XenoRad

If the functions are smooth and easy to operate and plenty, then this could be interesting. Otherwise, at 72 cm long, it's way too big for the inaccuracies in proportions, and the sides look like a mess of beams. Both 9396 and 42052, despite being smaller and with less parts, look like more cohesive designs.

My local authorized Lego distributor is only since today listing the set as available and not on pre-order and no mention of the book. Guess it's just on lego . com where it sold out in mere minutes. At this point, and remembering what happened with the Osprey, any "limited edition" run is simply going to fuel online scalping. There really needs to be a better way to achieve the desired "exclusivity" without creating these market distortions.

@kbalage Thank you for the review. Looking at the parts list I see 50 of the new red half-pins with friction ridges and pretty much the new "filled in" pins all around. Can you confirm that indeed, it's exclusively the new style pins that are used for this? Also, it doesn't look like it, but is there any color inconsistency with the parts?

Yes, but you can open a new line of credit at your preferred Swiss bank and be able to afford this. 5 years later, over 200 euros in interest fees alone, and you're all settled up. I kid, but all in all, while I would have preferred the set and the book to be slightly cheaper, I kind of understand it. Ferrari wants to be "the" hyper-sports-car brand, Lego wants to also take advantage of this - it is what it is. I actually really like it, price aside. And I'm sure our very dedicated and talented community can pimp up this Ferrari to something truly spectacular. @jb70, @Didumos69 where you at, guys?

The fact that the "updated" design is still outdated could be explained by Lego's process and overhead on making changes to already released sets or about to release sets (if the change was decided upon before the launch of the set), but considering the size of that plate and sticker compared to the tire itself, I find it strange that they went from representing a tire print on a smaller radius than the actual tire, to representing a rim print on a bigger radius than the actual rim. Neither really work if you know the source material. Had they drawn both tire and rim on that sticker, even if inaccurate, would have been much better than drawing either, having it too small or too big respectively and rather devoid of detail overall. Though I guess the way it is now, it's easier to "manually apply" the correct tire print with the right brush and paint, if you really want an accurate model. And for the money this set costs, why shouldn't you?

There are two types of those black round bricks. Some have a round hole on their side but no axle hole on top, others have the axle hole on top but not the hole on the side. https://brickset.com/parts/design-17485 https://brickset.com/parts/design-6143 From what I remember both types are present in the bags when building this part of the dozer so you need to make sure you've used the correct one for each step.

Let's also not forget that the CAT is an 18+ set which I think it really means it's 18% more expensive, considering some of the prices for such labelled sets.

It would still occupy less space than two 4 port hubs.

All of this discussion with individual functions and gearboxes makes me think whether long term it might be better for Lego to release a 6 port hub. It would occupy less space than 2 hubs and still have enough ports to run functions without the need for a gearbox.

I've watched both reviews. Leaving any discussion on price aside I do like it, but for its scale I think it has three main issues: 1. Not all functions are operable (ripper tilt), motorized or not. 2. Any attempt to change or mod the blade movement speed or the path drive from the motors needs to take to action upon it is going to be limited by the Control+ app which has preset gear ratios to track position of the blade 3. Has quite a few gaps, especially on the sides (this is easily observable in the side-by-side portion of Sariel's review). For me I think the third would be the biggest. I get it that it's properly robust and that it's a more "purely" technic build. But if you search around there are smaller examples (albeit in system) that are way more accurate. Just look at Sariel's side by side comparison: the lower sprockets are higher,everything between the sprockets and the bogies has a different shape, the hood is flat while IRL it's slightly tilted downwards, the area beneath the cabin is one flat line instead of having a cutout for the top sprocket. I was even going to mention the ripper carrier but I see picture where it has the same overall shape as the Lego version so that's a pass. All in all this set could have really benefited from a few more parts, even system to increase the accuracy and reduce gaps.

On the one hand I kinda like it. On the other, excluding the price which I feel not many will pay without a significant discount, the function to motor/gearbox distribution looks less than ideal. I wasn't very pleased initially to know that blade raise and tilt are handled via a gearbox, but it might not be such a big problem since I doubt both will need frequent and simultaneous adjustment during operation. However, it would have been much better to have manual actuators for the top of the ripper instead of the fake ones. This is a significant miss if you ask me, especially since we do have manual adjustment of the track tension. The motorized ladder looks gimmicky, but I'm sure that's why it was put there. So you could deploy it with the model not moving and wow your guests at house parties. Personally I would have left the ladder manually operated and used the slot on the HUB to have some LEDs instead. The model already has fake lights above the blade and around the cabin. Certainly, lighting some of those up would have been much more impactful and ultimately useful, instead of the ladder. So all in all, I don't know... Even excluding the price, I think more could have been done in terms of functions, also considering the size. I think many would accept fewer motors and HUBs if instead we get many, smaller manual functions that would make operation more involved.

