text:
Which is more environment-friendly: LEGO bricks or Mega Bloks?
Which is more environment-friendly LEGO bricks or Mega Bloks?

There are multiple ways to look at this question, but in any case, probably LEGO.
Production
LEGO has been prioritizing sustainability as of late, with all of their electrical uses and more already coming from sustainable sources.

Our sustainability mission
Our mission is to make all LEGO® bricks sustainably by 2030. Why? Because being sustainable is good for the planet! We want to make bricks out of things that we can grow again or are recycled. This is not easy as we want sustainable LEGO bricks to have the same high quality that you are used to, but what we know is this: big ideas may start small, but they will help us build a greener planet one brick at a time.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
At the LEGO Group, we want to play our part and make a positive impact on society and the planet, which our children will inherit, and it is this focus on future generations that drives our work. We believe we have a responsibility to minimise the environmental impact of our operations. However for us, minimising is not enough, we want to aim for zero environmental impact on the planet.
The LEGO Group aims to send zero waste to landfill by 2025, and in 2018 recycled 93% of all waste from our operations. Additionally, 100% of all plastic waste produced during the moulding of LEGO® bricks was recycled. This includes reusing some of the plastic resin in our own processes, as well as sending some of the waste to suppliers to be recycled and turned into other plastic products.
We’re big fans of wind power!
We’re proud of our achievement of being 100% balanced by renewable energy, due to the investments made in offshore wind farms in Germany and the UK by KIRKBI A/S – parent company of the LEGO Group. In 2018, the energy output from our investments in renewables was greater than the energy used at LEGO® factories, offices and stores.

I am not aware of nor was I able to find a similar effort being made by Mega Bloks, though I suppose it's possible they are doing it without advertising.
Disposal
As far as the environmental impact of the product when it reaches a landfill, it's a bit tougher to answer that question. It's unclear how different the  plastics the two companies uses is, and what the impact of those plastics is. The amount of plastic each company might use for a given piece might also differ. One thing I can say though is that LEGO is much more likely to be repurposed as it holds an after-market value much better.

Something perhaps worth mentioning is that LEGO has announced that they have put $155 million into a new Sustainable Materials Center to develop new materials as an alternative to plastic.
Plastic are mostly derived from finite resources like petroleum. Plastic can be recycled but the recycled material can often be inferior, particularly depending on the quality and sorting of the plastic material used.
Some of the newest pieces (mostly plants) are made from sugarcane-based, rather than oil-based, plastic. However, almost 80% of LEGO pieces consist of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), a petroleum-based substance that polyethylene may not be able to replace.

As far as I know, Mega Bloks and other clone brands are not investing as much into developing new sustainable materials as much as LEGO, if at all.


text:
Does the LEGO Star Wars Holiday X-Wing (4002019) contain any unique pieces?
The 2019 LEGO Employee Gift 4002019 is a holiday-style Star Wars X-Wing Fighter.

From what I can tell, this set is based on the current LEGO Star Wars X-Wing Fighter, with some different colored pieces and a few extra models like Yoda's hut and sleigh.

Does this set contain any unique pieces (and thus likely as expensive as the set on BrickLink), or would it be possible to build this set by redesigning the current X-Wing set with pieces from my collection and/or other sets which are widely available? If it does contain unique pieces, what are they?

Checking part inventory for this set on Rebrickable I found following part to be unique:
10169 - Minifigure, Utensil Sack / Bag with Handle in Green
Review posted on New Elementary also suggest pilot's torso and legs are new/unique prints.
The rest seem to be released in other sets. Some parts are quite old or have been produced in small number of sets.

But when I click the link, it says the part was part of 38 sets...

@ThomasHirsch yes, this pieces has appeared in 38 sets in different colors. If you check the actual set list you can see set+color combination for the part.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Instructions for the LEGO Star Wars Holiday X-Wing (4002019)?
The 2019 LEGO Employee Gift 4002019 is a holiday-style Star Wars X-Wing Fighter which is a pretty similar build to the current LEGO Star Wars X-Wing Fighter.

Are the instructions for this set available in a digital format anywhere (note that in past years, LEGO has not made these instructions available like they do for publicly released sets)?

PDF's for scanned official building instructions can be found at the very end of set review at New Elementary.

I found a YouTube video which has pictures for each page in the instruction booklets. The quality is pretty good and each step is readable.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How to eliminate a gap of an offset in a corner
So I need to build a layer with offset bricks, which I have managed to figure out. However, the corner is a problem. The dark bricks in my pic need to be in that position. How do I fill the gap between them around the corner? I'm assuming i will need to use a headlight brick but how?
(I have managed to work out what to do in straight line, but now the corner is a problem.

Update:
Thanks, that makes sense, it was the half spaces I was wondering about. A bad attempt at clarifying but here it goes.

I'm not entirely sure what you are looking to achieve here. There seem to be few places falling under your description. Perhaps you could attach another picture showing the issue? It might be easier to suggest the exact solution.

Dear Katniss, So, that all of us here are on the same page with you, please upload a picture of your solution to the straight line sides of your wall, and maybe all together we can come up with a solution for that pesky corner.

What are you building on the offset row?

sorry everyone, I've not had time to devote to this lately, work has been crazy and I am not that familiar with the Digital designer yet, so it takes me a while to create something intelligible that I can then screenshot. I will be back latest by this afternoon with a new, more detailed image.

thanks everyone, managed to work out a way to fill the gap, but now can't work out how to add the next layer so the studs align back to 'normal'. I'm guessing the answer lies with more jumper plates but I just can't work out how.

UPDATE: Attempt Number Two.

Okay, everything's set up almost like your first uploaded image:

Stone Gray 1x2 jumper plates as the base is the same.
The three Black 1x1 Bricks are still in those key positions, except they're all modified Headlight Bricks, instead.
All bricks have been skewered through with a combination of Light
Sword Blades and Shafts.

LEGO Digital Draw won't allow placement of a brick on a stud-less surface.  To get around this I used 1x12 and 1x6 plates for temporary
staging, and then deleted them after the shish kebabbing.

There's still a gap, but the gap number has been reduced to one, and
made less noticeable.

Let me know if anyone wants the build file (Minus Picasso's Junk Lighthouse behind it.).

Depending on what you are planning to do, there are several options. @Rin Rio-Oki showed solutions for when you are planning to build a fence-like structure, but if this is supposed to be a solid wall, here are three options:

The option furthest back is where you use a 1x1 brick with side stud and a tile in the corner. You could alternatively replace one of these with a headlight brick and a cheese slope if you want the corner to have an angle.
The middle option and the front option use a Technic 1x1 brick as a jumper (as it has a hollow stud on the top) to put the top plate in line with the bottom plate, which then allows you to line up your other bricks with the corner. Two different solutions for this are shown. I have color-coded the bricks for ease of reference (right side of the picture shows all the bricks used).

I ran into this problem a couple years ago and was able to solve it. The trick is to use the piece 6134, which is a quarter of a plate thick. It's an old question but I thought it would be good for a picture to be here in case others run into this problem and find this question.

An idea occurred to me so I installed LDraw to make this image:

In the left figure I used a 2x2 offset tile to get the corner to meet.
On the right figure there is 1/2 stud offset in both directions that the 2x2 tile will fit into.
I cannot find a "legal" way to loose the offset at the top and bottom.


text:
What is this light and sound LEGO brick?
I have some sort of light and sound LEGO brick I obtained in an assortment of various brand's bricks. The piece has three black buttons which flash red lights and play different sounds when there are two AA batteries inside the piece. It is genuine LEGO because of the LEGO mark on the studs; however, I can't find a part number on it.

That is actually two parts 30351 Electric, Light & Sound Rocket Engine and 30353 Battery Box Cover. That sound and light brick was made in 1999 and only ever came in two sets.
If you look through the assortment you got you might find the Rocket Engine Nozzle that goes with it.

Image from Brick Instructions.


text:
Ain't no mountain high enough... - what is the tallest LEGO piece?
What is the tallest LEGO single piece ever?
Clarifications

It must not necessarily be a purchasable block.
By tallest, I mean a piece preferably in its natural standing position, although also the lying longest pieces could go, provided their exceptionality fits the requirements...
No restrictions on the materials.

No restrictions on the materials.

Well then, probably a component to the old wooden furniture LEGO used to produce, like these:
5003483 - 3-Seat Playtable Creative Play Station Center Pack Duplo
Or the similarly designed 4509g - 3-Seat Playtable, 5004063 - 3-Seat Playtable, or 5003468 - 3-Seat Playtable Creative Play Station Center Pack.

IF-LTW2C - Activity Table and Chair Set

They did require some assembly, so I'm not sure if any parts stood up on their own, but you could probably balance a table leg for example.


text:
Which part is this pin with varying diameter?
Can you tell me which part# is this?

The part is a Technic, Pin 1/2 with 2L Bar Extension (Flick Missile), part number 61184. It was released in 2008 and used extensively in the LEGO Agents theme as "flick missiles".

And Star Wars sets.


text:
How can my daughter turn her horse into a unicorn?
Short of gluing the horn to the purple bow, which fits in the horse’s forehead, is there a LEGO piece that would enable her to connect the horn to the horse?

I do not think LEGO has produced such a piece, and it makes sense why. Such a small connector would be prone to breaking off during play.

Is "Use a dremel" an acceptable answer? :)

@Pod. Is it ever not an acceptable answer?

I think I just discovered my new favourite SE site :D

Uhm, this "horse" has wings, and therefor u are asking "how to glue a horn to a PEGASUS"

A 1x1 cone with an inverted positioned screwdriver just might work here.

So, I'm saying just might based off the the halved cast line of Peggy's head.

The base peg of the horn/drill-bit would be too wide for the hole, but based off the cast fault line, which I hi-lighted in blue, there is a greater chance for the plastic halves to ease the slimmer screw driver in versus the blunter horn/drill-bit peg.  I don't have this Pegasus on hand, but... it just might work here.
This Pegasus first appeared last year and is in only two sets.  I'm thinking the LEGO group just hasn't had the proper time to release a FRIENDS-line compatible accessory.
I see three choices:

We can gingerly test an illegal connection.
We can perform a Blasphemer's Lobotomy.
We can wait on LEGO to provide a piece.

