# When are the new V-cubes coming out? (2, 3, 4, 8+)



## Thieflordz5 (Jun 17, 2009)

When do you think they'll come out with the new V cubes? (in the "more products" section)
And how do you think they'll function?

Edit (my input): the cube I'm looking forwards to is the V4, The V5 made my favorite event the 5x5 (so nice...) but I still want to give the 4x4 a chance... I'd be like an ES that never locks!!!


----------



## calekewbs (Jun 17, 2009)

I actually e-mailed them and they said they weren't even 100% sure that they were going to mass produce them. I did hear that they have a few models made of all of them, but if they do come out with them, trust me, you'll know. lol the forum will prob blow up with the news of it.


----------



## KubeKid73 (Jun 17, 2009)

You forgot 6b. Most likely in like 2011. I don't think they'll be making them very fast. But I think 6b will come out first, then 3, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11.


----------



## 04mucklowd (Jun 17, 2009)

They are going to have to hurry because of the chinese brands...


----------



## calekewbs (Jun 17, 2009)

yeah people are starting to catch up with the mechanisms of it. so if they are going to come out with them, they better do it soon. lol


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jun 17, 2009)

They have copyright until 2023. Anything that's a rip-off is illegal. And people who buy the rip-offs are just stupid.


----------



## calekewbs (Jun 17, 2009)

yeah, but people are coming out with new mechanisms aren't they? now that they know that it is possible.


----------



## JTW2007 (Jun 17, 2009)

I want the V3 to come out next. But I think the order listed above is probably correct.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 17, 2009)

KubeKid73 said:


> You forgot 6b. Most likely in like 2011. I don't think they'll be making them very fast. But I think 6b will come out first, then 3, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11.



lol @ people who think the 6b is ever going to come out
Seriously, it's the exact same thing, why bother making it?


----------



## calekewbs (Jun 17, 2009)

it is a lot more stable. a LOT more.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 17, 2009)

calekewbs said:


> it is a lot more stable. a LOT more.



You just made that up


----------



## calekewbs (Jun 17, 2009)

no. Physically speaking it makes it a lot more stable
My physics teacher explained it to me, but I can't remember all the little details. Why else would they make all the other bigger cubes pillowed?


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 17, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> calekewbs said:
> 
> 
> > it is a lot more stable. a LOT more.
> ...



I completely agree. The only difference between the 6a and 6b is the outer shape of the pieces. It is literally the EXACT same thing. If you think otherwise, then don't ever expect to be taken seriously again.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 17, 2009)

calekewbs said:


> no. Physically speaking it makes it a lot more stable
> My physics teacher explained it to me, but I can't remember all the little details. Why else would they make all the other bigger cubes pillowed?



No, your physics teacher just made that up...
They need to make the larger cubes pillowed because of exposure of a corner during turning. There is math behind it, but I'm not going to get into that. This problem does not occur on a 6x6. 
For the record, the highest order cube that can be made cube shape using *conventional methods* is a 20/3 x 20/3 x 20/3


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Jun 17, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> calekewbs said:
> 
> 
> > no. Physically speaking it makes it a lot more stable
> ...



Out of curiosity, then if the 6x6 doesn't have that problem, then why would they make a 6b. Also, if you look closely on the cube-shaped v-6, the pieces aren't all the same size.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 17, 2009)

Note: they haven't made a 6b. I am well aware that all of the pieces are not the same size. The v-6 mechanism is an adaption of the v-7 mechanism, and the unevenly sized pieces are a way to compensate for this. The fact that not all of the pieces are the same size does not change mathematical law.


----------



## luke1984 (Jun 17, 2009)

You forgot the "Never" option. I don't think they'll ever be mass-produced. I think Mr. Verdes made the other designs for intellectual reasons. They only released the ones that weren't too expensive to make and would still appeal to a large group.


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Jun 17, 2009)

calekewbs said:


> no. Physically speaking it makes it a lot more stable
> My physics teacher explained it to me, but I can't remember all the little details. Why else would they make all the other bigger cubes pillowed?



