Was Old Technic Really Better?

[@eugkra33]

The fact it was studded wasn't what made it great, it was the fact more effort was put into playability. Their 1000 part sets had more playability than 2000 part sets today.

[@Unbrickme]

yes i agree! the part usage was better

[@d4r1us18]

today's lego technic larger sets are flexible and sort of fragile. playability is slow too. SOME OF THEM COMPLETELY LACK A REINFORCED MAIN STRUCTURE.

[@Bourougne]

+1

[@suspense_comix3237]

Old Technic sets have so many functions. These days, all the functions we get are either car gearboxes, steering mechanisms, suspension, etc.

[@bartdereu9267]

true , current technic sets are very complex, making it more difficult to break them down and build something as amazing as the original. Back in the days you build your technic model once and then the parts all were put together and you'd build something totally different.

[@karbalababy]

Not even an honourable mention of 8880, the pinnacle of studded technic

[@mrfloppy3083]

I like old and new technic sets alike. From today's perspective, the old ones simply have more charm and primarily focus on seeing and learning how something works. The new sets, on the other hand, are prettier and the appearance is more important. Both are great in my opinion.

[@TimBorg]

I wish they would bring back the Technic Men

[@darthgbc363]

0:35 8888 - I used that book daily as a kid. I think I built almost everything in there. Awesome book. I prefer studded (Technic Bricks).

[@Unbrickme]

nice

[@bami2]

5:13 i like how "differential locking" is now a feature, yet every differential made by lego (including the earlier ones for studded technic) included the driving ring setup that allows it to be locked. I don't think a set had is actual feature, but it was available as option from day one. I just like studded technic better because it's so easy to integrate with lego system. 6:30 I'm working on something that makes powered-up not "plug and play" but almost that, and not for a smartphone but for windows PCs that have a BT 4.0/BLE adapter plugged in, keep a check on the discord :)

[@Unbrickme]

while lockable differentials have existed since the 90s, the zetros is the first official set to actually use the feature. It's similar to how rc gearboxes were possible well before the 8043 but that excavator was the first set to introduce the function. Also, im looking forward to your powered up app for windows PCs

[@ammarmar3628]

Building technique was different. Studded sets are built "from bottom to top" while studless sets are built "from center to surface". The first is much more natural and easy to learn. I think old sets were much more friendly for MOC builders than the new ones. When you bought an old Technic set, you built it once, maybe twice, but then you were eager to dismantle it and start building your own things. Now, people build it once, let it gather dust for some time, then dismantle it and sell it on eBay. There are literally thousands "used, built once" Technic sets available to buy.

[@Thinginator]

I like both and feel like the aesthetic disadvantages of studded are made up for by the fact that you can add system pieces for detail. Especially with the way Technic is prioritizing aesthetics nowadays and including fewer functions for the price, I actually think studded would be better for some sets than studless. It would be awesome if Lego brought back the old Model Team theme as a sort of hybrid between Creator Expert and studded technic, with the detail of system elements and the functionality of studded technic.

[@tylerhensley2312]

100% could not agree more!! New kits could absolutely benefit from studded ones.

[@Hitokiri2000]

I am oldschool, I prefre the classic studded technic sets. Not really a fan of the new studless elements. I have some studless sets, but after having assembled them I just feel they lack something.

[@shingnosis]

As someone who built a lot of Lego Technics in the 90's and 2000's, and now builds Lego, with the younger generation I remember the old Technics sets being much more fun to build than the new ones. The old sets you could see what you were building while you were building them, it was a very organic process and you often built a car from the bottom plate up etc. These new sets are imho very confusing to build, lots of beams that criss-cross all over the place and its only in the last 20% of the build that you can really see what the finished model is going to be. These new Technics may have great functionality but I don't think the build process is all that rewarding. I think I'm going to be looking into the Lego Creator series instead, that's much closer to how I remember Lego being when I was a child. I prefer an "organic" build process if that makes sense.

[@Ziplock9000]

Yep. Too many one use or specific use parts that are a jumble

[@chrismartin2663]

