another amazing design from Milan

Been waiting for a system set like this, with lots of new reddish orange pieces.

Sigh, another non functional Technic model. Why won't they resurrect Racers and put all of the non-Technic Technic sets in there. The theme is so saturated with cars and non functional designs, that it's shameful to call it Technic.

Rather weird color for a G (and not necessarily in a good way), but other than that, I quite like what I see! Obviously the design of the G fits Lego pretty much perfect, and it's not even just a square box. And while none of the functions seem groundbreaking, it's all a set like this needs. I mean, I see a sticker for lo and hi gear ration, which isn't even mentioned in the blabla? And did that P1 have a reverse gear? Price doesn't seem outlandish either, by todays standards.

Is it weird that I consider this a much more compelling set than the P1? And now imagine this being the 6x6....how awesome would that have been?
(and obviously it should have been ready to be motorized, but Lego doesn't do that anymore)

And maybe it's just me, but especially with Technic I'd rather see more models in the same color. Two releases in two days, in two different shades of orange. How many do we need?

Remember when technic cars moved their doors, ailerons and hood?

@GusG said:
"Remember when technic cars moved their doors, ailerons and hood?"

Aren't they moving in the picture?

Inline six? Mercedes G500 Professional uses V8 engine. And smaller "350" model uses inline 4 engine. Only I6 engine was in past gen 350 diesel variant. And this does not come in "Professional" line.

It looks like a replica of the Land Rover Defender from 2019.

They should have made it black og silver.

@Tuzi said:
" @GusG said:
"Remember when technic cars moved their doors, ailerons and hood?"

Aren't they moving in the picture?"

Nope... No matter how much I shake my screen, there's nothing moving :-)

@PjtorXmos said:
"Sigh, another non functional Technic model. Why won't they resurrect Racers and put all of the non-Technic Technic sets in there. The theme is so saturated with cars and non functional designs, that it's shameful to call it Technic."
+1000
This isn't Technic, it's Racers 2.0

Oh look, another car.

Looks ok. Wish it was something cooler like a Jimny or Landcruiser though.

Forgive my digression, but "Enjoy a mindful project as you..." rubs me the wrong way. The word "mindful" is just overused these days, often as a fashionable substitute for "aware" (as in "be mindful of"). Here it just means the build process is repetitive, step by step, methodical, which is fine in a Lego set, but I'd rather not see a "wellness industrial complex" sales pitch with every box of plastic pieces.

@AustinPowers said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Sigh, another non functional Technic model. Why won't they resurrect Racers and put all of the non-Technic Technic sets in there. The theme is so saturated with cars and non functional designs, that it's shameful to call it Technic."
+1000
This isn't Technic, it's Racers 2.0"

I don’t think you know what technic means

@Sandinista said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Sigh, another non functional Technic model. Why won't they resurrect Racers and put all of the non-Technic Technic sets in there. The theme is so saturated with cars and non functional designs, that it's shameful to call it Technic."
+1000
This isn't Technic, it's Racers 2.0"

I don’t think you know what technic means "

I don’t think you know what Racers meant.....

That aside, I don't quite agree with the original statement that this is a "non functional Technic model" and therefore should be a (resurrected) Racers set. Racers was suspension, steering, engine and that's about it. This has a (simple?) gearbox, hi and lo range, diff locks (okay, looking at the video again rather simple), what more can you epect from a car?

I could do with less focus on looks and more visible mechanisms, but to call this "non functional" feels like a stretch....

@Sandinista said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Sigh, another non functional Technic model. Why won't they resurrect Racers and put all of the non-Technic Technic sets in there. The theme is so saturated with cars and non functional designs, that it's shameful to call it Technic."
+1000
This isn't Technic, it's Racers 2.0"

I don’t think you know what technic means "
I've been building Technic sets for over forty years. Actually when I started they were still called "Technical".
Believe me I know exactly what a Technic set is and what isn't!

@AustinPowers said:
" @Sandinista said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Sigh, another non functional Technic model. Why won't they resurrect Racers and put all of the non-Technic Technic sets in there. The theme is so saturated with cars and non functional designs, that it's shameful to call it Technic."
+1000
This isn't Technic, it's Racers 2.0"

I don’t think you know what technic means "
I've been building Technic sets for over forty years. Actually when I started they were still called "Technical".
Believe me I know exactly what a Technic set is and what isn't! "

It’s made of technic parts. Has the technic label. Stop with the “NOT MY TECHNIC” crap.

@Sandinista said:
"It’s made of technic parts. Has the technic label. Stop with the “NOT MY TECHNIC” crap."