Imagine adding material onto a pillowed cube until you form a regular cube. This proves that a regular cube can be made if a pillowed cube can be made. But the corners and nearby edges will get a bit more torque on them on a non-pillowed cube because of the longer distance from the core.

There is math at the V-cubes or Verdes website that explains how far cubies extend if you turn a face or slice on a big cube by 45 degrees. But since the cubies have a stem attached (leading toward the core) they will still be secure.

I imagine the V6b might work better than the V6 only because the torque forces and bending of plastic will be slightly less.

Oh, my vote for the next V-cube would be a pillowed 3x3x3.


----------



## Deleted member 2864 (Jun 17, 2009)

rjohnson_8ball said:


> calekewbs said:
> 
> 
> > no. Physically speaking it makes it a lot more stable
> ...



pillowed 3x3x3? that'd be cool  But why would you make it pillowed, isn't it fine on its normal cube shape?


----------



## jcuber (Jun 17, 2009)

Yes, but a pillowed one would look cooler.


----------



## cuber525 (Jun 17, 2009)

jcuber said:


> Yes, but a pillowed one would look cooler.


wow...


----------



## jcuber (Jun 17, 2009)

cuber525 said:


> jcuber said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but a pillowed one would look cooler.
> ...



You don't agree?


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jun 18, 2009)

calekewbs said:


> it is a lot more stable. a LOT more.





calekewbs said:


> no. Physically speaking it makes it a lot more stable
> My physics teacher explained it to me, but I can't remember all the little details. Why else would they make all the other bigger cubes pillowed?



LOLOLOL.

Sorry, but I actually laughed out loud.

Bigger cubes are pillowed because if they weren't, the corners of them would stick off the edge of the cube. It's as simple as that.


----------



## qqwref (Jun 18, 2009)

Let me tell you guys a little story.

The original V-cubes website - located at www.olympicube.com - was active as early as July 9th, 2003. On June 17th, 2004, V-cubes posted the following on the twistypuzzles.com forum:
"The olympic cube 6a will be ready for sale in 3 months"
As you might know, it took until about June 2008 for V-cubes to actually start selling its 6x6x6s to the general public. That's about four years since the announcement that the cubes would be ready soon.

You guys should know that, even at a time when V-cubes thought they were ready to produce a new cube, they still had many things to correct before the cubes were ready for production. Even for just the 6x6, there were over ten prototypes made, and each one of those represents a cycle of testing out the cube, figuring out what's wrong and how to fix it, setting up the equipment again, and making another cube. What I'm saying is that even if V-cubes decides to make new sizes of V-cube right now, it'll be a while before they have perfected them enough that they will release the cube to the public. One of the reasons their cubes are so good - especially the 5x5 - despite the number of moving pieces is because a great amount of time and effort went into making them. If you want similarly high-quality cubes of new sizes, don't expect them to be sold any time soon.


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Jun 18, 2009)

jcuber said:


> cuber525 said:
> 
> 
> > jcuber said:
> ...



I think it would look cooler. But I was also thinking it might be less likely to pop when non-cubers try to scramble it since there would be a little less torque on the corners. But I thought about it and I figure there will be hardly any difference -- those guys will still pop pieces out onto the floor anyway, and then panic over "breaking" my cube. I don't know if it will help or hurt for finger tricks or OH.


----------



## Zaxef (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm more interested in the V8-11 than the 2-4 but the 3 and 4 would probably be the best around.. So I'd be happy if they released anything tbh


----------



## JLarsen (Jun 18, 2009)

Shame I thought 6b was a different design. I want to see what these guys can do for a 3x3.


----------



## ThatGuy (Jun 18, 2009)

jcuber said:


> Yes, but a pillowed one would look cooler.



You, wouldn't, by chance, use a mac, would you?


----------



## jcuber (Jun 18, 2009)

ThatGuy said:


> jcuber said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but a pillowed one would look cooler.
> ...



Nope.


----------



## Hadley4000 (Jun 18, 2009)

I doubt it will happen at all.


----------



## blah (Jun 18, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> For the record, the highest order cube that can be made cube shape using *conventional methods* is a 20/3 x 20/3 x 20/3



Wrong. There is no upper limit. Whoever said all the cubies need to be the same size?

