Sub 40 to Sub 10

[WBCube]

Honestly, with a whole lot of practice, you can probably get there. It's good to always learn new algs or subsets, whatever. Learn some COLL or ELL perhaps if you're at that stage.

I've been doing at least an average of 50 every day, and it really gets your times down, although most people probably don't have the time to do that...

 

[wizH]

42 Months.

 

[bluecloe45]

I was averaging 40 about 2 years ago. My best avg 5 is 10.19
Give it some good time.

 

[sukesh12]

I'm sub-27 and don't know all the OLLs, But at times I get lucky and get sub 20 solves. I'm planning to learn full OLL and I know all PLLs. I guess you also need long and flexible fingers. But I'm just 12 years old.

 

[Przemek Kaleta]

I have been speedcubing since 2011 and my first sub 10 avg 12 was in September 2012.

 

[cubernya]

I hope you realise that very few people are sub10, and it takes a very long time to get there.

By the way: So you can see the number of people sub10: http://cubingstats.netau.net/

 

[Ninja Storm]

After one year, I went from sub-60 to sub-14. Don't expect to get there any time soon.

 

[Iggy]

I haven't really subbed-10 before, and I've been cubing for almost 3 years. I think it took me about 6 months-ish to get from sub40- sub20 with CFOP.

 

[Escher]

I think somewhere between 18-24 months, I can't be certain. I know it took me 13 months to get sub 12.

I think that people underestimate the amount of dedication it takes to get to sub 12 (I think that is the current mark where the improvement curve really slows), and the obsession it takes to get any further than that. I don't want to sound like a kill-joy but with the old 'if I knew what I knew now then' I think I would probably have tried improving at other hobbies earlier. The cost/benefit ratio of improving beyond 12s really requires a massive amount of love for it to be viable.

At the same time, I'm hoping the reason you're asking is because you want to get there as fast as possible. Research 'deliberate practise' and read a few improvement threads lying about (I wrote a well-received one). Try to remember the cube is still a toy and a puzzle regardless of your ability to solve it - you need to play around with it and find out how it all works and inter-relates as best you can, so that learning new techniques comes easier in the future. 'Soft play' (not 'solving slowly') is a great way to improve your f2l dramatically. Remember a method is just a way of interpreting the cube and it's important to understand how it interprets the cube and why, to truly understand what's going on, and get really fast

The hard information is all out there to get sub 10 as fast as you are physically able - it's the mindset and dedication that are far more important to keep check on.

That aside, I reckon a year is an aggressive estimate to close in on sub-10, and 2 years more conservative.

 

[Noahaha]

Just don't forget that 3x3 is not the only event. You could be the person who does a 40 cube multi or a square 1 in 7 seconds, but only be destined to get down to 12 seconds at 3x3. I know that everyone goes through that 3x3 obsession phase right around when they start getting times in the 30s, but I honestly think it's the most difficult event to become good at.

 

[sneaklyfox]

Just don't forget that 3x3 is not the only event. You could be the person who does a 40 cube multi or a square 1 in 7 seconds, but only be destined to get down to 12 seconds at 3x3. I know that everyone goes through that 3x3 obsession phase right around when they start getting times in the 30s, but I honestly think it's the most difficult event to become good at.

It's only difficult to get "good" at it because everybody does it. So comparatively, it's harder to get a higher ranking. But I'd say bigger cubes are harder to actually get good at because it takes so much longer just to solve them once. I mean, imagine trying to do a 10k marathon of 7x7 in a month...

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

It's only difficult to get "good" at it because everybody does it. So comparatively, it's harder to get a higher ranking. But I'd say bigger cubes are harder to actually get good at because it takes so much longer just to solve them once. I mean, imagine trying to do a 10k marathon of 7x7 in a month...

You could do a 1200 cube marathon. It's roughly the same amount of pieces solved in a 3x3 10k marathon.

 

[Stingray970]

I'm sub 25, and I've been cubing for just under 6 months.

I only know 4LLL and intuitive f2l.

It would probably take you over a year to reach sub 10. I'm sure a lot of people never reach sub 10, so that may be a bit high of a goal.

 

[Ickathu]

You could do a 1200 cube marathon. It's roughly the same amount of pieces solved in a 3x3 10k marathon.

lolwut? Who cares about pieces?
I average like 25 with 3x3. --> 250,000 seconds/10k solves (not counting scrambling, inspection, etc) --> 69.4 hours
I average like 10 minutes with 7x7. We'll say that I have a 7 minute average of 1200. --> 8400 minutes --> 140 hours. I'd need to average ~3:30 over all 1200 solves for it to take the same amount of time as 10k 3x3 solves...

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

lolwut? Who cares about pieces?
I average like 25 with 3x3. --> 250,000 seconds/10k solves (not counting scrambling, inspection, etc) --> 69.4 hours
I average like 10 minutes with 7x7. We'll say that I have a 7 minute average of 1200. --> 8400 minutes --> 140 hours. I'd need to average ~3:30 over all 1200 solves for it to take the same amount of time as 10k 3x3 solves...

That's because your speed on 3x3 is, relative to your speed on 7x7, incredibly fast.

::EDIT:: I lied, you win. 7x7 at that speed ~ 2.8 pps, 3x3 ~ 1 pps

 

[SketchCuber]

I average around 32 seconds with roux. How can I get faster?
I practice every day for a couple of hours, and I just started to learn the 1 look CMLL. I count out about 15ish moves for first and second block (not sure how to properly count moves so I just say one turn is one move). It takes me about 15-20 seconds to do F2B and 10-12 seconds to do 2-look CMLL + L6E.

 

[qqwref]

7x7 at that speed ~ 2.8 pps

What? A 7x7x7 has 7^3-5^3-6 = 212 movable pieces, so at 2.8 pieces per second your times would be about 1:15.

 

[Kirjava]

6 years

 

[JonnyWhoopes]

What? A 7x7x7 has 7^3-5^3-6 = 212 movable pieces, so at 2.8 pieces per second your times would be about 1:15.

Now you see why I failed applied mathematics. I can move numbers around but have no clue what I'm actually doing.

 

[MichaelErskine]

I disagree. Determination and good practice are important, but I think there are limiting factors that will prevent some people from being sub 10. It is not as easy for some people as others, and I'm not convinced everyone can get there.

I agree. I am one of these persons. I have set my hopes on concequent sub 30s. I will be very happy with that with a PB single of sub 20.

Finally - My condition is recognised!

I've been chasing the reasonable goal of a consistent sub-30 average since my first sub-30 in December 2008 - I just fail to get it (although I've read and understood the excellent improvement threads). Today, for example, I'm off work so I have time for an average of 50 -- my times range from 22 to 47 (mistakes included) and the average is running at 33 seconds. I just really suck at this whole game - not just 3x3: all the puzzles! It doesn't really matter though - there's endless amounts of fun to be had.