LEGO responds to instructions issue in 42056 Porsche 911 GT3 RS

Posted by ,
Porsche 911 GT3 RS

Porsche 911 GT3 RS

©2016 LEGO Group

42056 Porsche 911 GT3 RS was released yesterday and seems to be selling exceptionally well despite an issue with the instructions which was first discovered by prolific Technic builder Crowkillers.

LEGO has now responded to these concerns via the LEGO Ambassador Network and you can read their response after the break.

Thank you to all our dedicated fans for the comments regarding the GT3 RS by LEGO Technic.

It is correct that the gears in this model are not sequential as in the real Porsche PDK. This is however, a deliberate decision taken to ensure that we make the best possible LEGO version of this amazing car that both meets our design requirements and gives everyone a great building and product experience.

It was a considered decision taken during development that the gears running in the correct order meant that it did not result in a great experience when driving the car. Too many gears are engaged at the same time and smooth running with all those tolerances is just not possible.

If you switch the build in steps 267 and 269 the gears will run sequentially, and everyone who feels that this is the better solution should feel encouraged to do so.

LEGO Technic really is the ultimate open source design product and now that it is finally available, we look forward to seeing all the ‘improved’ models our fans create. After all, that is what LEGO building is all about.

We hope everyone will have a great building experience and feel a strong sense of pride from creating both our version and their very own LEGO Technic representation of a Porsche GT3 RS. We are very fortunate to have such skilled and dedicated fans that can spot this small deviation from reality and would like to thank everyone for sharing their ideas and expert knowledge.

You can read our review of the set here.

Does that response satisfy those of you who own the set?

 

Sponsored content

52 comments on this article

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Don't get. Was there a mistake in the instructions or a mistake in the design?

Gravatar
By in China,

I take this as: it will be too much trouble and too expensive to correct those "minor" mistakes in the instruction, so, let's say it's just a deliberate decision, everything will be fine. Actually, I think it will be just fine, a couple of years from now, nobody will care about it anymore. Buy it or not, it's always our free wills to make.

Gravatar
By in Australia,

^ The instructions match the design, but the 'mistake' revolves around a deliberate decision to switch two of the gears around.

So instead of going through the gears 1, 2, 3, 4... it goes 1, 3, 2, 4... or something. Bear in mind it is modeled off a sequential gearbox with a clutch for the odd-numbered gears and a clutch for the even-numbered gears, as well as a hollow drive shaft with a second drive shaft inside that, all working simultaneously for split-second gearchanges. It's not an H-pattern or a slushbox (automatic) like your auntie's Corolla. You can't really expect a Technic set to replicate all of that, even at the price where you can swap 770 of them for the real thing.

It's not really a mistake if it's deliberate. Just artistic (or engineering) license.

Gravatar
By in Romania,

I'm with "dna2" on this one. With the correct order for the gears, or not... the gearbox still does not run smoothly, and this is a big fault for a set this expensive.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Except it surely wasn't a deliberate decision. Fixing the 'mistake' involves just swapping over a gear, doing so (according to people that appear to know) doesn't negatively effect building and product experience, it doesn't impact how many gears are engaged at the same time or the smooth running with respect to tolerances.

The only deliberate decision at LEGO was to come up with a lame excuse because they didn't want to admit the mistake and then fix the issue. That's fine, its a business decision I can understand, but they should have come up with a better excuse that isn't so obviously a lie.

Gravatar
By in Ireland,

Some pretty cynical responses so far. I'm happy to take the LEGO explanation at face value.

Gravatar
By in New Zealand,

^ I agree with you completely. There is no extra friction and no negative impact by 'correcting' the gearing. Odd gears are on the right clutch pair and even gears are on the left just as a PDK gear box should have.
Lame sums it up nicely.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

In my mind, this statement translates to: "you're all stupid and we are right, so shut up and use it as a static model."

This set changed status for me now for the third time: with the first pictures: Must have! After reading the reviews: Maybe when the price is down a bit. Now it is: I'm not buying it.

