Retired/Replaced Parts

[Legopast]

Hi, I have sometimes found myself baffled by parts so I thought a topic for parts which have been "phased out" or "replaced" would be helpful

Here are a couple examples of what I mean

A completely changed design which upset a few fans of the older space themes.

Old New

A change to the base which no longer allows connection the old dragon/crocodiles mouth sized hole

Old New

There are more and I am currently researching and remembering the few I have noticed in the past few years.

(If this topic is inappropriate or felt unneeded by any of the staff members feel free to contact me or take it down)

Edited June 28, 2013 by Legopast

[Ham17]

A change to the base which no longer allows connection the old dragon/crocodiles mouth plume sized hole

Old New

Hated when they did this

[Legopast]

It has its up's and downs when you look at it from a torch angle it is all very well and a improved part, But as a multifunctional part the older one is the victor, I am unsure why the change was made but would speculate it was to give a better hold in the new telescope/torch holders and other places as the parts that protruded from the original did sometimes become a nuisance and cause the part to be unstable in its fixture.

[fred67]

Macaroni...

I completely understand why they did it, but it does screw up some building techniques.

[Legopast]

I can see how that is a much stronger part now with I assume more grip also, But I suppose it sacrifices the ability to make off-set towers and open centre towers?

One I am unsure of and would like somebody with better knowledge to clear up is Trans-clear 1x2 bricks,

are they all without centre stem or do some have one and other not?

As I see brick link listings sometimes saying "1x2 trans-red without bottom tube" or similar

[fred67]

The last time I can see TLG released a set with the trans-clear with tube was 2003. With such a common piece, bricklink can be hard to look stuff like that up on, but you go to the catalog and see what sets 1x2 has been released in (thousands, of course), then you pick the color and lists all the sets with that color it was released in. It's a long list, but after perusing it, it looks like 2003 was the last year with tube.

[CP5670]

Another one is the 1x2 panel, which has been replaced by a version with rounded corners. The new piece looks ugly if you have several of them in a line. The same thing seems to be happening with the 1x4 bracket, with rounded versions showing up on Bricklink.

I don't understand the point of some of these changes. In some cases, it's obvious that the new version of the piece has its benefits (like the reinforced macaroni brick, and even the new fire piece), but others seem completely unnecessary.

[antp]

For the panel, maybe it was for safety issues: these corners were quite sharp.

What I don't like in the modern parts is the big hinges

old: http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4275

new: http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=44302

The old one could be use in so many more ways.

But I understand that the old one was quite fragile (I broke a few) and that it cost more due to produce because of the precision level required for a good connection between parts.

Same for the windows with shutters: new ones look ugly but they are most likely less fragile (and also needs a less precise connection).

Edited June 28, 2013 by antp

[escortmad79]

Thin O ring:

Thick O ring:

[MikroMan]

For the panel, maybe it was for safety issues: these corners were quite sharp.

What I don't like in the modern parts is the big hinges

old: http://www.bricklink...Item.asp?P=4275

new: http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?P=44302

The old one could be use in so many more ways.

But I understand that the old one was quite fragile (I broke a few) and that it cost more due to produce because of the precision level required for a good connection between parts.

Same for the windows with shutters: new ones look ugly but they are most likely less fragile (and also needs a less precise connection).

Well, the tiles, plates bricks, etc. have sharp cornes as well, so I hope they don't start making them rounded Anyway, I agree, old finger hinges were much nicer and easier to use due to less bulkiness.

Edited June 28, 2013 by MikroMan

[antp]

The corners of other parts seemed less sharp to me than these panels: these were very thin (less than the thickness of a plate). Also, the other parts do not have their corners as much exposed.

But I agree that the change is bad: I also prefer the old panels; I like these parts and often use them.

Edited June 28, 2013 by antp

[Aanchir]

From my experience, the 1x4 panels have had rounded corners for a much longer time than the 1x2 panels. Many of the 1x4 panels in my collection have rounded corners, and some of those are over a decade old. I can see how reducing a sharp, thin corner might be desirable for safety reasons. But there are definitely instances where I'd prefer the sharper corners as a MOCist.

