42154 - 2022 Ford GT

[BrickMonkeyMOCs]

Looks like a nice set in its own right, but not as a Ford GT. The front is too low, and the back end too short. The biggest flaw in terms of proportions though, is that the wheels are far too small. I get that they need to leave space for suspension travel and steering, but the number 1 rule for Lego car design is to scale everything to match your chosen wheels, and this is just way off.

Edited January 2, 2023 by BrickMonkeyMOCs

[gyenesvi]

9 hours ago, BrickMonkeyMOCs said:

Looks like a nice set in its own right, but not as a Ford GT. The front is too low, and the back end too short. The biggest flaw in terms of proportions though, is that the wheels are far too small. I get that they need to leave space for suspension travel and steering, but the number 1 rule for Lego car design is to scale everything to match your chosen wheels, and this is just way off.

I think if they scaled it like that it would be worse at least with these wheels, because it does not play well with the stud system, it does not fill a 9 wide gap nicely, and they'll never release a wheel arch with 8 wide gap (I guess it would be better to scale to the wheel arches, which is probably what they did). And as you say, even if this would be solved with a properly sized new wheel, then the next problem would be no room for steering and suspension. I guess deeper rims at this scale would help with the steering a bit, and those would be quite useful indeed for many other models. Not sure if the suspension could be kept functional if the wheels would get closer to the arches though, maybe only if they could sink inside the wall of the wheel arch when the wheel is straight (and could hit it when steered).

Actually, I think what's more off here is the length, which is short by quite a few studs, and the nose is too long (probably they wanted to use that new headlight piece, that's what made it longer, and the length is to compensate for that maybe).

But let's not complain about the shape so much, this is technic, and the whole thing inherently looks like broken china anyway :) But I still like it among the sportscars, and it will bring us a lot of new parts in a nice color, and hopefully some technical advances as well!

[BrickMonkeyMOCs]

7 minutes ago, gyenesvi said:

I think if they scaled it like that it would be worse at least with these wheels, because it does not play well with the stud system, it does not fill a 9 wide gap nicely, and they'll never release a wheel arch with 8 wide gap (I guess it would be better to scale to the wheel arches, which is probably what they did). And as you say, even if this would be solved with a properly sized new wheel, then the next problem would be no room for steering and suspension. I guess deeper rims at this scale would help with the steering a bit, and those would be quite useful indeed for many other models. Not sure if the suspension could be kept functional if the wheels would get closer to the arches though, maybe only if they could sink inside the wall of the wheel arch when the wheel is straight (and could hit it when steered).

Actually, I think what's more off here is the length, which is short by quite a few studs, and the nose is too long (probably they wanted to use that new headlight piece, that's what made it longer, and the length is to compensate for that maybe).

But let's not complain about the shape so much, this is technic, and the whole thing inherently looks like broken china anyway :) But I still like it among the sportscars, and it will bring us a lot of new parts in a nice color, and hopefully some technical advances as well!

Yes, you make legitimate points. But the end result here is still a car model that is very poorly scaled to its wheels. Lego have chosen to focus on licensed sports cars, where appearance takes priority over new or improved functionality, so I think their failure to capture the proportions and shaping are fairly open to criticism. With the 2019 Creator Mustang, Lego realized that they needed hollow wheels for realistic steering, and the larger Technic cars have all had new wheels, yet years later Technic are still stuck with the same old mid-size wheel rims. The 2019 Technic Porsche RSR was criticized for having small wheels and the 2021 Technic Ferrari was criticized for its ride height, yet we're still seeing both problems repeated in 2023. If Lego are going to keep pumping out Technic sports cars with the same basic functions, and especially with licensed products based on real-world vehicles, then they really need to work out how to implement better steering and suspension in a manner that doesn't force such severe compromises in appearance. I agree though that the color is very nice. I'm sure we'll see some great B-models from the set.

[Bensch55]

In my opinion the "rally" Ferrari already looked bad with its big fender gaps. Seeing this in comparison to the real car takes it to another level of bad. I usually like to criticise TLG for their lazy suspension designs, but in this case the looks-department also failed to deliver. 

[gyenesvi]

1 hour ago, BrickMonkeyMOCs said:

If Lego are going to keep pumping out Technic sports cars with the same basic functions, and especially with licensed products based on real-world vehicles, then they really need to work out how to implement better steering and suspension in a manner that doesn't force such severe compromises in appearance.