I grew up with my family going to George Henry Lees department store in Liverpool for various things, and they had a great lego section. I remember staring at the Test Car or the Plotter set/airplane (with that large control centre) displayed in a glass cabinet. I didn't get either of those sets, but my first big Lego set had some technic parts and a motor (Lego Basic 740). This was awesome and it disappoints me i don't find anything like it today with my kids - don't get me wrong, there are some great sets but the average piece size is much smaller and it makes it hard to build something as substantial (like the barn). I digress. For technic i mostly had several Universal sets (Pnuematic, 9V and Flex) and a few cool models like the Shock Cycle before the last set i got i think in that era, the amazing 8868 pneumatic truck as a birthday gift. Those sets were great and it was easy to throw something cool together mixing technic with Lego system parts. Almost 30 years on and i'm catching up. My sons are now 4 and 7 and so for the last 4 years we've been working through duplo and lego system and my folks mailed to me so of my old lego technic, and so we've been doing "Technic with Dad" times and my boys are both getting good at building things mixing technic and system stuff. We have also made a lot of models from the 1977 bike, lots of smaller late 80's and early 90's sets and will have a crack at 8460 i think. We've also now done the Test car and 8880 super car. These are models with a great number of awesome mechanisms, and great playability for my boys. Most of them are not motorized, and that is totally OK, and most of them can be built in a couple of hours (ok, not the test/super cars). My son's favorite we have made is the tow truck from the Technic ideas book 8891, which we also modified a decent bit, and he loved playing with the 8838 shock cycle. So here's my point. A lot of emphasis on playability is with motorization and RC. I think this is fair in one sense, but also caters to people buying higher end sets (mostly). The mechanisms for non-motorized play are wonderful in the big and small sets and many studded sets also came with instructions for the 9v system for at least one of the sets so you could incorporate a motor if you wanted. Am i saying studded is better than studless overall - no, and i get that had i been younger i would have been looking at the street sensation in the shop and would have several studless sets as a kid. So mentioning 9398, I also recently got my first Studless sets, the crawler and a used Mindstorms NXT set, and my son now has that airplane with about 50 MOC's on Rebrickable. It's a learning curve for me. Some of the mechanisms in that crawler are wonderfully intricate, though does feel like a lot of time is spent building framing bits and the piece count make sense. The Mindstorms set is cool, though those motors are massive and hard to integrate. With studded, i can throw together a car with steering very quickly and so now i'm having to re-learn simple concepts to make my own stuff, and getting used to models build on odd number widths rather than even. I'll get there i'm sure. If i was born 20 years later, i'd probably be saying the opposite, i get that.

[@ChadDidNothingWrong]

I really don't see why they had to go all out studless...,It's starting to feel like it's not even Lego anymore. They could have just implemented more studless components without going so far as to cause such a major compatibility issue with normal lego. Part of what made Lego technic so cool was that the technical components went inside *_LEGO_* models....which have their own unique aesthetic that looked great. No need to try and hide the studs as those are what made it recognizably Lego.

[@Goddot]

It's not just about studs- older models had this focus on technical functions you could see at work and learn from, instead of complex gearboxes hidden behind layers of panels where you don't even understand what the hell you built (this is honestly what made me drop Technic more than stud/studless). Studs make it way easier for combining with system bricks and testing out functions, last one being a primary focus that was utterly lost in modern Lego.

[@Ollisaa6095]

I love the old technic sets! they just look beautiful and they have a certain charm in them. (also they have more playability and they weren't designed to rot on a self)

[@caskraker]

I was 28 when buying my first Technic set back in the early ‘90s. Did not use any of it for years, but always kept all of it. In the first Covid winter I decided to take it up again, building a big truck with crane, motorized, compressed pneumatics, switchbox from the Shuttle, etc. A MOC, so to speak. After looking at the Liebherr set I fell in love again. Bought it used (build only once) and am having so much fun again. Did some alternates from Rebrickable, a few small builds of my own, bought some extra parts on Bricklink and made a few other Technic sets with these, thanks to Lego Builder. I am blown away by the compact builds possible with studless building. Still trying to understand it all, using all those new parts. Studless was easy once you understood stacking with 2 1/3 plates between each beam. Studless is much more of a challenge. I am set to build and have fun for many more years to come.

[@SimonTekConley]

Wow, you missed the mark on comparisons. The gear revolutions and motor revolutions would've happened whether or not studless sets ever came around. The concept would be to compare the actual bricks and such.

[@Unbrickme]

The goal was to compare the eras, and the overall experience of each period of time, not the bricks themselves

[@artoodiitoo]

I´m most familiar with the old school Technic, the sets I had as kid were from the 80s to 1996 (the Space Shuttle). There are some advantages of the new system, like easier to fit compact systems into small spaces, some of the modern small Technic sets are really wonderful, similar simple sets had to be larger with the old parts to fit the technical systems there. The new way to build is totally different, and can be harder to grasp how they work. Old Technic was better looking tho, not the multi-colored mess we have today, and didn´t have panels to cover the inner mechanical workings. Aren´t those what Technic should be all about?

