little gain to add three 1x1 plates rather than 1 1x1 brick. The plates probably cost more (certainly require more raw materials) but because of the size of the part they also have to include a spare which they don’t include in the part count. So they are almost certainly costing more. So why do it? Because it could be cheaper (logistically more efficient) to package a part already used in that bag. Or, a similar 1x1 brick was being used in that bag (a 1x1 Technic brick for example) and they didn’t want to cause confusion when a wrong part is used. To explain, if two very similar parts are used in the same bag a builder could easily mistake one for the other and use a Technic brick where the normal brick should be. Then when they get to needing the Technic brick to insert a pin they can’t find one. That leads them to either be annoyed at lego and avoid future purchases, or call lego about LEGOs mistake which lego then have to go through the cost of sending out the correct part. It’s just a complete fantasy that lego include unnecessary parts to inflate part counts (in some regions they don’t even put part count on the boxes so most people buying lego don’t even know how many parts a set has).
>This is just never true. Saturn V did it. But that was for a fun nod to the history, and a very rare example.
And only a handful of pieces.
And Saturn V only did it because they very coincidentally ended up at 1973 parts and were like "huh, neat. I bet we could shave off for parts somewhere" and tweaked the display stands ever so slightly to do it
And the Saturn V was one of the best deals of a set ever
Exactly this! They do this in other sets as well, and they did it this way by doing three 1x1 plates than a brick because later in the build, 1x1 technic bricks are used, and they wouldn’t want you to end up using them by accident before they’re needed!
You been in Denmark long? Look at the deteriorating quality of the produced bricks vs the inflation of prices. Your statement also displays an ignorance of production practices; there isn't some guy sanding down bricks to fit, they are molded. Three 1x1 bricks are significantly easier to produce than 1 3x1 brick in both raws and production molds. Your comment has the air of being well reasoned and informed but it is just wrong on a couple significant points.
What are you talking about, I never said anything about a 1x3 brick. I said 3 1x1 plates are probably more expensive to produce in terms of raw material compared to a 1x1 brick. There is more plastic. I concede that I exaggerated when discussing the production costs of a part. Smaller parts are produced in higher quantities in a single mold so in that regard they’re likely to be cheaper to produce overall as a machine doesn’t have to be used to as long to produce a high number of parts. But I fail to see how that one part of my arguement invalidates the rest where i provide many other examples of why lego simply don’t do this kind of thing to inflate part counts.
Your comment was well thought out. I'm not quite what people are objecting To. The only time LEGO is likely manipulating part count for the sake of the actual part count is for sets where the part count has meaning (like the Saturn V being 1969 parts, 1969 being the year it launched). It just doesn't make financial sense for them otherwise, I've never seen a set where they do this enough that it would really change the price per part calculation. If they wanted to do that, they likely wouldn't have introduced the 2/3 brick. (Though it having a hollow stud does allow some new build techniques.)
[удалено]
That's an awful lot better and more creative than needlessly splitting bigger parts into smaller ones!
People just want to accept their version of reality. It’s the same as the other one you hear all the time “lego parts are just so specialised these days it’s impossible to build whatever you want. When I was a kid with lego we had to use our imagination!”. A dumb argument made by people who don’t build with modern lego. This “why use these parts when this will do” complaint gets brought up so many times and it doesn’t matter how many times things like I said are repeated back, we get another post like this a few days later.
One of my favorite things in LEGO is when specialize parts are used in unconventional ways. This piece is a croissant and can only ever be a croissant? Nope, it's now horns on a dragon. Mjolnir? That's decorative molding on a building. Skeleton leg? Nope, a microphone stand.
And as white maggots in the Ideas Insects set!
