42056 one year (and a bit) later

[allanp]

So guys, I thought I would start this topic to gauge your opinions on this set now that it has been out for a while. I think it is necessary because I feel that when it was first revealed we may have placed unfairly high expectations on the set, and so when it was released there were quite a few voices of disappointment. But now it's been out a while and those expectations are no longer there, maybe there is a more objective view?

But first, a brief history lesson as to why I think expectation were so high, from what can tell .

42056 was the first "UCS" Technic set aimed squarely at the AFOL, or was it? To me, that title actually goes to 8110 Unimog. It's a big, ugly looking thing that focuses mainly on all the things that Technic is supposed to be about, challenging building and mechanical authenticity, and to achieve this goal they released a whole host of new parts. The portal hubs, the torque tubes, the new pneumatic pump and connector pieces, the wheels and many new parts in orange as well as having pneumatics which at that time was very rare in a Technic set. It was the first truck to combine live axle suspension, 4 wheel drive and motorized pneumatics in a single model, the first Technic set to cross the 2000 piece barrier and the first set to have portal axles and PTOs and PPTOs, which required the use of many new parts to achieve. It feels to me like this was the first test to see if a technic set aimed squarely at AFOLs could be profitable. I can't say if it was the major success that they hoped, but it does have a lot of love and admiration from the AFOL community, was that enough to make it a financial success?

Following from that came it's spiritual successor Arocs, a massively authentic set filled with functionality and the necessary, good kind of complexity that comes with it (as opposed to just having complexity for complixitys sake, the bad kind which just leads to unreliability), as well as many new parts to achieve those dizzying heights of authenticity. A fully suspended live axle truck with 12 wheels on 4 axles, inline 6 engine, new stronger turntable and many new pneumatic parts to bring authenticity and finally some real lifting power to it's large crane. Even the telescopic boom section was powered by a pressurized fluid (air is a fluid!) contained within a cylinder, just like the real thing, and require 3 new parts to pull off as authentically. Authentic enough to make a child feel like he/she owns a real Mercedes arocs, only smaller, and with many new parts to make it all possible, it was even better than the Unimog, the best Technic set ever!

And now, finally we come to the GT3 RS. The first pictures from the toy fair reveal a gorgeous black supercar, better looking than any MOC, better than thought possible out of Technic pieces, bringing back memories of seeing 8880 for the first time, with new parts previously unavailable to MOCcers to pull of it's beauty. With the age range printed on the box, now we are in adult only territory! We could see what looks like brake calipers behind the new deep wheels hubs. But nothing is said about it, no functions are revealed to us. It was shrouded in lots of secrecy, I loved that! However, of course this lead to lots of speculation. We can see they are bringing out new parts for this set, the new wheels, new wheels arches, new panels, what new goodies must lie waiting inside to bring us new levels of mechanical authenticity like the unimog and the arocs before it? New gearbox parts to finally replace the system first released with 8880 released 22 years before it? Maybe a new differential with a realistic gear ratio and layout? Steering arms with authentic geometry? Do those brakes actually work? It seems to have a rather high price tag, but hey, new parts need new molds and that costs money, so there must be loads of new parts right? And so it'll be worth it the cost, right?

And then came the release of more info and finally the release of the set, and the subsequent disappointment at finding out that no, there are no new parts to be found on the inside that opens up new possibilities for mechanical authenticity. Oh no wait, I tell a lie, there was one new part. It was a slight variation of an already existing part that allows driving rings to be shifted without much force, and that's it. The entirely unrealistic basic gearbox layout with 4 equally sized clutch gears in 2 side by side pairs making the 4 corners of a square is still the same as it was 22 years ago (but this time in the wrong order). The differential is still massively incorrect as well as the steering geometry. It would seem then that the new parts where for improvements that were only skin deep. And that high price tag? No, not for new parts, but for a snazzy hand packed box which didn't even have a flip up lid and a rather large book for instructions with lots of nice glossy pictures of the real car. It's a nice touch, but did anyone ask for any of that? Not that I can tell. Would it have been preferred if the revenue from a set of this price tag be spent on new functional parts instead? And maybe on a style of packaging that was a throw back to the 90's sets most AFOLs grew up with, with the flip up lid which allows you to see all the parts inside a nice tray, with all the new special parts in there own separate display tray? Heck yeah!

