Review: 42202 Ducati Panigale V4 S
Posted by Huw,
42202 Ducati Panigale V4 S Motorcycle is the third in the Technic licenced superbike series, modelled at a scale of roughly 1:5. It's also the second version of the Italian manufacturer's top-of-the-range Panigale bike, following 42107 Ducati Panigale V4 R, which was released during 2020.
Like the other 1:5 scale models it packs in a sophisticated gearbox, and also the Panigale's desmodromic 90° V4 engine.
Summary
42202 Ducati Panigale V4 S Motorcycle, 1,603 pieces.
£169.99 / $199.99 / €199.99 | 10.6p/12.5c/12.5c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
A very clean looking model of an awesome Italian superbike
- A realistic representation of the real thing
- Not reliant on stickers for aesthetics
- Fairly priced
- Gear-changing foot pedal movement incorrect
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Stickers and parts
Thankfully, the sticker sheet is small and sparse, unlike that for the BMW entry in the series. Most are used to add the manufacturer's logo and model name in the appropriate places: the entire aesthetic of the bike is not dependent on them, which is a good thing.
There are a couple of new parts which further extend the range of panels, shown below in red. They match previous ones in size, but have concave faces rather than convex, and a hole on the top rather than the side.
Construction
The gearbox utilises the new pieces introduced for 42159 Yamaha MT-10 SP about which you can find out more in our review of that set.
It implements three speeds plus neutral, operated as you would expect using the foot pedal.
The V4 engine, with cylinders angled at 90°, fits neatly above it in the frame, and at this stage of the build a stand is built to make subsequent construction easier.
The completed model
At 43cm in length, it's an impressive size and, thanks to Ducati's trademark red livery and expert use of the whole gamut of Technic panels to form the fairings, it looks very sleek.
The front- and rear-wheel suspension work as expected and do not sag under the bike's weight. The gearbox works well, with a satisfying and positive 'clunk' as you cycle through the gears although, as was the case with the Yamaha, movement and position of the foot pedal is not accurate: the pivot should be close to the footrest and down presses should result in it moving anticlockwise, which is not the case here.
The tops of the cylinders can be seen through the fairings, and the position of the gearbox observed from underneath, so you can test it and see what's happening, which isn't always the case for models with complex gearboxes. The gear sequence is correct: down for first, then up through neutral to 2nd, 3rd, although that's only because the foot pedal is operated in the wrong direction.
It can be mounted on its display stand, or stood up without, with the aid of a kick-stand. I think it looks much better off the stand, as it would appear in real-life.
It is rather unfortunate that the blue gear on the side sticks out like a sore thumb, but it can be replaced with a black bevelled version of the same size if it bothers you too much.
I am not entirely convinced that the tyres are oriented correctly because the treads are facing in different directions, but I have put them on as shown in the instructions. This was also an issue on the Yamaha.
The headlights are represented by white 3.18 bars but do not look particularly convincing in my opinion.
.jpg)
Verdict
There is no doubt that it's the best in the series of large-scale Technic bikes. The Ducati is a very clean-looking bike and so is the model. Its aesthetics are not over-reliant on stickers and the effect of the gearbox can be clearly observed.
As you can see from the photos below, it's a very close replica of the real thing.
Despite being the same size as, and having about 200 more pieces than, 42159 Yamaha MT-10 SP, it's actually much cheaper, at £169.99/$199.99/€199.99 compared to the Japanese bike's price of £199.99/$239.99/€229.99, so there's not such a need to wait for a discount before adding it to your stable.
Lined up with other superbikes
Here it is lined up next to the others in the series: last year's 42159 Yamaha MT-10 SP, and 2022's 42130 BMW M 1000 RR, which are both still available at LEGO.com or at a discount at Amazon.co.uk.
57 likes
22 comments on this article
Still mixed feelings. It looks good, but that never was the issue with these bikes. It's just that compared to the smaller 42107 it doesn't offer much except size and an extra gear. And considering it's about three times the price...that just feels disappointing.
And one particular issue I have with this one: instead of the usual cranks this now also uses the newer disc pieces normally used for much smaller models. And on such models where space is limited, I can understand that: While not very realistic, they work better than pins that rely on gravity. But here, there's no reason at all not to use cranks, so why? In a sense Lego actually made a desmodromic engine.....except they used the principle on the wrong parts.
(it would have been very cool if they actually replicated the valvetrain.....)
@WizardOfOss said:
"And one particular issue I have with this one: instead of the usual cranks this now also uses the newer disc pieces normally used for much smaller models. "
It uses the newer cranks and pistons, https://brickset.com/parts/design-4368 and https://brickset.com/parts/design-4369 , with the old-style piston head connected to the latter, so the heads don't reply on gravity.
> tyres are oriented
For MC road tires, threads are mostly cosmetic, only the front will do some water draining.
Random set I think I have used, shows front rear difference in thread 'direction':
www.bridgestone.dk/our-products/motorcykeldaek/touring/battlax-t32
But rotation is important for how the carcass flexes.
