Lego padding piece count?

[naf]

I don't think Lego is intentionally trying to up the piece count, it would be very tedious to do this with very little gained. I think imvanya is correct, perhaps they had more 1x3's instead of 2x3's so they used those to keep costs down. It also gives us more options for MOCing later on, so I'm fine with it. The only time I use larger parts is when I need more stability, I prefer smaller parts as they give me more building options.

[Lyichir]

In a lot of cases such a thing is done not to up part count, but rather because 1x3s are already used elsewhere in the set (or that bag, in larger sets), and 2x3s aren't. In that case, it's cheaper and easier to increase the number of 1x3s than to add a new part.

Another, more consumer-side benefit is that you can do more with two 1x3s than with one 2x3. This applies especially in Creator sets, Technic sets, or Lego Movie sets with multiple models—the B-model might use the two 1x3s as a 1x6, or a 1x3x2/3, or in completely different parts of the model.

[Heppeng]

Or to put it another way, it probably means that the number of different types of bricks are removed i.e. the total brick count is higher, but the number of different types of bricks are reduced, which will save much more in terms of packing complexity (simpler inventory) than the cost of extra bricks.

[imvanya]

In a lot of cases such a thing is done not to up part count, but rather because 1x3s are already used elsewhere in the set (or that bag, in larger sets), and 2x3s aren't.

Or to put it another way, it probably means that the number of different types of bricks are removed i.e. the total brick count is higher, but the number of different types of bricks are reduced, which will save much more in terms of packing complexity (simpler inventory) than the cost of extra bricks.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant, but better said

[Vee]

I gave up trying to understand or explain Lego's actions. I have been happier with Lego since then.

[Rick]

So, after coming back out after my Dark Ages, I've noticed something. On a number of smaller Hobbit sets, They have been using 2 1X3's instead of 1 2X3. I've seen this on a couple of different sets with different pieces. It suprised me instantly, and I thought to myself, TLG is doing this to UP the part count. Then I thought, maybe they're just giving us building options later.

Has anyone else noticed this and felt the same way?

There's a recent thread about this that provides some possible explanations. I've merged your thread with it.

[Boettner Builds]

There's a recent thread about this that provides some possible explanations. I've merged your thread with it.

Thanks! I didn't know there was one already and it has been a good read!

[glendo]

as my signature suggests:

[kinggregus]

as my signature suggests:

Great signature. I could not agree more.

[GregoryBrick]

What specifically do you agree with? First, bigger elements aren't always better, and secondly, TLG isn't using 1x1 tiles in places where they could use 1x6 bricks instead.

If LEGO was trying to pad piece count, using 2 1x3s in lieu of 1 2x3 is a poor way to do it. Any set which features a build like that isn't going to have its piece count increased substantially. It would go from 437 pieces to 445 or something similar. Does someone has an example of a set where this is significant? If not, there's nothing to 'fall for', implying that TLG were trying to dupe people.

It also puts TLG in an impossible place, where the AFOL community is vocal about disliking BURPs and other you-know-what elements, it's also vocal about liking lots of detail, and now it's vocal about 1x1 tiles and cheese slopes (or who knows what) as 'padding'.

There's been much better explanations of the reasons for element usage and distribution in this thread.

Edited March 12, 2014 by GregoryBrick

[kinggregus]

What specifically do you agree with? First, bigger elements aren't always better, and secondly, TLG isn't using 1x1 tiles in places where they could use 1x6 bricks instead.

If LEGO was trying to pad piece count, using 2 1x3s in lieu of 1 2x3 is a poor way to do it. Any set which features a build like that isn't going to have its piece count increased substantially. It would go from 437 pieces to 445 or something similar. Does someone has an example of a set where this is significant? If not, there's nothing to 'fall for', implying that TLG were trying to dupe people.

It also puts TLG in an impossible place, where the AFOL community is vocal about disliking BURPs and other you-know-what elements, it's also vocal about liking lots of detail, and now it's vocal about 1x1 tiles and cheese slopes (or who knows what) as 'padding'.

There's been much better explanations of the reasons for element usage and distribution in this thread.

Hi GregoryBrick,

I think you misinterpreted what the above poster and me meant. In general, the AFOL community is paying too much attention at piece count rather than the overall value of a set. I do not mind having 2 1x3 pieces in lieu of 1 2x3. We should just not believe that one set is a better deal than the other.

Sometimes, I fear that people are led to believe that sets with a lot of small pieces are better deal.

