Older cubers discussions

[JohnnyReggae]

After all this craze about magnetic cubes I finally gave in and decided to make one myself. Bought myself a cheap cube (MF3RS) to test the water and went to work. It was surprisingly easy and a little under two hours later I was finished and had the cube assembled again.
The result: meh.
Honestly not very impressed with this. The outer layers feel pretty good but M slices are absolutely horrible on this cube (it's also very locky, almost more so than before magnetizing it). It might be because of the cheap cube but right now I definitely don't want to take the chance of ruining my valk by putting magnets in it.

On a happier note: With the MF3RS I also ordered a thunderclap (v1) and I absolutely love this thing! There is a serious possibility this could replace the valk as my main so there's that

Not sure how the cheaper cubes react to magnets as I haven't tried them yet. I've tried 3 different magnet strengths in some Valks and they can certainly take quite strong magnets and still feel great. Personally I find the magnetic versions much .... much better than the originals, even with the weakest or strongest magnets I've tried so far. If it were me ... I'd do it in a heartbeat Then again I'm not a Roux solver so the M slices don't bother me much.

 

[phreaker]

After all this craze about magnetic cubes I finally gave in and decided to make one myself. Bought myself a cheap cube (MF3RS) to test the water and went to work. It was surprisingly easy and a little under two hours later I was finished and had the cube assembled again.
The result: meh.
Honestly not very impressed with this. The outer layers feel pretty good but M slices are absolutely horrible on this cube (it's also very locky, almost more so than before magnetizing it). It might be because of the cheap cube but right now I definitely don't want to take the chance of ruining my valk by putting magnets in it.

On a happier note: With the MF3RS I also ordered a thunderclap (v1) and I absolutely love this thing! There is a serious possibility this could replace the valk as my main so there's that

Magnets change cubes, I find.

My Valk M (Custom Magnets): It kept its personality, roughly... if anything it became more exaggerated, more stable and a bit slower.

My Gans AIR UM: The cube finally feels... like a cube! Not like a mush that will do whatever I tell it to, and if I'm lucky not lock up. I like the M slices on this cube.

My GTS2M (Custom Magnets): This cube was AWFUL initially. I replaced the springs with Valk springs, and now it is my OH main, and is near full cutting for OH. (Yes, for OH! not 2H) The magnets feel right and it is just a pleasure to use. People who have tried this cube at comp, universally loved it... It is a great cube.

My Wuque: Feels interesting. I like it, but it is a bit more locky. I suspect setup will help as I get it more under control. But I love the 3x3 stage, and I love the way the turning feels... I can feel the potential, once I figure out how to cash it in.

My Wushuang: This one... I think I have the wrong magnets in. I feel the potential for it to be awesome... but I need weaker magnets in the outermost layer. The current ones I'm using are turning the middle layers when I go to do turns, that that's not optimal to say the least. But the cube itself is really nice. I've set my PB on it, and I suspect when I get the magnets right this cube will shine. (But that means redoing the corners with weaker magnets... which I can do, it'll just take time.

Overall, I feel magnets really can help cubes, but the setup of the cube often changes, and you want to setup the cube to be faster to compensate for the magnets... for me that's rough on the Wuque, and Wushuang, where I'd already set them up to be very quick.

 

[pglewis]

... I'm ridiculously overdue for an outlier in the 16-17 range (I've still only had two :19s as my only sub 20 solves) ...

Booya! For my third sub-20 single I skipped the 17s and 18s entirely. OLL skip + Ra, that one will probably stand for a little while.

 

[openseas]

After all this craze about magnetic cubes I finally gave in and decided to make one myself. Bought myself a cheap cube (MF3RS) to test the water and went to work. It was surprisingly easy and a little under two hours later I was finished and had the cube assembled again.
The result: meh.
Honestly not very impressed with this. The outer layers feel pretty good but M slices are absolutely horrible on this cube (it's also very locky, almost more so than before magnetizing it). It might be because of the cheap cube but right now I definitely don't want to take the chance of ruining my valk by putting magnets in it.

