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.

So then why are you proposing a method that's not good or original? APB is a great method proposal, RUBAR is an original method. Yours is a method anyone can think up. This thread already has enough method dumps. If you're going to chide people for criticizing your method at least make the method good.

random Rubik's cube method
1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
4.BLS (Bingus last slot) basically VLS or HLS but you solve the corners while solving oll
5.PLL

random Rubik's cube method
1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
4.BLS (Bingus last slot) basically VLS or HLS but you solve the corners while solving oll
5.PLL

random Rubik's cube method
1.Solve a roux block + DB edge
2.solve the down front edge and solve the downright edge at the same time
3.solve the back F2L pair while pairing your last F2L pair
4.BLS (Bingus last slot) basically VLS or HLS but you solve the corners while solving oll
5.PLL

I thought of a fast way to solve the last layer. I'm sure it's already been thought of, but I'm just wondering how fast it is compared to CFOP 3lll (which I currently know). Solve the corners (orient and permutate) with 2x2 cll. Then use <M,U> algorithms to solve the cube.

These averages assume all cases have an equal probability of appearing
The average moves for CLL(10.02) + <M,U> Perms (7.5) is 17.5 moves
The average moves for PLL are 13.4

OLL is likely slower than CLL, and <M,U> perms are faster than the average PLL. So solving the corners, then edges, should be faster than solving OLL, then PLL.

I thought of a fast way to solve the last layer. I'm sure it's already been thought of, but I'm just wondering how fast it is compared to CFOP 3lll (which I currently know). Solve the corners (orient and permutate) with 2x2 cll. Then use <M,U> algorithms to solve the cube.

These averages assume all cases have an equal probability of appearing
The average moves for CLL(10.02) + <M,U> Perms (7.5) is 17.5 moves
The average moves for PLL are 13.4

OLL is likely slower than PLL, and <M,U> perms are faster than the average PLL. So solving the corners, then edges, should be faster than solving OLL, then PLL.

Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?

Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.

Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?

Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.

Okay, is it slower because of cll? I would have thought oll and cll would be similar (and cll would be quicker) and with how much faster ell is compared to pll, the cll+ell would be faster than oll+pll. Do you think for 3lll, cll+ell is better?

Nevermind: I only just realized that this method wouldn't work as well as I thought. I (for some reason) thought that the edges could be solved with the <M,U> perms, when they would still also need oriented correctly. The algs to do this (ell) aren't as fast as the <M,U> perms.

For a lot of ELL cases <MU> isn't optimal, <S,R,U,M> would be better (Though obviously, you won't have all of that in very many algs.)

The method you proposed is called CFCE. The reason it isn't as popular is due to many reasons but it is often considered inferior because recognition is worse and the algorithms are trickier. It's certainly not an invalid method, it's just few cubers want to take the risk.