EDIT:
While we wait for option three, let's play with what we got...

  PEGGA-BOO!

I think the screw driver would be a little too wide, and rectangular.

@AlexanderO'Mara I’m afraid you’re right.

@AlexanderO'Mara: Alas, I have to agree. I don't have the parts but I was curious, so I tried measuring the diameters based on the images in this question and its answer. If I'm not mistaken, the hair accessories in the image (which I assume match the OP's bow) have a pin diameter of ~1.5 mm (I'd guess the holes are probably 1.6 mm) while the screwdriver shaft is ~1.8 mm (and the tip is a little wider yet). Overlaying the images shows the size difference pretty clearly.

If the screw driver is too wide, you could always sand/cut it down a little.

If the problem is that the base of the horn is too big to fit in the hole on the chanfron you have to make the former smaller or the latter bigger.  Careful work with a file/scalpel, if you're good at that kind of thing.  Remember that it's a lot easier to take a bit more off than to put a bit back.
Odd that the bow doesn't use a standard size stud anyway (walks away mumbling something about the old days).

Today I learned the word "chanfron" (armor for a horse's face).

A possibility might be using Horse Battle Helmet (unicorn) parts 89524 or 13745:

However I'm unsure if those would fit. The head geometry of the horse part in question (93083c01pb08) seems to be wider than the geometry of the horses in the castle sets (e.g. 10352c01pb03)

If you're not afraid to modify (cut and/or bend) one of the horse helmets, they might just fit.

P.S.: If it has wings it's not a horse but a pegasus. (I know, I'm nitpicking here)

Adding to your nitpick, if it has wings and a horn, it's an alicorn or pegacorn (depending on source material), not a unicorn.

More specifically, outside of My Little Pony, alicorn is the horn of a unicorn.

@AustinHemmelgarn Well as long as we're nitpicking ;)... Using "pegasus" to refer to an entire species of flying horses rather than the specific Greek character, "Pegasus", is a more modern development. The "Narnia" books, for example, call such creatures simply "winged horses". So, really the more generic term would be "winged unicorn" rather than "pegacorn" (again, depending on source material).

A "pegacorn" is a pegasus with a horn. A creature so exceedingly rare it doesn't even exist in mythology. Not to confused with an alicorn, a unicorn with wings.

Yes, you can drill it. Slowly, by hand. You want to end up with a 1/8 inch bit, but I found it easier to step up using a couple of smaller bits to get there. The bit doesn’t need to go in very far when you’re drilling.
It’s certainly not for purists, but it suits my kids just fine

Wow, I'm amazed by the fact how close 1/8 inch (3.175 mm) size is to an officially known diameter of 3.18 mm "bar". Good to know.

It doesn't look like there's currently any way to make this connection by normal means.
While there are quite a few parts with similar 1.6 mm attachment holes as your daughter's horse has (including some mildly surprising ones like this ladybug), parts with the matching pins seem to be relatively few.  Basically all of them seem to be small ornaments like minifigure plumes and other headgear accessories, including some Friends accessories like your bow.  And as far as I can tell, none of them are really suited for attaching further parts.
Screwdrivers, as suggested by Rin Rio-Oki, probably won't fit: the shaft is slightly too thick, as you can see in this composite photo.  The tips of flower stems might fit, but even if that worked, it'd just look totally ridiculous.
So you'll probably have to resort to some "blasphemous" methods.  In that respect, I see two options worth considering:

Filing the base of your unicorn horn down to about half of its original diameter, as suggested by BlokeDownThePub, should let it fit into the hole.  It'll be tedious and fiddly work, and you could easily end up ruining the part entirely if you're not careful, but with practice it should be doable.  Of course, this also means that you won't be able to use the horn for its original purpose any more — although there are plenty of parts that should be able to make the connection in that direction, like the Round 1x1 with Bar and Pin Holder.
You could glue the horn to a part that already has a suitable pin, as you yourself suggest.  While you could use the bow you already have for this purpose, I'd suggest trying a Star with Pin accessory instead:

If the 3D models are anywhere near accurate, the base of the horn ought to just fit inside the star (although not all of it; it's too long).  Alas, it probably won't stay in without glue, but at least it may almost look like a legitimate connection.

I'm very late to the game here, but why can't we use the existing hole as a guide for an appropriately sized drill bit, converting it from Friends accessory size to standard LEGO horn size? If you drilled it slowly by hand, it would be really hard to mess it up.

@mindstormsboi, can you stop making nonsensical and quite rude edits to other peoples answers?

I see coule of issues here: 1) drilling isn't a solution for purists; 2) not sure if such drill bit exist to create a hole of 3.18 mm in diameter.


text:
Europe based printing services for low quantity high quality custom printed tiles
I've found many websites providing a service for custom printing of LEGO tiles :

United Bricks
Brick Engraver
BrickSanity
Fab-Bricks
Citizen Brick
EclipseGrafX
Minifig Madness
BrickTactical
...

I find it very hard to compare these websites, though, and the service they're offering. So I was wondering if there's anyone here who's familiar with these services and who can suggest a website that fits all of these criteria :

The ability to order small quantities (5 or less) of a particular tile
The ability to upload your own file in vector format (eg. SVG or EPS)
The ability to upload your own file in pixel/raster format (eg. JPEG or PNG)
High-quality prints
Based in Europe (to keep shipping costs minimal)
A reasonable price (subjective, I know...)

I'm looking for this because I'd like to add some more life/detail to my city with such printed tiles.

Would you consider service who can produce custom stickers? It meets all of the criteria, but is a sticker.

@Alex : No, really, no, I'm sorry. I really hate stickers. I don't even use the stickers that come with the set... which is one of several reasons I'm looking for a way to get my own custom tiles printed : that way, I can replace the official stickered tile with an equivalent printed tile.


text:
How create a custom Roller Coaster? Where I can get the track pieces?
For some random reason, I watch some videos on YouTube showing a "Roller Coaster" built using Lego.
I never enjoy to follow Lego instruction, and I always prefer to build something my own, mixing any Lego bricks from any set.
I only found that set #10261, which wasn't used in the video. But is the only official Lego that I found, but it's too much limited, and I can't imagine built anything rather than the intended build. Buying multiples times the same set (5x #10261) appears too much expensive and still restricted.
I found another non-Lego set, called "CoasterDynamix Roller Coaster Factory", which allows some creativity.  However, I can't find it to buy.

What is the recommendation for the track? There's any set like the old "CoasterDynamix Roller Coaster Factory"? Also, since I don't have any brick, what set of random blocks, for the support structure, is better?

"I only found that set #10261, which wasn't used in the video." - there have been several sets featuring roller coaster tracks so far. A few of them include only individual track pieces as some kind of a decoration, only some of them actually work like a track going a full circle, and only some of these can be reasonably called a "roller coaster" (the others feature only minimal, if any, elevation, e.g. 10771).

You can buy tracks directly from LEGO. You go to LEGO service web page and follow steps below:

Click on BRICKS & PIECES just below the banner
Then BUY BRICKS
Provide your age and location (please be aware the list of countries where LEGO is shipping to is limited)
On the left side you have an option to chose parts from particular set. In this case use "10261".
You might need to click "Show more" a few times to get to individual pieces you need.

Note. 10261 Creator Roller Coaster set does not have every type of element within track system. You may use part numbers provided below to look for individual tracks using the option on the right side in Step 4.
Alternatively you can purchase all the pieces on Bricklink. Look for:

25061 - Train, Track Roller Coaster Curve, 90 degrees
26559 - Train, Track Roller Coaster Ramp Large Lower Part, 6 Bricks Elevation
26560 - Train, Track Roller Coaster Ramp Large Upper
Part, 6 Bricks Elevation
34738 - Train, Track Roller Coaster
Ramp Small, 3 Bricks Elevation
26561 - Train, Track Roller
Coaster Ramp Steep, 6 Bricks Elevation
25059 - Train, Track
Roller Coaster Straight 16L
26022 - Train, Track Roller Coaster
Straight 8L

There's already a good answer for where to get the track pieces, so I'll tackle the reset.

Also, since I don't have any brick, what set of random blocks, for the support structure, is better?

If you are relatively new to building with LEGO, building a custom roller coaster design may be a really difficult first challenge.
There aren't any official LEGO sets aimed directly at building a custom roller coaster. A set of random bricks would be designed so that you can build a variety of things, not one specific thing. To build a structure for your roller coaster you will probably want a bunch of 2x2 bricks. Buying those pieces from a BrickLink seller with a sufficient quantity of them would likely be cheaper, as the price-to-part ratio for these relatively generic pieces appears to be lower than that of a set with a variety of bricks, many of which may not be that useful.
LEGO uses the round variety of 2x2 because they also use Technic axles to make it stronger.

You can look over those instructions to see how LEGO builds their.
However if the roller coaster isn't too big the square variety would also work. You will probably also need a variety of 2xY plates to build structures to connect your different columns.


text:
What brick number is this?
Can anyone help us to identify what this part number is?

Welcome to Bricks.SE!

That's 18649 - Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with Handles on Ends


text:
LEGO EV3 Ultrasonic sensor missing from Home Edition programmer
I'll get straight to the point: When I open my LEGO MINDSTORMS EV3 Home Edition programmer and try to use an ultrasonic sensor, there is no option for it in any blocks. I don't even see any allusion to the ultrasonic sensor existing at all. Is there any way at all to use the US sensor AND the IR sensor at once? Thanks.

