Well i learned the f2l method from badmephisto's videos . I have learned how to do it but its like way too much slow , I once got lucky and did it in 2min 16sec but mostly i have been doing it under 5mins and i think its very slow . As people say its an intuitive method , then how come speedcubers solve so fast with it?is there some other method of doing f2l ?
Fridrich method questions
- Thread starter ahmedkl
- Start date
DeathCuberK
Regular
Don't worry, this is the same with everyone. If you switch from beginners to fridrich F2L, your times will take a beating. But I assure you, just PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE. Once you get used to using Fridrich F2L, you will get really fast.
Oh and for other variations, there is alg based F2L. But its kinda pointless for really simple cases; although I recommend learning algs for more complex cases.
Bottom like is that you must practice with your new F2L for you to get better. You can't just master it overnight.
Wish you the best of luck
-DCK
Oh and for other variations, there is alg based F2L. But its kinda pointless for really simple cases; although I recommend learning algs for more complex cases.
Bottom like is that you must practice with your new F2L for you to get better. You can't just master it overnight.
Wish you the best of luck
-DCK
N
nitrocan
Guest
It's probably because you tried to learn it way too soon. Follow this guide:
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6085
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6085
thanks for the replies 
, and thanks for the link nitrocan , I still can't get my average down 1min 30sec with the beginner method so i think i should stick with it until i don't get under 1min , I have understood the f2l method so i think all i will need will be practice
, and thanks for the link nitrocan , I still can't get my average down 1min 30sec with the beginner method so i think i should stick with it until i don't get under 1min , I have understood the f2l method so i think all i will need will be practice
tarpshack
Regular
When I first learned intuitive F2L my times got significantly worse as everyone else experienced. I quickly recovered my lost time, but in an effort to make F2L more efficient I started looking at F2L algorithms. I only adopted a few of them exactly, but with others I took the techniques from the algorithm to apply them intuitively during my F2L solves. I thought I was optimizing my F2L, but in the end my times got worse again.
With time and practice my F2L continues to get more and more comfortable. So now I'm experiencing some encouraging time gains again. Just stick with it even if it feels like you've hit a wall. Your times will drop as you get used to the method you're practicing.
With time and practice my F2L continues to get more and more comfortable. So now I'm experiencing some encouraging time gains again. Just stick with it even if it feels like you've hit a wall. Your times will drop as you get used to the method you're practicing.
radmin
Veteran
I average around 30 seconds and I can barely ever get sub 60 with beginner method. There are too many weaknesses. By this I mean: they teach an alg that does something, if your specific case isn't covered you have to do that alg up to three times. It keeps the alg count down but speed suffers
Also, for me it takes too long to find the starting side for the edge cycle.
I switched to Fridrich when beginner was at 2 min.
Also, for me it takes too long to find the starting side for the edge cycle.
I switched to Fridrich when beginner was at 2 min.