Ok, so there was much to be disappointed about at the time of it's release. But, is that the set's fault, is it TLGs fault, or was it ours for having those lofty expectations? Could a set actually reach those expectations? Of course it could! But the fact that this set didn't surely wasn't the fault of the designer. Afterall, despite the hideous bright orange colour it still looks gorgeous. And it does have a new function for any official Technic set which was the flappy paddle gearbox, though it was less of a flappy paddle what could be moved via your finger tips and more of a pair of bloody great big levers no scale human would be able to move! But then I think back to building other sequential gearboxes from various other talented MOCcers and if I'm totally honest, non of them are any more reliable than what was found in 42056. Maybe there are others out there that are better, but the solution found in the GT3 RS still deserves respect. You also have to remember that unlike a design made by a fan, an official design from TLG has to work out the box without any tinkering or modification. It is mechanically inauthentic to be sure, but it's not as mechanically inauthentic as many other cars released from TLG. And in terms of the main function of a supercar, they have actually nailed it very authentically. If the main function of a supercar was to go fast round a track, then it would NOT look like a Porsche and have it's engine dangling out the back behind the rear axle. No, the main function of a GT3 RS is to be a thing of beauty, an object to be desired. You see it, you want it, even though you can't fully explain why, you just do. It does this by looking like it does. Similarly the Lego version does the exact same thing. And it does it in the exact same way as the real thing, by looking like it does. So while the mechanics maybe inauthentic, if the main function of a supercar is to be a thing that you want to buy for reasons you can't fully explain or justify, then the Lego version authentically recreates the main function of the real life GT3 RS. Of course, that only works for Supercars. You could not apply the same excuse for not being mechanically authentic to anything else and as good as it is, I can't help but think how much better it would be at being an object of desire if it was also as mechanically authentic as I hoped it would be. 

So, even with the benefit of 3 years design time and the revenue from a slightly inflated price, it didn't meet the lofty expectations of many of us here. This of course may lead to some not liking the set at all, but this I think is unfair. It didn't meet the expectations of many but that does not mean it is a bad set. For the reasons listed above I'de say it's a very good set and for those who were disappointed the first time round, now that your expectations have been altered maybe you should give it a second look and see the set for the good it actually is, and not for the good we would want it to be. And who knows, maybe the next one in the line will be more in line with the initial expectations many had for this set. I can only hope so, but for now rest assured there will be another, the GT3 RS sold very VERY well  

[Aventador2004]

I would probably reply, if I had it, that it is exactly as you described it. It checks every box that was needed (almost) and looks great in person. So in theory, it is perfect, but my opinion will change when I get one. That's about all I have to say, but still, it was overhyped from the start, and not enough new parts to justify the price for me. And I noticed a lot of people refer to the wheel hubs as "porsche wheel hubs", but in theory, they are "claas wheel hubs". This is a common misconception, when they are labeled wrongly IMO. So many rants to made, so little time...

[allanp]

Ah, sorry, by hubs I meant the actual wheel rims. Silly me 

[Lakop]

I look forward to reading what those who own the set have to say. I never bought the set as I could not justify the spend. I'm working on a non lego project and had I acheived a milestone then maybe I would have not payed the energy bill and bought 42056. Also there were some family issues going on, 2016 was a tough year. I never had any expectations of the set, I never do. I expect what I see on the box and read about on this forum but mainly I think of what I can do with the extra parts.

The body work and wheels would be new parts to me. If i'd had the money easily to spare I would have had it because its lego and I love lego.

