1x5 plate spotted in Vidiyo set

No way, it is finally happening! Makes me wonder what considerations held LEGO back all this time, and what considerations made it worth producing it.
Also I double checked; it's not April 1st today, haha

5 is my favorite single-digit number, and I hope they'll introduce other 5-long elements soon enough. Then we can have 5-wide City cars.

Who would've expected the introduction of such useful piece in Lego Vidiyo?!! More summer sets will probably use this piece as well.

1x5 is the chosen one.

What’s next male to male plates?

And to think it took 40 years to finally introduce it!

How long before we get 1x7?

I don't like this, LEGO is making too many "specific" pieces...
Do we really need a 1 x 5 plate?
I have never, ever, thought by myself, when making a model or a MOC, "OH NO,...If only I had a 1 x 5 plate, then everything would be perfect!"
Nope, never happened...ever...

Finally! I thought it'd never happen. Always good news to have more plate size options, I hope more colors will be available soon.

Why did it take so long? Is it a move from LEGO to change Vidiyo's reputation by making history as having the first set with a 1x5 plate? ;) I guess we'll never know the real reason.

Waiting for this since the '80s

@BelgianBricker said:
"I don't like this, LEGO is making too many "specific" pieces...
Do we really need a 1 x 5 plate?
I have never, ever, thought by myself, when making a model or a MOC, "OH NO,...If only I had a 1 x 5 plate, then everything would be perfect!"
Nope, never happened...ever..."

Just read the comment section you are in. Just because you never wanted this size of plate doesn't make it useless. Just take a look at the mentioned piece 32124 since a couple of years it has seen so much use in official lego sets. Clearly, 1x5 is needed.

I'm with @BelgianBricker - this looks like a solution in search of a problem. Can't see why it was particularly necessary on the model highlighted but will reserve judgement until I see the full model/review.

@thor96 said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
"I don't like this, LEGO is making too many "specific" pieces...
Do we really need a 1 x 5 plate?
I have never, ever, thought by myself, when making a model or a MOC, "OH NO,...If only I had a 1 x 5 plate, then everything would be perfect!"
Nope, never happened...ever..."

Just read the comment section you are in. Just because you never wanted this size of plate doesn't make it useless. Just take a look at the mentioned piece 32124 since a couple of years it has seen so much use in official lego sets. Clearly, 1x5 is needed."

Sets I've got it in use the current 1x5 for 2 reasons:
- using the the axle hole, which this new plate does nothing for.
- As a 1x5 plate which I don't recall ever specifically needing a 1x5.

when 1x5 tile?

@Huw said:
"This is exactly the sort of element that should be produced: one that fills a gap in the basic assortment of System parts and which opens up new building opportunities.

Much better than developing a new-fangled specialist minifigure piece that will be used only once."

Totally agree. It's especially useful just because it's an odd number of studs - I get through so many 1x3 plates right now...

5-wide trains look great running on the narrow-gauge track, and you can then (fairly) easily fit a 3-wide Power-Functions motor inside.

Just as LEGO have pretty much dumped the narrow-gauge track in favour of using roller-coaster parts for mini-trains or 'monorail replacement services', given up forever on powering such, and thrown Power Functions under the bus!

But still, odd-number-width vehicles might make it easier to integrate Technic functions, which are these days all based on odd numbers. A 1x3 brick with 3 Technic holes in it would properly seal the deal...

This is very useful when combining Technic and System. 1x3 with a 1xn is often too fragile.

Will this lead to an increase in people buying the Vidyo set to get this piece, thus increasing the sales figures for the theme as a whole

I've never seen so many people enthusiastic about a Vidiyo set ;)

I’m not looking at that photo and seeing exactly why a 3x1 plate and a 2x1 plate weren’t suitable for the job required.

Poop, if you ask me. (Edit- really needed a comma in there)

@thor96 said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
"I don't like this, LEGO is making too many "specific" pieces...
Do we really need a 1 x 5 plate?
I have never, ever, thought by myself, when making a model or a MOC, "OH NO,...If only I had a 1 x 5 plate, then everything would be perfect!"
Nope, never happened...ever..."

Just read the comment section you are in. Just because you never wanted this size of plate doesn't make it useless. Just take a look at the mentioned piece 32124 since a couple of years it has seen so much use in official lego sets. Clearly, 1x5 is needed."

