Possible design flaw found in 2022 Super Heroes set

I agree that this shouldn't happen in official Lego sets, but I'd hate to see another Marvel set being pushed back/canceled because of a design flaw :(

Are those sets designed digitally and not tested physically enough?

I can understand some lockdown work at home situations but LEGO doesn't seem to have reduced the amount of new sets at all, even while many current sets are sold out, many 2021 sets are even being retired right now to be replaced in 2022 in themes like City.

Growth is one thing, but quality control is important, a LEGO set isn't a video game software you can just patch/update digitally.

LEGO parts can and will change over time from an overstressed part.

I feel like they'll redesign the arch and shorten it slightly so this won't be an issue anymore in the long run.

Not acceptable for such a million $€£ company. Lockdown or not, they have they means to communicate in various ways. Seems to me Lego makes more and more mistakes. Technic osprey cancelled, dynamite company cancelled,... reconsidering new marvel mechs... I understand they maken mistakes, but they should not get as far as the consumers. "Only they best is good enough"... maybe time to change to "good is good enough"? I hope not.

This bothers me more than the AT-AT thing. If ‘forcing parts to kind of fit’ was necessary to build a model it would actually deter me from buying it, and if it became prevalent, it would discourage me from LEGO generally. The whole point is being ‘in system’.

EDIT: but if this is an isolated issue limited to this one set it’s not a big deal to me at all.

While I still think the AT-AT article is bs, this one is bad.

No one has said the magic word/phrase yet?

Illegal technique.

On a more serious note, people like to make fun of the phrase or what it refers to, but this design flaw fully and precisely meets the definition. This is the kind of thing LEGO strives to avoid in their designs, and this specific issue was a miss on their part. But you start to understand why the designation is meant to be taken seriously, even with the use of the word "illegal". Especially with the use of that word. The word "illegal" has other meanings than just "the LEGO Police are coming to get you".

On the digital front, the parts visibly intersect each other in Studio 2.0, but it does not flag the connection as an error (it usually does, but there are a number of situations where it doesn't). No idea if the parts exist in the consumer LDD so I haven't tested in it. I wonder if the issue in Studio 2.0 is present in the internal LDD as well.

Addendum: This also raises questions about how the product renders were made, and the state of the physical model in the lifestyle shoots...

Not acceptable at all.

I wonder how some people will lough at competing brands and will defend LEGO to their death while quality issues like this keep showing up. As above mentioned, this should be physically built before greenlighting production.
Make decision makers build their products!

Not to forget: This is supposed to be assembled by Kids, who trust LEGO to know what they're doing. If I was 6 and not able to assemble the model at this point, I'd really be wondering what's going on here!

Writing just to say I appreciate the tone of this article 100% than the tone on the AT-AT article. This is exactly how that issue should have been brought up, not like something sensational. Good job, @Huw!

@TeriXeri said:
"Are those sets designed digitally and not tested physically enough?

I can understand some lockdown work at home situations but LEGO doesn't seem to have reduced the amount of new sets at all, even while many current sets are sold out, many 2021 sets are even being retired right now to be replaced in 2022 in themes like City.

Growth is one thing, but quality control is important, a LEGO set isn't a video game software you can just patch/update digitally.

LEGO parts can and will change over time from an overstressed part.
"

I've never used a design program, but I would expect that they should issue a warning that the parts don't connect correctly within the software. I don't think it would be too hard to put a check in for that...

Too many small newer pieces and design flaws. I'll stay in the 20th century.

So we have models that utilize illegal/permanent construction techniques, foggy clear plastic that scratches easily, colors that vary wildly in shade between production runs and individual parts, print issues on dark plastic... Admit it, Lego's doing /something/ wrong these days, and their product is worse for it.

@LegoSonicBoy said:
"No idea if the parts exist in the consumer LDD so I haven't tested in it. I wonder if the issue in Studio 2.0 is present in the internal LDD as well."

I just tried it, the illegal technique works in LDD.

Tried it with my own parts and it's clear on first assembling that this construction is stressing the parts. Even clearer when taking apart - they are noticeably tighter than normal. The whole point of Lego's build standards is to avoid this out of dimension part stress. I'd certainly not use this construction myself.
Interestingly, trying a digital build as well, Stud.io doesn't throw up a collision warning, even though the parts clearly overlap visually.

How does this even happen? Yeah it may have been designed in software, but surely there'd have to be at least a few people along the production process who put it together physically, right? Did those people not think the fact the pieces have to be forced is an issue? Or perhaps they reported it but no one able to change it cared enough to change it? Very odd.

While the AT-AT issue is annoying, it's merely very difficult to disassemble. A poor design choice perhaps, but at least everything fits together as designed.

On the other hand, THIS clearly doesn't work. I can't believe that it wasn't noticed during a testing phase...which makes me wonder if maybe it wasn't an issue then and SOMETHING got changed in either the ball joint sockets were slightly modified between the design phase and now...or if the arch piece was modified. (These pieces haven't changed in years, so I'm thinking maybe there was supposed to be a slightly modified version produced but that never happened.)

It's hard to tell from the product image if the issue is still apparent there.

Whilst everyone gets in a knot over all of this, can I ask if anyone ever undoes the string to their drawbridge/helicopter thingumybob/ crane etc. Surely that's a contender for non reusable parts? I still love my LEGO and forgive these funny little foibles

@Norikins said:
" @LegoSonicBoy said:
"No idea if the parts exist in the consumer LDD so I haven't tested in it. I wonder if the issue in Studio 2.0 is present in the internal LDD as well."

