
“Illegal” Lego Builds (2006) [pdf] - nvr219
http://bramlambrecht.com/tmp/jamieberard-brickstress-bf06.pdf
======
lordnacho
Ah this explains why my kid brought me that cylinder-through-cone for me to
take apart.

BTW the last slide says "Play Well". That's what you get when you tranlate
"Leg Godt" from Danish. Which is where you get Lego from.

------
pjc50
A useful reminder that LEGO is actually a set of injection moulded parts with
extremely fine tolerance, such that even the printing must be taken into
account. It looks like they've run some of those models through finite element
analysis software to calculate the force too.

~~~
tibbetts
Some of my mechanical engineering friends think of working at LEGO the way
others think of working at Space X or NASA. I’m pretty sure all of those
models have run through finite element analysis.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Stupidly tight tolerances, tons of computer analysis, modular parts and making
things out of plastic are a fresh out of school ME's wet dream.

It takes age and experience to develop a taste for making things that are
loose and cheap but through creativity of design still somehow manage to do
the job.

------
Adamantcheese
Also note: don't use pieces outside of LEGO or Technic. That includes powerful
motors attached to technic axles, steel axles or bricks, bearings, etc. The
bricks were designed with certain assumptions in mind and you will ruin your
pieces over time doing that. Source: experience.

~~~
creato
I think if you want to avoid ruining pieces, you need to be more careful than
just not using third party components, e.g.:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umN2iHsw3UY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umN2iHsw3UY)

~~~
jakoblorz
This channel is amazing! At some point, yt recommended it and that was the
only time it recommended something truly unique. The channel not only does
hoisting tests but also rev-tests, which are interesting as well.

------
azhenley
What is the origin of this document? Is it meant for designers at LEGO? Very
cool!

Most interesting was the description of the Audi kit that changed their
testing process.

~~~
diggan
It's a document describing "illegal" ways of putting bricks together, which
means that they are not for the designers of LEGO but amateur (as in non-
official builds) builders as they are usually not as strong and using the
bricks in a way not intended by the design.

Edit: if you read through the posted documents of the "Legal vs Illegal" ways
of putting bricks together, some of them have description of why it's
considered illegal.

For example:

"Both ends of a Technic hole are larger than the diameter in the middle. Until
it ‘snaps’ into place, the half-peg is in compression and could be permanently
damaged over time. Also, by not being locked into place, the element can
easily pop out during play."

Edit2: actually, now when I read it again, it does seem to be a document for
official LEGO designers (from LEGO designer Jamie Berard) about how to NOT
design the sets. Sorry for the confusion.

~~~
creato
> some of them have description of why it's considered illegal.

They all do. The slides are "animations" displayed on sequences of slides. As
far as I noticed, every illegal technique had an explanation of why.

------
czr
Most of these seem very natural (if you've messed with LEGO before), but I
hadn't realized that specific materials choices were the reason that the cone-
around-bar construction is a problem (I remember having a terrible time trying
to undo that exact configuration). Super interesting deck!

One thing that the presentation only slightly addresses is the standards for
overall structural integrity. Official sets seemed to favor a very "light"
building style (to make constructions simpler? to save on materials?) that had
a reasonably sturdy base (so the set can be picked up without collapsing) but
which were vulnerable to lateral attacks or dropping (which would shatter
stacked stud-based connections). My experience was that you could typically
make models much stronger by adding vertical/diagonal braces via technic
pieces.

------
sand500
This is pretty awesome. A lot these are pretty intuitive and the satisfying
"click" is definitely something a child can understand.

------
Theodores
LEGO has more rules than this in my opinion. One thing that I did not
understand as a kid was why other kids built things where there were no
'rules' when it came to colour. If I built a house then the bricks would have
to be consistent regarding colour, the scope and design would be limited to
what was available. If there weren't enough bricks of a given colour for the
roof (for instance) then there would have to be a design consideration there,
so maybe a line of substitute colour bricks could be used, or another house in
the town scene rebuilt to get the required coloured bricks with that one
having the substitute colour.

Using all the bricks in the suitcase would also be a requirement, so larger
projects, e.g. that Saturn 5 rocket would be a skilled use of available
resources, the limits on the design being the black and white bricks for the
actual rocket with the obligatory lunar rover able to be made in another
colour, e.g. yellow. A randomly coloured Saturn 5 would not fly.

I also think that there should be an occasional worrying project from a
child's creativity. For instance, if the news has some story of military
exuberance then a child really should be modelling whatever it is, in this day
and age something like a Predator drone would fit the bill. Political
statements from ten year old kids in LEGO art remind the parents of what their
world has become.

Feng Shui is also another rule. This has to be innately learned and
understood. This is how to learn what design is, by experimenting and refining
one's LEGO craft. Taste is a vague thing and if you can build tasteful LEGO
models then that sets you up in life for being able to think for yourself in
other domains and do better than the instructions on the back of the box.

The lessons learned apply to the web, if you can create fantastic LEGO models
and have the taste to get the rules of what goes mechanically as well as
regarding unofficial colour and Feng Shui rules then there is no reason why
you can't create beauty online in a world where everyone else is serving up
div soup, copying from the instructions.

------
codinger
I love how the audi tt lego car is as poorly engineered as the real deal.

------
c54
As a kid I figured out the perpendicular connection trick, the height of a “1”
tall (flat plate kind of) piece is the same as the width between two pegs, so
you can wedge em in there for neat reasonably sturdy perpendicular
connections.

(A standard brick is 3 tall, in this calculus)

~~~
bonzini
Yes, more precisely the elementary unit is the difference between the width
and height of a 1x1x1 brick, which is also:

* half the height of a plate.