EV3 Home edition software does not come with blocks for ultrasonic sensor, unlike Education edition. However you can still add them as explained in this guide.


text:
Lego Mindstorms NXT 2.0 Not turning on
I have a Lego Mindstorms NXT 2.0, which worked well for a couple of years.
However, after the last few weeks, it seems to not boot up. I took it apart, and noticed it seems to have a different internal design than the other ones. After screwing around with it for a bit, it unexpectedly boot up.
I thought the plastic part holding the ribbon cable in place was putting too much pressure on the cable, causing malfunction. After I reassembled it with less pressure on the screen mount, and sealed the unit back up, it seems to be dead, again.
Any help? I prefer not to solder.

Is the NXT not starting up at all (no startup sound, no USB, no screen), or just the screen is not turning on? I ask because ageing NXTs have historically had a lot of problems with screens ceasing to display anything, though the rest of the controller's functionality is not impaired.

Never mind, it's fixed. Turns out the battery terminal was not properly fitting the new batteries.

Excellent! Glad to know you figured it out. Lego no longer offers replacement NXTs so the only other course of action would be a third-party reseller such as Ebay or BrickLink.

@RuhiBatool .. feel free to add the solution as an answer to your own question - maybe others have similar problems...


text:
Looks like total number of parts and sum of them differs on bricklink
I've recently purchased the 42063 BMW R 1200 GS Adventure.  It was assembled and looked complete.  I took it apart and calculated total number of parts.  It was around 550. Then on link above I've read total is above 600. With about 10 extra still about 40 less. I rechecked individually starting with rare ones than actually went through all list.
Discovered maybe 3 small ones missing,  but again maybe I was  not attentive,  also discovered that some parts could be taken apart which I missed initially.  With extra it was about 570 finally.
Still about 30 less than expected total. My guess is that maybe total includes all stickers separately even when they are listed as 1?  Why else can be such discrepancy? Can somebody proficient with bricklink API sum up the list to check against total?

Do you still have the box/manual? There is a full list of the parts on that. e.g. page 111 in this pdf: https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6205673.pdf

Hmm. That part list totals to 525! That's presumably for the bike detailed in the manual. The box will contain the overall list.

After receiving answers I decided to put more of my own effort and tried to recompare to bricklink list. On the way I realized I made a mistake,  restarted again,  realized again another mistake and understood at least for now I'm uncapable of fine counting. Thank you all

Brickset says 602 elements, brickset takes its data from Lego Customer Services.
Bricklink says 603 elements, bricklink count includes a stickersheet while brickset does not. To get the bricklink total, select "Part out" on the catalog page, it will suggest to add 603 pieces to a "wanted list".
Adding the number of elements in the back of the manual I get also 602 elements.
Going through the instructions and adding all element counts I get 598, this certainly does not include any spare parts, so about 4 spare parts seems right.
Conclusion, your set is lacking elements or you miscounted.
I think easiest would be to group by element and count and see if those counts match the brickset or bricklink list or the back of the manual inventory.
Plus side will be you have everything sorted and you'll know exactly what pieces are missing.

Thank you.  Point is on second count I did count parts by type,  starting with rare,  then like yellow,  than red etc.  I honestly do not want to recount third  time. Last guess I counted from mine side,  so if inventory should have some part which I didn't have at all,  then I could have missed it.

I did comparison other way and it matched 100‰. I decided it is worth separate question on skills to check contents,  https://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/13118/how-to-check-completeness-of-a-bought-set

To add to the comment above, the part count is directly printed on the box itself. It can't be more official than that: https://brickset.com/sets/42063-1/BMW-R-1200-GS-Adventure

For some reason, in Europe the box art does not contain the number of pieces. It does on US version of the box... Don't know about other countries.

Yes, the default is not to show the number, however in some countries like the U.S., it is mandatory to show how many pieces are included for a disassembled product, so LEGO has to do it to follow the law.

US retail boxes have printed number of parts included in a set. For 42063 set this is 603 parts:

Bricklink is unofficial LEGO market place/catalog has 42063 set inventoried. This means this set has been taken apart, each part has been accounted and put accordingly into inventory of this set. It also contains 603 parts. There's sticker sheet in set's inventory, but this is something LEGO does too, probably since Part tab on Brickset states it has 602 parts (Brickset fetch data directly from LEGO, but sticker sheets are never included as a part). I'd like to note that set inventories are highly accurate on Bricklink as each web site member can submit change if there are errors (and this is done fairly often when inaccuracies are found). LEGO, sometimes, alter the model slightly and this is being noted with an alternative items inventory, like in the following model. With 42063 set there's no alternate inventory.
Counting all the parts used in each step of official building instructions got me 599 parts. I agree, there might be few parts I've missed, but this is number is closer to 603, than yours 550.
Part inventory at the very end of the same building instructions gave me 601 parts. Again, one or two must have been missed, but still closer to 603 than 550.
I found video review for this set (with speed build), and if you check it on exactly 9:36 you can see all the spare parts left, which are not accounted in total part count. It is just a few pieces, which means almost all of the parts are used to assemble the set.
Rebrickable also state 603 parts for the 42063 set. However I'm not sure what is the source of the part list.
I don't know any other more reputable sources than provided here. You must have made a mistake while calculating the parts.
Alternatively, I could suggest to disassemble the model entirely, with all pieces removed and then assembled back together following the building instructions mentioned above. This way you'll be sure you have complete model with no missing parts.


text:
Does repeated flashing cause degradation NXT
I have a Lego Mindstorms NXT 2.0, which I'm tinkering around with, writing a custom firmware for. I just want to know if repeated flashing could damage the flash memory.

LEGO Mindstorms all use flash storage which does have a limited number of write cycles, so the answer is technically yes in some capacity, but it's probably not something you need to worry about.
A LEGO Mindstorms NXT 2.0 uses a Atmel AT91SAM7S256 microcontroller. This board has 256 KB flash memory, which is roughly the size of the latest firmware image.
According to the datasheet for this board, it should be good for 10,000 write cycles.

256 Kbytes of Internal High-speed Flash, Organized in 1024 Pages of 256 Bytes

Single Cycle Access at Up to 30 MHz in Worst Case Conditions
Prefetch Buffer Optimizing Thumb Instruction Execution at Maximum Speed
Page Programming Time: 4 ms, Including Page Auto-erase, Full Erase Time: 10 ms
10,000 Write Cycles, 10-year Data Retention Capability, Sector Lock Capabilities, Flash Security Bit
Fast Flash Programming Interface for High Volume Production

10,000 is actually quite a bit, and would take a very long time to reach intentionally, even if you automated it to run 24/7.
I'm not sure how fast you physically can flash the firmware, but if you did it once every 10 minutes 24/7, it would take you almost 70 days to reach that limit.
If you flashed it a still-unrealistic 10 times per-day, it would take you 1000 days to reach that limit.
And of-course, if you did it once per-day, it would take you over 27 years.
In practice, I think it's much more likely some other hardware component will fail first.

Not particularly reassuring. Thanks anyway.

I've found a very old NXTasy thread that answers this question definitively.

Flemming Bundgaard, from LEGO, ran two or three test-to-failure runs with my NXTTools utility repeatedly setting the brick into firmware download mode and downloading the standard NXT firmware to the brick. In each of his tests the brick failed, if I recall correctly, after ~7000-8000 iterations. There is no doubt that if you put your NXT into boot mode somewhere in the neighborhood of 8000 times your brick will no longer accept a new firmware download. You can test this yourself if you like using NXTTools undocumented iteration count switch and a brick running on an external power supply. Each iteration takes about 30 seconds so the test will run for ~67 hours. Of course, your brick could have a different lock bit lifespan than Flemming's bricks had. It is also worth pointing out that if you reflash or reset your NXT once a day 365 days a year it will probably take you almost 22 years to wear out your lock bits. If you do it 10 times a day, everyday, then your brick should last 2.2 years.


text:
All-purpose Technic set?
For LEGO Classic there are plenty of "build anything" kinds of sets, but is there something like that for Technic?
Ideally, I'm imagining a box of the most useful 1000 or so Technic pieces, so that whenever one wants to build an original (and functional) robot or vehicle, the parts required will most likely be found.
Is there such a set?
I find that most of the Technic sets are specialized for building one specific machine, but after building that, when you want to build something else, the parts are not necessarily all-purpose.

The EV3 expansion set 45560 comes to mind: https://education.lego.com/en-us/products/lego-mindstorms-education-ev3-expansion-set-by-lego-education/45560

Although intended as a extension to the educational EV3 set, it's mainly technic elements.

There was a Technic sub-theme called Universal that was available mostly in the 1980's. The sets did come with instructions to build as many as 4 different models, but each model rarely used all the parts. The models were more of a demonstration of how to use the parts in interesting ways.
You can browse the sets in the Technic Universal theme here:
https://brickset.com/sets/theme-Technic/subtheme-Universal
Now, because these sets were almost all from the 1980's, they all used studded construction, which is a rarity in modern Technic.
I appreciate that this answer is unlikely to help the original asker, or even anyone else, but I believe it is Technic-ally a correct answer!


text:
Any TV news pieces/stickers?
I'm looking for pieces to make a TV transmitting news. I looked on Bricklink "News" sets but only found 2 existed. Does anyone know of any set that contains a news anchor on TV piece or sticker?

Welcome to Bricks.SE.

There are a few that I'm aware of.
Here's one from the 7208 Fire Station:

And another from the 7288 Mobile Police Unit:

This TV element from the 7639 Camper may also work for you:

These are all very affordable on Bricklink. Note that they are stickered parts. I'm not aware of printed parts with this pattern, but perhaps someone else here knows of some.

10202pb009 may also be suitable.

The trend I found on Bricklink is a news icon graphic with an image of a lined globe and the letters "TV".
This is the earliest set that has multiple iconography with this Globe TV theme.

This theme evolves in later sets to TV 6+ News Channel/Station still sporting a lined Globe.

Here is a set with this modification on that TV6 theme.

Quick search for "tv" provides a list of 57 parts on Bricklink.


text:
What part is this?
I need some help identify this part number or name. Thanks in advance.

