• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Ideas for Hardware revolutions

Wish Lin

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
638
Location
Taipei, Taiwan
WCA
2018LINW02
That's true. Reading the regulations, it is unclear whether the concave pieces count as "elevated pieces" that "significantly distinguish" the types of pieces.


Yeah, I don't think anyone would use it at a competition, except for maybe Wish Lin. :p
If the cube is officially proven competition legal, I WILL put my tengyun aside and do a WCA competition with it. Sure is going to be fun.
 

brododragon

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
735
Location
Inside a Confidential Neptunian Potato in Russia
I think something that could be improved on 3x3 is "edge cutting". Almost the same as corner cutting, except with slice turns. Most cubes can only do half a cubie. You can really notice the lack of "edge cutting" in H perms. They are louder than most perms because of the force required to cut edges.
 
Last edited:

xyzzy

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
1,757
True, it's just a reverse and regular cut. The problem is we've yet to see a cube with 45 degree reverse.
Wasn't @Sion working on something like that?

You can't truly get 45 degrees both forward and reverse (there must be some dead zone where the cube will just lock up), and forward cutting is "easier" to design for (reverse cutting requires a piece to push others out of its way, which is not a problem with forward cutting), which is why cubes usually have much better forward cutting than reverse. If there's a reasonable mech that can somehow do forward and reverse roughly equally well (e.g. 40 degrees both ways), it would be very interesting to see if slice-heavy methods (Roux, CF variants, 3-style) have a clear advantage over CFOP on that cube.
 

Nmile7300

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2019
Messages
95
Location
Arizona
WCA
2019MILE04
it would be very interesting to see if slice-heavy methods (Roux, CF variants, 3-style) have a clear advantage over CFOP on that cube.
If this could happen on a smaller level to big cubes (30/30 cutting would be amazing on 5-7), then it could also mean that slices become a more reasonable thing in big cube solving.
 

ProStar

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
2,103
Location
An uncolonized sector of the planet Mars
If this could happen on a smaller level to big cubes (30/30 cutting would be amazing on 5-7), then it could also mean that slices become a more reasonable thing in big cube solving.
The reason slice moves on big cubes aren't done is because they're almost impossible. Turning 5 layers at once without making mistakes is almost impossible
 

Sion

Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
869
Location
New York
I think it could be possible, but the cube would likely sacrifice in other areas if it has 45 degrees worth of reverse.

That said. We need more products that could be stable without magnets or with very little use of them. Designers are relying on them too much now it feels like.
 

chocool6

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2020
Messages
10
I don't think it would be that hard to make a set of magnetic caps for a 4x4 (though it would take a lot of them), or use the Gan magnet system. I think the main problem is there would be so many magnets to change.
The Gan XS system is very fast to change, and the Gan X system I'm pretty sure takes under a minute to change, so for 4x4 with double the magnets it will still only take 2 minutes. I don't think time would be that much of any issue. The main problem is cost, the 4x4 would probably be around $80-$100
 

Want to hide this ad and support the community?
Top