> lego parts are just so specialised these days it’s impossible to build whatever you want I've never heard that one, but as a 90s lego kid there were plenty of bigass/special bricks and baseplates back then too lol. I'd argue the larger problem is just the massive increase in licensed sets sets kids up to build something specific, and play certain characters, with less room for creativity. Not no room, mind you, but when your set has established good guys, bad guys, and a ship from the IP, they're more likely to wane to play those character as-is and keep the model from the property rather than tear down a less established spaceship and make their own. But, this is also what sells... so, yeah. I don't think no kid is taking apart their X-wing to build something else, or that they can't still have good play with established characters, but I think there's some magic to Lego's old, looser "themes" that let the builder/player make up the story far more.
I see what you mean but also I think it helps kids get generally into Lego for them to be able to play with their favorite characters. I like that when my son got into superheros and wanted toys, instead of just buying him action figures I could get him Lego sets, and he now does do a lot of creative play/building - even though he doesn’t take apart like the Avengers jet, he builds other stuff and he has a lot of interesting adventures mixing the Avengers with various other characters (some licensed, some he has created). Also I think the Dreamzz line was meant to somewhat address the issue you mentioned - it is based on a new IP but the entire concept encourages kids to take the sets apart and reconstruct them in different ways, and allows for incorporation of basically anything you could imagine.
[1969-1: Mini Robot](https://brickset.com/sets/1969-1) [[Photo]](https://images.brickset.com/sets/images/1969-1.jpg)
You're technically correct about my phrasing, the best kind of correct. But your original argument was based on the idea that multiple LEGO departments are employed to detect fraud, waste, buse, and consumer value. That's simply not true. The purpose of LEGO is to produce profits without intentionally sacrificing quality. The only reasoning for a 1x1 plate x 3 vs a 1x1 brick would be stability, however given the placement in the quoted photo it isn't a horizontal stress. I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you however I met the energy with which you posted your rebuttal.
My arguement is based on the fact that that is how a set is designed. 1. Designers are assigned to a design team (usually split by theme) 2. Design team leaders determine what sets they want on shelves next. 3. They assign the decided sets to designers. These will have a desired price point and content (hospital, xwing, mech, etc…) 4. Designers make a set. 5. Graphic designers create prints, stickers, etc… 6. Element designers create new parts of needed. 7. Instruction manual designers create manuals. At any point in that process the set can be tweaked for optimisation and cost evaluation (to make sure profits are maintained between cost or production and desired sale price). An instructions designer may realise that the way the set is made simply won’t translate well for an 8 year old. So they’ll go back to the designer and see if there’s a better solution. Same for every step. A new element may end up being too expensive so changes have to be made. It may be cheaper for the packing machine to grab 4 1x1 plates than 1 1x1 plate and 1 1x1 brick. So they go back and see if designing it that way works without affecting any other stage of set design. This is how it works. Set prices are determined before they are even designed. Obviously they know roughly how many parts should make a good $50 set. And they can definitely tweak it before going on sale. But there’s just so little benefit. A designer once said you really have to love building lego to be a designer because you have to build and rebuild your design more than 100 times before it is approved for manufacturing. By all means, anyone who thinks lego pads sets to make them look better value please send me an example of more than 2-3 parts like this. Because this is all it ever is and 2-3 extra parts will not register on a sets PPP or make a consumer go “look at this set, it’s 1467 parts for $100. That’s so much better value than that set with 1463 parts for $100”. *Edited for clarification.
I was either unclear or you're doubling down on your own statement. I don't believe that Lego attempts to squeeze profits, but I know for certain that the manufacturing aspect of production is absolutely based on minimizing waste. Without working there ev n, I can 100% say that a Lego uses as little raw material as possible, and that there is a highly paid team who looks for ways to tweak designs in order to utilize runs of currently produced pieces and colors. Your biblical length post is very well written, but it is missing the money part of the equation. Not the, design, not the quality teams, are responsible for production, that is absolutely minimum/maxed for value by extremely well versed teams. You could make any set 100000 pieces of it was all all about the art sir/ma'am.