[@abelnemeth4346]

Valid points, though from the biulding perspective specialcoroured technical elements are there to make it easier to understand (both in finding and following with your eyes in the build).The other thing is, though the technical elements were mostly greyes and blacks (and the yellow engine pistons), the sets thmeselves were quite colourful (e.g. 853 car chassis). Nowadays they really aim for the finished look, and immerse in this new aesthetic. The phylosopy really have changed.

[@gabrielgoot4281]

old studded technic was better because you could put bricks on top of it and it also could come in many sizes & colors. Studless couldn't have bricks on top or they would slide off.🙂

[@Buddie21341255612351]

I never owned alot of studless technic models, they look great but those specialized panels always thrown me aways from those set... its like if i dont buy tons of sets i wouldn't be able to make anything creative

[@Unbrickme]

Before 2010, but after 2005, many technic sets were studless and featured no panels. For example, the LEGO Technic 8294 excavator has no panels, but also doesn't use any studded technic pieces.

[@Ziplock9000]

Indeed, Specialised panels are not what technics Lego is about imho

[@TimBorg]

I prefer the original studded type

[@TimBorg]

my main reason is that the new style is almost impossible to make easy MOC's with ...

[@alexanderthomas542]

The studded technic sets were much more exciting to build, you had to study harder to follow all the instructions too,

[@Kinsanth_]

I prefer studded because i grew up with that, but the studless components can enhance studded contraptions in many ways. Not only from the visual point, but also in terms of reinforcing studded techmodels

[@legotroid]

I grew up with studded, all my builds were MOC's back then and all through the '80s (although I'd never heard the term 'MOC' back then). FFWD to today, I use both, usually starting my builds with studs. Great to have both options; you never know when you might want to throw a brick into the equation :)

[@jamesfrankiewicz5768]

When studless technic first made it's debut (not counting a bare few half-width minor parts in a few sets), I thought they were crap. After a long break, I came back to technic, and warmed up to studless a bit. However, I think a mix of parts would be better for a lot of sets, as pure studless involves a lot of additional small connector pieces, and is much harder to partially disassemble if you want to modify something. I'm personally not in to the special panel pieces. Yes, they make the primary models look better, but are nearly pointless for any alternate builds or MOCs.

[@matsv201]

There was a servo motor.. of sorts, prior to studless, The Lego RC car had that with the 9V system

[@tapioleva9851]

I like the studded sets more. Especially the universal sets. I like working with limitations because that's what brings out the creativity.

[@loadinglevelone]

You need to raise that script. It feel wrong that you're not making eye contact with your audience.

[@Unbrickme]

I was actually looking into the lens of the camera

[@timramich]

I have no idea. I only ever owned sets with the studded parts. The studless I never had. It's not that I didn't want them, I just grew up (became a teenager) when they started to become to main method of construction. The only sets that came out while I would have been into Legos and had a small amount of studless parts here and there would have been the ones my parents would have never bought me because of the cost (like that space shuttle shown in the beginning). I think because I learned the studded as my brain was developing as a child, and the studless stuff came much later, is why I can't comprehend how to actually invent stuff with the studless. If it's what you grew up on, then you're a master at it. I think Technic in general has gotten too out of hand with the partnerships. Making custom parts specific to models, and the sets are partnerships with vehicle and equipment manufacturers. The old sets were generic and original designs to mimic things that exist, without being specific about a certain manufactured brand that they were trying to look like. Like the 8865 Auto Chassis or 8880 Super Car. One can use their childish imagination to picture what it would look like in real like as a real car, and play with it while imagining it. Get one of the new sets like the Bugatti whatever...big whoop. You can go online and see a picture of it. Have enough money, ride in one. Be one in a video game. To me, they're something to sit on a shelf and look at.

[@steelyray]

Lego was better for problem-solving when rare pieces stayed rare, even in the technic community. When there are pieces that do exactly what you are trying to achieve it takes the challenge out of it.

[@Gumbatron01]

As someone who grew up with studded technic and now have a son who is starting (early.... he's not quite 4) on studless technic as well as collecting some of the larger sets such as the Volvo haul truck and Liebherr mining excavator. I find that the older sets were much more intuitive in their build, there were common themes in terms of creating structures and this allowed users to create their own builds much more easily. The newer sets have a feel of being designed on a computer and the build being an opaque puzzle where it's not particularly easy to see where you're going from the start. That may not necessarily be a flaw of studless though, more of the advancements in set design made possible by CAD approaches to Lego sets. Perhaps I just need to expose myself to more studless sets to get used to them though, it's hard to say. But, the old studded Technic sets certainly still have a sense of nostalgia for me, there was more imagination involved in them I think. The newer sets that aim at more realistic creation of actual existing machines, rather than more abstract models of machines, I think reduce the amount of imagination that is involved in their construction and play.