Piece 32124 works, so it is clearly not needed...
The video-set could have simply used a 1x2 + 1x3 and it would not have made a difference.

Also, now that there is a 1 x5 , I expect we will get a 1x7, 1x9, 1x11, 3x5, 3x7, 5x7, 5x9, 9x11 etc... We must need those, because it is impossible to simply combine other plates...

This is good and bad... it's a good piece but now I want a 1x7, 1x9, 1x11, 1x4563241!

Does it come in a tile?

@LegoSonicBoy said:
"5 is my favorite single-digit number, and I hope they'll introduce other 5-long elements soon enough. Then we can have 5-wide City cars."

Mine is 4 but let's be honest, our LEGO experiences are about to get more creative.

I remember having to resort to 5-wide mega bloks for a project, finally can swap them out!
you do not know how many times I've needed these pieces.

1x4 = too short

1x6 = too long

1x5 = THE HOLY GRAIL GOLDILOCKS ULTIMATE INNER EAR SCRATCHER

For anyone like myself who is not anal about mixing brands, Cobi has had 1x5, 1x7, 1x9 etc. plates for ages.
About time LEGO finally produced them as well. There hasn't been a single good reason not to.

Maybe the vidiyo sets were selling so poorly that they introduced the 1x5 element to force everyone into buying them? Lol

Somewhere inside TLG Headquarters-

“Good news, we have developed the 1x5 plate. That will silence the naysayers, and unlock the German market!”

Outside-

“Where’s my 1x5 tile?”

Even-length Technic beams when?

@thor96 said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
"I don't like this, LEGO is making too many "specific" pieces...
Do we really need a 1 x 5 plate?
I have never, ever, thought by myself, when making a model or a MOC, "OH NO,...If only I had a 1 x 5 plate, then everything would be perfect!"
Nope, never happened...ever..."

Just read the comment section you are in. Just because you never wanted this size of plate doesn't make it useless. Just take a look at the mentioned piece 32124 since a couple of years it has seen so much use in official lego sets. Clearly, 1x5 is needed."

@BelgianBricker was being sarcastic.

@everyone pointing out that a 1x5 plate wasn't necessary in the pictured portion of the set:
You are absolutely correct, however, it's very possible that this piece was created with a different set in mind, and then reused in this set just because it was available and looked cleaner than alternative techniques. I think it's likely we'll see another set this year that really depends on the 1x5 plate (perhaps using it internally and out of sight in official images) and demonstrates its potential usefulness.

Don’t know how anyone could be upset by MORE variety in part availability? We really are a difficult bunch to please…

What is the world coming to?
First 1x3
Now 1x5
Where will it ever end?

@Huw said:
"This is exactly the sort of element that should be produced: one that fills a gap in the basic assortment of System parts and which opens up new building opportunities.

Much better than developing a new-fangled specialist minifigure piece that will be used only once."

I wish LEGO would put as much effort into their licensed minifigs as they put into the vidiyo figs.

@Minifig_Jez said:
"What is the world coming to?
First 1x3
Now 1x5
Where will it ever end?
"

The 1x9 jumper plate will be hard to top, but my guess is that after the international celebrations following the second redesign of the 1x7.5 plate I think everyone will just call it quits.

I thought we couldn't get more shocking than the 3 x 3 plate, but here we are.

Maybe someday, Lego Stores will have a 3-D printer where you just order a specific custom plate. "I need a 3 x 7 chrome light green plate, please."

It makes you wonder why such a basic and requested piece like this has taken so long to be made.

Yes! I've always wanted a 1×5 plate since being a kid. In fact, I've wondered why TLG hadn't produced one in the past.

These naysayers are just scared of new things. 5 stud wide elements have been a massive gap in the system for years, we all know it. I’m so sick of trying to find design concessions in MOCs that need 5 stud solutions. Hopefully this paves the way for more 5 stud pieces and before long we’ll see some brilliant MOCs with them.

@CCC said:
"It was known to be coming, they put the IP protection in place in December.

https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/details/designs/008337372-0003"

This is FASCINATING; and it raises a question I had - this piece has already existed in Mega Bloks for many years (below is a link to an example I've got at home)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/bVuo9xd9s2f32sqM7

So how does this work? Does the fact a rival company is already making this influence LEGO's decision at all?

