#### CAL

##### Member
I did also a mean of 12.
My hoya cross isn't really Move efficient.

F4C: 22;23;24;21;22;23;20;21;22;24;24;21 =22.33
Hoya Cross: 47;29;36;28;29;26;28;26;29;25;36;31 =30.16
L2C: 7;10;10;8;12;8;5;6;9;10;9;9 =8.58
Total: 61.08

#### Chree

##### Member
Thank you @CAL for also giving it a shot! Good to have some comparison to know if I'm on the right track.

One more time to make sure it wasn't a fluke. Tried to be more efficient during F4C, and a little more tricky during Hoya Cross. The average got kinda ruined, however, when I messed up the cross for 2 solves in a row. And (wanting to keep this exercise realistic) I still counted the moves it took to fix my mistakes.

F4C: 21, 25, 22, 27, 23, 18, 25, 19, 19, 20, 32, 25 = 23.42
Hoya Cross: 23, 29, 29, 34, 26, 26, 23, 28, 32, 31, 25, 29 = 27.92
L2C: 12, 10, 12, 12, 6, 9, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 6 = 9.25
Total: 56, 64, 63, 73, 55, 53, 55, 55, 60, 61, 67, 60 = 60.17

This is kinda fun. A sub60 Mo12 to L8E is def doable. I just have to screw up less.

Last edited:

#### jaredye

##### Member
For the cross stage, I was wondering if it make sense to pair up edges not on the D layer if I see an easy pair. The gain is that I can do it faster, and the disadvantage is I don't get a cross at the beginning of 3x3 stage. But since I need to hide the edge in the F face anyway, I don't get a full cross when I pair up the last 2 centers. What you guys think?

#### Chree

##### Member
For the cross stage, I was wondering if it make sense to pair up edges not on the D layer if I see an easy pair. The gain is that I can do it faster, and the disadvantage is I don't get a cross at the beginning of 3x3 stage. But since I need to hide the edge in the F face anyway, I don't get a full cross when I pair up the last 2 centers. What you guys think?
Y'know... I can't really think of a reason why not, but I wouldn't make a habit out of it. Like you said, the cross would not be finished, and that gives up the main advantage of using method like Hoya or Yau: a smooth transition into L8E and eventually F2L. Let me ask: are you putting this piece in the D layer in place of a cross edge? Otherwise, how are you preserving it? I'm guessing you could just toss it into the BL slot.

There has been some exploration with stuff like this, and people took it a step farther. If you look back in the thread, people have talked about Hoya5 (not to be confused with using just "Hoya on 5x5"). I think it was first proposed by Odder, and for a moment was called Hodder. IF I remember correctly, it goes like this:

- F4C (of course)
- Solve only 3 cross edges. Adjust D layer to leave the FD slot empty.
- Before, during or after F3E, solve 2 non-cross edges using Hoya techniques. Hide them in the BL and BR F2L slots.
- L2C (With FD already empty, this saves you from having to do the [F L] or [F' R'] setup).
-After that, you only have 7 edges left to pair, so you could call it L7E. I'd think you'd wanna finish off the last cross edge first, but it's really flexible.

The benefit is that you everything during L7E is on F or U, nice and visible, and very AvG friendly. You could completely avoid rotations, and you already know which pieces are in those back slots, so F2L could potentially get a boost if you're smart about what you throw back there.

A few people gave this method a serious try on 5x5, but I don't know if anyone stuck with it. I think some people were even solving whole F2L+Corner pairs/blocks prior to L2C. It could've proven to be a big advantage to lookahead on 5x5+, where sometimes edge pieces are hard to find. Though, admittedly, I only tried it once and never bothered again.

Last edited:

#### Cale S

##### Member
For the cross stage, I was wondering if it make sense to pair up edges not on the D layer if I see an easy pair. The gain is that I can do it faster, and the disadvantage is I don't get a cross at the beginning of 3x3 stage. But since I need to hide the edge in the F face anyway, I don't get a full cross when I pair up the last 2 centers. What you guys think?
This could make a really interesting variation where the cross doesn't get solved but the cross edges are twice as efficient or better

#### mark49152

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
people have talked about Hoya5 (not to be confused with using just "Hoya on 5x5"). I think it was first proposed by Odder, and for a moment was called Hodder. IF I remember correctly, it goes like this:

- F4C (of course)
- 2 non-cross edges using Hoya techniques. Hide them in the BL and BR F2L slots.
- Before, during or after that, solve only 3 cross edges. Adjust D layer to leave the FD slot empty.
- L2C (With FD already empty, this saves you from having to do the [F L] or [F' R'] setup).
-After that, you only have 7 edges left to pair, so you could call it L7E. I'd think you'd wanna finish off the last cross edge first, but it's really flexible.