H

[Meatman]

All of those years in development and they couldn't solve 2 highly critical flaws in the model. 1.) A gearbox that shifts in order and 2.) The same suspension set up as in the 42039 that isn't even strong enough to support the weight of the car.

Seriously, why would TLC talk up how great the chassis is when it has these serious flaws? They bragged about the gearbox as if it was so revolutionary and it didn't even shift in the proper sequence. Can you imagine one of the more well known AFOL car builders doing something like this and not getting criticized for it? After Lego released their lame excuse about why the model shifted out of order, there were actually people defending them. You pay $300 for a "USC Technic" model for basically one function, and that function doesn't even function properly.

When I built the 42056, I really enjoyed the build, but now looking back at the model a year later with all of the problems that it has, it doesn't seem as special anymore.

[BusterHaus]

This set is a milestone, but not in a way that a UCS is meant to be. Instead of being a highly sought-after collector's piece, it brings to the table some new parts that, one of which advanced MOCs by a huge leap.

The 3x13 curved panels and the wheel arches are a nice addition despite their color limitations, and the Porsche rims offer very good geometry because of their deep offset. 

However, the best part in the entire set is 26287: 

Without this part, new designs for sequential transmissions would not have been possible. It moved Technic sequential gearboxes from giant, complicated devices to compact, smooth units like the one in the Rugged Supercar by @Didumos69. 

This set have us some very good parts, even if its execution wasn't top notch. 

Edited July 5, 2017 by BusterHaus
Grammar.

[Jurss]

I still don't own this set, but I'm still considering to buy it, because it is that thing, that You just want it, and don't know exactly why.

And if we look at this topic, with 30 pages

then maybe it is win form Lego side, because we had so much to talk about, so much to improve. It wont be interesting for us AFOL, that we build set, and couldn't find anything to improve. It would be just another set then.

And in this topic we talking again about it, so ...

[Saberwing40k]

I think Lego actually hyped up the set way too much, and to an audience that would know better. It looks nice, but I saw one in person, and I couldn't help but be underwhelmed. It looks nice, and that's about it. Also, @allanp, the gearbox is not that much different than one a fan would design, because in spite of it being in a set, it still needed modification to work properly. And, 42056 could have easily had more functions. But, at least in the case of rear wheel steering, Porsche nixed it, for some reason known only to their moronic lawyers and marketers. Then, the suspension is primitive and inaccurate, and you spend most of the build on bodywork. If Porsche had wanted a good looking model car, they should have just made it out of standard bricks. Technic is supposed to be about making a model that looks AND functions like the real thing, and Lego should have stuck to their guns with that. I just hope that 42056 does not set a precedent of sets that look good, but are overpriced and light on functions. In the end, I think the expectations weren't too high, because Lego encouraged that, and then there was hype backlash.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Saberwing40k

[Didumos69]

I have no real sentiment towards how 42056 compares to game-changers like the Unimog and the Arocs. But that is mainly because I was still in my dark ages when those sets came out. For me the main reason to buy 42056 was the fact that reviews made clear there were some flaws. My fingers were itching to try for my self and I have had lot of fun modding and improving the Porsche.

Now that my ultimately playable Porsche is sitting on a shelf for a year (partly disassembled) I have lost my interest for the model almost completely. While building my own rugged super car, I have actually come to dislike the Porsche, if not hate it. Even though I made the body removable, it remains to be such a hassle that I rather don't. And what I really don't like is the vulnerability of the whole thing, especially the body. If you want to carry the model you have to lift it very carefully to avoid displacement of parts. You can't lift it by the front bumper, you can't lift it by the sides, etc.

When I think of LEGO Technic, I want to see models that show how things work. I want to be able to operate a model without being concerned that I might detach some bodywork parts. To me 42056 is the climax of a trend I dislike in general: a trend in which smooth paneling overshadows reliable Technic functions. 42056 symboIizes a direction we shouldn't want to go. I hope the disappointment around 42056 will turn the tide and bring us all back to what LEGO Technic is actually about.

