Should technic go back to studs?

[Jeroen Ottens]

Although that part doesn't have any studs on it directly, it was made specifically to work with parts which do use studs, so I'm not sure I'd call it the start of studless.

Even the supercar suspension parts, while having no studs, were made to work with studded beams. Of course, they also work with studless beams.

Since the transition was gradual, it is very hard to identify a start point. If I had to pick one, I'd say the triangle in 1991 is the first studless part. This part was alone until 1996 when the 6x4 bent liftarm came in, and from then on every year saw more and more studless parts.

I remember a conversation in 1999 I had with the designer of the Spaceshuttle. He considered (in hindsight) the 6x4 bended liftarm the true start of studless Technic. They apparently had a hard time at the time to convince the part committee to accept the part as a proper Lego part. They had to promise they wouldn't expand on the concept of these weird studless parts... (famous last words ).

[Blakbird]

I remember a conversation in 1999 I had with the designer of the Spaceshuttle. He considered (in hindsight) the 6x4 bended liftarm the true start of studless Technic. They apparently had a hard time at the time to convince the part committee to accept the part as a proper Lego part. They had to promise they wouldn't expand on the concept of these weird studless parts... (famous last words ).

Interesting info. Since that part was made to bind together rows of studded bricks on the diagonal, it HAD TO BE studless or it would have had corners that protruded. So in the beginning, there was good reason for those "weird" parts to exist to complement the existing parts. Apparently no one realized they would eventually supplant the whole system!

By the way, who was the designer of the Space Shuttle? I will honor them forever!

[SMC]

For me as a kid having technic Lego which was the same as systems Lego was great, technic was a great source of large plates in sets like 8872. I find it odd how most afol hate large parts in system sets but all technic sets are full of them. I really dislike the look of technic sets now covered in large studless panels. If technic sets look like 76023 The Tumbler and had functions like 42030 Volvo L350F Wheel Loader it would not have taken me so long to come on this forum. I should love technic and I used to but I just don't find it legoie enough for me like the action figures like 4526 Batman. The only thing that has made me take a second look is the power functions but even then so few drive the vehicle and when they do there is no variable speed or controlled steering. I do love the Linear Actuator but that's about it.

[andythenorth]

I dunno about studs, but I can't see past the change from grey to light-bluish grey. We should start a poll to reverse that mistake which ruined the collections of many serious AFOLs.

Edited April 15, 2015 by andythenorth

[Jeroen Ottens]

Interesting info. Since that part was made to bind together rows of studded bricks on the diagonal, it HAD TO BE studless or it would have had corners that protruded. So in the beginning, there was good reason for those "weird" parts to exist to complement the existing parts. Apparently no one realized they would eventually supplant the whole system!

By the way, who was the designer of the Space Shuttle? I will honor them forever!

Well it is a testament to the quality standards that Lego adheres to. They could have chosen any other shape (a quarter circle at the top for instance) to mimic the shape of the real space shuttle, but instead they choose to get a part that was less stylistic ideal, but much more versatile.

The guy I spoke was Soren (with a / through the o), but I suspect he was not the only designer of that set (we developed sets with two designers per set). By the time I joined the company he had already moved to a management function...

[Anio]

We will go back to studs in the Technic line when something like that will be possible with studful parts.

Not gonna happen...

[Blakbird]

We will go back to studs in the Technic line when something like that will be possible with studful parts.

I don't understand. Why would that mechanism not work with studded parts? A similar linear linkage was used in 856 way back in 1979.

[Anio]

I don't understand. Why would that mechanism not work with studded parts? A similar linear linkage was used in 856 way back in 1979.

Just give it a try.

I bet that with 2500 studful parts, you still don't have a complete model (with the same building standards and reliability of course).

Smoothness, round ends and square profil (or equivalent when used in building ; cause technically speeking, it is not a square) of studless enables to make tons of things that are just not possible with studful.

[jantjeuh]

Agreed with Anio.

[__________________________]

A differential is neither studded or studless. You are talking about older versus newer parts, which is not the same as studded versus studless. There is no reason you can't use a new differential in a studded construction. In my opinion, the word "studless" is only relevant to beams versus liftarms. All of the other parts like connectors have no studs by definition and can be used with either system.

