Hello all

The recent LEGO Minecraft set highlights something I have often wondered: why aren't LEGO bricks cubes?

A 1x1 brick is TALLER than it is wide and long, and as a consequence the LEGO system makes it comparatively difficult to build in different directions. You have to develop all sorts of tricks to match stud lengths in the vertical and horizontal and you consequently need all sorts of odd bricks (like the headlight brick, with it's brick-width cutout section) to make things possible.

I can only presume that when the LEGO system was designed it was simply never imagined that anyone would ever build in any direction other than bricks stacked on top of each other; and that making the bricks slightly taller than they are wide made the 4x2 brick (the basic brick) look slightly more, well, brick-like.

It is interesting to speculate what a cubic-brick LEGO system would look like and the possibilities it would offer to the builder.

/ben

I think they tried that. If I'm wrong and they're not perfect cubes, someone correct me, that's just what it looks like from the pictures.

The basic brick is super old, I think it was originally developed as a toy and exact geometry probably wasn't a concern.

I thought the reason is that being longer than cubes they are easier to handle with our fingers...

Hello all

The recent LEGO Minecraft set highlights something I have often wondered: why aren't LEGO bricks cubes?

A 1x1 brick is TALLER than it is wide and long, and as a consequence the LEGO system makes it comparatively difficult to build in different directions. You have to develop all sorts of tricks to match stud lengths in the vertical and horizontal and you consequently need all sorts of odd bricks (like the headlight brick, with it's brick-width cutout section) to make things possible.

It is interesting to speculate what a cubic-brick LEGO system would look like and the possibilities it would offer to the builder.

/ben

Personally I think a cube shape would be less interesting. The 2 studs/ 5 plate ratio offers plenty of opportunities for SNOT techniques and technic bricks with holes combined with technic pins or 1x1 bricks with studs on the side make it fairly easy to turn bricks sideways. Part of the fun is in the challenge.

The basic brick is super old, I think it was originally developed as a toy and exact geometry probably wasn't a concern.

It is a toy. It was and is developed as a toy.

But the geometry was a huge concern (don't confuse toy with easy to develop). LEGO did not invent the plastic construction brick, but they did come up with (among other tweaks) the dimensions and proportions. They tried the best dimensions for children to use it to build things, stable things.

LEGO bricks have very special proportions. A brick's height is equal to three times a plate's. But note how plate height is the same as the distance between two studs?

Rectangles are necessary. Else why do you think actual bricks used in buildings are not square? They are not usually 1:2 either.

Edited April 18, 201212 yr by vexorian

I love how it works as a system. That they've been able to expand the range of pieces and still maintain the interoperability between pieces is fantastic

Rectangles are necessary. Else why do you think actual bricks used in buildings are not square? They are not usually 1:2 either.

I think this reason is the best explanation. You can't really build a stable wall with a cubic brick. You need more overlap in order to be secure. That's what I am guessing was the design intent from the start. That is, to have bricks to build structures.

I think they tried that. If I'm wrong and they're not perfect cubes, someone correct me, that's just what it looks like from the pictures.

Modulex are cube based bricks. a 1x1 Modulex brick is a 5x5x5mm perfect cube.

From what I understand, the size ratio of Lego's bricks was not determined by Lego themselves, but rather by Hilary Page and his Kiddicraft Self-Locking Building Bricks, from which Lego bought their first molds that they retooled and started production of their own interlocking bricks. From what I understand, the bricks were very similar those first few years, before Lego abandoned the slots for windows and doors and came up with the innertubes providing much more clutch power and versatility.

As for the original reason why a non-cubic design was chosen I wonder if humans aesthetically preferring rectangular shapes to square ones played a role.

Edited April 20, 201212 yr by fyrmedhatt

As for the original reason why a non-cubic design was chosenI wonder if humans aesthetically preferring rectangular shapes to square ones played a role.

Nope, pretty sure it was due to the fact that rectangles make better construction components than cubes. I believe bricks have always been rectangular since the first cities in Mesopotamia. Can you imagine trying to build a house with cubes?

Nope, pretty sure it was due to the fact that rectangles make better construction components than cubes. I believe bricks have always been rectangular since the first cities in Mesopotamia. Can you imagine trying to build a house with cubes?

