arrowFOP method

[Discomantis]

One thing to say before this:
I don't know if this method is to be considered an original method, and there is a chance that this method exists already.
It is a varient of freeFOP.

The method works like this:

1: Arrow
Build a cross except with one edge missing. I like to call this an arrow. When doing this step, it can be helpful to see if the edge that ends up there is an F2L edge or not. Not required, but helpful.

2: Planned 1st pair
This is much easier than with CFOP to do as you have to plan less.

3: F2L + cross

In this step, you do F2L and solve the cross edge somewhere during this step.
In my experience, I typically do it right after solving my 1st pair, unless there is a really good 2nd pair. (Like a free pair) This is for 2 reasons:

You can track your 2nd pair while doing this, and doing M moves to solve your cross is slower than the R U and L moves typically present in standard CFOP F2L.
Once solving the cross edge, you are left with standard CFOP F2L.

4: Last layer


I find this method to be very good for me, as I can plan way more in inspection with this method than I typically can with CFOP. Another pro is that you can very often get short arrow solutions. (very often I get 1 or 2 movers, and I am a color neutral solver) This method should be used in conjunction with CFOP, so if you have an arrow solution that is also convienent such that you can solve cross, then I would use CFOP for that solve.

The cons of this method is that messing up is worse, and if you can't lookahead very well, then this isn't the method for you.


I will create a video tutorial on this method eventually which goes more in-depth into it.
I find that this is a freeFOP variation that tends to "pay off" more for CFOP solvers then just mindless freeFOP normally would, and why I like the method.

 

[FenTheGoat]

This is Called Cross -1

 

[Discomantis]

This is Called Cross -1

This method is not rotationless though, unlike cross-1

 

[FenTheGoat]

This method is not rotationless though, unlike cross-1

So… it’s worse cross -1?

 

[Discomantis]

So… it’s worse cross -1?

No, not necessarily. It’s more so like a freeFOP variation if anything. . Cross-1 is not the most finger trick friendly, and arrowFOP is more finger trick friendly than compared to cross-1. Plus lookahead is easier with arrowFOP.

 

[Discomantis]

Basically cross-1 uses M moves which are slower than arrowFOP. (Which doesn’t use M moves. And lookahead is harder.

And it’s more similar to freeFOP then cross-1 anyway.

 

[Deleted member 36445]

One thing to say before this:
I don't know if this method is to be considered an original method, and there is a chance that this method exists already.
It is a varient of freeFOP.

The method works like this:

1: Arrow
Build a cross except with one edge missing. I like to call this an arrow. When doing this step, it can be helpful to see if the edge that ends up there is an F2L edge or not. Not required, but helpful.

2: Planned 1st pair
This is much easier than with CFOP to do as you have to plan less.

3: F2L + cross

In this step, you do F2L and solve the cross edge somewhere during this step.
In my experience, I typically do it right after solving my 1st pair, unless there is a really good 2nd pair. (Like a free pair) This is for 2 reasons:

You can track your 2nd pair while doing this, and doing M moves to solve your cross is slower than the R U and L moves typically present in standard CFOP F2L.
Once solving the cross edge, you are left with standard CFOP F2L.

4: Last layer


I find this method to be very good for me, as I can plan way more in inspection with this method than I typically can with CFOP. Another pro is that you can very often get short arrow solutions. (very often I get 1 or 2 movers, and I am a color neutral solver) This method should be used in conjunction with CFOP, so if you have an arrow solution that is also convienent such that you can solve cross, then I would use CFOP for that solve.

The cons of this method is that messing up is worse, and if you can't lookahead very well, then this isn't the method for you.


I will create a video tutorial on this method eventually which goes more in-depth into it.
I find that this is a freeFOP variation that tends to "pay off" more for CFOP solvers then just mindless freeFOP normally would, and why I like the method.

If CFOP stands for cross, f2l, oll, pll
This "method" should be AFOP and not ArrowFOP

 

[Discomantis]

This "method" should be AFOP and not ArrowFOP

Yeah I agree. Either that or TFOP. (The arrow kinda looks like a T as well)

 

[precompsubwr]

Yeah I agree. Either that or TFOP. (The arrow kinda looks like a T as well)

For koreans the method would be called ㅜFOP (ㅜ is a hangul letter)

 

[Deleted member 36445]

For koreans the method would be called ㅜFOP (ㅜ is a hangul letter)

ㅜ_ㅜ

 

[Cubist-Guitar]

So… it’s worse cross -1?

in some ways yes. Movecount is an issue, as movecount is similar if not slightly higher to CFOP, and rotationless solves is the best thing Cross-1 has.

However, AFOP does have some key advantages in comparison. For one, being so similar to CFOP means that it’s less of an individual method, and more of a technique, you don’t have to relearn algs or different techniques for a new method. Another strength is the fact that you can look further into the solve than regular CFOP on pretty good scrambles, especially if the first planned pair is good (free pair of easy setup)

Overall, I think it is fine for what it is; a tool, a technique, a training device for things like cross+1 and potentially cross+2. It won’t surpass CFOP because it isn’t that different from CFOP. It’s just a variation, and I believe that’s all it will most likely end up being. It’s something that can help some people get faster at cubing, and isnt that what we all seek as speedcubers in the end?