Studlessers VS Studfullers - Why not both systems?

[Plastic Nurak]

In my very humble opinion, the total lack of studded construction is not as positive as some studless building system prophets say. I see 1996-2001 period as the better because both the system were used together and for specifical purpose: for example in #8448 and #8466 studded construction gives stability to the chassis, while studless building is useful for body and upper structure (in 8466 for suspension too). I hope Technic designers come back to this path. And you, what do you think?

[TechnicJuan]

Right from the front page of crowkiller's site

"Studless building is like playing chess, you must always plan 5 moves ahead."

This couldn't be more true.

Studless building is without a doubt more of a challenge with the end result being that you can build models that are not only stronger, but also cut down on weight as well. Studless building also has a cleaner look. Of course these are only my opinions.

[Anio]

Today, studful is better in few cas :

- very big models (at least 10,000 parts) which need to be very very strong

- for the model to have studs, such as 8275. It is nice to see some studs. :)

- for some elements on studless models that need to be strong, such as the arm of the 8421 mobile crane.

Technicaly, studless is definitely superior to studful, by far.

For example, with studful, it would have been impossible to make 8052 mechanism, or 8294 arm, etc.

Or if it is possible, it require a much bigger model.

IMO, best models are studless models because they are more complexe. These models are even better if they have some studful parts (8421, 8275 ; it would have been great if 8043 had studs).

Edited July 4, 2010 by Anio

[Jurgen Krooshoop]

I agree with Plastic Nurak. Both studless & studfull building have their advantages and disadvantaged. My Black Supercar "The Wasp" is an example of combining these two building-methods. However, mostly I prefer studless building for being more flexible, offering more possibilities

[Plastic Nurak]

Your Wasp car represents what I'm saying: primarily studless, with studful construction only where it strictly required (to the constructor point of view, of course ). I grew up with old school Technic construction, but now I slightly prefer studless system. But for some purpose, as I said before, I think it's impossible to quit completely studded bulding system.

[mahjqa]

"Studded" versus "Studless" are the preferred terms.

Both systems have their advantages and their disadvantages. I disagree with the people that say studded building requires less planning. For example, take a look at the building instructions for the supply ship. For a medium model, there's a fuckton of techniques and strange directions going on.

What I do agree with, is that studless allows for more compact building.

However, one does not negate the other, and I'll happily combine the two if it gets me where I want to be.

[CP5670]

I use a mix of both styles and certainly agree with the OP. Many models in the 1997-2001 period were both lightweight and very strong, but also easy to modify and expand on.

For example, with studful, it would have been impossible to make 8052 mechanism, or 8294 arm, etc.

Or if it is possible, it require a much bigger model.

Those mechanisms were possible 30 years ago. The 8888 excavator, for example, is actually more sophisticated than 8294.

A better example of the benefits of studless construction is a pendular trial truck chassis, where space and weight are often at a premium. The trial trucks people build today are more compact and robust than what was possible 10-15 years ago.

Right from the front page of crowkiller's site

"Studless building is like playing chess, you must always plan 5 moves ahead."

This couldn't be more true.

I'll just copy an earlier post of mine when this was previously mentioned:

I think your preference on this topic will depend on what the main attraction of Technic is to you, whether it's the structures or the mechanisms.

For me, it's the latter all the way. In fact, I think the biggest advantage of Technic over more advanced (metal, tool-based) building systems is that you can largely ignore structural issues and focus on the mechanical aspects of your models. Studded Technic bricks allow you to build a framework quickly and intuitively, and you can then think about the geartrains, linkages and other moving parts of the model. This is no longer the case with purely studless construction, which forces you to plan out the structure carefully and can involve some trial-and-error to just get the framework right, before you get to the mechanical aspects. I don't necessarily limit myself to only studded or studless construction, but I use whatever I think will the best and easiest way to make a given mechanism work.

In short, I like to "play chess" with the mechanisms. Anything that helps me make mechanisms is good, and anything that detracts from that is bad.

Additionally, people's opinions on this are probably also influenced by whether or not they build in other Lego themes. I like to build both Technic and System (especially Sci-fi) models, and studs are of course the main method of construction in other themes.

[roamingstop]

Whats better? BMW or Mercedes?

In my honest opinion both have techniques have merits; advantages and disadvantages. The best models can seemlessly connect the two styles to achieve an end. Both versions stand alone very well, and when combined can provide unique (beautiful) models.

[mahjqa]

purely studless construction, which forces you to plan out the structure carefully and can involve some trial-and-error to just get the framework right, before you get to the mechanical aspects.

Might I suggest that you're going about this entirely the wrong way?

Studless is best built inside-out. First you build the mechanisms, then you make the chassis around it. Just like a brick-built house is built from the bottom up, (would be tricky to start at the roof) I recommend first making your mechanisms and then building around it. Trying to squeeze new parts inside a studless construction is tricky at best, aggravating at worst.

[CP5670]

Might I suggest that you're going about this entirely the wrong way?

Studless is best built inside-out. First you build the mechanisms, then you make the chassis around it. Just like a brick-built house is built from the bottom up, (would be tricky to start at the roof) I recommend first making your mechanisms and then building around it. Trying to squeeze new parts inside a studless construction is tricky at best, aggravating at worst.

The mechanisms won't actually work without the frame though. I'm thinking of this on a more "microscale" level than the entire model. The situations where studless construction has a clear advantage are typically those where you want to cram a lot of functionality into a small space. In such cases, the mechanisms need to be designed with the shape and limitations of the frame in mind. The main example I have in mind here are axles for compact trial trucks.