/ben

So many parts have been released the last decade that are easily substituted with previously existing parts. The 1x1x3 brick comes to mind. I don't want to be a standard 'I don't like change' AFOL.
But to me it increasingly feels like designers just introduce a new albeit versatile part every time they would need too many parts for their increasingly fiddly builds.

It feels like these kinds of parts might seem useful, but in practice they are only needed in the specific circumstances where substituting one new part with two more common ones would weaken the structure of the build. Which is fine. MOCers would definitely get a kick out of it. It just feels off that lego decides to introduce this part only now.

A 1x5 is what an AFOL calls his wife.

I'm fine with odd-numbered parts, as long as they stick to prime numbers.

@Binnekamp said:
"So many parts have been released the last decade that are easily substituted with previously existing parts. The 1x1x3 brick comes to mind. I don't want to be a standard 'I don't like change' AFOL.
But to me it increasingly feels like designers just introduce a new albeit versatile part every time they would need too many parts for their increasingly fiddly builds.

It feels like these kinds of parts might seem useful, but in practice they are only needed in the specific circumstances where substituting one new part with two more common ones would weaken the structure of the build. Which is fine. MOCers would definitely get a kick out of it. It just feels off that lego decides to introduce this part only now."

I understand what you’re saying, but in this particular instance I disagree. This piece would be a fundamental building piece, not a specially designed one with limited range. Yes, this length can obviously be achieved combing other parts, but by that logic I could just take a bunch of 1x1 to get any size I want. This piece has been lacking for quite some time and should have been made a long time ago n

@Volfogg said:
"Maybe the vidiyo sets were selling so poorly that they introduced the 1x5 element to force everyone into buying them? Lol"

It takes Lego far too long to design a new set (especially with a new element) for this to possibly be a reaction to a few months of sales figures.

When I was very, very young I had a set with a 5 x 6 plate - had a hole in it and i still have it in my collection - turns out its part 711 from set 383 (1973) - I recall it was never much use as in my young years Lego building as everything had to be in even stud numbers to get anything to work. Except 1970s pre-Legoland doors which were 3 wide for some reason...

My guess as to why this wasn't introduced sooner is to make part identification easier while building. Keeping plate lengths to even numbers (with the exception of the 3-stud plate) makes it much easier than grabbing for a piece, only to discover its count is off by one. The use case for this piece seems relatively small: a 5-stud span, and where a 2+3 arrangement would be unsuitable. I'm happy for all the MOCers who see potential in this piece, but personally I feel like new pieces are a bit of a "cheat code" compared to using existing pieces in creative ways to solve problems.

@BelgianBricker:
I don’t know why they even need a plate there at all. All you really need is some general-purpose, gap-filling, solvent-based cement, a VOC filter mask, and a well-ventilated room...

@chrisaw:
Several years ago we had an older gentleman come up to our display and lament how there were so many non-basic pieces. We didn’t tell him that the two people he was complaining to used to pore over every new pack-in catalog looking for new parts, nor did I tell him how reliant my car MOCs were on parts that weren’t even ten years old at that point.

@MutoidMan said:
" @BelgianBricker was being sarcastic. "

But was he, really? Belgians are hardly ever sarcastic, ya know...

On topic: nice piece, really nice piece, if you ask me!
Kazillion times more usefull than another slightly more bended curved piece or a tiny degree more angled piece.

Just my two cents, though; feel free to disagree!

@chrisaw:
Several years ago we had an older gentleman come up to our display and lament how there were so many non-basic pieces. We didn’t tell him that the two people he was complaining to used to pore over every new pack-in catalog looking for new parts, nor did I tell him how reliant my car MOCs were on parts that weren’t even ten years old at that point.]]

When I worked at an LBR store, we had an older couple come in and the gentleman was lamenting the same thing: lack of "basic bricks" and so many seemingly bespoke and "specialized" elements... which according to him, of course, take the creativity out of building. My counterargument was that there were so many "specialized" elements that it is now possible to achieve an unprecedented level of verisimilitude than ever before, and I used the Saturn V as an example, pointing out that in the good old days of "basic bricks", a set like that simply wouldn't have been possible, and it can actually be more challenging to have such a wide swath of elements available because the days of rainbow warrior houses are long in the past. It helped that the Fishing Store was in a display window right there to prove my point. He looks at me, and says "Young man, you've managed to convince me."

@jaredhinton said:
" @PigeonBricks said:
"A 1x5 is what an AFOL calls his wife."

