Why have Technic pins been changed?
Posted by Huw,
Technic pins are among the most numerous parts that LEGO produces and virtually every set contains at least one of one type or another.
Three of the most common have been redesigned recently but are currently existing in parallel with the old versions. I noticed them for the first time today while building 42120 Rescue Hovercraft, although they can also be found in some other 2021 sets.
It begs the question, though, why change them? The old versions have been fit for purpose for the last 30 years...
The pins in question are 2l and 3l friction pins and the 2l pin with axle hole.
2780 CONNECTOR PEG W. FRICTION, on the right below, was introduced in the early 1990s to replace the awful version that was virtually impossible to remove without resorting to the use of pilers or teeth. It incorporated a slot in the middle which allows it to flex and compress slightly to solve the problem.
The new version, on the left below, is 61332 CONNECTOR PEG W. FRICTION. It's noticeably shinier than the old one. It first started to appear in LEGO's published set inventories in May last year, although it could be found in only two 2020 sets, including 10276 Colosseum.
I had not encountered it until building the March Technic release 42120 Rescue Hovercraft and having just checked my January sets, my copies still contain the old version, even though the inventory for, for example, 42117 Race Plane, suggests it comes with the new one.
It does away with the central slot, although it has not re-introduced the problem the old one had. Richard at The Rambling Brick published a thorough article recently which examines the differences in a way only Richard has the patience to do, but his conclusion is that, functionally, it is almost identical to the old one, although my experience is that it doesn't have the same 'feel' when inserting it.
6558 CONNECTOR PEG W. FRICTION 3M (right, below), which was first introduced in 1995, has also undergone a similar change, to the version on the left, 42924 CONNECTOR PEG W. FRICTION 3M.
It also first appeared in LEGO's set inventories in May last year and could be found some sets released in 2020, but not Technic. However, all the 2021 Technic sets contain it.
Finally, 32054 2M FRIC. SNAP W/CROSS HOLE (red) has been superceded by 65304 2M FRIC. SNAP W/CROSS HOLE (black). It first appeared in LEGO's inventories in September last year, but it doesn't actually come in any 2020 sets, so that implies that inventories for older sets were changed to include the new version.
According to LEGO's inventories, all the 2021 Technic sets released so far contain the old version, except for 42122 Jeep Wrangler and, evidently, the Hovercraft, as I found out today.
Unlike the other two, this one does seem to be mechanically different from its predecessor: I found it much harder to insert and remove, and it appears to be a slightly different plastic although it could just be a different surface finish. I therefore look forward to reading Richard's appraisal of the differences in due course.
So, to answer my question, why change them? I have absolutely no idea. The new versions must be superior in one way or another, be it production costs, friction, robustness, or whatever, otherwise why fix what isn't broken. It's certainly not clear just by looking at and using them.
I guess the old versions of all three will continue to be found in sets until stocks are exhausted.
Have you found them in the sets you've built recently, or noticed any differences?
180 likes
81 comments on this article
I wonder if it allows the plastic to cool faster and uses less plastic?
So basically this is going to drive me crazy, like bevelled vs unbevelled jumpers, arches where the curve reaches the end vs ones that don't, the different 1x1 upward facing clips, etc......
@Harmonious_Building said:
"So basically this is going to drive me crazy, like bevelled vs unbevelled jumpers, arches where the curve reaches the end vs ones that don't, the different 1x1 upward facing clips, etc......"
Don’t get me started on the difference between the new trans-clear parts... had to build a MOC with both new and old and the difference was... jarring.
It might be in case a kid swallows it and it becomes lodged in their throat. Maybe it's easier to pass or remove since it might bend more idk. Although indeed it might not bend as well now so again idk
It seems the latter part comes in lime green too! https://flic.kr/p/2kCo2xu
(Excuse the poor lighting in the photo.)
I agree @Huw that it felt significantly harder to snap in than previously, but I put that down to me not having the two parts it was joining lined up quite right.
Lots of questions... Interesting, Huw! Another nagging one that may be on everyone's mind is: why blue?
I've notice that new part 61332 is much easier to connect, and separate, than its' predecessor 2780; especially when used w/modular buildings. With the 2780 part it was sometimes difficult to find "the sweet spot" to get two buildings to slot perfectly together. The new part is much more forgiving, and pulls apart easier, yet maintains a strong connection.
@TheLazyChicken said:
" @Harmonious_Building said:
"So basically this is going to drive me crazy, like bevelled vs unbevelled jumpers, arches where the curve reaches the end vs ones that don't, the different 1x1 upward facing clips, etc......"
