MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Technique Exchange Group
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
SNOT: discussion
Join to comment
 Group admin 
SNOT (Studs Not On Top) is one of the most useful building techniques there is. Discuss it here.
Permalink
| December 4, 2014, 9:04 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Hawkflight _(Steven):
In Technic-based builds, which direction is "top" anyway?

Honestly? I don't really know. Technic isn't my forte. From what I know, there doesn't seem to be a strict "up" or "down" because the pieces go every which way. Same with Bionicle/Hero factory: the pieces aren't really designed with an "up" or "down" in mind. Generally, the term SNOT is used to refer to System builds, which is what I had in mind for this thread. Technic and Bionicle are already built every which way, so it seems kind of redundant to try to make them even more so.
Permalink
| December 4, 2014, 11:19 am
Quoting Kevin Moyer

Yep. In terms of System, my latest build is a good example.
http://mocpages.com/moc.php/401825
Permalink
| December 5, 2014, 12:52 pm
Quoting MCLegoboy !
Yep. In terms of System, my latest build is a good example.
http://mocpages.com/moc.php/401825

That is some good SNOT (that sounds weird). Since about last Christmas, when I really got into MOCing, my entire building knowledge has gone from nothing, to so much. The Stud Not On Top technique really changes the way you think of everything
Permalink
| December 6, 2014, 8:40 am
 Group admin 
This guy: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tardisblue/ is the king of SNOT (and I mean that in the best possible way :D ). Every single one of his MOCs is just packed with amazing SNOT techniques. Very rarely is there a large section that faces in only one direction. Oh, and he posts amazing behind-the-scenes videos, too. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrZ4hIOPIuA18J-6JvSz9Yw Check out his youtube page, he's got some amazing stuff there.
Permalink
| December 8, 2014, 9:29 am
Quoting Kevin Moyer
This guy: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tardisblue/ is the king of SNOT (and I mean that in the best possible way :D ). Every single one of his MOCs is just packed with amazing SNOT techniques. Very rarely is there a large section that faces in only one direction. Oh, and he posts amazing behind-the-scenes videos, too. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrZ4hIOPIuA18J-6JvSz9Yw Check out his youtube page, he's got some amazing stuff there.

Not that there is anything wrong with creations like those, I just find myself to not be as much of a fan of those types of things. I like studs, and I've never undertood why people have such a phobia toward exposed ones on creations. Obviously stuff looks better tiled in some cases and other times, studs are just what is needed. I guess it just never feels quite like a LEGO creation if I don't see studs. There doesn't need to be a lot, just some. I guess it helps me see that SNOT was used and I get to see all the different angles the pieces are at.
Permalink
| December 8, 2014, 1:09 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting MCLegoboy !

Yeah. I have nothing at all against exposed studs, but I think that studless builds can sometimes have a realism and sense of scale that studded builds don't. At any rate, I definitely see your point. Sometimes they can be so realistic that they don't feel like LEGO. Although, I think that part of the beauty of Mr. Trotta's builds is the seamlessness of the SNOT. You often can't tell where one chunk begins and another ends, and I think that adds to the impressiveness of it.
Permalink
| December 8, 2014, 2:00 pm
I'm a big fan of the snot technic, I think I use it unconsciously in lots of my build, here it is an example of a moc only build with SNOT:

http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/352149

It's pretty hard when you don't have a lot of pieces...
Permalink
| December 16, 2014, 2:00 pm
Quoting gaudel thomas
I'm a big fan of the snot technic, I think I use it unconsciously in lots of my build, here it is an example of a moc only build with SNOT:

http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/352149

It's pretty hard when you don't have a lot of pieces...

Not sure what you're boasting about, that is almost all Studs On Top; you're missing the Not. It's a cool looking ship, but not very SNOTy.
Permalink
| December 17, 2014, 8:40 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting MCLegoboy !
Not that there is anything wrong with creations like those, I just find myself to not be as much of a fan of those types of things. I like studs, and I've never undertood why people have such a phobia toward exposed ones on creations. Obviously stuff looks better tiled in some cases and other times, studs are just what is needed. I guess it just never feels quite like a LEGO creation if I don't see studs. There doesn't need to be a lot, just some. I guess it helps me see that SNOT was used and I get to see all the different angles the pieces are at.

