Studless vs. Studful

[Ultimario]

Bricksonwheels. All your models are studful.

Studful is when you build with old bricks, even if you plate them on top they are still studfull.

Studless is the building with the new type technic beams that have no studs and are primarily only connected by pins and axles.

So in short Bricksonwheels designs represent the studful design and also SNOT but in no way studless at least from what i have seen.

Edited July 14, 2011 by Ultimario

[trekman]

I was brought up with traditional technic building with sets 8859 (Tractor)and 8865 (Test Car). (I'm a kid of the 70's) The basic principle of connecting a beam in a vertical plane was technic brick + 2 1x2 plates + technic brick. This was the main thing which I learned. It provided a "burstproofness" needed when running gear trains. Also there was no negligible diagonal "flex" on a structure, because it was built with brick. I do think that some of the newer studless models lack some of these qualities - there are minute gaps between the layers of studless beams, which will always cause some degree of flex.

Purchasing 8275 (Bulldozer) some years ago was a completely new ballgame. The construction is now side to side, instead of vertically. This is very apparent in the build. Building a few large studless models does help one to understand some of the new technics, but it is a steep learning curve. In my experience of studless MOCs. The whole model has to be thought through before commencing to build, or else there is a serious stripping down to be done when adding extra pieces or features. With studded brick, you at least have somewhere else to connect to and brace with an additional plate.

From a visual perspective. A model with a few studded beams carefully positioned is clearly indentifiable by the non-lego enthusiast as "Lego". There is no confusion with "Knex"

[Nazgarot]

I was brought up with traditional technic building with sets 8859 (Tractor)and 8865 (Test Car). (I'm a kid of the 70's) The basic principle of connecting a beam in a vertical plane was technic brick + 2 1x2 plates + technic brick. This was the main thing which I learned. It provided a "burstproofness" needed when running gear trains. Also there was no negligible diagonal "flex" on a structure, because it was built with brick. I do think that some of the newer studless models lack some of these qualities - there are minute gaps between the layers of studless beams, which will always cause some degree of flex.

Purchasing 8275 (Bulldozer) some years ago was a completely new ballgame. The construction is now side to side, instead of vertically. This is very apparent in the build. Building a few large studless models does help one to understand some of the new technics, but it is a steep learning curve. In my experience of studless MOCs. The whole model has to be thought through before commencing to build, or else there is a serious stripping down to be done when adding extra pieces or features. With studded brick, you at least have somewhere else to connect to and brace with an additional plate.

From a visual perspective. A model with a few studded beams carefully positioned is clearly indentifiable by the non-lego enthusiast as "Lego". There is no confusion with "Knex"

Yes, I had the same feeling as you. It's a new ballgame, and you need to think through the design before you start building. That's way CAD software is so helpful. And again, you learn from building, specially from advanced sets. For me studless has opened up a complete new world of possibilities that didn't exist with studs. But that said, there is still solutions that require the sturdiness of studded beams.

-ED-

[timslegos]

How do you suggest building up ones studless Lego supply? Just buy a few sets and use them for pieces?

Tim

[Paul Boratko]

How do you suggest building up ones studless Lego supply? Just buy a few sets and use them for pieces?

Tim

If you are starting from nothing, the absolute best way to stock up on new studless parts is by waiting until Toys R Us runs one of their buy one get one 50% off deals, which they have been doing quite frequently this year(about every 5 to 6 weeks) They do this both online and instore...And online is FREE shipping for orders over $100(In the U.S. it is anyways)

A few weeks ago they ran a buy 2 get the 3rd one 90% off, which is almost buy 2 and get one free...

I am hoping they run this special the same time as when the Unimog is released here in the states...

[Bricksonwheels]

Aah now i understand. I thought studless reffered mainly to the looks of the model, where the studs are hidden, including the SNOT principle.

But indeed it can also mean that only parts with no studs are used. I correct my stand

[Sokratesz]

How do you suggest building up ones studless Lego supply? Just buy a few sets and use them for pieces?

Tim

I got the majority of my studless parts from two 8421 cranes, they each have like 2,000 pieces, but re hard to find at a good price. Any of of the larger Technic sets will do to be honest, but be sure to get the 8043 excavator if you're also looking for PF parts.

- Sok.

[Ralph_S]

So with that idea in mind, we might say studless building is far more interesting and fun?

It is in fact more complex and versatile...

