Set up with Gan V3 Springs on even nxn

[Gerry]

Might be an unpopular opinion, but even numbered nxn puzzles should NOT have the GES V3 system. I have the 251 which came loose, and not at an even tension. I hate trying to do anything with it. The wrench is hard to fit into where it goes making any adjustments a nightmare. Find an even tension, and then tighten and loosen until desired tension. Gave up 20 minutes in and just took it apart to do it, which meant cleaning it too. 2 hours later, I was done. Or was I? Nope something felt off. Repeat the nightmare for each spring set until you are happy. Not sure if V4 or V5 would work either given how tight a space is for the wrench. I would imagine their 4x4 would be a similar nightmare. I understand now why even though Gan is a loved brand, it is not recommended for a 2x2.

I don't have a 3x3 with V3, but I imagine it would not be as bad, as there is no fighting with the wrench. I also appreciate that you can not strip a core, just a nut.

I never really understood why people are crazy about how fast the V4, and V5 are to change. Who cares, you only are going to use one setting. Now I get it. It's not how fast you can randomly swap settings you won't need. It's about easy it is to find your settings, and replicate that when torn down to clean.

 

[cuberbutnotacuber]

I think not as well. I think Gan is going kind of overboard with how much they use GES V3. They should just be putting a simple screw and spring and that should be it. But well, Gan is Gan, and they apparently think that this is the best thing for even NxN puzzles.

 

[Zain_A24]

I think Gan is going kind of overboard with how much they use GES V3.

It's the IPG V5 (which I think was in the 251) that is the concern. The screwing system that GAN used to use. The modern Numerical IPG will likely be used in the new 251 of 2021 and I'm sure that would be a lot better for customisability.

 

[Gerry]

Looks like Gan is playing with names of things again. The 251 AIr, Pro, and Leap are using numerical IPG, but still calling it GES v3. Now there are 2 versions of GES v3, one is numerical, one is screw down.

I guess they took feedback and replaced the IPG V5. The corner core magnets are a bit much for a 2x2 though.

 

[Sub1Hour]

Looks like Gan is playing with names of things again. The 251 AIr, Pro, and Leap are using numerical IPG, but still calling it GES v3. Now there are 2 versions of GES v3, one is numerical, one is screw down.

I guess they took feedback and replaced the IPG V5. The corner core magnets are a bit much for a 2x2 though.

Trying to use names to figure out the differences between their products is like telling someone your going to Springfield. (There are 36 cities and townships in the United States named Springfield)

 

[Zain_A24]

IPG and GES are two very different things.
IPG refers to the tensioning system - like 0.6, 0.8 etc.

GES refers to the elasticities, whether that be the switchable colour nuts or the clicks using the tool in cubes like the flagships, and Skewb/SQ1.

 

[Gerry]

My bad, I just wrote that terribly. I meant they are using numerical IPG core (wing type), instead of the screw down core. BUT they are still calling both of the springs, GES v3. Even though the springs are different.

My Gan 251 M, came with "GESv3" which are threaded. The new 251s also come with "GESv3", but have the slots for the wings instead of threads.

I bet even though both are called GESv3, I couldn't interchange the springs between the new and old cubes.

 

[Zain_A24]

My bad, I just wrote that terribly. I meant they are using numerical IPG core (wing type), instead of the screw down core. BUT they are still calling both of the springs, GES v3. Even though the springs are different.

My Gan 251 M, came with "GESv3" which are threaded. The new 251s also come with "GESv3", but have the slots for the wings instead of threads.

I bet even though both are called GESv3, I couldn't interchange the springs between the new and old cubes.

The threading / slots refer to the IPG system, not the GES system, which doesn't seem perfectly intuitive.
What GAN should have is an overall naming scheme for both their GES and IPG systems combined, but then we're aware they like to have different combinations of GES and IPG in certain cubes.