Porsche Pricing & Availability

[Blakbird]

I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. Fans, myself included, have been asking for a UCS-style Technic set for years and saying we'd be willing to pay a premium for it. We know the reason it hasn't existed in the past is because the market would probably be very limited due to the high price. Now LEGO is finally giving us what we asked for and everyone is complaining about the price. Of course it is expensive, it is a premium product offering. No one is being forced to buy it. One thing we can be sure of: if it doesn't sell because of the cost then they will never offer another UCS Technic set.

When the first UCS Star Destroyer (10030) came out, there were similar complaints. Who would pay so much for a model that you can't even play with? Obviously the answer is a lot of people!

[Appie]

Yes,my bad. I forgot the Euros sign. So, somehow, the price differential between the sets is a lot higher in Europe? In the U.S. 42043 costs $230, and costs the same in Europe, but the Porsche costs $300 in the U.S. ,but somehow costs $330, or 300 euro in Europe? That's odd, that the Porsche costs more in their home region, as Germany is a much larger Technic market than the U.S., and none fo the other sets cost much more in Europe.

The Netherlands get the Porsche for 330 euro

Not the first set where we pay alot more than our German neighbours. Or well expect us to pay more than our German friends, Lego seems to forget amazon.de has free shipping to the Netherlands and has sold flagships 10-20% below MSRP too:

Volvo wheel loader 42030: Netherlands MSRP 250 euro, Germany: 220

Tumbler: Netherlands MSRP 220 euro, Germany 200

Ghosterbusters HQ: Netherlands MSRP 400 euro, Germany 350

Adam West Batman set: Netherlands MSRP 290 euro, Germany 250

I think the incoming Hoth Star Wars set is also about 30 euros more in the Netherlands than in Germany. And Lego has alot of sets around 60 euro (basically all recent Lego Ideas sets) that cost 10 euro more in The Netherlands than in Germany. The 42050 is also 10 euro more here.

When you ask Lego about this, they say "we price towards the market in a country". So seems we are richer in The Netherlands than the average German? I refuse to take part in this nonsense though and won't be ordering this set from Lego itself then at its june release. So people who don't like a 300 euro pricetag, try ours at 330 euro, 10% more fun!

Edited April 27, 2016 by Appie

[zux]

Fans, myself included, have been asking for a UCS-style Technic set for years and saying we'd be willing to pay a premium for it.

It sure is beautiful and big with lots of parts. But is it UCS in terms of Technic? For non Technic sets the formula is correct "more parts=expert/USC set". Where Technic set expected to have technical Expert/USC stuff. That would lean more of us into paying asked price for such set.

[allanp]

I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. Fans, myself included, have been asking for a UCS-style Technic set for years and saying we'd be willing to pay a premium for it. We know the reason it hasn't existed in the past is because the market would probably be very limited due to the high price. Now LEGO is finally giving us what we asked for and everyone is complaining about the price. Of course it is expensive, it is a premium product offering. No one is being forced to buy it. One thing we can be sure of: if it doesn't sell because of the cost then they will never offer another UCS Technic set.

When the first UCS Star Destroyer (10030) came out, there were similar complaints. Who would pay so much for a model that you can't even play with? Obviously the answer is a lot of people!

This isn't what I asked for, except for the wheels that is. I like those. But maybe this isn't meant to be aimed at adult fans of Lego Technic. Maybe it's aimed at a more general consumer that like pretty looking things, like executives looking for a nice table top model or something, I dunno. I hope it sells well but I didn't ask for the same old unrealistic gearbox, weak diff, puny CVs, puny steering arms and so on and so on at a higher price just because it comes with a load of marketing stuff about porche in the manual. Yes it come with some new parts, but no more than any other flagship and the wheels and arches are the only ones of any real interest. Just calling something the ultimate does not make it the ultimate, at least not to me. But I hope the marketing works for the wider audience that it's likely aimed at and they make it sell well. Like I have said the designer obviously put a lot of effort into this, it's just not for me. No fuss being made that's just my opinion.