The studded building was a lot about putting plates on bricks...

It might be more interesting and fun for you, but it comes down to personal preference. There are things you can do using studded parts that you can't do with your studless bits and vice versa. I'm not a Technic builder and am not particularly interested in pure Technic builds. I like combining some Technic bits with other system elements. That's what I find interesting and fun.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Nazgarot]

Hi,

As I have mentioned before, LDD or other CAD programs can be a great help when building studless.

One trick I have found very helpful is making a starting template with the most important (and rare) parts. This gives you a good overview of the different parts you can use to solve a problems, and it's much more efficient then having to go search for each part. Specially for a beginner with limited knowledge of the studless parts it may be very helpful.

I normally use this template for my Technic MOCs. It also shows me what color I have the parts available in.

-ED-

Edited July 15, 2011 by Nazgarot

[Phantom59]

Hi,

As I have mentioned before, LDD or other CAD programs can be a great help when building studless.

One trick I have found very helpful is making a starting template with the most important (and rare) parts. This gives you a good overview of the different parts you can use to solve a problems, and it's much more efficient then having to go search for each part. Specially for a beginner with limited knowledge of the studless parts it may be very helpful.

I normally use this template for my Technic MOCs. It also shows me what color I have the parts available in.

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Nazgarot/Stuff/lddscreenshot38.png

-ED-

Is it possible to upload that template please.

I'm just starting to play with LDD ( I mainly use LDraw) and I am having trouble finding parts.

Edited July 15, 2011 by Rufus
No need to quote the image

[timslegos]

If you are starting from nothing, the absolute best way to stock up on new studless parts is by waiting until Toys R Us runs one of their buy one get one 50% off deals, which they have been doing quite frequently this year(about every 5 to 6 weeks) They do this both online and instore...And online is FREE shipping for orders over $100(In the U.S. it is anyways)

A few weeks ago they ran a buy 2 get the 3rd one 90% off, which is almost buy 2 and get one free...

I am hoping they run this special the same time as when the Unimog is released here in the states...

Well i am not starting completely from scratch, i do have many parts and sets, but it seems almost like a sin to break up full sets and use them for parts.

That is a good trick though to use the sales for you advantage, i might try the same trick as well.

tim

[Moz]

Well i am not starting completely from scratch, i do have many parts and sets, but it seems almost like a sin to break up full sets and use them for parts.

To many builders it seems pointless to pay the Lego premium if you're just going to assemble a plastic kit according to the instructions and leave it that way. Much cheaper to go to a model shop and you get a much more realistic model to boot. Lego only really makes sense if you're going to actually play with it.

I realise that there are a lot of people not like that, just thought it was worth putting the other perspective. But me? I buy for the parts. Mostly studless these days, but I used to build studded back in the day. FWIW, CAD helps the transition and makes designing the tricky bits easier. It's much faster to grab an assembly and move it one hole along than take a whole model apart and do the same.

[Erik Leppen]

I like Nazgarot's idea of laying out all the parts you have. This is actually quite a good idea :)

FWIW, CAD helps the transition and makes designing the tricky bits easier.

Certainly.

What I tried the last few weeks is starting out with actual bricks, determining what I want and examining the problems. Then as soon as I have an idea what I want I launch MLCAD to design the most difficult parts (usually the gear trains). Then I try to build that in real life to see if it works. From there on, the circle is round :)

Right now I'm trying to do something that I certainly wouldn't have pulled off without MLCAD (Example (Work in progress)) By the way, also note that the thing is primarily studless but there's studded parts used specifically in a place where studless wouldn't work. Actually, a large problem with studless constructino is that when you want a strong frame beam over the entire length of your model, it has to be two studs wide most of the time, just to connect things with pins. A studded beam can be strong while being only one stud wide, because you have vertical connections using plates. You only need vertical bracing in a few select spots. That's the reason I used it here. There is no way the middle of the three yellow beams could be made as rigid with studless parts only.

[Pauger]

Personally I prefer studless building, and think it's more inspiring, challenging and interesting than studfull. In most cases it also gives a better result.

[Phantom59]

To many builders it seems pointless to pay the Lego premium if you're just going to assemble a plastic kit according to the instructions and leave it that way. Much cheaper to go to a model shop and you get a much more realistic model to boot. Lego only really makes sense if you're going to actually play with it.

