nerdsforprez

Lift Arms. Yea... I should be more careful..... too easy to interchange the two.....

8070 brought me back. It always got so much flak from the community but I loved the set..... I guess I did not know any better. I love your changes, and love your photos even more. creative and artistic.... great job.

To the Op - check out this shop: http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=Eezo Liftarms as long as 32L - not ABS mind you, aluminum. Expensive yes,.... but strong? even yessier...... I am on the side of agreement that I think there certainly are some uses for LAs longer than 15L. Would they be worth it for TLG to produce? I think that perhaps is another story. But I will say that the argument about their weakness at longer than 15L I dont think is very valid. Axles are much weaker and they make them up to 32L .......

Yea.... again, like i mentioned to @ Lipko just trying to offer a silver lining in all this. I could not agree more that the set should be working right out of the box. I think most people buy it and build it for a relaxing build. They are not necessarily there for a build where they have to solve it like a puzzle. Lego is not in the business of Sudoko or Rubik Cube puzzles. In addition to the PR nightmare... I really do think this is a black eye for TLG. Personally, I would not doubt it if there are some heads a 'rollin over there. I hope not but I would not be surprised. In fact, if you really think about what I am trying to point out as a silver lining it only magnifies that what we are talking about here is an issue of quality control, thoroughness, etc.. you get the picture. Inherently this is a bad thing. But.... if one does like solving puzzles, or more of a challenge, like perhaps many on this forum... then yes, IMO this could be a fun set for them.

My comments are directed at those on this forum. Therefore not your average builder. I am trying to portray a silver lining in all this while at the same time not giving a "pass" to TLG. As mentioned, their errors are not excusable. I was also direct in saying that perhaps the complexity in the build comes because of the errors of TLG. Now..... before they come out and say something like "we messed up so you could enjoy your build more" I will adamantly state that is NOT the way to do business. Just trying to give another POV that is all. Not arguing that any of this is okay. Truth be told, to show where my true alliance lies and that I really am trying to approach this in a balanced manner.... initially this was a day one purchase for me. Tracking my comments over time one can see that. However, I have chilled immensely. After the speculated lack of steering angle it became a potential non-buy. Now with other revelations....not sure I will get it at all It was released a day ago.... I still have not bought one

Great find Erik and I will comment a little on the find....... Earlier in this thread I had made a comment on the possibility that it was a good thing that the set was labeled as a 16+ set and used an argument of inductive versus deductive reasoning as my rationale. Erik's little find could not have illustrated my thoughts better. Many think that the Porsche is simple, at least mechanically. However, technically, apparently is it not.... at least in terms of building it correctly. As I mentioned, I think there is much more inductive reasoning going on than in previous sets. One cannot merely open the instructions, build, and hope for a final, working product. one must test, hypothesize, and be kinda like your own engineer at every step of the model. Perhaps, like Erik and Paul, you might have to go against what the instructions say to actually get a working model. Perhaps in this model, more than others, YOU are actually more of the CREATOR than merely an assembler. If you think about it, on most sets (not all, AROCS is another fine example, especially when dealing with the tubing) you are merely there for assembly. Creating? Not so much. But for this set we have now two individuals who have actually had to create their own solution to a problem, which to many will appear as a challenge and a very enjoyable build. Last thing I will say and I am certainly not giving TLG or 42056 a "pass" here - but I think that trying to see things from another POV is always a good thing. That these problems were missed by quality control is inexcusable..... but at the same time, perhaps understandable. We now have a new solution to a problem with this build, but apparently this was something missed by other wonderful, incredibly talented, best-of-the-best builders (those who initially reviewed the set). Ultimately, the picture is changing on this model, in my view, as perhaps not a set that is mechanically all that complex to one that, perhaps even because of all its flaws, to one that is technically very complex. every little details likely matters in the build. Making sure gears are not pressed against liftarms, perhaps using lubrication, spacing, checking every stage for friction, .... all these things apparently matter. Now that building a functional model is perhaps possible, I see this as a real challenging set to build.....

