# Looking 6x + non Vcubes



## JahBlox (Oct 23, 2008)

Hi, my first post here. I feel way out of my league with you guys. Its been 25 years since I last solved a cube (it was the craze at high school in the early 80's, although I did it by trial and error, teaching myself. We didn't have algorithms in those days.

Anyway, my 13 year old son is now a mad cuber, and has a 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 which he can complete without help, and a 5x5 which he is in the process of working out. I think they are a great learning tool for helping with memory, logic, and problem solving skills.

I am looking for 6x6 and up which I can get for him, but I'm not real keen on the Vcubes, its just the appearance that I think makes them look a bit weird.

I heard there was an 11x11 from Russia or somewhere, I think I saw a solve on youtube.

Can anyone point me to a place to get the 6x6+ cubes?

thanks,


----------



## PatrickJameson (Oct 23, 2008)

www.v-cubes.com

It's the only kind of 6x6/7x7 you can buy. I recommend getting the 7x7 if you are only getting one. The 6x6 tends to pop a lot more than the 7x7. Also, in my opinion, 7x7 is a lot more fun than 6x6


----------



## JahBlox (Oct 23, 2008)

Thanks for your reply.

Does the 7 only come with curved sides? I see the 6 has straight sides...it was the curvature that I think looks a bit weird.

I was planning on getting him ones in incrementally bigger sizes as he progressed. So there's no real need for a 6 then?


----------



## ShadenSmith (Oct 23, 2008)

Yes, it only comes in the "pillowed" shape. It's actually quite comfortable, and you get used to the look after a while.


----------



## bearit (Oct 23, 2008)

the v-cubes are the only cubes bigger then 5x5 produced.

However if you don't want to buy the v-cubes I would recommend getting him other puzzles. Primarily the megaminx (12 sides 5 corners and edges per face, but with a solution similar to the 3x3) the pyraminx a fun easy puzzle, and the skewb like a rubik's cube that turns diagonally instead of horizontally and vertically ( it is a nice challenge) All of these can be purchased here : http://sites.webec.com.hk/meffert/index.cfm?id=606266&pageid=87

Also try the square-1 a shape shifting puzzle which can be bought here:http://sites.webec.com.hk/meffert/index.cfm?id=606266&fuseaction=browse&pageid=78 Get the normal one first not the S-Square-1


Also target and wal-mart sell magic puzzles in the rubiks cube sections it is a simple folding puzzles but seeing how low you can get your times (in the one second range can become addicting) If none of these click then go for the v-cubes.

Hope it helps
Bearit


----------



## PatrickJameson (Oct 23, 2008)

JahBlox said:


> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> Does the 7 only come with curved sides? I see the 6 has straight sides...it was the curvature that I think looks a bit weird.
> 
> I was planning on getting him ones in incrementally bigger sizes as he progressed. So there's no real need for a 6 then?



The 7x7 is slightly curved on the sides. Without that, it would basically fall apart . 

As for which cube to get, it's really up to you. It's just the 6x6 "clicks" when you turn it and often pops. The 7x7 is very smooth and pops a lot less.


----------



## Ellis (Oct 23, 2008)

I think all your questions have really been answered in the posts above, I would like to stress a couple things though. Pieces do tend to pop out more on the 6x6 and it can be quite frustrating at times. This is why they are going to be making a 6x6 with curved sides as well at some point in the future. The curved sides may look a little funny at first, but it isn't all the much harder to handle and feels pretty nice. The slight awkwardness of the curved sides more than makes up for the popping factor that the 6x6 has. 

All the basics of solving are pretty much covered in 3x3-5x5 cubes, so I wouldn't say the 7x7 is much more difficult to solve than a 6x6, it just takes more time. So it isn't really necessary that he gets a 6x6 before getting a 7x7. But in the end, they are both great cubes to own and solve.

Edit: I want to add for clarification; 7x7 is the largest mass produced cube at the moment, and v-cubes are probably going to be the only ones making anything larger than 5x5 for at least a very long time. There are however cube simulator programs for the computer which will allow you to make cubes of all sizes. I use a mac though so I wouldn't be able to help you much in that area. Im sure others here have more knowledge on stuff like that.


----------



## TomZ (Oct 23, 2008)

Ellis said:


> I think all your questions have really been answered in the posts above, I would like to stress a couple things though. Pieces do tend to pop out more on the 6x6 and it can be quite frustrating at times. This is why they are going to be making a 6x6 with curved sides as well at some point in the future. The curved sides may look a little funny at first, but it isn't all the much harder to handle and feels pretty nice. The slight awkwardness of the curved sides more than makes up for the popping factor that the 6x6 has.



Why will people understand that the pillowing is entirely for looks? It will not change anything at all to the turning abilities of the puzzle. Comon...

The 6x6b will be just as good/bad as the 6x6a, unless they redesign the puzzle entirely. anyway, the 6x6b won't be released very soon.

As for your question, you can only get a higher order cube at v-cubes. What about a square one if you are looking for alternatives?


----------



## mrbiggs (Oct 23, 2008)

TomZ said:


> Ellis said:
> 
> 
> > I think all your questions have really been answered in the posts above, I would like to stress a couple things though. Pieces do tend to pop out more on the 6x6 and it can be quite frustrating at times. This is why they are going to be making a 6x6 with curved sides as well at some point in the future. The curved sides may look a little funny at first, but it isn't all the much harder to handle and feels pretty nice. The slight awkwardness of the curved sides more than makes up for the popping factor that the 6x6 has.
> ...



That's unfortunately very false. It's impossible to make a cube higher than 6x6x6 with a cubic shape, solid form, and pieces that are all the same sizes. The problem is that when you turn one of the middle edges, the pieces stick out. If the number of pieces is high enough, some of the pieces will be entirely outside the puzzle for large enough cube sizes.

