"NEW" Race to Sub-30!

Round 11

Avg: 29.86
FINALLY!!!


1. 29.34
2. 29.02
3. (35.39)
4. (24.80)
5. 31.06
6. 29.79
7. 31.79
8. 27.18
9. 30.15
10. 31.87
11. 28.45
12. 29.95
 
round 11 i am new to this thread so hi

AVERAGE 31.771

1. 31.359
2. (37.061) i only know about half of plls and this was a recently learned one that i have difficulties with so i took me a long time
3. (28.946)
4. 35.002 pll again same as 2 above
5. 30.457
6. 31.546
7. 29.862
8. 34.430 bad cross
9. 34.620 pll same as number 2
10. 31.841
11. 30.053
12. 29.592

yea i could of done much better but anyway
 
Last edited:
When I use 80% of my speed in F2L, my solves are, well, 80% as fast as when I use 100% of my speed. (Actually, probably more like 90%.) My lookahead simply doesn't improve when I slow down. I don't know if that means my lookahead is really good or it's really bad (probably the latter), but either way, it just doesn't improve for me at all when I slow down.

For me, closing my eyes while solving each step (to train me not to watch the pieces while solving them) has really helped.

Mike, I think you make some good points here. I'm guessing that perhaps you are the kind of speedsolver where the fast-and-choppy approach would be a better goal to shoot for. One of the things that stands out about watching Macky solve in person to me, is that he does have pauses between pairs and steps. However, those pauses are not that long, and his turning speed is ridiculously fast which makes up for it. Sort of like Daniel Beyer as well :)

One thing that works very well for me, and I'm directing this to anyone reading this not just you personally, is to not so much think about looking ahead, but to just go a bit slower so that my brain does it for me. I don't know if that even makes any sense, but that's how I feel. On really good averages for me, I feel like I get my turning pace juuuuust right so that the pairs present themselves to me, I don't go looking for them. I don't feel as if I am actively trying hard to look ahead, but it's as if the pairs just jump out at me.

Dan Knights would strongly disagree with this, he always advocated to really actively try very hard on every solve to look ahead. I've found that actually trying to look ahead stresses me out too much, and my solve time suffers. If I don't try very hard at all to look ahead, but focus on finding the right pace for doing so, then the pairs just present themselves to me. I don't know of any other way to describe it, but it is how my best solves feel in mid-solve.

Chris
 
When I use 80% of my speed in F2L, my solves are, well, 80% as fast as when I use 100% of my speed. (Actually, probably more like 90%.) My lookahead simply doesn't improve when I slow down. I don't know if that means my lookahead is really good or it's really bad (probably the latter), but either way, it just doesn't improve for me at all when I slow down.

For me, closing my eyes while solving each step (to train me not to watch the pieces while solving them) has really helped.

Mike, I think you make some good points here. I'm guessing that perhaps you are the kind of speedsolver where the fast-and-choppy approach would be a better goal to shoot for. One of the things that stands out about watching Macky solve in person to me, is that he does have pauses between pairs and steps. However, those pauses are not that long, and his turning speed is ridiculously fast which makes up for it. Sort of like Daniel Beyer as well :)

One thing that works very well for me, and I'm directing this to anyone reading this not just you personally, is to not so much think about looking ahead, but to just go a bit slower so that my brain does it for me. I don't know if that even makes any sense, but that's how I feel. On really good averages for me, I feel like I get my turning pace juuuuust right so that the pairs present themselves to me, I don't go looking for them. I don't feel as if I am actively trying hard to look ahead, but it's as if the pairs just jump out at me.

Dan Knights would strongly disagree with this, he always advocated to really actively try very hard on every solve to look ahead. I've found that actually trying to look ahead stresses me out too much, and my solve time suffers. If I don't try very hard at all to look ahead, but focus on finding the right pace for doing so, then the pairs just present themselves to me. I don't know of any other way to describe it, but it is how my best solves feel in mid-solve.

Chris

wow! I'm amazed that you two, Mike & Chris, also check out these threads!
we should be happy that we have such helpful people in this forum, helping us improving!

I will try Mike's method. (closed eyes)

and Chris, about your second & third paragraph, I completely understand and feel what you say. Because I am experiencing these problems right now!
maybe I should both use 80% percent of my speed, and not pay attention to looking ahead!
 
Round 11
Average: 32.15



36.20
37.96
47.04 - Screwed up a PLL
31.49
32.79
33.17
26.66
32.10
31.66
28.61
28.58
28.96

If I could get one average of 12 without a bunch of screw ups, I would probably be sub-30. Had multiple messed-up crosses, a messed up PLL, a couple bad f2l pairs... the list just goes on-and-on. At least the last few solves made up for some of it.
 
[size=+2]Average: 33.00!![/size]

1. 33.31
2. 32.95
3. 35.01
4. 29.82
5. 28.31 low
6. 35.54
7. 31.08
8. 30.07
9. 34.36
10. 37.26 high
11. 33.62
12. 34.27

yay way more consistant this time!! Even after missing last weeks, this one felt good!
 