This is part of either:
TOOL WHEEL (1999 - 2012)

or
TOOL WHEEL (2007 - 2019)

Looks like Part #6246d - Minifigure, Utensil Tool Box Wrench - 6-Rib Handle.

This piece looks to be an older Wrench piece:
Minifigure, Utensil Tool Box Wrench - 6-Rib Handle.
Picture shows the part in, what seems to be, in a shade of brown color. Unfortunately this piece doesn't come from LEGO in similar color.
There's a newer piece, with less ribs:
Minifigure, Utensil Tool Box Wrench - 3-Rib Handle.
This part isn't produced by LEGO in any shades of brown too. At least for the moment of this answer. However it comes in a few other colors compared with an older 6-rib piece.

After trying to white balance the image a bit, I think that piece might actually be dark grey.


text:
LEGO kit 42082 step 1041 issue
Gray part will not fit into black pieces labeled 1 and 2. Tried them all, doesn’t fit right. If I put the gray piece in the other end it fits, but that’s not how it’s supposed to go. It’s like the hole on the one side is too small... Help please?

I'm assuming all parts you have are not damaged as this is possible, but highly unlikely, event.
I've tried to connect both parts myself. And this piece

is indeed harder to push into desired location as pictured in step 1041. Unlike the same hole from the other side of the panel. I've encountered this myself quite a few times while building other models. If you check both ends of the hole on a panel you'll notice that one has outer ring, which helps centering the connector, unlike the spot in 1041 step. I find it just a little harder to center the piece, but eventually it goes in and feels like it supposed to be there.
You can use something to help you with a task, like a 3L Technic pin, which can be attached to connector to help with a task.

Thank you, I will try that!

You’re awesome! It worked!! Thanks so much!

@Livie Happy to help. Please don't forget to mark post as an answer if helped with your your issue.

This is my first time using this website, how do I mark it as an answer?

@Livie You can accept it by clicking the check mark under the vote buttons on the left of the answer. The process is described in detail here: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/5235/377708  Welcome to Bricks.SE!

Hi! Another question— same LEGO. 42082. Putting the feet on now... are they supposed to click in somehow? Also, my feet don’t seem to touch the ground...I’m worried I messed up somewhere a looong time ago.... !!??

@Livie I don't know if anyone other than me has ever seen your comment here, but if you actually ask another, separate question, it will get lots of attention.


text:
Can someone identify these Ninjago face mosaic sets?
I have 2 built 6x16 sets that appear to be Ninjago portraits. Each built on a Light Bluish Gray 6x16 plate with 1x1 colored bricks on top.  I suspect they may be Toys R Us builds but i just can't find them.
Does anyone know the set name or # or link to instructions?

Apparently it's from a 2015 Toys R Us building event, in which there were 5 different mask kids could choose to build. There does not appear to be an item number associated with these builds.

All 5 designs and 3 of the instructions can be seen in these images (click for full-size).

I also found a video where all 5 are built and the booklet is flipped through.

Here's a fan built back panel to combine and prop them up all nice and proper like.
The pictures are detailed enough to suss out build instructions or a workable modification.

I'm glad you reposted the pictures - I thought you wouldn't after deleted your original answer

@ Scott, Had to step into the editing room;)

Interestingly these don't use the original pieces, which were all 1x1 bricks

Hmm.. Not only is the prop stand fan built, but the Ninjago masks too?  Yes, very interesting.  Builder could have been working with whatever pieces that got the job done the fastest.  Very efficient mind that one.

This was a giveaway at Toys'R'Us March 2015. The image I have found suggests me these masks don't have a have a set number. Here you can also see how instructions looks like. These are not your standard LEGO instructions you can find in sets or with other promos. The lack of set number and the appearance of the booklet with instructions suggest me you cannot get PDF instructions from LEGO Service for this set of bricks.
Keeping in mind this is just a bunch of 1 x 1 bricks on top of the plate, there shouldn't be much of an issue replicating the rest of the masks.


text:
All terrain crane 42082
The wheels don’t go round after the first book is finished. Has anyone else had this issue? What did you do to fix it?

Hi Vicky and welcome to Bricks.SE! The problem as you have described can have lots of causes, however, the ultimate cause must be a blocked axle due to a mistake in an earlier step. If you post some pictures we might be able to help you, or you can try to backtrack the offending wheel to see which axle(s) should move but refuse to. Then you'll surely find the misplaced pieces, or else you can backtrack step by step, checking the pieces added in each step and removing them if they are correct or fixing them if they aren't.


text:
How to check completeness of a bought set?
Trying to solve problem for which I asked help in Looks like total number of parts and sum of them differs on bricklink I understood I did not have the skills to check contents of a set.  I did Web search for "site:bricks.stackexchange.com how to check completeness of a bought set" and did not find relevant info so making new post.  The question How to check the missing pieces of a given set? is titled similarly, but asks about different thing from mine.
Initially I tried to count parts by tens, put them in one place and keep count of tens.  I miscounted set of 602 by about 10‰ of parts. Then I tried to go by bricklink list again keeping track in tens. Again I failed though twice less.
Finally I separated parts by each "type",  taking large area on the floor and going by bricklink list I glanced at the parts,  checked presence and added up. On that way I found several occasions where I misplaced parts, but finally I got exact count, so I bought complete set as expected. Picture of layout below:
What are your favorite ways to check completeness of bought sets?

You've already discovered yourself two good ways:

count by ten
put elements on large surface by type

The latter technique can be extended to an art called "knolling":

Place all elements by type in right lines with right angles on a large surface...
Its a very relaxing exercise and fun in its own right. Checking completeness becomes trivial, building afterwards can also be done with much less frustration.
Update: Here's another very impressive knolling. The UCS Millenium Falcon 75192
 (7541 pieces) https://i.redd.it/q51wrtua5yb41.jpg
(can't insert picture here directly since too large)

offtopic: WOW @ the amount of colors in a black-and-white set...

@RaidrisupportsMonica, off topic but interesting in it's own right. All colored bricks will be inside the model and not visible from the outside. That is very deliberately done to make the building process easier. I would consider building an entire black and white model from instructions a PITA

The amount of content this picture brings me is almost disturbing.

This might sound crazy, but:
JUST BUILD IT!!
Follow the instructions step by step and you will see when something is missing. You can make a copy of the instructions and strike out every part you have used if you have trouble keeping track.

Welcome to Bricks.SE.  It isn't crazy, but it is very frustrating to be halfway through building something substantial to realize that there's no way to finish it.  Missing pieces from LEGO are rare so folks get used to everything just being there.  In the aftermarket missing pieces are normal so it is a good plan to verify.

I have found that following solution works best for me.

Download and install BrickStock. This software has multiple
uses, however for this case we would explore just a single feature.

Once installed go to File > Import > BrickLink Set Inventory and filter by set number. Don't forget to select All Items in
Category list.
Now you need to select all parts (Ctrl+A) and set quantity of all parts to zero (right-click any item while all of them still selected
and Quantity > Set > 0)
Now you have a full list of parts within that particular set. Here is your main job to seek parts you have and mark their quantity accordingly within the list.
In the end you'll have a list of parts you actually have. For next step I suggest you to delete lines for Counter Parts (noted as
CP in first column) and, if you don't need to check against extra parts, remove lines with + in first column too.
Save your file and note its location.
Go to Rebrickable and login with your account.
Create custom list via My LEGO > My Custom Lists menu > "Add new list" button
Import your previously saved list you created with BrickStock software using "Import/Delete Parts" button into newly created custom
list.
Once completed, go to Sets > Compare Sets menu within Rebrickable and choose you custom list on one side and a set you are checking against on the other.
You will be presented with a of bit of details, with shared parts as well as unique ones. Unique parts listed under set's inventory are the ones you are missing.

I've used this quite a few times to check used sets I bought.
Alternatively, you can just create a list of parts you have following steps 1-6 above and compare it manually with set's inventory on Bricklink. This worked for me as well.

You're definitely going in the right direction with this.  I've done this for sets that family had that had missing pieces as well as to part together sets that I wanted to build.

I print out the bricklink part list, sorted by color.  I write on the part list how many I find of each part.
To help with sorting the parts I will stack things that are easy to put together and get apart like bricks.  Tiles can be stacked as well, but it is probably better to zig-zag a one stud gap between each layer of tiles so you have a chance to get them apart later.  I find that the stacking of the parts makes it much easier to manage the bricks during the process as well as count them.
For times when you have hundreds of a given small part I'd weigh them and divide by the bricklink weight per part to get a reasonable estimate of how many you have.
I find bamboo cutlery trays are excellent for sorting.  The trays that came with the Architecture Studio are excellent as well.


text:
Alternative to LEGO CONTROL+ app
My son just received the Liebherr R 9800 excavator 42100 LEGO set.
It would seem the Control+ app that is recommended for it simply won't work. It doesn't even connect to the blocks.
What are the available alternatives? And if this SE allows it, any recommendation/comparison between them would be greatly appreciated.
We're just looking to control each motor individually, no fancy achievement, scenarios, etc... We'll be able to compile from source, if needed, on MacOS or Ubuntu. We'll be able to run Android and IOS apps too (although I'd prefer to stick with official app stores), but the house has no Microsoft OSes available.
Edit: apparently control+ Android Pixel 3 simply doesn't work, but the app works on IOS. In my case, using BrickController 2 on Android solved the issue.

I'm sorry but I think you should get the standard app working before considering alternatives. Most common reason it's not working is because the motors are not connected correctly to the hub (e.g. wrong port, not connected), in which case the app doesn't recognise the model... also check bluetooth is enabled

Thanks Michael. The thing is, BrickController 2 worked right away, so the set must have been correctly wired.

Not necessarily, BrickController 2 will likely not have the requirement that all motors are in the correct ports, it will be able to control any motors attached. The control+ app requires ALL 7 motors connected and in correct ports, one remaining port free.