I just tried it, the illegal technique works in LDD."
That suggests that LEGO went into production without actually testing the physical model. Schoolboy error and an abject lesson in not trusting software.

I hope this set isn’t cancelled though. I was hoping to get it. What I might do is trim the corners of the ball socket pieces so they’re not splayed. It’s Procrustean but I’d rather that than have parts stressed and possibly crack at some future point.

I have one question. Didn't the designers have access to physical bricks during the lockdown? Couldn't they ask for specific bricks to be sent to their locations during the forced lockdown period?

@DoonsterBuildsLego said:
"Interestingly, trying a digital build as well, Stud.io doesn't throw up a collision warning, even though the parts clearly overlap visually."

When CAD software checks for collisions, it is very expensive to check every triangle in one mesh against every other triangle in another mesh to see if there is a collision. Collision calculations are also incredibly hard to do! So collision data is restricted to relatively simple bounding boxes around the parts (e.g. a cuboid around a brick, or a cylinder around a round brick). For complex shapes like the wheel arch or the mixel ball cup, collision data will simply not be well defined.

When you consider that a lot of 2021 and 2022 sets were designed during the pandemic, and think about how this must have affected the design teams, I'm inclined to be quite forgiving of all these recent minor slip-ups, given Lego's generally excellent quality.

@davidedwardsdavis said:
"Whilst everyone gets in a knot over all of this, can I ask if anyone ever undoes the string to their drawbridge/helicopter thingumybob/ crane etc. Surely that's a contender for non reusable parts? I still love my LEGO and forgive these funny little foibles"

Yes, I undo strings. And tie them in a way to enable me to do so.

@NathanR2015 said:
" @DoonsterBuildsLego said:
"Interestingly, trying a digital build as well, Stud.io doesn't throw up a collision warning, even though the parts clearly overlap visually."

When CAD software checks for collisions, it is very expensive to check every triangle in one mesh against every other triangle in another mesh to see if there is a collision. Collision calculations are also incredibly hard to do! So collision data is restricted to relatively simple bounding boxes around the parts (e.g. a cuboid around a brick, or a cylinder around a round brick). For complex shapes like the wheel arch or the mixel ball cup, collision data will simply not be well defined.

When you consider that a lot of 2021 and 2022 sets were designed during the pandemic, and think about how this must have affected the design teams, I'm inclined to be quite forgiving of all these recent minor slip-ups, given Lego's generally excellent quality."

Doesn't excuse no pre-building. I mean, I've seen footage of a Lady TESTBUILDING a set in a chinese off-brand facility, while molding machines produced bricks around her. The production standard might not be as tidy as that of the leading, double-the-price brand, but AT LEAST, they had their sets test-built!

A definite design flaw this time, and well worth pointing out, unlike the AT-AT where the only issue was varying user ability.

@PDelahanty said:
"While the AT-AT issue is annoying, it's merely very difficult to disassemble. A poor design choice perhaps, but at least everything fits together as designed.

On the other hand, THIS clearly doesn't work. I can't believe that it wasn't noticed during a testing phase...which makes me wonder if maybe it wasn't an issue then and SOMETHING got changed in either the ball joint sockets were slightly modified between the design phase and now...or if the arch piece was modified. (These pieces haven't changed in years, so I'm thinking maybe there was supposed to be a slightly modified version produced but that never happened.)

It's hard to tell from the product image if the issue is still apparent there."

I'd agree, I don't actually have an issue with the AT-AT set. A construction method that requires a degree of skill to disassemble I feel is fine for a large complex set and the intended audience for it.

Methods that put stress on parts like this though shouldn't be happening.

Lego parts are so much more complex than ever, and designers are so creative with the complex parts that it's inevitable these things happen.
Surely someone made the set with actual real parts before it went into production - why wasn't it spotted?
And quick, get one before Lego withdraw it - make £s on auction sites!!!!

The issue with the AT-AT doesn't trouble me nor do I see it as a design flaw. However, in this new Doctor Strange set it is a terrible flaw. So frustrating because in time the pieces will snap. Surely someone would have caught this in the design process.

Big deal, these are children's toys. One or two mistakes (and even more) are forgivable.

These things should be pointed out though, of course, so they can be rectified.

I think these issues need to be brought up. There are quality control issues every year from Lego. I love getting their sets but i have about a dozen mistakes in instructions where bricks are supposed to be laying or pieces magically appearing later or they are turned around the wrong direction. There's mistakes in names (I mean 'General "Ackmar"' was hilarious to me). But the worst it's knowing a specific color (not piece) can and does come cracked or will break if connected a certain way.

These sets were not ones I'm interested in, but if I had a set where these issues did arise, I would like to be aware of it before purchase.

Well, you can file the sockets a bit :D

Goodness me. Most people commenting need to calm down. This is not the apocalypse. Large multinational makes minor design error.

There have always been design errors and they will continue to happen. Humans are fallible.

Don’t recall the hysteria over the WALL-E weak neck, a similar issue with the unicorn horns as icicles in the Nian set.

It does give the idea that LEGO doesn't physically build the models before they are sold which is pretty crazy.

I guess they are more like Apple than they realise.

If this came about from never building the set physically, that means their software stack is incredibly robust and the collision was missed due to a rare bug or error. If they relied on software for the entire design process then it has to be pretty good.