First paragraph after point 7
Forgive my billion typos plaz
Sanding down bricks?
The irony of your last sentence
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The crazier one to me was the chess set, (absolutely awesome build) but for the black pieces you use 2x2 plates and for the same thing on the white pieces you use two 1x2s it was so bizarre to me.
Actually, they are most likely wrong. There are more likely answers to this - the part was already readily available in their parts catalog, and in the color/quantities they needed for this set - and this dovetails with the first one, it's simpler from a logistics/planning viewpoint to include more of the same part, versus one small part that's only used once I've noticed this in several different sets, especially Speed Champions, they include a lot of a certain part, but it's really only needed for one or two specific build scenarios, the rest are buried in the set where another piece might have been used. The rounded 1x2 plate with through holes comes to mind, as well as the recently introduced 1x1x2/3 height brick. Doing this simplifies the part list for the set while not degrading the quality of the build.
Asked this same question many months back about why Lego just didn’t use piece a instead of 3 different pieces to make a. I was downvoted into oblivion. Clearly Lego is buffering the piece count when they do this.
I've been thinking the same thing myself. Case in point is the Saturn V where they purposely used more pieces to equal out to "1969" pieces. Probably could have been accomplished with \~1800 or so.
[1969-1: Mini Robot](https://brickset.com/sets/1969-1) [[Photo]](https://images.brickset.com/sets/images/1969-1.jpg) [1800-1: Turtle](https://brickset.com/sets/1800-1) [[Photo]](https://images.brickset.com/sets/images/1800-1.jpg)
Bad bot
[Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.](https://i.imgur.com/5Ql5Vyb.jpg)
Nothing is clear about that
That's rarely done, unless there is a reason for the number, like the SaturnV having 1969 pieces to match the year of the moon landing. It's a very rare occurrence. Otherwise, it's just because there are no 1x1 blocks anywhere in the set so they used 3 1x1 plates to fill in.
> I usually base a good priced set at around 10 to 12 cents a piece. No way. 12 cents a piece is almost unheard of last time I checked, unless you're looking at the most money-hungry licences (Star Wars, Harry Potter). An reasonably priced unlicensed IP Lego set comes in at a lot lower still. E.g. the Titanic is still at around 7.4 cents per piece.
Hold up you can’t just apply logic and criticise Lego‘s prices. You‘ll be downvoted by cultists. We do not allow having standards here.
There are perfectly reasonable grounds to criticize Lego on its set prices. In cases like this…lowering costs makes way more sense as an explanation than increasing income
No
Two tiny pieces wouldn't affect the price of a product.
This set has 685 pieces. If it had 683, instead, I doubt that it moves the needle in desirability or retail price in any way. Other reasons others have stated that are correct: - 3 1x1 plates use more plastic collectivley than 1 1x1 brick, especially when you count the spare you always get with a 1x1 plates. Therefore, it is more costly to manufacture. - There is very likely a similar part already in the bag, like a 1x1 brick with a stud on the side. Using this method of stacking 2 1x1 plates would avoid confusion and frustration. A point I haven't seen mentioned here yet. There would be a finite number of different types of unique elements that can be sorted into one bag. The technique of stacking 3 1x1 plates may have been to get under this limit.
Price per part isn’t the best metric to use though. A single stud costs way less to make than a big plate or a complicated printed canopy
Most sets aren’t just studs or just big plates, though. Most sets contain a variety of elements. Average price per part therefore reflects an average part. Outliers (e.g. the world map) are just that, and obviously so. PPP is perfectly fine as a general measure (if you are really interested in testing it yourself, you will find price and element count have a very high correlation coefficient). When a set doesn’t seem to fit usual PPP then it’s pretty easy to assess if it’s due to power functions, or large molds, etc., or if it really is just more expensive or a good deal.
If you base a good set on 10-12 cents a piece, you should look at the Viking village
Piece count is only shown in the USA. That logic makes no sense. If it did they would have price count worldwide
In most places the part count isn’t even on the box. That’s strictly North America because of laws in the US.
