First fully studless set - thoughts & impressions

[NevynPA]

Now that my introduction is up, I thought I'd get right into the meat of things. Using some funds from my birthday, I snagged a copy of 8067 as I've always wanted a mobile crane set (8460 started the desire, and 8421 cemented it firmly with all of its wheels). While this is in NO WAY my first Technic set, it is, however, my first studless one. This isn't meant to be a review of the set in any way, although it may sound like one. These are just some things I noticed during the build, and some thoughts I had after I was done.

1. Packaging

Boxes sure have come a long way since the old Technic ones. These are simpler than any others I've seen before. I guess it's to make it feel more "approachable" for younger builders. I grew up around drafting equipment and drawings, and I'll always favor the boxes that had the schematics in the background for purely sentimental reasons.

2. Colors!

It's nice to see that things are coming in other colors. I can understand why they changed some colors (old light grey has yellowing issues with age), but others? Not so much. What was wrong with black axles? Why do they have to be grey now? Which leads into...

3. Sizes!

What the heck!? Why is everything odd sized!? I mean, I used to covet every 3L and 5L axle I had, but this set is practically MADE of them. HEY! The beams are all odd sized too! I feel...tainted somehow. Dirty. Odd-length parts were rare, to be treasured. Now, they're just commoners. My world is upside down.

4. Instructions

Wow. I can totally understand some simplification from what I grew up with, but good grief, the pendulum has swung seemingly way too far the other way. I think even an 8-10 year old could figure out putting in THREE parts per step as a minimum, not ONE. There's a lot more "1:1" diagrams as well - as if they thing you'll forget from one page to the next just how big something is. A lot more arrows, too - but that's a side effect of having more 3L pins and more axles where items slide all the way down.

5. Functions

This set retailed for $24.99 when new. For that price, I'd expect 3 or 4 functions - which is exactly what it has. Boy, though, do they seem scaled back! While totally ingenious in its simplicity, the steering mechanism was a HUGE disappointment. I understand that TLG needs to keep costs down, I really do. Compared to the steering on my old 8815, this felt like a major cop-out. To go with that: If they truly were trying to keep costs down, why the 5-piece setup for the outrigger drive handles? 3 axles and two joiners, instead of one long axle? It must be that the B-set needs the parts, because that seems wasteful.

6. Parts

Maybe this is a cost/part count/complexity thing, but some of the new pieces in this set seem like overkill. Several times during construction I realized I had one piece in my hand whose function or shape I could completely duplicate with older parts. It would take 5-7 pieces to do it, but it'd be pretty much identical. The costs for design and manufacture of new moulds for the new parts has to be amortized over every piece made, to be able to calculate the Return on Investment. Continuing to manufacture all the old pieces must have worked out as more expensive than getting everything to make the new one.

7. Completed Set

Done building. This is one cool little crane! I'm impressed with how much accuracy there is in such a small set - I think the smooth surfaces of the studless beams helps a lot. I can see why there's SOOO MANY more pins and axles in every set now - they're the only available choice when it comes to holding things together. Even though it looks really good, it doesn't feel as solid as a studded build - as if there's less structural integrity in the set as a whole. It doesn't feel flimsy, mind you, but it also doesn't have that "I-could-bludgeon-someone-to-death-with-this-set-if-need-arose" level of heft that some older ones did. It's nice to not have all the pointy parts digging into your hands as you build and play - definitely +1 to studless for that.

8. Overall Impression of the "Studless System"

I'm not sure yet what to make of it. I had some studless liftarms and things in a few sets before my dark age came on, but they were more used as accents than anything else. It's a whole different beast when the set in its entirety is made of them. I like that it opens up access to odd-numbered parts, as often times when I was younger I'd want or need something that was 3/5/7/9L to fit nicely in a gap. Jumping right into fully studless after being heavily invested in studded stuff (my main studded sets are 8868 and 8880) felt odd. It was like being reintroduced to a friend I hadn't really seen in years - the name was the same, but it's like they took over someone else's body. I have a feeling that if (as?) I get more studless sets, I'll grow more accustomed to it. It is neither better nor worse than studded; it is merely a different path to take with its own different strengths and weaknesses.

