No....just make more new parts or create an entirely new Technic system.

This is like asking if we should go back to vacuum tubes instead of transistors...

Yes please, let us go back to vacuum tubes!!!

The sound is so much warmer.

As long as they keep the old studs around it should keep everyone happy,

Off topic, i really like the look of 5893, but its surprisingly expensive.

My only concern is that TLG will not replace the molds for the old Technic bricks once they wear out. They're still useful in many situations.

LEGO still uses Technic bricks in a lot of their non-Technic themes. At least some sizes will be around for while until management orders the designers to stop using them.

Yes please, let us go back to vacuum tubes!!!

The sound is so much warmer.

Yes, they are great for electric guitar amps but not very practical to carry around a smartphone made out of vacuum tubes.

If Lego went back to studded beams and parts and did away with the non studded beams and connectors, I would probably stop buying and building Technic sets altogether. I just think that non studded models look smoother and more interesting in their design. Of course that is just my opinion.

Edited April 14, 20159 yr by Meatman

5893.

Thanks.

And it's beautiful. Can't believe I missed out on it.

As I am a stud lover and hate studless creations I think that technic should go back to technic bricks instead of beams. But that is my own opinion.

What do you think?

Why do you hate studless creations? Hate seems to be a bit strong a word.

Also, do you think that we should go back to payphones? Because that is pretty much what you are arguing. Basically, you are using the "I grew up with X, so therefore it is better, even though subsequent innovations have made it out of date." Or, "It's not what I had growing up, so therefore it sucks."

I personally like studless a lot, and think that it is actually a lot more versatile then studded. it's actually easier for me to build with, and thus is my primary medium to work with. I think that studded has it's place, but I don't use it much. However, I do like some of the more stylized looks of the models from the late '90s, as I think they balanced form and function very well. I think that present sets are actually a bit too inclosed, obscuring the interesting gears and stuff, but that's just me.

In conclusion, if you don't like studless, then don't build with it. However, don't say you hate what other people do with the system, and that Lego should go back. Why would they? As a company, they must innovate, for better or worse.

Edited April 14, 20159 yr by Saberwing40k

For technic I like both. I can't see why the two can't remain. I'd like the studded technic beams to remain as I think they can add some character and ruggedness to a model. I'm sure the basic brick will remain for city sets etc so if we want bricks we can get them that way. I have technic beams from way back and am planning to use them on something i'm working on at the moment, I also like seeing them used by some of the people who post their mocs here.

H

"Lego wasn't any good after Kill'em All".

Nothing is as good after Kill 'em All...

Many of the opinions in this thread seem to rely on the premise that none of the part innovation which happened in the last 20 years would have happened without studless and therefore the only way to get rid of studless is to get rid of everything. I think this is not true. Most of the new parts could also exist in a studded system, but might look slightly different. So I don't think comparing studless to transistors is apt; it does not replace something outdated with something better. It complements one thing with something different.

could the mods make a poll

If Lego went back to studded beams and parts and did away with the non studded beams and connectors, I would probably stop buying and building Technic sets altogether. I just think that non studded models look smoother and more interesting in their design. Of course that is just my opinion.

The smooth look can be done with studded by tiling over the studs. Some AFOLs like to go extreme with tiles so that no studs would show.

Day 082 of 365: Jar Jar Crossbow by dr_spock_888, on Flickr

I doubt LEGO will go back to completely studded Technic. It has as much of a chance as LEGO dumping its Power Functions investment and bringing back the old 9V system of motors.

You know you can combine them, right? Besides, Lego gives you a choice and you apparently hate having a choice. Weird.

By the way, didn't you want 9V motors coming back a while ago? You may want to get started on that time machine - it has better chance of working that starting yet another topic like this.

Maybe that's the only reason this topic exists. "I'm so hipster I hate all innovation". "Lego wasn't any good after Kill'em All".

Hey, why stop at studs, let's go back all the way.

I love you now Sariel lol

This is actually older, though (I would know since I took AP Art History):

Venus of Willendorf

Large image

Nothing is as good after Kill 'em All...

Many of the opinions in this thread seem to rely on the premise that none of the part innovation which happened in the last 20 years would have happened without studless and therefore the only way to get rid of studless is to get rid of everything. I think this is not true. Most of the new parts could also exist in a studded system, but might look slightly different. So I don't think comparing studless to transistors is apt; it does not replace something outdated with something better. It complements one thing with something different.