Don’t get me started on the difference between the new trans-clear parts... had to build a MOC with both new and old and the difference was... jarring."
Are you talking about how the newer trans-clear parts seem to have a slightly milky haze to them?
The 2L definitely looks stronger! I burn through a lot of these parts...
This news also makes me want to get my hands on this super-stiff original version for high-load applications!
@benbacardi said:
"It seems the latter part comes in lime green too! https://flic.kr/p/2kCo2xu
(Excuse the poor lighting in the photo.)
I agree @Huw that it felt significantly harder to snap in than previously, but I put that down to me not having the two parts it was joining lined up quite right. "
Yes the new ones definitely have more friction than the old.
One difference I notice between the two is in the moulding marks. 2780 has multiple marks whereas 61332 has a single injection point on the ring. Suggests a much simpler mould, but possibly requiring tweaks to the mechanical design of the part to make it work & maybe also the material.
The new black 2L friction pin looks easier to mold. Every plastic mold has at least two parts - a cavity and a core - which pull apart to eject the pieces, like a waffle iron. Any part with a hole coming from the side requires an additional moving piece of the mold (a “side pull”); otherwise, the part wouldn’t be able to be ejected. Imagine if a waffle had holes coming from the sides - the metal forming the holes would need to be pulled out sideways before the waffle iron could be opened vertically.
More moving pieces makes molds much more complicated and expensive. The new 2L peg would be a lot simpler, and cheaper, to mold since it doesn’t have any holes perpendicular to the main hole through the center. That explanation doesn’t hold water for the other two parts, though.
(I say all this as someone who designs plastic parts for a living.)
All I have noticed so far is that in spare part count anymore I find no more technic pins. I used to get a ton of the simple black friction black ones just from regular system sets like city and such. Now just the exact count my set needs and no more. In some ways it is good to see them streamline that, in others I really loved using them as barrel extension for my Star Wars blasters.
@Japanbuilder said:
"All I have noticed so far is that in spare part count anymore I find no more technic pins. I used to get a ton of the simple black friction black ones just from regular system sets like city and such. Now just the exact count my set needs and no more. In some ways it is good to see them streamline that, in others I really loved using them as barrel extension for my Star Wars blasters. "
I can definitely agree with 'less' but I haven't gotten any sets with *no* extra pins. For a long time, each bag that had a pin or a 1x1 plate or some other small piece would get an extra. That meant sets with multiple bags would often have multiple extras. Recently (exactly how recent I have no idea) it's been changed so that the first bag to have the pin gets an extra, but subsequent bags have the exact amount. So you should still be getting extras, I can't imagine that changing the mold on a small part would make it less prone to loss
Edit: From a quick look, 2017 sets had extras of extras and 2018 sets only had one of each.
Huw - I didn't have any of the new long pins on hand to test -but to elaborate on my findings, I would say that the new (slotless) friction pin does feel different, and is a little looser (but still firm, it just has less resistance to rotation than the old one) BUT is (I suspect) functionally equivalent.
I wonder if the 2M FRIC. SNAP W/CROSS HOLE colour change has been prompted by the fact that they are not functionally equivalent - in that it is harder to insert - , or if is just an aesthetic choice?
Richard- RamblingBrick
Very interesting stuff. Any chance Brickset could try to get an interview with a LEGO parts designer who could go on the record and explain why the changes were made?
@benbacardi said:
"It seems the latter part comes in lime green too! https://flic.kr/p/2kCo2xu "
And orange! @(42117 race plane)
@Huw @gasdoc
I might've found a reason for the 2L change: If you put a bar (like a lightsaber blade) through the center of the new pin it has significantly more friction than the old pin, to the point I'd argue that it could (by LEGOs standards) be the difference between a legal and illegal building technique. A bar slides through the old pin very easily, the new one requires quite a bit more effort.
It might just be a side effect of whatever the real reason for the change is, but it's the most dramatic difference I've found testing the two out just now.
Wrote a complaint email to LEGO about the new black pins just before your article, unknowing they actually changed 3 types of Technic pins.
I really hate the new ones! They are much more difficult to remove because the smooth surface slips, they don't click nicely in and being softer wear-in quicker. It's just another cost saving, new sustainable material BS otherwise there was no reason to change a perfectly fine 30 year old part. The biggest gripe I have is that the color remained unchanged and they get mixed in all sorts of 2021 sets without the instructions update reflecting it.
Meanwhile, quality wise, LEGO connector - axle clutch power gets worse, the sprue marks more visible and ugly, the colors more prominently inconsistent and desaturated and the parts appearance less shiny.