Your point is equally valid though! After writing my comment I kept thinking, and came to similar conclusions. If they go for cars mostly then be it, but then do it as if only the best was good enough :) They keep improving the paneling, and it's visibly better and better, but there's a lot to improve technically as well (steering/suspension/drivetrain), and that should not be neglected, because in the end, it also effects the looks! I was actually thinking the same that the creator mustang's steering system sits deeper in the rim then this one on a larger scale (it got a new rim for that)! And it's the same with off-roaders, bulky steering/suspension/drivetrain parts are effecting the looks in many ways at medium scales, for example many cars need to be lifted up too high.

I've recently seen the video of @kbalage about Speed Champions design (watch it if you haven't, really good). I was blown about the amount of dedication to accurate scaling, the attention to customer feedback, and the amount of optimized new parts that they are bringing out to improve every year, and it really shows. True, that's a smaller scale, with less diverse directions and more focus on doing one thing right, but still, I wish technic would have more dedication like that towards realistic mechanisms (and more communication like that between the design team and the fans). I still don't get the reason for not releasing certain improved parts for example. It was said in some recent interview that it's actually not the lack of resources (which we also kind of see from the proliferation of recent panels), but that certain parts are not released because they were not required so far. LOL. There are a bunch of released models that were just not good enough mechanically, and there are a bunch of things that simply cannot be built properly, so I can't wrap my head around that.

[Bensch55]

1 hour ago, gyenesvi said:

more dedication like that towards realistic mechanisms

This. It blows me away how they can proudly display pictures of the assembly line from certain car manufacturers in their instructions and completely butcher the mechanical side of the models at the same time. A Porsche has to have a MacPherson suspension in the front, a Bugatti W16 does not have more than one crankshaft and no GT3 car has the same amount of suspension travel as a WRC car. It is really bothering me that so little effort goes "inside" the cars, while the BMW 1000RR got all new fork pieces and wheels, the whole flower collection seems to get every piece they need in every colour in existance while the technic-car side has to deal with the same boring suspension setup.

[Erik Leppen]

Reading the discussion, I'm just wondering... what's actually the real suspension travel of a real-world supercar these days? And if you'd scale that, how many studs would that be? I'm asking, because, well, if people are asking for realism in that regard, I think what they are asking for is basically cars without suspension. And we all know how well that sits with Afols. Now, 2 studs travel is a bit much, sure, but I'd say 1 stud is a reasonable amount for a Lego car. That would be 10 cm in reality, and I assume real supercars have much less travel than that.

So yeah. Suspension travel is not gonna be realistic. So you can choose:

• Either suspension range is barely anything (a half stud or less)
• Or suspension range is like now, but ride height is too high and you have the "rally car" problem
• Or pressing the suspension will make the car hit the ground
• Or pressing the suspension will make the wheels hit the wheel arches
• Or suspension is very soft and already partly compressed in normal stance
• Or suspension is done away with at all

Pick one. There is no perfect solution. I'm curious what compromise you guys would take.

Also, the "unit" of Lego Technic is 1 stud. In a 1:12 scale car, that's 10 cm in reality. As we all can imagine, real supercars have bodywork paneling much thinner than that, which allows smaller wheel arches. So realistically sized wheel arches simply aren't doable in the Lego medium, and that is without considering the play in the elements. Or would be happy with wheels touching the structure when steering or using the suspension? Could be, but that's not my preference.

Personally I don't mind the small compromises to scale, needed to accomplish function. I didn't even notice the scaling issues before someone brought them up here. That said, changes I would be 100% in favor of, are

• deeper rims
• thinner tyres (especially in the front)

Both of those would actually reduce the space needed for the wheels to steer (and thus allow smaller wheel arches), and I think the complaints about the same-old wheels are completely valid.

I just think it's not realistic to expect a completely to-scale car in a medium such as Lego. It would also spoil the fun - isn't Lego about imagining, rather than replicating exactly? To me, the question should not be "is it exactly to scale with a Ford GT?" but "can you recognize a Ford GT in this?". And I would say that the answer to that  last question is "yes".

Edited January 3, 2023 by Erik Leppen

[Zerobricks]

Exactly, if you want realistic suspension and tight fitting fenders, expect to see a lot of rubbing. And the smaller the scale the more this is pronounced. For my 1:8 Spano I used less than a stud of suspension travel and it still semed higher above the ground than the original one. Ideally having wheels go in and under the fenders would allow you keep the looks and the suspension travel, but than the wheels would look like they are too deep inside the model.  But I think slightly bigger wheels and tyres with deeper offset would also help like they did with the 1:8 Ferrari.

