Hi Ryan,

I do not agree with you on this one. There has never been a consensus that
StackMats were unnatural for speedcubing. At least I wasn't part of that
consensus. :-)
In fact I would dare to claim that without StackMat there wouldn't have been
as many tourmanents as there have been recently.
I also dare to claim that more than half of the competitors don't bother
much about the timers, as long as the competition is fair. It is only a few
people (some of them have never been to a tournament, some have never
touched a StackMat!) who are discussing this subject. During Euro2004 we did
not have a single complaint about the timers. There was one case where the
timer didn't stop because the competitor didn't touch both pads at the same
time.

I would like to compare this discussion to the 100 meter dash. We all start
after the gun shot. But reaction time is included and also the acceleration
time. There are much better ways to measure the true 100 meter dash running
time. I think StackMat gives us better time measurement than athletics
timers.

My main problems with StackMat are the price and the ugly mat. The old
version also has problems with durability (dropping gives pits).
The new version can have a separate mat, so that we can also make a mat
specifically for speedcubing (nice WCA logo maybe?).
The price of StackMat will drop once speedstacks.com doesn't have a monopoly
anymore.
Although StackMat also lacks functionality (like generating scrambles or
taking averages), I do not think this is an issue for competitions until all
timing devices are connected to a central computer. In which case the
central computer could also provide that functionality.
For home use StackMat indeed lacks that functionality. But at home anyone
can decide what timer he/she uses. (Who has an official athletics timer at
home?)

The device you propose is an interesting one, but even such a device has
some awkward issues.
If picking up the cube is a problem for StackMat, then picking will also be
a problem for the new timer. Same goes for stopping it.

No, I do not have Speedstacks.com shares. I am just conservative and proud
of it. :-)
StackMat has been the recent standard for competitions. It works great!
We have a great timer to compare competitors. The extra time for picking up
and putting down the cube is very low.
People are enjoying speedcubing. Speedcubing meetings have been full of
friendship and fun. And a great timer for the official stuff.
Even though there may be better ways to measure the times, I think there are
hardly better ways to minimize cheating or at least avoid discussions
afterwards.

Have fun,

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Heise" <rheise@...>
To: <speedsolvingrubikscube@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Speed cubing group] Rubiks Timer Competition Protocol


>
> There was a consensus in 2003 that StackMats were unnatural for
> speedcubing. In particular, it is unnatural for a cubist to not be
> holding onto the cube at the beginning of the solve, and it is unnatural
> to have to drop the cube at the end of the solve to get the fastest
> time. Not to mention that the StackMat measures the time it takes to
> move your hands to and from the cube, which is not really a part of the
> activity of speedcubing.
>
> The fact that you can get used to using a StackMat still does not make
> the StackMat natural for speedcubing. I would like something that
> allowed me to hold onto the cube at the beginning and not drop it at the
> end.
>
> Eric, I like the timing device you have designed. It is more natural for
> speedcubing than the StackMat is, and will also measure faster and more
> accurate times. However, as others have pointed out, it is possible to
> cheat with your device, by performing untimed U-turns and D-turns for
> free at the end. When you place your cube against one flat surface at
> the end of the solve, this prevents you from turning only 4 of the 6
> sides of the cube. However, if you place your cube against two
> perpendicular flat surfaces at the end of the solve, this prevents you
> from turning all 6 sides of the cube.
>
> Is it possible to incorporate a second perpendicular surface into your
> design? This surface could stand behind the cube should be less than the
> width of the cube so that your fingers can grip the rear side of the
> cube when picking it up and placing it down. The sensor can be placed at
> the edge between the two surfaces.
>
> On second thought, this standing surface need not be flat. It can curve
> away from the cube on the left and right sides, leaving room for the
> fingers. For example, it could be a standing cylinder. This has the
> additional benefit of providing no sharp edges to hurt your fingers on.
>
> Ryan
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>