If what you mean by "cube" is actually "cube with all pieces being squares of equal size" then the highest order cube that can be made cube shape is the 6x6x6. *But the highest order cube that has ever been made cube shape is the 5x5x5.*

The current V6 does NOT have all pieces the same size. The edges are rectangular and the corners are bigger squares than the center pieces. (Please don't argue with me about the pieces being cubes/cuboids instead of squares/rectangles.) I believe this is due to stability reasons. It _is_ possible to build a "perfect" 6x6x6, but there would be too much exposed and too little "trapped in between the other layers" when a corner/edge reaches its furthest distance from the center.

You can even build a 100x100x100 in perfect cube shape if you want. But the corner and edge pieces would be MUCH LARGER than the center pieces.


----------



## rahulkadukar (Jun 18, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> For the record, the highest order cube that can be made cube shape using *conventional methods* is a 20/3 x 20/3 x 20/3



Then why does the VCube site state that they cannot make 12x12x12


----------



## blah (Jun 18, 2009)

rahulkadukar said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, the highest order cube that can be made cube shape using *conventional methods* is a 20/3 x 20/3 x 20/3
> ...



Just because it can be made doesn't mean someone has found a way to.


----------



## Stefan (Jun 18, 2009)

blah said:


> rahulkadukar said:
> 
> 
> > Ethan Rosen said:
> ...



But if you do find a way, does that not mean you cannot prove it's not impossible?


----------



## deadalnix (Jun 18, 2009)

Three negation in the same sentence ! You try to hurt my brain, do you ?


----------



## DcF1337 (Jun 18, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> blah said:
> 
> 
> > rahulkadukar said:
> ...



Quadruple negative! My brain is hurting!


----------



## Stefan (Jun 18, 2009)

Hey, I considered changing "prove" to "disprove" but didn't, so be thankful for that! Anyway, I don't even know what I said there. I just joined the guys' exercise in not making sense. At least I hope I didn't. If I did, I apologize.


----------



## trying-to-speedcube... (Jun 18, 2009)

rahulkadukar said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, the highest order cube that can be made cube shape using *conventional methods* is a 20/3 x 20/3 x 20/3
> ...


They don't.


----------



## 04mucklowd (Jun 18, 2009)

i remember someome said ages ago
that they had met mr verdes 
and that he said that he was unsure whether he would even bother with a 6B
and even if he did it would come after all of the other cubes


----------



## veazer (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm just saying that i think the v-12 and 13 are possible, and that the reason they won't make them is that it would have like 480 moving parts and be almost a total sphere. And it would also just be the same as the 10/8/6 cubes, but take so long to solve that it would be boring to ever finish.

And on the vcube website, verdes says that a cube and a sphere are really the same... anyone care to elaborate?


----------



## masterofthebass (Jun 18, 2009)

The v12 is not possible with the current Design. The middle edge width becomes too great or something along those lines. There would need to be a slight tweak in the design in order to accomplish this, as a 12x12 would require a 13x13 mechanism.


----------



## veazer (Jun 18, 2009)

they just have to make it more spherical and some of the middle edges would be tiny, but mathmatically it can be done according to what i've figured from verdes' site.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 18, 2009)

masterofthebass said:


> The v12 is not possible with the current Design. The middle edge width becomes too great or something along those lines. There would need to be a slight tweak in the design in order to accomplish this, as a 12x12 would require a 13x13 mechanism.


If I recall correctly, the problem is that the middle edge is twice the size of the smaller edges on a 12x12. I don't know exactly what mechanical problems this would cause though.



rahulkadukar said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, the highest order cube that can be made cube shape using *conventional methods* is a 20/3 x 20/3 x 20/3
> ...



Because 12 is bigger than 20/3...


----------



## veazer (Jun 19, 2009)

I would love for someone to show me where they say that they can't make a 12x12x12... I remember the line being 'an unlimited number of layers...'


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jun 19, 2009)

veazer said:


> I would love for someone to show me where they say that they can't make a 12x12x12... I remember the line being 'an unlimited number of layers...'