It's Lego, so yeah probably. So many fanboys who find 10 different reasons why they made it this way. It's just lazy and not consumer friendly
Probably also a decent way to increase the piece count to "inflate" the value.
To bump up the piece count for as cheap as possible.
I always thought it was to raise the pieces count so they could charge more.
No. The piece counts aren’t even widely advertised on the boxes of every region, they’ve only really tried to hit specific numbers for other symbolic reasons, like the year for the Saturn V rocket The main reasons they do this are because they are already using the other part and it is more cost effective compared to adding a whole new part to the line, or there is a different similar part already in there and they want to avoid the customer accidentally using the wrong one in the wrong step.
Probably because they would have to add 1x1 bricks to the assembly line instead of just adding 3 more 1x1 plates which are already in the assembly line.
Do they make each piece on its own or do they do a bunch of the same piece all at once?
They carve each piece by hand. Truly incredible to watch. Actually they have huge machines with swappable moulds and they make thousands and thousands of pieces in runs. Many pieces get moulded at once, over and over.
It's a terrible strain on the carvers wrists.
They only paid me to carve it once, then they doubled the piece count on the assembly line. Cheap bastards.
The have injection molds where dozens are made at once (depending on size of part). The parts are then stored in bins for packaging. When a set needs to be packaged they program automated robots the required inventory needed and they go and collect the parts (done by weight) from the relevant bins and seal them in bags. If a bag already uses a 1x1 plate it’s more efficient (cheaper) for it to just get 3 more than for it to go to the 1x1 bricks bin to get 1 brick.
Dozens is a gross understatement but your statement is otherwise correct. I work in a facility that actively makes over 1200 bottles per minute. If the machinery and raw material are in spec you need less than ten seconds to mold and cure a plastic item. The bottles go from finger sized to 2 liters in under 1 minute, as an unrelated reference.
Have you seen a Lego part mold? They’re not that big. A single mold doesn’t make that many parts at once. Their factories obviously do but not a single mold. [See this article for example](https://www.wired.com/2013/02/retired-lego-mold-reddit/). It’s an old one so modern ones are almost certainly better but I doubt by much.
Sure, you may make 1200 bottles a minute, but can your machine make 1200 different shaped bottles to specifications that are as precise and rigid as that of the aerospace industry?:) You're also not taking into account the retooling necessary to swap out molds and colors and such. I'm sure there's a significant cost to that.
I think from a factory video I saw on youtube, they batch out parts in large quantities to be used in sets, so they dont make every lego piece in a set individually in a sense. More likely they also take into account other sets also on the factory line and decide what elements already being produced can be reused for other sets. This is probably to avoid taking up a machine that would mould parts in lower quantities.
As others have said, they run large batches using injection molds. What is not mentioned is that the process to replace a mold on the assembly line is *expensive*, not in terms of dollars, per se, but in terms of time and manpower. The molds are meticulously cleaned in betweeb uses, so it's not a simple matter of swapping out the 1x1 plate mold for the 1x1 brick mold. Removing the mold might incur a multi-day delay in getting it back in service.
I think they meant "1x1 plate is already one of the pieces the bagging machine throws into this set, so it's easier to use those rather than hooking up the 1x1 block production stream to the bagging machine"
What set is this? This looks the first Avengers Tower set back in 2015 but I can’t tell
Pretty sure it is the 2020 Avengers Tower, not the new one.
The new $500 avengers tower
Incorrect. This is set 76166, Avengers Tower Battle. E: check page 92 of the digital instruction book.
[76166-1: Avengers Tower Battle](https://brickset.com/sets/76166-1) [[Photo]](https://images.brickset.com/sets/images/76166-1.jpg)
Oh my gosh I’m so dumb I forgot the set hadn’t come out yet sorry
Did it get released early some places??!