Com'on guys.... it was their attempt to make something "Ultimate" about 42056 --- "Ultimate" PR that is !! :laugh:

Please read pricing and availability thread. Discusses all of this

I am hearing that at least US S@H online currently says "coming soon" but when you actually order it is says shipping in thirty days. So looks like you can still order it.

I doubt it. They have more than just their brand to be concerned about. Think of the Porsche people. They cannot be happy. If they are unhappy think about new potential licensing opportunities. They will plummet. If indeed this is a new line up of"ultimate" sets TLG is starting off on the wrong foot.

Really good idea. Yea.

Given that the regular Porsche thread has now been closed, i will post the following statement here. I didn't want to open yet another thread on the Porsche without consulting members. So, if there is enough feedback, Jim - can we go ahead and open a thread on Porsche availability? I am sure there will be enough questions regarding this. From what I understand, here is what we have so far..... LEGO 45056 was to be available at LEGO S@H today, 1 JUN. However, this is not the case. I can only speak for the US website, but reading elsewhere it appears to be the same thing. It has been postponed due to complications with the set. We will wait for an official statement by LEGO in terms of when it will actually be available. However, this was to also be available in some places in Europe (stores) on 1 JUN. This is still the case. Workers of individual stores either never got the message about the postponement or were never notified by TLG and they decided to sell as is. Fans are buying these sets now. I forget what countries exactly in Europe have these, please anyone fill in this missing information. In the US and Canada, however, the set was never going to be available in stores until 1 AUG. So, obviously in the US and Canada we do not have the set, and 'cuz it is now not available online, we cannot buy it at this time. I think the above information is correct, anyone please feel free to correct or fill in missing information...... EDIT: Sorry, forgot to add the following: If the above is correct, I am wondering if people think this will add to the value to the sets that are currently being sold? If there are changes to come, that means the sets being sold right now will have some objective differences than those in the future. Yes - perhaps some form of error or mistake but because of rarity they may increase in value or be more valuable than those to be sold in the future? If there are "fixes" - what do people think?

I think it also adds to their brand. LEGO makes it to all the popular nerd/pop culture websites and news outlets. It is superbly large for a toy company. Part of the draw, even if it sounds anti-climatic, of LEGO for AFOLS is its exclusivity. This exclusive nature comes with a heavy price tag of secrecy.....

I'll bet there will be sparks.......

Jim - Great review. This information is so helpful for each of us to make an informed decision as to whether or not we want to purchase the set. I wish such great reviews were available on all the fun stuff I purchase About the 16+ issue - Not trying to be overly technical here, but I will offer a theory. Not saying that this is necessarily the reason why TLG placed the 16+ label on the box, for they apparently did not anticipate the issue of which I am about to discuss, but I am saying that perhaps it was a good idea, given the shortcomings of the model. Also, I am not pulling the following out of my butt..... I don't have a cool job like many of you as an engineer or have any technical or mechanical expertise, but I do study brains for a living . How cool would it be if TLG consulted with some cognitive researchers to establish age guidelines for their models??! Certainly would help them if some lawsuit were to come along suggesting damage was done b/c specified ages were wrong. But to my knowledge, there is none. And personally, I can't think of any literature that would support the encouraged age ranges. However, I will say this....... Deductive reasoning refers to the cognitive ability of taking a set of rules, facts, or information and deducing solutions or results from that information. You deduce. You start broadly and narrow to a conclusion. Following instructions in LEGO building is very similar. You take rules (instructions), and deduce, based upon what is seen, where they should go. Inductive reasoning is different. It involves taking a conclusion, or answer, but not knowing how that conclusion was arrived at, and hypothesizing how it was achieved. You induce, rather than deduce. Having a set that is not working, you have an end result. But you have to induce, not deduce, or theorize how you can fix it. The solution is not in the instructions. You can't just follow a set of rules to fix it.... you have to make the rules. That is inductive reasoning. I remember the AROCS was kinda that way with the pneumatic tubing. The tubing was horribly jumbled together for the crane, and the instructions actually led one astray. The rules were not the solution. Smart builders had to come up with a solution.... they had to MAKE rules when the rules (instructions) were broke. Inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a much more developed skill than deductive reasoning and more suitable to older individuals. I am thinking that building the Porsche might be somewhat similar. Gratefully, I was actually privy to some of the problems that were going on with the model. There was conversation between them and some theorizing. The solutions that Jim, Sariel, and others had to arrive at to solve the gearbox issues were the product of inductive reasoning. They are not in the instructions. These builders had to hypothesize, test, hypothesize again, test, etc. until they arrived at a solution. They arrived at a final solution, albeit faulty, and had to broaden out in how the instructions led them astray. Correct building of the Porsche will likely require such thinking. To be honest, I think most flagship models involve some of this reasoning, but the Porsche, because of its shortcomings, might require more. So... like I said, I don't think that obviously this is the reason for the specified age ranges, but perhaps the categorization is applicable.