On the other hand, I could see a scenario where physical building was done and a similar part with different tolerances was used by accident. But I don’t know if the pieces in question have similar alternatives.

I echo other comments regarding this article. Good job explaining the issue in a fair and straightforward way. People make mistakes and Lego is not infallible.

This does look like an error which has happened due to not actually building in physical bricks. Perhaps it was test built but communication about the problem failed. Obviously the software can't anticipate all possible connections that put parts under stress which is why physically building the model is necessary.

I don't think this is acceptable for an official set, not only because the parts are under stress but also because it could be tricky for the target audience to assemble. I don't see LEGO letting this one stand now they know about it.

Does make me inquisitive on the Lego design & manufacture process. I just assumed they designed in 3d then built physically followed by some independent quality/peer reviews (but physical again)

Based on this, obviously I was wrong, or Lego output is growing faster than its internal quality processes can keep up with.

This perfectly fits into a line of mistakes and dubious decisions from LEGO in 2021:

- withdrawn/delayed sets and GWPs because of "quality issues"
- excessive thresholds for GWPs
- awkward handling of competitive brands
- awkward price policy (Price increases on existing sets, AT-AT, Vidiyo, City, etc, etc...)
- Online shop ratings obviously bought en masse
- decreasing plastics quality (transparent pieces, colours, clutch power, etc..)
- ridiculous non-English set names (google translate?)
...

I still like LEGOs basic products - the bricks - but one could get the impression that LEGO has at least lost some attention, love for their products and general quality.

I’ll be honest, this does seem like a fairly minor issue, but I do think it is a bit concerning. Something about the parts being placed like that just doesn’t look right. I could see this potentially causing confusion at best or damaged parts at worst by forcing pieces into these positions.

As for whether or not we’re being too harsh... honestly, I’m in the camp that we’re not. I’ve said it before that LEGO is acting like a premium brand, so I expect premium quality. Especially with the prices they ask for most sets. However, there is a civil way to give a heads up that something seems off, and I believe articles like this are the way to go.

Plus this isn’t complaining about a set being innaccurate to a movie, not including X character, or something that’s more up to preference. This highlights a possible problem with the building experience - which is the main draw to buy LEGO over other toys.

If something is off, LEGO needs to know about it. Their products are known for high quality, and that’s THE reason to buy them over other bricks in my opinion. If the quality falters, then LEGO loses a pretty big selling point. I don’t want to see LEGO fail. I want it to thrive, and be around for years to come so others can also enjoy it!

@ericb_ said:
""What do you think -- Is this a problem that would worry you, or doesn't it matter? Should we continue to bring issues like this to your attention?"

Since LEGO sends Brickset free sets to review, it would be noble of Brickset to inform LEGO of such issues (as you have) and wait for their final response before publishing an article like this."

Are you serious? Is Brickset supposed to do what actually LEGO's QA department should have done?

@MegaLucario said:
"foggy clear plastic that scratches easily"
Did Lego ever respond to this? I think this is a much more serious issue, as is the bad quality printing on dark parts and pieces that crack, but I've yet to see a Brickset article about any of that. At least it's clear that Lego's been working on colour matching, as the colour of new dark red parts is more consistent than ever. Just hope they work on the rest too.

This is a pretty serious issue here and I’m quite surprised and sad at the amount of cancellations a design issues we have for 2021/2022, I assume it’s pandemic issues but I hope there aren’t more nasty surprises for us when the jan 1st sets release

I don't know if it's just me, but I have the feeling that while many people are rightly complaining over this (and other issues with LEGO), only German commenters bring up how off-brand have better standards/cost less/are catching up with LEGO, etc.

Damn, Lego is getting sloppy lately. Now they not only need to fix their colors, materials and quality issues, they have to fix the sets themselves.

@ericb_ said:
"A lot of commenters presume to know why something like this could happen. Most likely none of your assumptions are correct."

I mostly see guesses and not assumptions. No harm in trying to figure out what happened.

@eiffel006 said:
"I don't know if it's just me, but I have the feeling that while many people are rightly complaining over this (and other issues with LEGO), only German commenters bring up how off-brand have better standards/cost less/are catching up with LEGO, etc. "

We have good youtubers covering off brands. So I decided to give several of them a try and see for myself. Some are crappy and some are honestly on par with Lego, at least quality-wise -> they offer similar products of LEGO quality but for a lower price. At the same time, Lego employs a very aggressive Frankfurt law firm to intimidate retailers of off-brands and exploits loopholes in German customs processing as well as the rather slowly moving legal system here. This led to a decrease of the popularity of the Lego COMPANY in recent years in Germany.

If we, the German brickset users, wouldn't like Lego, the brand toy, we wouldn't have our accounts here, with our collections managed and bricklists posted and we wouldn't participate in discussions like this and we wouldn't suck up every news about coming new sets.
However, we do acknoledge fair competition and we want to point out flaws, if Lego products don't match the quality we are used to.

@eiffel006 said:
"I don't know if it's just me, but I have the feeling that while many people are rightly complaining over this (and other issues with LEGO), only German commenters bring up how off-brand have better standards/cost less/are catching up with LEGO, etc. "

That's because we have a very prominent ex- brick and mortar Lego store guy on youtube, who was badly alienated by TLG (through c&d's and some horrible business tactics) and decided to just do his own thing. He is a very prominent and well known channel in Germany (to the point that even non Lego people know about him). He often compares sets of different offbrands and Lego, that's where all us German commenters come from.
It's a shame that the guy only does videos in German, maybe, if the non-German majority of the community would be able to understand him, Lego would perhaps actually do something about their QC issues.