On a happier note: With the MF3RS I also ordered a thunderclap (v1) and I absolutely love this thing! There is a serious possibility this could replace the valk as my main so there's that

What kind of magnet did you use? (N35? 4x2?)
3 things determine the outcome : magnet strength (N35 ~ N48), magnet disc size (4x2, 5x1, 4x1.5, 4x1, ...) and location of magnets : toward center (inner circle) or the surface (outer circle)

 

[openseas]

Magnets change cubes, I find.

My Valk M (Custom Magnets): It kept its personality, roughly... if anything it became more exaggerated, more stable and a bit slower.

My Gans AIR UM: The cube finally feels... like a cube! Not like a mush that will do whatever I tell it to, and if I'm lucky not lock up. I like the M slices on this cube.

My GTS2M (Custom Magnets): This cube was AWFUL initially. I replaced the springs with Valk springs, and now it is my OH main, and is near full cutting for OH. (Yes, for OH! not 2H) The magnets feel right and it is just a pleasure to use. People who have tried this cube at comp, universally loved it... It is a great cube.

My Wuque: Feels interesting. I like it, but it is a bit more locky. I suspect setup will help as I get it more under control. But I love the 3x3 stage, and I love the way the turning feels... I can feel the potential, once I figure out how to cash it in.

My Wushuang: This one... I think I have the wrong magnets in. I feel the potential for it to be awesome... but I need weaker magnets in the outermost layer. The current ones I'm using are turning the middle layers when I go to do turns, that that's not optimal to say the least. But the cube itself is really nice. I've set my PB on it, and I suspect when I get the magnets right this cube will shine. (But that means redoing the corners with weaker magnets... which I can do, it'll just take time.

Overall, I feel magnets really can help cubes, but the setup of the cube often changes, and you want to setup the cube to be faster to compensate for the magnets... for me that's rough on the Wuque, and Wushuang, where I'd already set them up to be very quick.

Similar conclusion, magnets are more about stability.

Valk 3 M --> more about preventing overturn, Valk3 is already an excellent cube, adding magnets make it more reliable. It used to be my main.

GTS V2 M --> Initial GTS V2 is really not stable --> with magnets (proper size and location), much stable with speed of the original GTS V2 --> this is my main.

MF3RS --> it's a budget cube, my son and I use it for MBLD. So far, best combination I've found was N38 4x1 for edge, N35 4x2 for corner. It's not a main but quite decent.

 

[newtonbase]

After all this craze about magnetic cubes I finally gave in and decided to make one myself. Bought myself a cheap cube (MF3RS) to test the water and went to work. It was surprisingly easy and a little under two hours later I was finished and had the cube assembled again.
The result: meh.
Honestly not very impressed with this. The outer layers feel pretty good but M slices are absolutely horrible on this cube (it's also very locky, almost more so than before magnetizing it). It might be because of the cheap cube but right now I definitely don't want to take the chance of ruining my valk by putting magnets in it.

On a happier note: With the MF3RS I also ordered a thunderclap (v1) and I absolutely love this thing! There is a serious possibility this could replace the valk as my main so there's that

First thing I do after magnetising a cube is to loosen it by at least a whole turn. Have you tried playing with the setup.
The Thunderclap V1 is a really nice cube. I magnetise mine with N35 4x3mm. I lost one of them on Sunday and was gutted. Hopefully whoever picked it up will become a cuber.

 

[openseas]

First thing I do after magnetising a cube is to loosen it by at least a whole turn. Have you tried playing with the setup.
The Thunderclap V1 is a really nice cube. I magnetise mine with N35 4x3mm. I lost one of them on Sunday and was gutted. Hopefully whoever picked it up will become a cuber.

Wow, to me (and most of cubers I met), N35 4x3 was too strong. Even N35 4x2 was a little bit strong for corner turns - verdict by the most of cubers tried with my DoE. As I mentioned earlier, N38 4x1 edge + N35 4x2 corner received the best score.

I'm trying to find the right size - like 5x1 wit N?? - (depending on availability). I found it better with larger but thinner disc. I guess the magnet field is not strong (was gonna go for lower strength magnet) but it kicks in a little bit earlier (since wider).