It’s not wife, it’s girlfriend. Because they don’t (didn’t) exist. No 1x5 plate and no LEGO nerd can get a girlfriend. (I didn’t make this up so don’t be mad at me)"
Shhhhh! Don’t tell my erstwhile-girlfriend-now-wife that I’m a LEGO nerd :~P

A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one!

I hope one of these days we will also get 1*1 or 1*3 bricks with masonry pattern to match the existing 1*2 and 1*4 ones. It's probably the most frustrating omission for me so far.

Gotta say, when I pointed this out on my Twitter yesterday I wasn't really anticipating the level of negativity that would ensue. Between "why is this part needed if you can make it out of other parts" and "this part has been needed for so long why did it take so long for Lego to catch up", it seems like a lot of people are more interested in complaining about Lego than they are in thinking about the possibilities new parts can allow for. And the less said about the old misogynistic meaning of "1x5" in AFOL circles, the better.

Regarding the complaint that this part is useless because it could be made of smaller parts, that's plainly untrue. Certainly you could make that case for a part like a 1x1x3 brick (though I'd argue that the stability and evenness of one of those compared to stacking 1x1s can be valuable in itself). But for this part, the only times you could really substitute a 1x2 and 1x3 is when they can be connected on the top and/or the bottom. But what if you want to connect something only by the two ends of the brick instead, like on a fence or railing? What if you are working on a small scale (like with 5-wide vehicles, as some have mentioned) and an extra plate of thickness would ruin the look you're going for? For those purposes, a length like this could be useful in a way that the component parts alone would not be.

@BelgianBricker said:
"I don't like this, LEGO is making too many "specific" pieces...
Do we really need a 1 x 5 plate?
I have never, ever, thought by myself, when making a model or a MOC, "OH NO,...If only I had a 1 x 5 plate, then everything would be perfect!"
Nope, never happened...ever..."

Just because YOU don’t think this piece is useful doesn’t mean other people find it useless as well. There are probably thousands of moc creators, me included, who are glad this piece is coming into existence

@Bagelwolf:
So, when’s the last time you built a car that used 2x4 bricks for the wheels?

@Baldarek:
The problem with the brick-brick is that one side is “up” and the other is “down”. They made the second length 1x4 because it’s easy to double a thing. To make a 1x1, they’d have to basically make two versions. One would alternate up/down with the masonry pattern, and the other would have the wood plank design on all four sides. This would allow you to put it on the corner without screwing up the look, but you’d also kinda need matching 2x2 corner bricks (left and right versions of the masonry pattern, and a third for the wood planks). And there you can see why they’re not likely to ever do this. As it stands, they have only two shapes to deal with, not seven.

@Lyichir:
How about this? When we watched a regional AFOL video (the first in a series that pretty much ended with the first one, as I recall) a few years back, where someone explained the meaning of the 1x5 plate, everyone in my LUG asked if anyone had ever heard of that, and there wasn’t a single person who was a member at the time who had. I’d even met the person in the video at an AFOL convention, and that was still the first time I’d heard that reference. Until this popped up, I think it was also the last time. Heck, I couldn’t even remember if it was plate or brick.

Not everyone runs in the same circles, and not everyone behaves the same way.

@DualBoot:
My knowledge may be a little wanting, but after Optimus, Rodimus, and Sentinel, I can’t think of any others.

It's very amusing to see comments along the lines of "do we really need this?". Sure, you can make combinations of plates of any length using 1*1 and 1*2 ones, but it doesn't mean it's not beneficial to have more options. What's wrong with having more variety? I'm seeing bashing of 1*1*3 bricks and 3*3 plates in the comments, but I have previously sought them out on BrickLink specifically because they suited what I was building at that time the most. No doubt there will be scenarios where I'll find having 1*5 plates beneficial as well.

And suddenly, everyone's sorting/storage solution becomes obsolete!

It took about 40 years from the 1x3 to the 1x5. I doubt we'll be inundated with 1x7, 1x9, etc. any time soon.

Wow, 80+ comments so far on a single plate. Maybe this should have been the next GWP.

@CCC said:
"It was known to be coming, they put the IP protection in place in December.

https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/details/designs/008337372-0003"

Gotta love the gall of their attempt to claim exclusivity on this part that Cobi & Mega & others have been producing for years. They must have hoped no other company would notice the filing. Thank goodness Cobi did, and the final entry in the application is rightly marked "total surrenders."