:-(

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Thanks for the clarification

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

If you spend any amount of time reading about video games you get used to these kind of responses. This is the equivalent of "30 fps is just better". It makes me sad that Lego are being this way :(

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

Someone should build the Porsche boxes in 1-3-2-4 order to honor the gear change sequence of this 'ultimate' gear box

Gravatar
By in United States,

Again, this thing is 300 dollars?!

Gravatar
By in United States,

I agree with Gunther and accept Lego's explanation. To accuse them of lying, which is what DNA and others are essentially doing, is wrong. Lego have owned up to mistakes on the past.
Plus as they say you can build it as you want to. So use your imagination and decide how you want the gearbox to run.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

TLG's response sounds like corporate double-speak and I suspect dna2 is right.

I would have held TLG in higher regard if it had come clean, admitted the error and posted the revised instructions on its site. TLG is privately held so doesn't have to pander to ignorant equity analysts by dissembling. It can afford to be upfront. Consumers would respect it more, not less, if it were.

Gravatar
By in China,

First, I didn't say it was a lie. I just feel it like an excuse, which is totally understandable. Second, I give full amount of credit to its designer for makeing such a wonderful set. It must not be easy to design this one, but it could be done better.
For those who complain about it's price, come to see them in China, see how much more we have to pay to get them! However, with full respect, TLG is not some small Chinese factory, we expect its superb quality in every way, so it is not our fault to want to buy a flawless product. Bottom line, excuse or truth, will not change my believe towards a compay who believes "only the best is good enough"! I just wish Lego can always do better next time!

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I don't like the comment from TLG about improving the model. Are they now saying that they deliberately release unfinished models for us to finish? I personally build from instructions, and am not interested in 'moccing'.
If I wanted to do that, I'd buy a box of bricks, not an "ultimate" set.
It sounds a lot like excuses, not explanations.

Gravatar
By in United States,

If the model was meant to shift in the sequence of 1,3,2,4 instead of in the proper order, Lego would have informed all of the reviewers(especially the experienced Technic ones) about it prior to sending out the set to them to avoid confusion...

When the problem was spotted and the solution instantly found, it took an entire week for Lego to come back with their statement that they were completely aware of it and it was purposely done strictly for the builder's experience... They are saying too many gears are engaged, when the truth is that they are all engaged whether you have it shifting in the proper sequence 1,2,3,4 or the "Better Experience" way of 1,3,2,4..

It also appears that my good friend Eric Albrecht has come up with a simple modification to help fix the Porsche's friction in the gearbox..

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=133688&st=275#entry2575969

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I think it is a long-winded way of saying, "it doesn't really matter - get a life".

Which they probably wanted to say but knew they couldn't.

Gravatar
By in United States,

^^^
I would say maybe it doesn't matter if it was a generic model with no licensing attached, then they could get away with it, but considering the whole selling point is to replicate a real Porsche in the most realistic way possible, and then saying that we have it shifting out of sequence like this for your pleasure, well that is downright silly..

I wonder what Porsche thinks about all of this..?

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Thanks Paul - reading Eric's post it looks like there are a couple of small mods that make a huge difference to the friction in the drivetrain. I find it difficult to believe that Lego's Technic gurus missed this, but I guess after 3 years working on a project, you get blind to the details

I'll be picking this up when it's back in the stores (don't trust Lego.com not to wedge the freebie set in the parcel and punch a hole through that lovely box), and when it arrives, I'll be making the tweaks.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

@Paul Borakto I think you're on to something. This is exactly how Lego would operate when trying to sell an expensive product, though the list of 'desirable' things they sent Brickset for the Assault on Hoth completely redefined it already.

They had years to make this gearbox work and now they're saying their gearbox was meant to shift like 1,3,2,4. It just doesn't make sense.

Gravatar
By in Australia,

hmmm.. Still love the model - and cannot wait to get it. Happy with Lego's response :)

And to be absolutely honest, I would have had no idea that this was even a 'thing' until it was mentioned. So really only seems a real issue for purist's (which in its own way is awesome) and given the speed with which it seems to be selling, even at the price, leads me to say for rest of us, I concur with Yuffie.

