Well.....It finally happened!

[Jetrax99]

I'm talking strictly 2.0 HF joints. It's not really a surprise that you guys have broken Bionicle sockets as they broke like they had the plague.

[Aanchir]

Doesn't that work both ways? It's all anecdotal. Obviously the 2007 lime joints were a legitimate problem, but the rest was just hype brought on by the changing of the joint style.

No, it doesn't work both ways. Saying it WAS a problem because you (and others) experienced it to a great degree isn't trivializing anyone else's issues. It just means that people who didn't encounter the issues were careful and/or fortunate, which is inches away being an actual compliment.

Saying it WASN'T a problem because you didn't experience it to a great degree, and that any concerns were just hype, treats people who actually experienced a considerable loss as whiners or outliers and subtly suggests that if their parts broke, it means they were unlucky or even careless. It sends an entirely different and far less forgiving message.

In general, it's much more respectful to give people who have been harmed in some way the benefit of the doubt unless there has been some kind of large-scale analysis that overrules their anecdotal evidence.

[ZORK64]

Yes, but sadly replacement parts from LEGO aren't free (whereas replacement parts from MEGA are)

Oddly enough, I got free replacements for the few old-style broken joints I asked to replace back then. And I even explained that they broke after use.

[LegoPanda]

i don't have HF, but none of my bionicle joints (except those stupid lime ones) has ever snapped, only the ones i bought second hand, and those where already damaged when i got them

[Bfahome]

Yeah, most of my '08-'10 joints have broken or cracked or flat-out exploded from just normal use. I do have a few pre-'08 sockets that broke, but they're pennies compared to the ones from just that two-year span. I'd made a habit of putting sockets that developed hairline cracks in my "broken pieces" drawer, but I gave up on that because if I'd continued I would have barely any left to use.

It seemed like the goal of the redesign was to keep the parts from breaking by reducing the plastic around the cup, theoretically making them more flexible. But from a materials standpoint, it's clear that it also made them weaker, which led to more cracks than before. The new design is far, far superior, and likely stands less chance of breaking from normal use. I haven't had any break so far, and it doesn't seem like that many other people have either, at least not to the same extent.

[Dorek]

No, it doesn't work both ways. Saying it WAS a problem because you (and others) experienced it to a great degree isn't trivializing anyone else's issues. It just means that people who didn't encounter the issues were careful and/or fortunate, which is inches away being an actual compliment.

Saying it WASN'T a problem because you didn't experience it to a great degree, and that any concerns were just hype, treats people who actually experienced a considerable loss as whiners or outliers and subtly suggests that if their parts broke, it means they were unlucky or even careless. It sends an entirely different and far less forgiving message.

In general, it's much more respectful to give people who have been harmed in some way the benefit of the doubt unless there has been some kind of large-scale analysis that overrules their anecdotal evidence.

I was not trying to use my lack of parts breaking as evidence, and I can see how that might have gotten confusing; they were meant to be individual statements ("I have not had any joints break", fact, and "the problem was massively overhyped", opinion).

I'm just saying that using personal anecdotes (on forums which do not in any way represent the majority of consumers, fans, etc) as a basis for calling something a "problem" is just as faulty. Obviously the lime joints issue was something acknowledged by LEGO and proven as a direct result of something. The "increased" reporting of breakage of redesigned joints could result from plenty of other things, none the least of which being the increased scrutiny on these parts resulting from the aforementioned lime joints issue.

I'm not even saying that the parts aren't necessarily not slightly more prone to breakage; I just think that the reports were taken far out of context and fabricated the appearance of an event greater than it was, something I'd like to not see for these Hero Factory joints.

[Aanchir]

It seemed like the goal of the redesign was to keep the parts from breaking by reducing the plastic around the cup, theoretically making them more flexible. But from a materials standpoint, it's clear that it also made them weaker, which led to more cracks than before. The new design is far, far superior, and likely stands less chance of breaking from normal use. I haven't had any break so far, and it doesn't seem like that many other people have either, at least not to the same extent.

