42172 - McLaren P1

[allanp]

3 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

Technic will be whatever the market dictates it should be.  Not sure why that is so hard for folks to understand.  Most on this forum have specialized knowledge and training in the areas of design, engineering, etc. and do not reflect the general populace.  We will not get a model that fits such a specialized palette.

Take a look at the general media outlets marketing the Technic line.  Especially the UCS hypercar sets.  They are full of hype and praise.  They do not care about accurate steering, only that the models steer. They do not care about accurate gearboxes, only that there is one.  The market for these sets, yes are adults, but just being and adult does not automatically deign one the knowledge and training of most on this forum.  

And I feel we should all be grateful.  Lego being concerned with a product that fits a larger audience, even if that means a decrease in authenticity means more sets produced.  More sets means more elements - keeping costs down in an already expensive hobby.  I know that may sound funny to many ("keeping costs down" - we are talking of Lego after all), but think of how much more expensive elements would be if Lego did not try to maximize sets sold.  Selling the most sets possible also means Lego can produce more moulds and element designs, which we are obviously seeing in the last couple years.  I do not know the ratio of new elements offered in the Technic line from say the 2000's to 2015 versus say 2015- present day.  But as a consumer of Technic products over the last near decade and a half I would bet that ratio heavily favors the latter.   

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I am going to say it anyways.  If Lego only produced Lego Technic sets for lets say, the top ten percent of the market distribution (which, for sake of the argument lets say this forum pertains of in terms of training and knowledge) then our hobby would not exist as we know it.  Part cost would balloon much higher than it already is, and only the most resourced among us would be able to afford this already expensive hobby.     

This is indeed a strong argument however, to me it appears like a false dichotomy (correct me if I'm wrong) where we have to choose between sets that appeal to one type of audience (it has to look great, which this set does) or it has to appeal to another type of audience that like authentic mechanisms that perform and play well. But I don't think we have to choose, why not have both? I don't see any reason why the gearbox couldn't be laid out more realistically or why the steering wheel couldn't be angled up towards the driver and why the steering couldn't work well while still keeping the outward appearance the same? We have a removable knob for the rear wing but not for the steering? In fact, imagine we have an authentic working and authentic LOOKING gearbox! The clutch gears would be on one shaft with the opposing gears one another shaft. They would all be gun metal grey with a discreet ring of colour printed on them to aid building. I mean, minifigs get dual moulding, prints and so on, these gearbox parts are our minifigs! So you make this much more authentic, absolutely not multicoloured and great looking gearbox, well now you can slap a picture of that somewhere on the box and now the overall package looks even cooler, and the gearheads are also happy! 

There is beauty in a cars looks for sure, but there is also beauty in miniature  mechanisms that both work and look like the real thing. Actually working breaks would not only add to the functionality, but if done right would actually be a much more pleasing thing to look at than something that is fake. So I do think it's possible to appeal more to both sides. Whilst I may be one one side, I can still appreciate the spending power of the other!

Also, I kinda view the different themes as being like different forms of music. Speed champions, star wars and whatever, they are like different pop bands, and Technic is like ACDC, which is a rock band. Pop might sell better than rock, but rock still sells amazingly well and be around for much longer than pop in it's current form. So should ACDC make a pop album? Heck no! It would suck and all the ACDC fans would say they have lost it? They should stick to what they can do better than the rest. Technic can do fully customisable mechanisms based on generic components better than any other brand or company, let alone any other Lego theme. Although it's of course important to branch out to as wide of an audience as possible, I understand that, but they shouldn't forget what it's best at.

Edited July 18 by allanp

[allanp]

7 hours ago, kbalage said:

Well, at some point you have to accept that LEGO sometimes uses Technic parts to make display models and therefore releases them under the Technic theme :) The reason for this is quite simple: a car of this size would be incredibly heavy (and expensive) if they made it mainly from system parts. These sets give consumers the illusion of building something functional and therefore provide an additional building experience, but still end up being a display piece.

Sorry, I misunderstood you there. Pushing the car on the table works fine most of the time, even in the lowest gear. If you try to push it too fast, you may hear the clutch engage, but for demonstration purposes it is ok. There might be a scenario when the gearbox is stuck between gears, then you have to wiggle the knob gears a bit. The massive sag that occurs in older models like the Bugatti doesn't exist either, the V8 engages quickly and the effect of the gear changes is visible.