Gravatar
By in United States,

It has nothing to do with being a purist, it has to do with being a realist... The heart of this model is the gearbox.. Having a gearbox that shifts 1,3,2,4 is almost as bad as turning the steering wheel to the right and having the car steer to the left..

There is a whole other issue with too much friction in the gearbox not letting things rotate when you push the car along resulting in a lot of clicking and grinding..

Gravatar
By in Czech Republic,

Oops... No matter how much I try to read this 'response' differently, I still feel striking dishonesty from it. Even if they didn't lie about the deliberate choice of swithing the gears (which is super weird), they clearly did make false statement about how this change affect the number of engaged gears... that's really like assuming people are stupid. They basically say they avoided the existing problems? Well I don't have the model and probably never will anyway but I believe the majority of reviewers who report the crippled gearbox with to much friction and play so it doesn't seem to me that the deliberate wise choice was any salvation...

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I think if you are a realist you will accept this is a Lego model therefore faces huge limitations in replicating the real life car.

The only criticism I would make of Lego is not realising that this issue would quickly be discovered by those 'realists' and then blown out of all proportion.

Gravatar
By in United States,

The book is an expensive promoted feature for this set. This is their way of saying that they are not going to re-print them so don't ask for a corrected replacement.

Gravatar
By in United States,

The acknowledged that it was not exactly true to life (it is a model so will not be perfect) and it is easy to "fix". I can`t believe the gearbox is going to be used that much in real life so this is a fuss about very little. I agree the bigger issue is the grinding.

The more important disappointment with the set is not having power functions which does limit the usability of the model and it is limited compared to other technic sets like the cranes or Mercedes Arcos. I would have preferred a creator set like the Mini Cooper - more true to life and similar usability (opening bonnet, boot, doors etc).

Gravatar
By in United States,

Yuffie, The fact is there were no huge limitations after they already scaled back from the 7 speed transmission in the real Porsche to a 4 speed one, and everyone was perfectly fine with this as we understood THAT was a limitation.. But there was absolutely no need to have 3rd gear come before 2nd gear.. AFOL Lego including myself have been building gearboxes for years without them shifting in some random order.. It was an error and Lego fed everyone a bogus excuse and some of you are buying it.. And when you pay that kind of money for a much hyped "Ultimate" set and that "Ultimate" set comes with obvious flaws, calling them out certainly isn't blowing anything out of proportion..

Gravatar
By in Czech Republic,

@Paul - Agreed.

@yuffie - Nobody is complaining about missing air conditioning or non fuctional speedometer. This gearbox is the core function - sadly it is basically the ONLY function in this model. Otherwise it's just basic set with very nice bodywork. I think that as the only feature, the gearbox is justly expected to work flawlessly and the fact that it does not is no trifle everyone should just look over.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Although I am not personally a massive Technic fan, and have no intention of buying this set; I completely understand both sides here, but I'm with the AFOLS who are unhappy with both the mistake and the response. Making excuses and pitifully defending themselves from public attack seems to be something we've been seeing more and more of from LEGO recently. It seems to be due to a drop in quality control over the last year or 2 at the company in general, and it both surprises and disappoints me.

I can't believe for one second that LEGO deliberately made the gearbox out of sequence for such a model which has been consistently pushed for both being a premium product and for its "realism". It just doesn't make sense. And the comments from those who own the set saying that building the gears out of sequence makes no positive difference to the quality of the building/play experience only re-inforces that.

I believe this was an instruction design/printing mistake and the company is now trying to save face. And money. Let's be honest - this is a big, expensive, grand set and they've put a lot of money into the design of not only the model, but also the box and printed materials that come with it. I can't see customers forking out 250 quid for a set like this and being happy to accept an amendment sheet for the instructions, which is what LEGO normally do in similar scenarios. They'd want replacements printed with the correct gear sequence. And rightly so. To admit they made a mistake would cost LEGO a fortune. So they lied.