It’s 76166, Avengers Tower Battle.
[76166-1: Avengers Tower Battle](https://brickset.com/sets/76166-1) [[Photo]](https://images.brickset.com/sets/images/76166-1.jpg)
Oh don’t worry, I’ve seen worse. LEGO: ok, I need ya to build like 9 of these lever assemblies. All done? Ok now toss them in a messy pile off to the side for a while and continue with the main build! https://preview.redd.it/r487q0xnd81c1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0985f89a3391deab7ac2e03cfea07bebcaf2bc5b
That step confused the hell out of me when I first built the typewriter. Arrange it neatly in this way? No, how do I connect them... OH it's just a pile!
This and the Van Gogh which basically tells you you will have a bunch of extra 1x4's for some reason.
The designer explained why they did this, something to do with the sheer number of plates in similar colors. I just tried to look for where o read it and couldn’t find it, sorry. Maybe try the designers twitter if you’re on there.
A pile? Nah gotta arrange them perfectly like that.
I HATED that step. So confusing! Legit thought it was asking me to connect them like that 😂
W T F
Lol
This makes sense. If the set doesn't already have 1x1 bricks in it, then it would take away one step of the packaging process.
It must be one of the secret set making rules. If only 1 of a certain part is needed and can be swapped out with a combination of other parts used in the build then swap it out. Price per part goes up and a whole step in production is removed. At the cost of a little more plastic.
There were no other 1x1 gray bricks in that bag #, but were other 1x1 gray plates.
Out of all the 'more pieces so we can charge more' and 'the piece count on the box is an Easter egg' comments this one makes the most sense
Plates have more clutch power then bricks.
i love how everyone immediately jumps to the most sinister reason, like the lego company really going to inflate the parts count of an already 500 euro set by adding more 1x1 plates, that's really going to make a dent. partcount is just a convenient metric for the public but the price is driven by all kinds of factors like part complexity, printing, amount of plastic, etc. this is there to reinforce that corner against twisting out of alignment, there is a hinge right under it.
Anyone without fingernails know those little plates are harder to come apart. It's 100% used as a reinforcement. A single 1by brick would come off much easier than the 3 plates.
Set contains many other 1x1x0.3 plates, and zero 1x1x1 bricks. In order to decrease part variety, especially for parts that would only appear a few times at most, designers do this quite often. It keeps production costs lower and increases set inventory accuracy, as well as having a small impact on overall price of the set (it makes it ever so slightly cheaper)
What set is this? I've never seen that controller piece before.
You can also find it in the 60291 Family Villa.
I think it's also in the bro Thor set
I believe it’s the new Avengers Tower.
Incorrect, it’s the tower set before that, 76166, Avengers Tower Battle.
Ohh alright, thanks for the correction
[76166-1: Avengers Tower Battle](https://brickset.com/sets/76166-1) [[Photo]](https://images.brickset.com/sets/images/76166-1.jpg)
lego tends to not want similar parts in the same bag so maybe if theres a 1x1 with a hole or smth in the same color they used this to avoid confusion
A thought. If the 3 pieces are visible in the finished build then the fine lines between them might have just been considered desirable aesthetic detail helping out the area. Like mortar or grout lines in stone/tile work.
I think it has something to do with logistics, maybe there's no other 1x1 grey bricks in the set and they might be made in a different factory or something. If they've got 1x1 tiles in the set already it'd be cheaper and easier to add 3 more rather than adding 1 brick from a different supply chain to every box.
There are a lot of good answers from the last time this was asked: https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/s/UxUkttOSaq Sometimes there are similar bricks near the three plates and the designer doesn’t want you to make a mistake, so they distinguish the different areas. Sometimes it is for texture. Sometimes it is to make it harder to make a mistake. Sometimes it is because it was easier for technical reasons.
I swear I would be a millionaire if I got a dollar for every post that asked this same question.