[RTZX9R]

It may cost LEGO 0.10 to produce each 1x4 plate (ABS, overhead, etc.). To make a brick that is twice as large means you need double the material PLUS larger MORE EXPENSIVE tooling (molds). As a result, the cost of the 1x8 plate may be 0.25 or even more. It is feasibly lower cost to place two smaller bricks into the set instead.

If the set required the use of a single element in this case (for structural integrity, etc.), they would use the higher cost 1x8 plate. I would also imagine they have higher scrap on larger bricks - voids, warping, etc. and it is therefore easier to include more small parts instead.

Just my thoughts :)

[GregoryBrick]

Hi GregoryBrick,

I think you misinterpreted what the above poster and me meant. In general, the AFOL community is paying too much attention at piece count rather than the overall value of a set. I do not mind having 2 1x3 pieces in lieu of 1 2x3. We should just not believe that one set is a better deal than the other.

Sometimes, I fear that people are led to believe that sets with a lot of small pieces are better deal.

Thanks for clarifying. I understand your position. Other posters who express concern appear to mean something else - that TLG is intentionally misleading the consumer or including small parts only to make a set look 'better than it is'. That is what I disagree with. Thank you again.

[Faefrost]

So, after coming back out after my Dark Ages, I've noticed something. On a number of smaller Hobbit sets, They have been using 2 1X3's instead of 1 2X3. I've seen this on a couple of different sets with different pieces. It suprised me instantly, and I thought to myself, TLG is doing this to UP the part count. Then I thought, maybe they're just giving us building options later.

Has anyone else noticed this and felt the same way?

Read ShaydeGrai's explanation higher up in this very thread. It is probably a dead on analysis of why part choices sometimes seem counter intuitive to us.

And one thing to keep in mind. Piece count probably means less to TLG then it does to we AFOL's. Only US or North American sets display piece count. Lego themselves prices less based on piece count and more on plastic weight or more likely "costs associated with individual parts". Piece count as a metric of value is something that has been pretty much developed by and for AFOL's. Lego probably views it differently. Piece count reflects the build difficulty and complexity in their world. So an AFOL targeted set will intentionally use more smaller parts. Because AFOL's like that, whereas a Juniors set uses fewer big parts. It helps them design for and target sets at a specific audience, but it isn't really an assignment of value or a marketing hook quite the way we might think.

[SweetiePie88]

there are some part moves that make no sense. at times its like the parts are just there as indication of about where another part should go even though the place holder has no use or the random placed part that seems to have no value in anyway.

i mean seriously, i got 2 copies of the lego shellraiser on sale(one one day and then a second the next when i realized that it wasn't on sale for $30 but for 17.98) and assembled one and there's just this random inverted 2x2 round blue dome thing just stuck there. It's not holding anything together, it's not supporting anything, it can't be seen in most play or display cases, so what is it doing there?

[Timinchicago]

I noticed that the Parisian Restaurant has many more pieces than Pet Shop yet weighs a lot less. I will say that in order to get nice details you need to use small parts.

[Vee]

I noticed that the Parisian Restaurant has many more pieces than Pet Shop yet weighs a lot less. I will say that in order to get nice details you need to use small parts.

According to the BrickLink database, Pet Shop should weigh around 2150 grams, which makes it a 14.3 g/$ set. The PR should weigh around 1910 grams, which makes it a 11.9 g/$ set, so 20% more expensive.

Call it inflation...

[Lyichir]

According to the BrickLink database, Pet Shop should weigh around 2150 grams, which makes it a 14.3 g/$ set. The PR should weigh around 1910 grams, which makes it a 11.9 g/$ set, so 20% more expensive.

Call it inflation...

The Parisian Restaurant also has a number of brand-new printed elements, some of which might never see use outside that set. That could contribute in part to the price (a fact worth considering by people who insist that Lego should universally replace stickered elements with printed ones). It also includes a decent number of new molds, which could add to the up-front price (even in the case of molds that will be useful in the future like the 2x2x2/3 curved slopes or the "bowl" elements).

Price by weight is a much better metric than price-per-piece, but it's still not a perfect indicator of a set's cost to produce or its overall value. There are a lot of considerations we can hardly fathom when it comes to any given set's budget...

[Vee]

..., but it's still not a perfect indicator of a set's cost to produce or its overall value. There are a lot of considerations we can hardly fathom when it comes to any given set's budget...

I agree, but still we have to use whatever info we have available - even if much less than optimal - to help us decide if it is a fair price or not (and even if we are going to buy it anyway...).

[TeufelHund]

Given that in most of the non-US markets piece counts are not visible on Lego boxes I would suggest that the reason multiple smaller parts are used instead of a single larger part is not due to a desire by TLG to artificially pump up part counts.