I almost wonder if the redesign of the joints in 2008 was intended not to deal with breakage but to deal with wear over time. Having recently noticed how loose some of the joints from my 2001-2007 sets are, it would make sense to me if the redesign was intended to deal with that issue more than with the fragility issue. After all, as Dorek continues to point out, breaking joints didn't become an extremely noticeable problem until 2007's fiasco with lime green parts, and I imagine the work of redesigning the joints might have begun before then. But it could have taken place well after decreases in friction on older parts started to become apparent.

If the joints were in fact made tighter by the redesign, then it's no surprise that fragility became a more serious issue (though not as serious as with the lime green joints previously). They would be under more stress when being attached or detached, as well as under more constant stress for as long as they remained connected. This would explain why the redesign apparently failed to deal with the breaking joints issue — it may not have been designed to deal with that issue at all.

Something I noticed even before 2007 was that the 7M double ball cups from 2005 and 2006 tended to break more easily than my 5M double ball cups. It wasn't usually catastrophic, but it was part of the reason why I was not entirely convinced by the rumors that the later breakage were a result of newer joints using "cheaper plastic". Not only was there no evidence of those claims, but it wouldn't explain the failure of my 7M double ball cups prior to that time. In hindsight, it also does not explain why the new joints are sturdier despite the only apparent changes being in geometry and surface finish.

Structural insufficiencies in the geometry, on the other hand, would explain the issues neatly and explain why the 7M double ball cups tended to break even before the lime joints fiasco or the 2008 redesign. After all, those parts had one trait in common with the redesigned joints that they did not have in common with other pre-redesign joints: the lack of "grooves" in the sides. Perhaps these "grooves" allowed the earlier joints to expand and contract more easily. But at the same time, that would also allow the friction to decrease more easily under time. Removing these grooves, then, would keep things in more constant compression — but without room for the plastic to expand and contract at the critical point when a joint is connected or disconnected, it could lead to immediate breakage at those times, when the ball cup is under the most stress.

Anyway, that's just me fleshing out the theory I had at the time. I'm not sure how it relates to the new, sturdier joints, which also lack these grooves in the side. But at the same time, there are other changes in the geometries of the new joints, like much thicker supports, that could compensate for this issue. In any case, I'm still convinced that the fragility of 2008-2010 joint elements, and of the 2005-2007 7M double ball cups before them, was an issue of geometry, not an issue of material quality or production errors like the lime-green joint fiasco of 2007.

Perhaps Front could lend some of his engineering expertise, and maybe give us confirmation of whether fragility was known to be an issue in the 2008-2010 ball cup designs?

[VBBN]

I also somewhat wonder if the joints used on Ben 10 figures were a "testing" phase of sorts, they certainly seem more like the current HF sockets when compared to the previous two variants of Bionicle sockets, and their use in the 2010 HF sets suggested that they wanted to use those parts as a crossover to the new style. (i.e, to reduce the amount of the current mold they had to use from Bionicle, they used some Ben 10 limbs instead which they knew were more sturdy, and also to make use of the molds themselves)

[vexorian]

I've seen Bionicle joints crack in a wonderful, humongous list of ways.

Specially anything that came up after they modified the double-U socket design. Those things break so easily that the only solution is not to ever touch the Bionicle again.

[xxlrocka]

Well, one of my Toxic Reapa feet has broken so I can't use it no more. One side of the socket snapped off so now it won't connect to any ball joints.

[Dorek]

Well, one of my Toxic Reapa feet has broken so I can't use it no more. One side of the socket snapped off so now it won't connect to any ball joints.

Ah, but was it the new HF-era claw, or the old BIONICLE one?

[ShadowWolfHount]

I have so many broken HF parts

1 stormer 3.0 claw

2 furno 4.0 chestplates

dozens of bone parts

dozens of hydraxon fingers

2 blue hands

ect. Still last longer than bionicle. I have enough duplicates for those small amounts to not hurt me.

Well the HF parts really got to hate you to break, then next a ball joint break... oh wait that happened to me before, well hope the skeleton body don't break somehow.

Anyways i have not got a breaken HF Socket yet but i have gotten those Claw with Clip break on me.

