Why no "ultimate" SNOT piece?

Diggydoes

I don't know if this may have been asked a trillion times before,but i really wonder why TLG doesn't come out with a simple SNOT piece that connects two studs with each other (kinda like the"one"ring from LOTR)?
Is there maybe something in their policy that don't allow a piece like that?

CaptAPJT

You mean a piece with studs on both sides? Who knows, it'd be far simpler then some of the alternative solutions they've employed.

bluemoose

Pretty much every part you can think of exists ... as prototypes at the 'Design Lab' at Billund. They've play-tested many of them, and the usual reason given for parts not making it into sets is that they are too complicated for kids to build with; that's the reason I've heard for the double sided plates not being released in sets. But there are plenty of techniques for AFOLs to use to achieve the same thing.

Having said that, another 'never going to happen' element was the inverse tile, and we got the 2x2 version of that this year, so who knows ...

rocao

CaptAPJT said:

You mean a piece with studs on both sides?

It sounds like he's asking about the opposite: a piece that is a double underside (stud receptacle).

And though it's technically an interlocking piece without studs, I don't think it'd really be the ultimate piece for achieving what is intended with SNOT, which is removing the unsightly evidence of an interlocking brick system.

Diggydoes

Yeah i know there are several advanced techniques to two studs with each other,i'm just thinking that it would help MOCers so much and would add a lot of new perspectives!
The piece i had in mind is more like a plate without studs on any side but "connection-holes"(?)on both!
I'm pretty sure when this piece will ever be made it's going to be one of the most sought after by builders all over the globe!

FatMatt

^TYCO had a piece like that when I was a youngster. I used to incorporate that piece into many builds. If only Lego had one.

Diggydoes

That's why i'm thinking that maybe (besides production costs;usefulness for kids-sets) TLG don't want to release such a piece because of policies or some?! Maybe it wouldn't be up to TLG's standarts because of stability issues?

dougts

There's a huge number of different types of pieces LEGO could add to the "system", but at some point if they go to far, doesn't it kind of stop becoming LEGO? There are far better choices for modelling if one wants the ultimate in realism - that really isn't what LEGO is about.

I think LEGO, after releasing FAR too many specialist pieces in the late 90s and early 00s, have been far smarter and more deliberate in introducing new pieces into the system, and I think this is the right move.

One initial problem with the piece you suggest is that in order to accept studs from both sides, it would have to be thicker than the standard plate, this violates the system standard, which would be a pretty bold move for LEGO to make on a piece that seems to have fairly limited applications.

Diggydoes

^hmm that makes sense! In that case it had to be a piece with double the thickness of a common plate to make studs fit completely inside.
Still i'm curious wether we're going to see a piece like this (or a similar) anytime soon!

Si_UKNZ

dougts said:

at some point if they go to far, doesn't it kind of stop becoming LEGO?

They passed that point long, long ago. And I don't think the point we're at now is much different from the late 90s/ early 00s. Just look at the new one-piece dinosaurs ... T-Rex must break the record for the biggest (non-baseplate) Lego piece ever.

Loads of people don't like how Lego's full of specialist pieces these days. Bring back the 1970s! But since that's not possible, then a 'double sided socket' piece would be great, I wish they'd do one too.

brickmatic

I don't mind molded animals or creatures. I much prefer the molded horses that began to appear in 1984 in sets like #6021 (or the new horses found in LOTR sets like #9472 ) over the brick-built horses from the loveable #375 of 1978. I think the larger problem in the late 90s / early 00s was poor set design. Things just didn't look good. Compare #6566 to #3661. The nice thing about the parts introduced now is that they really serve to open up possibilities for better looking models.

caperberry

There's a lot of this stuff on CUUSOO actually, but they never get much support let alone 10,000.

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/2750

maques

Things like these?



Quiz: Where are these come from? :-)

Aanchir

maques said:

Things like these?

Quiz: Where are these come from? :-)

Looks like Mega Bloks to me, but I could be wrong. I just seem to remember having some Mega Bloks parts with a similar "footprint" to the one on the left.

caperberry

A 3D printer?

Leela

They're Cobi parts. They come with most Cobi sets and I admit I absolutely love them. That plate with studs on both sides is one of my favorite parts, so useful.

maques

And the winner is: ... Leela
However, it was easy for her, living in the country where Cobi is made :-)

Leela

Yeah, maybe I shouldn't spoil the fun for others and wait a little longer for the answer, sorry :-)

chromedigi

maques said:

Things like these?

