42056 - Porsche Speculation

[jorgeopesi]

Sometimes I really have the suspission that it´s part of the philosophy to make a not-perfect-model and leave some room for playing and "improvements", at least for me it increases fun a lot. Seems to me like the Porsche delivers a perfect base for MODing and MOCing variations such as B-models or PF upgrades to make it a real ULTIMATE.

I agree, before I get angry with flagships now I know I'm not the common lego buyer, I'm not a collector or player, the only thing I want are new parts and porsche isn´t a good example for that, this scale is too big for me I don´t need those pieces.

Edited May 30, 2016 by jorgeopesi

[nerdsforprez]

I´ve heard it doesn´t steer as well... But it offers 4 x reverse in its gearbox - that´s the new achievement we have to pay for . Maybe it won´t hurt so much if to sell the stickers, the book and the box after the purchase which I won´t need after unboxing... I hear a lot of bitter sarkasm and disappointment, but the final judjement can´t be made this way.

Seriously, after all the previous hype now we see all the complaints even before it´s in the stores - that´s exactly what I personally had expected. The poor designer of the car must have nerves out of steel now to endure the critics (no real compassion here). Hopefully after this one we will see another supercar though at some time ever.

Lots and lots of really smart people on here but I really think we still are missing a main, central issue here. Many will make a loose association to what I am referring to but it really only scratches the surface when we say, "LEGO really is only a toy after all." The bigger picture is LEGO is really a business after all. I am not trying to defend TLG group and I have no alliance with them..... just trying to offer a different POV. Believe it or not TLG's job is not to create a genuinely accurate Technic model. And their definition of "ultimate" likely does not reflect such efforts. "Ultimate" is a marketing ploy, we all understand that, to sell as many of these sets as possible. If the set sells well or not will be the benchmark in which the designer(s) measure their efforts against, NOT whether the model is accurate to the real thing. The designers can happily show their faces if the model sells well.

Now, some of you still might grimace and say something to the tune of "typical problems of the cheap society we live in" or "typical problems with westernized mass-marketing" but, as I have stated before, we all win here...... EVEN if LEGO sets are somewhat cheapened by placing sales above all else. TLG is concerned about sales first. End of story. If this set is marketed well, hits the "WOW" factor on all cylinders, and brings many from their dark ages but is still technically weak and sales well then TLG has done its job. But that allows for tens of thousands of this set to be built, millions and millions of pieces...... and with this amount of product we can have things like thousands of AFOLS who create online places to trade and buy pieces, forums like this to discuss, websites to...... you get the picture. If TLG only looked at producing for the upper echelon of AFOLs and their whims and desires, not even a fraction of the product would be made, not a fraction of the pieces...... etc. you get the picture.

LEGO and AFOLs on this site cannot be held to the same standard. They cannot. LEGO Ideas should be a paradigmatic example. Apples and oranges folks. MOCers, wonderful as they are and we love 'em so do not have the limitations placed upon them as the LEGO designers do. LEGO Ideas exemplifies this in that not one of the mass-produced final products from LEGO Ideas has ever been the same as the original submitted model. We all get this and no one ever really complains because this all makes rational sense. However, when TLG creates a car that is not on par with some of our more popular MOCers cars we all throw a tizzy. Why? If we understand that business-model limitations restrict final products in LEGO ideas why can't we accept that when it comes to this model? And before one comes back with "well they can't call it Ultimate" .... please consider again their motive. Their motive is to sell..... not accuracy in building. And no.... TLG might not have your money if the model is not super-accurate but remember as wonderful as a community as this is it is a small minority of the folks that will be actually be buying this set. As much as we want to think that EB members are TLGs target point in creating this set ---- we are not. We represent a fraction of that target point, but only a fraction....

[Josephiah]

Let's face it: Would marketing have called it 90% ultimate?

How about Penultimate? Which would imply the next one will be even better

[LucyCol]

Lots and lots of really smart people on here [snip]

Well said, I think sometimes we forget what TLG is all about.