I know I'm a nitpick, but I don't like this trend and these subtle changes. Just hold an older and newer plate in front of a light source and see the translucency difference.
I just built 42122 Jeep Wrangler last week and didn't notice anything then, but checking it now, the new 42924 and 65304 do seem a little harder to insert and remove. I'm glad you pointed this out; otherwise, I'd probably be looking at one of these parts a few years from now and wondering, "when did that happen?"
Guessing it's part of their plant-based / renewable materials initiative... perhaps made of the new type of plastic and thus had to be reengineered for function and molding.
I always found the black pin to be difficult to find the sweet spot with when connecting more than two together at once. Hopefully the new version will have fixed that.
In my opinion, LEGO needs to stop changing existing pieces. It's so frustrating to keep up with all the different variations of the same parts.
I bet you that as with all the recent changes it's simply about reducing costs. Making the parts cheaper to increase profit margins even more, even if it means dissatisfied customers.
It's the same as with all the colour inconsistencies, or the new trans-milk pieces. And don't anyone ever call these trans-clear, as they are clearly not clear but look just as cheap and horrible as Chinese knock-off parts of old (and even those by now have improved and offer proper trans-clear quality).
LEGO knows that the days of their endless growth are numbered, and they want to at least make as much money off of the customers for as long as possible.
It won't do them any good in the long run to disregard their motto of only the best is good enough. That motto hasn't been true for a couple of years now, with no signs of changing for the better - just the opposite in fact.
I reckon it’s to do with the changes in plastic they are using. Bricks just don’t make the same clinky sound anymore. ...goes for minifig plastic too.
Get a whole bunch of older minifigs in a tub and move them around with your hand and listen to the sound the plastic makes. Then do it with new minifigs, the plastic is totally different. No clinkiness at all, just a hollow sound.
@namekuji said:
"I reckon it’s to do with the changes in plastic they are using. Bricks just don’t make the same clinky sound anymore. ...goes for minifig plastic too.
Get a whole bunch of older minifigs in a tub and move them around with your hand and listen to the sound the plastic makes. Then do it with new minifigs, the plastic is totally different. No clinkiness at all, just a hollow sound. "
Absolutely. Now do the same with a tub of cheap knock-off parts. The sound and feel is the same. Cheap quality is all I'm saying.
It's what I've been critizing for quite some time now (and getting bashed by fanboys for it). LEGO is cutting costs and reducing quality at every corner, yet raising prices ever more. The disparity between pice hikes and quality issues is blatantly obvious by now, and ever more people are beginning to realize this.
I got some of the new 2L pins in the Legacy Titan Mech.I quite like them, they’re easier to snap in and remove, and it’s easier to click together modular sets- I switched out the pins in Diagon Alley for the new design and they fit together far more easily. I imagine it’s an even greater difference when you need to clip in two pins, like on a full 32x32 modular
@AustinPowers So using *more* plastic is a cost-cutting measure? Did you even read the article?
@Mr__Thrawn said:
"I got some of the new 2L pins in the Legacy Titan Mech.I quite like them, they’re easier to snap in and remove, and it’s easier to click together modular sets- I switched out the pins in Diagon Alley for the new design and they fit together far more easily. I imagine it’s an even greater difference when you need to clip in two pins, like on a full 32x32 modular"
That's great to hear, since something that really disappointed me is how deformed the pins in Diagon Alley are after switching the buildings around a few times. It's hard for me to connect the modulars together sometimes (and near-impossible for Ninjago City, so I just skipped the pins) but Diagon Alley is the first time I noticed the pins actually bend as a result of connecting the builds together a few different times. I haven't seen any of these new Technic pieces yet but I'm not very happy to hear about the axle holder pin having more friction since I already find those difficult to remove on many models given where they're placed/how many there are.
@fakespacesquid said:
" @AustinPowers So using *more* plastic is a cost-cutting measure? Did you even read the article?"
I’ve found that the best policy is just to ignore said user in most cases.
I found the new 2Ls to be very significantly easier to use, especially with multiple lined up on the same plane & needing to be inserted at once. With the old version, that sort of connection task was wrought with frustration and required ever more force and 3-axis finagling the more units were involved simultaneously. With the new ones, there's still some force required, but far less finagling. They're especially delightful in system-based builds where mastery of Technic part nuances should not be required and you just want to connect two modulars together or what not.
I've not yet encountered the new 65304 pieces to my knowledge, though. If they're *more* difficult to use, that'll be awkward.
