mafergut
Member
Just saw it today and I just ordered mine two days ago for $35 including shipping cost so, I wasted $15
Thinking about getting a spare one from Cubezz to halve the loss per cube 
-
Welcome to SpeedSolving.com — the world’s largest puzzle community!
You’re currently browsing as a guest, which means you have limited access to discussions, resources, member profiles, and community features.
Join 50,000+ cubers and puzzle enthusiasts from around the world to ask questions, share solves, improve faster, and be part of the community.
Registration is free, fast, and easy — create your account today.
Already a member? Log in here to hide this message and start participating.
Older cubers discussions
- Thread starter MarcelP
- Start date
Thinking about getting a spare one from Cubezz to halve the loss per cube JanW
Member
That $19.99 offer on cubezz looks rather tempting! I still haven't tried a GTS2, nor any kind of magnetized cube. I'm just a bit afraid that if I got a magnetized cube, all of my old cubes would become obsolete, and all future cubes would become more expensive as I henceforth would demand magnets...
mafergut
Member
That was exactly my reasoning but... it's also inevitable. And that price point of $20 is going to bring all the magnetized cube submarket down necessarily, which is a good thing.
JohnnyReggae
Member
You do have a valid point. I must say I struggle with non-magnetised cubes now. I'm sure that if I did more than a handful of solves with a non-mangetised cube I'd settle into it again, but picking one up now it feels strange and not controllable.
I'm surprised that the Moyu has a price point of $20, which is half the price of the other magnetic options out there. It was only a matter of time before other manufacturers would start doing factory magnetic cubes. More competition is great and will hopefully bring the prices down further.
My only issue with buying a factory magnetic cube is that you have no idea of the strength of the magnets, as like everything else cube related there is a lot of personal preference, but at least a $20 "mistake" is easier to swallow than a $50 "mistake"
JanW
Member
After spending a week with the MoJue M3, I noticed my turning got quite inaccurate and sloppy, so I switched back to the Valk. Again, immediately after switching cubes I saw some PBs. Among other, my first sub-20 Ao100! The 100 solves included two sub-15s, one of them a 14.06 full-step, which I think is my full-step pb.
h2f
Premium Member
I got first ao50 sub17 (16.98). Yay.... 
mitja
Member
Agreed. It would be much better to make plastic sockets for magnets in factory. We would add magnets by our choice. The socket would speed up the process.
One Wheel
Member
Have you experimented with different shapes of magnets? I haven't, but what Chris Tran said about rectangular magnets makes some sense. Most people are using the 4x2s, so if they were to put pockets in the cube that would probably be the size, but without pockets there is a lot more flexibility.
mitja
Member
the biggest problem with magnets is, that the strenght is very personal. It could be some difference if very different surface sizes would be used 3mm against 6mm( the magnetic force would be distributed differently) But In such a small cube piece it should not be that noticeable. The biggest difference I noticed was the added 3 magnets weight in each of the center piece to balance for 12 magnets difference in outer-inner slices. It is my experience of last month that having this added weight is much better experience. Every person that tries it, likes it.
mitja
Member
I think the big problem of manufacturers is, that the magnets need to bi done by hand. It adds up to the costs fot each cube exponentially. This new prices for GTS2M at lightake are so low, makes me wonder, how cheap the costs of manufacturing the nonmagnetic cubes really are?
One Wheel
Member
Lid
Member
Todays 4x4 pracitce yielded in a a12 PB: 1:03.058 (first with the WuQue) {ba5: 1:00.653}
55.606, 1:02.843, 1:08.966, {1:01.449, 1:01.689, 1:04.911, 58.822, (55.101)}, 1:10.226, 1:09.850, 56.215, (1:10.999)
Finally also finished modding all my QiYi Square-1s ... (glue/sping/core(if needed))
55.606, 1:02.843, 1:08.966, {1:01.449, 1:01.689, 1:04.911, 58.822, (55.101)}, 1:10.226, 1:09.850, 56.215, (1:10.999)
Finally also finished modding all my QiYi Square-1s ... (glue/sping/core(if needed))
JohnnyReggae
Member
Could you explain in a little more detail about putting magnets into the center pieces ? Or did you just add additional weight into the center's to equal the weight of 3 magnets ? If so, what did you use ? I'm intrigued but it and the weight distribution.
h2f
Premium Member
Not a legit scramble (handmade or the state after unfinished attempt) but anyway nice solve. 10/4 I guess
JohnnyReggae
Member
I have a few questions regarding Blind ... please excuse my noob questions
I learnt blind just over a year ago but have never pursued it other than ... yay I did it ... really. I would like to pick it up again and do it a little more seriously
When I originally learnt a letter scheme I used the same as the YouTube tutorial I was learnt from being SpeedCubeReview's. I've later discovered that this is not the Speffz standard scheme. Not that I think it does, but does this make a difference and seeing as I haven't done too much with blind should I switch over the the standard Speffz scheme ?