> foot pedal
It is common on road racers to invert the shift pattern. This makes upshifts when comming out of corners leaned over easier, as the foot does not have to go under the lever.
What to me looks strange, is it seems the shift lever rotates at the front. This causes friction with the lever and foot.
I just learned all about desmodromic valves on the ‘ol Wikipedia. Thanks for teaching me something new today!
Two things:
Regarding the tyres, the front tread pattern faces the 'opposite' way to the rear tread pattern on real bikes. It's evident in your comparison photo of the real bike. It's to do with cornering geometry: the front tyre is narrower than the rear, which means that when it's leaned over it traces a slightly smaller cornering radius than the rear tyre. If it pumped water outwards, it would just put extra water into the path of the rear tyre, so it drains water inwards when cornering, while the rear tyre drains it outwards.
And secondly with the shift lever and footpeg setup, the way I interpret it is the 2L cross axle extension closer to the swingarm pivot is the main part of the footpeg where the heel of the rider will go, while the knuckle arm in front of it is the gearshift toe lever. Real bikes usually have a lever that pivots in front of that, which is reflected in this set, but there's an awkwardly placed bushing there and confuses the form somewhat. It would be better with an axle that is 1 module shorter to eliminate the bushing. So I will say that the gear lever is correct.
@Huw said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"And one particular issue I have with this one: instead of the usual cranks this now also uses the newer disc pieces normally used for much smaller models. "
It uses the newer cranks and pistons, https://brickset.com/parts/design-4368 and https://brickset.com/parts/design-4369 , with the old-style piston head connected to the latter, so the heads don't reply on gravity."
I had to download and look up the instructions to learn how the 'old' (round) piston heads are connected to the crankshaft (cf. step 93). I wonder if the designers had this in mind when part 4369 was constructed.
@Huw, check the fairing, I think you've made a mistake. It's very clear in the side view, where there's a beam sticking out at the front that shouldn't be there.
@Rare_White_Ape said:
"And secondly with the shift lever and footpeg setup"
I think we agree. The thing that's wrong is the position of the axle that the gear lever is connected to. It should be close to the foot rest with the lever pointing forwards as shown here: https://ridermagazine.com/2018/03/16/earthrider-03-control-lever-setup-for-adventure-riding
So pressing down on a real bike turns the gear lever anti-clockwise to a lower gear, and pressing up, clockwise to a higher one.
The way it's positioned on the model, with the gear lever pivoted in front of the pedal part of it results in it turning in the opposite direction, although pressing down still results in lower gears.
@Huw said:
"the toe end should be moved up and down to change gears, not the heel end as is the case here"
You made a similar comment about 42170 Kawasaki Ninja H2R and I think I figured it out.
Comparing to photos of the real Ninja, on the right side of the LEGO model, the foot peg is where the brake lever should be, and the actual foot peg should be slightly further back (near the other end of the 6273708 CROSS BLOCK 3M), but is actually missing.
On the left side, the foot peg is also missing, but the position of the gear shifter peg is in the right place, and the pivot point for the shifter lever shouldn't stick out, similar to what @Rare_White_Ape said.
However, on the real bike, it looks like the shifter lever is reversed, in that the pivot point for the lever is behind the toe end (close to where the foot peg should be on the LEGO model), instead of in front of it. EDIT: just like you say in your comment just above mine.
@Huw said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"And one particular issue I have with this one: instead of the usual cranks this now also uses the newer disc pieces normally used for much smaller models. "
It uses the newer cranks and pistons, https://brickset.com/parts/design-4368 and https://brickset.com/parts/design-4369 , with the old-style piston head connected to the latter, so the heads don't reply on gravity."
I get that, but I'm just questioning why it uses those? Like I said, I'm fine with those on small models where there's not enough space for the big cylinder blocks and the actual cranks and pistons that go with those. But that's not the case here, this is a big model with plenty of space, after all it does still use those old pieces....except not the cranks.
Why not? Wasn't Technic about replicating real life mechanisms? And I get there are limitations to how far you can take that, it's a plastic toy after all. But in this case, they have the parts to actually do so. They have had those for decades. So why go for the inaccurate alternative? It just doesn't make sense.
Sorry if I seem a bit....cranky ;-)
Best Technic motorbike to date!
You all make me feel dumb. :o)
Well it's clearly the best of the 3, and it's also the most fairly priced which is somewhat surprising. If this was a series I was collecting I'd be very pleased with this entry!
Given I'm not collecting them though, I'm left with the question of why I should buy this when I already have 42107. This one is bigger of course, which allows more realistic looks, but it's far more expensive than the older set and in 'technic' adds nothing but a third gear, which to me isn't worth the outlay. The old one also had the standard cranks, which I do think I prefer where they fit..
These comments are way too technical for me at 6.30 in the morning. I think I might come back later. Nice red bike though.
@WizardOfOss said:
"Still mixed feelings. It looks good, but that never was the issue with these bikes. It's just that compared to the smaller 42107 it doesn't offer much except size and an extra gear. And considering it's about three times the price...that just feels disappointing.