They don't. Rather, they say that it becomes less practical to go over an 11x11x11. From the European patent:


> [0022] The practical reasons why the present invention finds application up to the cube N=11 are the following:
> a) A cube with more layers than N=11 would be hard to rotate due to its size and the large number of its separate pieces.
> b) When N>10, the visible surfaces of the separate pieces that form the acmes of the cube lose their square shape
> and become rectangular. That’s why the invention stops at the value N=11 for which the ratio of the sides b/a of the
> intermediate on the acmes rectangular is1, 5.


So the puzzle will start looking more distorted beginning with 12x12x12.

And while we're at it, let me bring up a couple of other points. First, I wish people would stop saying, "I wouldn't want an 11x11x11 because one that big would be almost spherical." Not true. From the patent:


> from N=7 to N=11 the six solid faces are no longer planar but spherical, of long radius
> compared to the cube dimensions, the shape of said spherical surfaces being almost planar, as the rise of the solid
> faces from the ideal level, is about 5% of the side length of the ideal cube.


So the 11x11x11 is essentially the same shape as the 7x7x7 and all the other cubes in between. And I like the shape of the 7x7x7, so I'm sure I'll equally like the shape of the others. (You can also see this from the pictures in the patent - all of the cubes from 7x7x7 up have approximately the same shape.)

And another thing, I hadn't seen this (again from the patent):


> [0181] It is suggested that the construction material for the solid parts can be mainly plastic of good quality, while for
> N=10 and N= 11 it could be replaced by aluminum.


They seem to be implying that plastic couldn't handle the stresses on the really big cubes. That's kind of disappointing - I wonder how well aluminum would really work.


----------



## veazer (Jun 19, 2009)

Mike Hughey said:


> veazer said:
> 
> 
> > I would love for someone to show me where they say that they can't make a 12x12x12... I remember the line being 'an unlimited number of layers...'
> ...



exactly... and also, there's really no point to anything larger than 11x11x11. Can you imagine how long edge pairing would take?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 19, 2009)

veazer said:


> exactly... and also, there's really no point to anything larger than 11x11x11. Can you imagine how long edge pairing would take?



Not very
also
http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10225
That thread makes a very brief mention of a problem in creating a 12x12, but I am unable to find the math behind this. I know I've seen it before, maybe on the old olympiccubes site?


----------



## PatrickJameson (Jun 19, 2009)

veazer said:


> exactly... and also, there's really no point to anything larger than 11x11x11. Can you imagine how long edge pairing would take?



Pfft, yeah you are right. Who would do such a thing.

(*ehem* http://pjgat09.gotdns.com/bigcube/)


----------



## rjohnson_8ball (Jun 19, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> http://twistypuzzles.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10225
> That thread makes a very brief mention of a problem in creating a 12x12, but I am unable to find the math behind this. I know I've seen it before, maybe on the old olympiccubes site?



Wow, best story I've seen in a long time. Thanks!

By the way, my white V5,6,7 set just came in today, and it was the best quality shipment I have gotten from them (I've had 3 shipments in total). They all had perfect tension (not too loose), and this time all stickers were placed perfectly. There were minor bubbles under some stickers, but still I would rate the cubes 10 on a scale of 10.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Jun 20, 2009)

Ethan Rosen said:


> masterofthebass said:
> 
> 
> > The v12 is not possible with the current Design. The middle edge width becomes too great or something along those lines. There would need to be a slight tweak in the design in order to accomplish this, as a 12x12 would require a 13x13 mechanism.
> ...



And seven isn't?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Jun 20, 2009)

Lord Voldemort said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > masterofthebass said:
> ...



And the 7x7 isn't cube shaped...


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Jun 20, 2009)

He mentioned how the technology isn't capable of creating puzzles larger than the 11x11x11 (or 12, I'm not sure) whatsoever, pillowed or not. He was asking why they can't make puzzles >12.

"The solution to the present invention finds applications up to the cube N=11" 
- From V Cube website.
If he meant just cube puzzles, then they would have said N=6.


----------



## veazer (Jun 20, 2009)

applications for up to n=11 just means that there's no point in going any higher.


----------