I'm not sure that it necessarily follows that a car this size has to be fully Technic. The largest and heaviest sets are not sold under the Technic theme but are like the AT-AT, which kinda feels like a Technic set in disguise but is not sold as Technic. If they want a display model then bring out a new theme (speed champions ultra, which would spell UCS backwards?) with Technic inner structures but brick built exteriors. 

But I don't think this is the solution we want is it? I don't want to buy an illusion either. Like I said to @nerdsforprez, there's no reason why we can't have the same great, display model quality looks while at the same time improving on all the more "Technic" aspects to make it much more than only a display model.

"These are only display models" you say, but why? They don't have to be! If you get all you want from these things being only a display model well that's great, I would never want or try to deny you that. But why deny all the other great values they could bring like "build for real" authentic mechanisms and good playability when there's no reason to?

Having said all this, I still say the P1 is an improvement over what came before. It has, as far as I can see, one singular 7 speed gearbox using 4 different sizes of clutch gear. It's still far too overly complex with too many shafts, but that is still better than the Chiron, Sian and Ferrari having two 4 speed gearboxes mangled together to make a 16 speed gearbox but where the ratios are duplicated giving us an 8 speed 16 position gearbox when the original car it was based on had a 7 speed! So I do want to give Lego props for that.

Edited July 18 by allanp

[Maaboo the Witch]

42 minutes ago, allanp said:

Also, I kinda view the different themes as being like different forms of music. Speed champions, star wars and whatever, they are like different pop bands, and Technic is like ACDC, which is a rock band. Pop might sell better than rock, but rock still sells amazingly well and be around for much longer than pop in it's current form. So should ACDC make a pop album? Heck no! It would suck and all the ACDC fans would say they have lost it? They should stick to what they can do better than the rest. Technic can do fully customisable mechanisms based on generic components better than any other brand or company, let alone any other Lego theme. Although it's of course important to branch out to as wide of an audience as possible, I understand that, but they shouldn't forget what it's best at.

This.

[nerdsforprez]

26 minutes ago, allanp said:

This is indeed a strong argument however, to me it appears like a false dichotomy (correct me if I'm wrong) where we have to choose between sets that appeal to one type of audience (it has to look great, which this set does) or it has to appeal to another type of audience that like authentic mechanisms that perform and play well. But I don't think we have to choose, why not have both? I don't see any reason why the gearbox couldn't be laid out more realistically or why the steering wheel couldn't be angled up towards the driver and why the steering couldn't work well while still keeping the outward appearance the same? We have a removable knob for the rear wing but not for the steering? In fact, imagine we have an authentic working and authentic LOOKING gearbox! The clutch gears would be on one shaft with the opposing gears one another shaft. They would all be gun metal grey with a discreet ring of colour printed on them to aid building. I mean, minifigs get dual moulding, prints and so on, these gearbox parts are our minifigs! So you make this much more authentic, absolutely not multicoloured and great looking gearbox, well now you can slap a picture of that somewhere on the box and now the overall package looks even cooler, and the gearheads are also happy! 

There is beauty in a cars looks for sure, but there is also beauty in miniature  mechanisms that both work and look like the real thing. Actually work breaks would not only add to the functionality, but if done right would actually be a much more pleasing thing to look at than something that is fake. So I do think it's possible to appeal more to both sides. Whilst I may be one one side, I can still appreciate the spending power of the other!

I believe you are proving my point.  The points you make about accurate mechanisms (angled steering wheel, layout of the gearbox) I do not think are known by the general public.  They reflect an understanding that comes from training, experience, and years of building with Lego.   To the untrained or casual consumer, the steering probably works fine.  Clutch gears on one shaft and opposing gears on another?  Brilliant!  But not an understanding, and therefore a preference, by probably 80 or more percent of the market audience. 