Functionally, do the slots at the center stop flange even serve a purpose? The tip has a notch in it so it can compress to allow the flanged tips to fit through a hole and pop back open to grip it from the other side. The stop flange prevents the pin from being inserted further, so there's no point in building in a system that makes it easier to push the pin past the stop flange. On the bush-pin, it made even less sense, since it wasn't even long enough to allow the part to flex there.
The center slots seem to work against the design, allowing the part to compress at a point where ribs had been added to create friction. Once you eliminate the center slot, you don't need to overcompensate, so two friction ribs is apparently enough to do the job. The only catch is that the compression slot across the stop flange may have prevented the friction ribs from wearing out.
@LegoAthos:
Eliminating holes in the part probably uses more plastic than you get back by eliminating a couple short ribs. It does make the mold simpler, at least for the 2L pin. For the other two, it simply reduces the number of slots that are perpendicular to the notches on the tip, rather than completely eliminating them. It probably would have made more sense to rotate the slots on the bush so they matched the ones on the tip (everybody get your minds out of the gutter).
@Japanbuilder:
2L black friction pins are insanely cheap on Bricklink. It might be the only part you can find listed for $0.00. Back in September, one buyer snagged 200,000 for "~0.00" each.
@fakespacesquid:
10179 was probably the worst. They did a weird sort where if you got 47 copies of a part in the set, they'd split most of that up between identical bags, and throw the rest in one of a few "remainder" bags. One batch of parts came in nine duplicate bags, plus most of them probably also showed up in one of the remainder bags. That means that any part in those bags that required an extra part gave you ten extras. Then they screwed up the sort for 2x4 wedge plates, shorting you one of each. To fix it, they added one more bag that had 23 left and 24 right, so you ended up with 22 pairs and an unmatched right that you didn't need.
@fakespacesquid:
It can be. If, over the life of the mold, the cost of the extra plastic used is less than the expense of creating, setting up, operating, and even repairing a more complex mold over the same period of time.
@theJANG:
The bush-pin is usually used as a cotter pin anyways, so you only insert one at a time, and you only need to remove them one at a time. They're also only a pin from one end, so you can tailor the instructions around that fact. While making it more difficult to remove may not have been a good idea, at least it's not something that's likely to be compounded by requiring you to press two beams together over half a dozen of them.
I did notice the new 2Ls on Ninjago City Gardens because the instructions are still using the old version.
The bright blue or red colors of these pieces always annoyed me more than the pieces themselves. Why can't these come in more colors to better match the set? There's often some bright red or blue sticking out where it really doesn't look good.
As minor as it is this is going to use more plastic per pin than before. Wonder how that's gonna go.
My guess is definitely the new molds make it slightly cheaper to manufacture these pins, and like you say these three specifically are used pretty constantly throughout Technic and System sets.
This article just makes me miss old fire elements. That unnecessary change was 2010 I think and it's still no good! lol
@fakespacesquid said:
" @AustinPowers So using *more* plastic is a cost-cutting measure? Did you even read the article?"
If it's cheaper plastic, definitely. And of course I read the article. I always do.
Some of the alternatives I now buy use bricks that are heavier per unit than LEGO ones (even those of old), hence use more plastic.
More does not automatically mean better quality.
@Mr__Thrawn : Likewise.
I have a couple of hypotheses that may help explain the change:
1. The moulds were due for replacement so might have been redesigned for a longer life with less moving parts, as these are complex little guys and they make heaps of them and moulds are really expensive.
2. Smaller side holes means there may be less potential for them to split or crack over time.
3. As noted above, they might have wanted to make them more uniformly compatible with 3.2mm shafts.
I noticed the new 2L pins in my copy of 71738. They seemed to slot in easier, but without the little click I'm used to hearing.
@AustinPowers said:
"I bet you that as with all the recent changes it's simply about reducing costs. Making the parts cheaper to increase profit margins even more, even if it means dissatisfied customers.
It's the same as with all the colour inconsistencies, or the new trans-milk pieces. And don't anyone ever call these trans-clear, as they are clearly not clear but look just as cheap and horrible as Chinese knock-off parts of old (and even those by now have improved and offer proper trans-clear quality).
LEGO knows that the days of their endless growth are numbered, and they want to at least make as much money off of the customers for as long as possible.
It won't do them any good in the long run to disregard their motto of only the best is good enough. That motto hasn't been true for a couple of years now, with no signs of changing for the better - just the opposite in fact. "
It will do them even LESS good for sets to creep out of consumers' price range. The price gouging some of the licensed ones get subjected is bad enough. If all sets, including regular ones, get increasingly pricy for their size/complexity just due to molding and materials costs? That's going to cause some serious problems.
