# How would the perfect cube timer work?



## coinman (Oct 25, 2011)

I have some time been thinking about how the perfect cube timer would work.

My idea is to contact a manufacturer to see if it’s possible to get them to make a timer for our needs. Preferably those that manufacture Stackmat timers so that the new fits directly with the displays we use today.

A prerequisite for them to be interested, of course, that there is a sufficient market. The question is if it is not sold more Sackmat Timers to cubers today than to those who stacks cups. 

If a better timer that is more suited to the sport of speed cubing would come on the market, how many do you think was going to sell? I guess thousands per year.

What I would propose is as follows:
1. The timer should go to stop at every hundred part of a second.
2. There will be no way to stop it at times under the first four tenths of a second. This is to avoid the timer to stop at 0.03 and the like of that. None of the puzzle we are competing in today will ever be possible to solve under four-tenths.
3. It should not be shut down automatically before 60 minutes. This is so that it can also be used for multi-blind and big blind.
4. And why not have buttons that can calculate averages of 12 or of 5? If it would not make timers to expensive maybe they can make the screen bigger and add the ability for it to generate scrambles. Personally, I think it would be useful if it can generate scrambles and calculate averages. As, for example, you can sit on the train and do a average. (This is not to be used in competitions for average calculations.)
5. To avoid hitting the reset and ON/OFF buttons by mistake put a small raised ring around the buttons. 
6. Millisecond measurement?


----------



## MaeLSTRoM (Oct 25, 2011)

I would say it need the ability to get every possible time, and also lasts for 60 minutes like you said. Apart from that, its fine. Maybe try and remove the timer malfunction thing?


----------



## ben1996123 (Oct 25, 2011)

1000Hz


----------



## Godmil (Oct 25, 2011)

QJ make timers, and as far as I know they market them solely to cubers, so it should be possible to get some company interested. We really could do with a more accurate timer.


----------



## RNewms27 (Oct 25, 2011)

One that detects the start and completion of the solve. Eliminates +2, but costs 4827573 dollhairs.


----------



## RCTACameron (Oct 25, 2011)

I'd say a timer that went down to milliseconds would definitely be useful - just look at the 2x2 single WR. And also, the reset button should probably be moved to a place that is just as easy to get to, but is less likely to be pressed by accident.

However, I think having buttons to calculate averages would be unnecessary, and just make the timer more complicated and expensive. Most cubers use computer timers to calculate their averages when practicing at home (sometimes in combination with stackmats), as these also have scrambles and other features. These would be illogical to put in a timer like this with a small black and white screen. And it wouldn't work in competition, because one competitor will be switching between timers in an average.

This is a good thread idea though.


----------



## coinman (Oct 25, 2011)

To avoid hitting the reset button by mistake one can put a small raised ring around the button (and of course around the ON/OFF button as well). I have seen that there are those who have already done this on their timers. I'll add this in my list. 

And milliseconds, what do the rest of you think about this? If we are measuring time in milliseconds, we must also redo all the record lists.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Oct 25, 2011)

I'm just going to answer the title of the thread. It would start as the 1st move is performed and stopped when the puzzle is solved whilst being accurate to 4 decimal places.


----------



## coinman (Oct 25, 2011)

cube-o-holic said:


> I'm just going to answer the title of the thread. It would start as the 1st move is performed and stopped when the puzzle is solved whilst being accurate to 4 decimal places.


 
Hmm, yes it would be great if it were possible to do so that they only measure the actual time it takes to solve the puzzle. But it's probably technically very difficult to implement and very expensive. Rather come with realistic proposals


----------



## Sa967St (Oct 25, 2011)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?11704-Comic-thread&p=319541&viewfull=1#post319541


----------



## Carson (Oct 25, 2011)

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?15147-SpeedStacks-WCA-Timer


----------



## coinman (Oct 25, 2011)

I could almost guess that this had been a topic before. Most of the improvements I have suggested is also mentioned in the previous thread. It's two years since that thread was written, but we have not seen a new type of timer yet. Has anyone sent a proposal for improvements to the manufacturer?
When I get enough suggestions here, I thought to contact the manufacturer of Stackmat Timers, if no one else has already done this alredy.

