Speedcubing - What are the limits?

How far do you think we can go with 3x3 averages?

• Chuck Norris. That's all I have to say.

• Total voters
181

rubikmaster

Member
Every year we keep setting new records and every year we find many more cubers with amazing talent. Cubers are getting faster and faster every day. Where does it stop? What do you think?

I decided to do a bit of searching on the forums before posting this thread and I saw a similar thread to this which was posted about 4 years ago and people were wondering when will we reach the sub-10 mark. It seemed as if it was almost impossible back then and now, just 4 years later, we have 7 second averages. Currently, 5 second averages seem impossible to us, but who knows, it could happen in just about 5 or 6 years, maybe even sooner. My question is what do you think are the limits? How much can we practice and improve the dexterity of our fingers, the speed of our thoughts, the capacity of our memory, the speed of our eyes?

Will future generations have much better capabilities than us? But then again evolution is a very slow process and cubing might even "die out" within a few decades, just like it did back in the 80's but this time it wouldn't come back 15-20 years later (I don't really know when the cube lost and gained it's popularity again so correct me if I'm wrong). It may even die in 10-15 years forever leaving no crazy new world records. But just how much can we practice and how much can we improve our capabilities? How far can we go with new and faster cubing methods? How many algorithms can we memorize for solving the cube? Will there be cubers one day averaging sub-5, sub-4?! Not just with 3x3. How far can we go with BLD, big cubes, feet solving, one-handed, etc.?

Well, I don't know the answer to these questions and you probably don't know the answer either. But I would just like to see your thoughts and predictions about this? I will also put up a poll on how far you think we can go with 3x3. I'm a pretty realistic person so I think the furthest we can go with 3x3 averages is sub-7, maybe sub-6 in 10 or 20 years but no further than that. So tell me, what do you think about all of this? I find this a very interesting topic so I would really like to see what you have to say about this.

Last edited:

ducttapecuber

No lower than sub 6. If we create a really good method with easy reconition and no more 100 algs that could be really fast. I only believe that cubing will grow because more and more people are starting to realize that this is not impossible and how easy and how much fun this is. I do believe that we have reached the limit on how good of a cube we can have for 3x3. The Zhanchi and Guhong v2 really can't be beat.

rubikmaster

Member
No lower than sub 6. If we create a really good method with easy reconition and no more 100 algs that could be really fast. I only believe that cubing will grow because more and more people are starting to realize that this is not impossible and how easy and how much fun this is. I do believe that we have reached the limit on how good of a cube we can have for 3x3. The Zhanchi and Guhong v2 really can't be beat.
I completely agree with you.

Escher

Babby
Personally, I think that Roux will become the method of choice for extreme-speed in around 3-4 years. The lower move-count average is just too powerful when it comes to the limits of turning speed and lookahead, vs CFOP. The added fact that LSE can be viewed as a wholly intuitive step that can be built on with years of experience and practise without learning any 'new' algorithms makes it so good compared to simply learning more and more '1LLL' cases like CFOP. I would expect that 9tps is around the limit for Roux, along with a roughly 45 average move count.

For other events, I actually think BLD single is fairly close to the speed limit - sub 20 might be possible for an insane few. Maskow is showing how ridiculous multi-BLD can be so I don't pretend to know how far that can go. I reckon a 10s average for OH is pretty reachable in time. Larger cubes are still too limited by technology to really know, and I think the same probably goes with Megaminx (the new Dayan should be exciting)... In short, cube technology can get much, much better to really know.

uberCuber

Member
Well, since "sub-6" means anything below 6, I would definitely agree that we can never get lower than sub-6.

StachuK1992

statue
I agree with everything Escher said, with the exception that I hope (and want to expect..) an entirely new method step up for 3x3.

Stefan

Member
Well, since "sub-6" means anything below 6, I would definitely agree that we can never get lower than sub-6.
The sub-5.99 category is lower than the sub-6 category.

Last edited:

Ickathu

Member
Didn't some people do some tests showing that using average movecounts for certain methods (CFOP, Roux, ZZ, etc) and I specifically remember them saying that sub4 on CFOP (60-65 average HTM) would actually start to melt the plastic?

i.e., ~12+ tps = no more plastic cube

Hunter

Member
That would be interesting to see. People would have to cool their cubes before every sub-4 solve as to let them warm up in those 4 seconds without melting. xD

Tyjet66

Member
I'm going to guess that 3x3 averages will not get below 5.01 seconds (so 5.01-5.99 range.) Feliks has shown that singles in that range are easily achievable, even with NL solves.

While I am partial to CFOP, Roux probably is the way of the future, unless there is a method that exceeds even that, but the only one I could imagine would be Snyder, but I'm not aware of how well that one is.

In short, it'll be interesting to see the progress that we make.

tx789

Member
the limit is 0.0000000000000... ...00000001 well it more likey to be 1 maybe there is none those 4x4+ has more to improve on maybe (the world record is 3x slower than 3x3)

ducttapecuber

The sub-5.99 category is lower than the sub-6 category.
:fp The sub- 6 is sub -5.99
sub- 7 is 6.00-6.999
sub-6 is 5.00-5.99
sub-5 is 4.00-4.99
and so on

Akiro

Member
I'd say no lower than 5 sec averages.

The Zhanchi and Guhong v2 really can't be beat.
I don't agree. They still pop sometimes and I think that it's possible to create a 3x3 that really never pops.

Stefan

Member
There is no sub-5.99 category.
There sure is.

:fp The sub- 6 is sub -5.99
sub- 7 is 6.00-6.999
sub-6 is 5.00-5.99
sub-5 is 4.00-4.99
and so on
Don't see what you're trying to say. Clarify?

And no, sub-x means below x, for example 3.14 is sub-6.

Last edited:

ducttapecuber

.I don't agree. They still pop sometimes and I think that it's possible to create a 3x3 that really never pops.
My Guhong v2 has never popped! Well if there ever is to be a better cube its not going to be by much, not like a Rubik's brand to a Guhong v2 instead its probably going to be like Guhong v1 to Guhong v2. There is difference yes, enough to notice yes, but not that jurstic.

Last edited:

Tyjet66

Member
My Guhong has never popped! Well if there ever is to be a better cube its not going to be by much, not like a Rubik's brand to a Guhong v2 instead its probably going to be like Guhong v1 to Guhong v2. There is difference yes, enough to notice yes, but not that jurstic.
My Guhong V1 pops occasionally. My Zhanchi has never popped on me though.

Ickathu

Member
my zhanchi pops. With and without torpedoes

tx789

Member
There sure is.

Don't see what you're trying to say. Clarify?

And no, sub-x means below x, for example 3.14 is sub-6.

THere a sub 5.548978904 category just sub 6 is significant one sub 30 sub 20 sub 15 sub 10 sub 9 sub 8 sub 7 sub 6 ect are ones on 3x3
but sub 17.3 isn't that significant

F perm

Member
I'd say it's at about 2, which I derive from the rough calculation of 10 tps and 20 moves, but this is the max, and could never be surpassed.