For its incredible size, it has very little Technic functionality. Compare it to... oh, I don't know, 42004.

@Sandinista said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Sandinista said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Sigh, another non functional Technic model. Why won't they resurrect Racers and put all of the non-Technic Technic sets in there. The theme is so saturated with cars and non functional designs, that it's shameful to call it Technic."
+1000
This isn't Technic, it's Racers 2.0"

I don’t think you know what technic means "
I've been building Technic sets for over forty years. Actually when I started they were still called "Technical".
Believe me I know exactly what a Technic set is and what isn't! "

It’s made of technic parts. Has the technic label. Stop with the “NOT MY TECHNIC” crap."
You really don't know what you're talking about.
Racers were also made from Technic parts. Original Technic sets contained almost as many System pieces as Technic pieces, some even more.
Modern City, Star Wars etc. sets also often contain numerous Technic pieces, yet they're no Technic sets.
The type of pieces used doesn't define what kind of set it is.
Also the label on the box can be misleading.

@EtudeTheBadger said:
" @Sandinista said:
"It’s made of technic parts. Has the technic label. Stop with the “NOT MY TECHNIC” crap."

For its incredible size, it has very little Technic functionality. Compare it to... oh, I don't know, 42004."

From the set description: Explore the authentic functions – Check out the 6-cylinder in-line piston engine, the gearbox with its drive, neutral and reverse settings and 2 differential locks

If a full working gearbox isn't enough Technic functionality for you, nothing ever will be

@Sandinista said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Sandinista said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PjtorXmos said:
"Sigh, another non functional Technic model. Why won't they resurrect Racers and put all of the non-Technic Technic sets in there. The theme is so saturated with cars and non functional designs, that it's shameful to call it Technic."
+1000
This isn't Technic, it's Racers 2.0"

I don’t think you know what technic means "
I've been building Technic sets for over forty years. Actually when I started they were still called "Technical".
Believe me I know exactly what a Technic set is and what isn't! "

It’s made of technic parts. Has the technic label. Stop with the “NOT MY TECHNIC” crap."

The Technic flagship supercars of old all had something special about them though. There were absolutely more and different features. 853 Introduced working cylinders and steering in a educational package. 8860 introduced a different engine layout with rear suspension in a similar educational package. 8865 went further in the suspension direction, introducing independent suspension on each wheel. 8880 added 4WD a gearbox and opening hatches. 8448 made everything modular encouraging kids to actually get creative with the pieces. It also introduced the damped shocks. 8466 Turned everything up to eleven in terms of transmission and suspension. 8297 introduced motors with which various features were driven. Ride height was now adjustable. 9398 was the first fully Technic RC supercar. (BTW I agree, that 8070 should've been a Racers set too). Hell even the pretty bad 42056 added the sequential gearbox.
Everything that came after that was just stagnant. Nothing new was introduced! Everything became completely covered in panels, resulting in bad educational models! It essentially isn't any more technic than 8145 . I 8145 was released in the late 80s, it would've surely been revolutionary in terms of functions, but it wasn't, and it's also not a Technic set.
This is not about "hurr durr not my Technic" or even "Lego doesn't make what I want". I'm happy building MOCs and I personally buy my Technic as single pieces, not sets. It's about Lego becoming increasingly stagnant with their set designs. It's quintessentially form over function. Effectively putting the cars from the recent 8 years into the category of 8146 8674 or 8682 (cool sets, but not Technic). Arguably the Drome Racers RC cars 8366 , 8376 and 8475 were more Technic, than the stuff that is currently being put out.

@Sandinista said:
" @EtudeTheBadger said:
" @Sandinista said:
"It’s made of technic parts. Has the technic label. Stop with the “NOT MY TECHNIC” crap."

For its incredible size, it has very little Technic functionality. Compare it to... oh, I don't know, 42004."

From the set description: Explore the authentic functions – Check out the 6-cylinder in-line piston engine, the gearbox with its drive, neutral and reverse settings and 2 differential locks

If a full working gearbox isn't enough Technic functionality for you, nothing ever will be"

Fully working gearboxes are a thing since the early 90s. Previous sets at least introduced new stuff. This is just stagnation with a pretty body around it.

@PjtorXmos said:
" 8880 added 4WD a gearbox and opening hatches."
...and 4 wheel steering! How many flagship supercars have had that feature since?

BTW, not a boomer either (Gen X!), and never got to vote for (or against) Brexit....