Show me a photo of these supposedly milky parts. I've got some older trans-clear pieces (like, '80s through early '00s) and in my experience it's THOSE that are more likely to be milky (especially 1x2 plates). Whereas the trans-clear parts from my newer sets (granted, the newest is from 2017) are all shiny and crystal-clear.
I think the removal of the middle slot might bode well for durability. Goodness knows we've all seen a number of Technic pins irreparably bend there.
@ZeldaTheSwordsman said:
"Show me a photo of these supposedly milky parts. I've got some older trans-clear pieces (like, '80s through early '00s) and in my experience it's THOSE that are more likely to be milky (especially 1x2 plates). Whereas the trans-clear parts from my newer sets (granted, the newest is from 2017) are all shiny and crystal-clear."
Just look at the pictures in any recent review here at Brickset. Like the Porsche 911 for example. It is even worse in person. The new parts look milky, just like those used by cheap Chinese knock-off companies a couple of years ago.
You mentioned you have parts from 2017. By LEGO terms those are ancient, and should indeed still be of the crystal clear variety.
I'm not exactly sure when they changed to the new material, but if I had to guess I think it was sometime in 2019.
The material used back in the Eighties was probably a bit less transparent when it was new than that of newer sets up to the change to the new milky variant, but it was definitely more transparent than the current iteration, and definitely not at all milky. I have a couple of sets from my childhood still in almost mint condition and the transparent pieces in those look great compared to what we are getting now.
The worst thing imho is that TLG is cheating customers in that they are showing those parts to be crystal clear on the box art and in promotional renders while they are evidently not so in reality. Was the same with gold or silver pieces that appear to be of the more expensive and better looking lacquered variety whereas the actual pieces that came in the sets were just warm gold or flat silver, the much uglier looking alternative. That's bordering on false advertising.
I already store my 3 types of 2L pins separately. Now I have a 4th version to "worry" about.
I wish that I didn't care, but I do. :-(
I say 3 types, because even though bricklink and Lego don't seem to recognise the difference, I believe that there are 2 types of the last version.
Early versions had a fairly uniform, thicker rim at the ends (as shown in Huw's image for the older part) and later versions had a thinner, tapered rim (like that of the 4th gen part in Huw's image), which would more happily take a lightsaber.
@AustinPowers:
Heavier plastic does not mean more plastic. Polyethylene LEGO parts float in water. ABS parts don’t. Polyethylene is classified by density, so a smaller part made of UHDPE may weigh more than a larger part made of LDPE.
@Rare_White_Ape:
It took them a few years to roll out the new C-clip across every part (and I’m not sure they’ve even finished, as I don’t think the horse saddle has been updated). Three pins at the same time suggests this wasn’t something where they waited for the molds to wear out. Also, very few pins are even compatible with bars at all. 2L friction is the only one I can think of that allows a bar to pass through completely. 2L non-friction has an internal stop flange. 3L friction has a rectangular hole (and it’s hard to tell, but it looks like the updated version still has a rectangular hole).
@ZeldaTheSwordsman:
During the 80’s, transparent parts were made of acrylic. It’s an optically clear plastic normally, but it scratches a lot easier than the polycarbonate they switched to after that. Old trans-clear parts especially tend to be very easy to spot because they get cloudy over time just from all the tiny scratches and scuffs they pick up over time. Polycarb was more durable, so you didn’t have to treat them with kid gloves. Whatever they’re using now is apparently worse than acrylic, so it gets scratched by ABS parts in transit.
@TheInfamousBobaFett:
Part designs get updated to improve the part, to simplify the mold, or even just because the person who makes the new mold does things differently than the person who made the previous mold. It’s not always easy to tell why some changes were made, like shifting the pip on double-cheese wedges from either end to the back.
I too appreciate the right feel when inserting stuff and if you're having problems inserting & removing, you just need more practice.
I can confirm the Porsche 10295 has all 3 types of new pins. Oh boy :(
At least the instructions reflect this, but the dumb hard to read black paper is used again.
@DoonsterBuildsLego said:
"One difference I notice between the two is in the moulding marks. 2780 has multiple marks whereas 61332 has a single injection point on the ring. Suggests a much simpler mould, but possibly requiring tweaks to the mechanical design of the part to make it work & maybe also the material. "
i use the last ones for star wars blaster add ons, and the old black ones like to split on the mold line sometimes when you put them on a blaster too far, maybe this will make them stronger and avoid that kind of thing.