First mistake was not calling him Shuma-Gorath, now look what happened...

Thanks for bringing this to light, Huw. I was thinking of picking up that set for display, but I definitely would’ve noticed the part incongruity and would not have completed it.

Given LEGO’s stellar customer service, I probably would’ve called to have it refunded or some other recompense arranged. But this saves me that headache.

I may still pick it up, because I love Dr. Strange and was waiting for an inexpensive set with him in it. I would just part out the monster in that case. Still, it’s a cool looking monster and would’ve been nice to display along with him.

Thanks again for posting this. The people that work at LEGO aren’t so fragile that they can’t handle a little criticism now and then.

I believe that Lego have now resolved this issue. All future sets will include a large hammer...

In all seriousness, the reason I love Lego over things like Airfix kits is that there's a right way to put sets together, and no grey 'almost right' area. You follow the instructions, you get a perfect rendition of the set. Unlike some of the Airfix planes and boats that I built as a child which ended up as a horrendous mess of plastic, paint and glue.

If we can't rely on Lego to produce a set that actually goes together properly, it's a concern.

First world problems and all that, but a problem nevertheless.

@Koend1999 said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
" @eiffel006 said:
"I don't know if it's just me, but I have the feeling that while many people are rightly complaining over this (and other issues with LEGO), only German commenters bring up how off-brand have better standards/cost less/are catching up with LEGO, etc. "

That's because we have a very prominent ex- brick and mortar Lego store guy on youtube, who was badly alienated by TLG (through c&d's and some horrible business tactics) and decided to just do his own thing. He is a very prominent and well known channel in Germany (to the point that even non Lego people know about him). He often compares sets of different offbrands and Lego, that's where all us German commenters come from.
It's a shame that the guy only does videos in German, maybe, if the non-German majority of the community would be able to understand him, Lego would perhaps actually do something about their QC issues."

Referring to Der Held Der Steine, we all know that the guy has started with his oftentimes unfounded criticism of LEGO because he knows that being a bit controversial on YouTube brings him more views and more money. He has always painted a very partial view of the issues he had with LEGO and their attorneys. For example, he only started having issues withe the LEGO Group when he tried to register his logo, based on the two by two brick, as his own brand. Since the design of that brick is still protected, LEGO had no other option but to send him a letter asking him to withdraw the registration. It was Der Held that turned all of this into a $h1tshow, for clicks and views.

Regarding the issues with QMan minifigures, the Minifigure is also still a protected design, and it is probably the most important design LEGO has. What QMan did to try to circumvent this was producing minifigs that look very much like LEGO minifigs, but with larger "bubble-style" heads. Imho, this is still infringement of a protected design. LEGO has every right to have these sets confiscated until this case comes to court. Unfortunately, also in this case we have a YouTuber (with a channel called Johnny's World), who imports these sets and has presented a very partial view of the issues on his channel.

The issue I have with the German AFOL community is that it is becoming more and more divided, and that some people just do not listen to reason anymore. And that is at least partially due to the aforementioned YouTubers.

Oh, and let's not forget that Der Held regularly presents unlicensed sets on his channel: an Italian sportscar that looks exactly like a Ferrari, a German sportscar that looks like a Porsche, a massive Star Wars set that doesn't mention Star Wars anywhere, etc etc... Chinese brands do this regularly, since no expensive license means cheaper prices, and it is very difficult for the companies who hold the design licenses to do anything about this."

Controversial as the guy is, he has a point about Lego's decline in quality. Pin materials and designs have changed to the worse, colors got even more inconsistent, pieces just aren't really clear anymore (the clear pieces I have from 20-30 years ago, that are very scratched are more clear than the current ones), and so on and so forth. Meanwhile it is undeniable, that the offbrands did a huge leap in quality over the last 10 years and it's very likely they will at least match Lego's quality in a few years (considering Lego's quality isn't exactly getting better either).

This isn't what we meant when we said we wished Lego sets were more like clone brand sets

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As a journalist, I appreciate the transparency, from you and partly from LEGO/the designer. I do think this was important to report on, and, as many have already said, I think it was reported on much better than the AT-AT article (and it’s also much more relevant and concerning). I also think it was noble to publish it with or without a response from LEGO, though it was equally noble to request a response from LEGO first. Thank you for respectfully bringing this to the attention of us and LEGO.

Some “illegal techniques” are only banned in combination with another step. A great example is plugging a 1x1 plate into the holes on a Technic brick. You can do that. You can add parts to a Technic brick such that they overhang on the side. You can’t do both because it would result in the 1x1 plate preventing the other part from fully seating.

In this case, adding the Mixel joints to that fender might be acceptable, if the 1x6 plate was not added to the other end. I’ve seen instances where official sets bend geometry just a tiny bit, but it can’t do so in a way that creates undue stress. Without building this, I don’t know how much stress it creates, but visually it appears to be too much to pass muster. However, that doesn’t mean this is an illegal technique...yet.

@TeriXeri:
Normally, they would work with physical bricks, but pandemic rules may have resulted in some digital designs being necessary just to keep product moving through the pipeline.

@Phoenixio:
There are limits to what they’ll be allowed to change on the fender, because they intentionally matched the profile to that of the 1x6x1 arch brick. There’s an entire department that will make sure that pairing is not violated, probably because of issues that have arisen through running changes involving sets like 10179 and 79003.