One thing that works very well for me, and I'm directing this to anyone reading this not just you personally, is to not so much think about looking ahead, but to just go a bit slower so that my brain does it for me. I don't know if that even makes any sense, but that's how I feel. On really good averages for me, I feel like I get my turning pace juuuuust right so that the pairs present themselves to me, I don't go looking for them. I don't feel as if I am actively trying hard to look ahead, but it's as if the pairs just jump out at me.

Dan Knights would strongly disagree with this, he always advocated to really actively try very hard on every solve to look ahead. I've found that actually trying to look ahead stresses me out too much, and my solve time suffers. If I don't try very hard at all to look ahead, but focus on finding the right pace for doing so, then the pairs just present themselves to me. I don't know of any other way to describe it, but it is how my best solves feel in mid-solve.

Chris

I can see the value of each of these approaches. I think one thing that many people do not realize, is that it is ok to practice "differently" than you would typically solve. Like you, I tend to get better times when I am not actively searching for f2l pairs, but instead when I am simply being "attentive" and waiting for them to present themselves to me. I often practice differently however, and give "mental priority" to searching for pairs. These practice solves are pretty rough and usually have horrible times, but then when I go back to my "regular" way of solving, the pairs seem to jump out at me much more clearly.

One practice technique that I am experimenting with is a rollercoaster approach to speed. I begin using ~50-60% turnspeed, and then gradually increase to near 100%, then gradually return to the speed at which I began. It takes me roughly 10-12 solves to go from the slowest to fastest turnspeed. I typically see my slowest times at the beginning at the end of the cycle of 12, with my fastest being around the 9th-10th solve on the way up, and the 3rd to 4th on the way down. I don't have any hard evidence, as I have only recently started with this, but I would hypothesis that over time, I will see my fastest solves migrating toward the instances of me using my fastest turnspeed.
 
Avg: 00:29.50

12: 00:28.18
11: 00:34.55
10: 00:31.12
9: 00:27.61
8: 00:29.27
7: 00:30.24
6: 00:24.93
5: 00:35.05
4: 00:30.31
3: 00:29.54
2: 00:24.86
1: 00:29.24

First sub 30 :)
 
Yeah I like the tip on practicing the cross blindfolded. I'm still pretty slow doing it blindfolded but I can now look at the cube and remember where to pieces are and then complete the cross. At first I didn't think it was helping me but seeing this week's results, I think it did. It made my f2l faster and I didn't feel like I had long pauses searching for pieces.
 
and Chris, about your second & third paragraph, I completely understand and feel what you say. Because I am experiencing these problems right now!
maybe I should both use 80% percent of my speed, and not pay attention to looking ahead!

I would say just to try it and see if it helps. Like Mike said though, this strategy will probably not work for everybody. The other common approach is to just turn REALLY quickly for each pair, but minimize the pauses between pairs. I don't know how to make this approach fast, as personally the go slower approach works better for me. But the fast-and-choppy method is certainly also very fast.

One practice technique that I am experimenting with is a rollercoaster approach to speed. I begin using ~50-60% turnspeed, and then gradually increase to near 100%, then gradually return to the speed at which I began. It takes me roughly 10-12 solves to go from the slowest to fastest turnspeed. I typically see my slowest times at the beginning at the end of the cycle of 12, with my fastest being around the 9th-10th solve on the way up, and the 3rd to 4th on the way down. I don't have any hard evidence, as I have only recently started with this, but I would hypothesis that over time, I will see my fastest solves migrating toward the instances of me using my fastest turnspeed.

Wow, that's a really cool practice technique! I'll have to try that! I completely agree with starting at 50%-60% turnspeed. Andrew Kang recommends this as well.

One thing to keep in mind that is very important: all the really fast people (sub-13) recommend to accelerate during F2L on any given solve. So, for exmaple you do the cross at maybe 60%-70% speed. 1st pair at 75% speed, 2nd pair at 80%, 3rd at 90% and 4th pair at 100% speed. Then for OLL you do maybe 90%-95% speed to avoid lockups and PLL at pretty much 100% speed. This is a scheme that I have heard people mention (or at least roughly this, don't shoot for exactness to those numbers). I try to do the accelerating thing during F2L, and that helps me also.

Again, I know this is a weird mix of a lot of different approaches, but it seems that F2L really is about doing what works for you.

Chris
 
Average: 34.50 seconds
Individual Times:
33.91
38.23
30.61
32.69
38.00
(29.41)
30.70
34.26
32.38
(38.50)
36.20
38.00
 
AVG: 28.89

12: 00:26.64
11: 00:31.83
10: 00:30.79
9: 00:25.50
8: 00:24.36
7: (00:21.12)
6: 00:27.87
5: 00:27.00
4: 00:32.54
3: 00:30.44
2: 00:34.18
1: (00:34.39)

Woah, I'm already sub 30?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top