Mike, the app simply won't connect (android pixel 3). I tried my best not to make my post a rant and a simple ask for recommendations. The recommendation did work and I'm thankful for it. Please don't ask again if the cabling was correct and if batteries were present. :-)

I have the hub from the 42099 set, it's up to date, but can't connect with BuWizz or BrickController 2. The apps simply don't see the hub. I suspect some firmware version blocked them.

There is an alternative app called BrickController 2. This open source software is available for both Android as well as iOS. This application is actively developed and its maintainer can be reached on Eurobricks forums. You can also report and discuss any issues there.
The application is universal compared with solution offered by LEGO since one device allows you to control more than just LEGO Power-UP electronics. The following receivers are supported, by the time of this answer:

LEGO Powered-Up HUB
LEGO Boost HUB
LEGO Technic HUB
LEGO Power Function infrared receiver (on devices having infrared emitter)
SBrick and SBrick Plus (3rd party devices)
BuWizz 1 and 2 (3rd party devices)

BrickController 2 is primarily for lego kit control with an ios/android compatible gamepads.

Since this is stackexchange, I figure some might like to know it is open source software available here: https://github.com/imurvai/brickcontroller2

There is a free app called buwizz. It is a great alternative that gives more freedom, and works on Android.

Hi André and welcome to Bricks.SE! BuWizz is indeed an alternative, but it has already been mentioned by Alex above.

@zovits If I'm understanding correctly, André is suggesting using the BuWizz app to control the Control+ hub, which is different than what Alex suggested. I'm not sure that the BuWizz app can do that, though.

@jncraton Right, that could very well be the case. I apologize for not reading more thoroughly.

@jncraton that's indeed what I was suggesting. I have the 42100 and can control all functions with the BuWizz app. There's an unofficial alternative model ("skid steer loader") for the 42100 which also has instructions how to setup the BuWizz app to use it for that model.

I have started working on a C# SDK to control compatible Control+ / Powered Up hubs.
See: https://vouzamo.wordpress.com/2020/04/06/c-sdk-for-lego-bluetooth-le-hubs/ for more information.

Have you tried to use the PoweredUp App (also by Lego)? It gives full control over motors and programmation. It is like the advanced mode of Control+.
Here is a video by RacingBrick showing most capabilities even though since the last update, unfortunately, most programming blocks have new UI. Don't forget to enable the Advanced Palette if you want the full features.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4gWPey2sBE

A little more information about the last update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCAp7s2rYO0

And this one by
Technicmaster0 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS8GWqT0vNk


text:
What set are these large quarter circle curved bricks from?
I got a random box of Lego!  I'm trying to figure out what set these bricks are from:

Welcome to Bricks.SE!

Few pieces to be certain, but I believe it's from the set Maula's Ice Mammoth Stomper (70145):

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=70145-1

You might want to mention that that part (https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=87559&in=S) only appears in one set with this piece (https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=98138&idColor=15#T=C&C=15) on it.

I find it very interesting that LEGO was so reluctant to add basic green pieces out of fear kids would build tanks with them, yet here they are adding a whole mobile weapons platform.

@MechMK1 Times do change, indeed. LEGO now* embraces the philosophy of teaching the concepts of good, evil and struggle by releasing conflict-based sets with clearly identifiable good and bad sides. Or, if you prefer cynicism, they see that there is market demand for such sets and are willing to compromise somewhat. *Note: there were such sets even in the '80s, see for example the 1989 Space Police theme.

@zovitssupportsGoFundMonica I personally am not opposed to the idea of teaching such concepts, given how popular games for kids are all based around cartoonified violence (with a distinct lack of identifiable good and evil) anyways. But the reason why I brought it up was that the lack of a basic color for such a specific reason seemed like it was very important for the company, and it seems weird to just throw that out of the window for profits.


text:
Will the Duplo train track extension set 10872 work with Duplo train set 2700?
I am thinking about buying the Duplo train expansion set 10872 Train Bridge and Tracks for my niece, but her primary Duplo train set is actually a vintage 1983 2700 Freight Train set from her father's childhood.
Will these new tracks work with the old train and tracks? I've been looking at pictures and the tracks appear identical except for color, but, considering the 37 year difference, I wanted to check with the experts first. I am aware the the musical actuator almost certainly will not work with a 1983 train. I'm really asking whether the tracks will interconnect and whether there will be problems running a train from one era on tracks of the other era, or, if as I suspect, they follow the same standards and any differences are cosmetic only.

From a train point of view those wheels will fit happily within the guides of the bridge, and the connections on the tracks should just about fit as well.
I'm fairly sure we bought our bridge when we were staying in a holiday cottage that had a load of the old black track, and it connected to the track successfully, but you may need to work with some curves to find the ideal length as the black ones tend to be slightly longer than the newer grey ones.
LEGO Customer Support have the following to say on compatibility:

DUPLO® train tracks haven’t changed much over the years, so older tracks are fully compatible with the current ones. You can tell old and new tracks apart by the colour: the older ones are black, while the tracks we currently make are grey.
While the different tracks can be used together, we do recommend alternating between them since the older, black tracks have less grip. If you’re building a track with a bridge, we’d suggest using newer rails around the slope.

Their recommendation for using grey around the slope may be aimed at the motorised options so that the train isn't slipping in the build up to the ramp, or skidding at the bottom.


text:
Help identifying inverted wedge with studs on the slope
I have found these bricks (images below), which have "Lego" branding, but there is no model numbers on it.
The white brick has "4" and "A" on the back, and the red has "6" and "A".
I've searched BrickLink for ages to no avail.

It's an old piece from 1969 - 1982, typically used for train cars or trucks with buckets that could be tipped to dump their contents.
3145 Vehicle, Tipper End Flat with Pins

There's also a newer variant from 1996 - 2016 without the pins and hole.
30022 Vehicle, Tipper End Flat without Pins


text:
What is the use of a single ultrasonic signal?
The EV3 ultrasonic sensor has an advanced mode that includes an option to use single or continuous sensing as described in the Help page:

You can choose whether the sensor sends a single ultrasonic signal or continuous signals with the Measuring Mode input.

What is the purpose of a single ultrasonic signal? In what situations may the sensor need to send a single signal?

Does this answer your question? Advanced mode in EV3 ultrasonic sensor

You want run dark and then communicate "Hunt for Red October" style with a single pulse ;)

I'm not an EV3 expert, but my understanding is that continuous mode stores results into a buffer that can be read nearly instantly. Single mode will need to wait to hear a ping back before reporting results.
Continuous mode will give you a faster response time. However, if you are using a number of ultrasonic sensors, they may interfere with one another, and using single mode should prevent this.

David Lechner has come to the same conclusion: it is intended to avoid cross-talk between two or more ultrasonic sensors.


text:
What LEGO set has the smallest box?
Similar to What Lego set has the biggest box? but probably more-challenging to answer, what LEGO set has the smallest box (either square or cubic dimensions work)?
I'm talking actual sets with an item number and an actual boxes, not polybags or sub-components in a set (like a minifig cape box).

Do you mean any set in a box regardless of retail sales? Or do you mean a commercial set intended for sale to a child or adult builder not employed by the Lego group or any affiliate? If it is the former then an answer may note be findable and of small interest. An answer to the second seemd more intriguing.

I have seen some Lego freebies which can be count as set as tehy ahev multiple pieces you need to connect. Are they going to count?

I think so long as it has a set item number, it would count.

yikes you cut the Hero of Time close right on 00.00. You know you have 59 seconds for that one.

I thought that promotional boxed sets were good candidates for the smallest box as well, as I own a 1630-1 Helicopter (which, incidentally, I got as a promotional gift for buying toothpaste at some point in the 90s IIRC), at 7 x 7 x 4.5 cm (220cm3/0.22 litres).
There are sets with similar dimensions as well, such as 5018-1 Gravity Games Promotional Set at 7 x 7.5 x 4 cm (210cm3/0.21 litres), 7912-1 Helicopter Promotional (Duracell), 5017-1 Hockey Promotional set. and some others.
I thought those were the smallest in volume, but after a deeper search on bricklink I came up with a thinner 2.5cm (281-1 1 x 2 and 3 x 2 Sloping Bricks, Red with 8.6 x 6.2 x 2.5 cm / 133cm3/0.133 litres):

And after delving in the sets with a low part cound, I came up with an even thinner 1.8cm box with 1222-2 1x1 round bricks, at 7.5 x 5.5 x 1.8 cm (74.25cm3/0.074 litres) (same box size as 1241-2, 1240-2, 1230-2 and possibly others):

Also of note are the 1:87-scale cars from the 60s, like e.g. 265-2 1:87 Karmann Ghia with Garage:

The "box" itself is a transparent hollow brick, specifically part number 721, 4x8 studs wide by 3 bricks high wrapped in a paper strip, which puts it at 3.2cm x 6.4cm x 3.04cm or 62.25cm3/0.062 litres. (Hey, you asked for the smallest box, not the smallest cardboard box!)
Apparently some of these 1:87-scale cars, e.g. 671-3 1:87 Vauxhall Victor Estate with Garage were sold with an actual cardboard box around them, with listed dimensions of 3.2 x 3.2 x 6.5cm (66.56cm3/0.066 litres):

Wow! Great answer, and welcome to Bricks.SE!

As with “biggest”, smallest also has different definitions (weight? Width? Volume?). Here are a few candidates:
5005250 Party Banana Juice Bar - 8 x 4.5 x 11 cm (the Chicken version also qualifies)

600-2 Police Patrol - 9.5 x 5.6 x 3.6 cm

I don’t have a link or box picture, but the Dutch store opening gift Windmill comes in a pretty small box as well.
EDIT: Michael Verschaeve pointed me to the BL entry for the Windmill. 14.5 x 14.5 x 4.5 doesn’t exactly make the box a good candidate.