 

[Fyzzna]

Not sure how the cheaper cubes react to magnets as I haven't tried them yet. I've tried 3 different magnet strengths in some Valks and they can certainly take quite strong magnets and still feel great. Personally I find the magnetic versions much .... much better than the originals, even with the weakest or strongest magnets I've tried so far. If it were me ... I'd do it in a heartbeat Then again I'm not a Roux solver so the M slices don't bother me much.

I know that a lot of fast Roux solvers are using magnetic cubes so M slices can't be horrible on all of them. At this point I'm quite certain that it's due to the cheap cube and the valk would probably be better with magnets but right now I don't want to ruin a $20 cube because of a hunch.

What kind of magnet did you use? (N35? 4x2?)
3 things determine the outcome : magnet strength (N35 ~ N48), magnet disc size (4x2, 5x1, 4x1.5, 4x1, ...) and location of magnets : toward center (inner circle) or the surface (outer circle)

Yeah, I used 4x2 N35 magnets. As for placement I mostly followed this tutorial by DMCubing. I also checked for polarity at the end so it's unlikely that the problem lies in the setup here.

First thing I do after magnetising a cube is to loosen it by at least a whole turn. Have you tried playing with the setup.
The Thunderclap V1 is a really nice cube. I magnetise mine with N35 4x3mm. I lost one of them on Sunday and was gutted. Hopefully whoever picked it up will become a cuber.

I did loosen it by 5 quarter turns and I've played around with different tensions (and even lubes) a bit but nothing seems to help.
Shame about the thunderclap At least it sound like you have more than one of them?

 

[JohnnyReggae]

Yeah, I used 4x2 N35 magnets. As for placement I mostly followed this tutorial by DMCubing. I also checked for polarity at the end so it's unlikely that the problem lies in the setup here.

The 4x2 N35's are my favourite magnets for the Valk. I've gone weaker and stronger, but of the 3 I'll go back to the 4x2's definitely.

 

[newtonbase]

Wow, to me (and most of cubers I met), N35 4x3 was too strong.

I do prefer a stronger magnet. Especially for blind.

Shame about the thunderclap At least it sound like you have more than one of them?

I had 7 that I'd magnetised. This is the 2nd I've lost but I'm pretty sure the other is somewhere in my house. I also have a few virgin cubes and a load of magnets so I'll build up my stock in time for my next MBLD attempt.

 

[Mike Hughey]

Is this normal? As I mentioned a little earlier, I've been practicing differently with 3x3x3 - trying to get more efficient with my F2L insertions. I now find that if I time a bunch of solves, and it's not that important to me, I can no longer average better than about 25 seconds. I guess that's because even when timing myself I'm always thinking, "but can I do that better?" Even if I don't actually do it better, I think that just thinking about it is slowing me down. And probably only about 1 in 20 of my single solves are sub-20.

And yet, for the last 4 averages of 5 that I've done in various of the online competitions (ours and some others), I've gotten sub-19 averages of 5. 4 in a row! (18.92, 18.84, 18.44, 18.81) I've gotten very few sub-19 averages of 5, like ever. It seems like when I feel like it really counts, I really have sped up a lot. But I can't see it when I'm practicing.

Is that normal?

I've been stuck at just over 20 seconds for so long now that I've forgotten what it's like to improve at 3x3x3. I've been stuck at just over 20 seconds for probably 5 years now.

 

[mark49152]

@Mike Hughey : I get my fastest sessions when I feel like I'm "in the zone". The solves feel like they flow automatically and I'm not really conscious of seeing, looking or thinking. Whenever I think about what I'm doing I'm slower, but I know that the technical improvements made during thinking solves do carry forward into "zone" solves.

 

[openseas]

I've been stuck at just over 20 seconds for so long now that I've forgotten what it's like to improve at 3x3x3. I've been stuck at just over 20 seconds for probably 5 years now.

I've been stuck about a year - that means four more years to go :-(

All jokes aside, I agree to your assessment. To me, it IS the efficiency of my F2L that slows me down the most. Haven't practiced much these days but once I settled down 3BLD, F2L efficiency will my next target.

 

[chtiger]

I've been in part-time lurker mode lately, haven't been keeping up with the thread as much. Shame on me. A few random things--
Had another comp (man they have a lot of comps around here), not worthy of a write-up. No PB's. 3 more 3BLD DNF's, now 3/21 lifetime, geez.