[tmctiger]

Hello,

hmm I read your thoughts but judging the new system from what you have seen only with this very very small set is at least bold.

1. Packaging: on this point you are right - I also like more the "old style" boxes...

2. @ colors: odd axles are gray even axles (yes there are even axles ) are black, special ones tan and dark tan ...

3. sizes: the "oddity" is owing the new lift arm design (compare a lift arm with a beam with holes and you will see ...)

4. Instructions: another point I have to agree with. I also do not like the 1-Part Steps... where are the times where you have to search 20 or more Parts for one number (e.g. 8880) ... and at least it would also reduces costs due to instructions with less pages ...

5. If you are complaining for example about the steering mechanism in this set please be aware that this is a SMALL set, and steering usually looks like complete different to this one (we are still using gear racks for propper steering ) To be fair, I think the steering used in your example 8815 is a poorer design ... it is a lot more inflexible

6. Again, you are looking at a very cheap and small set - please have a look into bigger ones (42009 or so )

Please have a look into instructions from other "new system" sets (e.g @ http://www.brickset.com)

it doesn't feel as solid as a studded build

In this point I am again not your opinion: I do have a lot (really) old AND new Technic sets and mostly the new ones win when it came to stability ... you won't be flattered when i hit you with the 42009 for example, and there are even sturdier sets

All other points from 7 I'll agree with you ...

BR

[NevynPA]

Hey there tmctiger,

Let me assuage your fears a little.

hmm I read your thoughts but judging the new system from what you have seen only with this very very small set is at least bold.

Like I said at the end, I think some of that is just its "newness" to me, and I'll grow more accustomed to it as I acquire more studless sets.

2. @ colors: odd axles are gray even axles (yes there are even axles ) are black, special ones tan and dark tan ...

I did recognize this during the build process - and I like that they differentiate between odd and even by using different colors. I just forgot to mention it in my first post.

3. sizes: the "oddity" is owing the new lift arm design (compare a lift arm with a beam with holes and you will see ...)

I'm pretty sure it only feels odd as again, it *is* my first exposure. I'm sure I'll grow more used to it as I get more of it. I do like them, and I find the reasons for switching to studless quite satisfactory.

5. If you are complaining for example about the steering mechanism in this set please be aware that this is a SMALL set, and steering usually looks like complete different to this one (we are still using gear racks for propper steering ) To be fair, I think the steering used in your example 8815 is a poorer design ... it is a lot more inflexible

Visually, it's less appealing at first glance - it doesn't <i>look</i> as 'mechanical' or 'technical' as the old rack & pinion setup styles. I used 8815 as it was also a "small" set back in its day. Functionally, it's pretty genius - I'm amazed at just how much turning ability (small radius) it has for its size.

In this point I am again not your opinion: I do have a lot (really) old AND new Technic sets and mostly the new ones win when it came to stability ... you won't be flattered when i hit you with the 42009 for example, and there are even sturdier sets

All other points from 7 I'll agree with you ...

When I pick it up, it seems that there's more flexion in the frame - I think this is a side effect of 'taking up the slack' on the joining pins. In many older sets, there was no slack to take up, as pinned joints were often capped top & bottom with a solid 2x2 plate or the like. This is probably less prevalent in the larger sets just as you mentioned, as there's not any vertical bracing in this small of a model.

Hopefully that clarifies some things I meant to put in my first post and forgot to. All in all, I can't wait to get more sets.

[Lakop]

It does take a while to adapt to studless if you've been away for a while. I'm still adapting to the odd numbers. Don't worry, your studded parts will become more and more intergrated into your models as you continue. I was worried my studded beams would become redundant but they have not.