Again, I feel you are proving my point by demonstrating the preferences stated reflect training and experience in the field, likely not held by most of the market audience.  Therefore, this is not a false dichotomy. I would argue it is not really a dichotomy at all, because again, we are discussing nuances here, not a hard black and white distinction.  Does it have steering?  Yes.  Does it have a gearbox?  Yes.  Suspension, other functions, etc. yes yes and yes.  Those are examples of a hard dichotomy.  A  "false dichotomy" would be between looks vs. functions... period.  Meaning choosing looks and having NO functions, or vice versa.  I believe your gripe is not that there is no steering, or no functions, it is that they are not good enough.... i.e. where they fall on the continuum of good functions is not acceptable to you.   This is not a false dichotomy rather is it simply a failure of meeting the expectations of the tail end of the distribution (to the right).  In simple terms, it is simply a failure to meet the standards of those highly knowledgeable and skilled, which, btw exists like in every hobby.  Do you think RC enthusiasts, who have been in the hobby for decades, buy an RC model and leave it at that? No... they chop it up, mix it up, modify it, etc. because it does not fit their wants.  They exist in the top (to the right) of that market distribution (in terms of knowledge, etc.) and the manufacturer, in their efforts to sell to the masses, simply is not going to create a model specifically for them.  

What about someone who rock crawls?  Jeeps, trucks, etc. with decades of experience.  Here in the US, even off-road enthusiasts in the market for say a Ford Raptor (which... Ford here is actually trying to target the top of the distribution) - you think they buy a Raptor and leave it alone?  I have tons of buddies who do this, go on rallies myself, etc. and I can tell you folks do not.  They buy, chop it up, modify, etc.   Ford, despite their best attempts to produce such a niche product can't fit everyone's needs.  It is a different world when you are trying to meet the desires of the top ten percent of a marketing distribution.  Which I argue most members here on EB (at least the Technic sub forum) are.  And I feel the animus many feel reflects being in this "different world" better than any overt shortcomings from TLG.  I am no Lego apologist.  I just think that sometimes, we as AFOLs need a little paradigm shift.  TLG is no R&D arm of BMW, Audi, or other high-end engineering or mechanics companies/firm.  They are a toy company.  Selling toys.  Yes, their market may be adults nowadays for certain products, but they are still toys.  In the words of @kbalage they are "abstractions" of real machines or concepts, not miniature versions of them, made from entirely different material.  There is a difference, and I think we would be well to remember that.  

That does not mean improvements cannot be made.  I would LOVE no color-coded elements in the chassis design of these cars.  I have griped about that for years.  I know I am building a toy, but when I see clown-colored chassis I am continuously reminded of that which gives me a negative building experience.   But I know TLG knows of this complaint, and continues to produce clownish-colored chassis, so I know I am the outlier and I will likely not get what I want.  Given the trade-off that I have already discussed... I am fine with that... 

 

39 minutes ago, allanp said:

They don't have to be

You speak aspirationally but not logically.  "They don't have to be" is entirely correct when viewed in the abstract.  What is possible, which entails pushing boundaries, limits, etc.  When viewed this way, as mentioned, you are correct.  But this is the perspective to take as if one were working at like the R&D arm of some huge engineering firm where their mission goals were to do the impossible.  

I think your error is understanding what TLG is.  While correct in some contexts, given the context TLG finds itself in, I fear your perceptive would bankrupt TLG.  

They are not after "what is possible."  They are after what is sellable.  The only boundaries they are concerned about is pushing market shares higher.  And that is the best news for us as AFOLs.  By doing so they create a massive, massive market, third-party companies, accessories, etc. so that serious MOCers can do the REAL building.  Serious MOCers can REALLY engage their creative core.  If they did not, I do not think we would have the creative outlet we now have..  

[nerdsforprez]

52 minutes ago, allanp said:

there's no reason why we can't have the same great, display model quality

But there is.  

 

Perhaps not dictated by the boundaries of what the Lego brick offers.  I feel your argument is only hinged on this, one-sided.  Perhaps there are NO reasons why they can't offer such a model.   I don't know.  I agree with @kbalagethere are limitations to what can be done with ABS.  But  I will leave this to much more experienced and talented builders than myself.  

 

The reason why may have nothing to do with what is possible with the Lego brick.  It may simply be market forces.  The market may simply say, sure,  you can offer this type of product, but you will lose money on it because you are targeting too narrow of a market.  Which is precisely my argument.  

[allanp]

@nerdsforprez but I am not saying to target ONLY a narrow segment of the market, this is the false dichotomy that you appear to be presenting. I'm saying to cast their nets even wider to cater to not only to current fans of display models but also to fans of mechanically authentic models. And I do want to repeat that they are getting better, make no mistake, I can see their improvement in this regard.