[@yuvallegomotorized]

Combination with those 2 is the strongest. Each one got the other side, or direction, with more resistant or flexibility. In my subtractor clip i combined those 2.

[@mxes5938]

the old technic system was way more accessable. I experimented and built a lot with studded LEGO technic as a child, while failing miserably when trying to build something out of modern technic as an adult. studless beams are just not intuitive and too complicated to moc with in my opinion

[@ReaperKraken]

I think the studded ones are better for other lego themes, while the studless ones are much better for lego technic. nice video btw

[@markt1964]

I strongly prefer the studded era pneumatics to the studless, to be perfectly honest. The newer pneumatic cylinders no longer have a base to firmly attach to, and instead you have a single pin hole at the base around which the cylinder can easily pivot, even if you use friction pins. Older pneumatics also had this pin hole to accommodate mechanisms that needed it, but additionally had a base that you could firmly attach the cylinder to the studs of a regular plate, baseplate, or brick, and allow the top of the cylinder to freely move up and down without worrying about the whole cylinder swiveling on its base.

[@alexanderthomas542]

Studded, why did lego ever.make those smooth panels which look cheap, scuff too easily and not have the ability to be customizable

[@MattRoszak]

I liked how the old sets didn't hide all of the internal mechanisms behind an outer shell. Everything was usually partially visible. I also really miss how thin the instruction booklets used to be. Building old Lego has way less page-turning. But when it comes to appearance for display, the new technic stuff looks less toy-like, which is kind of cool for adults I guess.

[@GerbenWijnja]

I grew up with studded. Studless looks too smooth in my opinion; Technic sets should look rugged and with lots of visible moving parts and gears. Nowadays everything is covered with panels, so you can't see what is going on inside, while the whole idea of Technic sets was to learn and see how things work.

[@mattberg916]

I grew up with studded and started building cranes which seemed to fall hand in hand with the parts I had. I was hanging big steel washers on a weight stick to form an adjustable counterweight, it actually pushed the limits of breakage. Building cranes over 6 feet was a big deal way back then. Most were all hand crank mechanicals, I didn't have motors till later and the first ones required a ton of gear work to produce usable torque. Never got interested in the space and movie related products or studdless systems with special panels that seemed to take away from the adaptability of the original concept.

[@merijnvanschaik4989]

there is a lot to be said for both. In my younger years I was a Technic guy but all sets were studded. When I came out of my "Dark ages" Studless was the way to go. It did take some getting used to. But with studless you don't have facilitate place if you want a beam to rotate next to another. Some things can be more.. compact.

[@uigrad]

I grew up with studded Technic (1980s), but nostalgia is all that they have going for them. The studless beams are so much better for building potential for 3 reasons: The most obvious reason is the ratios of height to width. If you are have a 5-long studless beam, the dimensions are a simple 1:1:5. For studded, the dimensions for a 5-long beam are 5:6:25. Building a large model and getting axles to line up is so much easier now with studless. The second reason studless is so much easier is for clearance. My favorite MOCs all have moving beams. With studded beams, it tends a lot harder to make sure your moving beams don't contact your structure. The third reason is simply tensile strength. Brickbuild structures are fine for compression strength, but for tension (pulling), brick build is absolutely terrible. Once the move was made to studless, you generally use tension pins to hold structures together instead of brick build, and the result is much stronger builds. Without this change, we wouldn't have the mega models we have today. I think you can argue all you want about looks (everyone has their own opinion), but as far as functionality goes, studless is miles better than studded. I honestly think all the people who are claiming studded is better are either people craving nostalgia cred, or people who have forgotten just how frustrating studded building could be.

[@michaelfornes1479]

I think the newer sets with computers would be more fun to play with and the remote controls beat out the manual wheel controls of the past. However, the older sets had more creativity. You had to use your imagination for the legos to drive around and fly!

[@skoodledoo]

Growing up with Lego Technic, it was my lifeblood. These days, none of the sets compare. It's as if Lego gave up, and sadly, because of that so did I.

[@legofreak5769]

I like the old sets more. I feel like newer sets have so many strange connections that seem unnecessary.

[@richardhorn7912]

Maybe i am the only only one, but i enjoy building lego technic as fast as i can. I learn them by heart. I own technic figures, have old, and new. Lego technic is just fun, al parts have a function. The cement truck is one of my favorites. And yes, i own the land rover and the Submarine too. I enjoy the speed build.