Btw, I would also like to get rid of the prefix Porsche in my nickname.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Didumos69

[Paknaloid]

.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Paknaloid

[Aventador2004]

17 hours ago, allanp said:

Ah, sorry, by hubs I meant the actual wheel rims. Silly me 

I also had seen it in other places, described as such. Great unbiased review.

[Appie]

It's funny you should start this topic "a year later", because I have been reading the MOD topic and Didumos' topic since day one back in june 2016, but I didn't start building my Porsche that I bought back in november until 2 months ago. At which point I tried to build the model as per instructions and leave the mods "for now". "It couldn't be that bad" I thought. Boy, was I wrong!

Porsche is not my favorite car brand by a mile, so it being "a thing of beauty" was never going to be its selling point for me. Back in june 2016 I didn't mind it lacked functions that pushed the enveloppe. Like @allanp I can appreciate the paddle gearbox for its design, but that is only with Didumos' mod of the 90 degree limiter to make it completely reliable. And there's the reason why even a year later I still don't like the model as it was released. There is not one function in the model that is not flawed out of the box.

- The pinjoiner in step 5 is beyond retarded, period. This takes 5 seconds to see in a testing enviroment (as in: make a mockup of the 5 parts involved)

- 4x reverse, takes 2 parts to fix this. TWO! How did Lego not do this?!

- The 24T clucth gear in the gearbox and the reversed second and third gear are such a lazy solution to a far deeper problem: too much friction in the drivetrain. Those 2 very serious flaws were such a clear sign to me that this model was rushed to release. Neither of those solutions have any place in a proper functional gearbox.

Like the founder of Lego, I expect quality from Lego, this means that when you (Lego) actually implement functions, they work or you do not implement them! Another way to go would have been to tune them and delay the release until they do work! The retarded friction in the gearbox is a major issue, that again was tackled by Didumos. And what I hope Lego or rather the designer finds truly insulting is that not only did Didumos fix these 2 major issues in his free time, he did this in 1-2 weeks after he got the set! This is a set that the designer worked on for 2 years. 24 months! 104 weeks! And I can only assume a handful of people even testbuilded it during this timeperiod vs 1 guy with 2 weeks of free time after work.

However, once I finished building the set, I did notice I got a little appreciation for the model, but only because I applied the crucial mods to make it actually work like it should. The paddle gearbox is very reliable now and the gearbox drivetrain has that sweet happy Lego rattle.  I can forgive it not having keyfeatures that define the real life model like the rearwheel countersteering and crabsteering*, but what I can't forgive is functions that were in the final model and don't work.

 

*I will never believe Porsche blocked the rearwheel steering function unless I see the actual prototype that had it or an actual Lego employee that was close enough to the model and not biased to say that it did. The reason I will never believe there's a prototype with this function is because then it would boggle my mind how you can think of implementing a new function when none of the existing ones work!

Edited July 5, 2017 by Appie

[allanp]

I really do dislike the amount of friction that exists in Legos gearboxes. They all suffer from it and I have had to redesign things to make them work freely, but it also made them weaker. Take the 5 speed + R design below for instance:

 

It is very strong with all the gears being properly spaced to avoid teeth skipping (unlike 8448s 5+R gearbox), and it's fairly simple to build a surrounding frame/structure for it as all the axles fit into regular positions without the need for any 1/2 stud offsets (again, unlike 8448s gearbox) and the gear ratios are also more evenly spaced that 8448s gearbox. But there is a major issue with it which makes it useless for any NON motorized model like 8448 and that is the internal friction. Even if the surrounding structure is build solidly and totally rigid, there is still way too much friction, so much so that in first gear only, and in one direction of rotation only, it completely locks up solid! Being restricted to only having 16t clutch gears means that I have come across the issue many times and have had to make compromises, like it seems TLG had to do with the Porsche and that sucks. Not to mention the fact that a gearbox that has only one size of clutch gear will always be totally unrealistic and completely non intuitive for kids to understand. So whilst I can admire and appreciate the fact that the set can be modded and fixed (it's more like papering over the cracks), you can never fix the core problem of having these completely unrealistic and problematic gearboxes. For comparison, a real Porsche gearbox:

Notice the two parallel shafts with various gears is basically all the gearbox is, simple, easy, efficient, intuitive, reliable and better in every way. You'll also note the rotary cam shaft used to shift gears. No chance of having 2 gears engaged at once there. Yes, it would be expensive to develop the new parts needed to make this happen, but then the Porsche is an expensive set and Lego produces new molds for other sets all the time which never sold half as many as the Porsche, and as this is how all gearboxes are in real life vehicles (minus the sequential shifting part) i'm sure these parts would be used for the next 20 odd years improving future sets. 

[Appie]

There's a difference between the problems of inefficient Lego gearboxes due to only having 16T clutches and/or rigidity that can exist in any gearbox and then there's the flaw of the Porsche gearbox where axles aren't seperated for the 16T red clutch gears where they absolutely should. This is the major problem in the gearbox of the Porsche and was discovered by Didumos. So your entire reply does not apply to this case. Like I said, the gearbox now has that sweet happy Lego rattle. That means they sit in place well and have a minimal amount of friction. So no, the comment still stands imo, the gearbox is flawed, even for Lego standards.

[Didumos69]

Indeed. The friction problem does not occur when the red clutch gears are only used as idler gears and not as gears that transfer drive while attached to an axle rotating at different speed. After separating some axles, as mentioned by @Appie, the gearbox friction is eliminated.

[allanp]

Your modifications certainly helped to eliminate most of the friction, but compared to the real thing and due to only having one size of clutch gear, its still overly complicated and non intuative and unrealistic. Thats not your fault of course, its the current parts pallet available that forces it to be this way. And in the case of the 5+r posted above you have no choice but to transfer power through what should be redundant idlers unless you redesign it to make it even more needlessly complicated, or in the case of 8448 weaker, and in any case more unrealistic.

[Didumos69]

2 hours ago, allanp said:

Your modifications certainly helped to eliminate most of the friction, but compared to the real thing and due to only having one size of clutch gear, its still overly complicated and non intuative and unrealistic. Thats not your fault of course, its the current parts pallet available that forces it to be this way. And in the case of the 5+r posted above you have no choice but to transfer power through what should be redundant idlers unless you redesign it to make it even more needlessly complicated, or in the case of 8448 weaker, and in any case more unrealistic.

You are right about the limitations of the parts of course and I agree it would have been nice if the Porsche had come with better parts, like for instance differently sized clutch gears.

After my conclusions on how to use the existing clutch gears and how not, I did manage to make a much less complicated, fairly compact, smooth running, sequential 4-speed gearbox for my rugged supercar.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Didumos69

[Kumbbl]

19 hours ago, Didumos69 said:

And what I really don't like is the vulnerability of the whole thing, especially the body. If you want to carry the model you have to lift it very carefully to avoid displacement of parts. You can't lift it by the front bumper, you can't lift it by the sides, etc

This is of course a valid viewpoint but nevertheless it is not fair - the Porsche panneling is not only very fluid and elegant and resembles the real model very well but it is also done very robust - well, there are some very nice paneled MOCs out there, pure aesthetically even better than the 42056 but some parts are mounted so flimsy that a too sharp glance is enough to let the parts fall off....  the porsche is the contrary: all panels are mounted very well and robust - and be honest: you can not expect to handle a  "panel model" in the same way as your rugged "beamed" supercar - both are complete different building styles - the Porsche looks way better (this means not that i do not like your rugged car - in contrary: i like it a lot!) but can not be handelt from each corner and you can  not throw it at a wall without loosing one part - your rugged thingy has much less fluid looks but can be used as a weapon to bash and stroke your enemies ;-)

So IMHO the Porsche is - and here i completely agree with Appie - way to flawy out of the box but it really looks gorgeous and it is build very solid.... but if you build it after the BI of @jb70 "Pimp up my Porsche" MOD/MOC (based heavily onto @Didumos69incredible valuable errata work and some of his ulimate playablae Porsche) then you get one of the best supercars out there:

- really gorgeous look - do not know any really better looking supercar MOC out there - but of course this is a matter of taste

- it performs very well in all the essential features a supercar must have: 100% reliable seq. gearbox, well done suspension, well done steering geometry (both nothing to write home but well done)...