I mean, when you think about it,  just how big is the market for "beautiful" display models that have a bunch of huge panel gaps and is only a Lego approximation? It also seems like a niche thing to want TBH. Is it right to just assume that also niche market is many times bigger than the market of buyers looking for mechanically accurate models? I don't think you need to be super mechanically skilled or knowledgeable to look at two different gearboxes, see one has two shafts with a bunch of tastefully coloured gears of different sizes and neatly arranged in pairs, see the other has something like 14 shafts with as many different clown colours for the gears and think, one looks like a cool scale model which I could learn from and the other looks like a clown coloured toy that's not aimed at me because I'm an adult, and I'll never understand because I'm not an engineer.

When I look at the new Technic sets, I'm not thinking "oh boy oh gee oh wow, I'm a smarty pants engineer that's knows how everything works and I belong to this right upper part of this market group thingy so therefore I want this and I want that....". No. I see something and think, I like it, or I don't like it. I see this P1 and I see where I think it improves on things, and where it could have been better. A company that strives for only bigger profits in the short term at the expense of continual improvement in the long term will not last while it has competition. Thankfully for TLG, it's competition is rather lacking, but they are also getting better.

[Lipko]

1 hour ago, allanp said:

...

I think that is also a matter of preference. I am a mechanical engineer by profession, I knew even as a kid that the Lego transmissions are not realistic. Yet, I found it more exciting how a problem can be solved inside the constrains of a system. It's a bit like art, and I certainly look for the artistic aspect of Lego, not the modelling aspect. I did paper scale modelling for years when I was young (they were also MOCs, I didn1t even know you can buy paper models then), also had some die-cast models. Lego cannot compete with those.
With that said, I agree that the functions should work properly, and in that regard, this car seems to be good, not like the previous stuff.

The only reason I'm still hesitating to buy it is that it's huge, it doesn't fit into my small collection for many reasons. As a parts pack: I think it's still cheaper to buy only the interesting parts. I would by it for the building experience, then maybe I could sell it built. Dunno yet.

Edited July 18 by Lipko

[zoo]

1 hour ago, Lipko said:

I think that is also a matter of preference. I am a mechanical engineer by profession, I knew even as a kid that the Lego transmissions are not realistic. Yet, I found it more exciting how a problem can be solved inside the constrains of a system. It's a bit like art, and I certainly look for the artistic aspect of Lego, not the modelling aspect.

Same here. Also in mechanical engieering. I find beauty in shapes as well as in the mechanical solutions and this includes my vision of LEGO models. I know many around here strive to replicate real life models to the smallest detail possible but that is not my thing. Like said, I feel excitement over problem solving within the system constrains. I also don't at all mind all the different colours of LEGO technic elements within a single set even if for display. In short, we all have different views of what is aesthetically pleasing and I believe it has little to do with what one finds mechanicaly interesting.

[vascolp]

Technic Rock rocks, Technic Pop dances!

Some prefer Technic Techno, others Technic R&B.

Classic Technic or Electronics Technic? What will it be?

Some prefer Technic Jazz, some Technic Metal!

Am I making sense? Or nonsense at all?

 

 

 

[LegoHoops]

Pretty impressed with the overall shape of P1 considering the “shrink-wrapped” curvature of the original car. There are a good selection of new parts, a few short comings with shape mainly forward of the front axle, headlights and square front end - we can work through that.

One of my biggest gripes is the recolour or lack of simple recolouring of some small parts. TLG recoloured a few parts like 11 x 15 Liftarm Frame for the rear clamshell, but they left the mashup of Bright Light Orange and Light Bluish Grey on the clamshell under the rear wing (upside down 3 x 5 x 3 Curved Panels and 2L Axle Connectors). There is also the likes of the rear wing and top of the bonnet with random Black Connectors, where they should have had Bright Light Orange.

It was awesome to see all the prototype Lego McLaren P1’s with the development parts/designs and the stand alone sections like doors, gearboxes, etc. at the McLaren Technology Centre. Always good to see the evolving design process to the final product, as @Tlego exhibited a while ago with his build process for the LaFerrari and @Divitis is doing with his current Ferrari 125S. As my old maths teacher always said “I want to see all the workings, not just the answer”.

On 7/10/2024 at 8:03 AM, LegoHoops said: “I was hoping there might be some new Lego suspension parts as the ’P18’ has had a bit of publicity about its 3D printed suspension arms, thought Lego may produce a genetic part to help integrate the bigger Shock Absorbers into these larger scale vehicles.”