I realise that there are a lot of people not like that, just thought it was worth putting the other perspective. But me? I buy for the parts. Mostly studless these days, but I used to build studded back in the day. FWIW, CAD helps the transition and makes designing the tricky bits easier. It's much faster to grab an assembly and move it one hole along than take a whole model apart and do the same.

I have to disagree with your fist comment. I think it dose not matter how you keep your lego models as long as you are happy.

Getting back to the subject.

I think you need a mix of both studs & no studs ( % is up to you )

[Meatman]

I think Paul is right on the money here with buying sets for parts when they are on sale or even better yet buy 2 get 90 percent off! Wow, how did I miss that???

[allanp]

Some other points regaurding studfull vs studless, studfull models are usually an even number of studs wide, where as studless are usually an odd number of studs wide. Studfull models are also usually built from the ground up, where as studless models are usually build a bit more from the inside out. I find that CAD software such as MLcad or LDD is a great tool to help building with studless construction and I highly recommend it because studless construction requires you to think many many more steps ahead than studfull.

My opinion is that I prefere the look of studfull construction as to me, they look more like Lego. They also look stronger and more heavy duty. And when something like the 8880 comes along and cuts a beautiful shape, to me it's all the more impressive to think it's made of square beams rather than bendy axles which are almost too easy. However Studless constuction methods do seem to produce more complex and intricate mechanisms and seem to allow for greater functionality, which afterall is what technic is all about, functionality > looks, although I understand both are important. So when I want to build something really great from a technical standpoint I'll use studless, but if I build something just for the pure joy of building, i'll use studs..... or a manual

Edited July 15, 2011 by allanp

[timslegos]

I guess where i struggle the most is trying to build studfull in the studless system if that makes sense. Ever since i started building MOCs seriously, i have always used stud-full beams and plates, so it is a hard transition going from a system where beams can be stacked to a system where vertical braces and technic connectors are used to make the frame.

tim

[Meatman]

And when something like the 8880 comes along and cuts a beautiful shape, to me it's all the more impressive to think it's made of square beams rather than bendy axles which are almost too easy.

This I can most certainly agree with. It seems to be that flex axles are often abused in MOC models and also used in quite unorthodox ways in order to achieve the builders goal which to me seems like you said "too easy".

[Meatman]

It also seems like more and more people are going the route of using the hard hollow 3mm tubing(similar to what the old style flex system used) and then cutting the tubing to whatever length they would like to create shapes or angles that they couldn't get with standard technic pieces. this method really takes the creativity out of building. Same thing goes with the 7mm ribbed tubing. I know TLC uses it in some of their models, but still.

I think when people see a completed MOC, they appreciate it more if the vehicle's body style doesn't look like it was thrown together overnight with dozens of tubes cut to order.

[MarcusB]

Back when I got my 8880 set years ago, I thought it was the best ever and would never be topped. Now by today's standards it doesn't look very good at all and I also find it somewhat flimsy. I think technic models with no visible studs just look much better. Take Sheepo's Porsche for example. No way could this be made with studs and look this good and keep the weight down so it could be driven. Builders like Sheepo have taken no stud building to another level.

[timslegos]

I think technic models with no visible studs just look much better. Take Sheepo's Porsche for example. No way could this be made with studs and look this good and keep the weight down so it could be driven. Builders like Sheepo have taken no stud building to another level.

Yes I will defining agree with you on that point, models without visible studs sometimes do look better.

Tim

[AlvinB]

I'll chime in here on the "studded" side. I absolutely loathe studless beams. For the types of models I build, there is no way possible that studless construction would hold up under the stresses and pressures put I on them. Without the plate/beam connections the booms on my cranes would buckle. I even asked TLG about the move to studless and expressed my displeasure with it, and was told that it was the way all the models were headed. I have been stockpiling studded Technic beams ever since!

While some models surely do look better in studless, the are nowhere near as strong as studded.

-Alvin.

[TechnicJuan]

Back when I got my 8880 set years ago, I thought it was the best ever and would never be topped. Now by today's standards it doesn't look very good at all and I also find it somewhat flimsy. I think technic models with no visible studs just look much better. Take Sheepo's Porsche for example. No way could this be made with studs and look this good and keep the weight down so it could be driven. Builders like Sheepo have taken no stud building to another level.

Everything stated here is complete nonsense on about 10 different levels.

[timslegos]

Everything stated here is complete nonsense on about 10 different levels.

Can you explain?

tim