H

[Blakbird]

You've made a lot of entirely valid observations here. I think there are good reasons behind some of the changes, but others are more of a mystery.

1. Old packaging was way better. Long ago, the boxes had flaps that opened on top and sturdy styrofoam inside. Very reusable. Some of the newer boxes must be destroyed to be open, so they are mostly garbage once they have been opened.

2. In the old days there were only even length axles (4, 6, 8, 12) and therefore they were easy to tell apart. Later they added 3L and 5L in black and things became more difficult until you were really proficient at identifying length by sight. Making even black and odd gray makes some sense from that standpoint, but it also makes the models uglier.

3. This change is an illusion. Technic was always odd sized. While the number of studs on old beams was even, the number of holes was always odd. Since the studs are gone and the liftarms have only holes, they are actually the same length as the old beams in terms of holes.

4. New instructions are almost insulting, I agree. They work though, so I can't complain too much.

7. There's no question that studless building is much more flexible than studded. This is due to the fact that pins are not a tight fit and only grip in one direction. Studs fit much tighter so a chassis with a combination of both (like 8466) is far superior to pure studless. Some studded chassis (like 8436) are so flexible you can twist the rear axle about 30 degrees compared to the front axle.

[Erik Leppen]

It's interesting and refreshing to read the observations from someone who is new to a system I have grown quite used to after ten years. And yes you make a lot of valid points.

2. Colors!

Yes, back in the day it was simpler to explain. But I kind of like all those new colors. It makes it much easier to find parts, and also, as an advantage to AFOLs it makes it easier to dissect a model from a photograph. Because if you see a black axle end, you know it's an even-length axle. See a blue axle end and you know it's an axle pin.

Although I don't get the reasons for colored bushes. I mean, why do some sets have colored bushes, while others don't? I'd say it'd make more sense had the colored bushes replaced the gray ones entirely. (Those who want to throw tomatoes at me for saying this, go ahead.)

3. Sizes!

The odd lengths and distances take some getting used to, I agree. It'd be intersting to make a comparison to set 8454 - an even-width studless set. This is a set from the early ages of studless, before they took the change to odd widths, and you can see they have come far since then (I still think 8454 is one of the least interesting sets in my collection. At the time I just wanted the studless parts). But if you're used to it, it can only make sense.

3. This change is an illusion. Technic was always odd sized.

I disagree.

Yes, the holes in the beams were odd-numbered, so that there was always a hole "in the center", just like it is now. But things have definitely changed in the corners where beams meet. Just compare the holes in the 6 x 8 rectangular brick with those in the 5 x 7 rectangular beam. Every side misses two half-studs near every corner. This is the essense of the move from even to odd. It took TLC years to come up with a studless version of the universal joint, for example, and some parts, most notably the driving ring - is still best suited for even systems.

4. Instructions

Yes, they have gone too simple. For us. We as AFOLs shouldn't be the ones judging though. I'm sure it has been tested and proved better by a group in the target audience.

6. Parts

I have to say I agree on the "linked short axles" point you mention - why not a single long axle, is a question I have asked my self many times too. A 2L axle was a rarity in the studded era, now it's one of the most common axle lengths.

7. Completed Set

I agree with you on flexibility vs. sturdiness of studless vs. studded. A studless set always feels flimsy to me too. On the other hand, a studless set usually has way fewer "prone to fall off" parts than a studded set (alghouth the 8448 chassis does pretty damn well in this regard too).

By the way, 8258 does pretty well in the sturdiness department, thanks to those lovely new 5x11 and 5x7 beams. :)

Edited November 21, 2013 by Erik Leppen

[DrJB]

6. Parts

I have to say I agree on the "linked short axles" point you mention - why not a single long axle, is a question I have asked my self many times too. A 2L axle was a rarity in the studded era, now it's one of the most common axle lengths.

This is often done for torsional Rigidity. Think of this, if you need an axle of length 8L, you can do the following:

1. a single 8L axle

2. 4x 2L axles, and 3 connectors.