[Thirdwigg]

I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. Fans, myself included, have been asking for a UCS-style Technic set for years and saying we'd be willing to pay a premium for it. We know the reason it hasn't existed in the past is because the market would probably be very limited due to the high price. Now LEGO is finally giving us what we asked for and everyone is complaining about the price. Of course it is expensive, it is a premium product offering. No one is being forced to buy it. One thing we can be sure of: if it doesn't sell because of the cost then they will never offer another UCS Technic set.

When the first UCS Star Destroyer (10030) came out, there were similar complaints. Who would pay so much for a model that you can't even play with? Obviously the answer is a lot of people!

I'm with you. This is great, and I'll buy it, as will many other people.

[aol000xw]

I don't really understand what all the fuss is about. Fans, myself included, have been asking for a UCS-style Technic set for years and saying we'd be willing to pay a premium for it. We know the reason it hasn't existed in the past is because the market would probably be very limited due to the high price. Now LEGO is finally giving us what we asked for and everyone is complaining about the price. Of course it is expensive, it is a premium product offering. No one is being forced to buy it. One thing we can be sure of: if it doesn't sell because of the cost then they will never offer another UCS Technic set.

When the first UCS Star Destroyer (10030) came out, there were similar complaints. Who would pay so much for a model that you can't even play with? Obviously the answer is a lot of people!

I got the UCS Star Destroyer as soon as I saw it with no fuss at all. It felt Ultimate to me, got every SW UCS since the first Xwing, and love every one of those. It is not about money.

I love the Porsche, it looks amazing, and I have no problem on 300€+ sets but with this one I am not totally there. At first sight the Porsche looks incredible but when getting into the Technic side it starts lacking a bit. It is not about PF or RC, just smaller things would suffice.

We got the gear box (MOCers were the innovators on this), and a new part for that, and the wheels with better pivot point, but they went just half way with that, 8880 hubs with the ball gear still feel way way better. Same shocks as ever when we could get something like those hybrids people make combining a pneumatic cylinder with a spring. No new gears, no new diff, -let alone torsen- ,

They were very very close but I took my 8880 awesomeness ruler and while the Porsche is better in some aspects, it is equal or falls short in others. It just isn't ultimate enough,

It is in the right direction just a bit short on innovation or functions and too greedy on price. They are almost there but I think it is not this one. Still probably best Technic set ever. just does not feel like 300€ to me.

[Blakbird]

It sure is beautiful and big with lots of parts. But is it UCS in terms of Technic? For non Technic sets the formula is correct "more parts=expert/USC set". Where Technic set expected to have technical Expert/USC stuff. That would lean more of us into paying asked price for such set.

UCS is hard to define. For me it is not just about more parts but also about being incredibly realistic and usable as a display model. In that vein, I think this fits right in as a UCS set. Even from a functional standpoint, a sequential gearbox has never been done before in an official set and is a major new function. I expect that it will be much more reliable than most of the AFOL attempts.

This isn't what I asked for, except for the wheels that is. I like those. But maybe this isn't meant to be aimed at adult fans of Lego Technic. Maybe it's aimed at a more general consumer that like pretty looking things, like executives looking for a nice table top model or something, I dunno. I

I don't think we're ever going to get a set aimed just at us. There are simply not enough of us AFOLs to justify the development and production expense. So it makes total sense to me that it order to make a Technic UCS set viable, they had to aim also at "executives" since it is priced out of range for kids. Based on the Internet response so far, I would say they are succeeding.

[DrJB]

Have we been asking for (or expecting) something not 'realizable'? If I compare the various TLG supercars, the feature list has not increased, but new features tended to 'replace' older ones, and as the cars have remained essentially of the same size, the 'real-estate' to cram more functions might not be 'realizable'. We've seen many features, but they all compete for space. For example, the transmission on 8448/8466 vs. mechanically openable doors/hood/spoiler on 8070, or the adjustable height on the 4WD off-roader. It might very well be that the paddle-shift took most of the available space in the Porsche and there was no room to fit much else. Yes, Sheepo's land-rover has MANY features, but it's also a much bigger car.

