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.

I guess I can post a serious reply on the pyraminx topic:

I used to solve pyraminx for fewest moves. I could always solve it in 14 moves or less (including the tips). 2 moves per second seems pretty easy so 7 seconds is definately possible on a Mefferts.

Well the Russian ones just turn much smoother after you've turned them in the Mefferts ones have some anoying ''clicking'' system and the Russian ones are a lot smaller then the Mefferts ones, so the Pyraminx feels much better in your hands and the Russian ones has tiles.

Yeah, I can see the smaller the better for sure... but that doesn't mean that sub-7 isn't possible. You can say sub-5 is possible with the Russian ones... maybe??

So is the way Jaap describes and the way Matyas describes (http://www.rubikkocka.hu/angol/pages/piraminxeng.htm) the shortest solutions? When you did 14/15 moves, is that how you did it? I currently build up 1 layer, then permute the remaining 3. Is that a longer method?

Arnaud, can you type up a quick example solve please and describe what you see, etc. Thanks

Doing 1 layer and then permutate the remaining 3 "edges" is obviously not going to be the shortest solution in most cases and neither is the "keyhole" method that is also quite popular.

Simply try connecting edges to their centers without creating "flipped edges". Even if you use layer-by-layer that would give you a really short solution. With a layer-method you have a chance of about 1/6 to skip the 2nd layer. If you think about how you put in the last edge that will become 1/3 and by avoiding "flipped edges" it will become 1/2.

If I have the time I will create a sample solve, but I don't have time to learn notation for Pyraminx this week.