I use the Old Pochman method because it's the easiest to start with ?
Using Old Pochman I'm confused about "parity". I know that if I have an odd number of swaps that there will be parity due to the swap of pieces. I'm confused on how to deal with the "parity". This is what I assume with doing corners first followed by edges ... Do all of the corner swaps leaving the last, do all the edge swaps, followed by the last corner swap, followed by a U' and a lefty R-Perm (Ra) ([L U2' L' U2'] [L F'] [L' U' L U] [L F] L2' U) ? What happens if I wanted to do edges first ? Are my assumptions anywhere near correct ?
Is there a concise tutorial that is not too long ? I've looked at Noah's blind tutorials on YouTube, but to be honest his voice is quite monotonous and I find myself drifting to sleep during them. Shaun from SpeedCubeReview did a very cool tutorial which I initially learnt from, however he glosses over the "parity" a bit to quickly for me to fully grasp it.
Again, I apologise for the noob questions ... and for my lack of adequate research
I learnt blind just over a year ago but have never pursued it other than ... yay I did it ... really. I would like to pick it up again and do it a little more seriously
When I originally learnt a letter scheme I used the same as the YouTube tutorial I was learnt from being SpeedCubeReview's. I've later discovered that this is not the Speffz standard scheme. Not that I think it does, but does this make a difference and seeing as I haven't done too much with blind should I switch over the the standard Speffz scheme ?
I use the Old Pochman method because it's the easiest to start with ?
Using Old Pochman I'm confused about "parity". I know that if I have an odd number of swaps that there will be parity due to the swap of pieces. I'm confused on how to deal with the "parity". This is what I assume with doing corners first followed by edges ... Do all of the corner swaps leaving the last, do all the edge swaps, followed by the last corner swap, followed by a U' and a lefty R-Perm (Ra) ([L U2' L' U2'] [L F'] [L' U' L U] [L F] L2' U) ? What happens if I wanted to do edges first ? Are my assumptions anywhere near correct ?
Is there a concise tutorial that is not too long ? I've looked at Noah's blind tutorials on YouTube, but to be honest his voice is quite monotonous and I find myself drifting to sleep during them. Shaun from SpeedCubeReview did a very cool tutorial which I initially learnt from, however he glosses over the "parity" a bit to quickly for me to fully grasp it.
Again, I apologise for the noob questions ... and for my lack of adequate research
h2f
Premium Member
Do all of the corner swaps leaving the last, do all the edge swaps, followed by the last corner swap, followed by a U' and a lefty R-Perm (Ra) ([L U2' L' U2'] [L F'] [L' U' L U] [L F] L2' U) ? What happens if I wanted to do edges first ? Are my assumptions anywhere near correct ?
Doing OP it's no matter what you do first: edges or corners. To solve parity you always put Ra perm between edges and corners. I've learnt 3bld mostly from Noah's tutorial.
mark49152
Premium Member
@JohnnyReggae: Lettering scheme doesn't really matter except that using a standard one makes it easier to communicate with others. For example, you might one day come across a handy list of comms or images indexed by Speffz pairs and it will be more convenient if that's what you use.
I can't really help with the parity question as I have never used OP for edges.
I can't think of a better tutorial than Noah's. Maybe a strong coffee would help?
I can't really help with the parity question as I have never used OP for edges.
I can't think of a better tutorial than Noah's. Maybe a strong coffee would help?
JohnnyReggae
Member
3 cups down and I'm still struggling@JohnnyReggae: Lettering scheme doesn't really matter except that using a standard one makes it easier to communicate with others. For example, you might one day come across a handy list of comms or images indexed by Speffz pairs and it will be more convenient if that's what you use.
I can't really help with the parity question as I have never used OP for edges.
I can't think of a better tutorial than Noah's. Maybe a strong coffee would help?
JohnnyReggae
Member
Another noob blind question. I know that there is a lot of personal preference for what type of memorisation is used, but generally speaking what do you guys use ? So far I have tried letter pairs and trying to make up sentences and to be honest the memorisation is the hardest part of the blind solve for me. I like the idea of auditory memorisation but have never tried it
M
Malkom
Guest
I think most people use audio for one part and a picture for the other. You usually use the one you're more comfortable with for edges, since there are more edges than corners.