[nerdsforprez]

I agree, before I get angry with flagships now I know I'm not the common lego buyer, I'm not a collector or player, the only thing I want are new parts and porsche isn´t a good example for that, this scale is too big for me I don´t need those pieces.

+1. @jorgeopesi responded as I was writing my response. This, IMO, is one of the best responses on this 100+ thread. Instead of complaining about the model Jorge recognizes that he is not the typical Lego builder/buyer and therefore his needs are not necessarily going to match those of goals of the LEGO designers when they built this model. Simple as that. Again, don't get me wrong. If you want to complain about the model fine. Nothing inherently wrong with that. IMO it is just more accurate to recognize that perhaps one's displeasure with this model is better reflected in the differences of the intents and purposes of TLG designers versus individual MOCers than all the weaknesses and shortcoming of the model itself.......

[Appie]

Let's face it: Would marketing have called it 90% ultimate? ... knowing (maybe not) the gearbox and other issues?

They shouldn't have used the word at all. The Arocs has its flaws but people consider it an awesome set in general. That set wasn't advertised as "ultimate" (feel free to shove an add in my face saying otherwise, I honestly don't remember), but the set still did alot of things very well

Unfortunately, it seems (to me) that the technic functions have plateau-ed a long time back.

The basics of supercar functions haven't changed for over 20 years yes, but it's not like people who built supercars here don't try to look for new functions or building the car mechanically correct. They still come up with new stuff, so why can't multiple designers at Lego when they worked on this model for 2-3 years and have the actual ability to design new parts if needed? I seriously want to know what the constraint was for this lack of functions. Was it indeed going for the looks instead of functions? And if so, why even bother with Technic then? Or is there alot of unsued space in the model or mechanisms that could have been less bulky which would result in possibly more functions in the same space? (Question for the reviewers). Or did they hit a deadline and had to release the model as it is now and is the "real Porsche" still in development in Uwe Wubra's office?

And to add to that: If the goal was to generate buzz, the term 'ultimate' has done its job already. See the 2527 replies - and counting - to this topic. It made me decide to buy this set, because now that I have been dragged into this I want to judge all the vehicle's aspects by myself. Reviews are only going to help me decide when.

It did get alot of buzz yes, but this set also seems aimed at adults who haven't bought a set in decades and now look at the Porsche since alot of car magazines do an article about it now. To them it could be "ultimate" since they don't know better? It could be their "out of the dark ages" set and then they come here and read about all these glorious supercar MOCs here and realize: wow Lego dropped the ball when they released the Porsche

By the way, I don't think looking at this topic is worth much for statistics when 40-50 pages are about the price and colour

Less than a day for some reviews, should be fun.

[Corvette3]

I still believe they wanted to make a good set, i wonder if something went wrong somewhere...

I wish it was not so bloody expensive here though, i would still get one.

Hopefully if this line continues next year we will see improvements

[Lipko]

Most MOCers have constrains too. Two pretty big one for example: time and parts.

Plus you don't get the point. I, for one, am not complaining about lack of functions. I'm complaining that one/more of the few functions have serious flaws. I would be more than happy with the features it has, if they would wortk. And even if an ambassador and the adult builders screwed up the building, that implies that the design is not very good. I wouldn't expect a better official model than MOCs, but I do expect a bloody reliable one.

Okay, sorry for the angry comments from me, I'll try to refrain from commenting again.

[Appie]

Not sure who you are talking to Lipko, but I am also interested what doesn't work properly on this set. I have made mistakes at times while following instructions as well, so I don't have an issue with that. But if everything is placed correct, axles running smooth and it still doesn't function properly I am starting to wonder. I had this with Kuipers' Predator, great model, but I spend an entire evening trying to get that vertical gearbox to run smooth. At one point I had it working ok (first gear and I think 5th or reverse were still a little hard instead of impossible). I put the model in that state on the shelf, pick it up a few months later and it's completely locked up again. So ya, if the Porsche has anything like that, it's a problem. I don't mind it as much on a MOC, but an official set shouldn't have such issues.

