# [Middle Layer]F2L



## Lotsofsloths (May 7, 2008)

So basically, I have found out a fool-proof way of solving the f2l rotationless!
And no, this is not Lar's Neilson's OF method.
And no, I am not just going to use 'd' turns.
But yes, you only have to use the L U R and M layers!
I think everything should be taught through example, so here is a scramble(cross on bottom, preferably Yellow on top, Blue on front) and a solution of the LL with this method:


Scramble: U2 B2 R2 B2 R B' R U' R2 U2 F' B' U' D B' U' F R' B F2 R2 B L' R' U2

Cross: B' U' L2 (F B') (R2 u2)

F2l:
R U' R' L U2 L' U2 L U' L' R' U' R U' *M' *U2 R U' R' U' R' U' R L' U L U' *M *U' R' U2 R U R' U' R *M' *U' *M*

Maybe a lot of moves, but preform this and see how smooth and fast this is xD!!


----------



## Harris Chan (May 7, 2008)

Hmm...well if that's how you approach it then I'll do this:

Scramble: U2 B2 R2 B2 R B' R U' R2 U2 F' B' U' D B' U' F R' B F2 R2 B L' R' U2

Cross: B' U' L2 (F B') (R2 u2)

1 F2L: U R U' R' L U' L' (7)

2nd F2L: U' L' U L U' L' U' L (8)

3rd F2L: U M' U2 R U' R' U' M (8)

4th F2L: U' r' U r U2 r' U' r (8)

It's been established that you can solve the F2L (well the whole cube too) using L U R and double layer (r or l), which is basically what the M moves are (R r', R' r, etc). Mitchell's site (opticubes.com) has listed the RrU generator for each F2L case, so for different slots you just mirror it to get those ones.

Even though there's no rotations, it's quite long, especially on the third F2L which is really just insertion, but it took 8 moves if you use RrU


----------



## Stefan (May 7, 2008)

You can't teach your *way* solely by providing *one* example.


----------



## LarsN (May 7, 2008)

I would hate to do this with cross on left. E moves uhh...

And who's Lar's Neilson?


----------



## fanwuq (May 7, 2008)

That is WAY too many moves. I think a few cube rotations is worth it. You might as well as do the beginner solution, I'm sure you can turn much faster and have fewer stalls.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 7, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> *That is WAY too many moves.* I think a few cube rotations is worth it. You might as well as do the beginner solution, I'm sure you can turn much faster and have fewer stalls.



Says the guywho only does FMC xD


@Harris&Stefan: I guess I didn't explain it well enough, and I agree with Stefan but the point is to fix the D/M edges after solving your 4 slots. And I will surely look at Micth's site, always a good one for algs!!

Here is another example F2l.

Scramble(stole from the scrambles Mitch gave to Harris for cross solved): U' R' B F2 U2 F L' F' B2 U' B F U2 R' L2 D R F2 R' D' F L' R' F U2
Again with cross color on bottom.

1st:
U R2 U2 R' U' R U' R2

2nd:
R' U R L U L' U M' U R U2 R'

3rd: 
U' R' U2 R U' R' U R

4th:
U' L U L' U' M L U L'


----------



## Lucas Garron (May 8, 2008)

One thing to consider explicitly with such ideas is "Will it be fast enough to be a viable alternative to whatever it's supposed to improve?"

I don't think that you could average as fast with this. Also, you spend time on doing thing with convenient moves, instead of just solving and letting the conveneient moves befall you sometimes. 

I think the best idea would be to practice this a lot and get used to it, but then only use it as a tool for regular speedsolving when (as Harris says) "it flows nicely" with the rest of the solve.

And I you like URL, I suggest pre-orient, really.


----------



## watermelon (May 8, 2008)

Lucas Garron said:


> I think the best idea would be to practice this a lot and get used to it, but then only use it as a tool for regular speedsolving when (as Harris says) "it flows nicely" with the rest of the solve.


Agreed! I occasionally use some of the nicer RrU F2Ls during speedsolves when they fit in well, and I think it saves a bit of time. Using pure RrU + mirrors for the whole F2L is probably a bad alternative though.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 8, 2008)

Ahh, well as Lucas said on his site, "Fridrich Clone"(lol) I just don't want to use PURE fridrich, I want a little nich, like this F2l combined with the frequent M moves.
Plus, If I didn't have all of these rotations, my F2l would be fluent, and I could look ahead. Which would probablly stabalize me somewhere below 18 seconds.