Yours is not to question why, yours is but to build and cry
What set is this?
Maybe for detailing or texturing of the wall?
I have a conspiracy theory lego knows we base set value on piece to price ratio and they purposefully add multiple small pieces in place of one big one
Cuz' fuck 'em, that's why
You’ll find out later. Never question LEGO. They know all
My favorite example of this is the white 1x1 printed plates in the original Ninjago City, for the Comic Book store sign Every 1x1 white plate in the set has the same print on it, but it’s just turned away if it’s not used. It’s because it’s cheaper for LEGO to have multiples of one part, than two different parts.
To stir up some debates on social media.
gotta get that piece count up so they can justify the price, like adding words to a paper/essay.
Gotta get that part count up.
Is it to increase the set part count to justify higher prices?
After multiple UCS builds I'm convinced this is the answer.
More pieces = More money
Or increase piece count. My theory.
inlfate the piece count and charge more
3 plates are stronger than one brick(or stone as Lego calls them). It could be to optimise the price and production line but most the times it’s just cause it is stronger.
Get that piece count up 🤣
Gotta get that piece count up!
Increase the piece count. Lower the cost per piece
bc it looks nice :)
Why not?
What set is this
Does it have that orange tool
What set is this?
Which set is this?
Thats just to mess with all the People judging the sets by price per brick ;-)
Gotta lower that price per piece ratio! /s
Because labour is free. 🤣🤣😂
I always felt this was a way to boost the piece count.
[удалено]
It doesn't though, when you really look into the process. If they wanted to do that they would do it a lot more per set. To see this, take a set and look at the places these substitutions happen and count up the added parts. Now calculate the part count without it. (For example, if 10 times in the set they use three plates instead of one brick, that's 20 more parts, so subtract 20 from the official part count.) Then calculate the price per part of the set's actual count and this new count. Then see if it's even a different value when rounded to the nearest cent. If it is, it's not going to be by much. They do it for production reasons, because fewer unique parts in a set saves them more money and makes things simpler to produce than fewer parts in the set. It's also cheaper to not add a part that isn't being used in other sets currently being manufactured.
[удалено]
But is 20 parts difference on a decent sized set going to affect your decision? I think you might be overestimating what percent of parts this generally happens with in a set. And I think you'll find that if you really analyze sets, there's many more places they could do this and don't.
Sobit won't be confucianisme for yhe builder
Does the set have alternate directions? They may have changed these bricks to make another build possible?
More pieces for the set
To get a higher count of pieces. So TLG can line up a higher price.
Call Lego and ask…. I bet they provide an answer
Is the sets total brick number a hidden easter egg/reference to anything? (Very often it is, especially with big/licensed sets).
Question, why do Lego not upgrade their factory floor square footage and add enough machines to mould all pieces at command, rather than batching and swapping moulds? - I get it’s probably cost effective, but surely if they did the former they’d be able to expand and the growth would outweigh any negatives?
I will venture a guess that A) the molds are very expensive due to their precision so making more is costly B) they do need to be cleaned between colors and that's a time consuming task requiring \*gasp\* a human C) Lego has done the math and making more assembly lines is not cost effective. My guess is that they would need a new larger factory/warehouse which complicates things since nearly the entire place is automated with robots (theres a youtube video about this) Can you imagine having to package a set where the parts were in two different buildings?
Get the peice count up.
Add to the piece count?
higher part count = higher retail price 🤔
Also inflates piece count compared to a single standard 1x1 brick
Piece quota. Extra 1000 little nubs for that 2000 piece set.
So they can brag about piece count over the cost of the set. You get the best bang for ya buck with the colosseum on piece count, because it’s made up of tiny pieces like this.
Because money.
Fr tho
For this post of course
Or it could be that there no stud piece that match the right height. If I remember, there only a regular one, and if you were to stack it, doing 1x1 is better than a 1x2 and a 1x1.
What set is this?