I don't like those small changes in lego parts, idk if I am the only one but the thing I hate most are tiles with difrent point of "factory attachament" , let's take 1x2 1x3 or 1x4 tiles, some of them has that point in the middle and some of them on the edge, it's kinda stupid but iy bugs me LOL xD
@namekuji said:
"I reckon it’s to do with the changes in plastic they are using. Bricks just don’t make the same clinky sound anymore. ...goes for minifig plastic too.
Get a whole bunch of older minifigs in a tub and move them around with your hand and listen to the sound the plastic makes. Then do it with new minifigs, the plastic is totally different. No clinkiness at all, just a hollow sound. "
i've had a lot more minifigs cracking along the seam under the arms as well recently.
@Harmonious_Building said:
"So basically this is going to drive me crazy, like bevelled vs unbevelled jumpers, arches where the curve reaches the end vs ones that don't, the different 1x1 upward facing clips, etc......"
Most of your questions are already answered at newelementary.com
Could it be that Lego were changing the mould and simply updated the part?
Difficult to establish via the comments whether the parts are actually better for it. Opinion seems mitigated.
Still waiting for an article about the new transparent material, which was introduced in 2019. Less transparent and much more prone to scratches, so much that the parts often come scratched out of the box.
I noticed the new 2l connector in the 10278.
@MrClassic said:
"Still waiting for an article about the new transparent material, which was introduced in 2019. Less transparent and much more prone to scratches, so much that the parts often come scratched out of the box."
No need for an article, several forums contain enogh evidence, the AFOL's, LUG's and RLFM know it and LEGO knows it, but they can't change it back due to "sustainability goals" (source: Fan Day 2020).
Just this moment I had to send another complaint mail because the Porsche windows came scratched out of the box. Front and back windows are only packed with tires and still scratched. The rest of the window elements are loose with other parts and are even more scratched.
I would say that it probably has to do with different plastic and being cheaper to manufacture. I haven’t seen any yet, but has anyone else but me noticed that the plastic just doesn’t feel the same as older sets? I built all 3 super cars last year and the Lamborghini parts definitely felt different, not as smooth as the Porsche. And I built the retired forklift and all of its pieces felt fantastic, the pins and axles felt like they were greased they went together so well. Still work great but just not as good as older sets were.
@Huw This part 6279875: CONNECTOR PEG W. FRICTION is not that new. It has been added to the LEGO database somewhere spring 2020. I noticed it in the Brickset database and ordered one from LEGO Bricks and Pieces early July 2020 to see it.
I then uploaded a picture to Bricklink trying to make a new catalog entry because I think it is a totally new part but it was denied as the changes being to small. However "with or without Center Slots" was added to the part name.
So now al the news around this part :D nice.
^ Indeed, as stated in the article :)
@2GodBDGlory said:
"This news also makes me want to get my hands on this super-stiff original version for high-load applications!"
no you don't ... believe me.
new production method (faster machine, material, moulding, extrusion, ...) - if there is some time to win or material to save, for a mass product like that you take every single percentage of saving you get because it immediately pays off.
Lego is obviously changing a lot production wise currently - the most obvious is adding the colour while moulding, instead of using pre-couloured material. these are different machines from the old, and they might not handle the old form as well as the old ones - therefor the change.
@Balthazar_Brannigan said:
"I say all this as someone who designs plastic parts for a living. "
While I very much enjoyed @Huw’s article, I do appreciate inputs from experts such as yourself. Thank you for providing your professional insights.
@Balthazar_Brannigan I think that's not the case for the 2L part either, I'm looking at one of these in-hand now, and the parting line of the two halves of the mold are in line/parallel to the two openings on either side. The extra holes from the old part would thus not have required an extra side pull there. However, like the old one, throughout the whole hollow part of the pin a side pull *is* needed, and a weird one at that. It does sadly not explain this difference :/
@Snagel said:
" @2GodBDGlory said:
"This news also makes me want to get my hands on this super-stiff original version for high-load applications!"
no you don't ... believe me. "
Well, you might want some if you never intend to disassemble your creations.
If anything, lego did this to save cost. At least that's the impression they have been showing us with their greedy pricing schemes in recent years. But anything that makes lego more difficult to put in or remove is a huge no no in my book.
Not knowing exactly how these are produced, I think that with one slot less in the center, there will be less part faults, that would be more prone to happen around the edges. That's what I think. Another reason may be that the pins are more easily removed from the mould without a center slot.
Edit: Balthazar_Brannigan probably summed everything up already, thanks!
Since it is the most common part, my guess is it has something to do with using less plastic...
@Martin_S said:
"Since it is the most common part, my guess is it has something to do with using less plastic..."
