What are the worst redesigned parts Lego created?

404_11

These are the bricks that we all knew and loved, but then they became different.
Lego constantly re-designs bricks to become stronger, lighter with less plastic, cheaper, with more clutch power, and have better looks. But sometimes they screw up something, and things go a step back instead of a step further.

Remember when the angled part of slope bricks lost the little sand-paper look on them and became flat? That was a screw-up on the part of Lego. They did eventually fix it, but it was still bad, it made them look like a cheap imitation for a while.

Those are the types of redesigns that make the bricks have less texture, look more generic and specific to just one use, have less connection possibilities, or just... make them look clumsier and not Lego.
They might have been fixed right away, after a few years, or never gotten better after it was redesigned.

So what's your least favourite modification?

CCC

It's got to be the reinforced underside of the macaroni brick for me.

graphite

Not sure it is in the "worst" list but the redesigns they've done to some of the arches that have added reinforcement that changed the flow of the arch kind of suck. The continuous vs irregular bow half arches and the 1x6x2 arch that doesn't have the same curve to it anymore.

404_11

Here is my entry:

Original-bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=2580c01 (from 1990 to 1999)

I was born a year before it was discontinued, but I've played with it and built a lot of stuff with the few I had from an older friend of mine. After a few minutes of research, I found out that this brick was short lived, and short used, only appearing in 7 sets released throughout 9 years, appearing in the colour red 4 times, black 2 times, and light grey once in a promotional set. So what could have possibly replaced this little gold nugget?

These bastards right here:
1-rebrickable.com/parts/30517 (from 2000 to 2008)
2-bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=57893 (from 2006 to 2007)
3-rebrickable.com/parts/58827 (from 2006 to 2012)
4-rebrickable.com/parts/95347 (from 2010 until present day)

As you can see, this isn't 1 part, but 4, however, these parts are essentially the same, so I'm counting them as 4 variations of this little disaster.

I can see that they were going for a longer version of the previous brick, that minifigures could be attached to. But the execution is just horrible. Different designs of the same brick were available at the same time (between 2006-2007, 3 variations of the same brick, what the heck?!), and in 14 years it has been modified 4 times, instead of the 0 in 9 years the previous brick had. Sure, it's been used a lot more, but it only looks sort of decent at an angle, and looking straight at each of the 4 sides... it's just an ugly brick, especially Nº 3. Each version has it's flaws, but the worst one by far is Nº 3, with an obvious mould injection point, 2 of the 3 sides are hard to connect anything to them, and from the back it's just... my god is it ugly!!!

If I worked at Lego, I'd bring this old brick back, and make an ultimatum saying:
Either we get a deffenitive good looking long beam, or else it's gone.

binaryeye

I have no problem with that redesign because the replacement is more versatile. The vertical bars allow things to be attached (e.g. #70134 and #70809 ) and the axle holes at the ends are more useful than round holes.

WoutStopmotion

I have two black 57893's, and to be honest, i like them.

GIR3691

I wish they still had a short support like the original. That would be really useful to have in bulk.

404_11

binaryeye said:

I have no problem with that redesign because the replacement is more versatile. The vertical bars allow things to be attached (e.g. #70134 and #70809 ) and the axle holes at the ends are more useful than round holes.

I see that, that's what the Lego group where going for, but it's only attachable in one side, and from the back it looks terrible. And sure, I can't argue that axle holes are better, it's true, but that's an easy fix to do if that piece came back, instead of the 4 variants Lego kept putting out of this flawed design.

SapmiSatan

Flat tops on the little flagpoles, instead of a round tip. I know the change was made some time around 2010/11, because I bought two Quidditch sets at two different occations (in two different countries, actually) and one had the classic version, while the other had the new flat top. A minor complaint, of course, but it bothered me.

graphite

^
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=3957
vs
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=3957b

Aaabrick

The groove on the bottom of the 1x2 jumper plate 3794. Now they can no longer be used to create a smooth surface when seen from the side. And completely unnecessary - especially since the brick separator had been redesigned to work with jumpers as well as regular 1x2 plates. No one needs the groove to remove these

ACWWGal2011

Aaabrick said:

The groove on the bottom of the 1x2 jumper plate 3794. Now they can no longer be used to create a smooth surface when seen from the side. And completely unnecessary - especially since the brick separator had been redesigned to work with jumpers as well as regular 1x2 plates. No one needs the groove to remove these

Speaking of the separtor, I despise the new ones and am thankful I have a few old school ones. While I could see a needed ability to remove jumpers and I heard they are valuable in some moc's did they really have the make it to freaking uncomfortable to hold? Maybe its fine for wee kids but its not just kids getting big sets! Plus you can't even take apart stacked plates with them! I've got one old green and two old gray and I like them so much better!