[Bensch55]

One solution to the wheelarch problem would be actually looking at real world suspension geometries. The whole travel could remain at 1 stud as you suggested. By having a shorter upper control arm the wheel would increase negative camber when moving up and "tuck" nicely behind the fender. 

33 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

deeper rims

Not necessarily needed. Using kingpin inclination the tires' pivot point on the ground can be adjusted to its center. Depending on the wheel this could be as easy as moving the upper balljoint further to the chassis by 0,5 studs. 

Note that all these (and more!) things have been covered by Nicjasno over 10 years ago, using unmodified Lego parts. As I mentioned above, many things would be easier if Lego considered them beforehand or gave us new parts, like a MacPherson wheelhub.

42 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

I just think it's not realistic to expect a completely to-scale car in a medium such as Lego

It is. If you take a look at some MOCs around here or the rest of the internet, many people are capable of doing it. 

43 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

To me, the question should not be "is it exactly to scale with a Ford GT?"

Personally, if I have to pay a higher price due to the licensing fees, I do expect it to be a somewhat detailed and scaled version of the real car. Otherwise, leave the license and call it "supercar XY" and it would be fine.

[zoo]

18 minutes ago, Bensch55 said:

One solution to the wheelarch problem would be actually looking at real world suspension geometries. The whole travel could remain at 1 stud as you suggested. By having a shorter upper control arm the wheel would increase negative camber when moving up and "tuck" nicely behind the fender.

Exactly my thought. Maybe having less boxy cross section tires would help as well. Then you could even have some camber built in with suspension still in neutral position.

I realize this does not entirely match the real Ford GT in body shape. At the same time, I actually prefer the proportions of the LEGO model rather than the real car.

Edited January 3, 2023 by zoo

[lmdesigner42]

I am very excited for the possibility of new u-joint solutions for the rear axle, although it is possible to do it with existing parts https://www.nico71.fr/group-b-rally-car/.

All in all this looks like a great parts pack.

[keymaker]

26 minutes ago, lmdesigner42 said:

although it is possible to do it with existing parts https://www.nico71.fr/group-b-rally-car/.

I really, really hope they  won't use such solution. It is completely useless from RC point of view.

[NoEXIST]

3 minutes ago, keymaker said:

I really, really hope they  won't use such solution. It is completely useless from RC point of view.

There's another way to do it with parts that are already available:)

[Void_S]

I think it will barely work with 20T double bevel gear, I literally hear the sound of skipping teeth... 

[Zerobricks]

31 minutes ago, keymaker said:

I really, really hope they  won't use such solution. It is completely useless from RC point of view.

Agreed, doesn't seem like a reliable solution and it would probably cause friction and wear due to the constant bending of the tubes.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Zerobricks

[Thirdwigg]

Yeah, it has to be a new part, and I'm looking forward to what it is.

I love any part that can reduce the space between wheels one drive axles. I remember going from the 4L to 3L differential and the introduction of the CV joints, and both were great for driven axles.

[NoEXIST]

17 minutes ago, Void_S said:

I think it will barely work with 20T double bevel gear, I literally hear the sound of skipping teeth... 

Need to be more tested, I know only one model using it so far

https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-98436/Sfcustoms/nissan-180sx-drift-mod/#details

 

 

[Erik Leppen]

1 hour ago, Bensch55 said:

[...] Note that all these (and more!) things have been covered by Nicjasno over 10 years ago, using unmodified Lego parts. As I mentioned above, many things would be easier if Lego considered them beforehand or gave us new parts, like a MacPherson wheelhub.

If you take a look at some MOCs around here or the rest of the internet, many people are capable of doing it. 

 

In that case, I stand corrected. I don't actually know the techniques used in real suspension in real cars, so you're probably correct that much more is possible than is currently done.

If Technic were true to its slogans (which say that it's "like in reality") then there should really be an upgrade to suspension beyond just the simple deforning parallelogram thing.

Similar to how the latest helicopter set shows how a rotor actually works when steering etc.

1 hour ago, Bensch55 said:

 

Personally, if I have to pay a higher price due to the licensing fees, I do expect it to be a somewhat detailed and scaled version of the real car. Otherwise, leave the license and call it "supercar XY" and it would be fine.

You're right that this is very reasonable to expect. I guess I just don't really care for licences at all, so I tend to neglect the wishes of those who do. I'd be more than happy with a non-licenced "supercar XY" personally. But it seems these days are over now...