I understand why they did it, but that doesn't make it right. It's bad PR as far as I'm concerned, and it's not the first time over the last year or so. There was the issue with the instructions/parts on the Ant-Man set. They tried to claim that the swinging head on Wall-E was intentional, because it "makes him more fun". It blatantly wasn't. They had to placate an Ideas member who designed a Ghostbusters HQ and had the design rejected before they then brought out a similar set (I'm with LEGO on this one tbh, but it still didn't look great). They even tried to convince people that the UCS Hoth set was actually awesome "because play features and 2 exclusive figures".

Come on LEGO, you're better than this.

Gravatar
By in United States,

krisandkris, Exactly. The model barely has any functions, and the gearbox is the main feature and that feature had several problems... This isn't some $100 creator set that you build and look at, this is a $300 Technic set being dubbed "Ultimate".. So for someone to just brush off the problems of the primary feature of the model that they just dropped over $300 on would be a bit ignorant..

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

The people saying it's not a big deal are missing the point that, for the target audience of a set like this, an inaccuracy like that IS a big deal. It's the kind of mistake someone should have noticed when the manual was being prototyped, because messing up accuracy like that, in a set like this, is inexcusable. And then to say you went and did it on purpose is just stupid. If the gearbox doesn't work as designed, redesign it.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Yuffie - The non sequential gear box isn't particularly a problem and I don't think anyone would not buy the set because of it, especially as the fix is so simple and was presented by the AFOL community before the set was even released.

But lying about it and stupidly suggesting it was done on purpose is where LEGO have fallen down this time. Instead they should just have been honest saying it's wrong but we don't think it warrants a reprint of the instructions as most users won't even notice. Publish the correction as a blog, tell CS, tell the stores. End of story. Pushing a lie through the ambassador network is low.

Gravatar
By in New Zealand,

Only the best is good enough. The press release from LEGO is like suggesting that having two coats of varnish on your wooden duck is OK, but if you want to, feel free to paint a third coat on yourself.

There is something wrong with the rendering of these instructions. There are several places where the graphics are wrong, but as it did not impact with the build, I have not commented on it. I think that there is something different in the way these instructions were produced and that the 'proof reading' has not taken place.

There is a delegation of LEGO ambassadors who have been invited to Billund soon and I expect that the release of this set will be a hot topic of discussion.

This set has been priced at a premium level but the gear box is missing a coat of varnish.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

TLG is going down the drain. I used to buy a set every two weeks. I haven't seen a set I want this year. Too many shoddy build designs. Instruction mistakes.

How about taking people off constant and incessant product development and bolstering the QA team?

Gravatar
By in United States,

My comment didn't post, which I find odd...

Anyway, I'm really on the fence about this. I was all set to go buy it and use it as a reward for clearing out our middle bedroom and turning it into a Lego room. A nice weekend build while my fiance works on some of her Elves backlog.

The gearbox is a massive issue to me though. I don't mind so much it only has that major feature, but I do mind that they got it wrong with that being the case. Although truthfully I would have never noticed and would probably still have enjoyed the build anyway.

I might still get it. I have $235 in VIP points sitting around doing nothing. If I cash in $100 of that I can use a small bonus I got at work to cover the rest, and the free set right now is very nice.

Gravatar
By in Netherlands,

Down the drain is a bit too hefty if you ask me. :-)

The [email protected] site is now mentioning "Due to unforeseen circumstances the LEGO Technic Porsche GT3 RS is temporarily unavailable on shop.LEGO.com. Please keep an eye on our website for updates to online availability." So Lego is probably working on a solution and maybe it's because of the negative responses to both the errors in the set as well as the 'strange' pressrelease concerning those problems.

I haven't seen such a notification before, so very curious what they're going to do about it...

Gravatar
By in Australia,

Why can't they just own their mistake? I don't have the set and was always unlikely to purchase but I find the explanation insulting to the LEGO community.

Gravatar
By in United States,

For someone not versed in the Technic world, can someone explain how this gearbox issue actually affects this model? I'm assuming most people would use it as a display piece, in which case it would simply bug you if you knew something wasn't right under the hood. However, if someone were to play with the completed model, does the gearbox affect how fast the wheels spin when you push it? (This may have been explained in FlagsNZ's terrific, well written review, but it was very technical and over my head in a number of places!)

