Didumos69

i entered with my ultimately playable version of 42056 with this description: The looks of the Porsche 911 are timeless. It's what's inside that evolves continuously. The same is true for the 42056 Porsche 911 GT3 RS set. Hence this ultimately playable version. Response from Rebrick contest: Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your entry into the Build the Porsche of Your Dreams Contest, as it is not an original model you created yourself. Only unique models designed and built by participants are edible in the contest. If possible, you can still build a unique model and submit it into the contest before August 1st. If you feel there has been a mistake or have further questions, please contact us at ReBrick@lego.com. Sorry for the trouble, Apparently it's a contest based on 'what something looks like', not on 'how something functions'. Has little to do with Technic in my opinion.

Thanks! It's a good feeling to have finished this before going on vacation . I updated the list, apparently there were two gears missing... I entered the rebrick contest with this description: The looks of the Porsche 911 are timeless. It's what's inside that evolves continuously. The same is true for the 42056 Porsche 911 GT3 RS set. Hence this ultimately playable version. Response from Rebrick contest: Unfortunately we’ve had to remove your entry into the Build the Porsche of Your Dreams Contest, as it is not an original model you created yourself. Only unique models designed and built by participants are edible in the contest. If possible, you can still build a unique model and submit it into the contest before August 1st. If you feel there has been a mistake or have further questions, please contact us at ReBrick@lego.com. Sorry for the trouble,

And extra parts list for the ultimate version: EDIT: Just updated the list.

Time to deliver. Here's the video of my ultimately playable version for the Rebrick competition: And here's the LXF-file showing the differences in terms of groups: In each group there is a subgroup representing the old structure and the new structure. Both new structures and old structures are embedded in a version of the chassis. By clicking on a group or subgroup you select all parts in that group. That way you can inspect the differences. Enjoy! P.S. Sorry, didn't have time for stickers

And finally, before I finish up this project, here's an important mod to box 2 to better secure the top side of the panel in front of the rear HoG gears: Before: After:

My setup makes use of the full length of the suspension arms to eliminate bump steer. You could also add the push rod idea to the stock build, which would make the suspension even more hard, see this post.

Here's an update of my most recent modifications to the front and rear axles to get the ground clearance and rake angle right.. For the rear axles my MOD boils down to simply replacing the parts that mount the shocks to the chassis. This brings the rear half a stud up and helps compensate for the extra weight that comes with the extra parts that I used: For the front axles I'm very satisfied with my last changes (see previous post). This setup still includes Ackermann steering and a slider for the gear rack. It also secures the suspension arms much better and adds a second (push rod) shock on each side. The LXF-file with the front axles can be downloaded here.

I didn't post this here yet I believe: I posted a new topic with a link to errata and a parts list for all 'miison-critical' MODs. Enjoy!

I noticed the nose of the body is bending under its own weight. When looking at this closer I discovered there is not much structure keeping the section in front of the front axles in horizontal position. So I'm planning to add some stability to this section. In this section: I will replace the parts at the left with the parts at the right: So it will look like this:

You're welcome!

I didn't want to go further than what I think can be regarded as true errata. This is how the set should have been released in my opinion. And as it would be hard to implement these mission-critical modifications after finishing the model, it seemed appropriate to present them in terms of BI-corrections. This is where I have drawn the line, also to make it a clear message to TLG. Imo making the body removable is an add-on feature rather than a fix. It can also be applied fairly easily afterwards. The same for HoG steering.

That would be too much, but thanks! This is what I did: And ithe front clearance is perfect now: This is how it was:

Thanks! I would appreciate it if you report on your experience with these errata after finishing your build. Good luck!

I will post the LDD-file and parts list before I will head off for vacation. I'm still not completely satisfied about the front suspension. It can carry the weight, it's actually fully expanded despite the weight, but even then the front ground clearance is less than a stud. The suspension simply doesn't expand far enough. So I will try this tonight. If it's equally strong it will give half a stud extra clearance.

In the stock build this could also be an easy way to integrate a second shock: This is al there is to it:

Thanks. Fixed it. I actually want to tweak the front suspension, but my son is playing with it for over an hour already

I just posted a new topic with a link to errata and a parts list for all 'miison-critical' MODs. Hope you have your Porsche still sitting and waiting

Thanks! The steps that do not add any parts do indeed replace steps that can actually be ommitted. I included them just to show what your build should look like at that stage. I explain that in the document itself too. After implementing the 90 degree limiter, the positions of the driving rings are indeed perfect when they are centered. However, when they engage the rear clutch gear, they squeeze that gear against the liftarm behind it. This causes friction. After inserting the 2L thin levers the driving rings are maybe no longer perfectly centered, but this does not cause any gear to be engaged unintendedly and the friction is gone.