I love the sound of anticipated dates whooshing by...... Christmas....birth of my kids....marriage... And now, the dreaded 96 hours are over....

Thanks for the comment.... I appreciate it.

Your comments are fine...... no problem. You hit on a very valid point. The first 90 pages or so dealt with a perceived lack of function. However, this new revelation that the gearbox might be faulty is new info. and a very valid point. I wasn't directing my comments to anyone in particular, just the community, or at least the most on here reading this thread. IMO the two issues above, the perceived lack of functioning and non-working gearbox are different. One is completely subjective, and much more geared towards my comments, and the other, the allegedly non-working gearbox (still allegedly at this point) is more objective (or at least we will see in the next couple of days. Some have commented that the initial whistle-blower, Anio, is a little harsh in his critiques, which if true, would make even this complaint subjective), and less geared towards my comments. However, respectfully, I must say that the limitations for MOCers you pointed out are a little far-reaching; general, non-specific to LEGO building, and both are self-imposed. Time as a limit is non-specific to LEGO-building. This affects literally ever aspect of human existence. You might as well say both have limitations in hand dexterity. Time as a limitation is also self-imposed. Some MOCers take years on a project, other months. And no one is forcing an adult MOCer to produce.... so no time is NOT really the same restraint. A LEGO designer has time as a restraint b/c they are working for a daily paycheck. If they don't produce, they don't eat. Not really the same for MOCers..... UNLESS they are also building for money. And the pieces argument i am not really buying. Is it a limitation? You bet. But the MOCs that are being used to compare the Porsche against are from builders that I don't suspect, in the least, where part availability is much of an issue. Plus, it it is non-specific to the MOCers. Lego designers also have part limitation believe it or not. The limitations that I attribute to LEGO designers are specific to them. Buyer desires, market demands, trying to meet demands of mid-thirty engineers and 16 year old high school students that don't even have a HS education..... yes.... HUGE limitation.....

+1. @jorgeopesi responded as I was writing my response. This, IMO, is one of the best responses on this 100+ thread. Instead of complaining about the model Jorge recognizes that he is not the typical Lego builder/buyer and therefore his needs are not necessarily going to match those of goals of the LEGO designers when they built this model. Simple as that. Again, don't get me wrong. If you want to complain about the model fine. Nothing inherently wrong with that. IMO it is just more accurate to recognize that perhaps one's displeasure with this model is better reflected in the differences of the intents and purposes of TLG designers versus individual MOCers than all the weaknesses and shortcoming of the model itself.......

