# Tuttminx mass-produced



## Stefan (Feb 4, 2011)

Just found out the Tuttminx is now mass-produced and available for a decent price ($65). I've always loved this one since it was first shown in 2005 when it was truly awesome (there weren't many mass-produced puzzles back then, and the 5x5x5 or Dogic might've been the most complex).

White, Black, TwistyPuzzles thread


----------



## qqwref (Feb 4, 2011)

Whoa, crazy. I never thought they'd try to produce this one. Pretty intense.


----------



## maggot (Feb 4, 2011)

pretty nice =)


----------



## Zarxrax (Feb 4, 2011)

Is this like a megaminx with more sides?


----------



## Stefan (Feb 4, 2011)

Cool picture of the core (I think it has 32 sides that can be turned):


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Feb 4, 2011)

yep 32 sides, 12 pentagonal, 20 hexagonal, its a Truncated Icosahedron


----------



## Nestor (Feb 4, 2011)

If you adjust down the tensions, you can jumble with this puzzle.


----------



## Kenneth (Feb 4, 2011)

It can't turn smooth. Not because I doubt the construction, nor because there are many pieces but because the pieces does not fit and can't do.

Explanation: take this puzzle; triangular U/D, the rest of the sides (3) are squares. Look at the angle between U and F = 90 degrees and the one between F and R = 120 degrees (or 60 if you don't like the sum of 360). An edge that fits between F and R are having to much angle to fit into UF, no doubt (this is the reason for Meffert to not produce these).

Tuttminx (really funny if you are a Swede, no explain =) Are having the same problem but there the difference between wide and narrow angles are much smaller than for the one in my example, there is room for compromises, it works but not 100%


----------



## Olji (Feb 4, 2011)

lol, didnt think about the name in swedish style until you said it! xD

anyway, looks pretty nice, but i dont think i'll get it, feels like its like a more time consuming megaminx, and I suck at that event >.<


----------



## Stefan (Feb 4, 2011)

Kenneth said:


> It can't turn smooth. Not because I doubt the construction, nor because there are many pieces but because the pieces does not fit and can't do.


 
Are you just talking about 60 degrees turns of the hexagon sides (which you're not supposed to do, just like 90 degrees turns of four domino sides), or something else?



Kenneth said:


> take this puzzle; triangular U/D, the rest of the sides (3) are squares.



Looks perfectly fine to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmMQmRo31ZY


----------



## hr.mohr (Feb 4, 2011)

It looks totally awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpF1Nhgpk8E


----------



## Kenneth (Feb 4, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Are you just talking about 60 degrees turns of the hexagon sides (which you're not supposed to do, just like 90 degrees turns of four domino sides), or something else?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Got an error at the tube. But yes, I know they are produced nowdays, but I have no idea how the problem is solved :/

I made that analogy to make it easier to picture the problem. Something you may not think of when you look at the tuttminx.

Aha, jumble if 60 degree, not what I saw when I looked at it :/

qq: ye, I eventually got it


----------



## qqwref (Feb 4, 2011)

Kenneth said:


> It can't turn smooth. Not because I doubt the construction, nor because there are many pieces but because the pieces does not fit and can't do.
> 
> Explanation: take this puzzle; triangular U/D, the rest of the sides (3) are squares. Look at the angle between U and F = 90 degrees and the one between F and R = 120 degrees (or 60 if you don't like the sum of 360). An edge that fits between F and R are having to much angle to fit into UF, no doubt (this is the reason for Meffert to not produce these).


This isn't a problem, as the original topic for the puzzle explains clearly. The hexagonal faces are only supposed to be turned in increments of 120 degrees, so the different types of edges never interact with each other.


----------



## Stefan (Feb 4, 2011)

Yeah, the new TP thread mentions a "Futtminx" that (if I understand correctly) would allow 60 degrees turns without problem:
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=242843#p242843


----------



## emolover (Feb 4, 2011)

UnAbusador said:


> If you adjust down the tensions, you *can* jumble with this puzzle.


 
You dont want to do that.



Stefan said:


> Yeah, the new TP thread mentions a "Futtminx" that (if I understand correctly) would allow 60 degrees turns *without problem*:
> http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=242843#p242843


 
It does turn in that way but it gets to tight to turn after just a few jumbling moves. As you can see in my video it came jumbled so I had to take it apart and painstakingly separate the all the pieces which the difference between them is really minuscule. 

_____________________________________ 

I have an unboxing video for anyone who cares.


----------



## mr6768 (Feb 5, 2011)

Looks really nice 
but a bit expensive .


----------



## TheMachanga (Feb 5, 2011)

Will they ever have one with all sides hexagonal?


----------



## Rinfiyks (Feb 5, 2011)

TheMachanga said:


> Will they ever have one with all sides hexagonal?


 
I don't think it's possible.
Has an icosahedron ever been built?


----------



## Julian (Feb 5, 2011)

Rinfiyks said:


> I don't think it's possible.
> Has an icosahedron ever been built?


An icosahedron-shaped puzzle? Many.


----------



## Rune (Feb 5, 2011)

Oljibe said:


> lol, didnt think about the name in swedish style until you said it! xD
> 
> anyway, looks pretty nice, but i dont think i'll get it, feels like its like a more time consuming megaminx, and I suck at that event >.<



Is "tuttifrutti" very funny in Swedish?


----------



## Olji (Feb 5, 2011)

when i was about 7 years old i found it hilarious, but now i've grown used to the name, since a candy is named like that...


----------



## TheMachanga (Feb 5, 2011)

Rinfiyks said:


> I don't think it's possible.
> Has an icosahedron ever been built?


 
I'm saying how a pyraminx is 3.3.3 and a cube is 4.4.4 and a megaminx is 5.5.5, what about a 6.6.6 (vertex configuration)


----------



## Stefan (Feb 5, 2011)




----------



## Rinfiyks (Feb 5, 2011)

TheMachanga said:


> I'm saying how a pyraminx is 3.3.3 and a cube is 4.4.4 and a megaminx is 5.5.5, what about a 6.6.6 (vertex configuration)


 
Yeah, but if you read the link it says that there are only 5 regular 3D shapes; one with 6 edges per side is not one of them. In other words, it doesn't exist.


----------



## TheMachanga (Feb 5, 2011)

Rinfiyks said:


> Yeah, but if you read the link it says that there are only 5 regular 3D shapes; one with 6 edges per side is not one of them. In other words, it doesn't exist.


 
oh, thanks.


----------



## Narraeson (Feb 5, 2011)

...WANT!


----------

