• 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.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 35,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

V-Cube Mech 3x3?

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
I know about the patents, and how people often get riled up over them.
It irks me when verdes patents are violated.

But from a speedcubers point of view, I just remembered the v-cube patent for the 3x3, and I was wondering how it would perform in comparison to current 3x3s.

The v-cube mech for 3x3 is completely different, and has much more touching surfaces, but as we can see from closed cubie cubes, more touching surfaces doesn't make it less fast, or if it does, its very marginal.

My opinion personally is that closed cubies cubes are faster?
This is from experience with the Type F clone, type F, and C4y cube.

I imagine that the V-cube 3x3, or V3, won't revolutionize things, but it would be a great boon to have.

Also, I dont have a twistypuzzles account, I just lurk, but I want to ask some of the puzzle makers, have you ever tried to make a V3?

As the chinese have shown us, its completely possible. Just for personal use, not to sell, or break international laws, just as an experiment.

I dont have the means to make the puzzle, but if i did, i would have done so a long time ago. Not to break laws or sell, but for personal non-profit experimental use.

What are your opinions on this?
The V3? And could someone make one to show the cubing community how such a design might help or hinder speedcubing for 3x3?

Long post is long.
 

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
People also said that about the 4x4,but the x-cube seems very promising.

Sorry, I see your viewpoint, and i acknowledge the fact that you can be just as right as I am, but I can't agree.
I like to dream about possibilities, and just maybe this would be a breakthrough.
Perhaps, I'm far too idealistic about cubes. D:
 

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
Yesss, my thoughts exactly!

Also, spitfire, I think the pictures are along with the rest of the patent.
I'm sure a google search would work.
 

Muesli

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,714
Location
Sheffield, UK
WCA
2009SMIT05
YouTube
Visit Channel
I just don't see how more pieces can make a puzzle better. Even cubes, maybe, but imagine if the V-cube 7 had internal pieces. The only thing that makes it smooth is the lack of more pieces than was deemed necesarry. Verdez probably spent years working on his 7x7x7 design and I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if he tried many designs with internal pieces, and decided they were inferior.

Sure it could be brilliant and stable, but I don't see it being better than our current cubes.
 

brunson

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
1,124
Location
Westminster, CO
WCA
2008BRUN01
I don't think any radically different designs will be as good as the current basic design. It's all about the small refinements, not a massive upheaval of the system.
To some extent that is what most engineering is, however there have been notable exceptions.

The design of the Glock auto pistol was a radical departure from the common design based on the Colt 1911. Gaston Glock was a brilliant machinist that knew nothing about the function of an automatic pistol, but hired a group of experts to, not design, but specify the requirements for an automatic sidearm. With that list of requirements he designed a firearm that used almost half the number of parts of the 1911, was much more reliable and he did it in about 3 months.

I'm only away of one change that has been made to the design since the release of the Model 17 in 1982 and that was the addition of an arresting pin to prevent the frame from cracking when larger caliber models were developed.
 

PEZenfuego

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
203
Non of his cubes with fixed centers have internal pieces.

Pops will probably be less...at least I would think.
 

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
Wow, oddly, i watched that same video, and was about to post it myself.

He says it locks up, but I'm still hopeful. Type C and Type F sometimes lockup, but that can be avoided with practice.

I really want one. Very interesting. o:
Thanks~
 

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
Slight bump, but I decided to "mod" a V6 into a V3 by bandaging the parts.

It is exactly like the V3 described in the patent, and well, if it were smaller, lighter, and made of different plastic, it would be pretty good.

I concede, it's not amazing, but it doesn't have a strong propensity to pop, and it's good at cutting corners.

It's not too fast, and it feels a bit odd, but that's okay.

In summation:
V3 is an okay cube, but I would prefer my personal hybrid.
 

mcciff2112

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
615
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
WCA
2009MCCA01
But keep in mind, those result were from a modded V6. I though the mechanism is the same, I don't know exactly how reliable those results can be when considering the speed of a V6. I think a 3x3 version would be much smoother, not to mention many other aspects that would be improved with an actual model of a 3x3.
 

4Chan

Premium Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
2,984
Location
Lumbridge
YouTube
Visit Channel
Ah, yes of course, of course.

I did take that into consideration.
It does have a lot of potential, and I'm hoping it does.
Secretly...I wish the chinese would mass produce one with Type F plastic...
and then sell it to me. o_o
 
Top