I am glad LEGO launches so many different Technic products every year. It can serve everyone instead of just having one or two options. I myself prefer a more functional type of set, such as 42146, 42082 and 42043.

@pedro_lego said:
"I am glad LEGO launches so many different Technic products every year. It can serve everyone instead of just having one or two options. I myself prefer a more functional type of set, such as 42146, 42082 and 42043."

The 42128 Heavy-Duty Tow Truck has 10 functional elements! I think that's a record. The AROCS 42043 also had a bunch, though.

Despite what the haters say, working steering, suspension, transmission, and engine pistons 100% qualify as Technic functions. Their complaints about things like this not being "true" Technic is a revisionist, false claim that insists anything short of absolute top-of-the-line functionality isn't Technic when in fact the Technic theme has ALWAYS had sets with a range of size and functionality from bigger to smaller and more to less complex.

So, by calling it 'professional' Mercedes admits that the other versions are for posers?

@Sandinista said:
"Cope harder"
No need. I just bought a set for exactly the same amount of money as the RRP of this one. Only mine has several motors, lighting, a hybrid system, oh and it's also fully licenced as well. Actually a triple licence, with Mercedes, AMG and Michelin. But suit yourself, I'm not trying to stop anyone from wasting their money.

@Lyichir said:
"Despite what the haters say, working steering, suspension, transmission, and engine pistons 100% qualify as Technic functions."

Nobody's saying they don't. The problem with this set is that it's massive, yet it includes only a few basic functions. It doesn't help that this seems to be the norm for Technic sets now - cars with minimal features regardless of the size.

@Lyichir said:
"Despite what the haters say, working steering, suspension, transmission, and engine pistons 100% qualify as Technic functions. Their complaints about things like this not being "true" Technic is a revisionist, false claim that insists anything short of absolute top-of-the-line functionality isn't Technic when in fact the Technic theme has ALWAYS had sets with a range of size and functionality from bigger to smaller and more to less complex."

THANK YOU

@Lyichir said:
"Despite what the haters say, working steering, suspension, transmission, and engine pistons 100% qualify as Technic functions. Their complaints about things like this not being "true" Technic is a revisionist, false claim that insists anything short of absolute top-of-the-line functionality isn't Technic when in fact the Technic theme has ALWAYS had sets with a range of size and functionality from bigger to smaller and more to less complex."

Sorry, that reads like leftist propaganda: immediately labeling those with complaints an "-ist", calling their opinions lies, and mis-phrasing their position to set up an easily defeatable argument. Nobody is saying Technic sets must have "top-of-the-line functionality" to be Technic. @PjtorXmos was merely pointing out that new Technic supercars have, over time, developed the amount of functionality present, but over the past few years this has ceased to be the case, more or less. To be fair, steering, suspension, gearbox, opening doors... that's really all a car does, so there isn't really much more to develop from a functional standpoint.

I think the big problem with this comments section, and the debate around Technic in general, is some missing definitions:
@Sandinista , @MrBedhead (yesterday) and others define "Technic" as any set made primarily of Technic pieces, as opposed to System pieces.
@PjtorXmos @AustinPowers and others define a "Technic" set as "a set belonging to the Technic theme". There's a certain... spirit, for lack of a better term; something that captures what the point of the Technic line has been since its origin. Other themes have had sets made of Technic: Mindstorms, Racers, Star Wars, etc., but these were not properly "Technic sets" under this definition.

The heart of what makes a Technic-built set a "Technic set", in my opinion, is having functions that visibly do something, something that the user can interact with or effect their environment with. These functions could be controlled via a gear knob, lever or some other interaction, often involving a gear train of some kind. An excavator's arm moving, a loader's bucket tipping, a crane's hook raising/lowering.

The McLaren P1 yesterday doesn't have these kinds of functions. There's no HoG for the steering, no lever to open the doors. You can switch gears on the gearbox - which is neat, and technically very interesting, yes - but it doesn't DO anything, because the power flow is reversed (wheel to engine via pushing, as opposed to engine to wheel like in a real car). Switching gears has no effect on you playing with the car, and changes nothing about its visual appearance on display. So, although it's a truly impressive bit of engineering, the gearbox is kind of a non-function. As a result, the model doesn't have any truly "Technic" functions; it's just a car made from (mostly) Technic pieces.

This Mercedes is a bit different - like @WizardOfOss said above, it looks to have low and high suspension and a locking differential: these will have a tangible difference when playing with the model, so I think it is more qualified as a Technic set than the P1. HoG steering and maybe a winch (I don't know if the real G-500 series come with winches at all) would certainly have further improved it.