The flame is the main part where I feel functionality was changed greatly on a part that kept the same ID number, but I'm somewhat content with that change since it opens up new uses of the part at the same time as it's eliminating older uses. You can now fit the new flames into this piece, which is great for constructing small rockets.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Aanchir

[Legopast]

The clips whilst an annoyance being larger are now much more sturdy and can hold a panel up in a position whilst the old ones to my knowledge and experience just sort of "flopped"

The 1x4 panels I had noticed rounded corners on but not the 1x2 I can see no use for this apart from saving minuscule amounts of ABS maybe its easier to mould that way?

It's a shame as the 1x2 could previously be used to make a non ending fence or boarder but not it would have many dips?

As for the clips I think the newest design is best, it was the good tight hold of the oldest one but is just a thicker stronger design

I have never had a problem with the thin o-rings though and cannot see why it would need change?

[Aanchir]

The clips whilst an annoyance being larger are now much more sturdy and can hold a panel up in a position whilst the old ones to my knowledge and experience just sort of "flopped"

The 1x4 panels I had noticed rounded corners on but not the 1x2 I can see no use for this apart from saving minuscule amounts of ABS maybe its easier to mould that way?

It's a shame as the 1x2 could previously be used to make a non ending fence or boarder but not it would have many dips?

As for the clips I think the newest design is best, it was the good tight hold of the oldest one but is just a thicker stronger design

I have never had a problem with the thin o-rings though and cannot see why it would need change?

I can almost guarantee the rounded corners on those panels were NOT a cost-cutting measure, unless there was some factor like the square ones often breaking during production and having to be remolded. Overall, material cost is just a small portion of the cost it takes to produce any given piece. The cost of the mold and the cost in machines and floor space (remember that setting aside a machine to produce any part means having to find other machines to produce other, possibly more useful parts) are almost certainly more significant than any small amount of money that could be saved by trimming a corner here or there.

The o-rings changed before my lifetime, so all of the thinner ones I own come from yard sales and lots purchased online. With that said, I am almost certain that if you have a lot of weight supported by o-rings for a long period of time (or a short period of time in extreme temperatures), the thinner ones would give out sooner. This may be the reason for the change.

Regardless, both sorts of o-rings have their advantages. The thinner variety is one-half a plate in thickness, meaning a tile on each side will bring the thickness to one module. The thicker variety is one full plate in thickness, meaning a tile on each side brings the full thickness to three plates or one brick. Thus with the thicker variety it's easier to fill the gap between parts on opposite sides of the "o", but the thinner variety is easier to keep "in system". If you do stick a tile on either side of the thicker variety, the edges will stick off the square portion of the o-ring by a quarter-plate thick on each side — a handy tip to know for the sake of aligning certain things, since it's a measurement that isn't used by many other parts, but also a difficult measurement to line up with other pieces for the very same reason.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Aanchir

[Legopast]

It is interesting to note that the O-rings actually change the size of the piece thickness wise, was it before an "Illegal" connection?

[Aanchir]

It is interesting to note that the O-rings actually change the size of the piece thickness wise, was it before an "Illegal" connection?

No, not really. Not sure if I was unclear, but the only part that changes is the thickness of the "O" that occurs between the two studs. The square section of the piece is the same size regardless.

Also, it's generally not an illegal connection unless parts are in compression, even if your model ends up with really weird and hard-to-work-with geometries. There are plenty of other parts that give you somewhat odd geometries — for instance, this piece has a Technic half-beam centered on a 2x2 surface. What that means is that there's a .75 module (approximately 6mm) horizontal gap between the edge of the Technic half beam and the edge of the plate underneath. And these might sound like friendly numbers, but then you realize that very few things work in quarter-modules, and that .75 modules is the same as 1.875 System plates! Needless to say, this kind of piece would be somewhat awkward if you wanted to use it for SNOT building. But on the other hand, if you DID need something that would give you that exact spacing, it would be invaluable, because there are very few other parts that will be able to offer you those kind of geometries.