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=Amsterdam-1#T=S&O={%22iconly%22:0}


text:
Where is the motor in the 42082 Rough Terrain Crane box supposed to be?
The Rough Terrain Crane set (42082) has an outer box with a lot of parts-bags and the 4 wheels in it.
And there is an 2nd inner box with the manuals, the battery-holder and more parts-bags.
I received my set yesterday and did a quick check on the parts-bags but I couldn't locate the motor.
Didn't actually open any of the bags. Will leave that until I'm ready to actually build the thing during the Christmas holiday.
Does anyone know where the motor is supposed to be?
Loose in the inner- or outer-box, one of the parts-bags in the inner-box, one of the bags in the outer-box?
I probably just overlooked it, but knowing where to look for that motor would help.

YouTuber Swedish Brick put up a nice unboxing video of your set here.

The motor/battery box seem to be in the white enclosed box, he pulls them both out off camera.

By his video, you will end up with:

26 Bags.

 2 Motors  1 Battery holder, and 1 Motor in a sealed bag.

4 Wheels.

4 Rims.

A sealed instructions bag with 1 sheet of stickers, and 2 large manuals.

1 battery holder and 1 motor. The motor is in Bag nr. 10 according to the screen shot. Thank you !!!

Tsk, tsk...  Never make final conclusions from a still image of a video. Instead, look at the time stamp the snapshot was taken at, and watch the moving video from there.  So, I'll repeat,  according to the video that I watched, these two parts came out of the white enclosed box.  Bag 10 or whatever, just so happened to be in the background.  Yellow Voltron Lion wasn't in a bag either;)  You're very welcomed.

You are right :-) Bag 10 is in the background. It was hard to tell from the picture and I am at work now. Youtube is blocked here so I can't see the video myself.

You're fine, Friend.  I have to do some editing and fix the battery holder and motor stuffs.  See ya!

Found it! Indeed in the inner box, but not in one of the parts bags, but in separate small plastic bag. It was stuck in the corner underneath the manual and I completely overlooked it the first time.


text:
How to verify authenticity of smaller LEGO parts?
Can anyone help me identify the logo or mark on some smaller LEGO pieces?

I have many 1*1*2/3 slope with no LEGO stamp but do have a (C) copyright symbol (full circle not just brackets) and a number
Dark green - 3 with no number, n.o 31, n.o 3, n.o 5
Red/brown - n.o 29, 2 with n.o 15.
Trans orange and red - 8 with different or no n.o

The colours are spot on and I can't fault the quality, so I assume these are genuine however I would like to know if this (C) symbol and the general quality is a solid identifying method.
Also with the 1*1 round brick and nose cone - are there ANY markings usually?
Also with the weapons and tools - I have many with a (C) but some with nothing...
Any hints or tips?

Welcome to Bricks StackExchange.  Thanks for the vivid descriptions, but could you include a picture or two?

Hi and thank you for your comment. I am having trouble capturing the details on the LEGO pieces with my current technology. I will try again tomorrow. Thank you

We don't need all the details to be able to help you, just a picture of the parts would be helpful, since then we could check our authentic parts and tell you what markings to look for and where.

I have many 1*1*2/3 slope

On this piece the LEGO marking should be seen on the flat, semicircular part on the bottom:

Dark green - 3 with no number, n.o 31, n.o 3, n.o 5

I'm sorry, but I can't identify this piece, a photo would be helpful here.

Red/brown - n.o 29, 2 with n.o 15.

Just like here

Trans orange and red - 8 with different or no n.o

Or here.

Also with the 1*1 round brick and nose cone - are there ANY markings usually?

Yes, there are, but they are quite tricky to find. On the 1x1 round, you should be able find the marking on the inner side of the top ring, facing down:
While on the cone, it is similarly on the underside of the flat ring, but close to the bottom, so easier to see:

Also with the weapons and tools - I have many with a (C) but some with nothing...

These are quite broad categories, so if you have any specific pieces, I'd love to help you :)


text:
How many LEGO bricks exist in total?
How many LEGO bricks have been produced in total? I'm asking only about real LEGO, not other brand's "blocks."
This article from Gizmodo puts the number at 400 Billion, but that was written in 2008.
The BBC from 2018 says "75 billion bricks are sold annually."
An answer on Quora puts the number at 600 billion sold.
I understand that the number sold, and number produced is likely very different, thus my sources are not particularity useful. So how many LEGO bricks exist?

Perhaps this should be changed to "ever existed", since they don't last forever.

It does not seem as if it would ever be possible to come to a definitive assertion—or even a sufficiently precise  approximation—of "how many LEGO bricks exists." For the English Wikipedia article "Lego" in the "Manufacturing" section informs,

Annual production of Lego bricks averages approximately 36 billion, or about 1140 elements per second.

Although this quotation conflates "bricks" and "elements" thereby ambiguating whether it refers specifically to bricks or generally to any LEGO component, it nevertheless indicates that the number of LEGO bricks is indefatigably increasing. Thus, even if a total number of LEGO bricks in existence could be concluded, that number would immediately be inaccurate as a result of additional bricks continuously manufactured. Furthermore, as Eran perceived in the comments, LEGO bricks eventually disintegrate or become unidentifiable as LEGO; therefore, even if there were documentation of exactly how many bricks were produced up to any given time, it would still be infeasible to establish how many LEGO bricks exist because it would be extraordinary difficult to ascertain which individual LEGO bricks are currently in existence.

Well that's certainly not the answer I was looking for.

This is all just speculation based on the Wikipedia entry for LEGO and some of the sources linked within it.
In 2008, TIME reported that the LEGO Group estimated that they had produced about 400 billion LEGO elements.
In 2006, Bloomberg reported that LEGO was producing about 15 billion elements per year. ()
In the Wikipedia entry, it is stated that "Annual production of Lego bricks averages approximately 36 billion," but that statement does not have a citation, so I don't know where it came from or when it was referring to. However, I would guess that it is a more recent estimate than 2008.
If we use the 2006 estimate of 15 billion and assume 2019 for the 36 billion estimate, we can work out an annual production increase of about 1.6 billion. Working from that, we can get a number around 706 billion total elements produced. And it looks like they'll hit 1 trillion elements sometime around 2026.
Again, this involves a lot of speculation and assumption, so don't quote me. ;)


text:
Can you identify these LEGO bags from the thrift store? Mostly white and dark grey pieces, and some bared doors
I got these at the thrift store. What set did these come from?

Based on:
BRICK 1X16, Ø4,9 in white
LATTICE FOR FRAME 4X6 in Medium Stone Grey
TRAPDOOR FRAME 6X8 in Dark Stone Grey
4504228: Wall Element 1X6X5, Abs  in white
and the trans blue parts window pieces
These bags are from:
60047-1: Police Station

Nice hunt!  I was here, but got stuck on that long blue pin in bag 6.  Bricklink doesn't have it listed at all in it's inventory.

Both Brickset and Bricklink actually list 1 piece of 3L Technic pin.


text:
Yet, another part ID question: Large blue dish
Does anyone have an idea what the circled piece could be? Picture from this Flickr gallery.

I'm thinking it's circular so I've been scouring BrickLink for dishes and disks but have not been successful so far.  Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Set #4417- Aero Pod.

Top. Part #4767 - Blue
Container, X-Pod Top Cap 9 x 9 x 1 1/3.
Middle.  Part #47674 -
Trans-Yellow Container, X-Pod Barrel Section 10 x 10 x 3 1/3.
Bottom.  Part #47676 - Blue
Container, X-Pod Bottom Cap 9 x 9 x 1.

to be exact is the one from:4417-1: Aero Pod

You guys are the best!  No wonder I couldn't find it, I've never even heard of these things.  Thanks so much!

Like you said Joost!


text:
What Lego set has the most unique colours?
What Lego set, past or current has had the most unique colours (colors) regardless of piece count?
I've found bricklink's color list but I have not found any way to filter sets biased on most colors.

Hi David and welcome to Bricks StackExchange. Quite an puzzling and interesting question, I would have no clue how to look for a definitive answer. Although large sets may seem good candidates at first, maybe basic bricks assortments would be a better guess; for example 10664 appears to have 20 different colors

An extra twist would be finding sets with most colours visible on the outside.

I have no idea where to find any sources for an answer, but I can offer a guess.
When it came out 70620 Ninjago City was the set with the most different elements ever made (That wasn't hard to verify, if I can remember how, I'll check later if it still is, and if any other contenders offer more colours), a guess is that they will come in many different colours. And they do, if I counted correctly there's 51 different colours in that set, quite a bit more than the 20 @Joubarc mentioned in a comment.


text:
Older compatible/clone brand with PB initials
I have quite a few bricks from a LEGO-compatible brand and would like to know more about the brand these are from. I have them since the very early 90s, if not earlier, so I would think they are a leftover of either a GDR brand or any other former Soviet Block company that produced a clone/alternative to "Western" LEGO.

They are fully compatible to LEGO (and can fit rather tightly) but generally look a little more irregular or just older. They come (or I have them in) white, red and bright yellow (which I think is not just older white) and they seem to have largely just 2-wide bricks (although, I spotted an occasional 1x2, which I guess could also be interpreted as 2-wide). They also have slopes, but different to LEGO only the actual slope without the brick part at the back. They also have windows, but seem to have rarely any plates (I only spotted a 2x8 in yellow, similar colour to that 10x20 base brick they stand on in the photo).

The do have a company logo on the back of the big yellow base brick and on at least one of the studs on each brick, which says PB, but I don't quite know what to make of that.

I'm not sure if part-identification is appropriate or if it is an intra-LEGO only tag (provided the question itself is appropriate, but we'll see).