@LegoSonicBoy:
An illegal technique is not one that causes undue stress to the parts, but one that is _recognized_ to cause undue stress to the parts. There are tons of high-stress techniques that have never been considered for an official set, and therefore remain off the list. I created one myself, about two decades ago. It’s probably not on the list, because it’s so stressful that you almost need to use furniture to force the connections.

@rab1234:
LDraw has no intersect-defection system. Parts are coded as inaccurate polygons, so it’s not as simple as just checking for two planes crossing each other. There’s no such thing as a circle in LDraw, but it can be approximated with a many-faceted shape. Rotate it a bit, and suddenly a connection that “fits” would set off several intersect warnings. These have to be coded in on a case-by-case basis, for certain intersections, which complicates the process for all other types of intersections. I suspect their in-house software does not include this feature because they may not have felt it was needed.

@PurpleDave said:
" @LegoSonicBoy:
An illegal technique is not one that causes undue stress to the parts, but one that is _recognized_ to cause undue stress to the parts. There are tons of high-stress techniques that have never been considered for an official set, and therefore remain off the list. I created one myself, about two decades ago. It’s probably not on the list, because it’s so stressful that you almost need to use furniture to force the connections."
Stressful for the part or the AFOL? Or both? :~P

Seriously, what was it that required furniture to assemble and what was the stress? Decades later, is it still assembled and if so, are the parts OK? Details, please.

@skadebo said:
"Big deal, these are children's toys. One or two mistakes (and even more) are forgivable.

These things should be pointed out though, of course, so they can be rectified."

Bro. These ARE children toys. Kids deserve only best stuff. Sadly commercialism dont like that fact.

@MrClassic said:
" @MegaLucario said:
"foggy clear plastic that scratches easily"
Did Lego ever respond to this? I think this is a much more serious issue, as is the bad quality printing on dark parts and pieces that crack, but I've yet to see a Brickset article about any of that. At least it's clear that Lego's been working on colour matching, as the colour of new dark red parts is more consistent than ever. Just hope they work on the rest too.
"
Yes, see this New Elementary interview, where they basically say the material is a work-in-progress: https://www.newelementary.com/2020/09/missing-faulty-lego-consumer-perceived-quality.html

"Transparent has changed, it is now more 'foggy'. 100% of AFOLs who have commented about this to me do not like the new transparent! Is it a change of material?

Bjarke: Our Materials platform has evolved over time as a natural part of optimising our products. New materials have been added, others changed or phased out. In the years to come we will see more changes to the materials platform in order for TLG to become more and more sustainable. The new transparent material is not 100% sustainable but we need this step in order to become sustainable."
@PurpleDave said:
" @LegoSonicBoy:
An illegal technique is not one that causes undue stress to the parts, but one that is _recognized_ to cause undue stress to the parts. There are tons of high-stress techniques that have never been considered for an official set, and therefore remain off the list. I created one myself, about two decades ago. It’s probably not on the list, because it’s so stressful that you almost need to use furniture to force the connections."
That's interesting and also seems needlessly limiting. I didn't think it'd take being on a list to be considered illegal, as it's not like membership on or off the list would suddenly alter the physics at work.

Unlike the AT-AT, this is an issue with the building process and a set aimed at kids. A kid might try to push it in and might even break it, or just feel that he did something "wrong". It was rightfully reported to Lego. Also, I do find it weird that they didn't notice that.

@PDelahanty said:
"I'd imagine that there's a lot of e-mails being sent around inside Lego today trying to figure out how this happened, what can be done to fix this, and how it can be prevented in the future.

I'm hoping that Lego will inform us of all three of those things...but suspect we'll just get a vague response about the set now being delayed. A lot of people are assuming that due to the pandemic that this was designed digitally and nobody ever tried to build it before a copy was sent to Brickset. ...but we have evidence this is obviously not true because Lego has published photos of the assembled set. Look at 76205 here. That's not a digital rendering, it's a photo. Therefore SOMEONE there has assembled this at least once. Therefore it's not as simple as "nobody tried to build it". Someone obviously did. So what went wrong between that set being successfully assembled for the photo and the packaging of CapnRex101's set? Did the photo assembler encounter the same issue and say nothing? Did some parts change? I hope they tell us!"
Unless LEGO is run completely differently to every other producer of physical goods, the product development process (which should have included physically testing the assembly process, model etc) is completely different in objectives and timing than the one that generates publicity shots. By the time the publicity photography team has assembled the set to take its picture, it’s already far too late to re-design the set and not that team’s job to sound a warning. If they tried, they probably would have been ignored or slapped down hard.

Like others I appreciate the tone of this article. A design flaw like this in a Lego set is tragic—but I'm upset by how mean-spirited many of the reactions to this are, especially considering the likelihood that the reason for issues like this starting to crop up here and there have to do with the inevitable shift to work-from-home during the pandemic lockdowns. The important thing now is that the issue can hopefully rectified, something Lego has done in the past for sets like WALL-E where a significant design flaw has become evident post-release.

The response "the majority of consumers don't care" is such a terrible response. The person asking the question cares. It's the equivalent of saying "your concerns are noted. And ignored".

@Huw said:
"I must admit I have been contemplating whether publishing this article was the right thing to do. I suspect someone in LEGO's Christmas has been runied as a result of the problem, either through worry or having to work out what to do.

But then I figured that would have happened anyway as soon as we notified the company on Monday, both officially and via my designer friend, and that was certainly the right thing to do.