Agreed about terminology. However, since the latest diff was by definition designed for the studless system, it is a "studless" (hoping this makes sense) diff, and the older one I see used rarely- even Sariel used the "studless" (newest version of the) diffs in his Dakar truck, and that, as a whole, the studless system and related diffs is generally on a larger scale than studless.

Just give it a try.

I bet that with 2500 studful parts, you still don't have a complete model (with the same building standards and reliability of course).

Smoothness, round ends and square profil (or equivalent when used in building ; cause technically speeking, it is not a square) of studless enables to make tons of things that are just not possible with studful.

yes, that was my point Blakbird

I don't understand. Why would that mechanism not work with studded parts? A similar linear linkage was used in 856 way back in 1979.

That's true, 8880 gives almost every Technic set these days a run for its money in terms of gearbox for vehicle speeds, not for functions which should be manual (like in 24h race car), suspension, etc. However, 8880's bodywork is definitely rudimentary and easier to instantly recognize as being Lego to a non-FOL.

Interesting info. Since that part was made to bind together rows of studded bricks on the diagonal, it HAD TO BE studless or it would have had corners that protruded. So in the beginning, there was good reason for those "weird" parts to exist to complement the existing parts. Apparently no one realized they would eventually supplant the whole system!

By the way, who was the designer of the Space Shuttle? I will honor them forever!

Great insight, learn something new every day.

[Boxerlego]

When it comes to building with Studded Technic bricks you faced with multiple options when it comes to how you build with the Technic Bricks you either have the Technic hole inline with the Stud or its going to be offset in the center of two studs. However that is just dealing with the bricks with round Holes O. For Axle holes + you have only one choice and that is the offset one. It would be awesome to see Bricks with Axle holes inline with the stud as well but that is another story for now. With Studded design there is way more potential that has barley even been tap yet when it comes to creating with Studded Beams over Studless. For Studless the best length a beam can have before connecting more beams is 15. The length for studded design can be longer with out sacrifice to it width and it will always remain a one stud wide because your making a vertical connection along the top and bottom with 1x?? Plates instead of that horizontal friction pin connection for studdless.

[9v system]

When it comes to building with Studded Technic bricks you faced with multiple options when it comes to how you build with the Technic Bricks you either have the Technic hole inline with the Stud or its going to be offset in the center of two studs. However that is just dealing with the bricks with round Holes O. For Axle holes + you have only one choice and that is the offset one. It would be awesome to see Bricks with Axle holes inline with the stud as well but that is another story for now. With Studded design there is way more potential that has barley even been tap yet when it comes to creating with Studded Beams over Studless. For Studless the best length a beam can have before connecting more beams is 15. The length for studded design can be longer with out sacrifice to it width and it will always remain a one stud wide because your making a vertical connection along the top and bottom with 1x?? Plates instead of that horizontal friction pin connection for studdless.

interesting i did not know that

[Boxerlego]

Now here is something that just came to my attention awhile ago. I'm probably not the first to have this idea but it worthy that it should be mentioned, imagine if we took this part below to the next step and instead of a having a slop at the ends we have that Technic round end we know so well then it be a kind of Studdless hybrid brick end.

[D3K]

interesting i did not know that

AND YOU CALL YOURSELFA STUD LOVER=!??!

[Boxerlego]

Here is another idea Im going to throw out there that is focused on the simple steering side for LEGO. A part similar like this would be great for a simple construction containing Kingpin inclination angle for the front axle. This part appears more promising for studdless construction but who can really say with out some testing at what form it should take, you could even add a caster angle on this with out shifting the angle of the entire axle member.

Edited April 17, 2015 by Boxerlego

[DrJB]

Possibly another reason why studless beams/liftarms were adopted quickly: recall that in that time period, oil was expensive, and the 16x1 technic brick uses almost twice as much plastic as the equivalent 15x1 liftarm. There are huge cost savings going from beams to liftarms, in addition to other benefits.

[9v system]

Here is another idea Im going to throw out there that is focused on the simple steering side for LEGO. A part similar like this would be great for a simple construction containing Kingpin inclination angle for the front axle. This part appears more promising for studdless construction but who can really say with out some testing at what form it should take, you could even add a caster angle on this with out shifting the angle of the entire axle member.

I see you do a lot of modifications to motors.

