Didumos69

Maybe I was a bit harsh. I certainly wasn't being unbiased as opposed to @nerdsforprez's well-spoken elaboration. You are right that I cannot expect every model to be treated as my rugged super car. It's just that during building my rugged super car, I rediscovered what Technic is really about, to me, which is: seeing and feeling how things work. For instance, when you incorporate Ackermann steering in a model, you can really see and feel what happens when you push that model through turns. So even though the Porsche panneling looks good and is less flimsy than some MOCs out there, it just isn't my taste. But this is personal of course. Despite not being a fan of the Porsche, I'm in no way disappointed in, or angry at TLG. Without the Porsche I would not have developed the 90 degree limiter, nor would I have gained insight in the side-effects of using clutch gears. I would not have arrived at my 90 degree stepper and not at my sequential gearbox, which was the base for my rugged super car. 42056 has given me the greatest Technic learning experience so far .

You are right about the limitations of the parts of course and I agree it would have been nice if the Porsche had come with better parts, like for instance differently sized clutch gears. After my conclusions on how to use the existing clutch gears and how not, I did manage to make a much less complicated, fairly compact, smooth running, sequential 4-speed gearbox for my rugged supercar.

Indeed. The friction problem does not occur when the red clutch gears are only used as idler gears and not as gears that transfer drive while attached to an axle rotating at different speed. After separating some axles, as mentioned by @Appie, the gearbox friction is eliminated.

I have no real sentiment towards how 42056 compares to game-changers like the Unimog and the Arocs. But that is mainly because I was still in my dark ages when those sets came out. For me the main reason to buy 42056 was the fact that reviews made clear there were some flaws. My fingers were itching to try for my self and I have had lot of fun modding and improving the Porsche. Now that my ultimately playable Porsche is sitting on a shelf for a year (partly disassembled) I have lost my interest for the model almost completely. While building my own rugged super car, I have actually come to dislike the Porsche, if not hate it. Even though I made the body removable, it remains to be such a hassle that I rather don't. And what I really don't like is the vulnerability of the whole thing, especially the body. If you want to carry the model you have to lift it very carefully to avoid displacement of parts. You can't lift it by the front bumper, you can't lift it by the sides, etc. When I think of LEGO Technic, I want to see models that show how things work. I want to be able to operate a model without being concerned that I might detach some bodywork parts. To me 42056 is the climax of a trend I dislike in general: a trend in which smooth paneling overshadows reliable Technic functions. 42056 symboIizes a direction we shouldn't want to go. I hope the disappointment around 42056 will turn the tide and bring us all back to what LEGO Technic is actually about. Btw, I would also like to get rid of the prefix Porsche in my nickname.

I have been waiting endlessly for the blue parts to arrive and even when they did there was one essential part missing. So I decided to stick to the red version. I plan to make photo sequence instructions on Friday morning. For those who can't wait: here's the final LXF-file (note that the pink parts need to be replaced with there new 2-axle counterparts). This is the final video:

I knew it . Me too. I made it shorter too, so it matches the scale of the small seaplane and small Porsche better. I think this should complete the trilogy.

I agree the model benefits from the improvements you made. The more I look at it, the more I like it. In my opinion, the somewhat sparse white panels and black parts filling the gaps between them, are the exact match for a true Technic model (as opposed to a true scale model). I'd say: Don't change a thing, it's perfect !

You are right. I think it's too Porsche-ish. I worked on it a little more: I could also make it narrower:

The front suspension is awesome - actually the whole build is very clever and though-through. And I love to see someone-else building rigid coachwork .

Whatever.

Thanks! Even though I like the catamaran with sails, I think a speed catamaran suits the trilogy better:

Wow, awesome build. I love the somewhat rough panelling, which is emphasized by the black and white contrast. It adds character. The front fenders are immense, but fit it's chatacter well, imo. The gearbox is also very cool. Well done! Imo the whole build has much resemblance with Crowkillers style.

Thanks guys! No nothing in the pipeline, apart from instructions for my 40th anniv. tiny tow truck tribute. Here's a tender of the trio: And the less pretty side of the catamaran:

Thanks! I feel heard now . As for the flagship discussion. Since the ship is not the flagship set, I thought I make my own flagship .

Recent discussion in the Technic 2017 Set Discussion topic about the 2017 flagship set gave me some inspiration to finish my mini-trilogy. A car, a plane and a now also a boat. A catamaran to be specific. With a flag, of course .

@Paknaloid, thanks for sharing your build! It looks awesome!

Haha, I recognize the unwillingness to take things apart properly when these kind of things happen. I have bent and scratched some beams while modding the Porsche. I even destroyed some pins. Btw, I'm happy to know you used my PDK redesign .

Too bad. I hope 42067 will be a flagship. I always wondered how flagships work.

So there is one ship set which is a ship and there is one flagship set which is not a ship. I think get it know.

And they are not used as proof and it's clearly not just lens distortion. And please don't say 'end of story' if you're not willing to look any further than these images. Please read my elaboration on the rear section of the chassis and comment on that part instead.

I have enough parts, but I need a good reason to buy this set .

Thank you very much @nerdsforprez! I wouldn't want to dispute your point on bending in the image itself either. I guess my main point is that the conclusion that there is nothing weak about the chassis was drawn a little too easily by some repliers. The presence of L-arms and frames in the rear section of the chassis proves to be an invalid argument. Btw, here's a straightened image with a straight line without jumps and another one - also straightened - taken from the video. But more importantly - and I know I'm entering your professional domain here - you must approve with the assumption that the human eye and the brain attached to it, is better at drawing conclusions on whether lines are parallel when the lines are drawn on an object that moves around in motion pictures than when it concerns a stand-alone image. From this assumption, I think time span [0:24-0:26] of the 42070 video tells the whole story.

This hurts! I almost clicked 'Report post' .

Okay guys, you can close your eyes for this, but after looking at some more images end the rest of the same video I'm quite sure the chassis does bend noticeably under it's own weight and the reason is also quite evident. Take a look at the first 5 seconds of this part of the video (timestamp 0:24). Now let me recall @dokludi's 42070 replica. It shows the same bending. But take a look at the section of the chassis behind the crane turntable. The main structure running over the rear axles boils down to a flat (1 stud high) composition of beams and frames only, which is of course likely to bend. There are some vertical beams and some bent liftarms, but they don't contribute to the main structure. You can see the same flat structure above the rear axles in this still from the video. Also notice the use of several 3x5-L-arms without adding anything to the structure. I guess they only serve as stoppers for the rear axles. I still don't blame LEGO for building it like this, it's cheap and doesn't interfere with other functions, but I truly believe a well-designed vehicle like this, should at least have a 3 stud high main structure running over the rear axles. EDIT: Concerning the rear section of the chassis, this is what I could deduce so far. It shouldn't be too difficult to integrate the DBG beams better and extend them all the way to the back.

And in response to @Zero (Zblj), @nerdsforprez and @J_C And it drives remarkably well. LEGO has to make compromises, no doubt about that. Even if that would lead to a little bending, I wouldn't want to hold it against LEGO, as long as the functions are not affected. It's just my personal preference to see a chassis with no visually noticeable bending under the vehicles own weight, which is something different from bending while the vehicle is working and from (torsional) flex, which I regard as things much more common to these kind of vehicles and certainly to LEGO replicas.