Edited April 27, 2016 by DrJB

[__________________________]

Have we been asking for (or expecting) something not 'realizable'? If I compare the various TLG supercars, the feature list has not increased, but new features tended to 'replace' older ones, and as the cars have remained essentially of the same size, the 'real-estate' to cram more functions might not be 'realizable'. We've seen many features, but they all compete for space. For example, the transmission on 8448/8466 vs. mechanically openable doors/hood/spoiler on 8070, or the adjustable height on the 4WD off-roader. It might very well be that the paddle-shift took most of the available space in the Porsche and there was no room to fit much else. Yes, Sheepo's land-rover has MANY features, but it's also a much bigger car.

[allanp]

Have we been asking for (or expecting) something not 'realizable'? If I compare the various TLG supercars, the feature list has not increased, but new features tended to 'replace' older ones, and as the cars have remained essentially of the same size, the 'real-estate' to cram more functions might not be 'realizable'. We've seen many features, but they all compete for space. For example, the transmission on 8448/8466 vs. mechanically openable doors/hood/spoiler on 8070, or the adjustable height on the 4WD off-roader. It might very well be that the paddle-shift took most of the available space in the Porsche and there was no room to fit much else. Yes, Sheepo's land-rover has MANY features, but it's also a much bigger car.

In the case of a supercar there isn't really that many possible functions worth replicating in Lego as compared to a crane truck or a back hoe in particular. So I guess it has to be about improving whats already there. Look at the 8865 test car, It had a 3 speed gearbox where you had to slide axles and gears into place. Then came 8880 and improved upon that by adding a 4th gear and new dog gears to change speed and a H pattern shifter. 8865 had a V4 engine with square pistons, 8880 had a V8 with round pistons. It also added 4 wheel everything but that's not my point. So what we've been asking for is all very possible. I wouldn't say here on Eurobrick "Oh, they should makes engines that run on petrol, just like the real thing!" because I know that I myself could not design Lego compatible, kid safe, entirely plastic engine parts that could work on the actual combustion of petrol. I only suggest ideas that I myself could possibly make work and be viable in a commercial Lego set because if I can, I know the proffesionals at TLG deffinately can. Of course the real question is would it be financially benificial to TLG to do so. As much as I wish more authentic mechanical components would it make financial sense for TLG to produce them? Personally I think it would, the closer to reality and the feeling of owning the real thing, only smaller, the better and more appealing not only to us but to kids as well right? But I am no expert. That's up to TLG to decide.

[BrickMonkeyMOCs]

I don't really understand what all the fuss is about.

This: NZ$600 / EUR 360

Now LEGO is finally giving us what we asked for...

Have people really been asking for premium packaging with instruction books weighing as much as the model, and premium features like 'authentic' stickers and a handbag?

[suffocation]

For what it's worth, I managed to nail an Arocs from amazon.de for under €140. Got another one from an online Swiss shop for around CHF140, which is even less. Lucky buys, sure, but if you bide your time and keep your eyes peeled it's likely you can get your hands on the Porsche for around €200.

[DrJB]

Seriously, what's the deal with 'authentic' stickers? ANd what does 'authentic' really mean, in this context? Does 'authentic' refer to the complex/intricate Porsche logo? I agree that the Mercedes logo was much easier.

[OneMoreRobot]

$499 in Australia - Bargain NOT

With an exchange rate of $US / $A 1.3 $US299 should equal $A395 - bit of PRICE GOUGING going on eh TLG?

Contemptible! reason enough to not purchase in protest.

Edited April 28, 2016 by OneMoreRobot

[Nalyd997]

$499 in Australia - Bargain NOT

I reckon I'll be making a poor man's version out of my own parts then

[LennyAbear]

I bought set 8448 used on ebay for .13 per piece so I figure .11 a piece for 42056 isn't so bad. The set looks awesome and I don't want to miss out on it like I missed out on 41999.

