Sariel

In terms of release date, there's a 3 months difference between the set 42125 introducing this part and the 42121 re-using it. Even Bricklink, which isn't usually particularly fast about new pieces, added it at the beginning of January: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=71708#T=C&C=11

It's a thin tire. Falls off rather easily if you just push the hovercraft sideways a bit.

Not overly impressed with this set, I'm afraid. It looks good and it has nice colors, but in terms of playability it can't hold a candle to the 42076 or to the 42025 set's excellent B-model.

A surprisingly good set here. I'm really impressed by how LEGO managed to make such a relatively small set look so realistic.

They do! This video was shot at -10°C and there were zero problems with performance. Only problems with my hands freezing off because of having to use the damn touchscreen

Sometimes you just want to plow through the snow in style, without bothering yourself with complex drivetrains, steering systems and whatnot (totally not being lazy here ;) ):

There are several simple options for sharing images: https://pasteboard.co/ https://postimages.org/ I would also suggest considering using a tripod or better lighting, seeing as most of your photos are blurry.

Probably not on a snow this deep and soft. I don't think one buggy motor would perform that differently from two C+ L motors, plus I would need to rework most of the buggy to fit that motor in there somehow. As you can see below, L motors are a pretty good option for driving on snow:

Because I geared it down and used sprockets that are much smaller than 42124's original wheels. I expected that a lot of torque would be required, and with fresh, deep snow this appears to be true. On an older, hard packed snow you could probably drive the regular 42124 at normal speed, but then it wouldn't be much different from driving on solid ground.

Skis instead of the front wheels, tracked bogies instead of the rear wheels and removing the differential -> some fun in the deep snow. To be honest, I regret not having any motorized 42069 version at hand.

It got really cold last night, so I've used this opportunity to test how 5 various LEGO power supply options perform in cold. The test was simple and involved driving my LEGO WIP Ural 375D truck chassis approximately 1 meter straight. The results were as follows: Ansmann Ni-Zn rechargeable AA batteries - 34.04s Standard Duracell AA batteries - 39.08s BuWizz 2.0 in Normal mode - 40.29s LEGO 8878 rechargeable battery - 52.07s Eneloop rechargeable AA batteries - 58.15s Gotta say,I'm mostly surprised by how well the Duracell batteries did.

Following your suggestions I have extended the list of speed units available for calculation. It now includes centimeters, meters, inches and studs per minute and per hour. I've kept the unladen swallows, of course ;) Update to version 1.17 today: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=pl.sariel.brickgearratiocalculator

@M_slug357 My Gear ratio app for Android does include a calculation of speed for a given wheel size. Granted, it doesn't have the result in studs, but I can try adding it.

Might have been the price of new tires > the price of old tires. Might have been just fear that nobody will buy the Jeep if they do this.

Well, considering that this is a $4.99 set with 70 pieces, it's possible that the designer just put the gear where it was convenient to him, not where it made sense aerodynamically.

It's my mistake, the instruction is clearly showing that the main rotor blades should be installed in opposite direction. I was playing with the rotor, replacing the 3L axle with a 3L bar and I must have put the blades back in wrong direction. Sorry!

Here's a brief review of the set no one saw coming, including parts list and building instructions :)

Don't know if anyone's still interested, but I can confirm that the set does include instructions and I should have a video review coming shortly.

Nobody's calling you crazy. We're simply calling you a person who ignores explanation by a Boeing aerospace engineer who presented detailed calculations of how far LEGO motors are from being powerful enough to allow flight here a couple of years ago (hint: they're like at less than 5% of minimum required power if I remember correctly). Of course there's always the possibility of running the LEGO RC buggy motors from an external power source at a crazily high voltage and this has been proved to allow tethered flight, but your approach will, I'm afraid, only result in you ending up with a big, heavy brick of glued LEGO pieces that you can't use for anything else. Sorry to see such a waste. I sincerely wish that you put this kind of dedication and focus into something that's actually realistic, like making a 100% LEGO working submarine, which is totally doable and doesn't require glue. The sooner you abandon this project, the fewer pieces you will lose to glue and the smaller your frustration in the end. Honestly, just ask yourself a few basic questions: whats the weight of your project so far? How much thrust are you getting from the motors and props? How much aerodynamic drag and how much lift is there in your construction? Do you have any plan for controlling where the center of gravity is going to be? Sorry to sound so negative, but I just really hate to see a dedicated builder with an obvious talent wasting it on something that probably wouldn't even work with 10% of Earth's gravity. It's great that you keep going at it since 2014 despite people's negative opinions, but as the saying goes: if one person tells you you're drunk, and you feel fine, ignore them. If ten people tell you you're drunk, go and have a lie down. Nobody ever beat gravity and basic physics by perseverance alone.

OK, so this set comes as a successor to the somewhat controversial 42093 Corvette set, and long story short, I'm blown away by how much of a MASSIVE improvement it is:

Yeah, I suppose with Ni-Zn batteries there may be some leftover power to try a very slightly higher gearing. I'm not going to test that though, I'm focusing on using these batteries with the LEGO rc buggy motors.

No. I expect the results would be pretty much the same as with the motors I've tested.

Here's a slightly different approach that you may want to take a look at:

I have recently got my hands on Ni-Zn batteries, which can be considered a compromise between standard alkaline batteries and the Ni-Mh rechargeable batteries. Long story short, they can be recharged and still offer a LOT of power. I was able to get 10 KM/H out of my modded 42124 with Ni-Zn batteries compared to 7 KM/H with standard alkaline Duracell batteries. More details:

Because they're not coming out until later next year.