Cube Reviews (Setting Standards)

[FatBoyXPC]

It seems to me that a lot of cube reviews are kind of subjective. Sometimes people say it can cut corners and do a few algorithms to display it. Sometimes people line up the U layer and then turn the R face and show how well it cuts corners and/or pops. I personally like this method of displaying a pop and a corner cut (and reverse corner cut), but I was wondering if the other "criteria" could have some sort of being measured in a completely objective and measurable way? An example of this would be to hook up the Tubular Spring Scale type tool to determine how much "force" is actually needed (weight instead of force/energy because weight is easier to measure) to do a certain task.

Just wanting thoughts on it to see if it could actually become more standardized since people have different strengths in various areas.

 

[~Phoenix Death~]

What are you asking, specifically and exactly?

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I'm wanting a way we can measure each of the criteria commonly reviewed for each cube. When people give "Speed" a 9, that's going to be subjective to each person doing a review. I'm curious if there would be a way to make it completely standard, so it doesn't matter who performs the test, the results will come out the same (or at least similar).

If we find a way to hook up the Tubular Spring Scale then we could determine the exact amount of weight needed to make a cube pop at a certain tension, or to cut corners, etc. We could measure the weight needed to make an FII cut at 30 degrees vs an AV, etc.

 

[aronpm]

An example of this would be to hook up the Tubular Spring Scale type tool to determine how much "force" is actually needed (weight instead of force/energy because weight is easier to measure) to do a certain task.

I could be wrong here, but hear me out.

For a given cube, the tension could be measured in the distance that a center-piece can be pulled from the core, ie, in meters. If we assume that the amount of popping is proportional to both the force applied and the tension, we get an equation, where Popping, P = kFs. Assume that the constant k is one, you get P=Fs, and that is a recognizable formula: Work, W = Fs. Work is energy.

So should the unit of poppyness be measured in Joules, and be the least amount of energy required to pop the cube?

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I figured it would just be easier to use the spring scale to show how much weight would be needed to make the pop happen, or the corner cut, reverse corner cut, etc. I was thinking that the more weight would show a higher resistance to pops (or the more energy if we do your method instead).

Can we assume that how much a cube pops is proportional to force and tension? Some cubes are more resistant to pops which is why we should measure the amount of force (or weight in this case possibly?) it takes to make a pop happen.

Even still that only covers pops and corner cutting, what about speed, resistance to lockups, etc? It'd just be nice to do scientific cube reviews (and we could develop tuning methods as well using this technique). I know that some people prefer different cubes that suit their style but having some solid data would be nice, instead of this "the corner cutting is nice (insert a few J or T perms here)"

 

[aronpm]

Can we assume that how much a cube pops is proportional to force and tension? Some cubes are more resistant to pops which is why we should measure the amount of force (or weight in this case possibly?) it takes to make a pop happen.

If a cube is more resistant to popping, a larger amount of force is needed. Therefore, given the same tension distance and assuming the same constant, it would have a larger amount of energy required to cut.

Lets say you have two exact copies of a cube, but they have been tensioned differently. It might require, say, n Newtons of force to pop one cube, but 5n Newtons of force to pop the other, because the second's tension distance is 5 times smaller.

If we are comparing forces, then clearly the second cube will pop less. Sure, but that's only because it's tighter.

If we are comparing energy, then the poppyness is equal. P1 = 5d*n; P2 = d*5n; P1=P2;

My point is that by incorporating the tension used, you can create a value for poppyness that can be compared without worrying about people using different tensions.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

Right, I realized that if it's more resistant that more force would be needed. I see your point though in measuring energy, it makes quite a bit more sense now. The way I was avoiding this conflict in my head was to have it set so that when you assemble a DIY cube, you set the tension to something specific (but now you have avoided this issue altogether).

Now how about measuring the "speed" of a cube? Or the resistance to lockups?

 

[raodkill]

a problem with using such things such as scales and measuring force is that we would suddenly have a enormous decrease in reviews. Not everyone is willing to buy a scale or measurement device to tell someone else how good their cube is...

aside from that. to measure resistance to lockups is very difficult as everyone cubes slightly different (or drastically different). The only thing i can really think of is reverse cutting potency. If there is more reverse cutting it seems that there would be less locks? or atleast the cube wuold have an easier time recovering from locks.

 

[FatBoyXPC]

I think people would still make their "subjective" reviews, it just comes natural that people want to tell people their opinion about how each cube is.; I feel that aspect of it is completely ok but I don't like subjectivity so much as so many factors can be a reason of this subjective opinion.

I think the best idea would be to use the tools we have in place to display the data (Speedsolving wiki, speedcubes.net), and as long as we get a standardized way to gather the data (using equipment anybody can get their hands on), anybody can submit the data (and it can be counter checked by others as well).

I think this would help eliminate some of the "What is the best cube" threads as well (okay maybe not since people don't use these tools but it could help clear up some of the opinion with actual data).

I feel very strongly though that people should still make their personal opinion on it. Anything scientific can be argued with opinion (Such as bowling balls, some hook better than others but that doesn't mean it's a preferred ball). I just don't want that personal opinion to be the "data" of which cube is "better" with speed, smoothness, pops, locks, corner cutting, etc.