If you like easy crosses, you can't beat this one
1. 15.57 U R2 F2 R D2 B2 L' B2 U2 R2 F2 B' U2 B' D2 L2 B' U2

Would you count the following as a home PB? Doing BLD with no blindfold and on laptop. Finished the solve, hit the spacebar (or so I thought), immediately realizing I forgot to flip an edge. Looked at the time, saw clock still running, didn't see the cube, closed my eyes and flipped the edge, properly stopped timer and cube was solved. Not a PB single, but would be part of a PB mean of 3.

 

[phreaker]

Set my 5x5 PB at 5:31, and backed it up at 5:32.

The Wushuang M is quite a cube... I tried a few solves on a Moyu Boushuang GTS I have around... with a best of ~6:30 on those... so even at my speed... cube matters. (If only because I have better recognition on stickerless..)

May be time to go work on 3x3 CFOP soon... my CFOP stage is starting to show, as too slow... ZZ isn't real practical.

May also scramble a 5x5 as a 3x3 for practice turning etc... But I'm having fun... and in the end, that's what matters.

 

[Jason Green]

Is this normal? As I mentioned a little earlier, I've been practicing differently with 3x3x3 - trying to get more efficient with my F2L insertions. I now find that if I time a bunch of solves, and it's not that important to me, I can no longer average better than about 25 seconds. I guess that's because even when timing myself I'm always thinking, "but can I do that better?" Even if I don't actually do it better, I think that just thinking about it is slowing me down. And probably only about 1 in 20 of my single solves are sub-20.

And yet, for the last 4 averages of 5 that I've done in various of the online competitions (ours and some others), I've gotten sub-19 averages of 5. 4 in a row! (18.92, 18.84, 18.44, 18.81) I've gotten very few sub-19 averages of 5, like ever. It seems like when I feel like it really counts, I really have sped up a lot. But I can't see it when I'm practicing.

Is that normal?

I've been stuck at just over 20 seconds for so long now that I've forgotten what it's like to improve at 3x3x3. I've been stuck at just over 20 seconds for probably 5 years now.

I think it's normal. I'm not sure I ever had a focused time of trying to improve my insertions... other than picking them up over time. I do a lot of my insertions the way I see good cubers doing now, although some I need to work on.

This reminds me of learning a new alg set like OLL though. Of course it will have a negative impact on those new cases for a while. I've mentioned in the past, but typically what I end up doing when I'm learning something like that is use the timer mostly, but throw away solves that have the new cases. Rarely I'll do untimed solves but I just never enjoyed it much. That also gives you a gauge as to how you are improving on the new skill and when you should start incorporating it say at a comp. Of course I never count any averages I would get while throwing out solves. I find it a good way to motivate me for learning new things, which I haven't done a lot of lately (until blind).

Would you count the following as a home PB? Doing BLD with no blindfold and on laptop. Finished the solve, hit the spacebar (or so I thought), immediately realizing I forgot to flip an edge. Looked at the time, saw clock still running, didn't see the cube, closed my eyes and flipped the edge, properly stopped timer and cube was solved. Not a PB single, but would be part of a PB mean of 3.

I probably would count it, if you're positive you didn't see the edge first. I guess it would depend on whether I felt legit counting it. Like the fact that my PB is currently on my phone timer doesn't bother me at all, because the stackmat never seems to impact my times and I've had several PBs using it. So I guess I don't care what others think, it's legit to me.

It kind of relates to what I was talking about with practicing new things. If I'm trying to learn something new and counting all those practice solves would make my current overall average 1 or 2 seconds slower, I don't think to myself I'm 1 or 2 seconds slower. To me I'm still the speed I am without incorporating those things (that's why I discard them). I guess in the end, to me, official results are all that matter. And my approach has shown for me that how fast "I think I am" holds up pretty well officially. If my practice approach kept making me think I was 1 or 2 seconds faster than I was at comps, that would be very disappointing and I might have to be more strict on my "rules" for practice.

... just my opinions.