I want LEGO to do (and expand on) those parts so badly, I can taste it. It should be troubling for LEGO fans to have a clone brand leading innovation in basic SNOT geometries. (OF course, this kind of competition is probably good in the final analysis, in that it might stimulate TLG to up their game in this department.)

@caperberry (and anyone else with a strong interest in part design) - I would love to see a discussion of this sort of thing here or at The New Elementary. In addition to (for example) Nachapon's tessellations, or many even more obvious and helpful expansions of the tiling universe, there are many useful basic part geometries that TLG is neglecting in favor of more specialized theme-based molds, which is a shame, because essential geometries live on for years, even decades, beyond those, and enrich everything that comes after.

It has been encouraging to see things like the inverted tile and the increasing commonality of SNOT parts in new sets, but so much more could (and in my opinion should) be done along these lines.

I wonder if this forum has the leverage to interest enough people to push any of the CUUSOO parts-based projects over the finish line.

madforLEGO

Those parts have been found in building blocks sets that are not LEGO for some time i believe, as I remember picking those types of pieces out of LEGO lots in the past. There are times where it would really make things easier, but I would see many plates designed for that either broken or tough to get disconnected at times, or so stressed they break easier.

truk

FatMatt said:

^TYCO had a piece like that when I was a youngster. I used to incorporate that piece into many builds. If only Lego had one.

Me too!

I still have most of them, but I've been slowly pulling them out of builds where I'd previously used them. Since they're not to System scale/size, they really throw off proportions. It's a great feeling to take a build that was "good enough" and re-engineer it to work without the Tyco pieces (and maybe even look better).

CCC

chromedigi said:

It should be troubling for LEGO fans to have a clone brand leading innovation in basic SNOT geometries. (OF course, this kind of competition is probably good in the final analysis, in that it might stimulate TLG to up their game in this department.)

Lego are fairly slow at innovation in minifig parts too. Many of the ideas in the CMF range have come from compatibles too. Gladiators, Spartans, Romans, etc have all been done by compatibles for years. Fortunately, lego have learnt what people want and have designed their own.

chromedigi

truk said:

Since they're not to System scale/size, they really throw off proportions. It's a great feeling to take a build that was "good enough" and re-engineer it to work without the Tyco pieces (and maybe even look better).

I don't actually own any clone sets or bits, so I don't know in what way you mean that they're "not to System scale/size." The pic above is of a couple of Cobi parts, and it looks like they're "in System." But maybe the pic is deceptive, or perhaps your Tyco pieces had different proportions. Can you explain in what way they were wrong?

TheLoneTensor

dougts said:

There's a huge number of different types of pieces LEGO could add to the "system", but at some point if they go to far, doesn't it kind of stop becoming LEGO? There are far better choices for modelling if one wants the ultimate in realism - that really isn't what LEGO is about.

I think LEGO, after releasing FAR too many specialist pieces in the late 90s and early 00s, have been far smarter and more deliberate in introducing new pieces into the system, and I think this is the right move.

One initial problem with the piece you suggest is that in order to accept studs from both sides, it would have to be thicker than the standard plate, this violates the system standard, which would be a pretty bold move for LEGO to make on a piece that seems to have fairly limited applications.

I get what you're saying, but I can't imagine how this would compromise the system in any way. There are many, many canon pieces that allow for side-building, and connecting a few of them together allows for direct stud-up-and-down building. I can't remember the set, but I think a car recently came out that is built studs up on the top and studs down on the bottom. Even Lego acknowledges the advantages and usefulness.

I also look at it as kinda ridiculous. It's like giving a chef a cabinet full of kitchen tools, but witholding a spatula. This isn't some goofy, angled concept piece, it's something that really should have existed the day after they made the first brick. If people want to use them, let them use them.

truk

chromedigi said:

truk said:

Since they're not to System scale/size, they really throw off proportions. It's a great feeling to take a build that was "good enough" and re-engineer it to work without the Tyco pieces (and maybe even look better).

I don't actually own any clone sets or bits, so I don't know in what way you mean that they're "not to System scale/size." The pic above is of a couple of Cobi parts, and it looks like they're "in System." But maybe the pic is deceptive, or perhaps your Tyco pieces had different proportions. Can you explain in what way they were wrong?

