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'm sorry to disagree with this 42$ thing.
Adding one layer to a cube requires to have a much more complicated rotating system than the previous system.
So I think it's more an exponential that linear relaitonship between the number of layers of a cube and its price. ;-)

As long as the price isnt $100 or above, the sides turn very well, and the puzzle is stable, I would buy one! I would love to own one, just toy play with it, even if i dont speedsolve it.

Everyone else: It will be solved the same as any other puzzle bigger than 3x3...Centers, edges, solve as 3x3, as you get to bigger cubes you almost have to do this...Edges first starts to fail...And yes...I need one...

Originally posted by CraigBouchard@Mar 22 2006, 11:16 PM Gilles: Notice how it is exponential?!?!?!

Everyone else: It will be solved the same as any other puzzle bigger than 3x3...Centers, edges, solve as 3x3, as you get to bigger cubes you almost have to do this...Edges first starts to fail...And yes...I need one...

Yeah, I think you would be right if Per relied only on 3-cycles of single pieces to solve the center. But considering he doesn't 3-cycle single blocks all the time, he also cycles blocks of pieces, I think his method woudl still be very efficient.