[nerdsforprez]

Most MOCers have constrains too. Two pretty big one for example: time and parts.

Plus you don't get the point. I, for one, am not complaining about lack of functions. I'm complaining that one/more of the few functions have serious flaws. I would be more than happy with the features it has, if they would wortk. And even if an ambassador and the adult builders screwed up the building, that implies that the design is not very good. I wouldn't expect a better official model than MOCs, but I do expect a bloody reliable one.

Okay, sorry for the angry comments from me, I'll try to refrain from commenting again.

Your comments are fine...... no problem. You hit on a very valid point. The first 90 pages or so dealt with a perceived lack of function. However, this new revelation that the gearbox might be faulty is new info. and a very valid point. I wasn't directing my comments to anyone in particular, just the community, or at least the most on here reading this thread. IMO the two issues above, the perceived lack of functioning and non-working gearbox are different. One is completely subjective, and much more geared towards my comments, and the other, the allegedly non-working gearbox (still allegedly at this point) is more objective (or at least we will see in the next couple of days. Some have commented that the initial whistle-blower, Anio, is a little harsh in his critiques, which if true, would make even this complaint subjective), and less geared towards my comments.

However, respectfully, I must say that the limitations for MOCers you pointed out are a little far-reaching; general, non-specific to LEGO building, and both are self-imposed. Time as a limit is non-specific to LEGO-building. This affects literally ever aspect of human existence. You might as well say both have limitations in hand dexterity. Time as a limitation is also self-imposed. Some MOCers take years on a project, other months. And no one is forcing an adult MOCer to produce.... so no time is NOT really the same restraint. A LEGO designer has time as a restraint b/c they are working for a daily paycheck. If they don't produce, they don't eat. Not really the same for MOCers..... UNLESS they are also building for money.

And the pieces argument i am not really buying. Is it a limitation? You bet. But the MOCs that are being used to compare the Porsche against are from builders that I don't suspect, in the least, where part availability is much of an issue. Plus, it it is non-specific to the MOCers. Lego designers also have part limitation believe it or not.

The limitations that I attribute to LEGO designers are specific to them. Buyer desires, market demands, trying to meet demands of mid-thirty engineers and 16 year old high school students that don't even have a HS education..... yes.... HUGE limitation.....

[franciscok]

Hi all,

Newbie question: is this porsche orange color the same from the Arctic truck 42038?

Thanks

[Didumos69]

I think the marketeer following this topic at TLG is having another coffee now...

[Paul Boratko]

Hi all,

Newbie question: is this porsche orange color the same from the Arctic truck 42038?

Thanks

Yes.

[franciscok]

Yes.

Thank you for the info Paul Boratko!

[brunojj1]

&BrunoJJ:

[...]

[...]

[...]

Yes, don´t be angry !

The following excerpt from http://blogbuzzter.de/2016/04/ein-porsche-911-gt3-rs-von-lego-technic/ will cause floating tears of joy (or sorrow?) in your eyes:

“A Porsche GT3 RS with all possible functions. The cylinders in the engine move and even the shift pedals at the steering wheel switch the 6 functioning gears. The part comes in a fancy box with booklet and all the trimmings. The Porsche kit costs 300 € which however is still cheaper by € 155,000 than the original.” (free translation)

Edited May 30, 2016 by brunojj1

[aol000xw]

My expectations and interest in this set have plummeted over the last few days. Waiting for reviews, but today I surprised myself thinking that I will probably pass on this.

As an early speculation I remember thinking it could have working brakes, but now I just see a fancy gearbox, invented by some MOCers a few years ago in an arguably nice bodywork.

That is not ultimate no matter how much cardboard you throw at it.