The main problem for me is that if you remove the stickers you're not left with much in terms of recognizable features. Yes, there are still a few, namely the window/front door kink and the wheel arches, but otherwise, considering the size and number of parts, there's really not much to tell you it's a Raptor. The second problem would be that even with the stickers, it's still not plenty accurate. Those three orange beams beneath the "grill" really shouldn't be that tall. It would have been better to put some stickers there as well to make them slimmer. The rear could have also benefited from a couple of stickers above and below the black part of the tailgate. Instead, they used four extra stickers for the door handles when they had perfectly fine panel holes one stud lower to fill with 1x1 tiles and save those four stickers for something that truly mattered. I think inaccurate door handle positions would have been an acceptable tradeoff for more accuracy somewhere else.

Not sure whether this is still relevant considering the original date of the post but the sagging of that part has been recognized in certain reviews and I also came across it, though to a much less degree. The solution was extra bracing. You can attach a couple of 3L beams to the sides of that yellow H-shaped liftarm and then run a couple of 5 (or 7) length beams right down and attach them similarly to the 9L black ones in front. Or any other combination that might work for you with the pieces you have.

Great review! I don't mind the box but I would agree that a black background with just a faint touch of color is a bit boring. Something more like the Chiron box with a stronger background color would probably be better. I had a bigger problem with the instructions, but not by much. The black background sometimes made it difficult to distinguish between white and light bluish gray pieces, not to mention it looks like a waste of black ink. however, my biggest problem with the set is regarding the colors used for the front and rear axles as well as those dark orange pieces throughout the chassis. If it's an 18+ branded set there should be no need to have some many colors and incompatible colors at that next to each other. I'm generally not bothered by color coding but here I feel they went a bit overboard. Other than that it's a great set and I'm very happy to have gotten it. On a side note I'm starting to think whether (former) Creator Expert vehicles such as this one should start using more and more Technic parts. Granted, for accuracy system would still be better, but to have a chassis with a differential and working engine, or even some suspension would be great.

Actually, taking a look here - https://brickset.com/sets/containing-part-6276974 shows that that part appears in plenty of current sets in yellow. But seeing how in that 42121 set we already had 4 in LBG it was likely cheaper to add one more in the same color rather than add a new color. Also, there's the B model where parts would be arranged differently so that could also have something to do with it. But with an uneven number of that part I'm sure they could have had one a different color and not look bad. EDIT: Ah, beaten to that reply.

@allanp On that poll question my answer was: Colour coding is a bit to childish looking and garish in Technic sets aimed at older/more experienced builders. But that was before this Porsche set. Granted, a lot of my criticism is aimed at this set in particular, but I've still said it in this thread because it pertains to that whole "what does 18+ mean?" discussion and especially for licensed vehicles which cost more. My main problems with the color coding in this set are as follows: - There's little need for it since we have 10 different steps for under 1500 parts. At not point so far did I have too many parts on the table that I would need extra help in differentiating between then. I didn't even have to sort them out like I do for the larger Technic sets. - The color coding isn't even used to differentiate between different piece types. For instance there are 1x2 plates in three different colors (white, black, dark orange) and all three colors are used for the chassis. There are other part types in multiple colors as well. - The biggest problem however is how those colors come together and in this respect it's the dark orange ones that are the main culprits. I know they're useful for the interior but since we have the same part type in white and black (and light bluish gray in some circumstances) why are they used so much for the chassis? The second culprits are the beams from the front axle from my last screenshot. Those colors simply don't work together and rather than helping out they're creating a visual mess. Indeed it seems that for manufacturing and logistics reasons Lego has to stuff a lot of different colored parts but I feel that there's very little effort spent here trying to make them work together. And it's not necessarily disappointing due to the 18+ branding but due to the fact that we're supposed to be building a relatively detailed replica of a 911 Porsche. And I can't feel like that when I've just stuck the black plate on top of the white plate, which sits on top of the light bluish gray plate, which is adjacent to the red plate which on one side has a dark orange plate and on another a yellow one while next to it we have a blue plate. Too many colors that don't match well in too little space and it all resembles no real component that would be on the actual car. I don't wish to continue to rant on, especially if it's suggested that color coding to have its own thread, but considering the color inconsistencies which started with the Sian and now this - this could be something to keep an eye on. We have some pretty big Technic sets coming up this year and I don't wish to see this style of color coding continue down this path. I would draw the line at the 42122 Jeep, which if you look at the underside is also coming close to having too many colors next to each-other but to me that is still acceptable.

I return with a new picture of the front axle of the new Porsche to further enhance my point. Technically I think it's a clever solution. It's relatively compact and works well without making use of a gear rack part. Color wise, the bottom is yellow (part is upside down on table), the top is light bluish gray and we have two types of green in close proximity with an orange pin. At no point in building this I'm thinking that I'm building something interesting that goes in a car but more like what were they thinking? And as someone has already said, the ability to reuse such parts as this is minimal. I could not pull this and use it in a MOC where it might be more visible. If anything, I'll more likely take some of my existing parts to correct some of these colors. Again, I have no problem with color coding done right and up until now it's never really bothered me. But here I believe it's used in excess, even for some simple builds and this for a set that is 18+. Really, it's not a difficult set at all to build and if anything the multitude of colors is distracting rather than helping. I don't like to see this becoming a trend and especially not for Technic. If we're using the 18+ branding and for licensed models I like to feel that I'm really building the chassis and insides of that car, not that I'm creating some piñata with only the exterior of a car.