 

[phreaker]

Would you count the following as a home PB? Doing BLD with no blindfold and on laptop. Finished the solve, hit the spacebar (or so I thought), immediately realizing I forgot to flip an edge. Looked at the time, saw clock still running, didn't see the cube, closed my eyes and flipped the edge, properly stopped timer and cube was solved. Not a PB single, but would be part of a PB mean of 3.

I likely wouldn't... But that's me, I'd want to see a fully solved cube when I pulled off my blindfold.

 

[chtiger]

I likely wouldn't... But that's me, I'd want to see a fully solved cube when I pulled off my blindfold.

It was fully solved the first time I saw it. My problem with it is that I intended to end the solve, and only realized clock was still running by opening my eyes, which ends any solving in a blind solve. But then again, I'm not following the official rules anyway, and I didn't see the cube, which makes it an interesting case I think. Right now I've got a PB and a PB*

 

[openseas]

It was fully solved the first time I saw it. My problem with it is that I intended to end the solve, and only realized clock was still running by opening my eyes, which ends any solving in a blind solve. But then again, I'm not following the official rules anyway, and I didn't see the cube, which makes it an interesting case I think. Right now I've got a PB and a PB*

I wouldn't either, not just to be strict but more about the nature of BLD. When it comes to memo, anything can be a trigger. Many many times, memo comes around when you open your eyes even without looking anything. But it's just me, too.

 

[pglewis]

Is this normal? As I mentioned a little earlier, I've been practicing differently with 3x3x3 - trying to get more efficient with my F2L insertions. I now find that if I time a bunch of solves, and it's not that important to me, I can no longer average better than about 25 seconds. I guess that's because even when timing myself I'm always thinking, "but can I do that better?" Even if I don't actually do it better, I think that just thinking about it is slowing me down. And probably only about 1 in 20 of my single solves are sub-20.

And yet, for the last 4 averages of 5 that I've done in various of the online competitions (ours and some others), I've gotten sub-19 averages of 5. 4 in a row! (18.92, 18.84, 18.44, 18.81) I've gotten very few sub-19 averages of 5, like ever. It seems like when I feel like it really counts, I really have sped up a lot. But I can't see it when I'm practicing.

Is that normal?

I've been stuck at just over 20 seconds for so long now that I've forgotten what it's like to improve at 3x3x3. I've been stuck at just over 20 seconds for probably 5 years now.

I'm glad @Jason Green chimed-in since he doesn't seem to believe in plateaus yet. He rolled past sub 20 and keeps on going.

I have a lot of random thoughts about timers and myself, I'm not sure how useful any of it is but I'll take this as enough excuse to ramble. These days I time a lot of my solves (primarily Stackmat) with less untimed practice, but I don't log/track most of them. I don't personally see much value in tracking an Ao1000 or even Ao100 at my level. I've improved since the oldest times in a big session and I've been watching the trend happen, it tells me nothing new. I also think it would discourage me from working on new things, "I'm not doing that new alg, I don't want the hit to my global average!"

So I basically have two modes of timed solves: sessions where I'm working on things and sessions where I'm actively out to break PRs and evaluate progress. I seem to be in a routine where it's 2-5 weeks between the serious timed sessions with focused practice and spam solving in between. I've developed a decent instinct for when to start timing/logging, several of my PB singles were the first solve after getting the timer out. Sometimes you can just feel it's a good day and maybe a good idea to see if the clock agrees. I can't command it though, like you buckling down in the clutch, so far it happens when it decides to.

For the majority-- the "casual timed solves"-- I ask myself "why" after a slow solve. Slow because I paused five seconds recalling a new alg is ok. Slow because white looked abysmal and I did a rare yellow cross I don't practice, that's ok. Slow because I spent extra time thinking about a better way to deal with a particular F2L pair, perfectly fine. Slow because I'm thinking "I need to be fast" and I out-turn my lookahead, not okay. Improving means ditching some instincts and establishing new ones and that's a "slower before faster" game. So I try (emphasize try) not to get too frustrated with the inevitable regressions as long as it's not a chronic problem that shouldn't be happening and isn't part of a new learning curve. Many parallels with how I've practiced guitar for decades: thinking is slow and I spend more time practicing slower than I do full speed in order to eventually bypass the thinking.