>“Soon, my colleagues started to complement the experiment by adding some LEGO trees on top of the structure,” recounts Michael. “I had to write a message asking them not to do so.”
Proving yet again, that given ANYTHING that is efficient engineers will eventually try to improve it.
This kinda reminds me how Otto Wichtrle created the first contact lense on a machine build from the Merkur construction set (known as Mechano in the West):
This gives snother example where the old-generation Lego Technics bricks shine. Besides their circular holes at the side, these still connect at their top and their bottom side with regular Lego studs.
I wish these bricks have a comeback. Why did Lego go this way? I assume it was too complicated to use for some as it allows for a two dimensional connection. Although on the other hand, this actually increases creativity in my opinion, because you could do more with a small assortment of pieces. However, this of course hinders sales of new sets, which might be a reason why Lego had a crisis around y2k.
The traditional bricks are difficult to stack and vertically to connect at the same time. Stone, two plates, Stone and then the holes on the vertical axis fit again. The modern beams are 1x1x1. Much better structure for model building.
Technics of today are different. They are mostly beams with holes and pins. The old technics were bricks with interlocking bumps on the top as well as holes on the side for pins and axels.
I used to use legos for air blown temperature tests of electronics. You just need to keep most of the air in, fit a few shapes of DUTs (hard drives, ethernet transceivers, etc) and not melt at 100C. Some vendors do not like the idea of legos used in a test setup. Some vendors don’t know a good solution when they see it.
Legos are a magnificent piece of engineering. They really care about the product and they work within extremely rigourous tolerances. Their practical utility is underrated.
I admit this is nitpicky, that language is naturally evolving and corporations cannot make rules about how English should be spoken but "Legos" isn't strictly correct. The correct term, per The LEGO Group should be "LEGO bricks". At one point they had this written on their website:
"Please always refer to our products as “LEGO bricks or toys” and not “LEGOS.” By doing so, you will be helping to protect and preserve a brand of which we are very proud, and that stands for quality the world over"
Also, though "Legos" is somewhat common in North America, it's less common in the rest of the English-speaking world.
British English speaker here - Lego was always a collective noun for me, like sheep. You might have a piece of lego, and some lego, but never 'a lego' or some legos.
It was oddly jarring to come across Americans on the internet, who had a totally different take on this!
(yes I realise you can have "a sheep", my example isn't quite right! Perhaps it's more like sand or rice)
Lego's argument always struck me as absurd. Imagine Ford doing the same thing: "Please refer to our vehicles as 'Ford vehicles' or 'cars', and not 'Fords'. By doing so..."
I think the temptation to start a car company that markets "Ford" cars is probably less than the temptation to put on your box of bricks that they are compatible with Lego bricks.
If the company doesn't take reasonable actions to protect the mark, they lose control of it.
The only risk I can see is becoming a generic term for "construction bricks". I don't see how me calling my genuine Lego bricks Legos contribute to that.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of slop in lego gears and axle holes, and quite a gap between blocks when affixed that don't line up when sliding together.
I've used Lego stuff on the job for prototypes and experiments as well. They're overall really good and handy, but some simple mechanical tasks can get really messy or rattly.
Proving yet again, that given ANYTHING that is efficient engineers will eventually try to improve it.