Is studless intrinsically more functional?

[Xfing]

This is something I've been wondering about - seeing how the Lego Company seems to have developed a tendency to minimize the number of studded pieces in Technic sets as of late. I know and understand full well that the studless beam offers more versatility, compactness and freedom of spatial orientation, but there are cases where they could easily have been replaced with studded pieces in sets, yet they aren't. What could be the cause of this? That the studless beam is cheaper to produce because it takes less plastic?

I personally was very happy with the ratio of say, 75% studless to 25% studded that was found in early 2000s models. Before the studless beam was developed, there had of course still been many other studless pieces - the various connectors, bent beams, triangle beams and elastic tubes and hoses were introduced way before that, in the late 90s. Later they became predominant, but recently the tubing and hoses are being phased out in favor of panels, as far as aesthetics go. But I think I really preferred constructions such as the 8448 - a sturdy, studded chassis and slick, studless bodywork.

A good example of the stud-removal trend is the Mobile Crane - the first iteration (8421-1) used quite a number of studded pieces, while MK2 reduced their number to an absolute minimum, only when they were necessary. Was the functionality of MK2 superior to the original (apart from the fact that the set contained~800 more pieces)? Are LEGO's efforts of studful piece reduction founded, or are they merely arbitrary?

[Lipko]

For me, a fully studless model is much more consistent looking that a mainly studless with many studded parts. I would only use studded pieces is absolutely necessary.

If mixing the two then I prefer mainly studded models with many studless parts that the opposite. I will never build mainly studded models simply because I already have a pretty good studless parts pack and doing the same with studded would mean a huge money and space investment.

[model850]

Well when designing studless you are sssentially reducing shape to it's bare neccesities, therefore reducing the number of parts required to achieve desired shape/function. In other words studless pieces are bare connections (basically beams). This type of design makes you form peaces in such way that most basic shape object can take is triangle/pyramid. This structure offers great structural strenght with minimal part count, parts that could be otherwise used to buld something else. Also variety of parts/molds reduces dropping the cost even futher. Ony exception I can think of is the case where one is stacking beams on top of each other. In this case sides holes on the studded pieces can be used as secondary connection point, but this kind of desing can be easely replaced.

Aesthetics wise I find studless designs more apropriate when trying to capture fluid lines of modern day machines. :)

[martijnnab]

I only have studless Technic parts and don't like to work with studded, even from the basic aspect that the height differences of the beams don't match very well in a tight construction. I agree that smooth surfaces can only be made with studless. Can't imagine building a structure like this http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=109260#entry2213425 with studded beams.

Edited May 10, 2015 by martijnnab

[Milan]

I agree that smooth surfaces can only be made with studless.

I strongly disagree. Provide some examples, please.

Can't imagine building a structure like this http://www.eurobrick...60#entry2213425 with studded beams.

I can.

[Boxerlego]

I have both Technic studded and studless parts together in one box however studded beams and both studded and studless panels/anything bigger then a 2x2 plate are separate. I'm very particular on how I organised my LEGO. If were talking about functionality mainly, I believe studded is more functional because I know a couple of things that studded can functionally do that studdless can not be able to do. But on the other hand, a well designed studdless model would be able to incorporate more functionality in its designs more than complete studded construction would be able to. Its all about how your able to build with it in the end.

I've done some interesting building techniques with the round ends of the studless Technic beams that I consider not really a LEGO building technique but more along the lines of a basic shape building techniques and that being said the square ends on the studded beams are more structurally fit to build with and will make the structure overall more ridged with less room over the studdless build because of the nature of the square shape keeps the brick from moving around out of it place. An advantage of the round corner is that it is perfect to center and position another round object due to its curve nature which is the opposite of a square brick because it is flat.

[martijnnab]

I strongly disagree. Provide some examples, please.

I can.

Milan,

First let me be clear. You models are great and well designed and in no way my statement was intended to offend you in any way or sort.

The context was purely around the usage of studded technic beams as esthetic construction items for smooth surfaces, which is by definition impossible without the use of tradional Lego materials like the bricks, tiles and plates you are using.

From that perspective these cars are shaped utilizing traditional Lego techniques instead of being purely technic based.

I myself started only a few years ago with studless beams and it's all I generally use (and are used to) and I really like working with them, as they also allow creating smooth (no studs and limited amount of holes) surfaces while still mainly utilizing technic materials (except for details like grills etc..)

[Milan]

Milan,

First let me be clear. You models are great and well designed and in no way my statement was intended to offend you in any way or sort.

The context was purely around the usage of studded technic beams as esthetic construction items for smooth surfaces, which is by definition impossible without the use of tradional Lego materials like the bricks, tiles and plates you are using.

From that perspective these cars are shaped utilizing traditional Lego techniques instead of being purely technic based.