While the lengths of the two are exactly the same, option #2 is much stiffer in torsion.

[Lipko]

3. You'll find that it's much more intuitive building with the odd system (as already mentioned, the holes where odd in the studded system too). Get a bigger set, and you'll see. Machines are pretty symmetrical things, and many axes go through the middle plane of them.

4. Well, that's something I seem to be the only one to like. Building an official set is not a challenge for me and either it wasn't a challenge when I was 7. The old style instructions with many parts to be accidentally left out was more tiring than the new one.

5. many axle pieces with joiners instead of a long axle. I love that. It's great for many reasons:

*It's a ton easier for making MOCs (own creations) if you don't have to pull the whole axle out of the build just to change something.

*You don't have to use bushes for preventing the axles from sliding: the joiners themselves are there for positioning

*It's much easier to quickly make axles that doesn't jam. Long axles with many things on them require more tweaking, which can be harder since the axle is not modular. Plus it's naturally harder to make jammed

*It's much-much easier to make modular models.

6. Okay, you can solve the same situation with some older pieces. But would that be as strong as a single piece?

Many people seem to say that the evolution of Technic and parts make building easier. I don't think that's true. It only means that much complex and harder things can be made from Technic, things that couldn't be done in the old days. MOCers and TLG will find a way to use their creativity.

Sorry for my night English

Edited November 21, 2013 by Lipko

[Doc_Brown]

Great topic! Very nice to read your thoughts and others as well.

I ended my dark age of 15 ish years with set 8070 supercar 2 years ago, and guess what???

I went straight back into a dark age! haha

Its nice to know that others think the same.

It does take a bit of getting used to, but it is more flexible. The best thing is to combine studless and studded utilizing their strengths.

[NevynPA]

Great topic! Very nice to read your thoughts and others as well.

I ended my dark age of 15 ish years with set 8070 supercar 2 years ago, and guess what???

I went straight back into a dark age! haha

Its nice to know that others think the same.

It does take a bit of getting used to, but it is more flexible. The best thing is to combine studless and studded utilizing their strengths.

That's kind of how it worked with me. Dark age, Got 8880, then dark-ish age for a while again. I think for MOCs, I'll definitely be using both (once I have more studless parts). I can see cars & trucks being done as "body on frame" style assembly - a studded chassis for gears + internal support, and then studless body wrapped around it. That'd make for some easy modular construction as well, I think.

[majorna]

I came out of my Technic "dark age" with that little red container truck, which I bought on a whim on sale at the grocery store just about a year ago. I had hoped that I would be able to pilfer some gears to mechanize some of the constructions my six-year old daughter and I work on together, but was a bit frustrated by the studless building technique. It just doesn't feel like "Lego" to me, not that that's a bad thing.

But the little truck's mechanism was incredibly original and effective, so I've complemented it with the tracked crane and the tiny Unimog, all in the same scale. It will take some getting used to the new building techniques to do decent MOCs.

The odd-even thing is very noticeable on these small models. To accommodate the six-wide truck body half bushings are used to space out the mechanism to the body dimensions. It's a pretty clever solution, really.

The pedagogical aspect of the Universal sets I remember as a child is lacking in the new kits, though. I bought my daughter the Klutz "Crazy Contraptions" filled with gears, studded bricks and plates and a book with lots of ideas for models. Highly recommended!

[torso]

The pedagogical aspect of the Universal sets I remember as a child is lacking in the new kits, though. I bought my daughter the Klutz "Crazy Contraptions" filled with gears, studded bricks and plates and a book with lots of ideas for models. Highly recommended!

I liked the universal sets as a kid. One set taught gears, another pneumatics, and a third used flex cables. They seemed focused on mechanisms, in contrast to the current sets that seem focused on being vehicles (which is boring).

There are still a few years left until the children are old enough for technic, but I currently find the products at Lego Education more compelling than the regular sets.