Well that was one wish that came true, new wishbone suspension arms - that is something TLG should have implemented for the Daytona SP3. These should also allow the use of other wheel sizes too, not just the big 75 x41mm rims.

I was surprised at the size of the gearbox, as @allanp made reference to, why do the gearboxes need to be so complex and big in size - ideally the V8 engine should sit a lot lower down in the car. Over on Rebrickable, Anto’s Ultimate 6+N+R gearbox is an example of slim compact design and smooth mechanical operation.

There was a comment on The Brothers Brick about the removal of the clamshell -  “If you want to access the engine bay, you will have to take the rear wing off before removing the clamshell. It’s quite easy to do, if a bit of a rudimentary solution”, yes - just like the real P1 - but not so easy to do at least the authenticity is represented here.

I’ve just built up rear end of the P1 to sort out some ideas for a more realistic exhaust system in the “Y” configuration for the P1, not in love with the 18 System parts and right angle bends in the current exhaust solution. I had a few parts leftover from a change of plans in recent build - like Dragon Tail/Horn Section and Connectors in Pearl Gold. Thought these would mimic the shape of the P1’s exhaust system a little better - a work in progress still.

One thing lead to another and a fair portion of the P1 rear end has been built with the odd random place holders, like the exhaust outlet colour for example, a couple bits of Lime and Azure. Also cleaning up random Lego vomit as I work through the build, particularly the Red 3L Pins and 2L Axles.

I had previously built up the rear wing in Black, intend to stay with the Black colour-way to free up some valuable Light Bright Orange parts for use elsewhere. The mechanism for raising and lowering the wing is smooth in operation, it can be moved by simply running your finger underneath the knob, no need to use as a thumb-wheel, so recessed it inward one stud - wanted to retain it, instead of removing.

On 7/14/2024 at 4:53 AM, sm1995 said: “I think the black bionicle tooth is supposed to be the extension of the light, but it’s too disjointed to actually look like it“

It’d be interesting to see what this simple change would look like with a Clear or Trans-Orange Bionicle in its place. @kbalage is this something you could do to feed the mind. As there seems to have been a couple of headlight colour variations/specifications available for the P1.

There will plenty of scope for mechanical modifications, but the limiting factor with body mods will be availability of Bright Light Orange parts, particularly various Connectors. McLaren P1 below sporting a Black rear wing.

Lego Rock with a touch of Easy Listening @vascolp

 

Edited July 18 by LegoHoops
Grammar

[nerdsforprez]

5 hours ago, allanp said:

but I am not saying to target ONLY a narrow segment of the market, this is the false dichotomy that you appear to be presenting.

Oh but you are.  At least this is my argument.  Brief illustration/hypothesis.  Having a monochromatic gearbox may very well be the desire of a narrow segment of the market audience.  I think this is exactly what TLG is trying to tell us.  Of COURSE it looks clownish.  No one is trying to argue otherwise.  BUT, and this is a big but here, it is INCLUSIVE, meaning it will include folks that perhaps need it to be polychromatic.  It includes older folks that are more visually impaired.  Same applies with perhaps having a big clunky gearbox.  Perhaps it more inclusive because, for although it still demands fine motor skills perhaps it is more inclusive in that it includes those who have aged who might have some limits in these areas.  Limiting the color palette of the gearbox as well as reducing the size of the gearbox (and increasing fine motor skills) certainly narrows the market pool.   And I do not think it is a false dichotomy.  I think it is a real dichotomy dictated on market forces, which obviously we have no real knowledge about.  But, I assure you, TLG does.  They pine over their quarterly reports like the best MOCers pine over the details of their MOCs.  They are making calls and decisions with huge impositions placed on them as dictated by the market.  

5 hours ago, allanp said:

I mean, when you think about it,  just how big is the market for "beautiful" display models that have a bunch of huge panel gaps and is only a Lego approximation? It also seems like a niche thing to want TBH.

I don't know, but based on simple FB and Instagram and other media outlets reports of the model (not just the P1, but essentially all other UCS Technic cars), the reports rave about the model.  And they are not paid by TLG.  The chatter is always huge for these sets.  Also, just look at the past models. How much data do we have here?  When was 42056 introduced?  2016?  8 years of data and really TLG has not changed their approach on these cars.  They have improved, but I would really like to hear an argument that could convince me their overall approach has changed.  Big, paneled, clunky but popular supercar focused on looks that has thrown in a few functions here and there, but built in such a way that the functions are not the main show.   That is their modus operandi.  That means ITS WORKING - at least according to their goals.  Which means the market for these cars is huge.  They are wildly popular.  