I think I'll make one list of the most important improvements and one of the less important, but desirable improvements.


----------



## uberCuber (Oct 25, 2011)

coinman said:


> 2. There will be no way to stop it at times under the first four tenths of a second.


 
I think you mean four hundredths. Four tenths is 0.40, which could be done on an absurd 2x2 scramble.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Oct 25, 2011)

SpeedStacks Stackmat + qqtimer (screen that comes with) that saves everything. (personal timer)


----------



## asportking (Oct 25, 2011)

StachuK1992 said:


> SpeedStacks Stackmat + qqtimer (screen that comes with) that saves everything. (personal timer)


I agree. A timer that could generate scrambles as well would be really helpful.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 26, 2011)

If you want a perfect timer for practicing you're basically going to eventually want features on par with software timers like CCT/qqTimer/Prisma: scramble generation, saving a session's worth of times, calculating averages, tracking +2s and DNFs, allowing for inspection, and so on. This is fun to think about, but it gets kind of silly when you really think about it.

As far as the best timer for competitions, to be realistic, I agree with much that has been said. What we really need (or at least what is different from the currently used timer) is:
- precision to 0.01 or even 0.001 of a second
- continues timing a single solve for at least an hour
- hard to reset or turn off by accident
- does not easily "malfunction" and stop too early, but can still time very short things (0.2-0.5 sec)
- perhaps less "flashy" (the blinking lights), but still easy to see whether it is on/timing or not


----------



## markthema3 (Oct 26, 2011)

1. Precision: preferably 0.0001, but 0.001 would be fine.
2. Prevent accidental stopping below 0.25 seconds (The highest accidental stop I've ever seen is 0.20)
3. Runs Android, has enough storage to record AT LEAST 1,000,000 solves (and be expandable with a MicroSD card). This would be best with a color touchscreen, meaning you could scroll through and sort results.
4. Keeps track of times for any number of puzzles (names of puzzles input by user)
5. Keeps track of multiple users?
I could see such a device selling for under $50 (This is a COMPLETELY reasonable price for a very basic android device. See here.)


----------



## Stefan (Oct 26, 2011)

markthema3 said:


> 3. Runs Android


 
Why?


----------



## asportking (Oct 26, 2011)

I think markthema3 already sort of mentioned this, but being able to plug it into something like an iPhone and have it record times, give scrambles, ect., is a great idea. It wouldn't take much, all it would take is an app that works with the timer, and some way to plug it into the timer.


----------



## Cheese11 (Oct 26, 2011)

I really think that all we need is a way to make yourself not hit the reset/OnOff button on accident, and a timer accurate to .001 of a second. This is %100 possible and would still be available for a cheap price (Well, $30 ain't cheap). Like come on, why can't you just write out your times on paper, then use a calculator to calculafy.


----------



## jskyler91 (Oct 26, 2011)

I also think that the perfect timer would start when your start moving the cube and not when you let go of the timer. I can think of a few ways to do this i.e. possibly having a small sensor in the cube itself that connects wirelessly to a timer and when it detects movement up to a half turn then the timer starts (might be a bit costly) or more realistically a weigh sensor timer that starts when you lift the timer off of the weight sensor and stops when the cube hits the sensor again. This would make up for the false starts, make our times more accurate and solve the problem for people who don't pick up the cube well all in one swoop. 

As to the issue of current world records, I believe almost all of the modern ones are on video so if we really wanted to we could watch them closely and remeasure them from the time the cube left the table, but I think it would be maybe .2 seconds off, maybe less because the curent world record holders are really quick with this. 

I also think that if we created something like the second type of weighted timer, then at least 1 thousand would be sold for competitions worldwide and fierce competitors at least, probably more.


----------



## Forte (Oct 26, 2011)

The weight thing exists, it's on the official Rubik's website. Problem is that people drop cubes and use the surface to solve, like KIRJAVA and megaminx people.


----------



## qqwref (Oct 26, 2011)

Having the timer start when you take the cube off the mat would be problematic when you consider inspection. Would the judges all have to remember to put the cube off the mat before inspection? Or would the timer specifically start on the second pick-up, which would mean that if you put the cube down during inspection you can't pick it back up? Would there be an issue of the timer not starting if there is another puzzle sitting on the mat, or if someone is leaning on it? And so on.