[Erik Leppen]

In my personal opinion I find that using a combination often results in a messy looking model. A completely studless model can be very good looking and a completely studded model too, but as one has studded surfaces and the other has flat surfaces, having both on the outside can give a messy look. Of course there are many exceptions to this :)

Of course this is not true when only using one system in invisible places, e.g. like using studless only on the inside and creating a fully studded body, or using studded only for a frame and then building a completely studless body around it to hide the studs. Usually official sets that combine these systems do it very well in my opinion.

Studless is best built inside-out. First you build the mechanisms, then you make the chassis around it. Just like a brick-built house is built from the bottom up, (would be tricky to start at the roof) I recommend first making your mechanisms and then building around it. Trying to squeeze new parts inside a studless construction is tricky at best, aggravating at worst.

Untrue. Or, atleast, not universally true. My latest supercar is practically built the other way around - I built the frame first and then built the modules to fit in. This works well for this situation because when I build the mechanisms first and the frame around it, the frame usually ends up being too flexible. The reason I created the frame first is to achieve rigidness.

If I had to choose one system I think I prefer studless. One big advantage is that it works the same in all directions. The three dimensions are the same. In studded building, the unit is 1 x 1 x 2/5 stud, in studless building it is 1 x 1 x 1. This means mechanisms are more easily re-arranged in vertical positions. You see that happen to good effect in 8258 which has the vertical gearbox. I think the studless system is in general more logical. :)

[Burf2000]

If your making pretty models, then studless looks way nicer. I build mainly studded as I just prefer the older stuff. I also find it more useful and stronger. My only use for studless beams are for support (right angle) where you need to place a plate on top of the studded beam.

I think using both is the best option because they both have a different range of parts, studless have more angled beams, studded have more blocks (6 by 4 etc)

I did a technic display at the weekend with a range of set models and to be honest people seem to prefer to studded sets, they reminded them of the past. Most people remember the supercar, or test car, where as they did not seem so impressed with the new stuff

Edited July 5, 2010 by Burf2000

[Conchas]

When studless was introduced, the models look quite empty and at the time I preferred the studded models.

With the release of new Technic studeless parts (namely frames and connectors), the building techniques have evolved a lot and so also TLG designers.

Nowadays we don't see these "empty" models anymore and constructions are a lot more stiff and sturdy.

Actually my preference goes for the studless without any doubt.

[CP5670]

As far as the looks go, I like both types of construction and they both have their benefits. The panels and flexible hoses produce sleek curves that are difficult to achieve even with rounded slopes. On the other hand, it's easier to add smaller-scale details on studded models, such as the yellow trims on 8880. I haven't seen any effective way of doing such trims with studless parts.

Beyond a point though, Technic models ("pure" Technic, at least) are not meant to look entirely realistic. They are more like stylized representations of vehicles that show off the internal mechanisms. This applies to both studded and studless models equally, as they both have holes and gaps everywhere.

[TechnicJuan]

LOL, this is just slightly off topic, but studded parts are much harder to clean especially when dust collects in the holes in the studs.

[Clement]

Hello, I'm not a regular reader of EB, but this post attracted all my attention :)

Of course, people will answer in accordance to their age. I was born in '86, and i grew up with studded models in my dreams, especially with the blue print look of the boxes. And it was awesome. Models around 1999 are for me the best ones as (as already mentionned) they combine both building types. I don't know if at that time, the word "studless" already existed. But i think no one could have foresee the emergence of fully studless sets (correct me if i'm wrong). At least, i didn't see it coming.

Many "old" builders switched to studless parts and construction method, but i can't. It doesn't seem like lego parts for me And actually, I don't consider studless parts as true LEGO parts. Or to be more precise : studless parts are very usefull in small spaces (everyone agrees on that point), but fully studless chassis and sets ? No thanks.

I don't follow the new system sets, but it seems to me that also in that field, TLG moves toward more SNOT techniques : I tend to see less studs. Maybe is it caused by the emergence of new meta parts ?

To my mind, the studs are the essence of the Lego Construction Game. (btw, does TLG have to include some studs in each set to be labeled "Lego sets" ?). This question is important, as it govers all of the building process of a model. But can TLG go back to (at least 50%) studded models ? I doubt it ...

Clement "JakoB"

[Milan]

I prefer studded models, the amount of details and realistic look are enough for me to choose the studded.

Studless are good as additional support, if needed, I find them very useful in some cases as a interlocking elements.

[Burf2000]

LOL, this is just slightly off topic, but studded parts are much harder to clean especially when dust collects in the holes in the studs.

You dont know how right you are!

[Brickthus]

You dont know how right you are!

True! I keep most parts in sealed bags now, but MOCs are sadly open to the dust!

I did dust and bag a few MOClets. Technic lends itself to many experiments, such as each function of a car, and I might have tens of them made at once.

I prefer a mixture of studs and studless, whatever is the most appropriate piece for the function, followed by the aesthetics (not the other way round - this is Technic after all!). For instance, in order to make a studless beam slide, you could put a studless beam either side of it, but a method with less free play is to use studded beams with plates instead, fixing them 1 hole further away from the sliding beam on each side. In this pic the dark bley studless beams slide and are held by black studded beams with plates in order to reduce the free play.

Mark

[Paul B Technic]

I prefer studded as that is what I mostly have and it is what I grew up building based on. I can see the benefits to both systems of building and hope to do mosre with studless in the future.

Paul

[Zerobricks]

I am a hopeless studless builder, but sometimes i use the studded parts to make stronger, less flexible bits, or to use the plates as panels.