Moving to a dif method or not?

[Forcemaster]

I can now do 1:10-1:20 average using the "n00b way" layer by layer method, with a pretty ****ty cube (it's been lubed a couple of times using vaseline, now I use silicone spray, and compared to my Rubi'ks 25th anniversary 4x4x4 thingy it's way too slow/tight :| I don't have a CC or paypal, and I live in europe so a DIY cube from cube4you (apparenlty those things rock? :|) isn't possible for me =p Are the Rubik's 25th anniversary edition 3x3x3 fine or should I try looking for a dif one? This 4x4x4 is loose as hell, but it's not the same as a 3x3x3, so yeah.

So should I keep on practicing the lbl method till I get my time down more, and get a new cube, or should I start doing fridrich?

If move on, how would one learn the algorithms? I mean, there are lots of F2L algs (though that can be done intuitively), then there's OLL and PLL, should I learn all of those, or only PLL ( as I've read something about OLL only saving you 4 seconds or so, so that means there's a "general" way to do OLL? Like, a set of algs that always does OLL)?

And how the HELL do you study those algs? Just cram 'em in like you do for school, or do cubes, when get to PLL find the alg and keep on doing the same one (doing it, then reversing it, ....) till you get it down, or are there better ways?

Yeah I know, a load of questions, but some answers would be appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[Lofty]

For your cube to get better you just have to use it a whole whole lot. I use a storebought plain old regular cube and it is so loose i can actually pull corners out, you just need to use it a lot to break it in.
I would recommend learning fridrich whenever you think you are ready. Most people just learn an intuitive way to do it but you can use algs if you want. For memorizing I just keep doing the same alg over and over until i get it. I look for patterns and things that can help me remember it.

 

[pjk]

I'd continue to practice. Get down under a minute, or around 1:10, then decide what method you want to pursue. Their are lots out there.

Also, please try to avoid cursing, thanks.

 

[DarkArcher]

I got down to under 1 minute at least 80% of the time with the beginner method before I learnt PLL which was the first step for me in integrating Fridrich method into my solve.

The main reason why you should do that is... if you're getting like 1.10 to 1.20, most likely your F2L isn't that fast yet. You'd wanna get your F2L alone to like 35 seconds at the most before even starting to learn PLL. Of course the earlier you start the better because you'd get to practice the algorithms more, but I find it no point to put in alot of work to memorise stuff and get over 1 minute still.

 

[CorwinShiu]

I would suggest learning finger tricks first if you haven't already. Learning how to fingertrick will help you in cubing, with any method. If you have, I would say practice more, until you can average under a minute. You learn to not pause, or not as much, which is useful. Learning algorithms right away is fine, but if you can't recognize fast, or can't execute it fast, then you will be slower then just LBL.

 

[adragast]

I am sorry but I disagree with other answers. I think it is possible for you to go for the Fridrich method. First of all this method will enable you to go quite soon below the 1 minute and this is really motivating (instead of staying above). Secondly, going faster and faster without this method will mainly make you go too fast while using the Fridrich (whereas most speed cubers are advising to go slow and see in advance). Finally the Fridrich method takes a lot of time to learn so it would be better according to me to begin as soon as possible and mainly spend your time in improving your Fridrich algs.
To answer to the other questions, I would advise you to learn some OLL, all PLL and work F2L.

 

[ExoCorsair]

I agree with adragast for those reasons.

I learned Fridrich when I was around 1:15-1:20 and started by learning F2L with cross on top, then PLLs, then cross on left, and now around 20-25s (only knowing about 16 OLL). But try not to learn F2L with cross on top.

I learned my PLLs by repetition, just doing the algorithms over and over again. For some, like the 'optimal' F perm, it took about 30 seconds to learn, but others, like the two-gen Z perm, it took about 15 minutes (and is a finger macro, so I suffer amnesia when trying to do it OH).

 

[AvGalen]

I learned Fridrich when I was around 1:15-1:20 and started by learning F2L with cross on top, then PLLs, then cross on left, and now around 20-25s (only knowing about 16 OLL). But try not to learn F2L with cross on top.

I only know 10 OLL and 6 PLL so a 4 look last layer is my normal solve. And I use keyhole instead of Fridrich. But I am about as fast as you are. I don't think speed has much to do with method, but more with the amount of practise.

I don't think there is an optimal moment to move to a different method. If you don't improve anymore and have time to learn/study a different method then it might be a good moment.

 

[ExoCorsair]

I don't think speed has much to do with method, but more with the amount of practise.

I agree with this, but up to a certain point; I think that, inevitably, higher move counts will be slower. But then again, awkward turns would also be slow.

 

[Theromy]

I was over a minute when I swapped to fridich I think, first I learned PLL, then Fridich F2L, and I'm slowly learning OLL. My solve times range from 25-50 :/#

Corsair, I also struggle OH. I'm no good at OH anyway, but when I try practice I can't OLL or PLL sometimes, since I'm so used to doing finger tricks where my left and right hand work together.

With PLLs and OLLs I used repetition aswel, but I also recognised the patterns that appear on the top (yellow) of the cube while I'm doing the algorithm, that helped

 

[masterofthebass]

Wow... I guess I'm the only one who was really reluctant to move to Fridrich. I was at a 45 second average with a 30.xx PB with LBL method. I then moved to Fridrich due to exocorsair. If he didn't give me the idea, I could be still using it

 

[AvGalen]

Wow... I guess I'm the only one who was really reluctant to move to Fridrich

I have been into speedcubing for about 18 months now and I still don't use Fridrich so you are not the only one.

 

[Johannes91]

I don't think I'll ever move to Fridrich.

 

[Forcemaster]

Another small Q: WTH is 4look LL?

*starts to use the search button*

 

[ExoCorsair]

4LLL is any method of solving the last layer in 4 steps, or 'looks'.

Afaik, it's typically EO CO EP CP.

 

[Forcemaster]

Afaik, it's typically EO CO EP CP.

You lost me there >.>

 

[ExoCorsair]

As far as I know, it's usually edge orientation (1-2 algs), corner orientation (7 algs), edge permutation (1-4 algs), corner permutation (1-3 algs).

 

[CorwinShiu]

It means doing 4 algorithms on a normal solve to solve the last layer, if you still don't understand. Beginner methods tend to have 4+ looks on last layer, with Fridich as 2.

 

[AvGalen]

As far as I know, it's usually edge orientation (1-2 algs), corner orientation (7 algs), edge permutation (1-4 algs), corner permutation (1-3 algs).

edge orientation (2/3 algs), corner orientation (7 algs), corner permutation (2 algs), edge permutation (4 algs) is the most common order

 

[normanbim]

I started with a beginner method which involves 4-look last layer or as we call it "4-step LL". I got to 1:10 using this method then I started learning fridrich f2l intuitively. My time decreased to 45 seconds. I learned PLL after that. My time decreased to 30 seconds. I learned OLL after that and my time decreased to 20 seconds. Which is my current average. I've also learned roux and VH method but my average isn't getting any better YET. roux average=30sec VH average=30 sec. I think fridrich is the best method out there based on my experience as a speedsolver and based on world rankings. Ask Yu-jeong Min or Chambon or Jacquinot or my idol, Makisumi, on what method they use. Hmm, I think Macky is using Garron-Makisumi Method right now, but he got the world records when he still used plain fridrich method.