[@linux_doggo]

My dad bought a small box full of classic studded technic set and each one of them is super fun to play and build

[@jochenreichl796]

Studded technic is the way to go. For one simple reason: It's TECHNIC! New, studless "technic" is mainly RC models that look cool, but most of the time lack RC. Even if it has functions (which is NOT usual any more in technic), you can't see their working. Because everything is paneled up. Studded technic was all about the technology and how it works. They were playable education sets. Looks don't matter for technical education.

[@joelmiller7026]

i grew up with modern technic set but honestly i really like the old technic sets and would love to play with a classic technic set

[@rc-fannl7364]

Studded is often more rigid as for frames it usually combines bricks' clutch power with pins as braces. With studless things tend to get pushed apart more easily, in some cases. But much depends on the design.

[@jettdragon3337]

Hi there. Studded all the way. I found the studded sets were far more interesting to work with because you could interchange parts & create modifications as you saw fit because most of the parts were universal. Most of the modern sets these days seem to have lots of proprietry parts that you couldn't interchange & couldn't alter to other colours or shapes if you wanted to. Therefore, I find the fact that the point allocation in this video is too biased to studless as that's all you've ever worked with. I can't say I agree with your scores I'm afraid. :S

[@miketechnic5.0]

I like both of them equally. Today the lego technics represent real models such as the lego 42110 or the 42100 while once the mechanisms were shown how they worked but in reality the technics of today that have complicated mechanisms such as supercars are the evolution of those of the past with many panels that close them. Both are great in my opinion.

[@85inexact]

I like and agree with this!

[@GuildensternTube]

Electric an d pneumatic features irrelevant for the comparrison of Studded vs studless

[@SaturnineXTS]

You know what's best about this whole studded vs studless thing? It's not a matter of either or. It is entirely possible to combine both systems, and has been done successfully many times, by LEGO designers and MOC makers alike. I grew up on the intersection between these two systems, so I definitely have a lot of nostalgia for the classic Technic brick and absolutely love how naturally it combines with System, but I also appreciate everything that studless has to offer, especially in terms of how compact mechanisms can be made with it. I think my least fav thing about studless are the big panels, actually. They're usually only used for aesthetics, which I think is done better using elastic hoses & axles, as well as System bricks. Still, I'd LOVE to see a good model created from - in equal proportions - system, studded and studless Technic elements.

[@woodennecktie]

i wonder why so many people today open a channel to talk about obvious and trivial matters and "Lego" please tell me where the braincells went with these characters

[@Unbrickme]

So you're saying that it is not smart to talk about LEGO?

[@Etacarinae9000]

Old Lego was for playing, new is for showing collection on shelf.

[@richardjulien1329]

It mostly depends on what I am building, sometimes studded are better, some other time it's the studless, and even then, there are times where I need to mix studded and studless because they each have their own interests

[@richardjulien1329]

BTW, did you know that locking differential appeared first in the first trial truck competitions, at the beginning of the studless era, and was on a studded MOC? Overall, i don't think one is better than the other, it is just that everything began in studded way, and was then improved in studless version

[@richardjulien1329]

Also, check out the 4958 set, it is both studded and studless Lego, and is the beginning of Lego rc, with the bulldozer, so I don't think we should split them... They are two faces of the same coin, and in the end, they are both really useful ^^

[@roellemaire1979]

Lego has moved from just bricks and your imagination to create your own creations, to fixed sets you assemble once. I'll let people decide for themselfs which is better.

[@d4r1us18]

for longer surfaces (like a crane's boom mobile or tower crane) stud parts are useful because they prevent FLEX AND TORSION. but on the inside technic studless parts are also required. lego technic is nice because they are probably cheaper and lightweight. lego technic stud is useful for trains or for something VERY strong.

[@Ashmodai]

I think that studded technic was just way easier to get into as a kid since you could basically build a LEGO SYSTEM Set and enhance it with functions. Studless relies completely on intricate and pin-heavy constructions that - while they are amazing - are not really intuitive for a kid (sometimes not even an adult).

[@magnumsalyer]

I feel like it would be a lot easier to get in to studfull technic as a beginner rather than studless

[@Unbrickme]

it's much easier to go from system to studded technic than from system to studless technic

[@thorbjrnhellehaven5766]

I grew up with the studded LEGO Technic. I think the studles design is just better (in general). For the main structure I think studles (with paneos) makes a nicer look, and the studless frames and angles år just more versatile. I sometimes enjoy using studded Technic more to support integration LEGO Systems elements, but sometimes using small connector pins in holes, to support Systems. It depends on the case. Also, I think using using studded Technic to improve structural integrity of Systems models can be a good thing. LEGO Friends 41450 use Technic studded A-frames, some Technic studed 2×1, and some connector pins. The model can easily be split into 3 parts, and rejoined at will. For Technic I think it is nice to understand possibilities by integrating System details. With Systems (in this case, everything except Duplo and Technic), it is nice to understand features you can make using Technic, to add to the playability. As well as to improve structural integrity.