These are quite literally Pebe bricks made indeed in GDR.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebe
https://www.inverso.pt/legos/clones/texts/pebe.htm
They are not too uncommon in east german second hand vintage batches, since they blend in quite well, just found this one last week:


text:
Why does LEGO avoid 2x4 plates on these occasions?
As this year's LEGO city advent calendar gradually gets opened, I have repeatedly been astonished by the choice of parts: At least twice so far (in the oven and in the catapult target), two 2x2 plates of the same colour had to be placed right next to each other.
Why in the world would LEGO design a (mini-)set this way, rather than use a single 2x4 plate? Note that I have seen LEGO prefer two 1x2 plates instead of a single 2x2 plate in a recent build, but those were placed right on top of another 2x2 brick. Thus, presumably, differently sized plates were chosen for the ease of later disassembly. However, in the case described here, that's not the case, and arguably, the resulting mini-models end up a little bit fragile like this.
I wondered whether it's just some less usual colours that this happens for, but in the catapult target, the colour of the 2x2 plates is white. Certainly, LEGO has not stopped producing white 2x4 plates?!
What's the reason for this strange part choice? Is LEGO trying to achieve a certain part count across the calendar?

Interestingly that snow fort model uses 2 1x2 plates where it could use a 1x4 plate, like it does in another model.

@AlexanderO'Mara: Right, that's another one of these cases. I think it's the same model I described as a "catapult target"; didn't recognize it was supposed to be a "snow fort".

It might be due to aiming to inflate the part count, current inventory state or design considerations like alternative builds. I doubt we would be able to source an official answer, and anything else could only be speculation at best.

Strange. I would think that using 2 parts when one can be used is more expensive, as a 2x4 plate has three tubes and only 4 walls, but 2 2x2s has 2 tubes and 8 walls, which seems a lot more expensive than 1 2x4 to me.

While it's unlikely that we would get a somewhat official answer on this, there can be a multitude of reasons for that, some logical, some economical, some motivated by marketing. Of course, there are some more obvious reasons for the sake of the build and the art of LEGO, but they might not apply in the case of a calendar:

Design. This isn't necessarily the case for using 2x2s over a 2x4 in a calendar. But for example think of something as the Architecture Robie House, where they used 1x2 and 1x1 plates, about 1000 in sum, to simulate the actual brickwork of the real house when they could as well have built it from much fewer bricks. While this also significantly increased the part count, I would still argue this was primarily done for its aesthetic value and it works.
Reusability. Again not too relevant in the case of a calendar, but a lot more important for something like a Creator 3-in-1, when building something else from the pieces is not only encouraged but intended and part of the product's appeal (you could say it's implicitly part of the appeal of LEGO bricks in general, but that's not necessarily reflected in the actual marketing and business philosophy anymore).

A more economic look at the situation opens a few more possibilities that might apply more specifically to your case. While LEGO certainly has more freedom by basically holding all the cards, I found it sometimes helps to think about your own MOCs and why you'd choose one part over the other. When designing a model the first intuition is to use the most fitting part, but there are various considerations to switch them out, almost all of them economically motivated:

Available colours. This is certainly the strictest consideration since you can't use a part that's just not available. While LEGO would have the freedom to simply create the part in that colour, there are still considerations of bringing yet another unique colour-shape combination into production, especially if you don't need it in too many other sets, above all something as much of an afterthought as a calendar. Though, this might not apply so much to something as simple as a 2x4 plate, there's still a ton of exotic colours that don't even have that, even if white is anything but exotic.
Item price. Now for MOC designers, this is motivated a bit differently, since the price of a piece isn't driven "naturally" by actual material cost rather than "artificially" by the demand and supply created from its availability in official sets. That's why 2 2x2s can be much cheaper than a 2x4. But even for LEGO, who basically could mold as many parts as they want, this isn't really driven by material. The material really costs about zero, no matter if you print 2 2x2s or 1 2x4. It is the factory configuration, the logistics of bringing pieces to together, the use of the piece in other produced sets. These all figure into the production cost.
Lot count. In fact when designing a MOC, especially if I intend to build it myself, another consideration is keeping the lot count down. If you already need 2x2s anyway and you don't need a 2x4 for structural integrity, then it might improve your model's acquirability if you have to shop for 1 lot less, since someone offering 5 2x2s is likely offering 7, too. I'd think this isn't too much different for LEGO if you consider the above points about the logistics of molding parts and then packaging them into a single set. Better mold two more than bringing another machine configuration, production lane or, god beware, factory into the mix. And in fact, I often observed that in official sets, where I wonder why they'd use two parts instead of a more fitting one only to see that there's already 20 more of those two parts in the set and it starts to make sense.

All these factors are driven by purely economical reasons and based on the assumption that production and logistics make much more of the cost of a piece than just its material, especially when amortized over tons of pieces and when the difference in material between 2 2x2s and 1 2x4 isn't that big to begin with. But of course there could be another, still economical but less directly, reason based on marketing:

Part count. As noted in the question, this might very well be to just amp the part count of a set, or a calendar where the individual part count of the models isn't too high anyway and you can basically increase it to quite some degree with just adding a few more pieces. A higher part count makes the set seem more valuable (since it suggests more material and a more complex design). This can be the truth but doesn't have to, depending on what factors you measure value by and how it's practically implemented.

Though, I would agree that structural integrity should prevail over all these reasons since a model that just doesn't stay together is of no use at all. But it can still be relative how fragile is too fragile and you also have to figure into the matter, that the advent calendar is somewhat of a side thought that might not be driven by the highest of quality and design considerations from LEGO, especially regarding the buildable items when many people seem most interested in the figures.


text:
Does the ordering of contents in LEGO advent calendars vary between specimens?
In general, LEGO advent calendars are boxes where for each day, there is a small model, or sometimes a minifig, hidden behind the window. Some superficial instructions on how to assemble the model are printed on the inside of the window lid.
Now, in general, the exact content of an advent calendar is supposed to be somewhat of a surprise to the one opening the window. While for LEGO advent calendars, all minifigs and models are contained somewhere on the imagery that decorates the outside of the calendar, I wonder whether at least the ordering is a bit of a surprise.
Or, in other words: If I bought the same LEGO advent calendar twice, would there be a chance that the content were ordered differently? (The box art on the 2019 city calendar weakly implies the answer might be yes, given that the example on the back side shows some open windows with their content, and said content was due on different days in our own copy.)
Thus: Are there differently ordered versions of these advent calendars? Are they somehow randomized, or is there just a handful of different sorting patterns? Even if so, are there any windows/days that always have the same content (e.g. day 24)?

Bricklink lists the items as minisets per day: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=60235-1&viewItemType=S

@MichaelVerschaeve: I think that listing might form a good core for an answer.

No. The ordering is always the same.
If it wasn't there probably wouldn't be daily reviews of today's gift(s) on sites like Brickset.

I don't quite understand the second paragraph. I'm not suggesting the overall content of the calendar changes.

But it would be pointless to post a description of today's content if everybody didn't get the same. And some might find the last part of the calendar spoiled if they could see everywhere what the remaining gift were.

I'm utterly confused now. Or wait, are you saying there are daily reviews of today's gifts? In that case, in the answer, did you maybe mean "wouldn't" instead of "would"? That would make sense (and linking to a couple of these reviews that discuss the same gifts on the same day would make the answer even stronger in that case).

As for finding part of the calendar spoiled - well, as the box art on the outside of the calendar already shows all the gifts, that would seem like a minor concern.

@O.R.Mapper "Or wait, are you saying there are daily reviews of today's gifts?" Yes, there are daily reviews of all four advent calendars: City, Friends, Harry Potter and Star Wars. There were some reviews of an old Clikits calendar as well.

Sorry for that typo, and for not catching it, when @O.R.Mapper first questioned that paragraph.


text:
Why was LEGO reluctant to use additional colours for regular bricks in former times?
Looking back to what LEGO offered in the 1980s and early 1990s (oh, those memories ...), it looks a lot like LEGO's colour palette had been limited to a small number of colours - unless I'm missing something, and just counting non-transparent colours now, mostly:

white
black
red
blue
yellow
light grey

But wait: A couple of other colours had been around for a long time, but had only been used for quite special elements for many years:

dark gray (some other castle accessories, such as minifig swords, at least since 1981 ... before the colour started getting slightly more widespread in actual buildings in the shape of BURPs, starting in 1993)
brown (some castle accessories, such as minifig spears or bows with arrows, at least since 1984 ... until LEGO finally started using some brown for trees instead of approximating them with black around 1993)
green (granted, this one appeared as plates in castle sets at least since 1984, but was otherwise mostly reserved to plant parts, baseplates, and special decorative elements such as flags ... until around 1992, when the fictional Octan gasoline brand was introduced and green started becoming a "mainstream" colour)

Now, I am aware I have not listed all the parts that ever came in the respective colours; my point is that, at least in my impression, these three colours listed above were mainly used for a rather small number of accessories or other specific elements for many years, as opposed to seeing widespread use as regular plates and bricks, compared to the other aforementioned colours.
Is there any known reason in terms of business/design decisions/the material used for each of the colours for this?

The actual light grey is actually a fairly rare color. The lighter of the 2 common greys is actually medium grey, with light grey appearing only rarely (in sets like Thok and King Mathias).

@AlexanderO'Mara: and in certain NXT components.

This doesn’t detract from your main point, but Lego had “started using some brown for trees” already by 1989, in the palm trees of the Pirates sets, eg Forbidden Island.  As you say, though, this was still specialised pieces, not ordinary blocks.

@PeterLeFanuLumsdaine: Right, "brown for trees" was an oversimplification. Pirates also brought brown ship hulls, brown ship ladders, brown oars, and some more pieces like the small wooden barrels had probably been around in Castle even a bit earlier. But, yes, this arguably makes it even more noteworthy that of all pieces, standard bricks in these colours were conspicuously absent, especially considering that Pirates did feature other wooden structures where wood was mimicked with black pieces (parts of pirate buildings, the crane on the imperial palace, etc.).

I recall green flat 2x3 in the 1970s.

@chux-ReinstateMonica: The earliest occurrence listed on Peeron is from 1984. Or do you mean a different part?

Set 125 in 1974 had a 10x20 green brick. It was one brick tall and had connecting tubes around the bottom edge, so it's technically a brick.

Here's an interesting, slightly relevant tidbit: maroon and to a lesser degree brown LEGOs are much more brittle than others. Try assembling an old Luke's Landspeeder set without pieces breaking on you.