I forgot comments get cut-off after a certain length (clearly I'm rambling).

Anyways, the reason these kinds of sets - which obviously there's a market for, or else they wouldn't get made - are lumped into Technic is because LEGO has decided that the two definitions I gave above are one and the same, to simplify marketing. I and many others disagree. Much like with people in today's RSotD wishing LEGO could bring back a Trains theme, I think LEGO could stand to resurrect Racers, and move all the current "Technic" cars (the $50 ones, the mid-size ones like 42176 , and the giant $200+ ones such as this and the P1) along with the large-scale Icons cars (like the Countach and McLaren MP4/4) into it. Basically any licensed non-minifig-scale vehicles (so, not Speed Champions). Then you wouldn't have gear-heads turned away by the daunting "Technic" branding on the supercar sets, and the Technic theme could return its focus to properly functional sets. It won't happen, but since all we can do here is wish, there's mine.

Oh, and I will never agree with anyone who claims that proper Technic sets have to be "ugly hole-filled lumps that only convey a vague concept of what they're supposed to represent." Look at the Technic sets from 2012-2016: 42009 , 42025 , 42042 , 42043 , 42054 , etc. All packed with interesting functions, while also looking polished and recognizable. From 2017 onwards, those kinds of models have been getting rarer, and the sets we have been getting (a lot of cars, notably) are becoming stale, which I think has created the disappointment from Technic fans we're seeing now.

...Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk, I guess.

@BLProductions said:
"leftist propaganda

You can switch gears on the gearbox - which is neat, and technically very interesting, yes - but it doesn't DO anything, because the power flow is reversed (wheel to engine via pushing, as opposed to engine to wheel like in a real car). Switching gears has no effect on you playing with the car, and changes nothing about its visual appearance on display. So, although it's a truly impressive bit of engineering, the gearbox is kind of a non-function."

I made a similar comment in the raging debate over the Land Rover a few years ago.

Gearbox or no gearbox, you Technic cranks are never satisfied.

If there's a gearbox, it's pointless because it doesn't do anything. (Note - unless you put an actual ICE motor in there, the gearbox will NEVER "do anything", because it can NEVER operate with the real-world power flow.)

If there's no gearbox, the set is just an empty shell - even if it has suspension, fake engine, operating doors, and other functions.

If there's a simple gearbox like in the G-wagen, it's a cop-out because it's too simple to be mechanically interesting.

If there's a complex gearbox like in the Land Rover or in the Ultimate cars, it's awful because it's too complex and it doesn't represent how gearboxes really work and it's a pointless non-function.

Check, check, check, check, check, BINGO!

BTW, your labeling a perfectly valid comment "leftist propaganda" is exactly the sort of generalized Godwin's Law insult that previous commenters in this thread have complained about. Godwin's Law is specifically about how every internet comment thread ends up with people labeling each other Nazis, but in a more generalized way I'd say it's the way threads quickly devolve to calling each other boomers as an insult, and just generalized ad-hominem mud-slinging.

Stop it.

Stop the mud-slinging.

@iwybs: the problem is that some commenters always take alternate opinions as personal insults.
I often think some of them work for LEGO or are so brainwashed by the marketing hogwash that they can't think straight anymore.

For example when I criticize something their general reaction is always something like "if you hate LEGO so much why don't you look for another hobby" or "you're always complaining / I just read your comments to see what you are going to complain about this time". And so on and so on.

No constructive criticism a la "I see your point, but in my opinion..."

A positive example would be @BLProductions, who pointed out what differentiates the G-500 from the P1 in the way of actual Technic functions.

Constructive since it for examples makes me reevaluate my opinion on this set.
And all that without name-calling or negative connotations.

Brickset, the fun little community where an article about what essentially still is a toy, or a gadget, leads to people mentioning leftist propaganda and Brexit. Seriously, I just showed this comments thread to a good friend of mine who is neither politically opinionated nor an AFOL (as are most regular peepz), and all he muttered was: "Those are some seriously toxic nerds". In other words, grow up, enjoy what you enjoy, but stop complaining about a mogul company that does not give you exactly what you want.

Anyway, I have had enough of the constant complaining and toxic crap here. Toodels.

@MrBedhead: you know what, I agree with your last comment, except for one thing. I see no harm in complaining about things that one doesn't like.
Sure, in the grand scheme of things LEGO won't care about the opinions of people who don't like (some of) their products, but it doesn't hurt to have a differing opinion.
And most importantly, nothing about a differing opinion is inherently "toxic", which has become such an overused term imho.