I've never been a fan of restricting my creations to a "Lego look" - I create the best/most interesting/most realistic look I can using only Lego parts, but I want to go as far as I can in terms of aesthetic design, not limit myself to fairly basic techniques just for the sake of showing random studs
Permalink
| December 17, 2014, 10:42 pm
Quoting Halhi 141
I've never been a fan of restricting my creations to a "Lego look" - I create the best/most interesting/most realistic look I can using only Lego parts, but I want to go as far as I can in terms of aesthetic design, not limit myself to fairly basic techniques just for the sake of showing random studs

I've always been one to follow more of the aesthetics of actual sets. Not that I don't break that mold, I have on several occasions, but perhaps it is also that those types of builds of ships that look like that are just not what I normally see as being a spaceship. My idea is more geared to stuff from Star Wars and then the LEGO Spaceships from over the years. Whatever, it's not super important, it's just opinions and junk.
Permalink
| December 17, 2014, 10:51 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting MCLegoboy !
I've always been one to follow more of the aesthetics of actual sets. Not that I don't break that mold, I have on several occasions, but perhaps it is also that those types of builds of ships that look like that are just not what I normally see as being a spaceship. My idea is more geared to stuff from Star Wars and then the LEGO Spaceships from over the years. Whatever, it's not super important, it's just opinions and junk.

IMO the problem with restricting yourself to Lego set style makes it so that you can never really do anything very new or creative - pretty much all interesting techniques use "illegal connections" or complex designs that you wouldn't see in sets, not to mention that it's fun to use interesting techniques to avoid studs (in some places)
Permalink
| December 17, 2014, 10:58 pm
Quoting Halhi 141
IMO the problem with restricting yourself to Lego set style makes it so that you can never really do anything very new or creative - pretty much all interesting techniques use "illegal connections" or complex designs that you wouldn't see in sets, not to mention that it's fun to use interesting techniques to avoid studs (in some places)

Aside from illegal connections (I'm telling you man, those things are hazardous to your pieces. I have pieces break on me just from using them normally.), I'm not purposefully restricting myself to the LEGO set style, it's just how I have always built.
Permalink
| December 17, 2014, 11:16 pm
Snot isn't when it is smooth ?
Permalink
| December 18, 2014, 6:58 am
Quoting gaudel thomas
Snot isn't when it is smooth ?

No it's not. It stands for Stud Not On Top. So using headlight bricks and that kind of stuff. Building sideways basically
Permalink
| December 18, 2014, 8:09 am
Quoting gaudel thomas
Snot isn't when it is smooth ?

You can argue that the sides wings are technically SNOT, but it's more of studs just slightly in a different direction than pointing directly straight to the sky, not really extreme in ways of Studs Not on Top.
Permalink
| December 18, 2014, 8:34 am
Quoting MCLegoboy !
You can argue that the sides wings are technically SNOT, but it's more of studs just slightly in a different direction than pointing directly straight to the sky, not really extreme in ways of Studs Not on Top.

In my opinion, studs on top and SNOT switch at 45 degrees. If the angle is larger, it is studs on top, if lesser - SNOT. All negative angles are SNOT, of course.
Permalink
| December 18, 2014, 8:39 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
In my opinion, studs on top and SNOT switch at 45 degrees. If the angle is larger, it is studs on top, if lesser - SNOT. All negative angles are SNOT, of course.

I agree, I was thinking the same thing.
Permalink
| December 18, 2014, 8:55 am
 Group admin 
Quoting MCLegoboy !
Aside from illegal connections (I'm telling you man, those things are hazardous to your pieces. I have pieces break on me just from using them normally.), I'm not purposefully restricting myself to the LEGO set style, it's just how I have always built.

Oh, I avoid some illegal connections with fragile pieces (depending on the piece - I don't even use blue headlight bricks at all because normal use of them makes them break every time I've used them) but I don't worry about fudging an angle, not pressing pieces down quite fully, and minor illegal connections that don't risk damaging the piece, like clip-to-clip connections. Stuff like putting a bar in the wrong orientation through a clip, or putting a Lightsaber blade through a trans cone, is the kind of thing I don't do since I know those can damage pieces (or make them impossible to separate)
Permalink
| December 18, 2014, 9:52 am
Quoting Halhi 141
a Lightsaber blade through a trans cone, is the kind of thing I don't do since I know those can damage pieces (or make them impossible to separate)

