Logical reasoning – Test #3

I am not coniced about explanation.
Not all triangles rotate in one transition in the same direction, then they would never touch each other to stop,some go clockwies and some counterclockwies.
Could you present in steps, a sketch, numbering the triangles and the squares?

A friend said the answer is the 1st position and made next sketch, but I cannot follow his logic:

Sorry, but without proper explanation and/or comments, this nice drawing could have been done by my kids with ease ;-)

I understand and agree with drawing.  
Thre trianges in in the top half of the fugure always stay in the top half.  They move one position CW or CCW as indicated by the numbers.  
Same for the triangles in bottom.

I fully agree with MASQ, however anything to do with numbers has always confused me since I was at school.  I tend to solve this kind of thing using my visual senses only, and in this case I see the dark segments like John Travolta's arms and legs on the dance floor in Saturday Night Fever, or a gymnast doing a floor routine, or somebody in a gym doing star jumps, or a sailor doing semophore signals using his arms and legs, or somebody lying face-up in the snow moving their arms and legs.  I see movement of the dark sectors of each step as though it was an animated GIF image.

When I first looked at this test, I took a paper and a pen and I have drawn the transitions 1-2 and 4-5 with black below.
But the bottom side I could not figure it out in logical sequence, which I would expect to be as a continuity from position 1 to position 5.
Now, you tell me that transitions 2-3 and 3-4 we have a stand still situations and then the rotations changes. It is like a rotating weight reaching a kind of equilibrium and then changes the direction, only that up and down are different, at different moments.
Serious?
What kind of logic is that?
It did not convince me that is good or logic, even if now I can follow what you say.
Anyway, the end part is this: during my test, last Saturday, I could not go to the next logical question if I would not choose an answer. Based only on intuition, I have chosen No.1, the first one, which you say is correct, but it does not resonate with a logic acceptable to my mind, not even now.

There is no difference between a wait-then-reverse movement and the two traveling in opposite directions from our observation point (2D images in black & white).

Therefore, the simpler rule set should be the second one I posted.

Would be possible to make one more effort and try to explain it on the colored and numbered sequence below, especially for transition 2-3 and 3-4, by continuing the sequence with colors and numbers?
I still cannot see the consistency in logic.
Do you rotate the triangles only in each small square or do you rotate or shift also the small squares?

For me, it is nr 1, but I don't use rotation, but again, elimination.
For either upper or lower part of the cube, either inbetween 2 states where the dark triangle opposes each other > <, the state of the dark triangles are pointing up or down. You don't know yet if they stay the same, or are the opposite (because the shown states, conveniently doesn't reveal it)
However, if you check the answers, the opposite is not there, and you may conclude it's stays the same.

I understand now the proposed logic.
Each traingle is moviing its position traveling along the rectangle top/bottom.

Please note that the rotation is an aid only. My reasoning did not use rotation. Rotation is not the key in logic, especially if you're given images to look at. If you put the logic in mathematical equations, the rotation wouldn't come in play to prove the outcome.

"Each traingle is moving its position traveling along the rectangle top/bottom""

Correct, combine the coloured version with Lucian's numbered sketch, ignore the squares the triangles are moving around the outside of the rectangles.

Now I see it, even without colors, if I split the motion of each dark triangle:

:)

Thank you very much for bearing with me on this one.
I would have awarded points to Lucian as well, but I will make up to him differently.

Lucian does not have university degree, but he is a smart buddy.
He solved also many of the next training logics:
https://www.testcandidates.com/example-tests/logical-reasoning-example/

Now the funny part: I was just informed on Whatsapp, that wasn't Lucian (because tis is what I have seen as name on Whatsapp), but his wife....he said that probbaly could not solve it....

Ha ha!  Well done Frau Lucian 😂

Also many thanks for the points which were just enough to get me to 10,000,000 overall. I couldn't have chosen a better question to solve to make that milestone.