My New Method

[Cuber239]

Hey guys I have thought of a new method, and I was wondering if a more experienced cuber could do alg generation and help me figure out average move count.
Step one:
2x2x2: This step is done in inspection, a 2x2x2 block is planned out, more advanced users can choose the more optimal looking color to finish the solve on, and even more advanced users can look further if they so choose.
Step 2:
2x2x3: In most cases the fastest way to complete this (I would assume, is to pair up the ce pair, connect the edge center pair together, connect to ce pair to the edge center pair, and rotate it into place,
Step 3:
F2L - 1: Solve the last 2x2x1 needed to get F2L - 1
Step 4:
L5E: Solve all edges in one alg, (Beginners 2 algs)
Step 5:
Solve 1 Corner with a quick to recognize commutator.
Step 6:
Solve L4c: (For beginners: COLL (forced to solve last f2l corner with commutator)) (Advanced: Solve 4 corners, could be any 4 of the five that were left after Step 5 in one alg)
My rough estimation for move count is:
1: 5
2: 5 (Less with better inspection)
3: 8
4: 13
5: 8
6: 11
Total: 5+5+8+13+8+11=50
Again this would not be hard to get a 50-60 move solve if unlucky.
A pro could probably get it down to 45 with canceling from one step to the next and more efficient step 2-3.
A pro at this method could probably get a 40 move solve with a little bit of luck.

 

[AJT17]

To me, this just sounds like a worse version of APB. It's also just a change to LSLL, so you could just do a CFOP F2L-1, which would likely be better for solving. Since you need to solve one corner before solving the final 4, it would likely be better to split it into 2 separate corner comms. Even then, it's still 3 looks to solve LSLL, which is the same as CFOP and 1 more look than ZB. It doesn't sound very ergonomic, and I don't think corner comms are all that quick, especially compared to a regular CFOP LSLL. Since it can't compete with ZB because it requires more looks to solve, CFOP is the only one it might be able to beat, but the ease of solving pieces in CFOP, along with better ergonomics, probably makes this a worse method.

Also, for future reference, put any unrefined method ideas into the method development thread, then you can work on getting feedback and improvement from there.

 

[PhanPhuocan]

Your method likes APB method.

 

[Caleb Valenzuela]

this method sounds very similar to APB (as other members have mentioned). Since AJT17 already mentioned all the stuff about your method, i’m going to talk about your explanation.
It would be nice if you labelled the name of each step clearly and in bold text. Also, you should clarify what a “ce pair” is, as well as specifying where the 2x2x1 would be, but i’m assuming it would be in the BR slot. Basically you want clear sectioning between each step, and also a clear explanation/specification of the terms you use and where/how certain steps would be done.