I'd really like to own 41999 but reseller prices are too high. It originally sold for 12.6 a piece and is now being resold at approximately .22 a piece. I already own 9398 so it's hard to justify paying .22 a piece for just the blue body.

[Beard]

350 Eur in Lego shop for Finland.

[andythenorth]

Eh? Can someone explain per-piece-pricing (PPP) to me? I'm a bit slow on the uptake sometimes

Most of those referencing PPP seem like very grounded numerically-oriented people, with solid rational concerns. So I assume there's a standard formula for normalising PPP, accounting for at least:

- size and weight of part

- complexity of part to produce

- construction utility of part (e.g. how many ways it can be connected, or special qualities such as rigidity or specific movement)

- play value of part

- emotional appeal of part

- re-usability of part in wide range of MOCs (e.g. digger buckets have low re-usability)

- resale value of part in secondary markets, including stock-turn rate to account for cost of capital tied up in inventory

- depreciation rate of part

For a rational discussion of the value of a Lego set using fundamental economic criteria, I think these factors are minimum requirements.

[aol000xw]

- size and weight of part

- complexity of part to produce

Since we ere dealing with thousand of parts we can average and check our value against the hundreds of sets for consistency.

- construction utility of part (e.g. how many ways it can be connected, or special qualities such as rigidity or specific movement)

- play value of part

- emotional appeal of part

- re-usability of part in wide range of MOCs (e.g. digger buckets have low re-usability)

- resale value of part in secondary markets, including stock-turn rate to account for cost of capital tied up in inventory

- depreciation rate of part

All of this either is derived from size/weight/complexity or isn't relevant for fabrication cost hence not affecting price.

And you missed a key factor: production volume, how many times the part will be produced. And again that can be averaged. Of course there will be deviations but those can be accounted for too.

Pretty funny the "emotional appeal of part" as a cost factor.

Edited April 28, 2016 by aol000xw

[Andy D]

In rereading nerdzforprez's original post... His point (I believe) is that the PPP on the 42056 is not out of line with other sets. I believe that the difficulty most people are having is the "shelf" price. Many of us are accustomed to paying $150 to maybe at the top, $200 and a set price of $300 is double that of many sets. I think the most expensive single set I bought last year was $150, but I bought 2 of it. So $300 for 1 set is about the same for me. But many people have a more strict budget,they may not buy 2 of a $150 set, so $300 is expensive and because they may want the set quite disappointing.

Look at the Star Wars sets... How many people collect Star Wars, they probably wanted the Death Star, but it was just too costly for their LEGO budget.

I think the 42056 is the "Death Star" of Technic (so to speak) and all who want it will not be able to get it.

Just MHO, YMMV

Andy D

Edited April 28, 2016 by Andy D

[Gnac]

Pretty funny the "emotional appeal of part" as a cost factor.

Imagine if this thing had a load of red #3 connectors and toggle joints lurking inside!

[Emmi]

I can get the Porsche for €240 in August from my personal brick specialist ... that's a great deal, isn't it?

July - Creator Expert 10253 Big Ben

August - Creator Expert 10252 Volkswagen Beetle

August - Technic 42056 Porsche 911 GT3 RS

That's it for my 2016 LEGO budget I always choose the sets I buy wisely, in my opinion these are the best sets of 2016.

[allanp]

PPP is only a very rough guide to me. I'de rather spend 300 Euro on 2000 parts that I want than spend 300 Euro on 3000 parts that I don't want or already have a bagillion of. That statement may or may not be directly related top the porsche, but it just illustrates that PPP isn't that useful of a refrence overall, only a very rough guide with a wide margine or a starting point.

Edited April 28, 2016 by allanp

[aol000xw]

My concern isn't about price, but cost.

Do you guys honestly believe that the Porsche is 50% more expensive for TLC to produce than an Arocs?

Don't think so.

[dr_spock]

Best PPP would be a well packed Pick A Brick cup from the PAB wall of the pieces you wanted.

Without details of the amount of effort LEGO put into the development of the GT3 and how much Porsche charges for the license versus a regular non-licensed set of similar size and function, it would be hard to determine the difference in production cost.