| |
Hi all,
Some years ago I recall seeing an article about LEGO, where there was a
small image of ABS granules being fed to a moulding machine. Back then I did
not care too much about it, but now it appeared interesting enough to
investigate...
So I did just that: I went hunting for the brand that makes LEGO's material.
My first thought was Bayer, the German firm; they are one of the largest
chemical industries in the world, and conveniently located near Dennmark...
they'd be the obvious choice, right? So let's for a minute *assume* Bayer is
in fact the supplier of LEGO's ABS.
Browsing at Bayer's website, I then came across their plastics product
range. Only... there were FOUR kinds of ABS!
Ok... so two of them were composites. Still, there were other two options
remaining: was it "Novodur", or "Lustran"?
http://plastics.bayer.de/AG/AE/products/description/index.jsp?hp=1&pid=3
The differences between both are unstated; given the names, probably the
first one is made to last and the second to shine...
And then, *CLICK!*
The though struck me like lightning: I had noticed that more recent LEGO
parts tend to be softer and glossier... (1) so the question arose in my
mind: has the kind of ABS LEGO uses been changed recently, say around 1997?
Any idea? All this is based in two assumptions and one oppinion, but if
anyone knows more about it I'd be glad to hear.
Cheers,
Pedro
(1) - this oppinion is based in a number of sets I bought MISB since 1995,
the time when I began to care about the parts' quality. Back then, the parts
used to be less shiny and a lot tougher, at least when it came to "clutch
power"; also, a stacked brick wall would have less "irregularities" than one
built with more recent bricks. Nowadays, whenever I open a box of LEGO all
the parts gloss as if they had been immersed in oil for some time... :-/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Pedro Silva writes:
> The though struck me like lightning: I had noticed that more recent LEGO
> parts tend to be softer and glossier... (1) so the question arose in my
> mind: has the kind of ABS LEGO uses been changed recently, say around 1997?
> Any idea? All this is based in two assumptions and one oppinion, but if
> anyone knows more about it I'd be glad to hear.
I don't know any of the technical specs of bricks now or then, but let me
share my feelings on the subject.
I know that by comparing my old childhood bricks (20 - 25 years old) to
bricks I've bought in the last 5 years there is a distinct difference.
The old bricks 'click' more when put together. They almost snap to each
other with a distinctive locking feeling. The newer bricks lack this zest.
They are more spongy and seem to mush together (not literally, but
comparatively). Similarly, when trying to take apart old bricks I find they
'snap' apart more precisely than newer bricks. I find that my new bricks
just ooze off each other... as though they are happy to be apart.
I do hope others post their feelings on this topic. I'm glad someone
brought it up. :)
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
Pedro:
Your assumptions are absolutely correct. Most of Lego's plastic is a special
(top secret) version of Bayer Novodur. Lego also uses a version of Lustran and,
more recently, a version of Makrolon. If you spend enough time on the Bayer
site they have plenty of promotional mentions of being Lego's supplier. Note
that all of Lego's plastic is specially formulated for Lego.
In an older post I guessed that Legos version of Novodur was probably closest
to Novodur P2M-V:
http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=6920
BTW Bayer also sells the plastic colorant for most of Legos bricks in the form
of Macrolex.
I do think that in the last several years there have been formulation changes
although I dont have any specifics. I have also noticed the shininess and oily
feeling of new bricks
--Jim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.general, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> > The though struck me like lightning: I had noticed that more recent LEGO
> > parts tend to be softer and glossier... (1) so the question arose in my
> > mind: has the kind of ABS LEGO uses been changed recently, say around 1997?
> > Any idea? All this is based in two assumptions and one oppinion, but if
> > anyone knows more about it I'd be glad to hear.
>
> I don't know any of the technical specs of bricks now or then, but let me
> share my feelings on the subject.
>
> I know that by comparing my old childhood bricks (20 - 25 years old) to
> bricks I've bought in the last 5 years there is a distinct difference.
>
> The old bricks 'click' more when put together. They almost snap to each
> other with a distinctive locking feeling. The newer bricks lack this zest.
> They are more spongy and seem to mush together (not literally, but
> comparatively). Similarly, when trying to take apart old bricks I find they
> 'snap' apart more precisely than newer bricks. I find that my new bricks
> just ooze off each other... as though they are happy to be apart.
Thanks for posting your experience, Allan.
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*. That's what I'm afraid:
LEGO losing it's ability to withstand the passage of time.
Even now I am dazzled to see the occasional 60's brick in perfect shape...
I'd love it if one day my kids would be able to play with my LEGO, much in
the same way I have played with *very old* LEGO in kindergarden.
Pedro
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jim Hughes writes:
> Pedro:
>
> Your assumptions are absolutely correct. Most of Lego's plastic is a special
> (top secret) version of Bayer Novodur. Lego also uses a version of Lustran and,
> more recently, a version of Makrolon. If you spend enough time on the Bayer
> site they have plenty of promotional mentions of being Lego's supplier. Note
> that all of Lego's plastic is specially formulated for Lego.
>
> In an older post I guessed that Legos version of Novodur was probably closest
> to Novodur P2M-V:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/technic/?n=6920
Wow!
I remember that thread... shame on me for not checking further on past posts!
Great research, by the way. I would have taken longer to find out LEGO
references in Bayer's website, mainly because I were not *expecting* there
would be any... turns out they are proud of their role as suppliers - and
they have reasons for it, despite my concerns.
> BTW Bayer also sells the plastic colorant for most of Legos bricks in the form
> of Macrolex.
>
> I do think that in the last several years there have been formulation changes
> although I dont have any specifics. I have also noticed the shininess and oily
> feeling of new bricks
I can do with the oily look, what I can't handle that well is the loss of
clutch. If before a couple of assemblies would reach the ideal clutch, now
it takes ages to reach a stable assembly :-(
The worst of all is the decrease in "perfection" of bricks; it is only an
impression, and I consider it is caused by the bricks spending fewer time in
the moulds (resulting in tiny "lumps" on the lower edges of bricks, similar
to those that appear in very old glass windows). If plastic comes out of the
mold still hot, it will warp a little, right?
Anyway, why would LEGO want to change their plastic if the original ABS was
great? It couldn't be a matter of costs... instead, would this have anything
to do with legal requirements for toys?
Pedro
|
|
| |
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*. But I have
seen no reference to how well old bricks were when *they* were new.
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? 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 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.
...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.
Certainly, each of these things has changed before (anyone notice how older
style bricks have those little dots where the mold was injected? They don't
anymore, so something changed, for the better IMO.). 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.) :)
-Hendo
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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
|
|
| |
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> > 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.
We all do. If you are correct, then we also hope future developments will
correct the problem.
> > ...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)
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).
It might also be possible that changes occured due to availability of raw
material, or changes in contract with material suppliers. 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.
> > 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...)
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).
I can't remember where, but I remember reading something that gave that dot
an official name. It may have been in a TLC brochure some time ago.
> 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 agree. If TLC is trying to remember their roots as recent PR suggests,
then hopefully they will continue to be innovative, analyitical, and willing
to change as needed when it comes to their manufacturing process.
> > 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.
Right on! We aren't asking for detailed TLC secret formulas. But we would
be happy with a, "Yes, this process changed," or a, "Some molds at some
facilities were upgraded for this." ...Of course, it would also be nice to
see a, "and we are continuing to look into rectifying any drawbacks."
We shall see...
-Hendo
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