Lots and lots of really smart people on here but I really think we still are missing a main, central issue here. Many will make a loose association to what I am referring to but it really only scratches the surface when we say, "LEGO really is only a toy after all." The bigger picture is LEGO is really a business after all. I am not trying to defend TLG group and I have no alliance with them..... just trying to offer a different POV. Believe it or not TLG's job is not to create a genuinely accurate Technic model. And their definition of "ultimate" likely does not reflect such efforts. "Ultimate" is a marketing ploy, we all understand that, to sell as many of these sets as possible. If the set sells well or not will be the benchmark in which the designer(s) measure their efforts against, NOT whether the model is accurate to the real thing. The designers can happily show their faces if the model sells well. Now, some of you still might grimace and say something to the tune of "typical problems of the cheap society we live in" or "typical problems with westernized mass-marketing" but, as I have stated before, we all win here...... EVEN if LEGO sets are somewhat cheapened by placing sales above all else. TLG is concerned about sales first. End of story. If this set is marketed well, hits the "WOW" factor on all cylinders, and brings many from their dark ages but is still technically weak and sales well then TLG has done its job. But that allows for tens of thousands of this set to be built, millions and millions of pieces...... and with this amount of product we can have things like thousands of AFOLS who create online places to trade and buy pieces, forums like this to discuss, websites to...... you get the picture. If TLG only looked at producing for the upper echelon of AFOLs and their whims and desires, not even a fraction of the product would be made, not a fraction of the pieces...... etc. you get the picture. LEGO and AFOLs on this site cannot be held to the same standard. They cannot. LEGO Ideas should be a paradigmatic example. Apples and oranges folks. MOCers, wonderful as they are and we love 'em so do not have the limitations placed upon them as the LEGO designers do. LEGO Ideas exemplifies this in that not one of the mass-produced final products from LEGO Ideas has ever been the same as the original submitted model. We all get this and no one ever really complains because this all makes rational sense. However, when TLG creates a car that is not on par with some of our more popular MOCers cars we all throw a tizzy. Why? If we understand that business-model limitations restrict final products in LEGO ideas why can't we accept that when it comes to this model? And before one comes back with "well they can't call it Ultimate" .... please consider again their motive. Their motive is to sell..... not accuracy in building. And no.... TLG might not have your money if the model is not super-accurate but remember as wonderful as a community as this is it is a small minority of the folks that will be actually be buying this set. As much as we want to think that EB members are TLGs target point in creating this set ---- we are not. We represent a fraction of that target point, but only a fraction....

Why exactly? Tight fit? That is pretty much the reason for any LED system in LEGO. But as you can see from other creations..... that is the whole point of the thing. It is possible.

Welcome to the forum! I love to hear the stories of others coming out of their "dark ages" - I am in agreement with others. Your design looks like something very promising. As others have said, and more pics or even a video would be great. Also, many working in the area of engineering and mechanics have a great grasp of working with certain materials, steel, alloys, etc.... but ABS is a little different. In theory your creation might be great, but consider the material. I agree with what has been said, it might be to heavy and lack the strength to really lift anything substantial......

If it is the Prado, it is, IMO, a little better done, or with some significant modifications. If you watch the video in your link, there are many color variations in the chassis and much of the chassis and internals of the vehicle can be seen from the outside. quite a few gaps. The one in the shelf (zoomed-out pic I get it) looks to be tighter in the bodywork and less of the internals are showing.....

.....I tried studded....... ?? Overall I think studless is an improvement. HOwever, i certainly think there are uses for the studded bricks still. Especially for things like stands, frames, chassis, etc. Like nicjanso mentioned, perhaps studded are not that much stronger than studless when panels, etc can compensate, but I don't think there is much argument, that standing alone, studded are quite a bit stronger than studless. I am glad they are still being made, however, I wish they were made with more frequency.

Totally understand your comment ..... however, given there are no LA, PF or other such elements in this set I don't think it is as simple of a correction as that. In addition, Anio mentioned that the "flaw" was a design flaw in nature and that its issues went so much deeper than the LA of 4043. He went as far as to say that the flaw would require a whole new design. Personally for me..... no final decision yet, but I will wait for reviews. Initially, it was a day one purchase for me but for now I will postpone judgment and speculation until reviews come out.