* the distance between the edge of the brick and the edge of the stud (half the distance between studs)

* one third the diameter of studs

* the height of the studs, except for the LEGO logo (which means that in some cases hollow or recessed studs are very helpful, because an illegal connection can become legal with hollow studs; [https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=8586...](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=85861) is a very useful element in some intricate builds).

* the difference between the base and the top of the headlight brick [https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=4070](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=4070)

* the thickness of angle brackets such as [https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=109...](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=109610)

The LEGO system is great and everything makes a lot more sense once you figure
out that the height of 1 brick and 2 plates is the same as the width of 2
bricks. For example I made a car where the sides are built "front to back" and
attached sideways to the chassis
([https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-7455/bonzinip/awd-
champions...](https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-7455/bonzinip/awd-champions-
land-rover-defender-110/)).

In addition, the inside diameter of hollow studs is the same as the diameter
of clips and minifigure hands, and the same as the inside diameter of Technic
pegs. There are a lot of newer parts that use this "secondary" system, but the
basic measurements were established in the 70s. See
[http://www.newelementary.com/2016/12/bravo-three-one-
eight.h...](http://www.newelementary.com/2016/12/bravo-three-one-eight.html)
for more information.

------
stared
I use Lego blocks as a metaphor for mathematics (a discrete number of building
blocks, with rules how one can connect them to each other). In this context,
an explicit list of illegal constructions makes this metaphor even stronger.

------
tragomaskhalos
A plate slotted into another at right angles, and plugging a brick into a
fence, were standard techniques when I was a lad. Returning to Lego in later
years with my own kids, the various bricks introduced in the interim with
studs on top and the sides, obviating these hacks, were the most glaring (and
welcome) innovations.

~~~
Pxtl
I believe the Lego fan jargon for the side-quest pieces is SNOT blocks (studs
not on top).

~~~
checkyoursudo
I always thought SNOT just meant that you couldn't see any studs on the
presentation surface, for example, such that if you took a picture of your
model then you wouldn't see any studs.

Is it broader, like to mean using a brick in such a way that normally the
studs would be on top but now they're in a different position? Or something
like that, e.g., not just in the overall aesthetic?

I admittedly don't really know all of the terminology. My kid has recently
gotten old enough for LEGO, so I'm starting to learn more (or relearn what I
knew as a kid myself maybe).

------
walrus01
If you want to see actually illegal Lego, Google "lepin star wars"

------
Hackbraten
Come at me, LEGO police

------
tigerlily
Awesome! When I was a kid busy tinkering with this stuff, I often wondered
whether models made by set designers had to adhere to a minimum standard of
structural integrity. Now it seems a standard does exist, and here are all the
illegal moves. I wonder how exhaustive is the list, and whether there is a
document with a set of legal builds considered best practice?

------
NickHoff
Slide 12. "... the resistance becomes too great and there is the potential for
elements (and children) being stressed."

------
andrepd
Note that this still pertains to the old (studded) Technic bricks, not the new
(studless) ones.

~~~
bonzini
Studded Technic bricks are used a lot in non-Technic builds these days.

------
cybervegan
From a builder's perspective, all rules are advisory. You may want the
specific effect these rules state is a problem - what if you want something to
detach with less force than the "click"?

But these rules are really for Lego's internal use - I can understand the
company wanting to make sure that kits it sells work properly in isolation,
but obviously they can't control the other kits it will be mixed with. Maybe
this means that they should have considered more possible combinations when
designing those particular parts?

------
ChuckNorris89
Anyone know the software they used for those models? Some artifacts remind me
of the early build of Sketch-Up.

~~~
gjsman-1000
Lego Digital Designer, or LDD. No longer supported, but you can still download
it and use it in Offline Mode.

[https://www.lego.com/en-us/ldd](https://www.lego.com/en-us/ldd)

------
ColanR
Slide #34 is the best.

~~~
aboutruby
(Questions? No (+ jokes))

------
petters
I was surprised by page 24: "Definitely Illegal!"

The ⊥ shape is apparently illegal because "because the receiving brick has
smaller dimensions than the one being connected to it."

I always thought that was intentionally possible.

~~~
gmueckl
I am fairly certain that several older models that I had as a kid had this
designed in. So Lego themselves changed their stance on this over time.

------
tosh
So happy to see this here, I was looking for the slide deck for months but
wasn’t able to google for it and everyone I asked didn’t know it.