[Zenerius]

I haven't had any of my new HF joints break yet, but my friction adder joints seem a little weaker. I do have a variety of Bionicle style joints that have broken though, including the Glatorian hands, Y joints, double-socket 7m joints, and some others. I usually keep the parts if they only have slight cracks, but they go into the bin if they break completely.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Zenerius

[xxlrocka]

Ah, but was it the new HF-era claw, or the old BIONICLE one?

Well, it seems like it was actually the new HF-era claw, surprisingly.

[Fikko3107]

A Stormer XL Glatorian head, though that was foreseen, and one of Jetbug's long yellow skeleton pieces.

[Pernaman]

I've had not one single 2011 onward Hero Factory pieces broken, except few Glatorian heads from Breakout.

I'm little concerned about how the new Invasion from below minifigheros' limb pieces are going to last. I've tested my own a little and alkready they seem to be little loose (at least on seketon minifig bodies the heroes are constructed on) and seem to come off with quite ease.

[3rdeye88]

The only noted broken HF parts I've broken is the one claw part like Dorek mentioned, some the newer version of the exo force arms(thicker ones), and a couple of the HF 1.0 arm/leg parts. Other than that HF bones and armor are pretty resilient for me. I'm not extraneously rough on my parts and I'm surprisingly good at not accidentally stepping on them in my MOC room if left out.

I've even noticed that the HF variant of the fist part is stronger. I used those in Matteo for his hip connection. Being the single joint that held on his whole leg the red,dark red and black ones broke. I eventually conceded and use the HF variant even though I don't want HF and anything newer than 2010 parts on him. I haven't had a problem with that joint connection breaking since. Lego really beefed up the hoops that clasp the ball when they redesigned them. I've yet to have any of those kind break. I don't know what you guys are doing to your HF parts to have them break.

[3rdeye88]

I almost wonder if the redesign of the joints in 2008 was intended not to deal with breakage but to deal with wear over time. Having recently noticed how loose some of the joints from my 2001-2007 sets are, it would make sense to me if the redesign was intended to deal with that issue more than with the fragility issue. After all, as Dorek continues to point out, breaking joints didn't become an extremely noticeable problem until 2007's fiasco with lime green parts, and I imagine the work of redesigning the joints might have begun before then. But it could have taken place well after decreases in friction on older parts started to become apparent.

If the joints were in fact made tighter by the redesign, then it's no surprise that fragility became a more serious issue (though not as serious as with the lime green joints previously). They would be under more stress when being attached or detached, as well as under more constant stress for as long as they remained connected. This would explain why the redesign apparently failed to deal with the breaking joints issue — it may not have been designed to deal with that issue at all.

Something I noticed even before 2007 was that the 7M double ball cups from 2005 and 2006 tended to break more easily than my 5M double ball cups. It wasn't usually catastrophic, but it was part of the reason why I was not entirely convinced by the rumors that the later breakage were a result of newer joints using "cheaper plastic". Not only was there no evidence of those claims, but it wouldn't explain the failure of my 7M double ball cups prior to that time. In hindsight, it also does not explain why the new joints are sturdier despite the only apparent changes being in geometry and surface finish.

Structural insufficiencies in the geometry, on the other hand, would explain the issues neatly and explain why the 7M double ball cups tended to break even before the lime joints fiasco or the 2008 redesign. After all, those parts had one trait in common with the redesigned joints that they did not have in common with other pre-redesign joints: the lack of "grooves" in the sides. Perhaps these "grooves" allowed the earlier joints to expand and contract more easily. But at the same time, that would also allow the friction to decrease more easily under time. Removing these grooves, then, would keep things in more constant compression — but without room for the plastic to expand and contract at the critical point when a joint is connected or disconnected, it could lead to immediate breakage at those times, when the ball cup is under the most stress.

Anyway, that's just me fleshing out the theory I had at the time. I'm not sure how it relates to the new, sturdier joints, which also lack these grooves in the side. But at the same time, there are other changes in the geometries of the new joints, like much thicker supports, that could compensate for this issue. In any case, I'm still convinced that the fragility of 2008-2010 joint elements, and of the 2005-2007 7M double ball cups before them, was an issue of geometry, not an issue of material quality or production errors like the lime-green joint fiasco of 2007.