----------



## Ranzha (Oct 26, 2011)

qqwref said:


> Having the timer start when you take the cube off the mat would be problematic when you consider inspection. Would the judges all have to remember to put the cube off the mat before inspection? Or would the timer specifically start on the second pick-up, which would mean that if you put the cube down during inspection you can't pick it back up? Would there be an issue of the timer not starting if there is another puzzle sitting on the mat, or if someone is leaning on it? And so on.


 
I think this problem can be solved by having hand sensors AND a weighted mat, but as one product. Only with both hands are on the hand sensors and the cube is on the weighted mat that the timer can start and stop.


----------



## jskyler91 (Oct 26, 2011)

Forte said:


> The weight thing exists, it's on the official Rubik's website. Problem is that people drop cubes and use the surface to solve, like KIRJAVA and megaminx people.



You could make the weight sensor only say 1 foot by 1 foot and you could then use any of the space around the timer for OH table stuff and just put it on the timer when your done. Dropping you cube is, IMO, less common than misstarts or other issues with the current system and thus not much of an issue. You are more likely to accidentally stop or not start the timer than this. Also, if the weight sensor was only 1 foot by 1 foot then you move back from that space while solving if you thought you would drop the cube. 



qqwref said:


> Having the timer start when you take the cube off the mat would be problematic when you consider inspection. Would the judges all have to remember to put the cube off the mat before inspection? Or would the timer specifically start on the second pick-up, which would mean that if you put the cube down during inspection you can't pick it back up? Would there be an issue of the timer not starting if there is another puzzle sitting on the mat, or if someone is leaning on it? And so on.


 
The inspection timing could be done as it is currently- you would just give them 15 seconds. have them put down their cube, then they would reset the timer(you would program the timer to calculate the weight upon resetting and prepare to start when the weight is released.) and take the cube off when they are ready to go. As to the leaning and other cubes on the mat, again, we would make the sensitive area rather small so people could put cubes off to the side if they wanted. and the only way you are going to stop the timer by leaning is if you solve the cube face down on the mat(imagine that the wieght timer area is 6-12 inches from the cuber, or 1/4th of the way into the mat). Also it will be the responsibility of the cuber not to do this. If they do then it is their fault considering all of the other precautions taken (size of weight area, distance from cuber, etc.). 

I really think a timer like this would work. Sure we would have to relearn how to use the timer, but that is part of progress.

"I think this problem can be solved by having hand sensors AND a weighted mat, but as one product. Only with both hands are on the hand sensors and the cube is on the weighted mat that the timer can start and stop."

Interesting, there are two problems with this though, first, cost and second the whole idea of the weight sensor it to eliminate the awkward picking up of the cube and the timer not starting, so using it would be sort of pointless. 

We could add a time limit to stop the timer i.e. the timer measures when the weight has been put onto it (this is for after the cube has been picked up and you are solving and accidentally drop the cube) so say at 15 seconds and then waits 3 seconds before it stops the timer, so at 18 seconds. If you were done with your solve and just waited the extra 3 seconds then the timer would stop and read 15 seconds as you time. If, however, you had accidentally dropped your cube and you pick it up within 3 seconds then the timer does not stop and it continues until you finish your solve and put the cube down for 3 seconds.


----------



## Ranzha (Oct 26, 2011)

Perhaps there could be an inspection button on the timer.


----------



## jskyler91 (Oct 26, 2011)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Perhaps there could be an inspection button on the timer.


 
Nice idea, then they would just have to get the cube on the weight sensor and pick it up before the 15 seconds were up.


----------



## Ranzha (Oct 26, 2011)

jskyler91 said:


> Nice idea, then they would just have to get the cube on the weight sensor and pick it up before the 15 seconds were up.


 
Nono. Normal Speedstacks timer.
Add: 0.001 precision, safety net for times (can't stop before 0.2), inspection button which counts down from 15 on the timer. (Hands must be on timer before hitting zero, or else +2/DNF is instated.) Inspection and reset buttons strategically places for easy retrieval but improbable accidental pressing. Time goes up to 60 minutes.
Take-aways: Saved times, blinking lights (perhaps the lights could just stay on?)


