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.

As others have already chimed in, this is a great build. Also love the movie. The setting of work bench, car lifts, etc. is very creative. Love it.

No..... we do not. Lego will be destroyed. We get these posts every now and then. They are aspirational, to be sure.... but just not realistic.

Oh that is awesome - problem is solved! At first I thought you were trying to indicate that the rubber band (square cross section) was it when clearly it is not. But I reread and yes..... it looks exactly like an O-ring and currently it is NOT a part on BL so I thought that I had gotten the O-ring from somewhere totally different. Thought it to be Non-Lego. Guess not......great news!

Wow....interesting. I did not know this was a thing. One could really go to town trying to decipher why stereotypically very strong, male, etc. individuals would place teddy bears or other stuffed animals on their huge, gas-guzzling machines! Jungian archetypes....... here I come! Yes - you are entering into my domain - thank you for making me feel more comfortable... But seriously, you are right. Motion pictures give so many more data points for the brain to try and decipher relative position of two opposing objects. Also, regardless of the visual, I like the very objective point you made in that the mid-section of the chassis seems to lack L-arms or frames, whereas other parts of the chassis has them present. You don't need to be a rocket scientist or have X-ray vision to know what that will mean in terms of overall chassis strength and potential for bending

It is not a tire but a rubber band. I no longer have the put assembled, and I cannot remember if the band was official Lego or not. But I think the large, blue Lego rubber band fits this large pulley just fine....

And there very well might be some bending. I don't dispute it. You have more than established yourself as a good, reliable source of information and skill in all things Technic Didumos But I also stand by that the photo you are using has bending itself, where the x axis jumps down one unit (2x) in the direction to support your theory. Minuscule to be sure, but when we are talking about like a 1/2 a stud changes it makes a differences.

Yes - it is the pulley. Admittedly, I am unsure where the tire is from. I think it is a large rubber band on the pulley. The large blue rubber band I know fits as well. I hear your concerns of the strength, but they are rather strong given their appearance. Just like the overall theme of what you are doing here though..... you will never really know unless you give it a try....

aren't there front wheel combinations that would offer less resistance? I know that is a very nit-picky observation.... but if you are really splitting hairs between who is the fastest with limited other factors it may help. What about the front wheels like these.....

Funny.... I am actually working on a similar, but certainly not the same, project. When 42054 came out with the new wheels, I instantly thought of a.... what is called a "redneck" mudder here in the US. LIke this.... And knew that I had to build one. Been side-tracked with so many other projects and work.... haven't had a chance to finish but hopefully will soon. Mine will be powered by hopefully two XL motors..... perhaps will be slow but I actually hope to film it doing what I want it to..... go through some gnarly muddy conditions..... Yours is a fun little project. I must say that using the actuators is different for links......did you also consider the 1x16 links? They typically work very well for these applications.

?? Don't know why it wouldn't swivel....axle part is through pinhole not axle hole

Not sure I see the bending. If u zoom in the photo with digital line u can see it is not straight either. Super slight deviations, to be sure....but as mentioned by @Zblj the alleged bending is so very slight itself. So not straight line might explain the alleged bending

Congrats. Very cool. Thanks for sharing

Please forgive the naivete of this question, I have searched fruitlessly for an answer.......but why the teddy bear for 42070??

Well, if anything, this little study only showed me how ignorant I am of Lego PF So... take the following questions with a grain of salt. Totally owning my ignorance here....... I know there are significant differences between V1 and V2 receivers, but do those differences only occur when using 8878? If not, why not do the V1 and V2 tests with the PF battery boxes? Are you assuming whatever differences exist with 8878 also apply to the PF boxes? Both old and new? Why test configurations if you are not going to test all of them? Also.... and I think this was already acknowledged, but yes.... the cobble-like surface not only is not the best surface..... but it may even invalidate your results. And why the highest value.....you should take the average. Especially on a bumpy surface, the variation on a bumpy surface is likely very important. The idea of the video is great, but the execution leaves me with many more questions than answers.

Drilled cylinder is a modded piece. And there are huge differences between LPEs when using modded versus unmodded pieces. If drilling cylinders.... you may as well also modify the switches. No heroism in modifying cylinders but not switches. Don't want to sound cynical... this indeed is a great project. I love the looks of the Audi so far.... really great. But still curious about the small LPE being able to make this drift. Have you done any tests yet on the small LPE? You may want to do this before proceeding. Hate to see all the wonderful bodywork, etc. be done, only to find out that the small LPE can't power this into drifting......

Fun machine..... but would it look a little more realistic if you slowed it down a bit? Both the ST walking and twirling his gun seemed a little too fast.....

Welcome to eurobricks and oh my!! Incredible submission! Video would be wonderful and very popular i am sure. And images of the build along the way.....I would be very interested.

I second the eight for possible instructions......and the plea to keep at it I am following this project as well and would love to build it sometime. Love your builds!

What a great idea. The bikes r great but along with Darth and Co. This is exceptional.

Pretty special project. Sign me up as one who would built it if instructions were available

Well, the 16T gear is still braced.... if you move ahead to step 170 you will see that the 6L axle goes through the 2 thin 6L liftarms and the connector. I just replaced the 5L liftarm with another 1/2 bush.... so...... 3 1/2 bushes in total for that part of the build. Youre welcome for the credit.... it is your build after all! Excited to hear about your new build......smaller in size with comparable performance? Sign me up! Perhaps I will build it as well with the Buwizz and 2.2 super swamper tires......

Usually not much of a builder of something other than Technic, although I have dabbled in SW, Mechas, and Batman, I have my son here for the summer and we would like to build Tyler's UCS version of the Milano, as demonstrated on the YT channel "the Brick Show." See it here: Instantly we had the project that we wanted to work on together for the summer. So, we bought the instructions. But.... couple of questions that were not answered on the channel, video, or website and was wondering if anyone could help us out. First - after purchasing the instructions it says that they will be shipped to us. Weird. Why not just send via email (it is a PDF file after all). I have purchased instructions from other builders and it has always been sent via email. Printing and shipping costs alone (it does ship free) are likely pretty much the cost being requested. Therefore, Tyler is really making no money at all (which might be on purpose, but then why not just make available on like rebrickable or something). Also - many discrepancies exist between YT and the actual instructions. 1500 pieces or 3000? Such figures are used interchangeably. I want to do a custom stand and I need to know how strong to make it. I tried to look here on this forum and did not see any topics on this build..... but wondering if anyone knows Tyler (the builder) or more intimately knows The Brick Show......

Wonderful build and hilarious, terrific videos. Thank you for sharing.

Agree with the above. I also think it is one thing to discuss available color palette, but another to discuss the breadth of the color palette in available colors. Before an expansion of colors occurs I would like to see a broader range of pieces available in certain colors. Example, lime green technic pieces obviously exist; but only in limits elements. For a MOCer, this makes modifying or MOCing in different colors difficult. Also, fans have been asking for years to adjust the availability of certain, frequently used pieces in more uniform colors. Example: Blue 3L pins. They used to exist in black, but not really any more. For adult builders, this can be important b/c the odd blue color is off-putting for models built in other colors. It would be nice if these pins were available in other colors to blend in better in builds.