The benefit is that you everything during L7E is on F or U, nice and visible, and very AvG friendly.
This is roughly how I do 5x5 although I have not seen the Hodder proposal.

I solve the cross, then do F' R', then solve the tredge for whichever midge happens to be in FD, then F L. Then L2C and L7E as you describe, and restoring the cross is easy with L' R F.

Last edited:

#### Chree

##### Member
This is roughly how I do 5x5 although I have not seen the Hodder proposal.

I solve the cross, then do F' R', then solve the tredge for whichever midge happens to be in FD, then F L. Then L2C and L7E as you describe, and restoring the cross is easy with L' R F.
It was less of a proposal and more of a "he posted a youtube video of him doing a solve with this method" sorta thing.

#### mark49152

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Y
It was less of a proposal and more of a "he posted a youtube video of him doing a solve with this method" sorta thing.
Yes I was lazy and couldn't think of a more apt way to reduce it to a single word .

Anyway I went back and looked at the thread and the video. Hodder looks different to what I do because I'm not trying to solve the back slots, only to leave them filled so that I don't have to search in them when doing L7E. Last time I mentioned this, someone pointed out that it's inefficient moving the cross out of the way and restoring it later, which is true. Maybe I'll try to find a way around that, but I don't find it much of a problem because it's only ~5 moves, they are automatic, and I'm usually looking ahead while doing them anyway.

Actually here's an idea: before solving Hoya cross, look around for any solved, half-solved or easy non-cross tredges and solve them into the back slots. Then we don't have to look in those for cross edge pieces either. I might have a play with that later and see how well it works.

#### jaredye

##### Member
Y'know... I can't really think of a reason why not, but I wouldn't make a habit out of it. Like you said, the cross would not be finished, and that gives up the main advantage of using method like Hoya or Yau: a smooth transition into L8E and eventually F2L. Let me ask: are you putting this piece in the D layer in place of a cross edge? Otherwise, how are you preserving it? I'm guessing you could just toss it into the BL slot.

There has been some exploration with stuff like this, and people took it a step farther. If you look back in the thread, people have talked about Hoya5 (not to be confused with using just "Hoya on 5x5"). I think it was first proposed by Odder, and for a moment was called Hodder. IF I remember correctly, it goes like this:

- F4C (of course)
- 2 non-cross edges using Hoya techniques. Hide them in the BL and BR F2L slots.
- Before, during or after that, solve only 3 cross edges. Adjust D layer to leave the FD slot empty.
- L2C (With FD already empty, this saves you from having to do the [F L] or [F' R'] setup).
-After that, you only have 7 edges left to pair, so you could call it L7E. I'd think you'd wanna finish off the last cross edge first, but it's really flexible.

The benefit is that you everything during L7E is on F or U, nice and visible, and very AvG friendly. You could completely avoid rotations, and you already know which pieces are in those back slots, so F2L could potentially get a boost if you're smart about what you throw back there.

A few people gave this method a serious try on 5x5, but I don't know if anyone stuck with it. I think some people were even solving whole F2L+Corner pairs prior to L2C. It's could've proven to be a big advantage to lookahead on 5x5+, where sometimes edge pieces are hard to find. Though, admittedly, I only tried it once and never bothered again.
I actually like this idea a lot. I think it's really move efficient but requires a bit more thinking. But with enough practice it should be automatic as well. Do you know whether people are using this on 4x4?

#### Chree

##### Member
Last time I mentioned this, someone pointed out that it's inefficient moving the cross out of the way and restoring it later, which is true. Maybe I'll try to find a way around that, but I don't find it much of a problem because it's only ~5 moves, they are automatic, and I'm usually looking ahead while doing them anyway.
Oh yeah... I think that's fine. Like you said, it's automatic, and it gives you a split second of "free time" to lookahead into the next step.