Studfull is, however, in some ways inferior, such as that it generally requires a larger scale to reach the same level of detail. For example: the diff which can be locked or unlocked with a transmission diff which fits in a 4X6 diff requires a bigger space than the latest diff, which fits in a 3X5 STUDLESS frame.

Thanks.

And it's beautiful. Can't believe I missed out on it.

lol this is more Model Team than technic but whatever floats your boat

Edited April 15, 20159 yr by Jim
Image way too large

I think from studed Lego era we expecting in this modern era more colour options - 5-6 basic colours are for me not enough...

PS: vacuum tubes for smart phones... sounds great... a bit steam punk society

I would like to see LEGO release One or couple Studfull Technic creations in the mix with Studless ones.

Edited April 15, 20159 yr by Boxerlego

Yes--It would be neat to have one real "Old School" studded Technic set every year or so.

Let's see... Like this?

I think model team is already back. The vw bus and mini cooper are the new model team.

You are living in the past :(

I also like studded and studless models all together.

Look at the models MLonger is building, they are the best of both worlds.

Studless framework with beautiful studded outside looks, made smooth with tiles.

Look at the MAN dumptruck and towtruck.

I am currently collecting parts for an oldschool studded model of a Merceder Actros 8x4 sidetippertruck with crane on the back, all old 9v parts and pneumatics.

The original is from Sandman, it's great to go back in time for once, but I hope to build a lot of combined models in the future, but I am thinking of building a sidetippingtrailer for behind the Actros first, would make the complete model over 1 meter long.

I also like studded and studless models all together.

Look at the models MLonger is building, they are the best of both worlds.

Studless framework with beautiful studded outside looks, made smooth with tiles.

Look at the MAN dumptruck and towtruck.

Thank you :)

Please note that making such models would be difficult without studless parts. For example, this winch from TGS tow truck:

It probably could be build with using only "old" parts, that 9v system likes so much, but it will be much bulkier and weaker.

Liftarms and connectors, widely used in Technic sets in past few years, allows to make things smaller and stronger.

On the other hand, I do not like exterior "shells" made from technic parts only, so I use those "old" parts, that were used in Technic sets in past, like technic bricks and plates, because it allows me to connect studfull body (well, at first look is also studless, because I use tiles in large quantities) to studless frames.

Both, liftarms and technic bricks have pros and cons, but it depends on where you want to use them. My last model, that was built for the TGS dump truck, is a drawbar trailer, designed to be able to haul heavy models. Its frame is almost completely made from technic bricks and technic frames (with studs) for maximum possible ridigity. Frame made from studless parts bent under the load.

And that combination works perfectly for me.

Studless technic and studded technic could perfectly be used together by Lego. These two kinds are not antagonist but complementary.

LEGO already does implement both Studless and Studfull into most of it builds; However majority of the time the studless build is the main way that is built with a few studded steps here and there.

Here's how I'de like it. Studded for chassis construction and gearbox housings to reduce twisting and increase rigidity and studless for everything else. Maybe some brick built details like seats would also be good.

I doubt we'll see brick built chassis again any time soon as studded beams cost more to produce.

Studfull is, however, in some ways inferior, such as that it generally requires a larger scale to reach the same level of detail. For example: the diff which can be locked or unlocked with a transmission diff which fits in a 4X6 diff requires a bigger space than the latest diff, which fits in a 3X5 STUDLESS frame.

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.

I find it very interesting to go year-to-year on Technicopedia to see the evolution of new parts.

I would argue that the very first wholly "studless" part might be the "control arm" introduced in 1981. I view this as the first part (not concidering axles and gears) not designed to directly interface with studded bricks/parts. Of course, you could stuff a stud into the axle hole, but still.

Then in 1988 there are the specific steering parts introduced in set 8865 (middle column).

In the previous two "supercars" the steering was made using 2x2 small turntables .

I am certain the decision to go from studded to mainly studless models was a very concious decision, not something that just "happened". There is a small transition period stretching a couple of years around the beginning of the 21st century.

This parts evolution is one of the most interesting parts of Technicopedia, and one of the reasons I am eagerly avaiting the site to be completed

Edited April 15, 20159 yr by D3K

I would argue that the very first wholly "studless" part might be the "control arm" introduced in 1981. I view this as the first part (not concidering axles and gears) not designed to directly interface with studded bricks/parts. Of course, you could stuff a stud into the axle hole, but still.

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.