Bear in mind that the greys used in sets older than 2002 are different to modern greys.  Lego changed the colour palette in the early 00s to make the colours more child friendly and the biggest change were the greys, which were given a blue rather than brown hue.  The colour change is so dramatic that you basically can't use the two side by side in a model.  The browns were changed as well but the change was not as dramatic.

@Stephen: I read about that, but it seems irrelevant here: The colours I list were around in special parts since the 1980s and gradually started appearing as regular bricks in tbe course of the 1990s.

@shoover: Technically true, as you say, though "bricks" of that size are, in their possible use cases, much like "thick plates" rather than what I referred to as "regular bricks" (that are suited to build a plain wall, for example).

I recently saw an episode of a tv show "The Toys that made us" regarding Lego. It did include some of the decisions they made (including used colors). Might be an interesting watch to get an idea why/what kind of decisions the company made.

@O.R.Mapper Are you waiting on additional information or is there something else preventing you from accepting an answer?

The answer I've heard the most (with a source citing the official confirmation) is that green, brown and gray bricks were omitted from the LEGO palette because the company wanted to discourage kids from building tanks, planes, and other realistic military hardware.

Wow. Never thought of this one, though when enumerating the colours as "green, brown and gray", the possible connection to camouflage becomes immediately obvious.

There is some further evidence to this theory.

@T.Sar-ReinstateMonica TLG's reluctance to produce realistic, modern military equipment is clear and well known, but as far as I can see, the linked article does not mention the connection between this phenomenon and the lack of specific colours, asked by OP.

That article doesn't connect to the color, yes, but it gives a reference for those that weren't aware of this reluctance from part of TLG. I, for one, wasn't aware of it.

Though they had no problem including various types of guns (both in the space and pirate sets), and even working cannons (though they sadly backtracked on that one later).  There was also an extensive variety of medieval weapons in the castle sets.  So - ancient and futuristic weapons are okay, but modern ones aren't?

@DarrelHoffman This is more like a general guideline, not a strict rule. The official statement says "The basic aim is to avoid realistic weapons and military equipment that children may recognize from hot spots around the world and to refrain from showing violent or frightening situations". However, LEGO has produced sets depicting all of the above, but every time the focus is either in the model itself, like in the case of Sopwith Camel or [part 1 of 2, continued below]

[continued] or the interaction between well-defined good and bad actors, like in some Indiana Jones sets, or the militaristic personnel and equipment is an integral part of an otherwise kid-friendly franchise, like Toy Story or Lone Ranger. Note though, that TLG has produced historical realistic fighter planes even outside of licenced themes, like in Pharaoh's Quest. [part 2 of 2]

I have to say, the lack of colours never stopped me from producing machines of war.  You should have seen my bedroom the day after I sneakily saw Top Gun......

Brown dogs/horses and green trees/grass/plants were quite  acceptable then, so it must have been more targetted to bricks.

@Criggie Right, but don't forget, the plant pieces were made of polyethylene instead of ABS, which made them softer and more pliable. However, the existence of the green "baseplate" brick mentioned in a comment by shoover above proves that green ABS was indeed used, just not for basic bricks.

This justification was also used in the documentary The Toys That Made Us.

Early LEGO colors were inspired by the work of Mondriaan, which mainly consists of white, black, red, blue and yellow. These primary colors were considered to be most appealing to kids.

From the book “Brick by Brick”:

The new product was patented in 1958 and within a few years bright
  yellow, red and blue Lego bricks, colours inspired by the paintings of
  the Dutch Modernist painter Piet Mondrian, were scattered across the
  floors of millions of homes.

Interesting, but is this just speculation, or do you have any references to back this up?

From the book “Brick by Brick”:  The new product was patented in 1958 and within a few years bright yellow, red and blue Lego bricks, colours inspired by the paintings of the Dutch Modernist painter Piet Mondrian, were scattered across the floors of millions of homes.

@Keeta-reinstateMonica Done!

Does Brick by Brick indicate in any way their source for this? The use of primary colors in kids’ products is pretty wide-spread, and I have doubts that Piet was the direct inspiration for that in a variety of settings. Something from LEGO themselves would seem necessary to cement this claim.

This justification was also used in the documentary The Toys That Made Us.

I did not realize there was a link between LEGOs and The Partridge Family.  Wow.

I have a background in precision injection moulding, although not to the extremely tight tolerances of Lego. Here's why a manufacturer would try to reduce the number of colours they used, particularly in the old days.
Most resin (the raw material) nowadays comes pre-coloured, especially for a large customer like Lego. That wasn't the case fifty or sixty years ago: we used to get white resin and colour it with powdered pigment. This operation would have to be repeated for each batch of each colour, a batch being (in the old days) a cement mixer's worth of resin. Between colours you would need to clean the mixer out thoroughly, because a small amount of the wrong pigment could contaminate many pieces. The contamination would be hard to see: try examining 1,000 pieces for a small swirl of the wrong colour!
If the colour of a moulded piece was off we would have to re-grind it, add more pigment / plain resin and re-mould it. We couldn't do that for pieces of different colours, or for badly contaminated pieces. We had the advantage of manufacturing some products in black that would hide most discolourations, so we would reserve contaminated material for those.
Moulding machines used to have a hopper above the machine, and the coloured resin would literally be carried up a ladder and poured inside. To switch between colours we would generally run the hopper until it was almost empty, possibly add some plain or disposable reground material to "purge" it, and then add the new material. A certain amount of pieces would necessarily be contaminated by the old colour, which meant that changing colours for small batches could be quite wasteful. Nowadays we have vacuum feeders instead of large hoppers. We still have the problem of colour contamination, but this has been reduced by better mould design.
Speaking of moulds, older moulds used to convey the plastic down a channel to the moulds for the individual pieces. When the mould emptied the channels, called sprues, would separate or be sepaarated from the puieces and reground. There would invariably be a certain amount of this material left at the end of a job, and it could be a pain keeping track of it for next time.
When you add these costs in time/quality together it's easy to see that (keeping the total number of pieces constant) adding extra colours rapidly increases your overheads. It isn't just the fixed cost of changeover and storage, but the potential for things going wrong. I think this would have given Lego a good reason to reduce the number of colours they used, particularly when the firm was smaller and technology wasn't as advanced.

Thanks for this detailed answer, and welcome to Bricks.SE!

LEGO used to produce bricks from pre-coloured raw material, however they've switched base+color pellets nowadays. I'm not entirely sure why (probably due to cost saving), but this introduced problems with color consistency, which is still hasn't been resolved until today.

A practical engineering concern could be a reason to limit the colours used for molding in ABS plastic.
The colourant added to the base plastic can affect the physical properties of the molded part. Depending on how tight the dimensional tolerances are for the finished part a separate mold may be required for each colour.
Perhaps the Lego group process engineers have enough controls in the automated molding process now to tweak the mold setups to compensate for the variations induced by the colourants.

You may be on to something there, given that the early swords may indeed be somewhat softer, as were various of the earlier green pieces (old trees and whips, for example - but obviously not the plates), pointing to differences in the material. Do you have any references to back this up?

@O.R.Mapper I'm fairly sure those pieces were deliberately made in softer material to be slightly movable, to avoid breaking. They're generally things containing longer or thinner pieces that would easily be subjected to accidental damaging force. I doubt this is related to the colour.

@Nyerguds: Certainly. In the case of whips, for instance, they are intentionally softer as they are meant to be bent for some sets. I rather thought of it the other way round: Maybe certain colours were somehow easier or cheaper to manufacture with soft materials, so they were used for parts that were always manufactured from softer material in the regular colours, as well.

Manufacturing logistics play a part in this decision. If you have to maintain six different dyes or pellet hopper combinations in the injection molding pipeline in your factory, that is a different story in terms of cost than maintaining sixteen or thirty hopper combinations or dye vats. If the pellets are pre-dyed (as I believe was the case), sourcing these will depend on the logistics of and the options made available by the supplier.

It's known that LEGO has had problems sourcing red and yellow colours that did not contain cadmium, but no such problems have been known about green, brown or grey.

Also, the existence of the green "baseplate" brick mentioned in a comment by shoover above proves that green ABS was indeed used, just not for basic bricks.

Most bricks in sets are picked from large bins of a given colour/shape when making up a set, and used in many different sets.  Hence there is a cost advantage to limiting the number of colours and hence the number of different brick.

So, why did (the importance of?) that cost advantage gradually change or vanish starting toward the end of the 1980s?

@O.R.Mapper I expect automatic systems for picking bricks from many bins,  and increased production levels.   Along with them wishing to create more realistic models.


text:
What was or is the longest running Lego set?
What is the longest running Lego set, retired or still in production?
I remember seeing set 7239 Fire Truck in the Lego catalog for years. That fire truck out lived three fire stations (7240, 7945, 7208)!
I'm having trouble finding an end date for sets, is there any way to know how long a set was released?
For example Brickset lists the fire truck's availability at LEGO.com as Oct 2007 through Dec 2011, but I know the set ran longer then that (I got it in 2005).
So what is/was the longest running Lego set?

It's a little ambiguous to answer because sets go out of production at unspecified times before they actually become unavailable at varying times depending on location and vendor, and sets get re-released sometimes.

I'm going to stretch your definition of "set" and say "32x32 green baseplate". You could get set 745-1 in 1978...

...then 840-1 in 1980, then 813-1 in 1986, then 626-1 in 1996:

And since 2015 there's 10700-1, altough it seems that the shade of green is different than the previous iterations:

Since those sets have exactly the same piece count (one) and each piece is functionally the same, I will argue that the green 32x32 baseplate set has been in production since 1978 until today (2019). That's over 40 years.
If you consider these to be different sets because they have different set numbers, then the record goes to 1996's 626-1, with 19 years.

Good thinking, but I would say that a set consists of more than one piece :)

On the other hand, if it has a set number then it is a set :-P

While I have no problem with a set having only one piece, you listed five different sets there. The longest of which ran for 19 years (626-1)