I myself started only a few years ago with studless beams and it's all I generally use (and are used to) and I really like working with them, as they also allow creating smooth (no studs and limited amount of holes) surfaces while still mainly utilizing technic materials (except for details like grills etc..)

I am not offended, neither my post was intended to offend you.

Pictures that I posted are not my models, they are references to your statement that you cant think of building a structure like your Eldorado, with studded beams. I posted them to show some examples where it is possible, maybe they look better than your car, maybe they dont, to each their own, but it is possible to create such shapes with studs, too, and IMO, they look much better and more organic with studs than with studless.

[Boxerlego]

From the two pictures I see below I want to make a comparison. I want to point out that I think it is interesting that the both models use a building technique to create a penstriping look down the model.

For the studded one all that was need was a some plates to create the penstriping look and that major benefit here is there are tons of these plates with a wide variety of colors to chose from.

As for the Studdless one you have thin lift arms to create the penstriping look. For the studless those thin lift arms don't come in many colors and can be a bit pricey compared to the Plates. However the pinstriping here is along the side of the hood on the model instead of the side like with the studded model and that is the big difference. Between the two models the studded model has to give up on penstriping the top of the hood because that would in make you resort to using a full width of the brick and that does not make for good penstriping look. However, with the studless model the penstriping look can be done where ever you can fit a thin liftarm at. And that is the big difference maker here.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Boxerlego

[dr_spock]

I sorted my Technic parts into studded, studless, and connectors. I use both in building GBCs.

[martijnnab]

Interesting perspective you place on the different (im)possibilities of both methods. Hadn't looked at these details of the car in that fashion. For studded builds you could off course also use SNOT for pinstriping on topside, but in combination with further curvature would get complicated and that's where studless can indeed make the difference. Still fitting halfbeam details in in a Technic model is tough work as the many axle holes on the halfbeams are ill matched to the lack of pins with a halfbeam axle connector. Makes me want to cut a section from the blue axle pins (but no way I am going to do that)

Edited May 10, 2015 by martijnnab

[__________________________]

I strongly disagree. Provide some examples, please

I can.

Eh, those are Model Team though, not Technic (according to the pics)...plus studfull will be way heavier Edited May 11, 2015 by Blakbird
: Removed quoted images.

[Milan]

Eh, those are Model Team though, not Technic (according to the pics)...plus studfull will be way heavier

You dont have to quote all the pictures.

Eh, it does not matter if this is Model Team, Creator or Technic, I was showing it is possible to build nice curvy shapes with studs, cos martijnnab said it would be imaginable to build something like eldorado in studs.

[Lipko]

That Eldorado isn't even a good example for building in studdles in my opinion. It has mostly flat surfaces built with stacked liftarms with all those gaps where the round liftarm-ends and round connectors meet. Those flat surfaces would look nicer it they were completely smooth, and I don't see how that is not possible with studded parts.

Sheepo's Defender or Lucio's MOCs are good examples of well-executed studdles flat surface building, and there only a few models that do liftarm stacking well.

So yeah, in my opinion square cars are easier to make with studded parts.

[Blakbird]

Eh, those are Model Team though, not Technic (according to the pics)...plus studfull will be way heavier

You are using circular reasoning here. Why do you call those cars Model Team? If the reason you call them Model Team is that they are built with studs, then by your definition there is no such thing as a studded Technic model. Most of those models have lots of Technic functions and could qualify as Technic models, depending on your definition.

What this all boils down to is preference. Some people like studded better, some people like studless better. No problem there. The problem comes when one group says something or other is impossible with the other building style. This thread proves conclusively that these statements are not true. Technical building is indeed possible with studded, and aesthetic building is indeed possible with studless. Certain things may be easier with one style verses another, but both are fully useful if care is taken. My personal preference are models which combine both.

[martijnnab]

Blakbird,

Well spoken, nothing to add there.

[Rockbrick]

it has nothing to do with function - both studless and studfull can be as functional as eachother.

the fact remains is that studless is more compact when it comes to fitting more functionality per cm3

thats all

[Boxerlego]

it has nothing to do with function - both studless and studfull can be as functional as eachother.

the fact remains is that studless is more compact when it comes to fitting more functionality per cm3

thats all

It has everything to do with function. You don't relies it but Studded construction sometime need to be measured on the mircometer scale and that is much smaller tolerance then cm other wise the friction inside an engine would be to much and the piston would never function properly.

[Nick Barrett]

Three cars shown by Milan to illustrate his point (2CV, Minor, Mini) are mine, and I regard them as Technic models because of their advanced functionality, not their aesthetic. A Model Team body on a Technic chassis about sums it up. In all three cases, there's a considerable amount of new studless parts under the skin combined with studded Technic to provide that functionality. You might call them mongrels...

[martijnnab]

. You might call them mongrels...

Didn't know that word yet, so I looked it up

Doesn't you you models justice :thumbup:

Edited May 13, 2015 by martijnnab