Sorry to bring more negativity to this thread but felt the need to rant a little bit about the 10295 Porsche set I'm just currently building. Yes, it's not Technic, but does have Technic parts and it's one of those 18+ sets that's seemingly confused about why that is. The Porsche 911 is my favorite sports car so I was really excited to get this one, especially since it looked good in the promotional videos and shots. I'm sure it will look great when done, but at least building wise I'm not enjoying myself as much as I thought I would. I'm still building the chassis, I've just finished bag 2 or 10 and well - here's a couple of screenshots of the color coding used: It looks all over the place and this with plenty of existing vividly colored parts already covered. So far I've counted 8 different colors used and looking at the rest of the bags I'm probably adding at least 3-4 more before the chassis is done. Now generally I'm not bothered by a bit of color coding, but this is simply too much for me. There are so many different piece types and colors that plenty of times it looks like I'm just following instructions to add random parts. I'm building stuff that doesn't really look like anything. Certainly not the internals of a car. And it's not just the number of colors, but their proximity to one another. You get brown next to red next to black next to light gray next to dark gray next to white and all within a small area. And I can't wait to see where the green, light blue and orange that I spotted still in the bags go. It's a real pity, especially since all Lego had to do was to either eliminate a few colors (like cut their number in half) or redistribute them to reduce the "bedazzlement of the eye".

I think some of the building issues like differentials being mounted the wrong way or gearboxes not being aligned properly can be better mitigated via the instructions rather than the color coding. Lego does highlight the orientation of parts but perhaps it's still too subtle for some. Regarding the color coding I believe it could be used much more intelligently. Right now Lego seems content with throwing the odd colored part here and there. A better choice would probably be to color code different sub-assemblies. So that the engine has one color, the gearbox another, the suspension another and the chassis another and make these easily recognizable against each-other while also still somewhat consistent in the grey-black palette. 18+ right now looks like marketing to get higher prices on some licensed sets and that's about it. If you ask me, there'd be plenty more 18- builders that would do a much better job assembling those sets without fault than their older counterparts.

While I like both this and the new 42121 excavator I can't help but think that they should have been minifig scale. These are really sets intended to be played with by kids.

I dig it. It looks good for what it is, the design is neat with little holes in the main body and the B model looks good also. However, thinking that this would primarily be aimed at the younger demographic I think it would have been better for them (and not only) to make it minifig scale since it's already close to it. In any case I'll probably get it, build it once, maybe also try the B model but then break it down for parts.

No good! Where are the 50+ stickers? Where's the large gap between the wheels and the wheel arches? And that ground clearance is so low... Absolutely unacceptable! I hope at least the chassis is still flimsy. That would be the only saving grace... Kidding, I like it very much.

Well, good luck then. You definitely have a lot of part types in orange. Happy building.

This thread is continuing to be quite interesting and the discussion seems to be shifting from the original format of the initial questions to something much more encompassing. If I'm reading some of the latest replies correctly I'm seeing about three different but not totally distinct lines of thought: - Technic should be less specialized to maximize versatility and creative part reuse; - Technic should be even more specialized to allow properly building complex mechanisms that function well; - Don't care either way as long as I can get the quality parts in the right color that will allow me to create my desired MOC for that's what keeps me interested and not official sets. For me if something is to hold interest for a long time it needs to evolve. And it needs to evolve in a way in which it remains true to its roots, but also expands to become more intuitively complex with each iteration. As such I don't have a problem with new and more specialized parts. I welcome them, within limits, for they expand possibilities. The limits are reached when the specialized parts only look appropriate for a limited number of situations and look out of place for everything else. On the other hand, having too many "generic" looking parts that don't look like anything can be uninsteresting. I suppose for me then, the right direction would be for Lego to continue to offer sets which have a solid mechanical and structural founding, perhaps built up of more generic parts, while also offering some extra spice with more specialized parts that bring in new functionality and aesthetics. And do so in a reliable way, so that once a clever solution has been found, it continue to be present in sets. As opposed to some sets having brilliant solutions that never to rarely resurface. And I guess that is the problem for some of us. Taken individually, each modern Technic set can offer something new and interesting, but Lego can't quite seem to mesh all of these different ideas and capabilities to start evolving all sets, equally and permanently. You get sets that function well, but don't look good. You get sets that look good but don't function well. You get sets that may do both, but neither as well as well and not consistently. So progress is tilted and not balanced across all aspects of sets. Maybe this is what's been bothering some of us. The fact that there's so much potential out there with all of these different parts and already learnt solutions and yet Lego isn't making the best of it. Progress isn't happening at the level it potentially can.

So far so good but now, with starting on the body the fun (hard?) part starts. What color are you planning on building it in? Or perhaps you've already set your mind on using some parts which only come in one or two colors?