 

5 hours ago, allanp said:

"oh boy oh gee oh wow, I'm a smarty pants engineer that's knows how everything works and I belong to this right upper part of this market group thingy so therefore I want this and I want that....".

yea... no need to take this approach.  I didn't say the things I did to make a mockery of folks. I know you and others don't see themselves that way, and I know your not that way.  But that doesn't dispel the notion that, and I think I am accurate here, most on this forum have some specialized training or experience in the realm of design or engineering, or some related field.  Or, at the very least, years if not decades of experience with Technic.  Which is a positive!  Don't process it as an emotional thing.  Just process it as a logical thing.  Additional training or experience in any discipline typically means increased demands or expectations.  Nothing to be ashamed over  

[derekthetree]

2 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

That means ITS WORKING - at least according to their goals.  Which means the market for these cars is huge.  They are wildly popular.  

I've bought all four previous 1:8 supercars, and will get this one. I enjoy the build process and displaying the final version, very much its core demo for these.

As you've pointed out, the product intent hasn't changed since launch of the Porsche, and for good reason.

Surely @allanp, the benefit of lego is that you can adjust the OEM model however you'd like? Is it even more satisfying that it wasn't "correct" out of the box?

[nerdsforprez]

3 hours ago, nerdsforprez said:

the reports rave about the model

There are many I could quote. But here is a recent one that just popped up on my feed. 

Fairly popular and reputable media oulet. Car and Driver. These folks know cars even, but they dont know Lego. "Lego set of our dreams" they call it. 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a61572472/mclaren-p1-technic-lego-set-details/

yea...I don't think our gripes about these sets are shared by the general public. 

[Paul B Technic]

it is good that we can all have different ideas and opinions on this set. If you love it, buy it.

[langko]

So I noticed there is a slider on the LEGO website where you can overlay the model over the real car, from both a side view and a top view... And it really highlights how bad the front is, looks like it was driven into a wall. @kbalage I agree with what you said in your review that the wheels appear too big, I think the original size would be better to design the car around.

12 hours ago, LegoHoops said:

One of my biggest gripes is the recolour or lack of simple recolouring of some small parts.

I mentioned this as well and it still annoys me after seeing some video reviews of the car... They could get away with it in the Bugatti because dark blue is really close to black. But with the orange it is too obvious.

I like where you are heading with the exhaust details! Great part usage.

[Alex Ilea]

Just today, I had the opportunity to see the P1 set in flesh at a Lego Store display and it is a disappointment in my book. 

It looks amazing, but from 10 meters away. When you get up close, everything looks unfinished, and unprofessional. The only part that looked good on the car was the roof.

I thought that: "ok, take the pictures with a grain of salt, let's actually see it", but after seeing it, it is easily the worst looking one from the big supercars.

As functions go, it is incredibly well done, but it feels like an incomplete model overall.

In comparison, the G class is spot on, and it's big! 

Edited July 19 by Alex Ilea

[nerdsforprez]

Interesting feedback.  When you say functions are incredibly well done, did you play with the gearbox, suspension, etc. ? 

[allanp]

On 7/18/2024 at 11:39 PM, derekthetree said:

I've bought all four previous 1:8 supercars, and will get this one. I enjoy the build process and displaying the final version, very much its core demo for these.

As you've pointed out, the product intent hasn't changed since launch of the Porsche, and for good reason.

Surely @allanp, the benefit of lego is that you can adjust the OEM model however you'd like? Is it even more satisfying that it wasn't "correct" out of the box?

I'm likely to get it too! It's not a bad set, I'm just saying that as a fan of authentic mechanisms, I like the improvements over the Ferrari but there's still a lot more they could do. I am glad to see these improvements coming out over many years and I do feel like fan feedback is helping to drive and maybe even inspire these improvements. I greatly appreciate that, but I'm also not going to stop giving my own feedback. The fact that they have at least appeared to listen to and react to feedback makes me feel listened to as a fan, makes me want to continue giving feedback and also try to give more thoughtful and considered opinions, which is why I waited a while before posting.

