# The Case Against Magnetic Cubes



## Sion (Feb 22, 2017)

*Hey guys.

I think I should be serious about one thing. As part of a team of startup designers, I absolutely despise magnets.

Now, you may be saying to yourself "but why? Magnets made cubes better!" Well... thats my argument.

You see, I liken Cube design to the music industry. Different artists, different songs. Now, the thing is, is that magnets are like autotune. You make music better. Now, that's my problem, because there, you have the magnets making a cube better, but what about the cube itself? Why did it need magnets in the first place? Did you really need magnets to make your cube better?*

Like autotune, you use it to improve the quality of the sound. However, it is used to the point of where it becomes more of a threat than it is an improvement. Autotune gives the upper hand to okay artists that wouldn't be as good without it. Anyone remember that time Kanye Tried to sing Bohemian Rhapsody? You take the spotlight away from people who can actually sing to people who use a new technology.

Likewise, magnets are similar. Magnetism takes the spotlight away from naturally stable cubes to cubes that use magnets as a stability tool instsad. I hear so many times that the gans air UM is more stable than the gans air u or standard. Yet, no time was taken to improve on the design again to make it more stable without magnetism. It's unfortunate, because it really just takes the spotlight away from cubes that are super stable without magnets.

This is the end of my argument from a designers perspective. Tell me what you think


----------



## cuberkid10 (Feb 22, 2017)

Going off of your music analogy,

Almost 100% of music you hear nowadays has some element of pitch correction on the vocals. This is not the same as auto-tune. In this case, think Melodyne.

However, with pitch correction, one still has to be able to sing. They have to be extremely close to the notes. The pitch correction just adjusts slight imperfections in the vocal line, to make it as "perfect" as possible. I equate magnets to this type of pitch correction. The underlying cube as to be good enough to take advantage of the magnets. Magnets are never going to make a crappy cube good. In my opinion, they just make good cubes better by overcoming slight problems in the design.


----------



## AlphaSheep (Feb 22, 2017)

What's more important than the stability thing is actually the feeling of reassurance that the cube is steady from the slight tactile feedback that you get as the face moves into position. It's possibly to get a somewhat similar result by adding bumps or ridges inside the cube, but these are physical obstructions, and the feel of the feedback is completely different. The magnet is not a physical obstruction, and it is the only practical way to provide a slight resistance without physically obstructing the turn to some degree.

Ps, the autotune argument can also be applied to cars taking the spotlight away from horses. Its a terrible argument. I could just as well argue that modern speedcubes take the spotlight away from people who were fast with Rubik's brand cubes in the 80's.


----------



## dskids (Feb 22, 2017)

Sion said:


> Magnetism takes the spotlight away from naturally stable cubes to cubes that use magnets as a stability tool instsad.


No it doesn't. The best magnetic cubes are being made from the best original cube designs. Quality of design has value regardless of whether or not magnets are added.



Sion said:


> I hear so many times that the gans air UM is more stable than the gans air u or standard. Yet, no time was taken to improve on the design again to make it more stable without magnetism.


Not sure what your point is here. The Gans Air is already an achievement in cutting edge puzzle design in its own right. The Gans Air UM is exactly what it claims to be - a Gans Air with magnets added. It is not a new design, so criticizing it for failing to incorporate new design features seems pointless. 

I'd like to offer a better analogy: turbochargers on cars

You can add a turbocharger system to an existing engine design to generate more power. However adding such a system adds complexity, cost, and weight to the total package (sorta like magnets add complexity, cost, and weight to a speedcube). 

By your logic, there would be no market for developing newer, more powerful, more efficient engines since you could take any old engine design and get an incremental improvement with a turbocharger. We know this isn't the case in reality: the race to create more efficient engine technology still drives the automobile industry (pun intended). The same could be said for the cubing world: competition between manufacturers is still going to generate a race for the newest and best cube design features regardless of whether magnets exist.


----------



## TheChaiCuber (Feb 22, 2017)

why do you consider magnets not part of the mechanism? is it because its not part of the body of the cube? If it is, then you have to accept that it's just a design upgrade much like everything else. If it ISNT, then you also have to refute innovations like the torpedo that prevented anti-pop mechanism that was an attachment to edge pieces originally.


----------



## allanboss131 (Feb 22, 2017)

2 things
If you are a designer, why not just make your cubes unstable and then add magnets for stability? 
The other, it's not bad cubes that suddenly become amazing with magnets, it's great cubes that get slightly better with magnets. 
Another thing is that magnets ARE part of the design which is what makes the gans um so innovative. Magnets are one of the biggest changes to a cube since the guhong.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Feb 22, 2017)

Well I personally am not too big on magnetic cubes (Though I have little experience with them). But I see no issue with them being used. It gives more options in feel and this isn't at all a bad thing. There probably overrated, but there not bad or having a negative effect on cube design.