Yeah, these were made around 1983-85 and I think Tyco took the molds with them to the grave (late 80's/early 90's?). They are not the same as the Cobi pieces.

The standard blocks are Lego sized, but any of the parts that are not direct copies tend to be just slightly taller. The best example would be their 2x2 hinges. Each side is about 1.2 tiles tall, so closed they end up slightly shorter than a standard block (2.4 vs 3 tiles). The 2x2 double-sided stud tiles have the opposite problem: they're about 1/3 the height of a Lego tile...so sandwiched blocks fit almost flush, but not quite.

chromedigi

There was a brief article put up yesterday on Brickset that itself linked to a very interesting and amusing off-site review by Anthony Tomkins of a number of clone manufacturers. Star Diamond was the only one that he rated comparable in parts quality to LEGO. Cobi itself was unfortunately not reviewed.

I am curious whether Star Diamond produces SNOT gender benders such as the two Cobi bits pictured above, and also how Cobi stands in terms of part quality. Does anyone here know? [Dons fireproof suit.] This is in the interest of science, really!

dougts

tensor said:

dougts said:

There's a huge number of different types of pieces LEGO could add to the "system", but at some point if they go to far, doesn't it kind of stop becoming LEGO? There are far better choices for modelling if one wants the ultimate in realism - that really isn't what LEGO is about.

I think LEGO, after releasing FAR too many specialist pieces in the late 90s and early 00s, have been far smarter and more deliberate in introducing new pieces into the system, and I think this is the right move.

One initial problem with the piece you suggest is that in order to accept studs from both sides, it would have to be thicker than the standard plate, this violates the system standard, which would be a pretty bold move for LEGO to make on a piece that seems to have fairly limited applications.

I get what you're saying, but I can't imagine how this would compromise the system in any way. There are many, many canon pieces that allow for side-building, and connecting a few of them together allows for direct stud-up-and-down building. I can't remember the set, but I think a car recently came out that is built studs up on the top and studs down on the bottom. Even Lego acknowledges the advantages and usefulness.

I also look at it as kinda ridiculous. It's like giving a chef a cabinet full of kitchen tools, but witholding a spatula. This isn't some goofy, angled concept piece, it's something that really should have existed the day after they made the first brick. If people want to use them, let them use them.

I think you are misinterpreting me a bit. My comments about being out of system were in relation to some specific pieces that were being suggested that were not a direct derivative of a full plate width.

I use SNOT techniques all the time, and I also would welcome more variety to the system with some of these types of pieces. My only counterpoint was that at some point you pass a tipping point where it's just gone too far and we have left the world of LEGO and we enter the world of model building. If it's all about realism, then LEGO isn't the right medium to be building in anyway. Why not just get raw ABS and form it to the exact shape/size we want at that point? I don't know what that tipping point is, but it's out there somewhere.

PS - I wrote the comment you quoted above almost a year ago! ;-)

SirBen

chromedigi said:

I am curious ... how Cobi stands in terms of part quality. Does anyone here know?

Confession time: Fresh out of my dark ages, I had a $10 coupon for a retailer that, among other things, sells Cobi products. With the coupon I ended up paying a couple dollars for a "LEGO Compatible Invader Military Propeller Plane." I opened the product box, and upon first impression closed it up without even attempting to build the plane. The figure in the packaging was incredibly poor looking, and the pieces looked, felt and sounded just as cheap. I wish I had spent those dollars on a CMF instead. So on the one hand, I guess I never really tried the parts, but on the other hand, I didn't need to to be disgusted by them.

chromedigi

dougts said:

I use SNOT techniques all the time, and I also would welcome more variety to the system with some of these types of pieces. My only counterpoint was that at some point you pass a tipping point where it's just gone too far and we have left the world of LEGO and we enter the world of model building. If it's all about realism, then LEGO isn't the right medium to be building in anyway.

I don't think elements as basic as SNOT gender-benders are any closer to your "tipping point" than the SNOT brackets and bricks that presently exist, and I'm certain many builders would immediately welcome and use them.

