Does LEGO actually destroy their molds or not?

[Transparency for Effect]

Can anyone actually confirm if LEGO destroys their old, unused molds or not? It's been allegedly stated that like, BIONICLE's old molds no longer exist but it'd be pretty stupid for LEGO to just destroy molds when they don't know what they'll need in the future, as well as be against the entire concept of LEGO to just permanently discontinue parts.

I also remember when talking of the Ideas space suit thing being redesigned, they may have mentioned molds LEGO didn't have or use anymore.

[zux]

As far as I'm aware moulds are getting worn out after some period being used in production. If the piece is no longer required (no more new sets containing it) there is simply no need in keeping mould you cannot really use any more.

[BrickAddict90]

As far as I'm aware moulds are getting worn out after some period being used in production. If the piece is no longer required (no more new sets containing it) there is simply no need in keeping mould you cannot really use any more.

I was reading one of my Lego books the other day and that's exactly what it said. I think the average life span for individual molds is about 2 years.

[anothergol]

pretty sure that any recent part is a 3D model anyway, so nothing's never lost because a mold or original model is lost

[murphy_slaw]

Also the molds are probably made from casts, which aren't used in production of parts and last a long time. I expect that Lego still has the casts for parts they no longer have working molds for.

[62Bricks]

Also the molds are probably made from casts, which aren't used in production of parts and last a long time. I expect that Lego still has the casts for parts they no longer have working molds for.

Modern molds are not cast. They are machined.

[rodiziorobs]

It would make sense for them to. As molds see more mileage, they wear out. Each new batch of parts is essentially no different than the one before it, but after a year or two the parts produced probably have some slightly noticeable difference in clutch or tolerance than the first.

At some point, those differences become substantial enough that batches of pieces produced fail QC, and many bricks are unusable. A new mold has to be made, which replaces the old one on the assembly. (Presumably, most molds are replaced with new ones, since there are few one-and-done parts; TLG has gotten much better at trying to reuse parts from one theme in other applications, Unikitty tail being a good example.)

If LEGO kept those old molds around, someone could hypothetically steal one and produce parts marked with the LEGO stamp and made on actual LEGO molds, but that would not have the same standards that LEGO is generally known for. It would degrade the brand, and the product as well.

The same could happen if some ignorant LEGO factory employee came across said mold in storage and put it back into the production line.

Either way, the only way to ensure those worn out molds don't make more bricks is to destroy them. And since they really aren't useful anymore, why shouldn't they?

[Artanis I]

Either way, the only way to ensure those worn out molds don't make more bricks is to destroy them. And since they really aren't useful anymore, why shouldn't they?

Because it is more fun for them to bury them in concrete under new buildings.

[Forresto]

Wow this conversation reminds me of the end of Toy Story 3, surprisingly apocalyptic!

[kibosh]

pretty sure that any recent part is a 3D model anyway, so nothing's never lost because a mold or original model is lost

Even if it's a 3D model, there is still a mold. LEGO is using 3D printers to produce parts.

[zux]

If LEGO kept those old molds around, someone could hypothetically steal one and produce parts marked with the LEGO stamp and made on actual LEGO molds, but that would not have the same standards that LEGO is generally known for. It would degrade the brand, and the product as well.

Having seen the moulds I would like to see the effort of a person trying to steal one

[Sid Sidious]

Molds are big and space is expensive. The book Lego: A Love Story has a conversation in which a Lego executive mentions old molds are destroyed.

Even if it's a 3D model, there is still a mold. LEGO is using 3D printers to produce parts.

I think anothergol meant that each part is a file, which Lego wouldn't delete even if they did destroy the physical molds. Also, Lego (and most companies with large production volumes) don't 3D print the final product. They only use that to make prototypes.

[dr_spock]

The secure thing to do would be to damage the molds to the point where they can't be re-used before recycling the metal. A drill and angle grinder should make short work of that.

[LegoFjotten]

I was reading one of my Lego books the other day and that's exactly what it said. I think the average life span for individual molds is about 2 years.

To add to that, not all molds are created to last as long as possible. If they think a part is for a limited run only (say for example some specific Chima part), they may have a cheaper mold created that will serve it's duty and then be retired.

They also have molds where they can swap out insets with the actual part shape to produce different parts, but naturally that does not work for all kinds of parts.

Creating the actual mold is only one step of designing a new part. I'm sure they have the details on file to order a new mold for a specific part quite easily (for the newer parts that is).

[Blondie-Wan]

Because it is more fun for them to bury them in concrete under new buildings.

I believe that's considered to be a means of destroying them.

[antp]

If the piece is no longer required (no more new sets containing it) there is simply no need in keeping mould you cannot really use any more.

You never know if you'll reuse a part, I suppose.

For example when they made Mickey sets they reused parts from the old Fabuland line.

And it happens that a part not used in years reappears suddenly (though that such cases usually concern only a color variant than the part itself)

[kibosh]

I think anothergol meant that each part is a file, which Lego wouldn't delete even if they did destroy the physical molds. Also, Lego (and most companies with large production volumes) don't 3D print the final product. They only use that to make prototypes.

Modeling the piece would be the easy part. Creating the physical mold is the real work.

[Transparency for Effect]

So is it virtually impossible to reprint a part after its mold is destroyed?