*insert igloo joke here*

Realistically speaking, though, I believe you're correct, though I also think that rectangles are slightly more visually appealing than perfect cubes BECAUSE we associate them with LEGO sturdy, safe structures. That may just be me, though.

Nope, pretty sure it was due to the fact that rectangles make better construction components than cubes. I believe bricks have always been rectangular since the first cities in Mesopotamia. Can you imagine trying to build a house with cubes?

Don't be silly. I'd be very surprised if anybody here would like to see all elements being 1x1x1 cubes and that's not what the OP is suggesting either. Properly formulated his question would be: why is the 1x1 brick not a cube?

You could have 1x1x1 cubes, with other elements having a width and length that is an integral multiple of the height. That would make a 1x2x1 brick essentially two 1x1x1 cubes side by side. There's no reason why that wouldn't work, as shown by Modulex.

However, I completely agree with Dfenz. The dimensions that were chosen, for whatever reason, offer possibilities that you wouldn't have if the basic unit were cube-shaped.

Cheers,

Ralph

Don't be silly. I'd be very surprised if anybody here would like to see all elements being 1x1x1 cubes and that's not what the OP is suggesting either.

I beg your pardon?

I was not talking about the 1x1 but replying to the statement about, "the original reason why a non-cubic design was chosen".

The "original" brick, the source of all LEGO was not a 1x1 but was, I believe, a 2x4 "brick". The rectangular shape was the starting point not a result of calculations based on the 1x1 and some sort of design question whether it should be a cube or not. We got the dimensions of a 1x1 by chopping up a 2x4 in a metaphorical sense.

That was all I was trying to say. Certainly I never said anything about anyone wanting, "all elements being 1x1 cubes".

I imagine cube-shaped parts could be harder to disassemble. The extra height of bricks increases the amount of "leverage" you have when snapping bricks apart. With cubic bricks, disassembling any model might be more like disassembling a model made entirely of plates, which as any AFOL knows can be hell without a brick separator.

I beg your pardon?

I was not talking about the 1x1 but replying to the statement about, "the original reason why a non-cubic design was chosen".

The "original" brick, the source of all LEGO was not a 1x1 but was, I believe, a 2x4 "brick". The rectangular shape was the starting point not a result of calculations based on the 1x1 and some sort of design question whether it should be a cube or not. We got the dimensions of a 1x1 by chopping up a 2x4 in a metaphorical sense.

That was all I was trying to say. Certainly I never said anything about anyone wanting, "all elements being 1x1 cubes".

You certainly seemed to be suggesting that 1x1 bricks aren't cubes because cubes make for a lousy building material. If that's a misunderstanding, then I'm sorry.

It's self evident that you need rectangular bricks rather than 1x1 bricks for building strong walls, but that doesn't tell you anything about why 1x1 bricks aren't cubes, which was what the OP was asking about!

... but that doesn't tell you anything about why 1x1 bricks aren't cubes...

Actually Ralph, it does.

They started with a "brick" that was proportioned to mimic real bricks that have been used for thousands of years. They were not concerned at the time with how it would be subdivided. Eventually they broke the 2x4 brick into smaller chunks until they started manufacturing 1x1 "bricks" and by then it was too far along in the process for anyone to stop and say, "hey, we should make the 1x1 a cube."

Actually Ralph, it does.

They started with a "brick" that was proportioned to mimic real bricks that have been used for thousands of years. They were not concerned at the time with how it would be subdivided. Eventually they broke the 2x4 brick into smaller chunks until they started manufacturing 1x1 "bricks" and by then it was too far along in the process for anyone to stop and say, "hey, we should make the 1x1 a cube."

No it doesn't.

I agree that the dimensions of a 2x4 are similar to those of real-world building bricks, but so is a brick where the width is twice the height and the length is four times the height (which would make a 1x1x1 brick a cube). The result would still be rectangular, suitable for building walls, and the overall proportions wouldn't have been all that different from the current 2x4.

Even starting with the 2x4 brick, a stack of 5 2x4 bricks is as tall as a row of three 2x4 bricks lying side-by-side is wide. I have a really hard time believing that this is a coincidence and unless you have a reference somewhere that explains this, I'm not buying it. It's also not as though they chose integer measures in a convenient measurement system.

