Lego moving away from flex axles is a mistake

[sm1995]

Something I noticed while looking at the 42141 MCL F1 car was the complete lack of any flex axles. I miss the suggested lines and curves achieved by using flex axles to create a more organic, smooth design. The new car looks way too jagged and rough around the edges IMO.

Discuss. 

[nerdsforprez]

I agree to a point.  I do like the lines produced by flex axles, but I also am not a huge fan of gaps and spaces, which flex axles left in most models.  

A benefit to these gaps/spaces though was that you could see more underneath.  And I like that with FA one could see more of the chassis, gearbox, etc.  

However, I do like more full bodywork at the same time with panels, etc.  As long as the build is modular, and one can remove the body easily to see said gears, chassis, etc.  

[Zerobricks]

I think flex axles come handy along with the normal beams. For example using them in smoothing out the curves from the windshiled up to the roof and back to the body. But reyling too much on them can be bad IMO, especially when they are used as a whole fender for example without any structural support.

Edited February 8, 2022 by Zerobricks

[Meatman]

Is Lego moving away from them? They didn't use any in the 42000 set and they've used plenty of them in sets since then.

[astyanax]

2 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

A benefit to these gaps/spaces though was that you could see more underneath.

This. But maybe I'm simply stuck in the 80s / early 90s. Growing up at the time, I thought Technic was for learning technical stuff, and seeing it in action. That's still in my mind, can't shake it.

[sm1995]

4 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

I agree to a point.  I do like the lines produced by flex axles, but I also am not a huge fan of gaps and spaces, which flex axles left in most models.  

A benefit to these gaps/spaces though was that you could see more underneath.  And I like that with FA one could see more of the chassis, gearbox, etc.  

However, I do like more full bodywork at the same time with panels, etc.  As long as the build is modular, and one can remove the body easily to see said gears, chassis, etc.  

I see your point, but use of panels shouldn’t preclude using them IMO. Look at Bruno’s or Jeroens designs… a harmonious mix of both

Edited February 8, 2022 by sm1995

[jorgeopesi]

Lego has stopped making versatiles pieces, they should not be profitable, soft axles was a perfect example.

[Gimmick]

Thanks for the topic - I thought the exact opposite :D

[dr_spock]

I suppose if LEGO won't do it, then you'll have get some soft axles and show 'em how to do it correctly.

[allanp]

The halo on the F1 would have been a good place for the flex axle. Maybe Lego or McLaren didn't want to give the impression that the safety roll cage was soft? But I agree that flex axles can create nice flowing lines not possible with rigid pieces. The Sian is a good example of being fully panelled with few gaps but still using flex axles to augment the lines.

[Tidl]

I am perfectly in agreement with you. I have always preferred mocs with flex axle even if lately some of them have become difficult and expensive to find. In my opinion the coolest moc I've ever built is Francisco Hartley's Pagani Huayra which is built from a few panels and a lot of flex axles.

[N-4K0]

I personally dislike the use of flex axles. It's an easy way to make the shapes, yes, but it leaves too many holes in the bodywork for my taste while also making the bodywork too fragile.

Panels can cover up too much, I agree, but I have always preferred a more solid building style even if it goes on the expense of details.

[Bartybum]

Proportion and shape should always outweigh not having holes imo. Personally I think holes in bodywork are a ridiculously overblown issue. What’s the point in covering it all up if you mute the important body lines and accents?

Edited March 2, 2022 by Bartybum

[gyenesvi]

10 hours ago, Bartybum said:

Proportion and shape should always outweigh not having holes imo. Personally I think holes in bodywork are a ridiculously overblown issue. What’s the point in covering it all up if you mute the important body lines and accents?

I agree with this. I think continuity of lines and surfaces is what's more important, not covering up all holes. For this reason, I am not a fan of surfaces tiled with panels in all angles (that look like broken china), not because there are holes in between panels, but because there is a lot of discontinuity both in the surfaces and in the contour lines. Sometimes I even find that leaving bigger holes can result in a more smooth overall look.

That said, flex axles can also be used the wrong way I think. I never really liked them used as wheel arches for example, because although the shape of the arch is good, it often becomes disconnected from the rest of the body. An exception is when the whole body is made of contour lines only using flex axles, then there is a uniform look. Nonetheless, I think flex axles can be mixed with panels here and there with good results where the two styles don't collide visually (for example the halo of an F1 car, or things like A-pillars on a car, maybe even when the paneling gives an approximate contour, and the flex axle emphasizes it further with a smoother version).

[Mechbuilds]

Flex axles have been used for a "leaf spring" in many mocs. I'd love to see lego design a real leaf spring for lego. Perhaps even different sized leaf springs. They certainly would be used for many trucks and classic muscle cars. 

[gyenesvi]

3 hours ago, Mechbuilds said:

Flex axles have been used for a "leaf spring" in many mocs. I'd love to see lego design a real leaf spring for lego. Perhaps even different sized leaf springs. They certainly would be used for many trucks and classic muscle cars. 

Yeah, that would be really useful. I have seen flex axles used for this, but don't know how good they are. They seem too soft and not so easy to mount.