Actually here's an idea: before solving Hoya cross, look around for any solved, half-solved or easy non-cross tredges and solve them into the back slots. Then we don't have to look in those for cross edge pieces either. I might have a play with that later and see how well it works.
May Hoya5 smile upon you. I see a potential advantage as long as you're careful not to disturb the non-cross tredge(s). I've been doing regular Hoya for so long (and I do lots of setups to influence better cases) that I'd be terrified of destroying them. But it's worth considering. Sometimes I think the transition from Freeslice to the Last 4 Edges annoying, so cropping that out could be nice.

I actually like this idea a lot. I think it's really move efficient but requires a bit more thinking. But with enough practice it should be automatic as well. Do you know whether people are using this on 4x4?
I don't think so. At least not that I'm aware of. And I don't know that it'd be a huge advantage either, since 3-2-3 edge pairing is already so good and efficient. Spending any more time building edges using Hoya techniques on 4x4 might not be worth it. But hey, give it a try and let us know what you find out!

##### Member
Last time I mentioned this, someone pointed out that it's inefficient moving the cross out of the way and restoring it later, which is true.
Me?

I see the cross tredge stage as the least efficient step of Hoya and IMO freeslice is better than AVG (at least for me) which is why I consider it to be true.

For me the reason I'm doing Hoya is to skip cross, which was always awful for me, and to make the freeslice step easier to find pieces.

I tried solving more with AVG for a while with bad results.

Edit - I've just started to get lots of sub 100 Ao5s and a couple of Ao12s =)

#### mark49152

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I think your observation was that my entire Hoya stage was inefficient, not just hiding the cross .

We have different reasons for using and appreciating Hoya though. I have watched your walkthroughs and tricks and I just don't have the vision or lookahead skills to see those pieces all over the cube and apply those tricks to solve them together, as you do. Maybe one day, but for now I like Hoya for exactly the opposite reason: basic Hoya solving with AvG pairing allows me to focus my lookahead on a much smaller set of pieces and a simpler set of solutions. It's less efficient, but I trade off efficiency for a better flow (which works for CFOP so can't be always a bad strategy).

##### Member
I think your observation was that my entire Hoya stage was inefficient, not just hiding the cross .
That sounds pretty harsh. Sorry.

I would certainly stick by the suggestion that instead of inserting the middle tredge piece when it's easy to insert wings instead. Not only because midges (is that the correct terminology?) are always easy to insert regardless of their orientation, but you also miss out on accidentally pairing up 2 pieces to insert together.

#### mark49152

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I would certainly stick by the suggestion that instead of inserting the middle tredge piece when it's easy to insert wings instead. Not only because midges (is that the correct terminology?) are always easy to insert regardless of their orientation, but you also miss out on accidentally pairing up 2 pieces to insert together.
Yeah I try to do that these days. Generally though, the first thing I look for is midges to make a start on a midge cross 3x3 style, if there are obvious cross inserts like R' F, or if the pieces are plainly visible. If I can't see all four then I won't go hunting for them and will move on to wings if I see them first.

The reason I prefer to solve midges first is simple: to avoid slice moves, which I'm slow and clumsy at. Usually I don't use a single slice move when solving 5x5. Everything is wide moves. I know your style uses a lot of slice moves which is another reason you can be more efficient, I guess.

Anyway that's what works for me today and I'm sure I'll change my tune as time goes by and I get better at slice moves or lookahead or Hoya tricks or whatever, and get comfortable with adding new stuff. After all, I found a post from myself in the first page of this thread saying Hoya is too inefficient for me and I'll stick with Yau .

##### Member
For the hodder and stuff, I was playing around with Hoya on 5x5 a while ago and I find it useful to also do AvG with some cross edges or the final tredges. It's also pretty likely that you will have at least one paired tredge (ie 2/3 of it) so it reply isn't that bad most of the time as you can easily finish it very quickly.

I also tried doing it in a yau5ish sort of way by actually solving the back edges and while lookahead was a lot nicer, I think that the greater efficiency of freeslice is better.

#### newtonbase

I've been reading this whole thread over the last few days. It's been interesting seeing the progression of the method and I've picked up lots of tips.
I've got my first sub 2 mins solve using the method but I make a lot of mistakes so some solves are disasters. My target is to beat the cut at Macclesfield which would require a significant PB but I'll give it my best.
Thanks for the help everyone.

#### Chree

##### Member
I finally took some time to make another video. This time I decided to review all of my old videos and point out where I changed what I do and offer some alternatives.