The errata will help you implement the necessary fixes while building the model from scratch. It provides a list of extra parts you need (only 30 small and commonly used parts) and a sequence of steps that serve as a replacement of the corresponding steps in the original building instructions. All can be found in this PDF. The following summarizes what has been included concerning the gear shifting mechanism: I applied Paul Boratko's gear sequence fix as described in Jim's review. I flipped the change-over-catches in paddle-shifter-unit by 180 degrees (as suggested by Attika). I added the simple 90° limiter to the gear selector axle; used two of the four white silicon bands. I removed the 8 tooth gears used to add friction; minimized friction in the selector axle instead. I used only one silicon band for each paddle shifter; wrapped it around the neck of the ball joint once. I extended both change-over-catches in the gearbox with half a stud (more info here). The following summarizes what has been included concerning the drive train: I removed the pin-joiner in the D+N+R-gearbox. Original idea suggested by Blakbird, see his detailed build report. I avoided red gears from transferring torque on axles rotating at different speed, see eliminate friction in gearbox. I added an extra support for the 15L axle running from D+N+R gearbox to differential, see alternative axle scheme. I avoided axle connectors from rubbing against lift-arms as suggested by nerdsforprez, see alternative axle scheme. I replaced the white clutch gear with a gearless friction clutch, see alternative axle scheme and white gear replacement. Now I could gear up the engine: Replaced the 2 16t gears with a pair of 24t-8t gears, see eliminate friction in gearbox. The errata include a 4th-to-1st gear block, but do not provide instructions for additional features like HoG steering or a removable body. I was a little bit in doubt whether to include all changes to the axle scheme or not. Blakbird - who has test-driven this set of modifications, thanks for that! - was already satisfied without applying all changes to avoid connectors from rubbing against liftarms. I decided to include them anyway, beacuse I think it's simply a matter of good practice and since these errata are specifically useful when you build the model from scratch, it's an easy gain. For all MODs that are included in the errata I made a LDD-file of Box 1. showing the differences in terms of groups: In each group there is a subgroup containing the old structure and a subgroup containing the new structure. All new structures are embedded in the complete chassis and all old structures are placed to the side of the chassis. By clicking on a subgroup you select all parts in that group. That way you can inspect the differences. Besides the modifications listed above the LDD-file contains HoG steering. If there is anything unclear or if you find errors, please let me know. The idea is to make thing more fun, so all should be clear and correct. Thanks to everybody who shared his/her improvements!

@DayWalker, thanks for sharing. I can clearly see the improvements compared to your fiirst version. Very nice to see how you optimized the height of the gear rack and how you got more stability in the gear rack and the lower wishbone. And I couldn't help noticing you have an interesting approach to a little more bracing on top of the gearbox

Thanks! No, I'm not being paid by TLG. It's actually the other way around, I paid them 300 euros . The point is that I have a deadline. End of next week I will be off for vacation for three weeks and I want to enter the rebrick contest with this. I'm affraid I will be completely reset and have forgotten all about the Porsche after my vacation... @stevenhalim, is this better or is it too much? The clearance difference between front and back is approximately 0.8 studs. I used the stock geometry and only lowered the point where the shock is mounted to the chassis by half a stud.

@stevenhalim, thanks for your feedback and clarifying the breaking issues. The CV-joint is indeed quite weak and there is al lot of difference between individual instances. Some sit tight and some drop out even when shaking. I will certainly apply the stickers and I also have a better dash gear indicator in mind for the video. You are right about the rake angle and I will certainly fix that soon.

I took a testdrive tonight and it was clear there is currently not enough downforce, so I think you're right, the lack of rake angle must be the reason . (I'm thinking of doing somehing like this video as my presentation for the rebrick contest...) Back to the drawing table...

In my setup the wishbones did not exactly double in length, they went from 3 to 5 studs (heart to heart). The outer shock also stands more vertically than in the stock geometry. So the outer shock has more than half the strength of the original setup. When I tested this setup, the outer shock almost gave as much resistance as the stock geometry. The second shock adds just enough to get the right strength. It shouldn't be too strong either. Btw, here's the LXF-file of my front suspension. But now that I've finished box 3 and 4, and could conclude the front suspension works okay (see image), there was something I was less content with. The rear suspension. The front ground clearance was actually better than the rear ground clearance. Maybe because of the 361 extra parts - and counting - that I added, So I decided to finetune the rear suspension as well. I moved the point where the shocks are mounted to the lower suspension arms 1 stud more to the outside of the suspension. I also had to mount the calipers differently to make some room for this adjustment (this fits the rims perfectly). Then I lowered the point where the shocks are mounted to the chassis by half a stud. This gives just the right amount of extra strength and the front and rear ground clearance are now the same. And a nice side effect is that the shocks are now parallel to the ones in the front suspension. This is what I did: This shows the overall ground clearance very nicely:

No problem. I was actually glad you took the time to test it. I think the difference must have been that you're setup wasn't symmetric. By the way, I would still like to see photo's of your improved Ackermann setup. It could very well be that you use less or different parts, which may suite people better than my solution.