Studless vs. Studful

[timslegos]

By studying chronological order of the Technic theme sets in Brickset, it seems that the Year 2001 marked the first all-studless Technic sets. The 8466 4x4 Off Roader set was the Technic "flagship" for that year:

Is this the set that the "power pulled wheels" first appeared in?

Tim

[JunkstyleGio]

The 8466 is not a all-studless-model!

check this

Neither were the 8463, 8464 and 8465 that year.

The technic racers series might have been, but for me thats a different category.

Edited July 20, 2011 by JunkstyleGio

[Erik Leppen]

The 8466 is not a all-studless-model!

check this

No one said 8466 was a studless model ;)

By the way, there were already studless models in 1998. I think 8226 is the first studless model. And as I am looking at it, I think the transition between 1997 and 1998 shows the start of the studless era. Of course, sets from 1997 already used studless parts, but they were more like 8437 which is primarily a studded set.

(by the way I use searching by year).

Edit:

Is this the set that the "power pulled wheels" first appeared in?

Tim

No. 8457 was the first, one year before.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Erik Leppen

[allanp]

As for as flagships are concerned I think the trend started as early as 1996, remember the bent liftarms in the doors of 8480? The first fully studless flagship was in 2003 with the 8455.

If memory serves me correctly, there was also no proper technic set releaed in 2002 (could that have anything to do with the move to studless you think?). But would the Star Wars destroyer droid count as the first studless technic set?

[Wiseman_2]

2002 had only three sets, all were re-releases. 2003 was, I think, the first established year with a fully studless lineup (except 8438, which was a re-release).

Prior to that, the few years before seemed to mix studded with studless. 8448, for example, had a stud-built chassis but studless bodywork.

[timslegos]

Why would TLG produe rereleases instead of new models?

Tim

[DLuders]

Why would TLG produe rereleases instead of new models?

Who knows -- bad marketing strategy, insufficient funds to develop new Technic models, designer staff problems? Since The Lego Group is a privately-owned company which does not reveal their bottom-line profit/loss statement, we may never know....

Edited July 21, 2011 by DLuders

[AndyC]

Who knows -- bad marketing strategy, insufficient funds to develop new Technic models, designer staff problems? Since The Lego Group is a privately-owned company who does not reveal their bottom-line profit/loss statement, we may never know....

Presumably changing the entire building system (in effect) probably also meant delays in designers getting physical parts designed, into their hands and then get the hang of the newer system. That might have lead to the decision to roll out some rereleases to keep the product in-store without budgeting for whole new designs too.

[Sokratesz]

Or it could just be because the 8460 crane and 8459 bulldozer were extremely popular?

Just sayin'

[Nazgarot]

8459 bulldozer? Isn't that a front loader? or are you referring to the wrong set?

[Sokratesz]

Oh yeah it's a frontloader, close enough

Edited July 22, 2011 by Sokratesz

[timslegos]

I remember the 8460 crane set. The B model was way better than the main model!

tim

[Sokratesz]

I like both, but the B model also has good playability. Same for the Shovel, both models were fun to build and play with and they weren't that expensive.

[Erik Leppen]

I remember the 8460 crane set. The B model was way better than the main model!

tim

No!

The 8460 main model has been a long-time favorite of mine. In fact I still think it is the best mobile crane Lego has created. Compared to the 8421 that many consider ultimate, the 8460 had outriggers that actually lifted the model, a boom that actually had considerable lifting power, and looked pretty good given it had only 850 parts.

Edit: yes, slightly offtopic, but I just had to say that. :P

Edited July 22, 2011 by Erik Leppen

[timslegos]

Haha i can agree on some parts .

From my experience with the set whenever i would try to lift something with it the crane would bend a ton and i think the crane almost separated from the turntable a few times. But i do agree that it still had a lot of lifting power compared to any other Lego set, which can lift almost nothing. I have noticed something else with Lego sets. The functions work well until they have even a little bit of load applied, then the gears usually click or the beams aren't strong enough or some other part fails. Don't they take playability into the design process?

tim

[Carrera124]

Interesting topic. As a child, I bought my last technic set in the year 1991 (set 8856).

After that, it took about 20 years to buy my next technic set in the year 2011

But even during my (buying) dark ages, I still collected all catalogs, and therefore knew about the changes.

Recently, I built 8070 und 9398. And yes, the studless style offers advantages when designing complex technical structures.

But when building without buildung instructions, imho the studless style is less intuitional.

And in my personal opinion, the studless beams remind me of Znap and Knex.

So, I prefer the studded style. In some cases, the newer studless parts are a great addition.

Fortunately, both Bricklink and Ebay offer enough pre-2000 MISB technic sets

Some at high prices, but it is still possible to find bargains. For example, some weeks ago I bought MISB 8855 for €40 at Ebay. A set I always wanted to get as a child.

Moreover, there are still some classic Technic sets I am planning to buy. But I do not plan to buy more modern studless Technic sets. Sorry TLC, you'll miss my money on that.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Carrera124

[nicjasno]

Both techniques have their place. Even in the same model. I found out that mechanical thibgs like engines, gearboxes and suspension/steering setups are best done studless, but if you want a stiff chassis you should make it out of studded parts. Studless chassis are very difficult to make stiff.

[Bricktrain]

Both techniques have their place. Even in the same model. I found out that mechanical thibgs like engines, gearboxes and suspension/steering setups are best done studless, but if you want a stiff chassis you should make it out of studded parts. Studless chassis are very difficult to make stiff.

Using the 5x7 and 5x11 frames you can build a stiff chassis easily.

[nicjasno]

Using the 5x7 and 5x11 frames you can build a stiff chassis easily.

Not in every scale. And not by my definition of stiffness :)

[Colbster]

Is there any way of mixing studs in with technic parts? Seems like an obvious way to go as they each have their own advantages.

[jantjeuh]

Ofcourse there is, take a look at the many Model Team creations, or older Technic sets from around 2000 - 2004.

[baddon]

OH boy was I lost when i started reading this.

I was imagining that studless mean the stud connectors, so looked up UTube and then realized it was just the bricks no longer have studs on top so you cant build a wall.

 

Been out of this soooo long

 

[Mechbuilds]

I'm going to throw this out there:

It will depend on your goals. Both studful and studless have their quirks. 

[MxWinters]

10 hours ago, Mechbuilds said:

I'm going to throw this out there:

It will depend on your goals. Both studful and studless have their quirks. 

Totally, there are some things you can only do with studless, some things you can only do with studded, some things you need to use both building styles. As Mechbuilds said, it depends on what you building and you design goals.
Up until my current lorry which is almost entirely studless, I'd always used studded because I found it easier. Building something like a artic lorry with studless is much harder (at least for me) but I wanted that challenge, it wasn't easy but I think I pulled it off ok.

[ozacek]

47 minutes ago, MxWinters said:

some things you can only do with studded

What are those I wonder? Seeing all the technic MOCs out there, it seems anything is possible :)