Perhaps Front could lend some of his engineering expertise, and maybe give us confirmation of whether fragility was known to be an issue in the 2008-2010 ball cup designs?

I'm of the same opinion, it was the shape of the joint itself, but the 2007 was definitely materials used, so maybe it still was a mixture of both issues, just more so the designs rather than the materials. I think your theory of the slots account for the expansion and after a while the lack of tension of the earlier joints. But I think the critical component of them breaking is the outer hoop parts. I think they were a little thinner and with the lack of expansion from the slots the stress was too much for that part. The new joints retain the new slotless design but significantly beefed up those outer hoops so that they can now handle the extra stress from the lack of give on the other end of the socket cup.

[The Kumquat Alchemist]

So far, I have yet to see a single HF socket of mine crack, and some of the joints I've had since 2011 from the HF 2.0 wave. I also have some transparent Brain Attack head pieces and Jaw Beast trans-blue bone pieces, all of which have been connected and re-connected over 10 times each with no apparent issues, which is a noted improvement over my 2007-2010 BIONICLE and early HF joints, over ~50% of which have developed cracks on their 2nd or 3rd separations. Hopefully my bad luck with those is partially due to bad storage methods and lack of use for some years; it makes me feel less envious of those who claim to have no issues with the 2007-2010 sockets.

[Blondie-Wan]

Yikes. From the POV of someone whose LEGO interests lie mostly away from the "constraction" lines, coming to this forum and seeing this thread is pretty unnerving, seriously challenging one's notions about LEGO quality. But then I remember how the quality thread in the General forum looks, and how it's not necessarily representative of the vast majority of LEGO elements...

Are Bionicle / HF parts in general really so vulnerable? I've had a ("System," brick-based) project simmering in the back of my mind for a few years now that requires hinging multiple sections of a large, heavy build together, and for a while I was thinking some Technicky ball-and-socket parts from constraction figure sets might be a good, solid way of doing it, but perhaps not, if they're going to actually be weaker, rather than stronger, than an alternative solution...

[Bfahome]

Are Bionicle / HF parts in general really so vulnerable? I've had a ("System," brick-based) project simmering in the back of my mind for a few years now that requires hinging multiple sections of a large, heavy build together, and for a while I was thinking some Technicky ball-and-socket parts from constraction figure sets might be a good, solid way of doing it, but perhaps not, if they're going to actually be weaker, rather than stronger, than an alternative solution...

Generally the parts are pretty durable, with notable exceptions like the 2007 lime green and the 2008 redesign and a few outliers here and there. The newer designs are even better about it, though apparently not entirely free of issues.

But I still use a ton of the single sockets I've had for years, and they're fine.

Basically, most of the joints should work fine, but there are definitely some to avoid.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Bfahome

[Aanchir]

To sum up, you might want to avoid ball cup pieces from sets released between 2007 and 2010. Ball cup pieces from prior to 2007 were mostly reliable when new, but could become compromised after years and years of use (particularly frequent assembly/disassembly).

Any ball cup piece introduced after 2010 should be almost 100% reliable, but they still go through more "shock" during assembly and disassembly than any stud-to-stud or Technic pin connection, so instances like this topic describes of breakage from normal use might still pop up.

If you need an illustration...

Ball cups that look like this or this (tapered sides, rounded front edge) are mostly reliable, but might be slightly risky due to age (these parts all tend to come from pre—2008 sets).

Ball cups that look like this or this (tapered sides, flat front edge) are EXTREMELY risky. They shouldn't cause problems if they're already built into a model, but they are highly prone to breakage during assembly and disassembly and should be handled with extreme care.

Ball cups that look like this or this (flat sides, rounded front edge) are almost 100% reliable, and failures are extremely rare.

The ball snap, a different type of socket featured mainly on the back of Hero Factory shells, has less friction than a ball cup but tends to be about as reliable as the third type listed above.