If you even MOD this base package with a nifty gear-indicator, a realistic reverse-gear-behavior and openable doors you get IMHO a supercar which has been beaten until now only by very very few supercar MOCs (if i judge strictly and severly then IMHO only by the cars of N. Kuipers and - maybe - Jeroens Aston Martin (but  have not build this one)  - well, the Scorpion of Paul is on paar but nothing more) - and this even more valid if you take also into account the robustness of the building style...

and @allanp and concerning new parts: it has ONE really invaluable new part: the red frictionless 3L axle connector - without this new part you wouldn't be able to design your well done gearbox of your rugged supercar - let us be honest: all(!) sequential gearboxes designed by MOCers out there BEFORE this new part arises, are not really reliable (they simply couldn't) - first with this part now there is a glut of seq. gearbox designs which are really reliable with reasonable sizes (ie. do not occupy 3/4 of the whole car ;-): Yours, Pauls, and some more...

To make a long story short: the retail Porsche is technically a mediocre and faulty disappointment (and this is IMHO inexcusable, not only for a 300€ model but in general for a brand like Lego) and therefore it is too expensive but it can be easily (see @jb70package metnioned above) turned in a really great supercar which has not to shy away from comparisons with the best supercar MOCs out there. I have no regrets to my purchase...but we can not blame TLG not including features like AWS or ajustable suspension because we do not know there agenda and priorities for the model - i think allanp has brought a very solid point to the table: probably TLG mainly wanted to bring a gorgeous looking high end brand like Porsche to the technic table and they called it UCS cause of all the stuff around the technic core: the noble packaging and book, the glossy pics in the book and of course also the building process which is like with the real manufactoring of the GT3... would they have applied better quality assurance and would they have designed the models core-features (mainly gearbox and front suspension) to a well and reliable working end then i would say: well done TLG and Porsche, you reached all your goals!

But one thing is clear: It is not a game changer as the good old 8880 was at its time....

Edited July 6, 2017 by Kumbbl

[nerdsforprez]

I bought the Porsche, did the recommendations by @Didumos69 and others, and made some of my own internal lighting:

  I enjoyed the process and learned alot.  As I approach the year mark anniversary of this model, my own modifications and also those of others, the problems in the set and my reactions to them can be summarized in two points:

 

Type 1 Problems : Type one problems are those adequately pointed out by @Appie.  Simply put: functions that were incorporated in the model that did not work.  These problems are not specific to a Technic Model, or any toy for that matter.  If a Lego SW X-wing model promises that it has deploying S-Foils, then darn it, they should deploy with relative ease.  If any toy purports some function - it should work.  The fact that Technic is a sub-genre of a toy that boasts technical functions (and a "UCS" set at that) and the relative ease it was fixed by AFOLs only clarifies with increasing transparency that the allegations of the set being rushed to production are very likely true.   This is very unfortunate and hard to give TLG a "pass" on. 

