all the beams are still produced today, and you still find the odd studded beam in sets sold today, but you never see something like 8880 these days. i think people say 8275 was the final set of the studded days, or that it was the mid/tipping point of using alot of studded beams and studless.

i am not a fan of studded per se, i just was wondering if there some some reason they gave up using them?

Probably because of the extra cost of the plastic in each brick and technic sets had usually a higher part-count per set, and studless parts allow more compact builds and were lighter.

Molds with sharp corners are very expensive to make. The studless beams don't need exotic molds, and they use less material. I doubt there's more to it than that. The studded beams are still made, but in much lower quantities.

Your topic title should be "studded".

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.

From my understanding, while 16L studded Technic beam has same number of holes as studless the later one is much lighter. Keeping in mind this is the way how Technic parts interconnect, this is a substantial savings in materials and costs.

Another thing studless beam is square in its shape, which gives much more opportunities to use various connectors in desired place.

Maybe it was just for the smoother lighter look.

Another thing studless beam is square in its shape,

Squarish. A Technic beam is closer to square than a Technic brick, but it is still not square. The difference in dimensions can be important in some models.

odd versus even stud lengths - fundamental shift in design philosophy

(a 16L tech brick and a 15L liftarm have the same number of holes, but the application in non-orthogonal constructions is very different.

Vertical uses of beams vs. bricks can also look a heck of a lot better aesthetically. Then there are certain applications where the smoothness of the beams allows functionality that would otherwise make some assemblies much more bulky (e.g. bricks with tiles), if not impossible. See the truckbeds from Technic 8109 and Creator 7347 for example.

Edited May 28, 20168 yr by Gnac

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.

Because studded is ugly, and limited the potential to create the beautiful shapes we are now able to create with non-studded pieces.

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.

I think it also might have to do with the fact that the studded beams have half a stud extra length, so building some things like joints and stuff just weren't very intuitive. It was just wierd geometry. Also I think the last set to use studded beams that I can think of was actually 42030

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 tried studded....... ??

Overall I think studless is an improvement. HOwever, i certainly think there are uses for the studded bricks still. Especially for things like stands, frames, chassis, etc. Like nicjanso mentioned, perhaps studded are not that much stronger than studless when panels, etc can compensate, but I don't think there is much argument, that standing alone, studded are quite a bit stronger than studless. I am glad they are still being made, however, I wish they were made with more frequency.

There may have been production costs involved but from MY perspective the studded technic beams have a very great advantage.

Several of the designs I am working on require thin, long, strong features. The studded beams allow a one brick wide, by two or more bricks high, beam of great strength whereas the stud-less beams require bracing on the sides to gain strength. The squareness of the ends allow increased strength as well as they butt up closer than the stud-less. By the way I use stud-less, on side, for outside neatness.

Plenty of room for both.

I don't know why TLG made the switch, but I'm happy they did. The 8439 front-end loader was the first set which made the potential of studless clear to me. The studless elements achieved angles in the rear and the cabine which weren't possible before and really added to the good looks of the set, I still have mine on display today.

Another advantage I really like is the possibility to build very compact, while not compromising on rigidity and functionality. The result is that similar sets in a similar scale tend to have more features in the studless era or to put it in another way, sets with similar features can be build much smaller.

I still remember the frustration in my teens while trying to build a wheeled excavator with studded bricks in the Technic figure scale. I couldn't build it with the features I wanted without making it weak or bulky. The 42006 (MOD) achieved it with ease.

Go team studless!

(I do like studded pieces as well, even in a studless model they are indispensable for applications such as grills, lights, crane booms, etc)

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.

Great insights! I love getting behind-the-scenes info like this.

I definitely prefer studless Technic for a lot of applications. And really, this is one of the more unusual "old vs. new" debates in the LEGO community since studded Technic parts never really went away, they're just no longer the default for Technic and constraction models. Studded Technic still makes loads of sense when you need those extra connection points to attach System parts (System themes with a lot of Technic functions like Ninjago and Nexo Knights still make great use of studded Technic beams), but I think for Technic or constraction models it's nice when you can have parts flush with each other without worrying about the corners colliding at certain angles. Especially when you have something that's going to function as a hinge, a studless beam needs less clearance around the axis of rotation.

I think studless Technic also improves the aesthetics of modern Technic models a lot. I've never been in the "all LEGO studs should be hidden" camp, but when you have them showing on a model at all kinds of odd angles like in 8880 I think it can be distracting.

Edited May 28, 20168 yr by Aanchir

It seems the primary use of studded beams and plates in Technic today is to more accurately shape the loader and digger arms on sets like the Volvo loader and the upcoming Volvo wheel excavator.

I still prefer the older studded sets. They may not look as "smooth" like the newer studless ones, but they look more like Lego to me.

IMHO, the reason is related to building geometries.

Due to LEGO modularity, studded liftarms are 1 1/3 studs High...

This is a big problem when coupling horizontal and vertical liftarms and/or when trying to "strengthen" a structure through perpendicular links: you always have to add two plates (1/3 stud each) between liftarms to connect them through a perpendicular one...

And by doing so, you have to "lose" one row of "holes", potentially useful for gearing or mechanisms.

Technic evolved toward studless because it's more modular and versatile in terms of "technic building"; it allows more functionally dense models and is more "advanced" in terms of building geometries.

It's because studs are difficult. Bricks are 1.2 studs (9.6mm) tall, so that makes some functions pretty strange. Bricks don't look nearly as good as beams and panels unless you cover the studs completely with flat tiles, which adds TONS of weight. Also, I think beams and pins more accurately reflect structures (such as those on the boom of a crane) than bricks.

I prefer a mixture.

Helicopter 8856 was studded and rigid but too chunky for it, though some of its studless parts were great, such as the rotor pieces.

Helicopter 42052 is studless and gets its rigidity from panels. Panels are expensive so you have to justify using them as a significant proportion of the cost of the set.

A real weakness of studless is that a vehicle chassis is too flexible, The New Porsche uses more frames to reduce this, but that commits a model to be at least 5x7 in cross section.

I found the best mix is a studded chassis with studless attachments. This can happen more in other themes, where the model is predominantly studded, with a few Technic parts added, using studded beams as the interface. I do that quite a lot for steam trains with Technic driving gear.

However, I haven't yet tried a studded chassis with panels over the top. Aesthetics might drive the whole model to odd-number sizes, which favour studless throughout.

For a mixture I really like this piece as a stud-to-Technic interface. Great for attaching Technic or rod-based roof ties in a large building.

Mark

wow!...if you look at the speed build of this SW set it is amazing how many studded beams it uses, i find alot of non Technic sets use more studded beams then actual Technic sets, weird man!

Edited June 18, 20168 yr by Richard Dower

wow!...if you look at the speed build of this SW set it is amazing how many studded beams it uses, i find alot of non Technic sets use more studded beams then actual Technic sets, weird man!

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.

wow!...if you look at the speed build of this SW set it is amazing how many studded beams it uses, i find alot of non Technic sets use more studded beams then actual Technic sets, weird man!

It's not really that weird. Studless Technic may generally be more versatile for pure Technic builds, but studded beams are still incredibly useful for when you want to integrate Technic into a "System" set (whether that be to add functionality or just to help make a large model more structurally sound).