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.

If F3L was possible then you would only need to know one OLL (M' U2 M U2 M' U M U2 M' U2 M).once you got done with F3L you would not have to spend a fraction of a second to recognize the OLL since you already know the OLL to solve. If F2L is more complicated then layer by Layer, and F2L is way faster, then why wouldn't F3L be faster then F2L?

Please explain more indepth what you mean by F3L, how would you go about solving it? Do you mean solving pairs of 3 pieces into the slots? Please elaborate.

I'm not exactly sure what you're thinking of, but I have a pretty good idea. Is this correct?

Example- Scr: L' D2 U' L2 F2 D L2 F2 R2 D2 U' R2 F' L' R2 U2 B' F' U' F'
(y')
L2 F' L' u' R' u // Cross
R' U R y' L' U' L2 U2 L' // 1st F3L
U' R' U2 M F M' U' R // 2nd F3L
R' F R F' U' F' U' F U // 3rd F3L
y R U2 R' U M' F' U2 F r' U2 R U R' U R U2 // Last F3L
U M' U M U' M' U M U M' U2 M U' // L4E

Either way, it is really, really difficult to solve with this. I struggled SOO MUCH with just this one solution. There's a lot of hard thinking involved sometimes, so this would be impossible to speedsolve, unless you want to get 3 minutes or something
F3L is WAAYY too hard even without the whole speedsolving aspect, which ya know is probably what you care about. So, my vote goes for F2L. Lmao