[@johnnytifosi]

Well it's obvious that you're too young to feel the nostalgia we feel about brick built Technic, but your opinion is welcome. Besides nostalgia, there are other reasons I still only buy old studded sets: It's System compatible, in other words, it's Lego. Putting together pins and beams is never going to be as satisfying as putting together Lego bricks. The rigidity and feel of quality is vastly superior. Technic Bricks provide two ways of assembly in two axes, so the end result is almost guaranteed to be solid as a rock and feel like a quality product. Just feel the absolute rigidity of classic sets like the 8868 or the 8880 compared to half assed studless sets of today that flex like boiled spaghetti. Looks are subjective but Technic bricks look like, well, Lego. It's pretty timeless in my opinion. And besides the bricks vs beams debate, old Technic had: B models, Nice packaging, was more feature packed, was more oriented into displaying the function than hiding it behind panels, the part count and the price wasn't inflated to crazy levels.

[@DrNA142]

What annoys me personally, is that studdless uses pins instead of studds for connections, and because of that, studdless is engineered with a tolerance on both sides of the connection, creating a feeling of overall flimsyness in the builds. Plus, i don't agree that studdless is more compact. Any kind of decent studdless mechanism is huge because the frame housing it uses full module sized units in ever direction, just look at the ospreys battery box....it's ridiculously big for what it does, and cannot be integrated into compact builds without serious loss of other functions. And, the studdless elements are way bendier than the studded, because they lack the structural support of the additional plastic in the element. All in all, i see the benefits in the studdless system, but i don't think it should replace the studded....

[@NooceneSounds]

i tend to use studless technic in combination with system parts and bionicle quite fluidly (and even ZNAP for that matter integrates nicely if you work with the connections available). i have never had a compatibility issue or trouble making studless fit in the same builds as system. you essentially just use pins with a stud on top, bricks with built-in axels and pin holes, and literally just attaching studs into technic holes, including various SNOT techniques. i don't think about my build in terms of whether it could be sold or recreated, be creative and make the parts work for you, sometimes its surprising how things link up if you just start putting things together in nonconventional ways

[@victoriaevelyn3953]

I do find it hard to use studless in my Lego builds though I did find one use in my latest for mudguards on my tank I used both on it but most was studded

[@artoodiitoo]

Oh yeah the idea books :D I just saw pictures of them as a kid, recently I´ve got them all, I´ve been building some models from those instructions, they would be worthy of being official Lego kits. You should try to build something from them :D

[@sergeyua5467]

Studded is the essense of Lego Techinc for me since my first sets back is 1995. Then I had dropped lego for 17 years (2000-2017) and now it's all studless... There are a lot of cool sets ofcourse, but in my opinion the looks of studded sets is still way more "technic".

[@suspense_comix3237]

The reason Studded Technic wasn’t very popular was because most of the sets were only available in Denmark and the European countries, not here in the US.

[@LordOfNihil]

i was mostly playing with technic in the pre-studless era. the classic models were very solid, but also very heavy. heavy duty enough if you wanted to build a cnc machine. the studless models feel spindly but also more efficient with space and more versitile. i think they are better for vehicles than for stationary builds. the electronics had gotten better but that is independent of the building system. even in the pre studless era i was integrating hobby servos and custom motors and control systems because i felt the official offerings were lacking. it started out of hacking the og mindstorms rcx brick and spiraled out from there. this set marks the beginning of the transition into studless as the set came with both types of parts iirc. the nxt brick was a major step forward and power functions were certainly better than the previous motor offerings. of course now in the arduino+raspberry pi+3d printing era, i usually go for those instead, print whatever adapters i need and use both kinds of parts as a robotics prototyping kit. its not pure lego, but who really cares?

[@Ziplock9000]

I've been using of technics since 1977 with the car model and dipped in and out over the years with different powered sets and robotics. I just can't get used to the no studded parts, they have far too many specific parts used for unique circumstances and angles, which to me, is not what the core of lego is about. When I see people using them to make something it's beyond me compared to back to basics with studded parts.

[@legorocketraccoon8297]

Worst part about current technic is that it really doesn't have a reason to be technic. You could easily use the functional parts like steering and such and replace the shell with regular system parts and it'd be the same thing but look better.

[@polloaztecaSRT]

a hole is a hole

[@mediabass]

One interesting fact about studless is that it's square based. Which makes designing with 90 degrees angles easier than studded. Quite obvious perhaps though 😊

[@steelyray]

Agreed. An easier form factor to deal with for changing direction. However studded provides more build training / learning experience for earlier MOC's.