It's just about preferable that they know about it now so remedial action can be taken before widespread release, if it's deemed necessary, rather than first hearing about it via complaints to customer services in January.

I think we might have to be a bit more forgiving of issues like this. We've all been through a tough time the last 20 months and it's had an effect on us all, not least the LEGO company, as is now becoming apparent."

Publishing this was absolutely the right thing, and you should not be more forgiving on this. These are standards Lego has set for themselves (and they are a good thing, since they try to prevent the pieces from braking/ making connections that are really hard to separate). As a consumer I absolutely love this stance and I expect my product to not have these kinds of flaws.
Great work!

@Rob42 said:
"Foggy clear plastic came up in a Q&A during last year's Virtual Fan Day. The response was (paraphrased): The new material offers slightly better build and attachment characteristics, and the majority of consumers (i.e. kids) won't notice or care about any other differences."
Seeing as there now is an 18+ line with mostly very large and expensive sets directly targeted at adults, many of which contain large transparent parts such as the windscreens in sets like 10279: Volkswagen T2 Camper Van and 10295: Porsche 911, or the doors and large windows in sets like 10297: Boutique Hotel and 10278: Police Station you'd think Lego really should re-think their stance on this. Paying so much for something that comes scratched out of the box isn't the premium experience it should be.

@PjtorXmos said:
" @eiffel006 said:
"I don't know if it's just me, but I have the feeling that while many people are rightly complaining over this (and other issues with LEGO), only German commenters bring up how off-brand have better standards/cost less/are catching up with LEGO, etc. "

That's because we have a very prominent ex- brick and mortar Lego store guy on youtube, who was badly alienated by TLG (through c&d's and some horrible business tactics) and decided to just do his own thing. He is a very prominent and well known channel in Germany (to the point that even non Lego people know about him). He often compares sets of different offbrands and Lego, that's where all us German commenters come from.
It's a shame that the guy only does videos in German, maybe, if the non-German majority of the community would be able to understand him, Lego would perhaps actually do something about their QC issues."

Don't assume such things as every German AFOL is a fan of Held der Steine or watches regularly videos from him! >:(

I second @Koend1999's critical view of him. He is more of an entertainer now than a serious bricks YouTuber. He is much more successful with his polemic anti Lego videos than he could ever be as a retailer.

This is getting out of hand. Now there are two of them!

@CCC said:
" @ericb_ said:
" @Lyichir said:
"I'm upset by how mean-spirited many of the reactions to this are..."
I'm also surprised by how many people are overreacting. It's just so trivial when compared to recalls for automobiles, food/produce, etc.

"

This site is about LEGO, not food. It's BRICKSET not BRISKET.

Anyway, what is trivial to you is important to others. Slipping standards in a product we enjoy should be pointed out. Presumably they will need to recall these sets now or come up with some other solution, due to lack of care in the design process. LEGO used to do presentations on illegal connections and builds. Maybe they need to do some more internal training sessions.
"

“Brickset not Brisket” I need that on a t-shirt! :D

Wow! So much angst. Fwiw I'll bet $20 that they did build the physical model and it worked fine in house.

Many molds have been slightly tweaked over recent years. I'll bet they had a revised version of that wheel arch in house, and the designer program had the up to date revised dimensions. They didn't see a problem because there wasn't one.

BUT, when lego updates a part, the old versions are often in stock for months. My bet is the packing plants still had old stock from older revisions of the part. That's where the problem came from imho.

The designers don't go back and test every combination of every mold revision. Maybe they should do that digitally to flag these kinds of mismatched versions. Dunno.

I really like having all the historical revisions. Some of my creations depend on one specific version of a part because the geometry is just right. For instance, the old elephant trunk was revised recently a few years ago. The new version is 100% system while the old one wasn't. The stud tip of the trunk is perfectly vertical in the new version. In the old version the stud and tip of the trunk bend back a few degrees. The old one looks more natural, but the new one allows building trunks into structures without having to accommodate the non-system angles.

Take an old and new trunk and put them next to each other. The difference is small but obvious.

I'll bet the new version of these fender arches will be perfectly system

tbh this is worse than the at-at imo. That one only makes an effect when people try to disassemble it, and at least it is doable as shown by their video. But this one is clearly a design flaw and it happens when you are building it, not disassemble. Not to mention this is a far smaller set. Most people won't take apart the at-at. I mean, did they never even build this set with real bricks...this should have almost no chance to happen if they do so. Almost anyone who have build lego for some time would have identify right away...

@davidedwardsdavis:
There are certain things they have made part of the process that they very clearly intended to be permanent, starting with the application of stickers. You can remove them if you don’t mind putting in some work, but doing so will destroy the stickers. The early Bionicle sets had a two-piece year design that was never meant to be disassembled. There’s a Technic wheel hub that feels like a permanent connection. And in the past they’ve included long sections of flex-tube with instructions on where the consumer should cut it to get the right sizes. That last one was a really bad idea, not just because of the optics of someone mincing their own hand while building a kid’s toy, but also because it’s difficult to get a clean cut that doesn’t crush the tips.

That said, there are very few knots that are impossible to untie once tied, provided you’re willing to work at it. Gordion knots are the only one that comes to mind.

@eiffel006:
That’s because very few others have a working knowledge of such things. Germans have been shifting their purchases to some of these brands because they’re no longer the belle of the ball in Billund, and they don’t particularly care for the themes that sell really well elsewhere.