------
lmilcin
Also, don't let your family gift your children with counterfeit blocks. I know
it isn't socually acceptable to complain when you receive gifts but I had to
lecture my family I will not accept even single counterfeit block because they
ruin the fun.

~~~
jacquesm
Lego is expensive. Not everybody has the kind of money to buy brand name Lego.
As a Lego 'puritan' I would never give anything but the real thing to kids but
if someone were to give my kid a present that is not 'the original' the only
words I would use would be 'thank you', after all, who am I to judge someone
else's purchasing power.

The plastic they use _used_ to be very good but more recent mixes are actually
not all that good, they turn brittle after just a few months outside of the
packaging. Especially 1x1's will spontaneously cracked when they have been
connected to a stud at the bottom.

Counterfeit blocks aren't really counterfeit either, Lego itself is a
counterfeit product, it was an idea taken from a UK company.

~~~
lmilcin
Lego is a company with name and patents. Other products purporting to be
"Lego" while not produced by the company named Lego are counterfeit according
to EU law.

I understand Lego seems expensive and that might have something to do with the
sticker price dictated by the appeal the blocks have to the buyers and also
quality control the company has in place to make sure everything is durable
and fits perfectly. I have 30 year old blocks and new ones and everything
snaps together predictably and tightly. I also haven't noticed any of the
bricks get brittle over time. I fully expect my grandchildren to keep playing
with the blocks I played with as a child.

The fact that blocks are getting _constant use over many, many years_ makes
them actually _very cheap_ compared to other toys that frequently get broken
in hours or days and get quickly forgotten. My kids 3 and 5 spend large part
of their time playing Lego which makes me not regret the hefty price of the
blocks.

The sticker price is bad way of deciding whether the toy is cheap or
expensive. Is $1000 toy that will be constant source of enjoyment and creative
education over many years (and possibly your grandchildren) an expensive one
compared to $30 toy that will offer no educational value, will only make loud
repetitive noises and get broken in couple of hours and quickly forgotten? I
don't think so.

There are other formats of blocks that are much cheaper and do not purport to
be Lego-interchangeable. Just use those if you are concerned with costs.

~~~
nathankunicki
Most of the legal related points you raise above are demonstrably false.

Nearly all of Lego's patents have expired across the world, and as of today it
is perfectly legal for companies to release competing products that are
compatible with Lego's interlocking brick system.

There are many manufacturers releasing compatible bricks, most famous of which
(at least in the west) is Mega Brands, a Canadian company, known for MegaBloks
and Mega Construx. More recently quite a few Chinese companies have popped up
such as Lepin and Oxford.

Today, most of Lego's legal battles involve companies stealing the designs of
Lego sets (as in, the full set design, brick for brick) and re-releasing them,
the primary culprit being Lepin. Oxford primarilly release their own designs
and therefore are left alone.

Your quality arguments do hold some merit though, as the design process of
both the set and element design that Lego goes through is unmatched. However
at least in the quality department, Chinese brands are coming close. They
however have the benefit of Lego doing all the design for them in the first
place.

EDIT:

Sources: [https://boingboing.net/2005/11/17/judge-to-lego-
your-p.html](https://boingboing.net/2005/11/17/judge-to-lego-your-p.html)
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/lego-
loses-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/lego-loses-
trademark-battle-2079389.html)
[http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-48/...](http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-48/09)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/business/worldbusiness/bu...](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/business/worldbusiness/building-
a-legal-case-block-by-block.html)

------
amelius
Does their software check these design rules automatically?

------
anigbrowl
#13 made me physically ill

------
OscarTheGrinch
Lego has made their decision, now let them enforce it.

------
knolan
Is there a reason that they’re using such low polygon count models? They look
like poorly exported STLs from some CAD package.

~~~
dharmab
They're screenshots from a 13 year old desktop application. In 2006 The Elder
Scrolls Oblivion was considered high-end graphics.

~~~
knolan
In 2002 I was using well established CAD software that handled curves just
fine. One of my first undergrad projects was modelling LEGO.

CAD is a different beast to game engines.

[https://support.ptc.com/carezone/tutorials/files/2001update....](https://support.ptc.com/carezone/tutorials/files/2001update.pdf)

There was even a shareware version called Pro/Desktop.

~~~
dharmab
These screenshots are from a consumer-oriented LEGO design tool designed to
run on a typical PC.

~~~
knolan
And these CAD packages also ran on typical PCs. Most of my classmates used
their own laptops; I couldn’t afford one. Sure you’ll need a powerful
workstation for a full assembly of a complex machine like a car where every
part is fully modelled and contrained (oddly enough today’s packages continue
to sap vastly superior resources to do much the same work) but drawing a high
quality LEGO block with just primary features with Phong shading is trivial
for consumer hardware from 2002. There’s more polygons in the 3D spinning
screensavers in Windows 2000.

The shareware tool Pro/Desktop was incredibly light. There’s some
misconception here that PCs couldn’t draw a few hundred polygons as recently
as the early noughties.

Looking at LEGO specific software and tools like LeoCAD, which originated in
the late nineties, they appear to have been able to render bricks just fine.
I’m left with the impression that the images used were done so with an
artistic intent.