Yes I can modify it. If I could modify a Vauxhall/Opel into being a Lamborghini, would that make a Vauxhall as good as a Lamborghini and therefore worth the price of a Lamborghini? Yes I can modify it but that's not the point. It's better than the Ferrari but if they want some options for making the next one even better from this fans perspective, well I have presented some in this thread. 

To be clear, I don't want to even try to spoil anyone's enjoyment of this set, not that I even could, I'm likely to get it myself. I'm just also of the opinion that the next UCS car can improve things even further.

[allanp]

On 7/19/2024 at 12:54 AM, nerdsforprez said:

There are many I could quote. But here is a recent one that just popped up on my feed. 

Fairly popular and reputable media oulet. Car and Driver. These folks know cars even, but they dont know Lego. "Lego set of our dreams" they call it. 

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a61572472/mclaren-p1-technic-lego-set-details/

yea...I don't think our gripes about these sets are shared by the general public. 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this. I didn't say our gripes were shared by everyone, or that there aren't people raving about the set. I'm saying that if they had much more mechanically authentic mechanisms, that both looked more like the real thing and that also functioned and played really well, then all these people would still rave about it! But maybe they would also have some beauty shots of a gorgeous gearbox to post in their article for all the piston and gear heads to swoon over, as opposed to a picture of a barely understandable, overly colourful garbled mess that looks as though it's aimed for a much younger audience despite being too overly complex. While some people are not bothered by the colours and the current "it's only a display model" attitude to the steering and whatnot, there are some people that are bothered those things, and the people that aren't bothered still won't be bothered, though might be pleasantly surprised when these things are improved.

Sometimes it's hard to know what we want from something that were only a passing casual fan of. The writers of articles like the one you posted, sure they like what they see and that's great, but I think we have a better understanding of how good it could be! I know it's easy for me to sit and imagine the truly ultimate Technic car, and that the difficult part is making it into reality. But I have faith in the Technic design team. I truly believe that if I can I imagine it, they can do it! I think that if and when they get to the pinnacle of how good it can be through years of continuous improvement then these same article writers and their readers will swoon even more over it, and the rest of us will love it too!

[StudWorks]

20 hours ago, Alex Ilea said:

It looks amazing, but from 10 meters away. When you get up close, everything looks unfinished, and unprofessional. The only part that looked good on the car was the roof.

I thought that: "ok, take the pictures with a grain of salt, let's actually see it", but after seeing it, it is easily the worst looking one from the big supercars.

Really? It looks that flawed exterior-wise IRL? I honestly still feel like the accuracy is pretty spot-on except for the front end and door gaps.

Edit: I also realized the side windows look taller than they should be, compared to the real car. Anyone else noticed this?

Edited July 20 by StudWorks

[Alex Ilea]

18 minutes ago, StudWorks said:

Really? It looks that flawed exterior-wise IRL? I honestly still feel like the accuracy is pretty spot-on except for the front end and door gaps.

Yes unfortunately. It looks better in photos and videos....

But on the plus side, the color is superb!

[zoo]

On 7/19/2024 at 10:18 AM, langko said:

So I noticed there is a slider on the LEGO website where you can overlay the model over the real car, from both a side view and a top view.

Playing around with the side view slider a bit I feel an argument could be made to move the front axle one stud forward together with the a-pillar mounting points in order to inprove the proportions a bit. I think the absence of a windshield does distort the image a bit and making it so that the profile of the car feels more off than it actually is. Also, I thought right from the beginning seing the bigger wheels introduced with the 42143 Ferrari that LEGO should just have made a larger diameter tire while keeping the old size wheel for these models.

Having said that, I do like the overall looks of this new 42172 supercar, even though I can see some of the sculpting of the body isn't quite true to the real P1. I have yet to see the LEGO model in real life though.

Edited July 21 by zoo

[Paul B Technic]

The feedback from those who have seen it is interesting. Will this be seen as a set that needs major work to bring it to the same level as the others?

[astyanax]

6 hours ago, Paul B Technic said:

Will this be seen as a set that needs major work to bring it to the same level as the others?

The 4 predecessors all needed "major work" as well, in the eyes of this community.  See for example the Pimp Up My XYZ projects, all bringing substantial improvements.

[Auroralampinen]

 Well here is first in depht look at the gearbox