----------



## Joel2274 (Feb 22, 2017)

I am not a cube designer so I can't really come from your point of view, but the only thing magnets do are take away the spotlight from already stable cubes as you said. However, several reviews of several big cubers have said that magnets don't effect your average times that much. I have a Valk M and I could probably say the same, (to be honest I don't really like the magnets because the valk is already quite a stable cube.) If a cuber is willing to spend 50 dollars or invest the time into magnetizing a cube himself, I say go for it. Magnets don't put much of an advantage on people compared to those who don't. I've seen other arguments that usually say "but Felix set the wr on a magnetic cube. That means I have to have magnets to be fast" well, first of all that's false, second, let's face it, Felix is Felix. He probably could've gotten the same time on another cube.


----------



## allanboss131 (Feb 22, 2017)

Joel2274 said:


> I am not a cube designer so I can't really come from your point of view, but the only thing magnets do are take away the spotlight from already stable cubes as you said. However, several reviews of several big cubers have said that magnets don't effect your average times that much. I have a Valk M and I could probably say the same, (to be honest I don't really like the magnets because the valk is already quite a stable cube.) If a cuber is willing to spend 50 dollars or invest the time into magnetizing a cube himself, I say go for it. Magnets don't put much of an advantage on people compared to those who don't. I've seen other arguments that usually say "but Felix set the wr on a magnetic cube. That means I have to have magnets to be fast" well, first of all that's false, second, let's face it, Felix is Felix. He probably could've gotten the same time on another cube.


Who is Felix? Sounds a lot like a guy named Feliks zemdegs.


----------



## pipkiksass (Feb 22, 2017)

Joel2274 said:


> "but FeliKS set the wr on a magnetic cube. That means I have to have magnets to be faZt"



FTFY


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## phreaker (Feb 22, 2017)

Honestly, I'm surprised to hear this from a cube designer.

Magnets open up new ways to do things. Yes, all current work with magnets, is with cubes not designed, for magnets. But what happens when you design a cube with magnets taken into account?

How does it change things?


----------



## Cale S (Feb 22, 2017)

I was expecting this to be about whether they should be WCA legal 

As for the argument about taking the spotlight away from naturally stable cubes, I don't think it's an issue at all - if the cube with magnets is just as stable as another without magnets, it doesn't matter if you compare them without magnets, the cubes are just the same stability


----------



## pinser (Feb 22, 2017)

If magnets are wrong because they take the spotlight away from "normal" cubes, would lube, florian mods, and torpedos also be wrong since they take the spotlight away from the "original" cubes used in the 80s?


----------



## allanboss131 (Feb 22, 2017)

phreaker said:


> Honestly, I'm surprised to hear this from a cube designer.
> 
> Magnets open up new ways to do things. Yes, all current work with magnets, is with cubes not designed, for magnets. But what happens when you design a cube with magnets taken into account?
> 
> How does it change things?


this is 100% true and is very interesting. I thought designers would be very creative and take on all new ways of doing stuff. Guess not .


----------



## Joel2274 (Feb 22, 2017)

allanboss131 said:


> Who is Felix? Sounds a lot like a guy named Feliks zemdegs.


lol I keep spelling his name with an x and I don't know why. 


pipkiksass said:


> FTFY
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't know what that stands for


----------



## bubbagrub (Feb 22, 2017)

Joel2274 said:


> I don't know what that stands for



http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ftfy


----------



## pipkiksass (Feb 22, 2017)

Joel2274 said:


> I don't know what that stands for



Fixed That For You.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Dash Lambda (Feb 23, 2017)

The problem here is that magnets aren't a quick-and-dirty fix for flaws in design.
Magnets are an alignment mechanism, which is completely separate from the texture, stability, speed, and all the other aspects of the feeling. They augment the cube in ways that aren't possible with traditional cube design, regardless of how good that design is.

Alignment mechanisms are nothing like autotune. They're not supplementary, they're not external, nor are they cheating. They're merely another tool in cube design with a different effect to take advantage of.

As for the Gans Air UM, yes, they did change the design: They added magnets.

Honestly, it sounds like you're approaching this somewhat dogmatically. You're separating one aspect of cube design from the rest of cube design and saying that it has a bad influence. Notice how your argument isn't that they make cubes worse, but rather that they improve the cube without changing other parts of the design -That's the argument of someone who needs to sell cubes without magnets, not the argument of someone who wants better cubes.


----------