In a way, your comment reminds me of the (mild) tension in the origami community between the more traditional, impressionistic approach, and those who do things like this. It's really just a matter of taste. I personally prefer realism and don't really like having studs sticking out all over the place on models of things that in reality do not. Other people's tastes run differently from mine. I can accept that. I think there's room in the world for aesthetic divergence.

But in my opinion, if there is a "tipping point" anywhere, it is that of having too many custom molds of theme-based widgets and whatnot (which has already been crossed long ago), rather than expanding the palette of fundamental geometry, which is nowhere even remotely near being exhausted.

dougts

chromedigi said:

But in my opinion, if there is a "tipping point" anywhere, it is that of having too many custom molds of theme-based widgets and whatnot (which has already been crossed long ago), rather than expanding the palette of fundamental geometry, which is nowhere even remotely near being exhausted.

Agreed completely. On a related note - I'm sure I'm not the only one noticing the nearly complete absence of any 1x6 or 1x8 brick these days. Outside of modulars, it's pretty much an endangered species in any kind of quantity more than the random 1 or 2 pieces in a medium to large set. Even 1x4s are becoming rarer by the season as well. I remember all those classic space and town sets I had as a kid - not much at all in the way of custom specialized pieces, but man I had no shortage of 1x brick...

TheLoneTensor

dougts said:

tensor said:

dougts said:

There's a huge number of different types of pieces LEGO could add to the "system", but at some point if they go to far, doesn't it kind of stop becoming LEGO? There are far better choices for modelling if one wants the ultimate in realism - that really isn't what LEGO is about.

I think LEGO, after releasing FAR too many specialist pieces in the late 90s and early 00s, have been far smarter and more deliberate in introducing new pieces into the system, and I think this is the right move.

One initial problem with the piece you suggest is that in order to accept studs from both sides, it would have to be thicker than the standard plate, this violates the system standard, which would be a pretty bold move for LEGO to make on a piece that seems to have fairly limited applications.

I get what you're saying, but I can't imagine how this would compromise the system in any way. There are many, many canon pieces that allow for side-building, and connecting a few of them together allows for direct stud-up-and-down building. I can't remember the set, but I think a car recently came out that is built studs up on the top and studs down on the bottom. Even Lego acknowledges the advantages and usefulness.

I also look at it as kinda ridiculous. It's like giving a chef a cabinet full of kitchen tools, but witholding a spatula. This isn't some goofy, angled concept piece, it's something that really should have existed the day after they made the first brick. If people want to use them, let them use them.

I think you are misinterpreting me a bit. My comments about being out of system were in relation to some specific pieces that were being suggested that were not a direct derivative of a full plate width.

I use SNOT techniques all the time, and I also would welcome more variety to the system with some of these types of pieces. My only counterpoint was that at some point you pass a tipping point where it's just gone too far and we have left the world of LEGO and we enter the world of model building. If it's all about realism, then LEGO isn't the right medium to be building in anyway. Why not just get raw ABS and form it to the exact shape/size we want at that point? I don't know what that tipping point is, but it's out there somewhere.

PS - I wrote the comment you quoted above almost a year ago! ;-)

Heh, that's funny, I didn't even notice that this thread got resurrected.

I think you're talking about Lego heading in this kind of direction: http://www.airfix.com/shop/quick-build/

While I actually think those are really, really (really) cool, I'm with you, and don't think Lego should go there. But then again, just making what appears to be a couple obviously useful pieces, while still retaining the general Lego-ness of sets, seems like a no-brainer.

chromedigi

tensor said:

Heh, that's funny, I didn't even notice that this thread got resurrected.

I did that. I think it's too important to just languish as ancient history.

tensor said:

I think you're talking about Lego heading in this kind of direction: http://www.airfix.com/shop/quick-build/

The weird thing is, it already has, to some extent: we have Dino, Dragon Mountain and lots of other examples of specialized molds with correspondingly reduced potentials for creative reconfiguration. Meanwhile, many of us are still holding our breath waiting while...

tensor said:

But then again, just making what appears to be a couple obviously useful pieces, while still retaining the general Lego-ness of sets, seems like a no-brainer.

Aanchir

Some of the clone brand designs for these kinds of SNOT brick might need major changes to work in LEGO. Specifically, a plate with solid studs on both sides would probably be a no-no. All the walls of a piece have to be below a certain thickness for the part to cool without the risk of deforming, hence why most large LEGO animals are pre-assembled from multiple molded sections. A completely solid plate is risky enough; a solid plate with solid studs on both sides would have some ridiculously large solid ABS sections.