[@gieselats]

I grew up with studed technic bricks. You can use conventional technic bricks for large buldings in die city or star wars world. But for real technic models the new technic bricks without studs are better. It is good to have both in the whole system.

[@Unbrickme]

agreed

[@joepatbob]

I feel like stud less is just an extension to studded, you can use them together.

[@asbjrnparbo6155]

Having been brought up using the old studded system, I find it very hard to quickly build a model to show my kids how mechanics work, like differential or steering of an car. I believe the, some of the reason can be found in the orientation of how you assemble studded always facing up and that the number of unique pieces is low, when compared to the new system. All in all, playability has suffered at the hand of options and endless possibility. Regardless I still love LEGO!

[@liamshelley496]

I'm not too fussed about what the kits are like, since I mainly just build my own creations. I'm quite interested in both cars and trying to make compact and complex creations so I prefer studless, as well as the fact I'm only 16 and have grown up with studless.

[@darrellaldrich8334]

I use both, and my projects often include both. I use what make sense for the application IMO assigning a prejudice, limits choices and possibly quality.

[@DBZLEGENDS]

I like a combination of the two personally and you can see that in the 8448 super car. Integration of studless and studs actually isn't that difficult.

[@Matt_H_26]

I grew up with the studs. For nostalgia sake, studded wins hands down. Seeing those sets I had as a kid bring back so many memories. But, for realism sake, studless sets can replicate the real-life objects/machines so much better.

[@ronnie2031]

I loved to disassemble every single set and mix them to develop something new. Now I find it more difficult as every piece is like difficult to use on. But maybe I need more parts and have them in my mind hehe

[@mammutMK2]

I think the best solution is a hybrid, there is no pure winner or looser. Studded is good for the supporting frame and areas with high load. Studless is for the decorations, compartment build within the support frame and for and outrigger to reduce the weight at the end. Sadly Lego focuses on Studless what ends in flexing builds, where alternative brands go actually with a hybrid solution. One example is the tow truck, layers of Studless parts are building the frame and even though it's pretty solid there is still flex. Imagine they would have used studded technic beams just for the main frame, there would be no flexing, less used parts and actually they would have even more space. I have a moc wheeled excavator and the undercarriage is massive build with Lego classic and technic studded beams, there is no flex, and there is enough space for all the needed technic in it...and it's completely encased.

[@paulsmith-ll9vg]

i`ve loved the stud technic lego sets, ever since i discovered that when making the likes of a space ship, and off course with more normal lego, and lego space elements, that`s because earlier technic lego sets had lots of brick parts in the sets, and this meant that i could combine these parts from my technic sets, with my non technic lego, and make a better lego creation, and while i have indeed bought and made many a more modern and off stud less technic lego set, i`m not even sure how exactly i would be able to combine these more modern technic parts with perhaps my older lego, and as at least technic lego these days seem to be possibly even more tricky, to put together, and when you have finally made no doubt one of these amazing sets, and considering how great it will look on a shelf, and all the trouble it perhaps took to built it, in the first place, taking it apart may well be a great mistake, and if you are possibly doing this so that you can use the parts in another lego creation, then if it`s not a technic one, then i can possibly see a problem there, and at least when technic lego was coming out in the shops in say the 80`s, and it did originally have bricks in the set, not only was it possibly easier to built, you could then take it apart, and use the bricks possibly in some way with your other sets of lego, and then maybe even later on remake this technic set all over again, and it seems these days with technic now, a far harder thing to do.

[@naveedLbisram]

Great point,and and like both,and if you ask me,it depends on what you are doing for stud and studless to show their true colors/ capabilities

[@antonisauren8998]

I never liked technic. When I wanted to make some mechanics, it was mostly steering but always built in brick shell. Those articulated figures were awsome though. I liked making accesories, clothes and armor for them, that was almost impossible due to scale and proportions of system minifigs. They still take front row on mu lego shelf. Three mighty man at arms clad in plate cut from thin steel sheet, kept together by strips of first aid tape. :D

[@tylerhensley2312]

They both have their ups and downs and to me are just simply a different brick number. My current project uses an immense amount of the old style because the new ones just aren't stiff enough for what I'm doing.

[@priyamulchandani7700]

I like studded lego technic but I grew up with studless technic but I still have studded Lego technic pieces from other sets.

