Hi Everyone,

We've been using this 100 meter dash example forever by now. I do not
believe that the time it takes you to solve a cube is from when you
first move the cube to when you stop moving the cube. It's just too
hard to measure something like that.

I also do not have any shares in StackMat either. I don't have any
shares in anything at all.

Tyson Mao
MSC #631
California Institute of Technology

On Feb 26, 2005, at 7:19 AM, Ron van Bruchem wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>