A more realistic piece like that for LEGO would look like if you stuck two inverted tiles end-to-end, except half the thickness. So in other words, there'd be a hollow portion on either side.

Anyway, I imagine part of the reason LEGO doesn't have such a part is that SNOT building doesn't come naturally to a lot of kids, and studs-down building even less so. And for the few sets that DO need studs-down building, there are plenty of solutions currently available. It'd open up a lot of possibilities, but they're possibilities that (from a set design perspective) TLG has done just fine without.

chromedigi

Aanchir said:

Some of the clone brand designs for these kinds of SNOT brick might need major changes to work in LEGO.

This seems like a straw man argument to me. I doubt that the reason these pieces don't exist is because nobody could design one that adheres to the thickness guidelines. I can imagine, for example, taking a standard plate, and extending the underside of the studs as short tubes the diameter of the stud on top, or even letting the studs be completely hollow a la the 85861. Whatever. Some solution is possible.

Aanchir said:

Anyway, I imagine part of the reason LEGO doesn't have such a part is that SNOT building doesn't come naturally to a lot of kids, and studs-down building even less so.

These are the standard excuses that TLG puts forth, but I'm not sure I really buy them. For one thing, if you look at the children's sets that they put out nowadays, lots of them include a good number of SNOT brackets and/or bricks. Even the "girls'" sets, which presumably are pitched at a class of kids assumed to be less familiar with building toys. As I've been going through the Friends series with my daughter, I've been impressed by just how many such pieces she's amassed in a pretty short period of time. Chima also is quite generous with SNOT parts. And the MBA kits start out of the gate immediately preaching SNOT.

And anyway, SNOT gender-benders aren't necessarily used for "studs-down" building. Often, the need arises when working side-to side.

Aanchir said:

And for the few sets that DO need studs-down building, there are plenty of solutions currently available.

Whenever a proper solution does not exist for a class of problems, there are always ways to kludge workarounds. Hell, we used to do things like use some of the machine instructions in our assembly code as numeric constants, back in the old days. (I certainly did. Space was tight.) That doesn't mean that there was no need to evolve more modern programming techniques over time.

I'd say many of the odd techniques involving halves of hinges, clusters of headlight bricks and so on, while clever, are hacks that exist simply because LEGO doesn't provide a rational way to solve simple geometry problems.

Aanchir said:

It'd open up a lot of possibilities, but they're possibilities that (from a set design perspective) TLG has done just fine without.

At any stage of LEGO's development, it would have been possible to say the same thing. And yet, LEGO has continued to evolve. I believe this is an area in which they should continue to push forward. The constant stream of SNOT parts in children's sets is encouraging; I hope it actually means something.

Aanchir

chromedigi said:

Aanchir said:

Some of the clone brand designs for these kinds of SNOT brick might need major changes to work in LEGO.

This seems like a straw man argument to me. I doubt that the reason these pieces don't exist is because nobody could design one that adheres to the thickness guidelines. I can imagine, for example, taking a standard plate, and extending the underside of the studs as short tubes the diameter of the stud on top, or even letting the studs be completely hollow a la the 85861. Whatever. Some solution is possible.

I agree with this, and wasn't trying to use that as a reason why such a part would be impossible or impractical. I was just pointing out an issue with some of the clone brand versions which would have to change in an official LEGO version.

chromedigi said:

Aanchir said:

Anyway, I imagine part of the reason LEGO doesn't have such a part is that SNOT building doesn't come naturally to a lot of kids, and studs-down building even less so.

These are the standard excuses that TLG puts forth, but I'm not sure I really buy them. For one thing, if you look at the children's sets that they put out nowadays, lots of them include a good number of SNOT brackets and/or bricks. Even the "girls'" sets, which presumably are pitched at a class of kids assumed to be less familiar with building toys. As I've been going through the Friends series with my daughter, I've been impressed by just how many such pieces she's amassed in a pretty short period of time. Chima also is quite generous with SNOT parts. And the MBA kits start out of the gate immediately preaching SNOT.

And anyway, SNOT gender-benders aren't necessarily used for "studs-down" building. Often, the need arises when working side-to side.