And one particular issue I have with this one: instead of the usual cranks this now also uses the newer disc pieces normally used for much smaller models. And on such models where space is limited, I can understand that: While not very realistic, they work better than pins that rely on gravity. But here, there's no reason at all not to use cranks, so why? In a sense Lego actually made a desmodromic engine.....except they used the principle on the wrong parts.
(it would have been very cool if they actually replicated the valvetrain.....)"
I've seen a lot of people complain about the use of the unrealistic disc instead of a proper crankshaft, but I'm pretty sure that was necessary for this specific engine. Technic piston engines typically have a three-stud distance between the crankshaft and the pinholes in the engine block, but here, in order to make the engine look large enough, they decided to increase that significantly to five studs. This means that the typical connecting rods could not be used, and I'm not aware of any way they could have built custom, longer, connecting rods that would still fit side-by-side onto the crankshaft. In light of that, I think using the disc here was a reasonable compromise, though obviously something like new longer connecting rod elements would have been better.
@Huw said:
" @Rare_White_Ape said:
"And secondly with the shift lever and footpeg setup"
I think we agree. The thing that's wrong is the position of the axle that the gear lever is connected to. It should be close to the foot rest with the lever pointing forwards as shown here: https://ridermagazine.com/2018/03/16/earthrider-03-control-lever-setup-for-adventure-riding
"
Ah yeah I see what you mean. I looked up photos of Panigale gear levers and they match your example. I had a Tuono that was a similar setup - both V4 bikes with gearboxes below the rear bank of cylinders.
However I've got a GSX-R 750 from 2008 and it has a forward-pivoting gear lever. It's an inline-4 cylinder bike with room for the gearbox to sit a bit higher behind the engine, or at least the gear change actuator drum can sit here and have better weight distribution. Check it:
https://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/Gallery%20C/Suzuki%20GSXR%20750%2008.jpg
You'll notice a shaft running up from the lever to where the actuator drum is located, but on the V4 Panigale it runs down and forward to a location below the engine instead. Fun fact: those shift lever shafts are mounted to a little clamp, and the gear change direction can be easily reversed just by removing the clamp and turning it 180-degrees on the actuator drum so that it moves it from the opposite direction. That way people who turn them into race bikes can have a race pattern gearbox with very little effort!
@2GodBDGlory said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"Still mixed feelings. It looks good, but that never was the issue with these bikes. It's just that compared to the smaller 42107 it doesn't offer much except size and an extra gear. And considering it's about three times the price...that just feels disappointing.
And one particular issue I have with this one: instead of the usual cranks this now also uses the newer disc pieces normally used for much smaller models. And on such models where space is limited, I can understand that: While not very realistic, they work better than pins that rely on gravity. But here, there's no reason at all not to use cranks, so why? In a sense Lego actually made a desmodromic engine.....except they used the principle on the wrong parts.
(it would have been very cool if they actually replicated the valvetrain.....)"
I've seen a lot of people complain about the use of the unrealistic disc instead of a proper crankshaft, but I'm pretty sure that was necessary for this specific engine. Technic piston engines typically have a three-stud distance between the crankshaft and the pinholes in the engine block, but here, in order to make the engine look large enough, they decided to increase that significantly to five studs. This means that the typical connecting rods could not be used, and I'm not aware of any way they could have built custom, longer, connecting rods that would still fit side-by-side onto the crankshaft. In light of that, I think using the disc here was a reasonable compromise, though obviously something like new longer connecting rod elements would have been better."
That's a an interesting one....it indeed seems like the cylinder blocks are placed further apart than usual, which would indeed require longer connecting rods. I was already thinking how weird it was that this and 42017 despite their vastly different scales used the same engine pieces, but they did try to make up for that to some degree. Still not really happy with this solution but at least there was a reason to do so.
(though that even more makes me wonder if they couldn't have replicated the valvetrain on top of a regular sized V instead....)
That said, considering how often these are still used in big cars where the engine often also looks undersized, some longer connecting rods wouldn't have been a bad idea....
That new gearbox setup strikes me as being overly convoluted. The changeover catch needs to axles to slide on? Come on! Who was responsible for keeping it simple, I wonder. The previous setup was at least extremely effective in comparison.
The new engine parts seem to break the previous "as in reality" motto of the Technic line, as I remember it from my childhood: It is not how pistons are actually connected in an engine. And if you push a cylinder, there is no chance that it can rotate the axle.
> This means that the typical connecting rods could not be used, and I'm not aware of any way they could have built custom, longer, connecting rods that would still fit side-by-side onto the crankshaft.
Set 8051 had a solution for longer connecting rods. Perhaps something like this could have been reused.
I haven't followed Technic super bikes, but wow, I had no idea they were cramming working gear boxes into these. Very impressive.
Lego finally starting to get the tire threads the correct orientation. I've benn talking about this for years
The tyres are very furry. Do you have a cat?