[@jonasfermefors]

I think the question is interesting but the criteria aren't what I would judge by. Lego for older kids is primarily a platform for building your own creations (in my opinion) and in that regard I think studded Technic is easier to get started with but new Technic can build more advanced things better. To me that means that studded was better for younger builders and the closer you get to AFOL the better new Technic is. My first Technic sets were the classic go-kart (854) and the first fork lift (850) when I was 7 or 8. I had lots of Lego pieces and I started modifying them by building additional structure in regular Lego. I don't see the newer generation sets as easily modifiable for kids and I think that's a shame, but as an adult new Technic is great.

[@GeneralPurposeVehicl]

I prefur the transition era sets like 8466. They use a sturdy brick frame with studless beams, panels, tubes, and flex axels making body shapes.

[@Erikve]

I grew up in studded era, and obviously i prefer studded; simply because I think it's more the LEGO experience. Though, i do agree that studless looks more appealing --> however that might not honest to compare: creator sets of 2022 also look better then from 2002.

[@jurefn75]

I have both, but studded are 1000x better

[@pocok5000]

I grew up in the studed area and first I considered studless technic a blasphemy but now I completely acknowledge its advantages, especially lower weight. Weight kill anything designed to move. One could also argue that studless is superior because it gets rid off the issue of orientation reversing.

[@kinglavra4961]

I like to combine lego technic and lego system.

[@rafam8359]

I love old technics from 70's

[@Unbrickme]

Same

[@Egon3k]

Team Studded here :)

[@d4r1us18]

i have a demag ac120 mobile crane made out of lego technic with 12 wheels. 12 wheels from lego 42082. but yellow not red. the final section of boom is from lego technic stud on the sides & in the middle lego technic studless. i tried making the last section of boom out of technic panels but they caused torsion if a luffing jib was added. torsion is very dangerous for any kind of crane because it causes the boom to twist and break.

[@d4r1us18]

there was no other easy way out of this.

[@sthmark]

Studded sets all the way! I grew up with them as I got my first lego set in 1981 - no. 6927. If you want to master your manual dexterity - that's the way to do it.

[@gerberarriaga3134]

Hi Unbrickme! I liked this video! And would like to let you know that there are 3 sets using the two functions in one axle feature, and the third one is the 9397, I own it, and this mechanism is simply awesome!!

[@Unbrickme]

i appreciate your support and thank you so much for letting me know

[@Neonsilver13]

I think what you are using as metrics for comparing studdless and studded don't really work. All the functions that were introduced with studded sets, didn't really have anything to do with the sets being studded. If the panels where available back then, then all those functions might have been introduced with studdless sets. Similar with the advantages of studdless that you gave, they have very little to do with the sets being studdless. Lego Technic is somewhat of a niche hobby, so of course the community would be better with improved internet availability compared to a time where you would be lucky finding a single person in your area that shares your interest. Similar with stuff like RC capabilities, programmable options and power functions, again that doesn't really have anything inherently to do with studdless or studded, it is simply the result of electronics having become cheaper, smaller and easier to use and Lego taking advantage of it. Also you could argue that the even the power function and programmable stuff are refinements of things that were already present in studded systems. It wasn't unusual that a studded set had a short manual for modifying a car into a remote controlled car, due to the limitations at the time it would be connected by a wire to the self build remote, but it was possible and the first programmable set (or at least the predecessor to it) would have been a lego technic truck (Set 8479), that you could programm by scanning barcodes. It even had some rather simple sensors. A better question would be what you could do now with studded and studdless systems, what are the advantages of the pieces. Could they maybe improve sets by maybe combining studdless and studded pieces?

[@Unbrickme]

Excellent points. The main goal of this video was to compare the overall era of studded technic to the overall era of Studless technic. Kind of like 1977-2005 vs 2005-present. It was not my intention to compare the building systems themselves

[@Neonsilver13]

@@Unbrickme I see, I didn't understand that. Thanks for clarifying.

[@houtwurm5516]

I think that set 853 is the best technic set

[@ragingbanana6261]

Hi unbrickme. Thanks a lot for your videos. I really love the work you are doing. I just disagree with giving studless community and electronics. The internet and electronics will always improve over time, therefore it should not go to either. Studed technic is capable with PF and powered up and I'm sure if the internet was accessible during studded period there would be an online community. These advances in tech have nothing to do with the design of the bricks. All lego is designed to encourage creativity, so in the end use whatever system you prefer.

[@Unbrickme]

Thank you so much much for your support! My goal wasn’t to compare the bricks themselves, but rather, the time periods defined by Studless and studded. Studded technic is 1977-around 2000. Studless is early 2000s - present day

[@abelnemeth4346]

In fact lego boost, and rc trains are techincally still can count as a form of studded technic. Even more so the new lego education spike essential takes studless base elements and with the new antistud halfpin (the green weird one) it reintegrates it in a studded ecosystem.