Oh I hate that...
Right now I can't get a rod out of a large robot arm:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemPic.asp?P=53989
Permalink
| December 18, 2014, 11:07 am
Quoting David FNJ
Oh I hate that...
Right now I can't get a rod out of a large robot arm:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemPic.asp?P=53989

You have to use rubber jar lid openers. The flat almost cloth like kind that looks like checkerboard. Saves your hands from getting blisters and you get your pieces back.
Permalink
| December 18, 2014, 11:13 am
well my bad then, I learn I learn
Permalink
| December 18, 2014, 1:02 pm
I've got one of the old shiny lightsabers stuck inside of that piece with stud on all sides but the bottom. No idea how, but it's been like that since my childhood. :P
Permalink
| January 2, 2015, 3:48 am
Quoting Clear Brick
I've got one of the old shiny lightsabers stuck inside of that piece with stud on all sides but the bottom. No idea how, but it's been like that since my childhood. :P

Through the holes? WHAT?!
Permalink
| January 2, 2015, 6:32 pm
Quoting MCLegoboy !
Through the holes? WHAT?!

No, through the bottom side. :P Half of the hilt is stuck in there.
Permalink
| January 2, 2015, 9:39 pm
Quoting Clear Brick
No, through the bottom side. :P Half of the hilt is stuck in there.

I think I know what may have happened. The end with the prongs went in diagonally and then it either was pushed in too far and the prongs got stuck by the small microscopic ridges on the outside of the holes inside the brick. You should be fine though. I just tried it out, and it came clean immediately. Now maybe it has been there awhile and the pieces have expanded and contracted together for that time, but with enough force you should be able to get it free.
Permalink
| January 2, 2015, 10:01 pm
Quoting MCLegoboy !
I think I know what may have happened. The end with the prongs went in diagonally and then it either was pushed in too far and the prongs got stuck by the small microscopic ridges on the outside of the holes inside the brick. You should be fine though. I just tried it out, and it came clean immediately. Now maybe it has been there awhile and the pieces have expanded and contracted together for that time, but with enough force you should be able to get it free.

I'm gonna look for it and see what I can do.

Permalink
| January 2, 2015, 10:05 pm
Quoting MCLegoboy !

With some luck, I managed to find it within the first minute. Without some luck, I still can't manage to get it unstuck.
Permalink
| January 2, 2015, 10:09 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Clear Brick
With some luck, I managed to find it within the first minute. Without some luck, I still can't manage to get it unstuck.

Yeah. Good luck with it! Those bricks are notorious for getting things stuck in them.
Permalink
| January 2, 2015, 10:15 pm
Quoting MCLegoboy and Kevin Moyer

Picture of it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68449898@N06/16180561755/
Permalink
| January 2, 2015, 10:19 pm
I don't know if anyone is familiar with my work, but I'm a fairly avid user of both SNOT and studless building techniques. I twist and turn pieces in every direction when building, just depending on what form I'm trying to model. As for usefulness I find the classic 3-2 tooth hinges incredibly handy for SNOT.
Permalink
| February 28, 2015, 6:18 pm
B.U.M.P.
Permalink
| March 3, 2015, 7:09 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
B.U.M.P.

Not familiar with "B.U.M.P." What does it stand for?
Permalink
| March 12, 2015, 8:47 pm
 Group admin 
Now that I'm out of the Reverse Engineering Contest, I figured I'd share a few of the techniques I've learned from it :)

First off, the technique that got me out (barely - I was literally 1 piece away from getting it): https://www.flickr.com/photos/ltdemartinet/18230314168/
Can you figure out how to do that without using a brick with studs on 4 sides?

If you do, you officially would have beat me in the contest, and you deserve a trophy.


For normal people who don't have the bricklink catalog memorized, that's done using 3 roller skates (https://www.flickr.com/photos/ltdemartinet/18304567019/) ...one of my solutions used two of them, but it didn't work (I didn't have the pieces and thought that 3 wouldn't fit :P)

That technique can also be done with a travis brick with a minifigure hand in the bottom.


Now for some more useful(ish) techniques.

https://flic.kr/p/sZVuJw It's possible to get 1/8 plate offsets! It's easy(ish) to get 1/4 plate offsets using brick with stud on side, headlight bricks, and jumper plates, but how do you get 1/8 plate offsets without any sliding parts or partial connections...?