Except you can clearly see in the photos that the newer versions all use more plastic
@TheOtherMike said:
" @Snagel said:
" @2GodBDGlory said:
"This news also makes me want to get my hands on this super-stiff original version for high-load applications!"
no you don't ... believe me. "
Well, you might want some if you never intend to disassemble your creations."
Only if you never make mistakes and have to remove one of those old pins!
@TWP said:
" @Balthazar_Brannigan I think that's not the case for the 2L part either, I'm looking at one of these in-hand now, and the parting line of the two halves of the mold are in line/parallel to the two openings on either side. The extra holes from the old part would thus not have required an extra side pull there. However, like the old one, throughout the whole hollow part of the pin a side pull *is* needed, and a weird one at that. It does sadly not explain this difference :/"
Thank you kindly @Wrecknbuild and @Zander, although as TWP pointed out I owe you all a mea culpa! @TWP, that's a good point, and you're right... sorry, I was mistaken! Looking at the photos again, the lip at each end and the little ribs on the top and bottom (one in the center and two on each end) require that parting line direction, too.
I agree with you that each part requires four parts of the mold: top, bottom, and the center hole from each side - just like before. However, the old design had holes formed by all four parts of the mold which joined in the center - you could see through the part from four different sides, and the holes intersected. That means the top and bottom of the mold (that formerly formed the small side holes) would have to very precisely meet up with the two mold pieces that form the through-hole. If the four metal pieces of the mold didn't meet precisely, you would end up with extra plastic "flash" at the edges where the metal didn't seal properly - I think @Wrecknbuild was referencing this as well. The side pulls are indeed necessary with the new part design, but it should still be easier to make a mold for the new design because fewer mold surfaces have to meet up with each other precisely.
That should make the molds less expensive to make, and it may mean that more mold manufactures are capable of doing so, too (for better or worse).
@fakespacesquid:
Does it, though? It’s been pointed out that there were two different “2nd gen” 2L friction pins, which had different wall thickness. If eliminating these holes allowed them to make the part walls thinner, as well as eliminate two ribs (which we can see they’ve done), and shorten others, there might actually be a slight reduction in plastic used.
@Balthazar_Brannigan said:
"The new black 2L friction pin looks easier to mold. Every plastic mold has at least two parts - a cavity and a core - which pull apart to eject the pieces, like a waffle iron. Any part with a hole coming from the side requires an additional moving piece of the mold (a “side pull”); otherwise, the part wouldn’t be able to be ejected. Imagine if a waffle had holes coming from the sides - the metal forming the holes would need to be pulled out sideways before the waffle iron could be opened vertically.
More moving pieces makes molds much more complicated and expensive. The new 2L peg would be a lot simpler, and cheaper, to mold since it doesn’t have any holes perpendicular to the main hole through the center. That explanation doesn’t hold water for the other two parts, though.
(I say all this as someone who designs plastic parts for a living.) "
They still have to open the mold from top to bottom with the new pin because of the lip protrusion on the ends, while pulling out the central core. It definitely is easier to mold though because without that central slot they don't need to try and have the steel meetup perfectly and have a shutoff to prevent plastic flash.
@Huw - there are differences in the parts, Rambling Brick covered some of them. I investigated this also when I saw his article, and there are some major differences with the new pin, that are beneficial.
1. The pins do require more strength to pull out, while not going over the top like the old-school pins which were impossible.
2. Huge difference in clutch when you insert a bar down the middle of the pin. This is a much needed change in my opinion.
I hadn't looked at the pins in detail when building the Wrangler Jeep but I did notice that there's a different feel. I found it much harder to connect parts with more than a single pin.
Some people on our forum complained that in a number of Star Wars sets that use the double pin with axle hole bars no longer fit in the pins. Customer Service has acknowledged that problem and will send replacements if you come across it.
One affected set is 75243
@Duq:
Wait, so that part has been changed, too? If they’ve rolled out at least four revised pins all at around the same time, that means they decided something was wrong with the old ones, and they were willing to forego the remaining service life on all those molds. Unless they managed to cut the plastic used by 50% or more (which they obviously didn’t), they probably wrote off a lot of value that they’re not getting back.
@Harmonious_Building said:
"So basically this is going to drive me crazy, like bevelled vs unbevelled jumpers, arches where the curve reaches the end vs ones that don't, the different 1x1 upward facing clips, etc......"
Completely agree! This along with the other horizontal 1x1 clips, the difference in bracket plates, the differences in bricks with pin holes, definitely the 10 types of jumpers, and any other piece that isn't molded in the exact same way, the list goes on forever ??