Type 2 problems: Part of my real-life job is to treat multiple parties with conflicting points of view as unbiased as possible, and trust me, it is not easy.  I have to work really hard in trying to be unbiased myself, and to treat differing cases as fair and balanced as possible. It is in this spirit that I introduce type 2 problems with the set. These problems are more like a wish list for AFOLs that they wanted to see in the set but were not there.  Rear steering, better front steering, more accurate suspension, more new pieces, etc. These problems I try and view with a little more objectivity.  I know that we all want to think that we AFOLs are the primary demographic that TLG targets when releasing a set such as 42056, but in reality, I am not sure we have information to support this.  In fact, I strongly suspect we are not.  This was discussed in the original 30 page post.  Most are not as technically sophisticated as those on this forum, and don't know the nuances of what are debated and complained about regarding the set.  They bought the set because of looks and it carrying the Porsche label and still desire a degree of simplicity.   Therefore, if we are not the primary demographic that was targeted when the set was created, then I think the complaints are a little myopic and ego-centric.  How can we gripe about an entity that was created with us as only an afterthought?  How can I, as a thirty-something old fart,  complain about an author who writes a novel targeted for people in their late teens to early twenties; stating that the novel was only created for the "immature" or  "young-minded"?  (which, is an actual book critique I read emulating that exact scenario).  Some may argue that TLG deserves the critique because they were targeting the technical uber-knowledgeable because they slapped the "UCS" label on the set.    Again, not sure that is the case.  Think in terms of basic business 101.  they slapped the label on it to enhance sales that is all.  "UCS" is still an umbrella term meant to cast a wide net.  Do UCS SW sets only catch the uber-loyal and knowledgeable SW fans?  Of course not.  They certainly are in that mix of consumers but I doubt they even make the primary demographic.  They are included but so are, and likely out-numberingly so, those recently finding themselves back to the Lego fold, middle-age men and women finally finishing school looking to brain-dump on some super cool project that injects them with nostalgia, fathers with kids who take the visual bait, etc..... Again, TLG's goal, even with a "UCS" label, is to cast a wide net that will enhance sales.  We AFOLs are a restricted bunch.  And this is a lesson that we all likely know very well from studying super or hyper-car history;  and that is if a company is trying to build a car for a very select bunch of folks, then they better produce them in very limited quantities, because they are likely already loosing money on the build.  Sometimes I think AFOLs want TLG to approach set production like  Pagani does one of their cars.  Which is completely unrealistic for the simple reason that super-uber projects like that usually lose money (at least in terms of basic sales) for the company, not make it.  This is something that must be kept in mind when evaluating the set.  And by doing so, we shift the metric of whether the set was successful or not from our own wishes and desires to the only metric that TLG really cares about, and that is if it sold or not.  A metric that we will never have, but it is a viewpoint that I think can really help us view the set with more balance and not becoming so enmeshed between what the set offered and what we wanted to see in or from it. 

 

 

[Kumbbl]

Well spoken nerdsforprez, i fully agree!

[therealjustin]

It should be the perfect set for someone like myself who is a petrol head, a Porsche fan, and a Technic builder and yet I don't own the set either  I want one though and it looks great on the shelf, but at $300US plus tax and any parts I'll likely need to mod it makes me think twice about buying it. It's funny but at $250 I would probably already have it by now.

 

There is of course the distinct lack of anything truly groundbreaking on the model as well. No four-wheel steering and a clunky and poor attempt at a PDK are not that appealing when many great MOC's(and even my modded 8070) have proper functioning gearboxes. Incorrect steering geometry too. Oh, and stickers. Those things shouldn't be on ANY set over $100.

[Didumos69]

12 hours ago, Kumbbl said:

This is of course a valid viewpoint but nevertheless it is not fair - the Porsche panneling is not only very fluid and elegant and resembles the real model very well but it is also done very robust - well, there are some very nice paneled MOCs out there, pure aesthetically even better than the 42056 but some parts are mounted so flimsy that a too sharp glance is enough to let the parts fall off....  the porsche is the contrary: all panels are mounted very well and robust - and be honest: you can not expect to handle a  "panel model" in the same way as your rugged "beamed" supercar - both are complete different building styles - the Porsche looks way better (this means not that i do not like your rugged car - in contrary: i like it a lot!) but can not be handelt from each corner and you can  not throw it at a wall without loosing one part - your rugged thingy has much less fluid looks but can be used as a weapon to bash and stroke your enemies ;-)

Maybe I was a bit harsh. I certainly wasn't being unbiased as opposed to @nerdsforprez's well-spoken elaboration. You are right that I cannot expect every model to be treated as my rugged super car. It's just that during building my rugged super car, I rediscovered what Technic is really about, to me, which is: seeing and feeling how things work. For instance, when you incorporate Ackermann steering in a model, you can really see and feel what happens when you push that model through turns. So even though the Porsche panneling looks good and is less flimsy than some MOCs out there, it just isn't my taste. But this is personal of course.