If you stick two 2x2 plates on top of a 2x2 brick, you get a cube. :)

Studless beams used in current Technic sets which has same width in 2 directions. This was introduced to make development in any direction easier.

Although I personally find it takes some time to get used to this construction method compared to traditional studded beams.

Outside Technic, Lego still uses studded bricks. May be because Lego thinks Technic is too advanced for some.

Studless beams used in current Technic sets which has same width in 2 directions. This was introduced to make development in any direction easier.

Although I personally find it takes some time to get used to this construction method compared to traditional studded beams.

Outside Technic, Lego still uses studded bricks. May be because Lego thinks Technic is too advanced for some.

Are you serious?

Since they also sell Technic to eight-year olds, I can't imagine them thinking it's too advanced In many cases it simply doesn't make sense to use anything other than studded beams in combination with system elements, quite simply because you can attach bricks and plates directly to the beams!

Hello everyone

I am very pleased and slightly surprised that this thread started such an interesting debate.

Just to clarify what some including tedbeard seem to have thought – I wasn’t suggesting that all bricks should be 1x1x1 cubes as clearly that would be almost unusable; rather simply that the foundation of the LEGO system could have been cubic whereas in fact it’s 8mm x 8mm x 9.6 mm.

From the posts here it seems the consensus, which I agree with, is simply that when the LEGO system was designed no one really thought through the implications of this; and that probably the dimensions were selected so that a 4x2 brick would look more visually appealing.

Fyrmedhatt notes that in fact LEGO’s system was based on a preceding toy line called Kiddicraft; which I didn’t know. More info here: http://www.brickfetish.com/timeline/1947.html

Most interestingly however several posters including Polish Guy and Call Me Pie Or Die observe that in fact the failed Modulex product line from the 60s did exactly this. (If you’re not familiar with Modulex there’s a great article here http://minibricksmadness.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Saving-Modulex2.pdf). Check out the picture here [http://images.wikia.com/lego/images/a/af/Modulex_comparison.png] to see differences with Modulex bricks and normal LEGO bricks and note that they are indeed based on a cubic system.

What’s really interesting however is that with Modulex plates and tiles were only one half of the height of a brick, rather than one third as in normal LEGO.

However I think my original point remains: if the bricks were cubic building would be a LOT easier. Here’s an example – imagine if you stack two travis bricks [http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/4733] on top of each other. You can’t then take a 2x1 plate and attach it to the studs on the side – because the additional height of the bricks makes the studs on the sides too far apart for the plate. If the system was all cubic however, like Modulex, then this would work and it would mean all sorts of new building combinations would be possible.

Perhaps, as Dfenz observed, that would make building less of a challenge – but I don’t think the designers of the LEGO system ever intended to make it a challenge, they just wanted to make it fun!

/ben

I thought TLG was discontinuing (or drastically cutting back) on technic bricks ("studded beams") in favor of using studless.

Back on the topic, I often wish the bricks were cubic (1x1). Of course, a 2x4 is still rectangular and would make just as strong a build as the current 2x4 brick. Advanced building would seem to be a lot easier. I know a great deal of effort was put into the dimensions of LEGO, and am constantly amazed at both the original designs and the updates (like when they added tubes). But they did not seem to consider anything more in height than to make plates add up to an even brick height.

I don't think it's necessarily too late, now... cubic based bricks could be gradually introduced. Obviously Modulex was an admission - not of failure, necessarily, but that "serious" builders needed something they could scale better with. I think if LEGO was originally cube based, they would never have made Modulex and I'd be willing to bet that with so many more components (windows and doors and roofing tiles/slopes) that it would be a tool that architects and other professions that involve modeling would use.

Of course, I'm not expecting (or even hoping) that they'll do it... it's just that it makes sense.

Just to clarify what some including tedbeard seem to have thought

Sweet mother of god! I NEVER said that and I am getting rather tired of the total misinterpretation of what I wrote.

What I was saying was this:

when the LEGO system was designed no one really thought through the implications of this; and that probably the dimensions were selected so that a 4x2 brick would look more visually appealing.

Edited April 20, 201212 yr by tedbeard