This is all true, but note that the SNOT techniques in a lot of more "kid-friendly" sets are fairly simple compared to what you see in a lot of AFOL-oriented sets (for instance, the UCS B-Wing) or AFOL MOCs. The B-Wing is remarkably elegant with its stud-reversal techniques, using parts like 87609 and 99206 not only to reverse studs but to lock the opposing sections together a lot better than any stud-reversal plate or brick could achieve on its own.

chromedigi said:

Aanchir said:

And for the few sets that DO need studs-down building, there are plenty of solutions currently available.

Whenever a proper solution does not exist for a class of problems, there are always ways to kludge workarounds. Hell, we used to do things like use some of the machine instructions in our assembly code as numeric constants, back in the old days. (I certainly did. Space was tight.) That doesn't mean that there was no need to evolve more modern programming techniques over time.

I'd say many of the odd techniques involving halves of hinges, clusters of headlight bricks and so on, while clever, are hacks that exist simply because LEGO doesn't provide a rational way to solve simple geometry problems.

I dunno, I feel like using a pair of headlight bricks or a pair of brackets is a simple enough technique as far as sets and MOCs are concerned. Doesn't mean that a dedicated stud-reversal plate or brick wouldn't be USEFUL, but it's hardly necessary for many applications, and I think calling it an "ultimate" SNOT brick is a real exaggeration.

I did run up against an interesting stud-reversal problem on a recent MOC (a bubble-shaped spacecraft cockpit module that needed very particular spacing to go together), but in that case, I needed studs facing up, down, and to both sides, so a simple plate or brick with studs on both sides would certainly not have solved any of my problems. I ended up coming up with a fairly elegant solution using a 2x4x2 SNOT brick and some brackets.

I'm not saying I don't think a part like that would be a good part for the future, but sometimes comments on the matter make it sound like it's a no-brainer and a thing the LEGO Group should have had years ago, and I hardly think that's the case. MOCists and Master Builders alike have gotten by all right without such a piece all this time, and we can always afford to wait a little longer.

chromedigi

Aanchir said:

Doesn't mean that a dedicated stud-reversal plate or brick wouldn't be USEFUL, but it's hardly necessary for many applications, and I think calling it an "ultimate" SNOT brick is a real exaggeration.

FWIW, I didn't name this thread, I merely resurrected it from oblivion.

Aanchir said:

I'm not saying I don't think a part like that would be a good part for the future, but sometimes comments on the matter make it sound like it's a no-brainer and a thing the LEGO Group should have had years ago, and I hardly think that's the case.

On both of those two points, I'm afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

TheLoneTensor

Aanchir said:

sometimes comments on the matter make it sound like it's a no-brainer and a thing the LEGO Group should have had years ago, and I hardly think that's the case.

Why is it then, that so many clone brands have such parts, yet Lego does not?

chromedigi

The argument that a given part isn't needed because there are other ways of accomplishing the same thing doesn't hold water. LEGO isn't a minimal system in the first place. If it were, you wouldn't even have the ordinary brick, because you could build them by stacking plates. And I think you'd only need 1x1 and 1x2 plates, at that. Maybe a 1x3. Moreover, you certainly wouldn't ever have any POOP. Several of the recently introduced bows would never have come into being. I could go on, but any further examples ought to be obvious.

(And never mind the necessity of having a piece like the 64712. It makes more sense for that to exist than a piece of elementary geometry? Really?)

Yes, there are ways of reversing stud polarity with what we have available. They are not anywhere as elegant, intuitive, visually appealing, nor space-efficient as simply having a part that does the job in the first place. As for the "it wouldn't be kid-friendly" argument, what's going to make more sense to a kid, using a straightforward reverser, or building a cluster-**** out of hinge halves, sticking a bunch of short Technic axles into brick tubes, or any of the other "advanced" techniques required to solve the problem? (Pretty funny thread on just this sort of thing: Bad Building Techniques.)

As for the locking argument: A male-male plate would lock as well or as poorly as an ordinary plate. Ditto the female-female brick with respect to "regular" bricks. Locking is a separate, and completely orthogonal issue.

TheLoneTensor

I support same-stud marriages.

Diggydoes

Hmm maybe TLG is homophobic and that´s the reason they won´t produce a plate with studs on both sides or one with holes on both?!?!

chromedigi

Oh, god... Another insane workaround for the lack of a stud reverser!