@PjtorXmos:
I’ve heard bits and pieces about something of this sort, and a lot of what I heard at the time indicated the individual was grinding his axe all the way down to the handle. I don’t think I heard what the initial conflict was, but I have seen instances where people think what they are doing is perfectly innocent, while the company is looking at the same situation and seeing something they are required to defend against or risk forfeiting certain protections. One specific instance was a guy who wanted to make a LEGO PC (regular computer guts in a brickbuilt tower-style case). He sent them a request for free parts to support his artistic endeavor. They sent him a C&D that got him so mad he turned around and made the same request to Mega Brands and ranted about how terribly he was treated by The LEGO Company every time he posted about this or any subsequent related project. They sent the C&D because he registered a domain name using the word “LEGO”, which is an astonishingly valuable trademark that they are very protective of. If they weren’t, it could be stripped of protected status and any company in the world could sell “X Brand lego sets”. But to read his posts, someone might as well have kicked his puppy to death. I mean, the guy swore off any and all LEGO product for the way they reacted to his clear infringement of their legal trademark.

@Zander:
More often, it’s about stuff that’s stressful to younger kids. Multi-stud parts being connected to the holes on a Technic brick isn’t known to stress the parts to the point where they’re at risk of breaking, but it’s nearly impossible for young hands to pry them loose without a dangerously sharp knife.

The technique is what I referred to at the time as the “Murasaki tail”, or “Murasaki technique”, or something to that effect. There’s an article about it somewhere on MaskifDestiny.com, as well as a handful of my MOCs that used it (like my Dragon of Fire). Basically, it’s a way you can take a bunch of the old Throwbot socket joints and daisy-chain them together into a structure that can flex quite a bit in four directions. The problem is, assembling it requires putting an axle joint into a socket joint and pinning the two together with a No2 axle. The parts don’t quite fit, so the furniture part is that jamming that axle in can be require a considerable amount of force, as it’s basically causing the ridges on either side of the axle joint to bite into the inner surface of the socket joint. It leaves _very_ visible and deep grooves that may even affect its performance as a socket joint.

As for long-term status, I built most of my Bionicle MOCs from 2001-2003, boxed them all up in 2004 before moving across the state, and lost track of where most of them are stored (they’re all in my condo...somewhere). In 2012, I found all my Legends of the Five Rings dragons, took them to Brickworld Chicago, got nominated for Best Creature with my 3’ long Celestial Dragon, and have displayed them 2-3 dozen times since (most recently this September at Brickworld Detroit). There are enough of them to fill a full-size banquet table, and I’ve only had one socket joint break out of probably over 100 that are used in this way. That probably had as much to do with how I packed them as it did with the stress caused by this technique. Once that initial “bite” is over, it’s no tighter than if it had been used as a traditional ball-and-socket joint, but especially if you’re assembling a long string of these, pushing against a hard surface to seat the axle will save your hands a lot of torture.

@LegoSonicBoy:
An entire department was formed due to a single instance where a LEGOLAND park model stressed a part by use of a connection nobody had intended to be possible. A lot of weird part combinations (like plugging flames into the bottoms of 1x plates) are possible because someone probably started standardizing incidental holes to make sure they don’t ever end up with something that _almost_ fits, but is right enough to break one or both parts.

When the US was founded, theft was a concept they understood, and passed laws against. Hacking into your bank account with a computer was not. Laws had to be updated to cover the new situation. This is no different. They have to know the connection is possible before they can evaluate whether it’s useful and safe, or if it’s likely to stress the parts to the point of breakage.

One of these unexpected connections is attaching the two-finger side of a click hinge to a clip. It’s an incredibly weak connection that won’t hold up any weight, and won’t damage any parts, so you find it pop up now in sets like Home Alone, where it’s used to secure the four opening panels on the front of the house. It has just enough grip to keep them from flopping open, but not so much that you’ll rip the panels apart by trying to open and close them. Transparent bars into transparent cones, on the other hand, was a connection they intended to be possible, but it turns out the grip was so tight you could rip the bar in two with your hands simply by trying to pull it free. I’ve actually done it, to a Trans-Bright-Green 3L bar.

Lego's quality has been decreasing over time and it's very concerning.

Whether it's the never-fixed problem of different shades of dark red (and often other colours as well), the lack of proper printing on minifigures to match the correct shade of colour, especially yellow for 'neck' areas in relation to the rest of the minifig,
design flaws such as this, the AT AT and the bridge connection in the microscale Hogwarts (as showed by Jangbricks),
the last minute cancellation of the Osprey, the dynamite factory set in City, the list goes on.

There has also been concerns about decreased part quality following the introduction of plant based plastic, especially with transparent pieces.

"Only the best is good enough" "ArE YoU SuRE AbOUt ThAt?"

@Kynareth said:
"Just a question- what attaches to the female joint? If it’s the male equivalent then you could swap them over, and the fault would probably lie with the instructions. I am assuming though it’s a pin to attach the tentacles, but you know what happens when you assume…."

Imagine the female joint with a pin to attach to the tentacles. Now that would be a useful part - redundant, maybe, but useful nonetheless. I'm from the school that think that each new part should have its opposite available as well (i.e. you do a male socket with a technic pin, then do a female socket with technic pin. You do a top curved piece, do an inverted (bottom) curved piece etc.)