----------



## EeeeeWarne (Oct 26, 2011)

Ranzha V. Emodrach said:


> Add: 0.001 precision, safety net for times (can't stop before 0.2), inspection button which counts down from 15 on the timer. (Hands must be on timer before hitting zero, or else +2/DNF is instated.) Inspection and reset buttons strategically places for easy retrieval but improbable accidental pressing. Time goes up to 60 minutes.
> Take-aways: Saved times, blinking lights (perhaps the lights could just stay on?)


 
So...when can I buy it?


----------



## chrissyD (Oct 26, 2011)

uses more common batterys (probably AAA for size) instead of the stupid flat things I can't find anywhere

one question of one of my exams was coming up with ideas for a new product and most of these ideas can probably be done.


----------



## conn9 (Oct 26, 2011)

It would be great if you could be able to save multiple times and multiple sessions (eg one for 3x3, one for 4x4 etc)
Also, you could connect it to your computer, iPod, or phone. 
It could connect to the internet (would probably cost way too much though) to teach you algorithms and other internet stuff. 
Give you each scramble for each solve.


----------



## Stefan (Oct 26, 2011)

chrissyD said:


> uses more common batterys (probably AAA for size) instead of the stupid flat things *I can't find anywhere*



Took me 9.47 seconds to find thousands of offers:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_f....l1313&_nkw=cr+2032&_sacat=See-All-Categories



Forte said:


> The weight thing exists, it's on the official Rubik's website.



Can't find it there anymore, but you're probably thinking of this: 
http://www.mission-designs.com/timer/
That doesn't use weight but light (the journal explains why).


----------



## Godmil (Oct 26, 2011)

Concerning the weight panel, I'm afraid you're missing the key advantage the current timers use.... you could put the cube back on the panel while still doing an AUF.. too much room for cheating.


----------



## Dacuba (Oct 26, 2011)

I would be happy with every timer that just times with a precision of 0.01 seconds.


----------



## Pedro (Oct 26, 2011)

I don't think the weight timer would work...

1foot x 1foot? I think that's kinda big, no? Also as some people already said, it would make things awkward for those who place the cube/megaminx/whatever on the table for some moves.

It's better that we keep the current procedure, since it's not that hard and it's easily standardisable (does that exist?)

For the timer, some realistic improvements would be:
- Being able to give every 0.01 (and not having gaps like it has today)
- Lights don't blink, just stay on/off.
- Get rid of the "red...wait...green, go". I don't know why they put it there in the first place. Make it just light up the red, then turn it off and turn the green on while running.
- Don't stop before 0.2 or something like that.

I personally don't have a problem with hitting the reset button by accident, and don't see a good solution as a place to put it...maybe on the bottom part, where it says STACKMAT.

For the 0.001 (or 0.0001 O_O), maybe it would be good, but current records would be in conflict...


----------



## jskyler91 (Oct 26, 2011)

Godmil said:


> Concerning the weight panel, I'm afraid you're missing the key advantage the current timers use.... you could put the cube back on the panel while still doing an AUF.. too much room for cheating.


 
This would be up to the judges to determine. This wouldn't be that hard, the competitor would just be required to drop the cube and put their hands on the side of the timer. If they didn't, DNF.


----------



## markthema3 (Oct 27, 2011)

Stefan said:


> Why?


 Because it's open source and runs on mass-produced SoC's (System on a Chip). It would allow for connecting to WCA's site and downloading records. It would allow for reduced software development time, and thus make it cheaper. I could go on for a while.

EDIT:
Like what conn said.


conn9 said:


> It would be great if you could be able to save multiple times and multiple sessions (eg one for 3x3, one for 4x4 etc)
> Also, you could connect it to your computer, iPod, or phone.
> It could connect to the internet (would probably cost way too much though) to teach you algorithms and other internet stuff.
> Give you each scramble for each solve.


Conn, very low end Android devices sell for less than $50, it'd be a bit expensive, but not ridiculous.


----------