The answer: Minifigure neck brackets! The bracket part is 3/8 plate thick, so with a clever combination of all the pieces I listed, it's possible to get some 1/8 plate offsets: https://www.flickr.com/gp/halhi141/UtYHT5



If you ever happen to put 4 travis bricks together (so that there's a half plate offset between tiles connected to them, or a 3/2 plate gap between each stud), you can attach diagonal plates to the bottom and top - the studs of 2x2 plates wedge between the studs of any construction (placed diagonally) with 1x1 plates spaced half a plate apart: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ltdemartinet/18281969695/



2 1x2 panels can wedge in between the studs of a plate and and create a sometimes useful snot connection: https://flic.kr/p/tyVRg1


With proper bracing, a technic pin can fit in nicely between the bottom of 2 travis bricks 1.5 plates apart (or any similar structure): https://flic.kr/p/tRDmin



This construction of 6 1x2 plates may occasionally be useful: https://flic.kr/p/sFvfHE


Slopes can be used to create half-plate thick surfaces at 90*: https://flic.kr/p/rvyhbH


1x1 panels can be used to make a antistud on all sides 2x2 cube: https://www.flickr.com/gp/halhi141/66htt8



And finally, a few techniques of my own :) https://www.flickr.com/photos/halhi141/17875873911/
Permalink
| June 5, 2015, 9:38 pm
 Group admin 
This piece is about 1/4 of a plate (2LDU) thick (so half the thickness of a bracket), which makes it very useful when working with half-stud offsets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=6134

(the exact dimension is 5/16 of a plate - 2.5 LDU. However, considering that due to tolerances a plate is 0.1 mm thinner on each side than the expected 8mm, that 0.5 extra LDU fits in perfectly - two "clearances (0.1 mm space on side of plate) corresponds to the extra 2mm of a hinge top if it is placed between two bricks with the necessary spacing.)

I can already envision uses for this with fitting a 4 stud wide window into a 5 stud wide whitewash section - I've done something similar to that before, but I had to use different solutions (window sticking out 1 stud) since I didn't know about this technique.
Permalink
| June 14, 2015, 10:48 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Halhi 141
This piece is about 1/4 of a plate (2LDU) thick (so half the thickness of a bracket), which makes it very useful when working with half-stud offsets:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=6134

(the exact dimension is 5/16 of a plate - 2.5 LDU. However, considering that due to tolerances a plate is 0.1 mm thinner on each side than the expected 8mm, that 0.5 extra LDU fits in perfectly - two "clearances (0.1 mm space on side of plate) corresponds to the extra 2mm of a hinge top if it is placed between two bricks with the necessary spacing.)

I can already envision uses for this with fitting a 4 stud wide window into a 5 stud wide whitewash section - I've done something similar to that before, but I had to use different solutions (window sticking out 1 stud) since I didn't know about this technique.

Note that the measurement for "clearances" (essentially half of the distance between 2 bricks next to each other) that I listed there might not be quite correct. I got that from Sheo on Flickr, who had a very detailed diagram of reasons why a few theoretically good connections don't actually work (mostly involving brackets and headlight bricks; google it if you're interested). However, from a different source (infrapinklizzard) I heard that the clearance is closer to 0.15 mm.

Of course, either way, it's a difference of 0.05 mm which makes almost no difference for most stuff, considering that 1 LDU (which is already hard to see) is 0.4 mm and one plate thickness is 3.2 mm (8 LDU)


EDIT: apparently I misunderstood infrapinklizzard's comment. The clearance on each side of a brick is 0.075mm, so the width of a 1x1 brick is 7.85 mm rather than 8 mm. I'm thinking that infrapinklizzard's dimensions are probably more accurate.
Permalink
| June 17, 2015, 11:30 pm
 Group admin 
Here's Sheo's photostream which features the diagrams I referred to: https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/sheogorath/
Permalink
| June 17, 2015, 11:32 pm
I find SHOT is best for spaceships, seeing as it can help with the wings going sideways and cockpit designs.
Permalink
| October 9, 2015, 12:00 pm
Quoting - Tucker -
I find SHOT is best for spaceships, seeing as it can help with the wings going sideways and cockpit designs.

Do you mean SNOT, or is SHOT a special type of SNOT?
Permalink
| October 9, 2015, 12:20 pm
Quoting The Royal Brick
Do you mean SNOT, or is SHOT a special type of SNOT?

Oops, man i always have typos :P
Permalink
| October 9, 2015, 2:07 pm
Other topics



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Technique Exchange Group


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2019 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use