To me, the AT-AT was a non-issue. This, on the other hand, is a serious issue (no matter what were the reasons why: physical or digital build, ancient mould, or what have you). It may not be a serious issue in terms of life and death but it is a serious issue in terms of QC and the premium asked for by the Lego Group. This is not a set I'm interested in but I was interested in getting the Lambo Sian and refrained to do so because their colour matching is so off that I cannot bring myself to spend that sort of money on so poor quality product. I am glad this has been reported and I don't care much if it is done politely or not - this is a "free" service helping Lego catching something they should have seen themselves and in the end help them get better (assuming they eventually learn the lesson).

The Lego Group is now in an environment where a lot of adults are interested in buying it, they do not know if the next generation will be as enamoured with its toy as the current one; so the best strategy is to churn products as much as it can. This clearly has an impact on product quality. Lego has entered into a gazillion of ventures/projects/initiatives over the last few months - those were all unnecessary - no matter how noble they may sound. The Lego house is unnecessary. But somehow, we all have to pay for that now. I so miss Jorgen Vig Knudstorp...

@ericb_ said:
" @madforLEGO said:
"For the money a LEGO set costs, this should not happen."

Seriously? Cars are expensive, yet they have recalls all the time. I guess those engineers are idiots. Or maybe, you know, no one's perfect."

You are seriously comparing something with thousands of moving parts, and subject to incredible stresses, and environmental variables, to a plastic toy with 100's of parts, with designers working on these all of the time (and previously did not have these issues).. Ummm, ok... yeah.. I guess you got me there...

@ak41984:
It’s not uncommon, especially with a new breed of AFOL-designers, for sets to involve geometry that doesn’t hit 100.0000% perfectly. Lots of people take advantage of the inherent slop in a system like this (such as being able to build a wall of 1x2 bricks or plates and flex the entire thing into a gradual curve). That’s not a problem. When you need to put pressure on a construct to get things to line up before another piece can be added, that’s where you have a problem. Hogwarts was imprecise geometry. This is problematic geometry.

@magmafrost:
“Plant-based plants” plastic is chemically identical to the same polyethylene plastic sourced from crude oil. They still have to make ethanol, aka ethyl alcohol (C2H6O), to get started. From there it’s all the same recipe. 100% different situation than the transparent plastic, even if people seem unable to accept it.

"What do you think -- Is this a problem that would worry you, or doesn't it matter? Should we continue to bring issues like this to your attention?"

To the latter question yes - definitely. I don't think any fan website would want to bite the hand that feeds (not sure many of us could afford to buy all the sets sent for review!), but first and foremost it is a fan site not a corporate one. The fact you'll highlight where sets might be lacking, or RRP might be too high makes Brickset feel reliable. I would imagine for many of us on here, certainly for me, there have been occasions we've been swayed to buy a set or not based on your reviews and thoughts, if I learned you'd knowingly hidden issues about a set I'd be disappointed!

That being said, given some comments on this article, whilst this error is something that Lego should be held accountable for, but is probably not the harbinger of 'Lego Extinction Period Is Nigh'. Wait a minute...

I think given the number of Lego sets, the number of pieces and building steps, it is surprising that this is not more common! I can forgive them for this relatively rare error. Not too fussed about it.

Yes, it is worrying, and you should continue to bring issues like this to public attention. This is just embarrassing.

Also, I hate how lockdowns have become a go-to excuse for virtually everything. There is no way that working from home meant that AT NO POINT between the model being designed and the parts being packaged and sent out nobody ever attempted to assemble the set with real parts.

I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Just file the offending parts down so they will fit (issue resolved)still original parts .
I do not get into the Lego purist stuff ,once it is yours (purchased) do what you like, not be dictated by others, as they have their own set to fix in their own way!

Well, there's nothing stopping the comments from proclaiming doomsday, but this article was written exactly as it should have been, so credit to that.

I don't say this with crushing despair or alarmism, because I'm not deeply hurt by it, but honestly, I think the overall problem is that LEGO has gotten too big for its own good. It's pushing out so much product that more things are slipping through the cracks, and it's only pushing out that much product because of the nightmarish impossible pressure any company has to always make more money than they did the last year. It's simply not healthy for a consumer to put their best faith in a company's intentions, to believe service and quality is their number one priority, because after a certain point, that usually becomes replaced with revenue. We can expect better and make our voices known through the proper effective channels, but the bigger a company like LEGO becomes, the more choices of theirs will be made to maintain that impossible growth, including cut corners and oversights to make more quantity.

Good to have pointed out. - Designers don’t get better without careful/thoughtful reviewers.

Yes, there are alternate brands of Lego type construction sets available (I'm going with 'alternate' here as 'off' does seem inappropriate) with their own selling points. One already mentioned offers hybrid type sets with building bricks and fully poseable figures and touches licensed properties that Lego are never likely to. Yes, there are bloggers who promote them and even rate them higher than Lego, some more sensationally than others. Yes, some of the more outspoken ones do so in the German language. I'm naming no names but I've recently seen content posted by several such individuals (I follow German language media and will watch just about any Lego related content). If availability begets popularity and vice versa then yes, the market for these brands does seem stronger in mainland Western Europe and they do, as a consequence attract their own fan base. There's nothing wrong with that, surely. They are never likely to become the leading global brand that Lego is but can still be popular and good at what they do. (I don't own any of these brands, by the way). The natural inclination to denegrate their build quality is historically justifiable but not necessarily still the case. The recent Lego issues covered in this topic might seem insignificant but are indicative of a decline in ordinarily very high standards and are indeed a cause for concern, in my opinion.