CCC

SapmiSatan said:

Flat tops on the little flagpoles, instead of a round tip. I know the change was made some time around 2010/11, because I bought two Quidditch sets at two different occations (in two different countries, actually) and one had the classic version, while the other had the new flat top. A minor complaint, of course, but it bothered me.

I prefer the flat top ones. You don't need to push them in quite as far as the round top one if you are inverting them into, for example, an apollo stud.

Bobkov

^^ I actually prefer the new ones, and I have huuuuge hands. Granted, the old ones are more comfortable, but I only pick them up to remove plates, technic pins, etc.

I found the best way to use them in separating plates is to use it normally to create a little gap, then push the thin bottom part in between the plates and run that all the way around. They separate easily at that point.

I'm not entirely sure why, but I prefer the old 5 stud long "castle wall with window" (http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=4444) over the much more useful 4 stud versions (http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=60808). Nostalgia probably.

TechnicNick

I still miss the old finger hinges. Their click hinge replacements may be stronger, but they're uglier, bulkier and less versatile. Luckily I have a good supply!

CCC

TechnicNick said:

I still miss the old finger hinges. Their click hinge replacements may be stronger, but they're uglier, bulkier and less versatile. Luckily I have a good supply!

In a similar vein, I also like the old style homemaker build-a-figure style arms over their modern counterpart.

LusiferSam

@TechnicNick I was just going to post something about the click hinge vs. finger hinge, but you beat me to the punch. There are times when the click hinge works better, but those are very and far between. Most of the time the finger hinge is better.

andyscouse

The redesigned arches - thinner walls mean one can't hold things under the arch any more (as was done with the entrance on CC). And the fact that there is now a slight straight bit, whereas before the arc curved right to the edge.

Bring back the proper arches!

Aanchir

The obvious one for me is the way that all Ø10.2mm ball cups for BIONICLE and other themes were redesigned in 2008, making them considerably more fragile. Key example: 32174 (1999–2007) versus 60176 (2008–2010).

It's not clear exactly what the purpose of this redesign was. I doubt it was just aesthetic, and if it was meant to solve issues with fragility it did just the opposite. So it seems to me that the point was probably to give the connection greater friction. But I think it's safe to say that more was lost than gained with this redesign. Simply taking apart a model for the first time became a huge gamble, because there was no telling whether the parts would snap, or whether they would still be usable if they did.

Thankfully, in 2011 the LEGO Group finally introduced a new ball cup design that is the sturdiest to date. 93571 is incredibly resilient, and I have had no issues with it since its introduction.

It's a bit of a shame that some older parts like the 5M double ball cup (47296/61053) have not been redesigned with this sturdier design, since the introduction of the redesigned ball cup coincided with the introduction of a new Character and Creature Building System that did not include such parts. But in some ways, the CCBS has done away with the need for such parts. I certainly haven't felt at all limited by their absence.

TheBrokenPlate

Aaabrick said:

The groove on the bottom of the 1x2 jumper plate 3794. Now they can no longer be used to create a smooth surface when seen from the side. And completely unnecessary - especially since the brick separator had been redesigned to work with jumpers as well as regular 1x2 plates. No one needs the groove to remove these

Are all 1x2 jumper plates going to have a groove along the bottom now? That would be a bad move, I would have thought.
I was just thinking the other day how much I liked the old tiles with no groove, so you can have a smooth join, so to speak. I always try to pick some up whenever I'm on Bricklink.

andhe

The new life jacket/preserver which leaves a visible gap on the neck.

electrobovine

^ Oh yes! I remember opening my first set with these in. The disappointment was palpable (especially because the instructions still showed the old style). Fortunately, I had lots of old style life jackets in the spares pot to replace them.

zipsforbananas

The old 5 stud wide castle pieces are mine too, the new ones without the gaps in the corners just look clumsy to me. Nostalgia's a big part, but there are real reasons too! :P

But yeah, the finger joints with their infinite possibilities of angles must be so much better for MOCers than the new clicking ones.
And I got 60011 the other day (I love surfers!) and I was horrified at the gap the life preserver creates on the neck. It seems utterly abhorrent! The only thing I can think is it allows helmets to be put on, whereas when it went around the neck it got in the way?

Oh, and I got a mixture of jumper bricks in the little chibi Star Destroyer, all in the same colour, but some with a groove and some without. Strange!

404_11

andhe said:

The new life jacket/preserver which leaves a visible gap on the neck.

Holly molly how did someone at Lego look at this and say "yup it's perfect, the kids will love it, mould it, mould it nooowwwwwww" !?