Time breakdowns

[ThatGuy]

Anyone care to post a breakdown of their times? Preferable Friedrich in the format
1) cross
2) f2l
3) LL (and what type of LL you're using)

 

[byu]

1) Cross - 2-4 seconds
2) F2L - 8-11 seconds
3) LL - 3-4 seconds (Almost full OLL, full PLL)

That gives me a 13-19 range.

 

[Lord Voldemort]

You have a 3 second LL? With recognition and all...
Holy crap... That's fast turning.

Cross -> 2-3 seconds
F2L -> 8-12 seconds
OLL -> 3 seconds
PLL -> 4 seconds

Total: 17-22 seconds

 

[Kian]

1) Cross - 2-4 seconds
2) F2L - 8-11 seconds
3) LL - 3-4 seconds (Almost full OLL, full PLL)

That gives me a 13-19 range.

I think you're probably underestimating your LL times. A real-time 3 sec ll is extremely fast, I don't believe anyone averages that.

 

[Vulosity]

1. Cross: 2-3 seconds
2. F2L: 7-8 seconds
3. LL- (OLL and PLL) :5-6 seconds

About 15-17 second range. Pretty much where I average.

Just to add: Look ahead times are not included above.

 

[Ellis]

I just did an average of 5-

Cross- 1.94
F2L- 8.11
2LLL- 6.54

= 16.59, sounds about right.

Needs weerkk

 

[Kian]

On topic: My cross- 2-3 seconds, f2l (after cross) 9-10 seconds, Last Layer 5-6 seconds

 

[byu]

1) Cross - 2-4 seconds
2) F2L - 8-11 seconds
3) LL - 3-4 seconds (Almost full OLL, full PLL)

That gives me a 13-19 range.

I think you're probably underestimating your LL times. A real-time 3 sec ll is extremely fast, I don't believe anyone averages that.

Oh sorry, I just did one step-by-step solve and that's what I got, with stopping in between for recognition. I guess that isn't really accurate. I'll take an average of 5 this time.

EDIT: Yeah, I'm more in the 5-6 range.

 

[ThatGuy]

....cross is ~3, my f2l is around 15, but my LL is around 12 seconds........................
I know about 21 OLLs and 17 PLLs.........................i don't want to learn 2 LLL yet......

 

[Lord Voldemort]

Just finish the PLLs (4 more), make sure they are all under 3.5 seconds in execution, and work on your look ahead. You should be able to get sub 25 without too much trouble.

 

[abr71310]

Here's mine without Look-ahead:
Cross: 3-6 seconds
F2L (after cross): 9-16 seconds
OLL: 5 seconds
PLL: 2-4 seconds

Average (without lookahead): 19-31 seconds. Wow...

WITH lookahead:
cross: 3-6 seconds
F2L (after cross): 13-19 seconds
OLL: 6 seconds
PLL 3-5 seconds
Average (WITH lookahead): 25 - 36 seconds

Seems about right, although I don't average anywhere near 36 anymore, more low 30s and high or mid 20s; my singles are always usually sub-30 during my "up" times.

 

[Ellis]

Average (without lookahead): 19-31 seconds
Average (WITH lookahead): 25 - 36 seconds

Why are you significantly faster without lookahead?

 

[alifiantoadinugroho]

Cross = 3-4 seconds
F2L = 16-19
OLL = 5-6
PLL = 3-4
Average = 26-33

 

[abr71310]

Average (without lookahead): 19-31 seconds
Average (WITH lookahead): 25 - 36 seconds

Why are you significantly faster without lookahead?

because conceptually, shouldn't separate steps be faster if you have time to inspect between??

Besides, I just got a 20.21 right now (a few seconds ago), so these breakdowns are probably off by a bit for the F2L, since I'm learning to see it better.

 

[byu]

Average (without lookahead): 19-31 seconds
Average (WITH lookahead): 25 - 36 seconds

Why are you significantly faster without lookahead?

because conceptually, shouldn't separate steps be faster if you have time to inspect between??

Besides, I just got a 20.21 right now (a few seconds ago), so these breakdowns are probably off by a bit for the F2L, since I'm learning to see it better.

Oh, I see. You inspect between steps. I think I remember Macky calling that a "Theoretical Average"

 

[Ellis]

Average (without lookahead): 19-31 seconds
Average (WITH lookahead): 25 - 36 seconds

Why are you significantly faster without lookahead?

because conceptually, shouldn't separate steps be faster if you have time to inspect between??

Yea, they should be a little bit faster with the extra look ahead, I just don't see why you labeled it that way. I would think it would be the other way around. Solving with look ahead between steps should be faster than not having extra look ahead.

 

[abr71310]

Oh, I see. You inspect between steps. I think I remember Macky calling that a "Theoretical Average"

Heh, I call it taht too, I have a thread open on the Beginner's central listing my theoretical and experimental, since I'm that slow and I need all the help I can get... :rolleyes:

Yea, they should be a little bit faster with the extra look ahead, I just don't see why you labeled it that way. I would think it would be the other way around. Solving with look ahead between steps should be faster than not having extra look ahead.

Well, it'd explain why everyone is basically better than me... I'm pretty bad... XD

 

[byu]

Oh, I see. You inspect between steps. I think I remember Macky calling that a "Theoretical Average"

Heh, I call it taht too, I have a thread open on the Beginner's central listing my theoretical and experimental, since I'm that slow and I need all the help I can get... :rolleyes:

Yea, they should be a little bit faster with the extra look ahead, I just don't see why you labeled it that way. I would think it would be the other way around. Solving with look ahead between steps should be faster than not having extra look ahead.

Well, it'd explain why everyone is basically better than me... I'm pretty bad... XD

Just a suggestion - you should practice with a metronome. It's really worth it.

 

[mande]

Cross: 3-4s
F2L: 10-12s
OLL: 3-4s
PLL: 4s
Total = 20-24s average