why did Technic do away with studded?

[bonox]

Studded Technic has a rigidity that is useful when building large sets take a look at the inside of 75059 UCS Sandcrawler set, that is basically built around a Technic frame.

a technic beam isn't as stiff (well marginally) as a an equivalent brick of the same size, and you could just as easily make internal frames for models out of studless instead. It's just easier to join technic bricks together at non-orthogonal angles than for plain bricks. I can get what you're saying, but rigidity comes from the design of an assembly of parts rather than a single part by itself. That's why truss structures exist in place of just thick slabs. Building guts for small models is probably better served by technic bricks than for UCS sized models, but you can still integrate studless technic with system - it's probably just simpler to use studded technic bricks rather than say that stiffness is a reason for TLG to hold onto them.

the thread title is specifically about technic bricks in technic models - Technic models still come with system parts (porsche anyone?) and system models still come with studless technic liftarms.

[__________________________]

It's a fine question but we are not going to get a satisfactory answer. I once asked a LEGO employee this very question at a convention and the answer was something like "because studless parts are more compatible with the rest of the system". This answer makes no sense because obviously the studded parts are more compatible. He also said there was no chance of even going back.

One unintended side effect of the change is in public perception. If you take the 851 tractor and show it to pretty much anyone on Earth, they will recognize it as a LEGO tractor. But with modern Technic, there are lots of kids and even adults and conventions who see a Technic display and think it is not LEGO because it does not contain the types of parts they recognize. This seems like a problem from a branding perspective.

If someone looks at a model car made with many pieces, wouldn't they assume it's Lego?

When I worked there the debate was ongoing in the technic dev department. One of the arguments was to get clear distinction between lego system and lego technic because of branding purposes. The other argument of the studless camp was the better possibility to build in 3 dimensions. And I suppose for the designers it was a new and interesting constraint to make their work more interesting. I personally was at the time in the studded camp. Especially the combination of the two (like the 8448) where a studded frame was given smooth looks with studless parts.

In that same period the fake-engine brick was introduced. Markus and I used it (extensively ) in the power puller and I remember arguing with the parts configuration control board whether or not it should have studs and hollows on it or not (we had a studless prototype as well). Evidently we won the argument, but in hindsight I do regret that. Especially that underside is a pain in the *** in the studless era.

More stories about behind the scenes please!

I can see it already with my models. The e30 chassis is much lighter than the studded mustang chasis, yet is just as strong and uses much less parts. The new panels and box liftarm sections help immensly aswell.

I tried studless for the first time with my challenger model, but that proved to be a very heavy and not very strong vehicle, mainly because the lack of panels and the box liftarm sections at the time.

I am 100% in favor of studless.

Did you just contradict yourself nicjasno? Im confused