That said, I don't really have the feeling that licenced Technic sets are more expensive than equivalent non-licence sets. But I haven't done the statistics on this, so I can't back this up.

[BrickMonkeyMOCs]

7 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

Your point is equally valid though! After writing my comment I kept thinking, and came to similar conclusions. If they go for cars mostly then be it, but then do it as if only the best was good enough :) They keep improving the paneling, and it's visibly better and better, but there's a lot to improve technically as well (steering/suspension/drivetrain), and that should not be neglected, because in the end, it also effects the looks! I was actually thinking the same that the creator mustang's steering system sits deeper in the rim then this one on a larger scale (it got a new rim for that)! And it's the same with off-roaders, bulky steering/suspension/drivetrain parts are effecting the looks in many ways at medium scales, for example many cars need to be lifted up too high.

I've recently seen the video of @kbalage about Speed Champions design (watch it if you haven't, really good). I was blown about the amount of dedication to accurate scaling, the attention to customer feedback, and the amount of optimized new parts that they are bringing out to improve every year, and it really shows. True, that's a smaller scale, with less diverse directions and more focus on doing one thing right, but still, I wish technic would have more dedication like that towards realistic mechanisms (and more communication like that between the design team and the fans). I still don't get the reason for not releasing certain improved parts for example. It was said in some recent interview that it's actually not the lack of resources (which we also kind of see from the proliferation of recent panels), but that certain parts are not released because they were not required so far. LOL. There are a bunch of released models that were just not good enough mechanically, and there are a bunch of things that simply cannot be built properly, so I can't wrap my head around that.

I agree 100%. You know Technic have a problem when the Speed Champions 8-wide Ford GT is instantly recognizable, while the 1500pc Technic model of the same vehicle is not. From Racing Bricks' SC designer interviews you really see a passion for the source material, a willingness to listen to fan feedback, and the introduction of new parts to meet the demand for improved accuracy and function. I don't really see any of that from Technic, despite them following a similar path with an increased focus on licensed performance cars. Lots of new panels for sure! But as you say, they've reached a point now where the functional elements are now more of a limiting factor than the panel/beam part system. But then I'm not sure that they've done the best possible on the Ford GT model even with existing parts.

[BrickMonkeyMOCs]

3 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

Reading the discussion, I'm just wondering... what's actually the real suspension travel of a real-world supercar these days? And if you'd scale that, how many studs would that be? I'm asking, because, well, if people are asking for realism in that regard, I think what they are asking for is basically cars without suspension. And we all know how well that sits with Afols. Now, 2 studs travel is a bit much, sure, but I'd say 1 stud is a reasonable amount for a Lego car. That would be 10 cm in reality, and I assume real supercars have much less travel than that.

So yeah. Suspension travel is not gonna be realistic. So you can choose:

• Either suspension range is barely anything (a half stud or less)
• Or suspension range is like now, but ride height is too high and you have the "rally car" problem
• Or pressing the suspension will make the car hit the ground
• Or pressing the suspension will make the wheels hit the wheel arches
• Or suspension is very soft and already partly compressed in normal stance
• Or suspension is done away with at all

Pick one. There is no perfect solution. I'm curious what compromise you guys would take.

I would take the first option. For models of performance sports cars, I'd like to see the effort made to replicate stiffer suspension with reduced travel. I know that's not easy, and of course the smaller the model, the harder it gets, with play in the parts producing more movement than the desired suspension travel. And maybe with the smaller scale of the GT it would have been better not to include suspension. I mean the function is nice, but not at the expense of tiny wheels and exaggerated travel. The 2005 Technic Enzo was a great Technic model even without suspension, and made up for it with a clever dampened door mechanism. But even with existing parts, better solutions are possible than what we keep getting. I ended up modifying my Porsche RSR with upper and lower suspension limiters, and I know many found solutions for lowering the ride height of the more recent Technic Ferrari.

3 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

I just think it's not realistic to expect a completely to-scale car in a medium such as Lego.

Agreed, but imagine if they really tried to make these Technic cars showcases for the real-world engineering solutions in areas of suspension, drivetrains, and steering geometry. Imagine if they were to approach this challenge with the same mindset as the Speed Champions designers, listening to feedback and constantly introducing new parts and building solutions - instead of reusing the same basic parts and functions that have been around for decades. I see Lego pushing themselves with the small-scale SC range, and also at the other end with complex gearboxes and new wheels on the flagship supercar sets. But at this intermediate scale it seems that "only the best is good enough" has been replaced with "good enough will have to do".

