A perm (cw) In 0.47 seconds

[TimMc]

It is hard to stop the timer perfect.

If only there were some kind of Rubik's timer where it would start when you pick the cube up, so that it's no longer touching the surface of the timer, and then stop when you place it back down after the solve. :-(

EDIT: What's the point of calculating TPS for something that takes almost half a second? Are there any trends among competitors where the sustained speed drops off? Is the saturation point 1 second?

Tim.

 

[Kirjava]

If only there were some kind of Rubik's timer where it would start when you pick the cube up, so that it's no longer touching the surface of the timer, and then stop when you place it back down after the solve. :-(

There is.

EDIT: What's the point of calculating TPS for something that takes almost half a second?

Similar to why you'd record the time taken to do it. It measures how quickly/fast something was performed.

 

[Ickenicke]

I've never seen someone sub1 a stackmat PLL, or even heard of it happening. I keep trying to get Breandan to do it.

Do you mean by picking up the cube also?

 

[Kirjava]

uh, yes >_>

 

[Escher]

I've never seen someone sub1 a stackmat PLL, or even heard of it happening. I keep trying to get Breandan to do it.

I'll try and film a J + stackmat later

 

[Kirjava]

I will film E2ME2M' PLL and be the first LOL JK

 

[RTh]

I can do A-Perm's in 0.65 on average, peaks 0.57. But 0,47... WOW

(Which based on a simple camera frame by frame analysis turns out to be 0,69 ao12, and 0.61 best time).

 

[fbgrac]

Wrong...

His hands was still in contact with the timer when making the first move, because the hand "rolled" to the inferior part of the sensor until loose contact. It looks normal, but "rolling" his hands on the sensors made the timer start later than usual (sufficiente for the lasting 0.1). Because of this, the 0.47 is not valid and the question about timer precision is wrong. This solve sould be made starting timer with hands down flat, like official tournaments. I don't like starting timers with cube already on the hands...

 

[cubingawsumness]

His hands was still in contact with the timer when making the first move, because the hand "rolled" to the inferior part of the sensor until loose contact. It looks normal, but "rolling" his hands on the sensors made the timer start later than usual (sufficiente for the lasting 0.1). Because of this, the 0.47 is not valid and the question about timer precision is wrong. This solve sould be made starting timer with hands down flat, like official tournaments. I don't like starting timers with cube already on the hands...

the frame by frame analysis. anyway, even if it's 0.1 secs slower than 0.47, it's still pretty amazing.

 

[BrainOfSweden]

His hands was still in contact with the timer when making the first move, because the hand "rolled" to the inferior part of the sensor until loose contact. It looks normal, but "rolling" his hands on the sensors made the timer start later than usual (sufficiente for the lasting 0.1). Because of this, the 0.47 is not valid and the question about timer precision is wrong. This solve sould be made starting timer with hands down flat, like official tournaments. I don't like starting timers with cube already on the hands...

But this timing is only for the perm. I think the way he (and most people) does it is more accurate. After all, you dont drop your cube and pick it up again before PLL Sure, the time is a tad bit faster this way, but the official way would make the time look really slow when timing individual algs, we're only after the time the actual execution takes.

 

[NSKuber]

Guys, what are you talking about? His speed and time are completely AWESOME, no matter is this 0.47 or 0.57 or something else.

 

[rubiksarlen]

What's his time for ccw A-perm?

 

[Escher]

But this timing is only for the perm. I think the way he (and most people) does it is more accurate. After all, you dont drop your cube and pick it up again before PLL Sure, the time is a tad bit faster this way, but the official way would make the time look really slow when timing individual algs, we're only after the time the actual execution takes.

It would make doing sub 1 PLLs actually a challenge. Besides, what you said is only half-true - we don't pick up the cube before executing PLLs, but we do put it down.

 

[Julian]

It would make doing sub 1 PLLs actually a challenge. Besides, what you said is only half-true - we don't pick up the cube before executing PLLs, but we do put it down.

That's only if PLL is the last step, though. In the context of the Belt method, for example, it would make more sense to time the alg without pickup/putdown.

 

[Kirjava]

That's only if PLL is the last step, though. In the context of the Belt method, for example, it would make more sense to time the alg without pickup/putdown.

Because Belt is way more popular than CFOP.

 

[Escher]

That's only if PLL is the last step, though. In the context of the Belt method, for example, it would make more sense to time the alg without pickup/putdown.

Permute LAST Layer.

 

[insane569]

But this timing is only for the perm.

If the time is for the PLL then going by frames makes more sense. It gives a more accurate time then the stackmat time.

 

[Julian]

Because Belt is way more popular than CFOP.

I realize, but it should be impartial towards methods.

Permute LAST Layer.

That's true.

 

[blackzabbathfan]

Wow. I can't even sub-1 and H perm.

 

[Kirjava]

I realize, but it should be impartial towards methods.

I disagree.