Also
@Mitchell: Do you recommend any good hotels nearby Thomas Jefferson High?


----------



## fanwuq (May 8, 2008)

sounds like you want to learn Roux.


----------



## LamentConfiguration (May 8, 2008)

Roux is great if you like using the M layer, it is also good if you are good at block building


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 8, 2008)

I know Roux, but I am Terrible(with capital t) at block building though.


----------



## Inusagi (May 8, 2008)

Why don't use normal Friedriech. It's fast, and easy. And even thoug it's includes cuberotations sometimes, it's still good.


----------



## Stefan (May 8, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> sounds like you want to learn Roux.


That's what I thought, too. If messing around with the M edges/centers anyway, why bother solving them at the start? I thought the "method" includes a deliberate effort of keeping them close to solved, because otherwise there'd really be nothing new. If there *is* such a methodical effort, it's not clear from examples and still hasn't been explained.



Lotsofsloths said:


> Plus, If I didn't have all of these rotations, my F2l would be fluent, and I could look ahead.


How do you know? You sound a bit like the 60 seconds guy saying "If I knew Fridrich, I'd be sub20."


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 8, 2008)

StefanPochmann said:


> fanwuq said:
> 
> 
> > sounds like you want to learn Roux.
> ...



Stefan, yes after reading that I do seem like that xD
But when ever I have no rotations in my F2l, or at least very few(maybe 1), I always get sub 18, its as if it was a direct correlation xD


----------



## fanwuq (May 9, 2008)

Seriously try Roux. Just make fridrich pairs and ignore the centers and the M slice edges.


----------



## Lotsofsloths (May 10, 2008)

fanwuq said:


> Seriously try Roux. Just make fridrich pairs and ignore the centers and the M slice edges.



I'll try it.
The thing I like about Roux, is after solving the U layer corners, then it gets interesting xD


----------



## fanwuq (May 13, 2008)

I'm learning roux. How to pronounce it. Row? rose? Ruusse? Rocks?
EO is a bit confusing, but I can do most cases. When I'm stuck, I do the ELL algs, which probably aren't the right way to do it. Learning 40 some algs for COLL will be a pain though.


----------



## Dene (May 14, 2008)

Hmm, I never thought about pronounciation. I've always said it (in my head) as "roo"


----------



## LamentConfiguration (May 14, 2008)

I've said Roux like roo or rew (its a base for a gravy as well).


----------



## mizzle (May 14, 2008)

He's French.

Every time someone calls it "Roks" to me, I die a little inside.


----------



## Swordsman Kirby (May 14, 2008)

People actually pronounce it "Roks"?


----------



## fanwuq (May 14, 2008)

I say "row" as of now, but I hear different things. So what is the right way?


----------



## dChan (May 14, 2008)

Oh, man... Seriously, did you guys go to school? ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! It is ROO. Like KangaROO. Sorry, I hate it when people pronouce things completely off. Just look at the spelling. Just because it is a foreign name doesn't mean you have to add your own sounds to it. Just like when people call my dad asking for mister "Chang" or "Chain." It is spelled C-H-A-N. There are no extra letters. It is CHAN just like Roux is ROUX. Period.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled program.

I agree that this is too many moves. It is good to use when it flows nicely with the rest of your F2L just like LL orientation control where you only use it when it flows nicely or _ use it when you finished your F2L extremely fast. Trying to avoid being a Fridrich clone just for the sake of trying to be different is not always good. You have to use the method that feels right to YOU. You should not choose a different method just because someone else says so. Like I am learning a bit of Waterman - no one uses it really but that is not the reason why I want to learn it. I just want to try something new and interesting. I find Waterman to be a pretty unique corners-first method. I am not planning on using it in competition speed-solving though
because, for me, Fridrich is the method I am most comfortable with in speedsolving. Don't try to be different just for the sake of being different. Do what you like and don't bother listening to someone else unless you really feel like it is the right thing to do - even if that someone is Lucas(don't worry I am not getting mad at you, Lucas, for encouraging people to be unique)._


----------