Gravatar
By in United States,

Really thoughtful responses here. I have linked this discussion on the Ambassador Forum, hoping that LEGO designers and their PR team will read them and take them seriously.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Dare_Wreck, I don't think it would make a difference for pushing, but if you adapted the model for power functions without stripping out that part you'd notice the difference. The fact that it would bug people is the real point here, though. This is supposed to be a high class model you're buying, so details like that really do matter.

Gravatar
By in United States,

^^^^^ @gjhartog That is interesting, and I can see that on the UK site. The US site still has it available for sale and shipping in 30 days. May just be a regional distribution issue.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Sariel gives an unbiased balanced review here (time index 27:46) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y59aTZ_88A

He clearly shows the gearbox issues as designed. Another disappointment is that the gear ratios aren't noticeably different. Weight of the model is probably the main limitation why power functions were left out.

TLG should of consulted with Technic MOCers like Sheepo who managed to design a 911 997 back in 2011 chock full of functions and PF (see time index 33:25 in the above video for a feature comparison with the GT3 RS). Would any of you bought for $500US if it had avoided the shortfalls noted, incorporated some existing MOCer's solutions and included full Power Functions? $600US?

Gravatar
By in United States,

Technic AFOLs: "The gearbox shift gears in the wrong order."
LEGO: "We meant to do that."
TAFOLs: "What? That makes no sense."
LEGO: "Sure it does. Relax."
TAFOLS: "On a $300 premium licensed set? YOU'RE definitely relaxed."

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

To my mind I think Lego got lucky by only getting 1 instruction step wrong that just changed the gear sequence. That is the sort of thing they can explain away as a design decision. They were lucky the 'error' wasn't one that caused all the cogs to jam.
If Lego had to reverse the sequence to compensate for some problem then why does the problem version not seem obviously worse for those who have tried it.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I can understand some of the purists being upset, even though this makes no practical difference.
What I don't get is the accusations of lying. Lego have owned up to mistakes in the past. Why not now? You may disagree with their rationale, but you shouldn't leap to conspiracy theories or lies straightaway. This set was a poor value and would have been better to have a creator set like the Mini, better looking, more realistic design and not many less functions.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Is this something so egregious, that I need to return or inquire about sending my purchased set back? I haven't opened it and have concerns that there are other issues? I'm sure many of you have already built this set, and I'm very excited about the build. Is the gear box issue the only problem? I'd love to hear from those of you that have built it.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I really see no reason not to take Lego at their word for this, if for no other reason than Porsche had the final say in authorizing the design. If this were a mistake, surely the engineers who designed the car would have pointed it out. The only way I see them approving this is if it were a deliberate choice with the reasoning explained, and if it's good enough for Porsche, it's good enough for me.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@ColdRadio The more I've thought about this since yesterday, the more I've come to agree that this really was a design decision. However, that in itself raises another question: who thought that minimising friction between parts was more important than having a gearbox that makes sense? If the model had shipped with the correct gearing and there was a minor friction issue, we would have accepted that as the kind of unavoidable niggle that comes when building a four speed dual-clutch gearbox at this scale. Instead we've been given a representation that defies basic logic and gearbox design.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I built my chassis per the instructions first, tested it, then applied the fix/swap as shown in FlagsNZ's review here on Brickset. The transmission shifts more smoothly under external PF power with the fix than without, probably partly because there's less of a sudden change in final drive speed in the 1st and 3rd shifts. There is definitely no more drag in the drivetrain and no more gears are engaged at any one time. I think someone at TLG involved in the chain leading to the above notice had a misunderstanding. The transmission build is extremely finicky and everything must be aligned to perfection, else friction & mesh becomes a very serious issue and things run very rough as demonstrated in Sariel's review. This isn't limited to the usual need to preserve axial play around bushings & gears; there are vertical beam-based assemblages that can be bowed or twisted while feeling properly seated. Perhaps a designer made a misdiagnosis at one point and then achieved a better final assembly after swapping the two sets of gears, creating a false impression of cause-and-effect.

Gravatar
By in Czech Republic,

^ It better be that than what SigmundBjorn said.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Good response from LEGO. People should relax.

Return to home page ยป