Speaking of which, that piece I just linked is itself the replacement for an earlier, discontinued part. The previous version of the part had the center section just a plate thick, not a Technic half-beam thick (in other words, .4 modules instead of .5 modules, and 3.2mm instead of 8mm).

Edited June 29, 2013 by Aanchir

[nayrsllim]

This is interesting. I never realized that lego did this. Most of the time i never paid attention to the actual pieces themselves. Read the instructions, put it together, played with it for a little bit, and then put it on a shelf for display. Typical of new sets.

[jimmynick]

From my experience, the 1x4 panels have had rounded corners for a much longer time than the 1x2 panels. Many of the 1x4 panels in my collection have rounded corners, and some of those are over a decade old. I can see how reducing a sharp, thin corner might be desirable for safety reasons. But there are definitely instances where I'd prefer the sharper corners as a MOCist.

The flame is the main part where I feel functionality was changed greatly on a part that kept the same ID number, but I'm somewhat content with that change since it opens up new uses of the part at the same time as it's eliminating older uses. You can now fit the new flames into this piece, which is great for constructing small rockets.

Yeah, but it was always possible to fit the old flames inside the bottoms of 1x1 cones, with the same rocket effect.

[Legopast]

Anybody know anything on the difference in heads?

I have noted the collectible figs made in china have hollow head studs with the "breath hole" incase you swallow a head

whilst licensed figs (fleshies) Do not have this hole and have a solid stud?

[Spitfire2865]

Anybody know anything on the difference in heads?

I have noted the collectible figs made in china have hollow head studs with the "breath hole" incase you swallow a head

whilst licensed figs (fleshies) Do not have this hole and have a solid stud?

Could you post a picture? The only thing I think would have any similarity to what youre saying is the very old style of head which had a solid stud instead of the semi-open recessed stud.

[Aanchir]

Anybody know anything on the difference in heads?

I have noted the collectible figs made in china have hollow head studs with the "breath hole" incase you swallow a head

whilst licensed figs (fleshies) Do not have this hole and have a solid stud?

This is just because the molds for ordinary minifigure heads have been replaced with a solid-stud variant, whereas the ones in China for the CMFs still use a mold identical to the one with the three holes in the stud. There are a couple other examples of Chinese variant molds that are identical to a part that has been replaced in regular sets... for instance, the katana in the CMFs and the 2011 Ninjago spinner sets has an octagonal hilt guard, while the ones in other sets have had a more rectangular hilt guard since around 2010.

[Legopast]

Here is something I found interesting though,

My biker scout bought this year in the Uk via argos has a hollow segmented stud much like the cmf one's

However on a trip to the USA in February 2012 I bought the droid escape in toys'r'us times square and this has solid studs

Different moulds in different factories? different suppliers to different countries?

[Aanchir]

Here is something I found interesting though,

My biker scout bought this year in the Uk via argos has a hollow segmented stud much like the cmf one's

However on a trip to the USA in February 2012 I bought the droid escape in toys'r'us times square and this has solid studs

Different moulds in different factories? different suppliers to different countries?

Possibly different molds in different production runs of the set. This sort of thing is common among sets and figures that are released during a transition between an older mold and a newer variant. For instance, some of my Ninjago figures have heads with the newer (solid, recessed) stud and some Ninjago minifigure heads with identical printing, from sets released the very same year, have the hollow stud.

[Sebeus I]

I'm not sure but I think it's a pretty recent change. but why?

[getdamonkey]

Another one is the 1x2 panel, which has been replaced by a version with rounded corners. The new piece looks ugly if you have several of them in a line. The same thing seems to be happening with the 1x4 bracket, with rounded versions showing up on Bricklink.

Apparently, this is due to changes in toy safety laws in the US. The rounded version is not a sharp corner.