[Bensch55]

54 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Similar to how the latest helicopter set shows how a rotor actually works when steering etc.

Exactly! That one was a really positive surprise.

[jura93]

23 hours ago, BrickMonkeyMOCs said:

Looks like a nice set in its own right, but not as a Ford GT. The front is too low, and the back end too short. The biggest flaw in terms of proportions though, is that the wheels are far too small. I get that they need to leave space for suspension travel and steering, but the number 1 rule for Lego car design is to scale everything to match your chosen wheels, and this is just way off.

I understand your concern about the look of licenced lego technic sets general, but in this case I think this comparison is not fair, due to the fact the Ford GT has an adjustable suspension, and yout photo is in "race" mode, so it's dropped 50mm (!). In the normal ride height it is closer to the technic version, but I agree, still not perfect. I have seen no clue about this feature in the set btw.
 

Edited January 3, 2023 by jura93

[BrickMonkeyMOCs]

11 minutes ago, jura93 said:

I understand your concern about the look of licenced lego technic sets general, but in this case I think this comparison is not fair, due to the fact the Ford GT has an adjustable suspension, and yout photo is in "race" mode, so it's dropped 50mm (!). In the normal ride height it is closer to the technic version, but I agree, still not perfect. I have seen no clue about this feature in the set btw.

A fair point with respect to ride height, though my concern was more about the actual size of the wheels. Adjustable ride height would have been a great feature, and perhaps a better one here than suspension.

[blondasek]

So.. I have mixed feelings about this set. Great part pack - definitely. Great Ford GT 2022 - absolutely not. Personally I may buy it for alternative builds from Rebrickable, doubt I will build the Lego version. Too bad, curious why they did not prolong the back of the car.

[gyenesvi]

19 hours ago, Bensch55 said:

the whole flower collection seems to get every piece they need in every colour in existance

This is exactly something I have also been wondering, one of the signs why I think the missing parts in technic are not really a problem of resources.

16 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

Suspension travel is not gonna be realistic. So you can choose:

• Either suspension range is barely anything (a half stud or less)
• Or suspension range is like now, but ride height is too high and you have the "rally car" problem
• Or pressing the suspension will make the car hit the ground
• Or pressing the suspension will make the wheels hit the wheel arches
• Or suspension is very soft and already partly compressed in normal stance
• Or suspension is done away with at all

I think either the first or the third or the fourth would also be acceptable, especially in manual models. Even in RC models, if the wheel rubs the fenders at max articulation and steering is acceptable because that is a rare situation, doesn't really happen during playing, and in case of street tires with flat pattern it does not block the wheels even if it happens momentarily. Such a construction would not be acceptable though in an RC off-roader, where max articulation and steering happens more often and can often block the wheel/car from moving.

15 hours ago, Bensch55 said:

One solution to the wheelarch problem would be actually looking at real world suspension geometries. The whole travel could remain at 1 stud as you suggested. By having a shorter upper control arm the wheel would increase negative camber when moving up and "tuck" nicely behind the fender. 

Using kingpin inclination the tires' pivot point on the ground can be adjusted to its center. Depending on the wheel this could be as easy as moving the upper balljoint further to the chassis by 0,5 studs. 

These as well. It's not even something unheard of, as there are 6.5 long steering arms in existence. Furthermore, the fender parts have a 1/2 stud wall, they could actually maybe have very thin outer wall, behind which the wheel could sink in more easily slightly. I tend to believe that the raised geometry posted by @jura93 above would be doable with about 1 stud travel, combining all these things, maybe the wheel touching the fender at max articulation and steering. Would be totally accepted by people I guess.

15 hours ago, lmdesigner42 said:

I am very excited for the possibility of new u-joint solutions for the rear axle, although it is possible to do it with existing parts https://www.nico71.fr/group-b-rally-car/.

That's a cool solution for a manual model, especially if the rubbed hose would have an axle hole in it! Could work for small range of flex. But yeah, not really useful for RC models.

14 hours ago, NoEXIST said:

There's another way to do it with parts that are already available:)

This is a solution I don't quite like, I also don't think it's solid enough, even if it is, it probably results in a lot of wear on the parts, although I have seen this before used in an RC Creator style Hummer! Not sure how solid it was, the build was going more for the looks than the performance I guess..