[TheNextLegoDesinger]

here i am again.

I think studded bricks would fit in a car's bodywork if you wand to make a smooth and fulll cover of the car. That's something that is almost impossible with studless bricks.

if you have a car that has a 0.5 smaller place in the bodywork you will have some problems.

[DrJB]

... since the latest diff was by definition designed for the studless system ...

The main 'evolution' as I see it is rather simple. In the old studfull cars, the width of such cars was even, and if the diff has to be centered between two beams, well, it needed an even length (4L). With the advent of studless, the width of cars became odd numbers, and for a diff to fit between two liftarms, it had to have an odd length (3L). This is true for rear or front diffs only. For diffs in 4x4 setting, that need to be placed between front and rear axles, the requirement for odd length is no longer needed. That is why, in most 4x4 cars (original/MOC), the center diff is always 4L as it offers features the 3L simply does not have. Of course, going from 4L to 3L, we give up the diff-lock feature and the ability to mesh spur gears. In that sense, the old diff (4L) is more versatile than the new (3L). These are few reasons the 4L has not been discontinued by TLG (yet).

Anyone sees this otherwise?

Edited April 18, 2015 by DrJB

[Boxerlego]

I see you do a lot of modifications to motors.

I made a couple of custom motors, I don't really think of them as modifications because nothing is really being altered here. Just some JB weld between LEGO and a motor and that is it. I view them more as a custom Motor build project.

This motor below is a modification on the XL motor. This one is an upgrade to the motor but none the less there is a couple things here that need modifying for the end result.

http://www.eurobrick...showtopic=78173

When it come to studdless and studded, I usually make the motor to fit with the studless system. Tho I've thought and attempted to make a studdless custom motor for a studded construction however I ran into some problems that made that motor somewhat difficult to fit with the studded construction.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Boxerlego

[DrJB]

Here is another idea Im going to throw out there that is focused on the simple steering side for LEGO. A part similar like this would be great for a simple construction containing Kingpin inclination angle for the front axle. This part appears more promising for studdless construction but who can really say with out some testing at what form it should take, you could even add a caster angle on this with out shifting the angle of the entire axle member.

While I see your point, there is some problem with this part, both as is (with an apparent kingpin) and after you add a caster. I say 'apparent' because what this part does is tilt the whole wheel/tire by some angle, and this is different from a kingpin. If you take the part you're showing and attach a wheel/tire to it, the whole wheel/tire will be tilted by the same amount as the kingpin. The best parts for making kingpin/caster are the latest hubs from 42000 as you can offset the top/bottom towball connections either sideways (kingpin) or fore-aft (for caster). The combination of the three A-arms below (old, new, narrow) makes for a good palette to choose from. I'm confident that the combination of parts below, togethrr with some offsetting connectors opens up substantially the options for suspension tweaking (even multi-link)

In contrast, the parts below, and while we love them very much, offer no option for suspension geometry tweaking.

Edited April 18, 2015 by DrJB

[miguev]

Could you please explain why the last 5 parts would not be suitable for even a slight negative caster angle?

Example: take 8070 front suspension and shift the upper arms a half stud to the rear. Why would that not work?

[N-4K0]

Personally, I think studded liftarms and other parts look horrible in Technic, at least when it comes to design and bodywork. I don't mind it in internal structure and building, though, although it's been years since I used it.

[DrJB]

Could you please explain why the last 5 parts would not be suitable for even a slight negative caster angle?

Example: take 8070 front suspension and shift the upper arms a half stud to the rear. Why would that not work?

I should have been more careful and said 'offer limited options' instead of 'offer no option'. That said, and because the spacing between the top/bottom towballs is small ( 2 studs), any fore-aft offset of either would cause relatively large caster angles. The hubs from 4200 have larger spacing between top/bottom towballs and as such enable one to reproduce small (more realistic) caster angles.

As for king pin axis, I still stand by my original statement that in such elements, any kingpin attempt would result in the actual wheel/tire being totally tilted and are thus not feasible.

[miguev]

Indeed, I noticed the small vertical size means either big or none caster angle... shifting an arm by a half stud gives already an angle of 26º 34' ... what's the maximum used in racing cars?

Back on topic: I really wish Technic figures came back. They really add to playability in terms of role playing.