(Well, I guess it is for looks, but it's for looks in that it's going to have to look weird whether the pieces are different sizes or the cube is pillowed, and the pillowed shape was decided on as better.)


----------



## Stefan (Oct 23, 2008)

mrbiggs said:


> It's impossible to make a cube higher than 6x6x6 with a cubic shape, solid form, and pieces that are all the same sides.



Please don't spread myths.
http://etienne.deforas.free.fr/rubiks/7x7x7/My_7x7x7.html
(this was early 2005, btw)


----------



## jbrungar (Oct 23, 2008)

TomZ said:


> Ellis said:
> 
> 
> > I think all your questions have really been answered in the posts above, I would like to stress a couple things though. Pieces do tend to pop out more on the 6x6 and it can be quite frustrating at times. This is why they are going to be making a 6x6 with curved sides as well at some point in the future. The curved sides may look a little funny at first, but it isn't all the much harder to handle and feels pretty nice. The slight awkwardness of the curved sides more than makes up for the popping factor that the 6x6 has.
> ...


take a look at the v-cube patents http://www.google.com/patents?id=TV...13&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1_1#PPA13,M1 . Compare the 6a and 6b piece diagrams. The general mech is the same, but the pillowing gives more freedom for the mech allowing a more stronger and more stable puzzle. The 6b has thicker necks on the corner pieces etc. Its the same with Drews Teraminx, it is possible to make it non pillowed, but he made it pillowed because it allowed it to be stronger and far more stable.


----------



## TomZ (Oct 23, 2008)

auhsoj said:


> take a look at the v-cube patents http://www.google.com/patents?id=TV...13&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1_1#PPA13,M1 . Compare the 6a and 6b piece diagrams. The general mech is the same, but the pillowing gives more freedom for the mech allowing a more stronger and more stable puzzle. The 6b has thicker necks on the corner pieces etc. Its the same with Drews Teraminx, it is possible to make it non pillowed, but he made it pillowed because it allowed it to be stronger and far more stable.



That is not true. A teraminx needs to be pillowed OR have uneven cubies. The same goes for the 6x6 (unless 0,3 millimiter arms on the corners would seem like a viable option to you). There is no difference in having pillowed pieces or having uneven pieces.

I don't see what having stronger pieces would do to the stability of a puzzle. The main flaw of the 6x6 is just the clicking, which could be easially avoided by having one edge piece glued to the center and removing the tabs that click as this makes them unneeded.

anyway, we cannot answer this for sure untill it has been released, but considering the reason for which pillowing has been done on the V7 it does not seem logical 6b will be different. But the release of the 6b seems far away, and I think waiting for it is pointless.


----------



## Ellis (Oct 23, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> mrbiggs said:
> 
> 
> > It's impossible to make a cube higher than 6x6x6 with a cubic shape, solid form, and pieces that are all the same sides.
> ...



he did say "solid form". This cube: http://etienne.deforas.free.fr/rubiks/7x7x7/img_40.jpg doesnt look very solid to me... I could be wrong though.


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Oct 23, 2008)

I really love the 7x7 pillowed shape. I also enjoy a big laugh when I solve smaller puzzles afterward because the faces feel concave (an illusion).

Anyway, a non-pillowed 7x7 can be made, but I suspect there would be slightly more torque or stress on the corner and wing pieces during operation.


----------



## jbrungar (Oct 23, 2008)

TomZ said:


> auhsoj said:
> 
> 
> > take a look at the v-cube patents http://www.google.com/patents?id=TV...13&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1_1#PPA13,M1 . Compare the 6a and 6b piece diagrams. The general mech is the same, but the pillowing gives more freedom for the mech allowing a more stronger and more stable puzzle. The 6b has thicker necks on the corner pieces etc. Its the same with Drews Teraminx, it is possible to make it non pillowed, but he made it pillowed because it allowed it to be stronger and far more stable.
> ...


That is not true, he states it is possible without pillowing unlike the 7 becouse it isnt a cube its a dodecahedron, but the necks on the pieces would be to small and break easily. Quoting Drew "Actually by pillowing it, I an giving myself more internal room to thicken the necks of the pieces. therefor resulting in the ability to have a "stable"* scaled down Teraminx."

And I was just stating that, because people keep saying there will be NO difference to the mech. That is a difference and could possibly make it better.


----------



## mrbiggs (Oct 23, 2008)

Ellis said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > mrbiggs said:
> ...



Yes, from the site Stephen linked to:

"For a 7x7x7, there are more difficulties because the extreme corner cannot be attached to the rest of the cube while turning a extreme layer."

That's exactly what I was saying, that you can't make a solid (as in, the corners don't detach to turn for example) 7x7x7 cube. As I stated, in addition to pillowing, you can have different cubie sizes to make up for this. I'm sure there exist other options, but IMO, and clearly in the opinion of Verdes, pillowing results in the most normal and most stable cube.

Please don't spread myths.


----------



## 4Chan (Oct 24, 2008)

....actually, it is possible to make a cubical 7x7, and onwards for that matter.

You simply have to vary the thickness of the outermost layers, and if you notice, the outer layers of the 6x6 are slightly thicker than the inner layers.

However, if this was on the 7x7, it would be much more obvious and much less aesthetically pleasing to some (,my opinion) since the outer most layers would look disproportionately thick.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 24, 2008)

mrbiggs said:


> That's exactly what I was saying, that you can't make a solid (as in, the corners don't detach to turn for example) 7x7x7 cube.



That's what you mean with "solid"? O-kay...


----------