The good

Looks good

New wheels.

The bad

The price/part count ratio. Feels pretty ultimate.

A boxing experience that in my opinion falls short of that of the old sets like 8860. Not ultimate to me.

An hyped instructions book that sincerely don't think will be of any value to me. Again not ultimate to me.

A set lacking in functions and possibly some flawed ones? Nope, not ultimate.

In the end it is all about the price, I don't care if they call it ultimate or not.I look at what they are giving me and what are they asking for it. Exactly as anything else I can get with money. And for the reasons given above this doesn't add up.It if were cheaper perhaps I would not complain, If it were dirt cheap I would even think of it, It would be a great parts donor. Exactly like the BWE. It might be ugly and have a kinda weird implementation of its functions but it has great value, making it an amazing set.

The Porsche is pretty poor in value and does not feel ultimate at all.

[aol000xw]

Edit:

I want to develop about the boxing experience.. Some marketing people seem to think that black cardboard makes anything luxurious and that boxes inside boxes are the ultimate experience.

For me that is wrong

Old boxes where sturdy and highly reusable with nice PLASTIC inserts and a plastic cover like old IBM keyboards had. High value, highly reusable.

I wonder what value and usability have those boxes inside the big Porsche box, because I see zero value to them, just annoying boxes.

Some years ago I got from S@H some cardboard boxes with several layers of cardboard inserts in them.

If the Porsche box where of that kind I would gladly pay more than those 300€, because the box, becomes something really useful itself, not some useless boxes just because we call it ultimate.

[Didumos69]

[...]

[...]

+1nerdsforprez, you're putting exactly the right perspective and relativity to the 'ultimate'-discussion. Besides that, your sophisticated comments are a joy to read. Just as much as reading a good background article in the newspaper is.

Of course it helps that I share your POV

Edited May 30, 2016 by Didumos69

[jzlego]

Sorry if I am asking for information that nobody knows or is free to share yet, but do we think the gearbox issue is the type that Lego might address and fix down the road? Like a Wall-E neck situation where Lego fixed the issue with different parts? I'm not familiar enough with the gearbox issue speculation to know if my question is a sensible one or not.

I hear people talking about the gearbox issue and I'm curious. Does the gearbox issue affect whether you buy the set or not at all, or whether you buy it now versus later?

Also, is the review embargo over for Jim and Sariel as soon as the clock hits June 1st their time? I appreciate the amount of time put in to making the reviews, and it's not my intention to pester regarding them, I'm just curious. It'd be cool to see the reviews before going to bed or wake up and look at them before heading to the Lego store when it opens.

[nerdsforprez]

+1nerdsforprez, you're putting exactly the right perspective and relativity to the 'ultimate'-discussion. Besides that, your sophisticated comments are a joy to read. Just as much as reading a good background article in the newspaper is.

Of course it helps that I share your POV

Thanks for the comment.... I appreciate it.

[Saberwing40k]

Also, is the review embargo over for Jim and Sariel as soon as the clock hits June 1st their time? I appreciate the amount of time put in to making the reviews, and it's not my intention to pester regarding them, I'm just curious. It'd be cool to see the reviews before going to bed or wake up and look at them before heading to the Lego store when it opens.

I dunno about Jim, but Sariel thinks that as long as it's June 1st somewhere, it's legit. Generally, he posts reviews at 12:01 California time, since that is where Youtube servers are located.

[technic_addict]

So hopefully reviews will be available June 1st 00:01 Tonga time.

[Jim]

You can probably expect mine the 1st of June around 9:00 EST. Unless I see other reviews popping up tomorrow around 22:00 (which means it's already the 1st of June somewhere hehe).

[Edwin Korstanje]

I hope with a working gearbox and steering Jim

Edited May 30, 2016 by Edwin Korstanje

[MRP_]

You should just set your clock so that june 1st is now and you can tell lego that your clock said it was june 1st and oops well the review is up already oh well sorry