[Aanchir]

So is it virtually impossible to reprint a part after its mold is destroyed?

I mean, not really. It'd just cost around as much as a new mold of similar complexity. For the LEGO Group's standards of quality, that tends to be upwards of $20,000 per mold.

When certain molds wear out that haven't become irrelevant/obsolete (like basic building elements or minifigure parts), LEGO generally DOES go ahead and replace them. But things like 2001 Bionicle masks and weapons or old monorail track are probably never going to show up again — not when that kind of money could be better spent on new part designs.

[xboxtravis7992]

When certain molds wear out that haven't become irrelevant/obsolete (like basic building elements or minifigure parts), LEGO generally DOES go ahead and replace them. But things like 2001 Bionicle masks and weapons or old monorail track are probably never going to show up again — not when that kind of money could be better spent on new part designs.

Exactly. As much as I would love to see old Bionicle masks in new sets again Lego has no reason to do it. Even in 2010 when Lego did a Tahu in his classic 2001 style, they made a new part from scratch for his mask, rather than reusing the original; despite how the two designs are very similar.

It's also a factor in why if Lego ever did a new Monorail system, it would be NEW from the ground up. The old track while classic and valuable has no purpose in being resurrected. (In my opinion the original Monorail looked less like a Monorail and more like a People Mover or elevated Tram since the car didn't straddle the beam as an ALWEG Monorail and it's successors do in real life...)

[zux]

You never know if you'll reuse a part, I suppose.

For example when they made Mickey sets they reused parts from the old Fabuland line.

And it happens that a part not used in years reappears suddenly (though that such cases usually concern only a color variant than the part itself)

This only proves that part design/blueprints weren't lost. I suppose the part itself (I'm not sure which one you are mentioning) would be still be manufactured using new moulds. Some much more recent parts are getting new design ID when being re-released after some period not being in production. Which again, I suppose means new mould was used.

Another reason I can think of against keeping all the moulds would be storage. Moulds for each and every single type of part produced would take a lot of space. I have also read somewhere, that different colours of the same part might not use same mould due to variety in specs between the coloured plastic. That would mean even more space is required.

Let's assume mould does not degrade. This means it is valuable as it can always be re-used to produce some parts. The value mast be kept safe. The place used to store and protect all the moulds must be secured by means of not loosing such value from various hazards, like fire, water leaks, temperature deviation, etc. Now remember the size of place should be. The amount of money spent on keeping everything for "just in case it might be needed again, but not sure if we will" would be quite high I imagine. Would it be reasonable?

[Cwetqo]

When doing a tour at LEGO Kornmarken Moulding factory, we were also shown the place where they keep moulds. It's a vault like place, where moulds are being very well taken care of and also very protected. A lot o knowledge is in those moulds and in wrong hands it could mean a lot of damage to the factory. That's whay they are being safely disposed off, in an unknown way. After being asked abou monorail moulds, the guy just smiled, but there is onofficial information that monorail mould were to much damaged to be repaired. Ordinarly, moulds last for very long time (they have one mould there which produced 120 million bricks) and are constantly monitored and repaired if needed. For more common bricks, there are multiple sets of mould and they do keep quite a lot of old, but still usable mould in there (but apparently not monorail moulds).

[antp]

This only proves that part design/blueprints weren't lost. I suppose the part itself (I'm not sure which one you are mentioning) would be still be manufactured using new moulds. Some much more recent parts are getting new design ID when being re-released after some period not being in production. Which again, I suppose means new mould was used.

example: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=787c01&in=S

part of the 80s, reused in 2000

of course they may have redone a mould for the part, but in this case to me it is more likely they simply reused moulds.

Storing them does not take much space, especially compared to the space taken by parts themselves.

[Transparency for Effect]

I mean, not really. It'd just cost around as much as a new mold of similar complexity. For the LEGO Group's standards of quality, that tends to be upwards of $20,000 per mold.

When certain molds wear out that haven't become irrelevant/obsolete (like basic building elements or minifigure parts), LEGO generally DOES go ahead and replace them. But things like 2001 Bionicle masks and weapons or old monorail track are probably never going to show up again — not when that kind of money could be better spent on new part designs.

So it'd still be considered the same part despite it being a different mold, like how LEGO have changed some of their colours in 2004 but still refer to them as the same colour?

[Aanchir]

So it'd still be considered the same part despite it being a different mold, like how LEGO have changed some of their colours in 2004 but still refer to them as the same colour?

Most colors that changed significantly in 2004 actually aren't still referred to as the same color. For instance, "classic light gray" was 2 Grey, "light bluish gray" is 194 Medium Stone Grey. "Classic brown" was 25 Earth Orange, "reddish brown" is 194 Reddish Brown. "classic pink" was 9 Light Reddish Violet, "bright pink" is 222 Light Purple.

Generally, when a LEGO mold is replaced just from being worn out, it keeps the same Design ID. However, I don't know if it would be the same for a remake of mold that's been out of use for years. It's hard to determine from past examples without knowing which re-introduced parts were literally replacements of previously destroyed molds and which were merely old molds taken out of storage. It's also tough to determine because when parts are actually redesigned slightly, sometimes they keep their previous Design ID and other times they do not, and I do not know what conditions determine this.