I've just used 61332 for the first time (building 31111 with my daughter). My observations:
- the plastic is now similar to that used in part 11214 Axle Pin 3L with Friction Ridges Lengthwise and 1L Axle, which has always been a bit softer
- it's easier to insert than before, and smoother. My 5yo daughter could insert, She couldn't with the 2780. No chance of me nipping my fingers as I do occasionally with 2780.
- there is a positive click into place, but it is more tactile than audible. Not the loud click of 2780, but a positive engagement, nonetheless.
- fiddling with the 2 together, snapping them in, rotating etc, I note that the friction between beams & Technic bricks with 61332 is smoother. 2780 has noticeable stiction in comparison, meaning it jerks into place and doesn't rotate smoothing. This is handy for construction that is relying in the friction for rotation (that I note is used more and more in system models).
- I don't perceive much difference in removing, apart from the smoothness already mentioned.
@Balthazar_Brannigan said:
" @TWP said:
" @Balthazar_Brannigan I think that's not the case for the 2L part either, I'm looking at one of these in-hand now, and the parting line of the two halves of the mold are in line/parallel to the two openings on either side. The extra holes from the old part would thus not have required an extra side pull there. However, like the old one, throughout the whole hollow part of the pin a side pull *is* needed, and a weird one at that. It does sadly not explain this difference :/"
Thank you kindly @Wrecknbuild and @Zander, although as TWP pointed out I owe you all a mea culpa! @TWP, that's a good point, and you're right... sorry, I was mistaken! Looking at the photos again, the lip at each end and the little ribs on the top and bottom (one in the center and two on each end) require that parting line direction, too.
I agree with you that each part requires four parts of the mold: top, bottom, and the center hole from each side - just like before. However, the old design had holes formed by all four parts of the mold which joined in the center - you could see through the part from four different sides, and the holes intersected. That means the top and bottom of the mold (that formerly formed the small side holes) would have to very precisely meet up with the two mold pieces that form the through-hole. If the four metal pieces of the mold didn't meet precisely, you would end up with extra plastic "flash" at the edges where the metal didn't seal properly - I think @Wrecknbuild was referencing this as well. The side pulls are indeed necessary with the new part design, but it should still be easier to make a mold for the new design because fewer mold surfaces have to meet up with each other precisely.
That should make the molds less expensive to make, and it may mean that more mold manufactures are capable of doing so, too (for better or worse)."
thanks, that makes sense indeed!
The slots seem to add no function, so were probably removed to make simpler molds or less sticking to molds.
For the change of plastic, making them easier to connect seems to follow TLG's goal to be making things easier for kids. As long as it doesn't make the models more fragile, it doesn't bother me, even if there's no audible "click."
My guess is that it is made from the new plastic.
TheInfamousBobaFett said: "Why does it matter??? ... They still work the same so who cares"
I don't care too much about minor visual differences, the problem is when they *don't* work the same. Imagine if you've found a really neat way to build something (especially something functional like technic or trains) that relies on a somewhat unusual connection, but then they change a part, and your solution no longer works. Suddenly you can't build/promote your favorite MOCs without including a disclaimer like "this ONLY works with the version of [part X] produced from 1991 to 2014" - incredibly frustrating.
@TheOtherMike said:
" @Snagel said:
" @2GodBDGlory said:
"This news also makes me want to get my hands on this super-stiff original version for high-load applications!"
no you don't ... believe me. "
Well, you might want some if you never intend to disassemble your creations."
Yeah, there are times when this part is better than the new ones. And I have only used pliers to remove them once in 40 years.
@fakespacesquid said:
" @Japanbuilder said:
"All I have noticed so far is that in spare part count anymore I find no more technic pins. I used to get a ton of the simple black friction black ones just from regular system sets like city and such. Now just the exact count my set needs and no more. In some ways it is good to see them streamline that, in others I really loved using them as barrel extension for my Star Wars blasters. "
I can definitely agree with 'less' but I haven't gotten any sets with *no* extra pins. For a long time, each bag that had a pin or a 1x1 plate or some other small piece would get an extra. That meant sets with multiple bags would often have multiple extras. Recently (exactly how recent I have no idea) it's been changed so that the first bag to have the pin gets an extra, but subsequent bags have the exact amount. So you should still be getting extras, I can't imagine that changing the mold on a small part would make it less prone to loss
Edit: From a quick look, 2017 sets had extras of extras and 2018 sets only had one of each. "
I have noticed this as well (that you get the spares in early bags only). When I commented about this in a recent live stream to a well-known ex-Lego designer, he said they put the spares in all bags... but it looks like that was what they used to do and now they have better control so they put them in just one.