Despite not being a fan of the Porsche, I'm in no way disappointed in, or angry at TLG. Without the Porsche I would not have developed the 90 degree limiter, nor would I have gained insight in the side-effects of using clutch gears. I would not have arrived at my 90 degree stepper and not at my sequential gearbox, which was the base for my rugged super car. 42056 has given me the greatest Technic learning experience so far .

Edited July 6, 2017 by Didumos69

[Kumbbl]

11 minutes ago, Didumos69 said:

Maybe I was a bit harsh. I certainly wasn't being unbiased as opposed to @nerdsforprez's well-spoken elaboration. You are right that I cannot expect every model to be treated as my rugged super car. It's just that during building my rugged super car I rediscovered what Technic is really about, to me, which is: seeing and feeling how things work. For instance, when you incorporate Ackermann steering in a model, you can really see and feel what happens when you push that model through turns. So even though the Porsche panneling looks good and is less flimsy than some MOCs out there, it just isn't my taste. But this is personal of course.

Please feel not offended by me because this was in no way my intention! i completely see your point and concerning "seeing and feeling how things work" i completely agree with you - but here we come very fast into a real dilemma if we want at the same time real looking and therefore panneled car-bodies.... therefore i'm really a fan of the removeable body approach - BTW: especially with the latest revision of @jb70 s package (where even the seats are only mounted onto the body) the removing is done within seconds, max 1 minute: just pull out 11 red pins with bush and the HoG-gear (same vice versa) - and thanks to your work enhancing the rigidity of the chassis, the chassis alone runs very smoothly without bending... and then all bells and whistles can be viewed well... and let us be honest: the pure Porsche chassis stand very well into the tradition of good old 853, 8860.... ;-)

but of course there are different building styles out there and often it is just a matter of personal taste, agreed...

But especially the Porsche 42056 needs a differentiated judgement - it neither deserves praising into heaven nor it deserves to damn it into hell - the truth is somewhere in between - as often in all aspects of life ;-)

Edited July 6, 2017 by Kumbbl

[Didumos69]

1 minute ago, Kumbbl said:

Please feel not offended by me because this was in no way my intention!

Don't worry, I don't feel offended at all .

[Jurss]

On 7/5/2017 at 8:00 AM, Jurss said:

I still don't own this set, but I'm still considering to buy it, because it is that thing, that You just want it, and don't know exactly why.

I bought it some 2 months ago. Opened just on Christmas. Now it is already disassembled ...

I opened box still exited, also red all text in the instruction manual. I built it by original instruction. My plan was to build original one, then proceed with modifications from relevant topic in forum. When building it, there was no exiting moments about engineering level etc., as they were at building Arocs, Class, Volvo loader. I recently built le mans racer, it was also pretty interesting. After building Porsche, I realised, that I have some big, heavy orange thing, and I don't know what to do with. Steering is somehow hard, switching gears by paddles is hard, because of rubbers attached, where there had to be paddles for grip. 

I gave it to my son, afer some minute it asked - where is the HOG steering? After my answer he went back to hes Star War set (not Millenium Falcon).

I am dissapointed. And I was so dissapointed, that I disassembled it yesterday. 

Why they didn't implemented HOG steering?! It evens seems, that it was there, even close to production, but somebody decided it to remove just before production (there is still hole in the right place).

Why they left such a big openings by the front and rear lights?! they are disturbing, even of the car is only meant for display purposes. They made special panels for this car, but didn't had time to somehow fill those holes.

If You still considering, don't buy this. Maybe wait for rally car.